---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, July 14, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 139


                            Headlines


1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Parties in Frank Action to Engage in Discovery
12TH MAN: Judge Rejects Kyle Field Seating Class Action
AEROHIVE NETWORKS: Faces Suit Arising From Drop in Share Prices
AIR ALGERIE: Faces Class Action in Canada Over Air Crash
ALBANY MOLECULAR: Defending Against "Gauquie" Action

ALLERGAN PLC: Workers Unions, Fund File Suit Over Asacol(R)
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 2
AMAZON: Launches Antitrust Investigation Over E-Books
AMERISOURCEBERGEN: Sees Gains of $21.5MM Relating to Class Suits
APPLE INC: 12,400+ Former Workers May Be Added in Bag Search Case

ARCHIE'S KEY: Faces Suit for Unpaid Overtime Work Under FLSA
ASAADA CORP: Faces Suit for Unpaid Overtime Work Under FLSA
BANK OF AMERICA: Sued for Allegedly Manipulating FX Spot Market
BECTON DICKINSON: California Superior Court Cases Still Pending
BGC PARTNERS: Provides Updates on Class Actions v. GFI

BP PLC: Still Has Remaining Claims to Resolve in Oil Spill Case
BP PLC: Sarasota Awaits Compensation in Oil Spill Litigation
BUDGET PREPAY: Former Employee Sues for Expense Reimbursement
CALIFORNIA: Labor Commission Sued Over Due Process Violations
CALIFORNIA: Sued for Holding Death-Row Convicts in Isolation

CELLADON CORP: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
CHICAGO, IL: Issues Checks to Paramedics Owed Overtime Pay
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Appeals Court Revives Workers Pay Class Action
COLLEGE BOARD: School District React to SAT Misprint Blunder
COLLEGE BOARD: Fort Myer's Student Calls for Earlier SAT Retest

COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Defendants to Seek Case Dismissal
DIRECTCASH CANADA: Faces Suit Over Interest Rates on Payday Loans
DIRECTV: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Calif. Class Suit Claims
DUKE ENERGY: Final Approval Hearing Expected in Second Half 2015
EAGLEONE HOT: Faces Suit Under FLSA, Ark. Minimum Wage Act

ENDOCYTE INC: Discovery in Securities Class Action Stayed
ENERNOC INC: Hearing to Approve Settlement Held
FACEBOOK INC: Vienna Court Tosses Privacy Class Action
FIRST ALERT: Court Tosses Class Suit Over Defective Smoke Alarms
FIRST SECURITY: Two Shareholder Class Actions Filed Over Merger

FORD MOTOR: Seeks Dismissal of Sexual Harassment Class Action
FORTINET INC: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Meru Networks Merger
FOX SEARCHLIGHT: Unpaid Internship Case Remanded to Lower Court
GLACIER COUNTY, MT: May Face Class Suit Over Property Tax Issues
GOLD RESOURCE: Time to Appeal in Securities Action Expired

HCC INSURANCE: Being Sold for Too Little to Tokio, Suit Claims
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Court Tosses Suit Over Autonomy Botched Deal
HRG GROUP: Implementation of Settlement to Commence August 10
HRG GROUP: To Defend Against "Ludwick" Class Action in Missouri
ILLINOIS: Prison Director Sued Over "Extreme" Jail Punishment

INSULET CORP: Accused by Shareholder of Issuing False Statements
INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: To Seek Dismissal of Hamilton Claims
INTEL CORP: Faces Litigation by Altera Corp. Shareholders
IXIA: Securities Class Action Stayed Until July 31
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Accord in Wage & Hour Case Has Final Approval

KINDRED HEALTHCARE: 175 Lawsuits Pending in Federal District Court
KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Shareholder Action Pending v. Gentiva D&O
KNIGHTS INSPECTION: Faces Suit Seeking OT Wages Under FLSA
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Court Allows Shareholders to Expand Class Period
LE MINOTENN: Faces Suit for Unpaid Overtime Work Under FLSA

LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Complaint
LYFT INC: California Suit Challenges $1.50 Trust and Safety Fee
MARRIOTT INT'L: Sued for Making Housekeepers Use Unsafe Chemicals
METLIFE INC: To Defend Against Westland Police Class Action
METLIFE INC: Bid to Remand Birmingham Retirement Case Granted

METLIFE INC: Plaintiffs in TCA Litigation Appealed Decision
METLIFE INC: Court Denied Motion to Dismiss "Owens" Action
METLIFE INC: To Defend Against "Robainas" Class Action
METLIFE INC: Facing "Intoccia" and "Weilert" Class Actions
METLIFE INC: Facing Sun Life Canada Indemnity Claim

METLIFE INC: Objector Appeals From Settlement Approval
METLIFE INC: Facing "Voshall" Class Action in Los Angeles
MINNESOTA: Sex-Offender Programs Found Unconstitutional
NATIONAL DCP: Sued for Unpaid OT, Wages, Breach of Contract
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces Antitrust Suit by Unhappy Patriots Fan

NEW FOOD GUY: Accused of Violating Laws on Customer Tips
NEW TAIPEI: CF Mulls Class Action Over Color Dust Explosion
NEW YORK CITY, NY: Rikers Island Prisons to Face Huge Reforms
NEW YORK LIFE: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Faxes
NEWS CORP: Court Certifies Class in N.Y. Ad-War Antitrust Suit

NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued for Delay of Gleevec Generic Drug
OHIO: Environmentalists Seek Changes to Fracking Regulations
PAIN THERAPEUTICS: KB Partners Lawsuit Still Pending
PALL CORP: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit Over Sale to Danaher
PEOPLES BANCORP: Summary Judgment Motion Remains Pending

PINCHO FACTORY: Faces Suit for Alleged Violations of FLSA
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Lacks Proper Safety Systems, Capello Claims
PRA GROUP: Court Stayed TCPA Litigation in S.D. Cal.
PRIMERO AUTO: Faces Suit for Unpaid Overtime Work Under FLSA
QUANTA SERVICES: Retains Liability in "Benton" Class Suit

RADDATZ LAW: Court Refuses to Dismiss Eviction-Related Class Suit
RALLY SOFTWARE: Faces Lawsuit Over Proposed Acquisition by CA
REALPAGE INC: "Jenkins" Class Action in Early Stage
REALPAGE INC: "Stokes" Class Action in Early Stage
ROCKPORT, MA: Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in Lease Suit

ROWAN COUNTY, KY: Clerk Sued for Refusal to Issue Marriage License
SA POST OFFICE: May Face Class Action Over Delivery Problems
SCARLETT'S CABARET: Settles Wage Class Action for $6 Million
SCHNUCK MARKETS: Data Breach Ruling to Impact Insurance Industry
SHUTTERFLY INC: Faces Suit for Using Illegal Face Print Software

SKECHERS U.S.A.: Court Dismissed Davies/Smith Action
SKECHERS U.S.A.: Mid-2016 Trials in Shape-Ups Injury Cases
SKECHERS U.S.A.: Trial Dates for 2 Bellwether Cases Set
SKECHERS U.S.A.: Jan. 4 Trial Date for Missouri State-Court Case
SONY PICTURES: Employees' Negligence Class Suit Moves Forward

STERLING BANCORP: Parties Entered Into MOU to Settle "Graner"
SWEDBANK ROBUR: Closet Indexing Class Action Dismissal "Damaging"
TENNESSEE: Overhauls TennCare Hotline Following Class Action
TRANSPORTATION SECURITY: Sued for Dumping Older Air Marshals
TRIPLE-S: Awaits Further Proceedings in Underwriting Assoc Cases

TRIPLE-S: Discovery Ongoing in Blue Cross Antitrust Litigation
TRIPLE-S: Discovery Ongoing in Health Care Services Cases
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Plaintiffs Seek Info on The Donald's Finances
TURN INC: Tracks Verizon Subscribers' Browsing History, Suit Says
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Refuses to Dismiss "Yucesoy" Case

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Kellett" and "Cotoi" Suits in Calif.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Toronto Taxi Drivers Want Govt to Take Action
UNION PACIFIC: Sued Over Dispute on Pipelines Along Rail Lines
UNITED STATES: Fed Overstep Authority in AIG Bailout, Court Ruled
US CHINA MINING: Faces $1-Bil. Shareholder Class Suit in New York

WAL-MART STORES: Court Grants Partial Judgment in Sex Bias Suit
WECARE SERVICES: Faces Suit Seeking Overtime Wages Under FLSA
YUBA COUNTY, CA: UC LAW Students to Look Into Inmate Conditions

* Delaware Labor Leaders Debate Over Impact of Overtime Proposals
* Massive Data Breaches Pose Risk for Millions of Americans
* Multi-National Firms Dump Toxic By-Products in Asia
* Overtime Exemption Proposals to Impact Retail Workplace
* SAFE Justice Act to Increase Fairness in Prison Sentencing

* SC May Bring Victories for Conservatives in Next Term
* US Labor Dept May Issue Proposal Over White-Collar OT Exemption


                            *********


1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Parties in Frank Action to Engage in Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1-800-FLOWERS.COM, 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 29, 2015, that the parties are now
preparing to engage in discovery in the case, In re Trilegiant
Corporation, Inc. (Frank v. Trilegiant Corporation, Inc., et al).

On November 10, 2010, a purported class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York naming the Company (along with Trilegiant Corporation,
Inc., Affinion, Inc. and Chase Bank USA, N.A.) as defendants in an
action purporting to assert claims against the Company alleging
violations arising under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices
Act ("CUTPA") among other statutes, and for breach of contract and
unjust enrichment in connection with certain post-transaction
marketing practices in which certain of the Company's subsidiaries
previously engaged in with certain third-party vendors. On
December 23, 2011, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal
seeking to dismiss the entire action without prejudice. The court
entered an Order on November 28, 2012, dismissing the case in its
entirety. This case was subsequently refiled in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut.

On March 6, 2012 and March 15, 2012, two additional purported
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut naming the Company and
numerous other parties as defendants in actions purporting to
assert claims substantially similar to those asserted in the
lawsuit filed on November 10, 2010. In each case, plaintiffs seek
to have the respective case certified as a class action and seek
restitution and other damages, each in an amount in excess of $5.0
million. On April 26, 2012, the two Connecticut cases were
consolidated with a third case previously pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut in which the
Company is not a party (the "Consolidated Action"). A consolidated
amended complaint was filed by plaintiffs on September 7, 2012,
purporting to assert claims substantially similar to those
originally asserted. The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated
amended complaint on December 7, 2012, which was subsequently
refiled at the direction of the Court on January 16, 2013.

On December 5, 2012, the same plaintiff from the action
voluntarily dismissed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut naming the Company and numerous other parties as
defendants, purporting to assert claims substantially similar to
those asserted in the consolidated amended complaint (the "Frank
Action"). On January 23, 2013, plaintiffs in the Consolidated
Action filed a motion to transfer and consolidate the action filed
on December 5, 2012 with the Consolidated Action. The Company
intends to defend each of these actions vigorously.

On January 31, 2013, the court issued an order to show cause
directing plaintiffs' counsel in the Frank Action, also counsel
for plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action, to show cause why the
Frank Action is distinguishable from the Consolidated Action such
that it may be maintained despite the prior-pending action
doctrine. On June 13, 2013, the court issued an order in the Frank
Action suspending deadlines to answer or to otherwise respond to
the complaint until 21 days after the court decides whether the
Frank Action should be consolidated with the Consolidated Action.
On July 24, 2013 the Frank Action was reassigned to Judge Vanessa
Bryant, before whom the Consolidated Action is currently pending,
for all further proceedings. On August 14, 2013, other defendants
filed a motion for clarification in the Frank Action requesting
that Judge Bryant clarify the order suspending deadlines.

On March 28, 2014, the Court issued a series of rulings disposing
of all the pending motions in both the Consolidated Action and the
Frank Action. Among other things, the Court dismissed several
causes of action, leaving pending a claim for CUTPA violations
stemming from Trilegiant's refund mitigation strategy and a claim
for unjust enrichment. Thereafter, the Court consolidated the
Frank case into the Consolidated Action. On April 28, 2014
plaintiffs moved for leave to appeal the various rulings against
them to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
and to have a partial final judgment entered dismissing those
claims that the Court had ordered dismissed. The Company filed its
Answer to the Complaint on May 12, 2014. On March 26, 2015, the
Court denied plaintiffs' motions and the parties are now preparing
to engage in discovery.


12TH MAN: Judge Rejects Kyle Field Seating Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Max B. Baker, writing for Fort Worth Star-Telegram, reports that a
Florida federal district judge tossed out the latest attempt by
Texas A&M football fans to hold onto their seats in the revamped
Kyle Field in College Station, Texas.

U.S. District Judge William Dimitrouleas in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.,
dismissed a class action lawsuit that was moved from Texas to
Florida against the 12th Man Foundation, the nonprofit group that
is overseeing the "reseating" following a $485 million stadium
renovation.

Attorneys representing the seat holders were forced to file the
class action petition in Florida after a federal judge in Marshall
dismissed the case when it appeared it would not qualify as a
class action because less than one-third of the plaintiffs suing a
Texas establishment lived outside of Texas.

But on June 23, Judge Dimitrouleas said that the class action
petition in Florida also did not meet the criteria to proceed,
saying that most of the communications with Barbara Brunner, a
Texas A&M alumnus who lives in Fort Lauderdale, were sent to a
Texas address.  Attorneys for the foundation, in court papers,
also indicated that Ms. Brunner was the only endowed donor living
in Florida.

"The combination of a phone call and e-mails to 1/8Brunner,3/8 who
happened to be located in Florida at the time, along with football
games that have yet to be scheduled or take place do not amount to
a substantial part of the events giving rise to the plaintiff's
claim," the judge wrote.

Attorneys for the 12th Man Foundation and Brunner did not return
phone calls from the Star-Telegram.

In the lawsuits filed in federal and Texas state district court,
Aggie fans have accused the foundation of breaching commitments it
made as far back as the 1970s in which donors contributing tens of
thousands of dollars were given prime tickets at Kyle Field.  They
also earned coveted parking spaces near the stadium. One of the
lawsuits was filed in Tarrant County.

The foundation's strategy was to "reclaim and resell, at a higher
price, the highest value benefits to a 'new generation' of Aggie
alumni," their federal lawsuit stated, a violation of not only the
law but of the school's Code of Honor that says an Aggie "does not
lie, cheat or steal or tolerate those that do."

The controversy over the endowments is decades old but ramped up
in earnest in 2013 after Texas A&M announced it would give the
stadium a facelift, boosting seating capacity to 102,500 and
making it the biggest stadium in the Southeastern Conference.

To help pay for the renovations, seat holders are expected to foot
over half the bill through seat licenses.  That triggered a
massive reseating that has loyal fans suing to stay where they
are.  In a petition filed in the Florida case, attorneys claimed
that as of July 2013 the foundation was impacting about 494
endowments, or about 1,760 of the 102,512 seats in the new Kyle
Field.

Ms. Brunner, who attended Texas A&M in the 1980s and became the
first student endowed donor, initially purchased seats on the
second deck near the 15-yard line for at least $30,000.  But under
the new seating plan, she would have had to pay an additional
$40,000 over the next 15 years to hold on to the seats, the
lawsuit states.

Other fans have been asked to shell out hundreds of thousands of
dollars to keep their seats.

The foundation has tried to work with those who had contributed to
the endowment program.  To recognize those seat holders, they got
a $2,000 seating allowance starting this year that let them pick a
spot in the stadium without owing additional money.  But if a fan
wanted to sit where more financial support was needed, the $2,000
can be applied to that cost.

The reseating process ran through May.

Mark Riordan, vice president of marketing and communications for
the foundation, would not comment on the litigation, but he said
the three phases of the reseating process are complete with more
than 100,000 seats sold.


AEROHIVE NETWORKS: Faces Suit Arising From Drop in Share Prices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Aerohive's initial public
offering raised $86 million last year but revelations about the
company's declining sales and internal turnover led to a 30
percent drop in share prices, a class claims.

The case is Rohit Mahajan v. Aerohive Networks; Goldman, Sachs &
Co.; Piper Jaffray & Co. filed in the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of San Mateo.


AIR ALGERIE: Faces Class Action in Canada Over Air Crash
---------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that a class-action lawsuit against Air Algerie
was filed at the Montreal courthouse on July 3, led by a Quebec
resident who lost his wife and two sons in the crash.

Mamadou Zoungrana bought his wife and two sons tickets for Air
Algerie Flight AH5017 in what was meant to be the first leg in
their trip to join him for a new life in Gatineau, Que., after two
years apart.  The plane, which originated in Ouagadougou and was
bound for Algiers, crashed in Mali in July 2014 -- killing all of
its 116 passengers and staff aboard.

The documents filed in the class-action lawsuit indicate that many
of the families of those who died are from Quebec, Mali, Burkina
Faso and France.  However, not all of the family members who could
be involved in the suit are known because passengers came from at
least a dozen countries.

The lawsuit alleges that Air Algerie pilots intentionally chose a
flight path that passed through the eye of a tropical storm. It
also alleges the pilots failed to perform necessary measures to
try to fly the plane to safety, including activating the plane's
de-icing mechanisms.

A French newspaper on July 2 reported that a judicial
investigation has revealed that the crash was the result of a
"series of errors," chief among them the failure to use the
plane's anti-icing system.

Mr. Zoungrana and his co-plaintiffs are claiming moral,
psychological and traumatic damages, as well as financial loss and
the loss of a loved one.

"The goal of a class-action request is to facilitate [an amicable
settlement] but also to know the truth [about what happened],"
said lawyer Gerard Samet.

Mr. Zoungrana is originally from Burkina Faso.  He said he had
been working as a nurse's assistant at Papineau Hospital in
Gatineau as part of a plan to bring his family to Canada.


ALBANY MOLECULAR: Defending Against "Gauquie" Action
----------------------------------------------------
Albany Molecular Research, 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 November 12,
2014, a purported class action lawsuit, John Gauquie v. Albany
Molecular Research, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-6637, was filed
against the Company and certain of its current and former officers
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York.  The complaint alleges claims under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the Company's August 5, 2014
announcement of its financial results for the second quarter of
2014, including that the OsoBio New Mexico facility experienced a
power interruption in July 2014, which would have a material
impact on the Company's results.  The complaint alleges that the
price of the Company's stock was artificially inflated between
August 5, 2014 and November 5, 2014, and seeks certification as a
class action, unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees and
costs.


ALLERGAN PLC: Workers Unions, Fund File Suit Over Asacol(R)
-----------------------------------------------------------
United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers, Midwest
Health Benefits Fund, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. Allergan, plc (f/k/a Actavis, plc); Warner Chilcott
Limited; Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.; Cadila Healthcare
Limited, Case 1:15-cv-12731-GAO (D. Mass., June 22, 2015), alleges
that Warner Chilcott employed a multi-faceted scheme to frustrate
generic competition with its name-brand drug Asacol(R).

Allergan, based in Docklands, Dublin, Ireland, markets branded and
generic pharmaceuticals throughout the United States and has
commercial operations in the United States and approximately 100
countries around the world.

Warner Chilcott Limited is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Allergan
plc and is incorporated under the laws of Bermuda.

Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., based in Pennington, New Jersey,
is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Cadila Healthcare Limited. Zydus
markets and distributes generic drugs for sale throughout the
United States.

Cadila Healthcare Limited, based in Ahmedabad, India, works with
Zydus to develop, manufacture, and market pharmaceutical products
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Nathaniel L. Orenstein, Esq.
     Glen DeValerio, Esq.
     BERMAN DEVALERIO
     One Liberty Square
     Boston, MA 02109
     Tel: (617) 542-8300
     Fax: (617) 542-1192
     E-mail: gdevalerio@bermandevalerio.com
             norenstein@bermandevalerio.com

        - and -

     Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
     Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
     Justin N. Boley, Esq.
     WEXLER WALLACE LLP
     55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Tel: (312) 346-2222
     E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
             eaw@wexlerwallace.com
             jnb@wexlerwallace.com

        - and -

     Jonathan D. Karmel, Esq.
     KARMEL LAW FIRM
     221 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1307
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Tel: (312) 641-2910
     E-mail: jon@karmellawfirm.com


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 2
---------------------------------------------------------
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, 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 plaintiff
in a class action lawsuit must file a motion for class
certification by October 2, 2015.

The Company said, "On May 1, 2012, Physicians Healthsource, Inc.
filed a class action complaint in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against us. The complaint alleges
that on multiple occasions between July 2008 and December 2011, we
or our agent sent advertisements by fax to the plaintiff and a
class of similarly situated persons, without first receiving the
recipients' express permission or invitation in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 (the
"TCPA"). The plaintiff seeks $500 for each alleged violation of
the TCPA; treble damages if the Court finds the violations to be
willful, knowing or intentional; and injunctive and other relief.
Discovery is proceeding. The plaintiff must file a motion for
class certification by October 2, 2015. No trial date has been
scheduled."


AMAZON: Launches Antitrust Investigation Over E-Books
-----------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the European Union's executive
branch has launched an antitrust investigation into online
retailer Amazon over its distribution of e-books, which have
become increasingly popular in recent years.

The European Commission on June 11 it will investigate certain
clauses in Amazon's contracts with publishers, including a
requirement for publishers to inform the company about
arrangements it has with Amazon competitors.  Amazon is the
largest distributor of e-books in Europe and owns the popular
e-book device, the Kindle.

Margrethe Vestager, the Commission's top official on competition
policy, stressed that the investigation does not call into
question Amazon's successful and comprehensive service.

"However, it is my duty to make sure that Amazon's arrangements
with publishers are not harmful to consumers, by preventing other
e-book distributors from innovating and competing effectively with
Amazon," she said.  "Our investigation will show if such concerns
are justified."

If the Commission finds that Amazon's arrangements limit
competition and reduce consumer choice, then it could be violating
antitrust rules in Europe that prohibit companies from abusing
their dominant market position.  The firm could be fined or forced
to change its business practices.

The investigation will center on English and German e-books, which
are the largest markets across Europe.

Amazon said it is confident that its agreements with publishers
are legal and "in the best interests of readers."

The Commission last launched an investigation into the e-books
sector in December 2011 when it had concerns that Apple and five
international publishing houses may have colluded to limit price
competition.  By July 2013, those companies had offered a number
of commitments to address the Commission's concerns.


AMERISOURCEBERGEN: Sees Gains of $21.5MM Relating to Class Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amerisourcebergen 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 numerous class
action lawsuits have been filed against certain brand
pharmaceutical manufacturers alleging that the manufacturer, by
itself or in concert with others, took improper actions to delay
or prevent generic drugs from entering the market.  The Company
has not been named a plaintiff in any of these class actions, but
has been a member of the direct purchasers' class (i.e., those
purchasers who purchase directly from these pharmaceutical
manufacturers).  None of the class actions have gone to trial, but
some have settled in the past with the Company receiving proceeds
from the settlement funds.  During the three and six months ended
March 31, 2015, the Company recognized gains of $21.5 million,
relating to the class action lawsuits.  During the three and six
months ended March 31, 2014, the Company recognized gains of $0.8
million and $21.9 million, respectively, relating to the above-
mentioned class action lawsuits.  These gains, which are net of
attorney fees and estimated payments due to other parties, were
recorded as reductions to cost of goods sold in the Company's
consolidated statements of operations.


APPLE INC: 12,400+ Former Workers May Be Added in Bag Search Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rosenblatt, writing for Bloomberg, reports that Apple CEO Tim
Cook personally fielded at least one Apple Store employee
complaint about "demoralizing" security searches.  Adding 12,000
more may give him a reason to worry about the company's
reputation.

A handful of former workers who sued the company two years ago
seek a few dollars a day for time spent having their bags and
electronic devices searched at meal breaks and after their shifts.
They're asking a judge to let them add more than 12,400 former
colleagues from 52 stores throughout California to the lawsuit to
put the world's most valuable technology company on trial over its
treatment of a staff known for almost cult-like loyalty.

The case will become a "thorn" in Apple's side if the workers win
class-action status, said Michael Risch, a law professor at
Villanova University School of Law in Pennsylvania.

"I assume they would take a $75 million hit plus bad publicity
seriously," Mr. Risch said in an e-mail.  "Chump change for Apple,
but nothing to sneeze at."

The last big employment lawsuit Apple faced was resolved ahead of
trial after a judge granted group status to thousands of former
employees to pursue claims that the iPhone maker, Google and other
Silicon Valley technology giants con spired to drive down wages by
not hiring each other's employees.  That $415 million settlement
comes before a judge this month for final approval.

The evidence in that case featured emails describing how Apple's
co-founder and then CEO Steve Jobs, who died in 2011, pulled the
strings of technology executives to keep employees from jumping
ship and making more money.

Damaging E-Mails

The security screening case also has exposed potentially damaging
e-mails, including some among executives that show the company was
uneasy with the policy.  Subject of particular ire in complaints
to managers were cards the company issued requiring the listed
serial numbers of Apple devices workers carry into the stores.
When they leave, employees are required to prove to managers that
the numbers on the card match those on their devices, and are then
subjected to bag searches, according to a court filing.

In a 2012 e-mail to Mr. Cook labeled "Fearless Feedback," an
unidentified Apple Store employee described the searches in front
of customers as "demoralizing."  The worker wrote: "Managers are
required to treat 'valued' employees as criminals."

'Is This True?'

Mr. Cook forwarded the message the same day to two executives,
asking: "Is this true?" The US Supreme Court ruled last year that
workers don't have a federal right to be paid for time spent in
postshift security searches, unanimously rejecting claims by
former Amazon.com Inc. warehouse workers.  That decision left an
opening for the Apple workers to pursue their case under
California law.

US District Judge William Alsup in San Francisco last year ejected
Apple's bid to throw out the case, ruling that a "more
comprehensive" airing of evidence was required.

The workers' bid for class-action status may put the company on
the hook for compensation for every Apple Store employee over a
six-year period who wasn't paid for the minutes they submitted to
screenings each day.  For 12,000 employees deprived of 15 minutes
pay at a minimum wage of $9 an hour, that amounts to about $60
million, according to Mr. Risch.  Apple could also be hit with
another $15 million in penalties, he said.

'Mini-Trials'

The workers are pushing for a jury to decide whether they're
entitled to lost pay.  Calculating damages for such a large class
of workers would require "minitrials" for each one, Mr. Risch
said, adding that the court proceedings alone would cost Apple "a
fortune."

At a hearing scheduled for July 2, Apple was set to argue that the
workers aren't entitled to class status because there are too many
variables in how different stores apply the screening policy.  The
company cited a 2011 US Supreme Court ruling that blocked
thousands of women from pursuing gender discrimination claims as a
group against WalMart Stores Inc.

Josh Rosenstock, a spokesman for Apple, declined to comment on the
July 2 hearing or whether the screening policy is still in place.


ARCHIE'S KEY: Faces Suit for Unpaid Overtime Work Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
David Casado, and other similarly-situated individuals v. Archie's
Key Biscayne, L.L.C., and Nicolas Escobar, Case 1:15-cv-22410-CMA
(S.D. Fla., June 28, 2015), seeks to recover money damages for
unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Archie's is an Italian food and pizza restaurant located at Key
Biscayne Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ASAADA CORP: Faces Suit for Unpaid Overtime Work Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Roberto L. Bianchi and other similarly-situated individuals v.
ASAADA Corp. d/b/a Nahuen Key Biscayne, Andres Amorosi,
individually, Case 1:15-cv-22409-UU (S.D. Fla., June 28, 2015),
seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

ASAADA is a Miami-Dade County Florida corporation engaged in
interstate commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BANK OF AMERICA: Sued for Allegedly Manipulating FX Spot Market
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Charles Class A, L.P., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Bank of America Corporation; Bank of
America, N.A.; Barclays Bank Plc; Barclays Capital, Inc.;
Citigroup, Inc.; Citibank, N.A.; HSBC Holdings plc; HSBC Bank plc;
HSBC North America Holdings Inc.; HSBC Bank USA, N.A.; J.P. Morgan
Chase & Co.; J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.; The Royal Bank of
Scotland Group plc; The Royal Bank of Scotland plc; UBS AG; and
UBS Securities LLC, Case 1:15-cv-04926 (S.D. N.Y., June 24, 2015),
was brought pursuant to the Commodity Exchange Act, seeking
recovery of damages on behalf of investors that transacted in
exchange-traded foreign exchange ("FX") futures contracts and/or
options on FX futures contracts at allegedly artificial prices as
the result of Defendants' alleged manipulation of the $5 trillion-
a-day FX spot market.

Bank of America engages in the FX business, acting as a dealer in
the spot FX market and providing liquidity in G10 currencies by
acting as a principal market maker.

Barclays Bank Plc is registered as a financial holding company
with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.  Barclays Capital, Inc.
engages in investment banking, wealth management, and investment
management services.

Citibank, N.A. is federally-chartered national banking
association.  HSBC Holdings plc provides services in HSBC
Holdings' network.  J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. is a federally-
chartered national banking association.  The Royal Bank of
Scotland Group plc is registered in the U.S. as a bank holding
company and a financial holding company.  RBS Securities, Inc. is
a U.S. broker-dealer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Louis F. Burke, Esq.
     Leslie Wybiral, Esq.
     460 Park Avenue, 21st Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Tel: (212) 682-1700
     E-mail: lburke@lfblaw.com
             lwybiral@lfblaw.com

          - and -

     Michael Brickman, Esq.
     RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC
     174 East Bay Street
     P.O. Box 879
     Charleston, SC 29401
     Tel: (843) 727-6500
     Fax: (843) 727-3103
     E-mail: mbrickman@rpwb.com

          - and -

     James C. Bradley, Esq.
     Nina Fields Britt, Esq.
     RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC
     E-mail: jbradley@rpwb.com
             nfields@rpwb.com

        - and -

     Matthew A. Nickles
     Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman, LLC
     1017 Chuck Dawley Blvd.
     Post Office Box 1007
     Mount Pleasant, SC 29465
     Tel: (843) 727-6500
     Fax: (843) 881-6183
     E-mail: mnickles@rpwb.com


BECTON DICKINSON: California Superior Court Cases Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Becton, Dickinson and 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, that lawsuits filed in
the Superior Court of California are not part of a proposed
settlement and are still pending.

On October 5, 2014, CareFusion and the Company entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger that provides for the acquisition of
CareFusion by the Company. Under the terms of the merger
agreement, a subsidiary of the Company ("the merger subsidiary")
merged with and into CareFusion on March 17, 2015, with CareFusion
surviving the merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company.
Several putative class action lawsuits have been filed against
CareFusion, its directors, the Company and the merger subsidiary
in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in the Superior Court of
California, San Diego County. These lawsuits generally allege that
the members of the board of directors of CareFusion breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with the merger by, among other
things, carrying out a process that plaintiffs allege did not
ensure adequate and fair consideration to CareFusion stockholders.
The plaintiffs in these actions further allege that CareFusion and
the Company aided and abetted the individual defendants' breaches
of their fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs seek, among other
things, equitable relief to enjoin consummation of the merger,
rescission of the merger and/or rescissory damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs.

On December 30, 2014, the parties to the actions filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery (the "Delaware Actions") entered into
an agreement in principle to settle the Delaware Actions on the
basis of additional disclosures made in a CareFusion Schedule 14A,
filed with the SEC on January 5, 2015. The settlement terms are
reflected in a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"). On December
31, 2014, plaintiffs' counsel notified the Delaware Court of
Chancery of the settlement and MOU. Pursuant to the MOU, the
parties to the Delaware Actions have agreed to negotiate in good
faith to execute a stipulation of settlement, and will present the
proposed settlement to the Delaware Court of Chancery as soon as
practicable. The actions filed in the Superior Court of California
are not part of the proposed settlement and are still pending.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to each of
the above-mentioned suits pending against the Company and is
engaged in a vigorous defense of each of these matters.

The Company is also involved both as a plaintiff and a defendant
in other legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary
course of business.


BGC PARTNERS: Provides Updates on Class Actions v. GFI
------------------------------------------------------
BGC Partners, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K/A (Amendment
No. 1) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8,
2015, provided updates on various lawsuits filed against GFI
Group, Inc.

Following the announcement of the CME Merger, nine putative class
action complaints challenging the CME Merger were filed on behalf
of purported stockholders of GFI (one of which also purported to
be brought derivatively on behalf of GFI), two in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of New York, six in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, and one in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaints were captioned Coyne v. GFI Group Inc., et al., Index
No. 652704/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., filed September 4, 2014), Suprina
v. GFI Group, Inc., et al., Index No. 652668/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
filed August 29, 2014), Brown v. GFI Group Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 10082-VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 3, 2014), Hughes
v. CME Group, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 10103-VCL (Del. Ch.,
filed September 8, 2014), Al Ammary v. Gooch, et al., Civil Action
No. 10125-VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 11, 2014), Giardalas v.
GFI Group, Inc., Civil Action No. 10132-VCL (Del. Ch., filed
September 15, 2014), City of Lakeland Employees' Pension Plan v.
Gooch, et al., Civil Action No. 10136-VCL (Del. Ch., filed
September 16, 2014), Michocki v. Gooch., et al., Civil Action No.
10166-VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 25, 2014) and Szarek v. GFI
Group Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-8228 (S.D.N.Y., filed October
14, 2014). On September 26, 2014, the Court of Chancery granted
voluntary dismissal of the Giardalas action. On October 6, 2014, a
consolidation order was entered by Vice Chancellor Laster,
consolidating the Delaware cases into the Consolidated Delaware
Action. The consolidation order designated the complaint filed in
City of Lakeland Employees' Pension Plan v. Gooch, et al., Civil
Action No. 10136-VCL (Del. Ch.) as the operative complaint in the
Consolidated Delaware Action.

The complaints named as Defendants various combinations of the
Company, GFI Holdco Ltd. ("IDB Buyer"), the members of the
Company's board of directors, GFI managing director Nick Brown,
CME, Commodore Acquisition Corp., Commodore Acquisition LLC,
Cheetah Acquisition Corp., Cheetah Acquisition LLC, JPI and New
JPI Inc. ("New JPI"). The complaints generally allege, among other
things, that the members of the Company's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders
during merger negotiations by entering into the CME Merger
Agreement and approving the CME Merger, and that the Company, CME,
Commodore Acquisition Corp., Commodore Acquisition LLC, IDB Buyer,
Cheetah Acquisition Corp., Cheetah Acquisition LLC, JPI, and New
JPI aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties. The
complaints further allege, among other things, (i) that the merger
consideration provided for in the CME Merger Agreement undervalued
the Company, (ii) that the sales process leading up to the CME
Merger was flawed due to the members of the Company's board of
director's and Jefferies' conflicts of interest, and (iii) that
certain provisions of the CME Merger Agreement inappropriately
favored CME and precluded or impeded third parties from submitting
potentially superior proposals.

In addition, the Hughes complaint asserts a derivative claim on
behalf of the Company against the members of the Company's board
of directors for breaching their fiduciary duties of loyalty and
care to the Company by negotiating and agreeing to the CME Merger
and against Defendants Gooch and Heffron for usurping a corporate
opportunity. The Michocki complaint alleges that the CME Merger is
not a solitary transaction but a series of related transactions
and further alleges that the IDB Transaction must be approved by
an affirmative two-thirds vote of the Shares pursuant to the terms
of the Charter.

The complaints seek, among other relief: (i) certification of the
class, (ii) injunctive relief enjoining the CME Merger, (iii) a
declaration that the members of the Company's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties and that certain provisions of the
CME Merger Agreement are unlawful, (iv) a directive to the members
of the Company's board of directors to execute their fiduciary
duties to obtain a transaction in the best interest of the
Company's stockholders, (v) rescission of the CME Merger to the
extent already implemented, (vi) granting of rescissory damages
and an accounting of all of the damages suffered as a result of
the alleged wrongdoing, (vii) and reimbursement of fees and costs.
The Coyne and Suprina Plaintiffs also demand a jury trial.

Certain Defendants have moved to dismiss or, in the alternative,
stay the Coyne and Suprina actions in favor of the Consolidated
Delaware Action. A hearing was held on December 15, 2014 on (i)
the Defendants' motions to dismiss or stay the Coyne and Suprina
actions; (ii) the Plaintiffs' motion by order to show cause for
consolidation and appointment of a leadership structure; and (iii)
Plaintiff Suprina's motion by order to show cause to compel and
expedite discovery. In an order filed on January 30, 2015, the
Court ordered the Suprina and Coyne cases consolidated as In re
GFI Group Inc. Shareholder Litigation, Index No. 652668/2014. In
another order filed that same day, the Court denied Plaintiff
Suprina's motion to compel and expedite discovery. The parties are
awaiting a ruling on the Defendants' motions to dismiss or stay
the consolidated action.

On November 18, 2014, the Delaware court entered a Revised Order
Setting Expedited Discovery Schedule in the Consolidated Delaware
Action. On December 19, 2014, the court entered a Further Revised
Scheduling Order scheduling a preliminary injunction hearing for
January 16, 2015. On December 29, 2014, Plaintiffs in the
Consolidated Delaware Action filed a Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction, and a brief in support thereof, seeking to enjoin
enforcement of Article V of the Support Agreement and
preliminarily enjoin the stockholder vote on the CME Merger until
(i) certain additional disclosures were made and (ii) the
Company's stockholders were provided the opportunity to vote on
the CME Merger, the JPI Merger and the IDB Transaction. On January
8, 2015, the parties agreed to move the preliminary injunction
hearing from January 16, 2015 to January 20, 2015. On January 15,
2015, the preliminary injunction hearing (scheduled for January
20) was taken off the court's calendar.

On January 15, 2015, Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Delaware
Action filed a Supplement to the Verified Class Action Complaint.
On January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Second Supplement to the
Verified Class Action Complaint. On February 4, 2015, Plaintiffs
filed a Motion for Expedited Proceedings and a brief in support
thereof. On February 6, 2015, the Court scheduled a merits hearing
for February 17 and 18, 2015. On February 7, 2015, Plaintiffs
filed a Third Supplement to the Verified Class Action Complaint,
seeking certain additional injunctive and declaratory relief. On
February 11, 2015, the Court, with the consent of the parties,
moved the merits hearing (scheduled for February 17 and 18, 2015)
to the first available dates on the Court's schedule after March
4, 2015. On February 20, 2015, Plaintiffs informed the Court that
an expedited merits hearing was no longer necessary.

In the New York Szarek action, the Court scheduled an initial
pretrial conference for December 16, 2014, which the Court
adjourned upon application of the parties until March 12, 2015 and
adjourned again upon application of Plaintiff until May 21, 2015.

In addition to the foregoing litigation, on November 26, 2014, a
putative class action complaint alleging violations of the federal
securities laws, captioned Gross v. GFI Group, Inc., et al., was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The complaint names the Company, Colin
Heffron, Michael Gooch and Nick Brown as Defendants.. The
complaint seeks, among other relief: (i) certification of the
class, (ii) compensatory damages for Defendants purported
wrongdoing and (iii) reimbursement of costs and expenses.

On February 20, 2015, the Court in Gross v. GFI Group, Inc.
granted Plaintiff's unopposed motion for appointment as lead
plaintiff and approved his selection of co-lead counsel on behalf
of the putative class. The Court also extended Defendants' time to
respond to the complaint from February 23, 2015 to March 25, 2015;
granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by March 16,
2015; and rescheduled the initial pre-trial conference to March
27, 2015.

Defendants believe that the claims asserted against them are
without merit and intend to defend the litigation vigorously.


BP PLC: Still Has Remaining Claims to Resolve in Oil Spill Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Cronin Fisk and Laurel Brubaker Calkins, writing for
Bloomberg News, report that BP Plc's record $18.7 billion
settlement ended government claims over the 2010 Gulf of Mexico
oil spill, leaving numerous smaller private lawsuits to be mopped
up.

While investors, residents and businesses that didn't join a 2012
settlement still demand billions, BP's biggest threats are gone,
said Anthony Sabino, a law professor at St. John's University in
New York who specializes in complex litigation.

The U.S. and the states, partly because of political motivations,
"were, by far, the most tenacious adversaries," he said in an
e-mail.

"Private parties think only in terms of cold hard, cash," so the
remaining claims will be easier to resolve, Mr. Sabino said.  "Put
enough on the table and they go away."

The Macondo well exploded in April 2010, burning and sinking the
Deepwater Horizon drilling rig and setting off the biggest
offshore spill in U.S. history.  Eleven men died aboard the rig
and crude spewed from the sea floor for weeks.

The accident sparked thousands of lawsuits against BP, as well as
Transocean Ltd., the rig's owner, and Halliburton Co., which
provided cementing services for the project.  BP's predicament got
worse as falling oil prices cut first-quarter revenue by 41
percent from a year earlier, to $54.2 billion.

Largest Deal

The July 2 settlement was the largest of BP's agreements since the
spill.  The London-based company agreed in 2012 to plead guilty
and pay the government $4 billion to resolve a criminal case.  BP
also agreed that year to pay another $525 million over allegations
it initially understated the size of the spill.

Also in 2012, the company reached an estimated $10.3 billion
settlement with most Gulf area residents and businesses harmed by
the spill.  That deal will probably cost "significantly" more
because it doesn't reflect claims that haven't been fully
processed, the company said in an April regulatory filing.

The settlement didn't cover banks, casinos, insurance companies
and businesses or residents in large swaths of Texas and Florida.
It also didn't include shareholders or businesses blaming BP for
the Obama administration's moratorium on deep-water drilling in
the gulf after the spill.

Those claims remain, as do the suits by residents and businesses
that opted out of the 2012 settlement.

Spill Cost

On July 2, BP increased the amount set aside to pay for the spill
to $53.8 billion.  That still may not be enough.

"It's realistic to price BP's total cost, including all remaining
claims that haven't been covered by settlements, at $70 billion,"
said David Berg, a Houston trial lawyer who has tracked the BP
spill litigation and isn't involved in it.

None of the claims have gone before a jury, and investors may get
the first chance if their securities-fraud lawsuit claiming BP
downplayed the disaster goes to trial Jan. 11 in Houston.

The class action covers investors who bought BP's U.S. shares from
April 26, 2010 -- six days after the blowout -- to May 28, 2010.
BP will ask the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans on July 9 to
block them from suing as a group, which could derail or delay the
case.  Investors are seeking as much as $2.5 billion, according to
BP court filings.

U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier in New Orleans -- who presided
over the pollution fine case BP just settled -- will oversee a
non-jury test trial, still unscheduled, on lawsuits by businesses
alleging BP is responsible for losses caused by the drilling
moratorium.

Test Trial

One party in the test trial is the successor to Seahawk Drilling
and claims the business was "essentially destroyed" and forced
into bankruptcy.  Seahawk alleges losses of $174.8 million.  If
the test cases prevail, there could be millions of dollars more in
claims from firms including Marathon Oil Co., which seeks $47
million for lost offshore production, and Vantage Drilling Co.,
which is claiming $265 million for increased financing costs tied
to projects delayed by the offshore ban.

BP denies responsibility for those losses because the U.S.
government ordered and extended the drilling ban for months. That
defense may reduce any damages.

Claims by others left out of the settlement may be a "tough sell
to a judge or jury," Mr. Sabino said.

Given the July 2 settlement as a benchmark," the dominoes will
fall" and the others will probably settle, he said.

The case is In re Oil Spill by the Oil Rig Deepwater Horizon in
the Gulf of Mexico on April 20, 2010, MDL-2179, U.S. District
Court, Eastern District of Louisiana (New Orleans).


BP PLC: Sarasota Awaits Compensation in Oil Spill Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
Ray Collins, writing for Mysuncoast.com, reports that it was the
worst environmental disaster in national history.  The massive oil
spill of 2010 caused countless tourists to stay away from Florida
and other Gulf States.

Customers also stayed away from John Banyas Seafood restaurant in
Cortez.

"People were skeptical about the seafood and it definitely slowed
sales up and it was a bit of a hit," Mr. Banyas recalls.

Mr. Banyas is among the 371,000 who filed a so-called class-action
claim for reimbursement from BP.  Five years later, only 99,000,
or 27 percent, have received compensation or an eligibility
notice.

Sarasota Attorney Bill Robertson represents private claimants as
well as local governments, including the city of Sarasota.  He
said Sarasota's initial claim was for $15 million dollars but he
says any settlement is a compromise "so it's not going to be what
you ask for."

Mr. Robertson says Sarasota deserves the money based on all the
tourists scared away by the spill in 2010, a spill that never
actually caused serious damage here.

"It has to do with the revenues that would have been generated but
for tourists and other people who didn't show up for months and
months and months," Mr. Robertson explained.

Mr. Robertson says his other client, the City of Bradenton Beach,
is requesting $500,000.


BUDGET PREPAY: Former Employee Sues for Expense Reimbursement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Caron Carus, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, v. Budget Prepay, Inc. Case No. BC584569 (Superior Court
of California, County of Los Angeles, June 8, 2015), seeking
employee expense reimbursement under the California Labor Code
Section 2802 and California Business & Professional Code Section
17200 et seq.

The defendant provides government-subsidized cellular telephones
and telephone services to low income customers in various
locations around California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard M. Paul III, Esq.
      PAUL MCINNES LLP
      601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
      Kansas City, Missouri 64106
      Tel: (816) 984-8100
      Fax: (816) 984-8101
      E-mail: paul@paulmcinnes.com

      Ryan Thompson, Esq.
      WATTS GUERRA LLP
      525 South Douglas Street, Suite 260
      El Segundo, California 90245
      Tel: (424) 220-8141
      Fax: (424) 732-8190
      E-mail: rthompson@wattsguerra.com

      Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
      WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
      11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
      St. Louis, Missouri 63141
      Tel: (314) 997-9150
      Fax: (314) 997-9170
      E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com


CALIFORNIA: Labor Commission Sued Over Due Process Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
California's labor commission underwrites a law firm that sues
trucking companies accused of misclassifying drivers, and presides
over the appeals, a trucking firm claims in Federal Court, reports
Mike Heuer at Courthouse News Service.

WinWin Logistics sued Labor Commissioner Julie Su, the California
Department of Industrial Relations and its Division of Labor
Standards Enforcement on June 18, alleging due process violations.
WinWin, of Gardena, says the Department of Industrial Relations
gave a $230,000 grant to the Wage Justice Center employment law
firm in 2013, and "described its relationship with Wage Justice
Center as a partnership."

The state grant was more than half the law firm's revenue in 2013
and nearly equaled its revenue in 2012, WinWin claims.  Soon after
receiving the grant money, the Wage Justice Center filed a class
action accusing WinWin others of misclassifying drivers as
independent contractors, failing to reimburse drivers for expenses
and taking illegal deductions.

The day the law firm filed that class action, Labor Commissioner
Su issued a news release about a similar case and said she is
"committed to attacking misclassification wherever it occurs in
California," and that driver misclassification "is theft and we
will do everything in our power to stop it."  Because of the
state's "partnership" with the law firm, WinWin says, it "is being
deprived of property without due process" and the state "does not
provide a neutral forum for hearing these cases."

After the state "funds the prosecution of driver misclassification
cases," including the class action against WinWin, it presides
over the cases and handles appeals, WinWin says.  WinWin says it
"cannot expect to receive, shall not receive, and has not received
a fair and impartial determination in its driver misclassification
cases pending before the DIR/DLSE."

To appealing a regulatory decision, WinWin says, it must post a
bond equal to the award in the decision.  It says it has 20
pending decisions that would require $4 million or more in bonds
in order to appeal them.

WinWin says the cost of appealing regulatory decisions is
"prohibitive," deprives it of due process and "threatens to
destroy its entire business."  And even if it does pay to appeal,
the state's "adverse rulings inevitably taint the superior court's
perspective . . . before the matter is ever heard."

WinWin claims the state violates the 14th Amendment and the Due
Process Clause of the California Constitution.  It seeks
declaratory judgment, an injunction, damages and costs.


CALIFORNIA: Sued for Holding Death-Row Convicts in Isolation
------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Cahill, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
California holds death-row inmates in unconstitutional "extreme
isolation" at San Quentin, six prisoners claim in a federal class
action.

Lead plaintiff Bobby Lopez sued for about 100 men held in "extreme
isolation" at San Quentin State Prison's "Adjustment Center," one
of three units that hold condemned men.  All are classified "Grade
B" prisoners, subjecting them to "stark and cruel deprivations,"
including 21 to 24 hours per day in their cell, just three showers
per week and lack of sleep due to constant suicide checks by
jailers.

Lopez claims that all condemned prisoners deemed to have gang
affiliations are classified Grade, whether they were in a gang or
not.  He claims the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation violates their constitutional rights by making them
Grade B prisoners though they have not participated in gang
activity at San Quentin.

"The condemned unit has no process or quality control measures for
assessing whether plaintiffs and the class remain active
participants in prison gangs," the complaint states.  "As a
result, plaintiffs and the class are often assessed as having gang
allegiances because of their ethnicity and the region in which
they grew up."

Though prison regulations require review of Grade B classification
every 90 days, Lopez calls it a "meaningless and perfunctory
process."  Though several plaintiffs have no disciplinary
infractions at San Quentin, they are subjected to Class B
restrictions anyway.

Some plaintiffs organized a hunger strike in 2013 to protest
conditions in the Adjustment Center and at other prisons
throughout the country.  They say the CDCR met with organizers to
discuss their demands and then promptly issued them disciplinary
citations for participating in the hunger strike.

Plaintiffs say the state met none of their demands but used the
hunger strike as a reason to keep them in the Adjustment Center
indefinitely.  They sued Gov. Jerry Brown, CDCR Secretary Jeffrey
Beard and San Quentin Prison Warden Ronald Davis for cruel and
unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and 14th Amendments.
They seek class certification and an injunction ordering the CDCR
to release them from the Adjustment Center or define their period
of the confinement there, and to alleviate the inhumane conditions
of the unit.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel Mark Siegel, Esq.
          SIEGEL & YEE
          499 14th Street, Suite 300
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 839-1200
          Facsimile: (510) 444-6698
          E-mail: DanSiegel@siegelyee.com


CELLADON CORP: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on July 2 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
Celladon Corporation publicly traded securities during the period
between July 7, 2014 and June 25, 2015.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from July 2, 2015.  If you wish to discuss this
action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights
or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Darren Robbins
of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058, or via e-mail
at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/celladon/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Celladon and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Celladon is a clinical-stage biotechnology company that is focused
on the development of cardiovascular gene therapy and calcium
dysregulation.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants'
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
adverse information regarding the Company's prospects for its lead
drug candidate, MYDICAR, for treating enzyme deficiency in heart
failure patients that results in inadequate pumping of the heart.
As a result of these false and misleading statements or omissions,
Celladon securities traded at artificially inflated prices during
the Class Period.

On April 26, 2015, Celladon announced that the Company's Phase 2b
CUPID2 trial of MYDICAR did not meet its primary and secondary
goals.  The Company reported that "the primary endpoint comparison
of MYDICAR to placebo resulted in a hazard ratio of 0.93 (0.53,
1.65 95%CI) (p=0.81), defined as heart failure-related
hospitalizations or ambulatory treatment for worsening heart
failure" and the "secondary endpoint comparison of MYDICAR to
placebo, defined as all-cause death, need for a mechanical
circulatory support device, or heart transplant, likewise failed
to show a significant treatment effect."  As a result of this
news, the price of Celladon stock fell $11.04 per share to close
at $2.64 per share on April 27, 2015, a decline of 80% on volume
of 32 million shares.

On June 1, 2015, Celladon issued a press release announcing the
abrupt resignation of the Company's Chief Executive Officer.
Then, on June 26, 2015, before the market opened, Celladon
announced the suspension of its plans for further research or
development of its MYDICAR program and other pre-clinical
programs, indicating there was a possibility that the Company
could be liquidated with net cash available to shareholders of
$25-$30 million.  As a result of this news, the price of Celladon
stock dropped $0.85 per share to close at $1.35 per share on June
26, 2015, a one-day decline of 38% on volume of 9 million shares,
and a 95% decline from the stock's Class Period high price.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Celladon publicly traded securities during the Class Period.  The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.

with 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation.  The firm has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history and was ranked first
in both the amount and number of shareholder class action
recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 report for 2014.


CHICAGO, IL: Issues Checks to Paramedics Owed Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Hal Dardick, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that Chicago
officials have issued more than $1.2 million in penalty payment
checks to hundreds of paramedics who a federal court judge
determined had been shortchanged on overtime pay.

In addition to the penalty payment checks, the city also issued
checks totaling nearly $2.5 million for the overtime it owed to
paramedics but had not paid -- for a total of more than $3.7
million to more than 700 paramedics, according to court documents
and city officials. Paramedics recently began receiving those
checks.

U.S. District Judge John Darrah ordered the payments to make up
for underpaid overtime wages dating as far back as 2004.  Four
separate class-action cases filed between 2006 and 2012 led to the
order.

The cases relate to the odd hours worked by the paramedics in the
Chicago Fire Department Bureau of Emergency Medical Services.
Paramedics work 24-hour shifts, with days off between, often
logging 48 hours a week.  For all hours that exceed 40 per week,
they get paid overtime, at a rate of 1 1/2 times their salary.

For years, the city was paying that overtime but erred in its
calculations of base pay, the court said.  Before figuring the
base pay on which overtime was calculated, the city improperly
deducted the cost of duty availability pay -- a stipend for always
being on call -- and other nontraditional wages paid out to
paramedics, according to court documents.

Other nontraditional wages included stipends for passing an annual
fitness exam, filling a role above their designated assignment and
having specialty training qualifications.

The city also failed to include pay for taking part in continuing
education training, the court documents show.

Judge Darrah ruled last year that those amounts should not have
been deducted from the base pay and ordered the city to make
payments for prior miscalculations and also pay penalties.  The
city earlier this year changed the way it calculates overtime to
avoid the problem in the future, according to court documents and
city officials.

The city has the money on hand to cover the recent payments and
does "not anticipate having to borrow for it," city spokeswoman
Libby Langsdorf said.

The $3.7 million in payments won't break the bank at City Hall,
with its $7.3 billion annual budget, but they come as Mayor Rahm
Emanuel and aldermen are trying to find ways to close next year's
projected 2016 budget gap of nearly $1 billion.

Most of that gap is the result of a state requirement that the
city dramatically step up payments to the police and fire pension
funds, which are a combined $10 billion short of what they need to
cover required retirement future benefit payments.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Appeals Court Revives Workers Pay Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Y. Peter Kang, writing for Law360, reports that a California
appeals court has revived a putative class action accusing
Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc. of improperly using indirect employee
payments to lower its premiums for workers' compensation, saying
the chain violated state labor laws with the practice.

Chipotle employees contend that through a company-implemented
program, they purchased nonslip shoes from a business called Shoes
For Crews, which extended warranties to Chipotle to cover certain
medical expenses in slip-and-fall-related workers' compensation
cases.


COLLEGE BOARD: School District React to SAT Misprint Blunder
------------------------------------------------------------
Jarreau Freeman, writing for The Reporter, reports that a misprint
on the SATs administered nationally on June 6 has caused an upset
with parents and students across the nation, according to several
news reports.

Class-action lawsuits have been filed by parents and students in
New Jersey, Minnesota and New York against the College Board, the
non-profit that oversees the SAT, and Educational Testing Service,
the organization that provides the SAT booklets, several media
outlets are reporting.

According to a statement on CollegeBoard.org, the College Board
website, the time allotted for the last reading and math sections
was incorrect in the student booklets, but correct in the scripts
and manuals provided to prompters.  The tests indicated that there
was 25 minutes allotted for portions of the test, when in
actuality 20 minutes was the allotted time.

The test was being administered to 918 students at North Penn High
School June 6, according district School/Community Engagement
Director Christine Liberaski.  She said that the error was brought
to the attention of Assistant Principal Peter Nicholson, who
called College Board to confirm the correct allotted time, she
said.

The prompters allotted 20 minutes for students to take the last
portions of the test, she said.

Because of the misprint, scores from the last math and reading
sections from the June 6 test won't be calculated into students'
final score, according to a June 25 video statement provided by
James Montoya, College Board vice president for higher education.

"Your score will be determined, in essence, by a shorter test," he
explained.  "The questions cover the same content and skills as a
longer test.  Thus, we were able to provide you with reliable
scores."

Ms. Liberaski said no district parents or students have raised
concerns about the test snafu, but said that if they did, they
would have to take their concerns to the College Board.

"As a district, we handled the situation to the best of our
abilities," she said.

Pennridge School District Public Information Officer Joe Ferry
said that the SATs were not administered at Pennridge High School
on June 6.

Souderton Area High School administrators were contacted for
comment, but emails were not returned by press time.  According to
the high school calendar, the SATs were not administered to
students at the school the day the erroneous test was
administered.

College Board has been in communication with admissions directors
from across the nation who told them they have "full confidence in
the scores and will view them just like scores from any other SAT
administration," the web statement said.

Representatives from Temple and Arcadia universities were not
available to comment on the issue, but Gwynedd Mercy University
Vice President for Enrollment and Student Services said via email
on July 2 that she doesn't feel the SAT error will "tremendously
impact" how they evaluate SAT scores of prospective students.


COLLEGE BOARD: Fort Myer's Student Calls for Earlier SAT Retest
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Staik writing for News-Press.com, reports that according to
the College Board, the nonprofit behind the exam, some of the SAT
test booklets handed out to approximately 487,000 students
nationwide contained a timing misprint.  The error told students
they had 25 minutes to finish two sections of the exam, while the
proctors' directions said they had 20.

Although a difference of just 5 minutes, the situation caused an
uproar nationwide, with test-takers reporting confusion as they
rounded out the last leg of the exam.

Josh Brusseau, who sat for the exam at Fort Myers High, said at
least half the students in his classroom raised their hands to
point out the error in their booklets.  His proctor alerted the
site's test administrator, and Mr. Brusseau said the students were
told to continue the exam according to the time-frame listed in
the proctor's manual.

"A lot of people were confused about it, but it wasn't such a big
deal at the time since our test administrator at the center knew
it was an error," he said.

In response to the misprint, College Board announced it would not
count the affected sections of the exam toward the students'
scores.  Additionally, it offered students a free retest on the
next exam date of Oct. 3, with scores available Oct. 22.

Hearing the news brought on a sense of panic for students
nationwide -- something Mr. Brusseau felt as well.  "The first
thought that came to my mind was, 'How am I supposed to get an
accurate score?'"

The College Board stands by the accuracy of its June 6 test
scores, stating online and in news releases an internal
investigation proves the scores are fair, accurate and comparable
to scores from any other SAT administration.  The college
admission directors from across the country indicate they will
regard the June 6 exam results "just like scores from any other
SAT administration."

Admissions staff at Florida Gulf Coast University agrees.

"For us, it wouldn't be an issue," said Marc Laviolette, director
of admissions.  "We have every confidence in College Board when
they publish test scores that those test scores are credible."

The school selects the best scores of students for admission
decisions.  Plus, Mr. Laviolette said the decision to send scores
to a college relies on the students, because test-takers indicate
to College Board whether they want their results shared with a
school.

To those worrying about their scores, his best advice is to
retest.

"Don't panic, take the test again -- many students do it anyways,"
Mr. Laviolette said.  October, he added, is still not too late for
scholarship money.

But that doesn't mean students and parents don't feel added
pressure, especially with the retest three months away.

Although Mr. Brusseau scored high enough for college entrance, he
is worried about funding his education and wants to try the test
again to up his chances for scholarships.

"It makes me very anxious and very on edge," the teen said.

Since the College Board announced how it is addressing the
situation, three federal, class-action lawsuits have been filed.

One of the suits, based out of Jacksonville, is under the
jurisdiction of the Middle Florida federal court district, which
includes Fort Myers.  The suit specifically mentions negligence,
breach of contract and unjust enrichment, with the plaintiffs
arguing they paid for an exam under the expectation all sections
would count toward the final score and that the test would be
properly administered.

Mr. Brusseau's mother, Debbie, reached out to to see if they can
add their names to the suit.  She believes the family has a case,
as her son's June 6 score puts him in jeopardy of not getting
funding through the Bright Futures Scholarship.

"He's close, and I really think if they scored those sections he
would be right there," she said.  "If we want Bright Futures, he's
going to have to test again."

And October, she stated, is just not good enough.

"Our interest in the suit is not to gain money, but to pressure
them to offer the test sooner," she said.

Because these are class-action suits, all affected students would
be covered by the same solution, said Bob Schaeffer, a Sanibel
resident who works as the public education director of the
National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest).

FairTest is championing for College Board to cancel scores, offer
an earlier and free retest, as well as offer refunds to parents
because they didn't get their money's worth.

"We are still getting as many as 20 calls or emails a day, with
parents who are angry that their kids aren't being treated justly.
They don't trust the scores, and many make good cases," he said.


COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Defendants to Seek Case Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------
CommVault Systems, 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 defendants planned to
file their motion to dismiss a class action complaint on May 26,
2015.

The Company said, "On September 10, 2014, a purported class action
complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey against the Company, our Chief Executive
Officer and our Chief Financial Officer. The case is captioned In
re CommVault Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation (Master File No.
3:14-cv-05628-MAS-LHG). The suit alleges that the company made
materially false and misleading statements, or failed to disclose
material facts, regarding the Company's financial results,
business, operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder."

"The suit asserts claims covering an alleged class period from May
7, 2013 through April 24, 2014. It is purportedly brought on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock during that
period, and seeks compensatory damages, costs and expenses, as
well as equitable or other relief. Lead plaintiff, the Arkansas
Teachers Retirement System, was appointed on January 12, 2015, and
on March 18, 2015, an amended complaint was filed by the
plaintiffs. Defendants plan to file their motion to dismiss the
complaint on May 26, 2015."

"We believe that the suit is without merit and we intend to defend
ourselves and our officers vigorously. However, due to the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot accurately predict
the ultimate outcome of this matter. We are unable at this time to
determine whether the outcome of the litigation would have a
material impact on our results of operations, financial condition
or cash flows."


DIRECTCASH CANADA: Faces Suit Over Interest Rates on Payday Loans
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Directcash Canada and
affiliates charge criminal interest rates on payday loans, a class
action claims in Vancouver, B.C. Supreme Court.


DIRECTV: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Calif. Class Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that DirecTV stiffs its installers
for overtime, a class action claims in Alameda County Court.


DUKE ENERGY: Final Approval Hearing Expected in Second Half 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy 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 final approval
hearing is expected to occur in the second half of 2015 in the
Progress Energy Merger Shareholder Litigation.

Duke Energy, the 11 members of the Board of Directors who were
also members of the pre-merger Board of Directors (Legacy Duke
Energy Directors) and certain Duke Energy officers are defendants
in a purported securities class action lawsuit (Nieman v. Duke
Energy Corporation, et al). This lawsuit consolidates three
lawsuits originally filed in July 2012, and is pending in the
United States District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina. The plaintiffs allege federal Securities Act and
Exchange Act claims based on allegations of materially false and
misleading representations and omissions in the Registration
Statement filed on July 7, 2011, and purportedly incorporated into
other documents, all in connection with the post-merger change in
Chief Executive Officer (CEO). On August 15, 2014, the parties
reached an agreement in principle to settle the litigation for an
amount which, net of the expected proceeds of insurance policies,
is not anticipated to have a material effect on the results of
operations, cash flows or financial position of Duke Energy. On
March 10, 2015, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement and
a Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement. The court
issued an order for preliminary approval of the settlement on
March 25, 2015. Notice has been sent to members of the class and a
final approval hearing is expected to occur in the second half of
2015.


EAGLEONE HOT: Faces Suit Under FLSA, Ark. Minimum Wage Act
----------------------------------------------------------
Sean Follis and Edward Franks, each individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Eagleone Hot Shot, Inc., Case
2:15-cv-02128-PKH (W.D. Ark., June 24, 2015), seeks to recover
monetary damages for all minimum wages owed and overtime under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

Eagleone Hot Shot is a private domestic, for-profit corporation,
contracting with oilfield service companies to deliver oilfield
equipment to and from customer locations nationwide with bases of
operation in Arkansas, Oklahoma, Ohio, West Virginia and Texas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Chris Burks, Esq.
     Josh Sanford, Esq.
     SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
     One Financial Center
     650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
     Little Rock, AK 72211
     Tel: (501) 221-0088
     Fax: (888) 787-2040


ENDOCYTE INC: Discovery in Securities Class Action Stayed
---------------------------------------------------------
Endocyte, 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 discovery in a
securities class action lawsuit is stayed pending resolution of a
motion to dismiss.

On June 24, 2014, a complaint in a securities class action lawsuit
was filed against the Company and one of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana under the following caption: Tony Nguyen, on
Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. Endocyte,
Inc. and P. Ron Ellis (the "Nguyen Litigation"). On July 13, 2014,
a nearly identical complaint in a securities class action lawsuit
was filed against the Company and one of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana under the following caption: Vivian Oh
Revocable Trust, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Endocyte, Inc. and P. Ron Ellis (the "Oh
Litigation"). On September 22, 2014, the court named a lead
plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff") and consolidated the Nguyen
Litigation and the Oh Litigation under the following caption:
Gopichand Vallabhaneni v. Endocyte, Inc. and P. Ron Ellis (the
"Vallabhaneni Litigation") . On November 17, 2014, Lead Plaintiff
filed a consolidated amended securities class action complaint
(the "Amended Complaint") against the Company, P. Ron Ellis, Beth
Taylor, Michael A. Sherman, John C. Aplin, Philip S. Low, Keith A.
Brauer, Ann F. Hanham, Marc Kozin, Peter D. Meldrum, Fred A.
Middleton, Lesley Russell (the "Individual Defendants" and
collectively with the Company, the "Endocyte Defendants"), and
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC and Citigroup Global Markets
Inc. (the "Underwriter Defendants"). Lead Plaintiff alleged, among
other things, that the Endocyte Defendants made false and
misleading statements relating to the efficacy of vintafolide and
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The
putative class related to these allegations consists of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities between March 21, 2014 and May 2, 2014. Lead Plaintiff
also alleged in the Amended Complaint that the Endocyte Defendants
and the Underwriter Defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), by,
among other things, making or allowing the Company to make false
and misleading statements regarding positive opinions about
vintafolide issued by the European Medicines Agency's Committee
for Medicinal Products for Human Use in the Company's Registration
Statement on Form S-3 filed on March 25, 2014, preliminary
prospectus filed on March 26, 2014, and final prospectus filed on
March 28, 2014. The putative class related to these allegations
consists of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's securities pursuant to or traceable to the Company's
April 2, 2014 public offering.

Lead Plaintiff seeks the designation of the Vallabhaneni
Litigation as a class action, an award of unspecified damages,
interest, costs, expert fees and attorneys' fees, and
equitable/injunctive relief or other relief as the court may deem
just and proper. Pursuant to a December 9, 2014 order, all
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on March 6, 2015. Lead
Plaintiff filed a motion in opposition on April 6, 2015 to which
Defendants replied on April 20, 2015. Discovery in this matter is
stayed pursuant to provisions of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act ("PSLRA") pending resolution of that motion to dismiss.
The Company believes that this lawsuit is without merit and has
defended, and intends to continue to defend, itself vigorously
against the allegations made in the Amended Complaint.


ENERNOC INC: Hearing to Approve Settlement Held
-----------------------------------------------
EnerNOC, 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 Delaware Chancery
Court scheduled a hearing to be held on June 30, 2015 to consider
whether to approve a class action settlement.

On May 3, 2013, a purported shareholder of the Company's, or the
plaintiff, filed a derivative and class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware, or the
Court, against certain of Company's officers and directors as well
as the Company as a nominal defendant, which the Company refers
collectively to as the defendants. The complaint asserted
derivative claims, purportedly brought on behalf of the Company,
for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and
unjust enrichment in connection with certain equity grants
(awarded in 2010, 2012, and 2013) that allegedly exceeded an
annual limit on per-employee equity grants purported to be
contained in the 2007 Plan. The complaint also asserted a direct
claim, brought on behalf of the plaintiff and a proposed class of
the Company's shareholders, alleging the Company's proxy statement
filed on April 26, 2013 was false and misleading because it failed
to disclose that the equity grants were improper. The plaintiff
sought, among other relief, rescission of the equity grants,
unspecified damages, injunctive relief, disgorgement, attorneys'
fees, and such other relief as the Court may deem proper.

On June 27, 2014, the parties engaged in mediation and reached
agreement in principle on the terms of a potential settlement. On
December 15, 2014, the Court held a fairness hearing and approved
the settlement, together with an award of attorneys' fees to
plaintiffs' counsel in the amount of $400, a portion of which was
covered by the Company's insurance. Pursuant to the settlement,
defendant members of the Company's Board of Directors agreed to
cause the Company's insurer to make a cash payment of $500 to the
Company, and to cause the Company to undertake certain reforms in
connection with equity granting practices. The cash payment of
$500 was received and recognized in January 2015.

On November 6, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company, World Energy, Wolf
Merger Sub Corporation, and members of the board of directors of
World Energy arising out of the merger between the Company and
World Energy. The lawsuit generally alleged that the members of
the board of directors of World Energy breached their fiduciary
duties to World Energy's stockholders by entering into the merger
agreement because they, among other things, failed to maximize
stockholder value and agreed to preclusive deal-protection terms.
The lawsuit also alleged that the Company and World Energy aided
and abetted the board of directors of World Energy in breaching
their fiduciary duties. The plaintiff sought to stop or delay the
acquisition of World Energy by the Company, or rescission of the
merger in the event it is consummated, and seeks monetary damages
in an unspecified amount to be determined at trial. The parties
engaged in settlement negotiations and on December 24, 2014,
without admitting, but expressly denying any liability on behalf
of the defendants, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) regarding a proposed settlement to resolve all
allegations. The MOU was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery
on December 24, 2014. Among other things, the MOU provides that,
in consideration for a release and the dismissal of the
litigation, World Energy would include additional disclosures in a
Form SC 14D9-A to be filed with the SEC no later than December 24,
2014. The MOU also provided that the litigation, including the
preliminary injunction hearing, be stayed.

The merger closed on January 5, 2015. On March 26, 2015, the
parties executed and filed with the Delaware Chancery Court a
formal stipulation of settlement. The Company has recognized an
obligation of $300 in connection with the settlement. The Delaware
Chancery Court has scheduled a hearing to be held on June 30, 2015
to consider whether to approve the settlement. There can be no
assurance that the stipulation of settlement will be finalized or
that the Delaware Court of Chancery will approve the settlement.


FACEBOOK INC: Vienna Court Tosses Privacy Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Baker, writing for The Register, reports that the Vienna
Regional Court has thrown out a case against Facebook brought by
Austrian Max Schrems, on procedural grounds.

Last August, Mr. Schrems filed the lawsuit containing a long list
of alleged violations of EU privacy laws with an Austrian court.
Using a specially-designed app, 25,000 FB users joined the class-
action suit.  A further 60,000 have also registered to join at a
later date.

Mr. Schrems accuses Facebook of illegally analyzing user data,
tracking users on third-party pages and participating in the US
National Security Agency spying program.  However, the court ruled
on July 1 that it has no jurisdiction in the matter.  Facebook had
argued that the proper place for litigation would be in Ireland or
California, where Facebook is headquartered.

The court further agreed with Facebook's claim that Mr. Schrems
could not be considered a "consumer" and had used his Facebook
page for professional reasons.  In November, the social media
monster had claimed its users were not fit to file a class action
against it.

Mr. Schrems has two weeks to appeal. A separate case involving
Schrems and Facebook is already before the European Court of
Justice.


FIRST ALERT: Court Tosses Class Suit Over Defective Smoke Alarms
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge on June 15
dismissed with prejudice a class action against First Alert smoke
alarms, for lack of standing.

The case is Cynthia Bird v. First Alert, Inc., et al., Case No.
4:14-cv-03585-PJH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


FIRST SECURITY: Two Shareholder Class Actions Filed Over Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
First Security Group, 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 two putative
shareholder class action lawsuits have been filed in connection
with the Merger.  Knutson v. First Security Group, Inc. et al.,
filed April 15, 2015 in the Chancery Court for Hamilton County,
Tennessee, names First Security, the members of its board of
directors, and Atlantic Capital as defendants.  Meade v. Kramer,
et al., filed in the Chancery Court for Hamilton County, Tennessee
on April 24, 2015, names First Security, the members of its board
of directors, FSGBank, N.A., Atlantic Capital and Atlantic Capital
Bank as defendants.  Each of these complaints alleges, among other
things, that the First Security directors breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the negotiation and approval of the
Merger Agreement and that the other named defendants aided and
abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  Among other
relief, the plaintiffs seek to enjoin the consummation of the
Merger.


FORD MOTOR: Seeks Dismissal of Sexual Harassment Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Pete, writing for NWI.com, reports that Ford has moved to
dismiss a class action sexual harassment lawsuit that has been
broadened to include 29 more women, including employees at the
Chicago Stamping Plant in Chicago Heights.

Thirty-three female employees total at local Ford plants now say
they were victims of unwanted touching, unwelcome sexual advances,
requests for sexual favors, male colleagues showing them pictures
of their genitals and attempted rape, in a federal lawsuit filed
in November.  They alleged coworkers displayed pictures of oral
sex and took sanitary napkins from women's bathrooms and set them
out for public view, and that female autoworkers have been
subjected to the same hostile work environment at Ford's Chicago
area plants since the 1980s.

Ford's legal team, which includes Eugene Scalia, the son of
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, is asking a federal judge to
dismiss the case on a wide range of legalistic grounds and
submitted 472 pages of documents to support their case.  Ford's
attorneys for instance say the claims of five of the defendants
should be dismissed because they failed to disclose their claims
against Ford as potential assets in bankruptcy proceedings.

"All state-law tort claims should be dismissed because: Ford
cannot be held vicariously liable for acts outside the scope of
managers' and supervisors' employment; the claims are preempted by
the Illinois Workers Compensation Act; and the intentional
infliction of emotional distress claims are preempted by the
Illinois Human Rights Act," Ford's attorneys wrote in a motion to
dismiss.

Four women at the Chicago Assembly Plant filed a lawsuit in
November alleging widespread abuse, including sexual propositions,
demands they stop reporting lewd remarks, groping and other forms
of harassment.  Ford had to pay $19.5 million to settle a similar
lawsuit by 14 female employees in 2000, which also resulted in a
hotline and other sexual harassment safeguards at the plant on
Torrance Avenue.

The Dearborn, Mich.-based automaker replaced top managers at the
Chicago Assembly Plant after the second lawsuit was filed last
year.  A Ford spokeswoman said the company strives for welcoming,
diverse workplaces.

The lawsuit that was filed in U.S. District Court of the Northern
District of Illinois said the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission alleged women at the plants had been discriminated
against because of gender and race.

Plaintiffs alleged that between 2012 and today they were subjected
to multiple forms of discrimination, including by being called
sexist names, touched inappropriately, and massaged without their
consent.  They said they were subjected to frequent sexual
innuendos, including references to female genitalia.

"Ford is a recidivist offender that has willfully ignored the
issues and evidence raised in prior litigation and EEOC filings
and has failed to take measures to eradicate known discrimination
and harassment from the workplace," the lawsuit stated.  "Ford
knowingly allowed sexual harassers, molesters, and sex offenders
to remain in the workplace and repeat heinous acts of sexual
harassment on Ford's female employees.  Ford engaged in a pattern
and practice of discrimination, harassment and retaliation."

Female autoworkers alleged they were written up or threatened with
being fired if they dared to complain.  They also said men were
routinely given personal days they hadn't earned and were paid for
overtime they didn't work, while women didn't enjoy such
privileges.

Ford's attorneys contend charges of retaliation should be
dismissed because being reassigned does not qualify as an adverse
employment action, that female autoworkers didn't prove they were
actually retaliated against, and that refusing sexual advances is
not legally considered opposition to discrimination under Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act.

Hunt & Associates, the Chicago law firm representing the female
autoworkers, has until August to file a response to the motion to
dismiss, and then the defense has until mid-September to respond
to the response.  A status hearing is set for November.


FORTINET INC: Faces Shareholder Suit Over Meru Networks Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Ashton, and all other public stockholders of Meru Networks,
Inc., v. Meru Networks, Inc., Bami Bastani, Barry Cox, Stephen
Domenik, John Kurtzweil, Sudhakar Ramakrishna, Fortinet, Inc., and
Malbrouck Acquisition Corp., Case No. 11117- (Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware, June 8, 2015), seeks injunctive and other
equitable relief for breaches of fiduciary duties arising out of
defendants' alleged failure to maximize stockholder value in
connection with the Proposed Merger of Meru Networks, Inc. and
Fortinet, Inc.

Fortinet offers global cyber security solutions.  Meru provides
802.11ac Wi-Fi solutions for users in the field of education,
healthcare, hospitality, and enterprise.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Tel: (302) 295-5310

         - and -

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Tel: (202) 524-4290


FOX SEARCHLIGHT: Unpaid Internship Case Remanded to Lower Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Noam Scheiber, writing for New York Times, reports that unpaid
interns can be used legally when the work serves an educational
purpose, a federal appeals court ruled on July 2, setting aside a
lower court decision that the movie studio Fox Searchlight
Pictures had improperly classified former workers as unpaid
interns rather than employees.

The decision, which sends the case back to the lower court, could
have broad ramifications for the way employers rely on unpaid
labor.  It erects large barriers to further class-action lawsuits
by unpaid interns against companies where they had worked.

Two of the plaintiffs, Eric Glatt and Alexander Footman, had done
work as unpaid interns connected to the movie "Black Swan" between
2009 and 2010, where their duties included copying documents,
maintaining takeout menus, assembling furniture, taking out trash,
and, in one case, procuring a nonallergenic pillow for the movie's
director, Darren Aronofsky.

In 2011, Messrs. Glatt and Footman filed a complaint in federal
court to receive compensation for their labor.  A third former Fox
intern, Eden Antalik, eventually joined them to pursue a class-
action claim.

In 2013, Judge William H. Pauley III of US District Court ruled
that Messrs. Glatt and Footman should have been classified as
employees, citing a set of six criteria put forth by the Labor
Department in 2010.  The criteria indicate that, in order to
qualify as an unpaid internship, the work must, among other
things, be similar to training offered in a school setting, be
performed for the benefit of the intern rather than the employer,
and not nudge aside that of existing employees.

Judge Pauley also approved Ms. Antalik's class-action claim.

The ruling led to a flood of claims by interns against the
companies for whom they had performed uncompensated work.  In the
years that followed, many large employers, among them NBCUniversal
and Viacom, settled claims for millions of dollars rather than
litigating them at length in court.

The appeals court vacated Judge Pauley's decision, arguing that he
had applied an incorrect standard for determining whether a worker
should be classified as an employee or an unpaid intern.

Writing for a three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of
Appeals, Judge John M. Walker Jr. held that the Labor Department's
criteria were out of date and not binding on federal courts.

He argued that the proper way to determine workers' status was to
apply a "primary beneficiary test" -- a concept proposed by Fox in
which the worker can be considered an employee only if the
employer benefits more from the relationship than the intern.  He
further argued that the test should hinge largely on the
internship's educational benefits.


GLACIER COUNTY, MT: May Face Class Suit Over Property Tax Issues
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristen Cates, writing for GreatFalls Tribune, reports that
taxpayers and government officials feel frustrated about Glacier
County Treasurer Mary Ann Boggs.  More than six months after
taking office, officials report Ms. Boggs and her office are
behind on processing financial reports, which impact other
government agencies and ultimately taxpayers.

"We're writing checks blindly," Cut Bank Schools Superintendent
Wade Johnson said.

Mr. Johnson said the school district sets a budget and is aware
that money is still coming in and bills on behalf of the district
are still being paid.  But it isn't getting its monthly accounting
reports from the treasurer's office, which ensures that what the
district is paying and budgeting for matches up with the finances
received.

When contacted by the Tribune on July 2, Ms. Boggs said she
couldn't provide an immediate answer on how much her office had
caught up on its financial reports.  She told the Tribune that
there are "two sides to every story" but declined to comment
further.

"We are super, super busy right now," she said.

Scott Laird, business manager for the school district, said
typically the district will receive and review its previous
month's financial report by the 20th day of the next month.  But
the district just finished up its fiscal year and only has
accounting reports from the treasurer's office through March.

"We need to know our money is there," Mr. Laird said.  "We can't
get our budget put together."

Additionally, homeowners trying to pay their tax bills are facing
challenges.  Angela Haas reported that her family's mortgage
company attempted to pay their property tax bill only to be told
by the treasurer's office there wasn't an amount due on their
account, so the money was refunded to the Haas.  She then pulled
up her tax bill online and it showed she was facing penalty and
interest for not paying the bill.

"One of my co-workers is experiencing the same thing," Ms. Haas
wrote on her Facebook page.  "Glacier County Residents beware."

The Cut Bank Pioneer Press reported at the end of June that
Ms. Boggs informed Glacier County residents that a program error
in the tax management software was to blame and her office was
working to fix the problem.

The problems in the treasurer's office have prompted Glacier
County commissioners to get involved, even though they have no
direct oversight of an elected official.  The county previously
contracted with Kate Salois to help Ms. Boggs' office catch up on
reports and finances.  The Cut Bank Pioneer Press has previously
reported that Ms. Salois was paid about $23,500 for her work from
February through early June.

Glacier County Attorney Carolyn Berkram declined to say whether
she believed Boggs and the Glacier County treasurer's office had
violated Montana Code Annotated guidelines and could face any sort
of legal ramifications.

"My job is to give (the county) good, sound legal advice,"
Ms. Berkram said.

Glacier County has now contracted with Denning, Downing and
Associates -- an accounting firm out of Kalispell -- to assist
with the treasurer's office.  The contract states that the
accounting firm will act in an advisory capacity only.
Commissioners agreed to pay $205 per hour for the firm's work and
that they hoped to be done by the end of July.

"Our best estimate is that this project will take approximately
400 hours," the letter from Denning, Downing and Associates reads,
meaning their work could cost upward of $80,000.

Residents like Elaine Mitchell are fed up.  Ms. Mitchell recently
paid her property tax bill, but did so under protest, which means
the treasurer's office can't use her property tax funds to pay
bills until issues are resolved.  She is also planning to file a
class action lawsuit based on this latest issue and what has been
months in the making.

"The whole operation is very nonchalant," Ms. Mitchell said.

For her, the concerns started back in November, when tax bills
were going out and Glacier County had yet to adopt a budget.
Ms. Boggs hadn't been elected at that point. Mitchell said the
county didn't adopted its current fiscal year budget until
January, when the fiscal year began in July 2014.

Since then she's been frustrated with Ms. Boggs' lack of response
to her inquiries as well as the Glacier County commissioners.
Ms. Mitchell said she believes the treasurer's office is violating
state law when it comes to filing timely reports.  It's part of
the claim she's made in her protested taxes and will be part of
the suit she intends to file when she can find out exactly how
many other taxpayers are paying bills under protest.

"If they aren't properly handling (money) then we don't want to
immediately give them more to spend," Ms. Mitchell said.


GOLD RESOURCE: Time to Appeal in Securities Action Expired
----------------------------------------------------------
Gold Resource 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 the time period for
further appeal or rehearing in a class action lawsuit has expired.

The Company said, "A securities class action lawsuit subsequently
captioned In re Gold Resource Corporation. Securities Litigation,
No.1:12-cv-02832 was filed in U.S. District Court for the District
of Colorado naming us and certain of our current and former
officers and directors as defendants on October 25, 2012. The
complaint alleged violations of federal securities laws by us and
certain of our officers and directors. On July 15, 2013, the
federal district court granted our motion to dismiss the lawsuit
with prejudice. On January 16, 2015, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed the District Court's
decision. The time period for further appeal or rehearing has
expired and the Company considers this matter finally resolved in
its favor."


HCC INSURANCE: Being Sold for Too Little to Tokio, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that directors are selling HCC
Insurance Holdings too cheaply through an unfair process to Tokio
Marine Holdings, for $78 a share or $7.5 billion, shareholders
claim in Delaware Chancery Court.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Court Tosses Suit Over Autonomy Botched Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Without leave to amend, a federal judge dismissed an employees'
class action over Hewlett-Packard's botched $11.1 billion
acquisition of English software company Autonomy Plc, reports
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer rejected employees' claims that
"new information" from two Financial Times reports and the U.S.
Supreme Court ruling in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer
justified reviving the case, which he first dismissed in April
2014.

Hewlett-Packard wrote off $8.8 billion in losses after the widely
reported merger fiasco.

"This is already the second amended complaint, and the court sees
no compelling representation that changed facts or circumstances
warrant another amendment," Breyer wrote in dismissing the case
June 16.  "Rather, it is clear by this point in the extensive life
of this case that the SAC's shortcomings are inherent legal ones,
not curable omissions of facts or inartful pleading that could be
saved by amendment."

Lead plaintiff Mike Laffen, representing a class of HP 401k plan
participants, sued HP in December 2012 under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act.  He claimed investment managers
and HP executives breached their fiduciary duties by failing to
disclose information about the Autonomy acquisition.

The first amended complaint of June 2013 claimed that those
entrusted with investing money from the Employee Stock Ownership
Plan (ESOP) should have suspended investment in HP in light of the
company's troubles and its freefalling share price.

Breyer dismissed the first amended complaint on April 2, 2014,
saying HP had an obligation to keep investing the funds, citing
the Moench presumption of prudence.  In Moench v. Robertson, the
Third Circuit addressed "to what extent" fiduciaries are liable
for ESOPs under ERISA.

"The court concluded that only 'in limited circumstances' ESOP
fiduciaries can be liable under ERISA for continuing to invest in
employer stock according to the plan's direction," Breyer wrote.
"Thus, when an employee benefit plan requires or encourages
investment in employer's stock, plan fiduciaries are entitled to a
strong presumption that they satisfied ERISA's prudence mandate by
permitting plan participants to invest in their employer's stock."

On June 16, Breyer dismissed the case for good.

"The 'new facts' from the FT articles show nothing more than that
HP knew around the time of the acquisition that Autonomy sold
hardware and used value-added resellers -- not that Autonomy
engaged in fraud in its accounting or use of these practices,"
Breyer wrote.  "At most, the FT articles insinuate that there was
no Autonomy fraud at all -- rather, that HP was mistaken in its
valuation of Autonomy and botched the integration, and in
hindsight seeks to shift the blame for its own incompetence."

He continued: "Ultimately, the SAC fails to state a claim that HP
was imprudent under 'circumstances prevailing at the time' [that]
HP acted."

The second amended complaint also argued that the ruling in Fifth
Third made the Moench presumption of prudence short-lived because
the Supreme Court ruling, made shortly after Breyer's dismissal of
the first amended complaint, makes ESOP fiduciaries subject to the
same duty of prudence that applies under ERISA.

But Breyer said that even under ERISA, HP had the right and the
"duty" to investigate before making any moves affecting employee
401k plans.

"HP conducted three investigations in the process of integrating
Autonomy and the commissioned the PwC [Pricewaterhouse Coopers]
investigation of the fraud allegations after Whistleblower No. 4
came forward," he said.  "HP should have, and was entitled to,
investigate and none of the allegations in the SAC plausibly plead
otherwise.  Because the content of the duty of prudence turns on
'the circumstances . . . prevailing' at the time the fiduciary
acts, the appropriate inquiry will necessarily be context
specific."

Breyer said a third amended complaint would be of no avail.

"Plaintiffs' 'repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments
previously allowed' is a symptom of the SAC's deeper malaise --
that the actions it sets forth are simply not actionable under
Fifth Third and ERISA," Breyer wrote.  "Any further amendment
would be futile, and the court hereby dismisses without leave to
amend."

Breyer noted that HP stock made an energetic recovery only days
after the Nov. 19, 2012 disclosure that it would make the $8.8
billion write-down for the Autonomy purchase.

"Specifically, HP's stock price fell from $13.30 to $11.71, only
to bounce back within nine trading days and not close below that
level since -- indeed, HP's stock price has nearly tripled since
Nov. 19, 2012."

The case is In re HP ERISA Litigation, Case No. 3:12-cv-06199-CRB,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.


HRG GROUP: Implementation of Settlement to Commence August 10
-------------------------------------------------------------
HRG Group, 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 implementation of the
settlement in a class action lawsuit will commence on or about
August 10, 2015.

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

On April 4, 2014, the Plaintiff, FGL Insurance and the other two
defendants signed a Settlement Agreement, pursuant to which FGL
Insurance has agreed to pay a total of $5.3 to settle the claims
of a nationwide class consisting, with certain exclusions, of all
persons who own or owned an OM Financial/FGL Insurance indexed
universal life insurance policy issued from January 1, 2007
through March 31, 2014, inclusive. As part of the settlement, FGL
Insurance agreed to certification of the nationwide class for
settlement purposes only. An Amended Settlement Agreement was
filed with the Court on June 5, 2014.

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


HRG GROUP: To Defend Against "Ludwick" Class Action in Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------------
HRG Group, 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 January 7, 2015, a
putative class action complaint was filed in the United States
District Court, Western District of Missouri, captioned Dale R.
Ludwick, on behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated v.
Harbinger Group Inc., Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance Company,
Raven Reinsurance Company, and Front Street Re (Cayman) Ltd.
("Ludwick"). The complaint asserts claims of violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and
injunctive and declaratory relief. The complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages in an amount not presently determinable,
treble damages, and injunctive relief, among other forms of
relief.

As of March 31, 2015, the Company did not have sufficient
information to determine that the Company is exposed to any losses
that would be either probable or reasonably estimable beyond an
expense contingency estimate of $0.9, which was accrued during the
three months ended March 31, 2015. The Company believes it has
meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend the
litigation.


ILLINOIS: Prison Director Sued Over "Extreme" Jail Punishment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Coleman, Aaron Fillmore, Jerome Jones, individually and on
behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, v. Gladyse C.
Taylor, Acting Director of the Illinois Department of Corrections,
Case: 1:15-cv-05596 (N.D., Ill., June 24, 2015), seeks to
represent a class consisting of all prisoners who are subjected to
alleged harmful punitive isolation sentences and who are or who
will be confined in Illinois' prisons.

Gladyse C. Taylor is the Acting Director of the Illinois
Department of Corrections and is being sued in her official
capacity for declaratory and injunctive relief.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Kimball R. Anderson, Esq.
     Alyssa E. Ramirez, Esq.
     Joanna F. Cornwell, Esq.
     WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
     35 W. Wacker Drive
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Tel: 312-558-5600
     Fax: 312-558-5700
     E-mail: kanderson@winston.com
             aramirez@winston.com
             jcornwell@winston.com

        - and -

     Alan S. Mills, Esq.
     UPTOWN PEOPLE'S LAW CENTER
     4413 North Sheridan Road
     Chicago, IL 60640
     Tel: 773-769-1411
     Fax: 773-769-2224
     E-mail: alanmills@comcast.net


INSULET CORP: Accused by Shareholder of Issuing False Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Insulet Corp., which makes
diabetes infusion devices, inflated its share price with false and
misleading statements and it fell from $44.53 in January to $26.97
in April, a teachers pension plan claims in Massachusetts Federal
Court.


INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: To Seek Dismissal of Hamilton Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Electrical Services, Inc. has filed responsive
pleadings and, following initial discovery, is positioning to
obtain a dismissal of all claims in the Hamilton Wage and Hour
case, 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 is a defendant in three wage-and-hour suits seeking
class action certification that were filed between August 29, 2012
and June 24, 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas. Each of these cases is among several others
filed by Plaintiffs' attorney against contractors working in the
Port Arthur, Texas Motiva plant on various projects over the last
few years. The claims are based on alleged failure to compensate
for time spent bussing to and from the plant, donning safety wear
and other activities. Management does not expect the Company will
face significant exposure for any unpaid wages.

In a separate earlier case based on the same allegations, a
federal district court ruled that the time spent traveling on the
busses is not compensable. On January 11, 2013, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the district court's ruling
finding no liability for wages for time spent bussing into the
facility, and on October 8, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court declined
to review plaintiffs' appeal of the Fifth Circuit dismissal of
their claims for compensation for time spent bussing to the
facility, effectively reducing the Company's risk of liability on
this issue in its cases.

"Our investigation indicates that all claims for time spent on
other activities either were inapplicable to the Company's
employees or took place during times for which the Company's
employees were compensated. We have filed responsive pleadings
and, following initial discovery, are positioning the cases to
obtain a dismissal of all claims. As of March 31, 2015, we have
not recorded a reserve for this matter, as we believe the
likelihood of our responsibility for damages is not probable and a
potential range of exposure is not estimable," the Company said.


INTEL CORP: Faces Litigation by Altera Corp. Shareholders
---------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Sciabucchi, Individually and on behalf all stockholders of
Altera Corporation, v. John P. Daane, A. Blaine Bowman, Elish W.
Finney, Kevin McGarity, T. Michael Nevens, Krish A. Prabhu, Shane
V. Robison, John Shoemaker, Thomas H. Waechter, Intel Corporation,
and 615 Corporation, Case No. 11108- (Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware, June 5, 2015), seeks injunctive relief in
connection with Intel Corporation's pending offer to acquire
Altera.

Intel designs and manufactures digital technology platforms, which
consist of a microprocessor and a chipset that may be enhanced
with additional hardware, software, and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
      Craig J. Springer, Esq.
      ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC
      3801 Kennett Pike
      Building C, Suite 305
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Tel: (302) 504-4957
      Fax: (302) 397-2681

      Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
      Kevin G. Cooper, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 545-4600
      Fax: (212) 545-4653

      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RYAN & MANISKAS LLP
      995 Old Eagle School Rd., Suite 311
      Wayne PA 19087
      Tel: (484)-588-5516
      Fax: (484)450-2582


IXIA: Securities Class Action Stayed Until July 31
--------------------------------------------------
Ixia 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 court has issued an order staying the
securities class action until July 31, 2015, pending the outcome
of a mediation scheduled for July 23, 2015 to explore a possible
settlement.

The Company said, "On November 14, 2013, a purported securities
class action complaint captioned Felix Santore v. Ixia, Victor
Alston, Atul Bhatnagar, Thomas B. Miller, and Errol Ginsberg was
filed against us and certain of our current and former officers
and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California. The lawsuit purports to be a class action brought
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities during the
period from April 10, 2010 through October 14, 2013. The initial
complaint alleged that the defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), by making
materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's recognition of revenues related to its warranty and
software maintenance contracts and the academic credentials and
employment history of the Company's former President and Chief
Executive Officer, Victor Alston."

The complaint also alleged that the defendants made false and
misleading statements, and failed to make certain disclosures,
regarding the Company's business, operations and prospects,
including regarding the financial statements and internal
financial controls that were the subject of the Company's April
2013 restatement of certain of its prior period financial
statements. The complaint further alleged that the Company lacked
adequate internal financial controls and issued materially false
and misleading financial statements for the fiscal years ended
December 31, 2010 and 2011, and the fiscal quarters ended March
31, 2011, June 30, 2011, September 30, 2011, March 31, 2012, June
30, 2012 and September 30, 2012. The complaint, which purported to
assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, sought, on
behalf of the purported class, an unspecified amount of monetary
damages, interest, fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and
other relief.

On March 24, 2014, following a proceeding to select a lead
plaintiff in the matter, the court issued an order appointing
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System and Oklahoma Law
Enforcement Retirement System (the "Oklahoma Group") as lead
plaintiffs.

On June 11, 2014, the Oklahoma Group filed a first amended
complaint, which asserted claims against the same defendants under
the same legal theories set forth in the initial complaint. The
first amended complaint also contained allegations that certain of
the individual defendants increased their trading in the Company's
stock during February, March, April and May of 2011 and during
February and March of 2013, and that the defendants sought to
inflate the Company's reported deferred revenues during the period
of February 4, 2011 through April 3, 2013.

On July 18, 2014, all named defendants moved to dismiss the first
amended complaint for failure to state a claim under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and the Private Securities Law Reform Act
of 1995 ("PSLRA"). After briefing and a hearing on October 6,
2014, the court issued an order dismissing the first amended
complaint in its entirety without prejudice. The court gave the
Oklahoma Group 30 days in which to file an amended complaint.

On November 5, 2014, the Oklahoma Group filed a second amended
complaint. On January 6, 2015, the named defendants moved to
dismiss the second amended complaint. After briefing and a hearing
on April 13, 2015, the court issued an order dismissing the second
amended complaint in its entirety without prejudice. The court
gave the Oklahoma Group 30 days in which to file an amended
complaint.

On April 24, 2015, the court issued an order staying the class
action until July 31, 2015, pending the outcome of a mediation
scheduled for July 23, 2015 to explore a possible settlement.

Although the Company denies the material allegations of the
amended complaint and intends to vigorously pursue its defenses,
we are in the very early stages of this litigation, and are unable
to predict the outcome of the case or to estimate the amount of or
potential range of loss with respect to this case. Accordingly, no
liability has been accrued in the financial statements related to
this matter. However, the ultimate disposition of the case could
have a material adverse impact on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Accord in Wage & Hour Case Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kindred Healthcare, 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 final court approval
of the wage and hour class action settlement was entered on April
2, 2015.

Four wage and hour class action lawsuits are currently pending
against the Company in federal district court for the Central
District of California, and are being addressed together by the
court. Each case pertains to alleged errors made by the Company
with respect to regular pay and overtime pay calculations, waiting
times, meal period waivers and wage statements under California
law. The Company tentatively settled these lawsuits in June 2014,
subject to finalizing settlement details.  Preliminary court
approval was obtained in September 2014, and final court approval
of the class action settlement was entered on April 2, 2015. The
Company had previously recorded a $16.6 million loss provision
related to this lawsuit.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: 175 Lawsuits Pending in Federal District Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kindred Healthcare, 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 as a result of the
decertification of a wage and hour class action lawsuit
(Rindfleisch v. Gentiva), single-plaintiff lawsuits with identical
claims have been filed against the Company. Including Rindfleisch,
which has five plaintiffs, there are 175 lawsuits pending in
federal district court for the Northern District of Georgia and
assigned to various judges. These lawsuits pertain to a
compensation plan that paid Gentiva's home health employees on
both a per visit and an hourly basis, thereby allegedly voiding
their FLSA exempt status and entitling them to overtime pay.  The
plaintiffs in these lawsuits are seeking attorneys' fees and
costs, back wages and liquidated damages going back three years
from the filings of the complaints under the FLSA. No estimate of
the possible loss or range of loss resulting from these lawsuits
can be made at this time. The Company disputes the allegations
made in these lawsuits and will defend any related claims
vigorously.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Shareholder Action Pending v. Gentiva D&O
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kindred Healthcare, 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 consolidated
shareholder class action lawsuit is currently pending against a
former officer and director of Gentiva in federal district court
for the Eastern District of New York. The lawsuit asserts claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), as well as Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities
Act"), and alleges, among other items, that Gentiva's public
disclosures misrepresented and failed to disclose that Gentiva
improperly increased the number of in-home therapy visits to
patients for the purposes of triggering higher reimbursement rates
under Medicare, which caused an artificial inflation in the price
of Gentiva Common Stock between July 31, 2008 and October 4, 2011.
The court dismissed Gentiva from the lawsuit in December 2013. On
December 10, 2014, the former officer and director of Gentiva
reached an agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit for $6.5
million, to be funded in its entirety by insurance. The settlement
remains subject to the completion of definitive settlement
documentation, notice to the putative class and approval by the
court.


KNIGHTS INSPECTION: Faces Suit Seeking OT Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
Rene Acosta, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. Knights Inspection Services, LLC, Case 4:15-cv-01765
(S.D. Tex., June 22, 2015), seeks unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees, costs and
expenses, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Knights Inspection is an inspection company in the Oil and Gas
Field.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James W. Hryekewicz, Esq.
     BLAIES & HIGHTOWER, L.L.P.
     421 W. 3rd Street, Suite 900
     Fort Worth, TX 76102
     Tel: 817-334-0800
     Fax: 817-334-0574


LAS VEGAS SANDS: Court Allows Shareholders to Expand Class Period
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge on June 15 allowed shareholders to expand a class
action accusing Las Vegas Sands owner Sheldon Adelson of lying to
them and defrauding them, reports Mike Heuer at Courthouse News
Service.

U.S. District Judge Andrew Gordon granted a motion to expand a
class action accusing Las Vegas Sands Corp., owner and CEO Sheldon
Adelson and COO William P. Wiedner of lying to investors to
prevent a likely bankruptcy during the Great Recession.

Frank J. Fosbre Jr. filed a 122-page amended class action in 2010
accusing the defendants of violating the U.S. Exchange Act by
using "devices, schemes, and artifices to defraud," omitting
information and making "untrue statements" to commit "fraud and
deceit upon purchaser of the company's common stock."

Fosbre originally requested that the class include all people who
bought Las Vegas Sands shares from Aug. 2, 2007 through Nov. 5,
2008.  He claimed Sands officials, including Adelson and Weidner,
"made false and misleading public statements about its development
plans, liquidity and equity offerings."

Adelson challenged the class certification, saying it should
include only people who actually suffered losses and bought shares
from Feb. 4, 2008 through Nov. 6, 2008, because that was when the
alleged misrepresentations took place.

Fosbre agreed to limit the class to those who suffered actual
losses, and Gordon dismissed the earlier class period of Aug. 2,
2007 through Feb. 3, 2008, due to Fosbre insufficient pleading,
but was given leave to amend the complaint.

In the amended complaint, Fosbre claimed he sufficiently argued
damages for those who bought shares from Aug. 2, 2007 through Feb.
3, 2008, and filed a motion to expand the class period.

Adelson countered by asking Gordon to decertify the entire class
and questioned whether it was possible to calculate damages
consistently on a class-wide basis.

Gordon ruled June 15 that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Comcast
Corp. v. Behrend, (133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013)) does not "require a
method to determine damages on a class-wide basis as a
prerequisite" and that a "long-standing rule" states that
individual "damage calculations alone cannot defeat" class
certification.

Gordon weighed whether there were "common questions capable of
class-wide resolution."  Those common questions involve whether
Adelson and Las Vegas Sands made material misrepresentations or
omitted information that led to class members buying shares in Las
Vegas Sands and suffer losses.

The price of a publicly traded stock reflects "all public,
material information -- including material misstatements" and
anyone who buys or sells stock at that price is considered to have
relied on that information and misstatements, Gordon wrote.

In arguing for class certification, Fosbre submitted information
provided by Steven P. Feinstein, a chartered financial analyst,
professor of finance at Babson College, founder and president of
Crowninshield Financial Research, and has a Ph.D. in economics
from Yale.

Feinstein said Las Vegas Sands stock traded for $85.68 per share
at the close of trading on Aug. 1, 2007, and dropped to $7.58 per
share on Nov. 6, 2008 -- a decline of 90.8 percent.

Las Vegas Sands' market capitalization also dropped by 90.8
percent, from $30.41 billion to $2.79 billion during the same
period, Feinstein said.

Although Las Vegas Sands lost a great deal of capital, Fosbre
said, Adelson claimed the company did not need to raise funds,
though it could have gone bankrupt but for the sale of 200 million
new shares of common stock and 10.4 million shares of preferred
stock that generated more than $2 billion in capital.

Fosbre also said in the amended complaint that Las Vegas Sands and
Adelson "continued to misrepresent the company's ability to fund
its projects and the cost of those projects" and by the third
quarter of 2008 was violating U.S. loan agreements and would be
violating loan agreements for its Macau operations by 2009.

Those projects included development of casinos and other
properties in Singapore, Macau and Las Vegas.

When Las Vegas Sands could not get permission from officials in
Macau to sell apartments on the Cotai Strip, Fosbre says, Adelson
"plotted and schemed to obtain illegal and improper leverage over
Macao government officials in an effort to force them to allow the
sale."

In light of the misrepresentation claims in the amended complaint,
Gordon granted Fosbre's motion to expand the class action to those
who bought Las Vegas Sands shares from Aug. 2, 2007, through
Nov. 5, 2008. He denied a motion by Las Vegas Sands for oral
argument regarding the class certification period.

Officials for Las Vegas Sands were not available for comment
June 16.

The case is Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. v. Las Vegas Sands Corporation,
Sheldon G. Adelson, and William P. Wiedner, Case No. 2:10-cv-
00765-APG-GWF, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada.


LE MINOTENN: Faces Suit for Unpaid Overtime Work Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Useche, and other similarly-situated individuals v. Le
Minotenn, LLC d/b/a Il Bolognese Stefano Frittella and, Manuel
Matei iCase 1:15-cv-22411-JEM(S.D. Fla., June 28, 2014), seeks to
recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Il Bolognese is a traditional Italian restaurant located at Miami
Beach, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LIQUIDITY SERVICES: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------
Liquidity Services, 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 moved
to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim or
plead fraud with the requisite particularity.

On July 14, 2014, Leonard Howard filed a putative class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia against the Company and its chief executive officer,
chief financial officer, and chief accounting officer, on behalf
of shareholders who purchased the Company's common stock between
February 1, 2012 and May 7, 2014.  The complaint alleges that
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by, among other things, misrepresenting the
Company's growth initiative, growth potential, and financial and
operating conditions, thereby artificially inflating its share
price, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and costs and
expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees.  On October 14,
2014, the Court appointed Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec
and the Newport News Employees' Retirement Fund as co-lead
plaintiffs.  The Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December
15, 2014 which alleges substantially similar claims but does not
name the chief accounting officer as a defendant.   The Company
believes the allegations are without merit and on March 2, 2015,
moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a
claim or plead fraud with the requisite particularity.  The
Company cannot estimate a range of a potential liability, if any,
at this time.


LYFT INC: California Suit Challenges $1.50 Trust and Safety Fee
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reni Anguelova, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
a class action claims that Lyft charges customers a deceptive and
fraudulent "trust and safety fee" of $1.50.

The San Diego Consumers' Action Network sued Lyft on June 12 in
California Superior Court.  It claims that Lyft will make $130
million from the fee this year, based on the company's own
figures.  It began charging $1 for "trust and safety" in April
2014, then increased it to $1.50 in October, according to the
complaint.

The class claims the fee is deceptive, as Lyft's background checks
of drivers do not include fingerprints scans, so it cannot
determine whether drivers have been convicted of violent crimes,
sexual crimes or other felonies, nor even whether the background
check it does provide is for the person applying to be a driver.
Nor is money from the trust and safety fee used to inspect
drivers' vehicles, or train them, nor does Lyft require its
drivers to taken "any type of substantial driver safety education
program," the complaint states.

Lyft spokeswoman Chelsea Wilson told Courthouse News: "The lawsuit
is without merit and we look forward to resolving it quickly and
effectively."

The plaintiffs, who include a San Diego resident who says she has
paid the fee 13 times, seek class certification, restitution, and
damages for unfair competition, deceptive trade, and business and
consumer law violations.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Alan Mansfield, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW GROUP OF CALIFORNIA
          10200 Willow Creek Road, Suite 160
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: (619) 308-5034
          Facsimile: (888) 341-5048
          E-mail: alan@clgca.com


MARRIOTT INT'L: Sued for Making Housekeepers Use Unsafe Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Ryan at Courthouse News Service reports that a class action
claims Marriott International makes its housekeepers use hazardous
chemicals, denies the chemicals are hazardous at all, and
threatens to fire them if they complain about it.

In addition to threatening to fire anyone who complains about the
chemicals, Marriott forced its cleaning crew, many of whom do not
speak English, to sign documents in English they do not
understand, the class claims in Superior Court.

Lead plaintiff Rosa Arias says in the June 15 lawsuit that she
began working for Marriott in 2003.  She says Marriott never
provided her or her coworkers with any warning that the chemicals
they to clean bathrooms and hotel rooms are hazardous, nor any
training in how to use them.

The chemicals irritated her eyes and throat so badly she sought
medical treatment.  She says she was diagnosed with "heart or
respiratory complications" and requested and received four months
of leave from Marriott.

The complaint lists seven dangerous housekeepers must use, four of
which come with warnings to wear protective clothing such as a
respirator, glasses or both, and one of warns users to wash any
clothing the chemical comes in contact before wearing it again.

"Each time after plaintiff and class members used the
aforementioned chemicals, they immediately felt physical
discomfort in berating [sic: recte breathing] and eye irritation,"
the complaint states.

Arias was fired on May 15, the day before she was to return to
work.  She was fired 15 days after she gave a deposition in
another lawsuit against Marriott, cited in the present complaint.
Among other things, Arias testified that the hotel disguised the
hazardous chemicals by forcing employees to transfer them into
bottles without warning labels.

"As time progressed, plaintiff experienced increased problems
berthing [sic], congestion in her chest and severe irritation in
her eyes and throat," the complaint states.

When employees complained of irritation from the chemicals, hotel
management made them sign liability waivers or be fired, Arias
says: "Specifically, plaintiff and the class members were told
they had no legal rights."

Marriott did not respond to a request for comment.

Arias seeks class certification and damages for breach of
contract, negligent and fraudulent concealment, racial
discrimination, wrongful firing, breach of faith, civil rights
violations, intentional infliction of physical and mental
distress, and labor violations.  They also seek an injunction
ordering Marriott to provide its cleaning staff with proper
protective and monitoring equipment for working with hazardous
chemicals, labels in any language its employees speak, and
physical examinations for employees who work with the chemicals.

Statutory damages of $10,000 per day for violating federal law on
hazardous workplace chemicals comes to $43.8 million for violating
Arias's rights alone, according to the complaint.

Arias is represented by Harry T. Spikes Sr., Esq., in Washington,
DC.


METLIFE INC: To Defend Against Westland Police Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife,
Inc. common shares between February 2, 2010, and October 6, 2011,
the plaintiff in the case, City of Westland Police and Fire
Retirement System v. MetLife, Inc., et. al. (S.D.N.Y., filed
January 12, 2012), filed a second amended complaint alleging that
MetLife, Inc. and several current and former executive officers of
MetLife, Inc. violated the Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities
Act"), as well as the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc.
to issue, materially false and misleading statements concerning
MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in
insurance benefits that should have been paid to beneficiaries or
escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief. The defendants intend to defend this
action vigorously, MetLife 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.


METLIFE INC: Bid to Remand Birmingham Retirement Case Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 fedral court granted
plaintiff's motion to remand the action to state court, City of
Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v. MetLife, Inc., et al.
(Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama, filed July 5, 2012).

Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife,
Inc. common equity units in or traceable to a public offering in
March 2011, the plaintiff filed an action alleging that MetLife,
Inc., certain current and former directors and executive officers
of MetLife, Inc., and various underwriters violated several
provisions of the Securities Act related to the filing of the
registration statement by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to
issue, materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions
concerning MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of
dollars in insurance benefits that should have been paid to
beneficiaries or escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. On March 31,
2015, a federal court granted plaintiff's motion to remand this
action to state court. The defendants intend to defend this action
vigorously.


METLIFE INC: Plaintiffs in TCA Litigation Appealed Decision
-----------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 Plaintiffs in the
Total Control Accounts Litigation have appealed a decision to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Keife, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev.,
filed in state court on July 30, 2010 and removed to federal court
on September 7, 2010); and Simon v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company (D. Nev., filed November 3, 2011)

MLIC is a defendant in lawsuits related to its use of retained
asset accounts, known as TCA, as a settlement option for death
benefits.  These putative class action lawsuits, which have been
consolidated, raise breach of contract claims arising from MLIC's
use of the TCA to pay life insurance benefits under the Federal
Employees' Group Life Insurance program. On March 8, 2013, the
court granted MLIC's motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs have
appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.


METLIFE INC: Court Denied Motion to Dismiss "Owens" Action
----------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 court has denied
MLIC's motion to dismiss the complaint, Owens v. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company (N.D. Ga., filed April 17, 2014).

This putative class action lawsuit alleges that MLIC's use of the
TCA as the settlement option for life insurance benefits under
some group life insurance policies violates MLIC's fiduciary
duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA"). As damages, plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits
that MLIC realized on accounts owned by members of the putative
class. The court denied MLIC's motion to dismiss the complaint.
The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.


METLIFE INC: To Defend Against "Robainas" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc., intends to defend vigorously the case, Robainas, et
al. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014),
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.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all persons and entities who, directly or
indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums on life insurance
policies issued by MLIC from 2009 through 2014 (the "Policies").
Two similar actions were subsequently filed, Yale v. Metropolitan
Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., January 12, 2015) and International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District Lodge 15
v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (E.D.N.Y., February 2, 2015). Both
of these actions have been consolidated with the Robainas action.
The consolidated complaint alleges that MLIC inadequately
disclosed in its statutory annual statements that certain
reinsurance transactions with affiliated reinsurance companies
were collateralized using "contractual parental guarantees," and
thereby allegedly misrepresented its financial condition and the
adequacy of its reserves. The lawsuit seeks recovery under Section
4226 of the New York Insurance Law of a statutory penalty in the
amount of the premiums paid for the Policies. MetLife intends to
defend this action vigorously.


METLIFE INC: Facing "Intoccia" and "Weilert" Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
According to its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2015, MetLife, Inc. is defending against these lawsuits:

     -- Intoccia v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., April
20, 2015); and

     -- Weilert v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., April 30,
2015)

Plaintiffs filed these putative class actions on behalf of
themselves and all persons and entities who, directly or
indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums for Guaranteed
Benefits Insurance Riders attached to variable annuity contracts
with MLIC from 2009 through 2015 (the "Annuities"). The complaints
allege that MLIC inadequately disclosed in its statutory annual
statements that certain reinsurance transactions with affiliated
reinsurance companies were collateralized using "contractual
parental guarantees," and thereby allegedly misrepresented its
financial condition and the adequacy of its reserves. The lawsuits
seek recovery under Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law of
a statutory penalty in the amount of the premiums paid for
Guaranteed Benefits Insurance Riders attached to the Annuities.
MetLife intends to defend these actions vigorously.


METLIFE INC: Facing Sun Life Canada Indemnity Claim
---------------------------------------------------
Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada is the subject of class
action lawsuits over its sales practices and it has alleged that
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. is required to indemnify it from those
claims, MetLife, Inc. said in a Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

In 2006, Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada ("Sun Life"), as
successor to the purchaser of MLIC's Canadian operations, filed a
lawsuit in Toronto, seeking a declaration that MLIC remains liable
for "market conduct claims" related to certain individual life
insurance policies sold by MLIC and that were transferred to Sun
Life. Sun Life had asked that the court require MLIC to indemnify
Sun Life for these claims pursuant to indemnity provisions in the
sale agreement for the sale of MLIC's Canadian operations entered
into in June of 1998.

In January 2010, the court found that Sun Life had given timely
notice of its claim for indemnification but, because it found that
Sun Life had not yet incurred an indemnifiable loss, granted
MLIC's motion for summary judgment. Both parties appealed but
subsequently agreed to withdraw the appeal and consider the
indemnity claim through arbitration.

In September 2010, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class
action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Toronto, Fehr v. Sun
Life Assurance Co. (Super. Ct., Ontario, September 2010), alleging
sales practices claims regarding the same individual policies sold
by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life. An amended class action
complaint in that case was served on Sun Life in May 2013, again
without naming MLIC as a party.

On August 30, 2011, Sun Life notified MLIC that a purported class
action lawsuit was filed against Sun Life in Vancouver, Alamwala
v. Sun Life Assurance Co. (Sup. Ct., British Columbia, August
2011), alleging sales practices claims regarding certain of the
same policies sold by MLIC and transferred to Sun Life.

Sun Life contends that MLIC is obligated to indemnify Sun Life for
some or all of the claims in these lawsuits. These sales practices
cases against Sun Life are ongoing, and the Company is unable to
estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising
from this litigation.


METLIFE INC: Objector Appeals From Settlement Approval
------------------------------------------------------
According to MetLife, Inc.'s Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, in the case, C-Mart, Inc v.
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et al. (S.D. Fla., January 10, 2013);
Cadenasso v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al. (N.D. Cal.,
November 26, 2013, subsequently transferred to S.D. Fla.); and
Fauley v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al. (Circuit Court
of the 19th Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Ill., July 3, 2014), an
objector to a settlement has filed a notice to appeal the approval
order.

Plaintiffs filed these lawsuits against defendants, including MLIC
and a former MetLife financial services representative, alleging
that the defendants sent unsolicited fax advertisements to
plaintiff and others in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act, 47
U.S.C. Sec. 227. The C-Mart and Cadenasso cases were voluntarily
dismissed. In the Fauley case, the court in Illinois issued a
final order certifying a nationwide settlement class and approving
a settlement under which MLIC has agreed to pay up to $23 million
to resolve claims as to fax ads sent between August 23, 2008 and
August 7, 2014. An objector to the settlement has filed a notice
to appeal the approval order.


METLIFE INC: Facing "Voshall" Class Action in Los Angeles
---------------------------------------------------------
According to its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2015, MetLife, Inc. is defending against the case,
Voshall v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Los Angeles, April 8, 2015)

Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
himself and all persons covered under a long-term group disability
income insurance policy issued by MLIC to public entities in
California between April 8, 2011 and April 8, 2015. Plaintiff
alleges that MLIC improperly reduced benefits by including cost of
living adjustments and employee paid contributions in the employer
retirement benefits and other income that reduces the benefit
payable under such policies. Plaintiff asserts causes of action
for declaratory relief, violation of the California Business &
Professions Code, breach of contract and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Company intends to
defend this action vigorously.


MINNESOTA: Sex-Offender Programs Found Unconstitutional
-------------------------------------------------------
Though Minnesota has the power to detain mentally ill citizens who
pose a danger to the public, its civil-commitment laws and sex-
offender programs are unconstitutional, a federal judge ruled,
reports Jeff D. Gorman at Courthouse News Service.

Kevin Scott Karsjens led the challenge as a class action in 2011
against seven senior managers of the Minnesota Sex Offender
Program (MSOP).  They are among 714 sex offenders whom the state
has detained indefinitely under the program, and the number is
expected to rise to 1,215 by 2022.

U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank concluded in the third week of
June after a six-week trial that "Minnesota's civil commitment
scheme is a punitive system that segregates and indefinitely
detains a class of potentially dangerous individuals without the
safeguards of the criminal justice system."

"The stark reality is that there is something very wrong with this
state's method of dealing with sex offenders in a program that has
never fully discharged anyone committed to its detention
facilities in Moose Lake and St. Peter since its inception in
1994," the June 17 decision states.

Since a civilly committed individual is not being detained as a
punishment for a specific crime, Frank said courts must "carefully
scrutinize any such deprivation of an individual's freedom to
ensure that the civil commitment process is narrowly tailored so
that detention is absolutely limited to a period of time necessary
to achieve these narrow governmental objectives."

"One reason why we must be so careful about civil commitment is
that it can be used by the state to segregate undesirables from
society by labeling them with a mental abnormality or personality
disorder," the ruling states.

With civilly committed people in Minnesota believing that "they
might die in the facility," detainees become demoralized and
cannot progress in their treatment, The 76-page ruling states.

"The evidence clearly establishes that hopelessness pervades the
environment at the MSOP, and that there is an emotional climate of
despair among the facilities' residents, particularly among
residents at the Moose Lake facility," Frank wrote.

Some who have been committed, including plaintiff Dennis Richard
Steiner, have been in the MSOP for more than 20 years.  It has
been over a decade since the Governor's Commission on Sex Offender
Policy recommended "the transfer of the screening process of sex
offenders for possible civil commitment to an independent panel
and the establishment of a continuum of treatment options," the
ruling states.

A 2011 report by the Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor
meanwhile called for the creation of lower-cost, reasonable
alternatives to commitment at high-security facilities.

"As of July 1, 2014, the cost of confining committed individuals
at the MSOP was approximately $124,465 per resident per year," the
ruling states.  "This cost is at least three times the cost of
incarcerating an inmate at a Minnesota correctional facility."

Frank calls it "undisputed that there are committed individuals
who meet the criteria for reduction in custody or who no longer
meet the criteria for commitment who continue to be confined at
the MSOP."

Likewise, "it is undisputed that there are civilly committed
individuals at the MSOP who could be safely placed in the
community or in less restrictive facilities," the ruling
continues.

Emphasizing that the decision represents only the first phase of
the case, Judge Frank said the next step is determining what to do
next.

Rather than ordered the facilities closed, Frank called upon all
interested parties to present ideas at an Aug. 10 conference
preceding the remedies phase.

"The court is hopeful that the stakeholders will fashion suitable
remedies so that the Court need not consider closing the MSOP
facilities or releasing a number of individuals from the MSOP with
or without conditions," Frank wrote, urging Minnesota Gov. Mark
Dayton and state congressional leaders to appear at the
conference.

Minnesota's law took effect after recently released sex offenders
committed a series of "horrific rape and murder crimes" between
1987 and 1991 in the Land of 10,000 Lakes, the ruling states.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Karla M. Gluek, Esq.
          David A. Goodwin, Esq.
          Raina Borrelli, Esq.
          Lucia G. Massopust, Esq.
          Eric S. Taubel, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  kgluek@gustafsongluek.com
                  dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
                  rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com
                  lmassopust@gustafsongluek.com
                  etaubel@gustafsongluek.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Nathan A. Brennaman, Esq., Deputy Attorney General
          Scott H. Ikeda, Esq.
          Adam H. Welle, Esq.
          Aaron Winter, Esq., Assistant Attorneys General
          MINNESOTA ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
          102 State Capitol
          75 Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
          St Paul, MN 55155-1609
          Telephone: (651) 296-6196

The case is Kevin Scott Karsjens, et al. v. Lucinda Jesson, et
al., Case No. 0:11-cv-03659-DWF-JJK, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota.


NATIONAL DCP: Sued for Unpaid OT, Wages, Breach of Contract
-----------------------------------------------------------
Osto Vargas, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
National DCP, LLC, Case 1:15-cv-12829-MBB (D. Mass., June 26,
2015) claims unpaid wages, and unpaid overtime pursuant to
Massachusetts General Laws, and breach of contract.

National DCP delivers products to Dunkin Donuts franchises six
days per week.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert H. Morsilli, Esq.
     Douglas J. Hoffman, Esq.
     JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
     75 Park Plaza
     Boston, MA 02116
     Tel: (617) 367-0025
     Fax: (617) 367-2155
     E-mail: morsillr@jacksonlewis.com
             hoffmand@jacksonlewis.com


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces Antitrust Suit by Unhappy Patriots Fan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Rebekah Kearn reports that a
disgruntled Patriots fan in Los Angeles sued the NFL and DirecTV
in an antitrust class action, claiming they restrain competition
by carving the nation into territories and blacking out games.

Thomas Abrahamian says he does not want to pay "supra-competitive
prices" to get Patriots broadcasts in Los Angeles, but he's forced
to do so because of the defendants' Sherman Act violations.  He
says the NFL allows team owners to make such "anticompetitive
agreements," restricting competition for the right to televise
games.

"The defendants have accomplished this elimination of competition
by agreeing to divide the live-game video presentation market into
exclusive territories, which are protected by anti-competitive
blackouts.  Not only are such agreements not necessary to
producing football contests, they are directed at reducing
competition in the live-game video presentation market, involving
and protecting third parties who operate only in that separate
market," the complaint states.

Citing the U.S. Supreme Court's 1953 ruling in United States v
National Football League, Abrahamian says sports leagues are
subject to antitrust laws and that blackout agreements are an
unreasonable and illegal restraint of trade.

Nonetheless, the NFL has carved up the country into exclusive
territories assigned to specific teams and their "televised
partners" to create "regional monopolies," the complaint states.

Fans who want to watch games for a team outside their territory
have to buy the NFL Sunday Ticket package, available only from
DirecTV and sold exclusively through the NFL.  A season package
costs $251.94 this year, according to the complaint.

Abrahamian says this "illegal monopoly" lets the NFL and DirecTV
overcharge for the package and forces fans to pay for all out-of-
market games even if they only want to watch games for their own
team -- in his case, the Patriots.

Were it not for the defendants' anticompetitive blackout system,
Abrahamian says, fans across the country could watch any live game
from any team and business would have to compete for the broadcast
rights, resulting in "lower prices and increase[d] choice for
consumers."

"These 'exclusive' agreements and other competitive restrains are
not reasonably necessary to maintain a level of competitive
balance within the league that fans prefer, or to maintain the
viability of franchises.  To the extent that competition among
teams for television rights would result in revenue disparities
that preclude a fan-optimal level of competitive balance,
agreements that require revenue sharing, if set at levels that do
not restrict output, is an obvious and well-recognized less
restrictive alternative," the complaint states.

The system also hurts teams by restricting distribution of their
games to one network rather than letting them decide what kind of
distribution works best for them, the complaint states.

Abrahamian's attorney Abbas Kazerounian compared it to buying
cheese in a supermarket.

"Let's say you want to buy cheddar cheese, but the supermarkets
all get together and say, 'No, you can't just buy cheddar cheese,
you have to buy Gorgonzola, Swiss, and all these other cheeses
along with it.'  It's not fair to the consumer," Kazerounian said
in an interview.

Football fans are forced to pay a lot of money "to buy a big thing
versus the little thing that they actually want," he said.

Taking the cheese analogy and running with it, Kazerounian said
that just as a pizza restaurant will sell pizza by the slice
rather than forcing customers to buy the whole pie, fans want to
pay to see the games they want to watch, not be forced to buy
access to games they don't want to watch.

Asked whether the NFL has antitrust exemptions like those granted
to Major League Baseball, Kazerounian said the NFL operates more
like the National Hockey League, which until recently imposed
local blackouts and required fans to buy a season pass even if
they wanted to watch just one team's games.

A class action against the NHL alleging similar antitrust
allegations was settled recently, with the NHL agreeing to allow
fans to buy a single-team stream of their favorite team rather
than pay for the entire package.

The NFL did not immediately return requests for comment.

DirecTV could not immediately be reached for comment.

Abrahamian seeks class certification, declaratory judgment that
the defendants' regional monopolies violate the Sherman Act, an
injunction, and treble damages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com


NEW FOOD GUY: Accused of Violating Laws on Customer Tips
--------------------------------------------------------
Bridgette Marlow, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
persons v. The New Food Guy, Inc., a Colorado corporation, d/b/a
Relish Catering & Events, and Brett Tucker, Case 1:15-cv-01327 (D.
Col., June 22, 2015), seeks to recover damages and backpay for
Defendants' alleged diversion of customer tips in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, and the
Colorado Minimum Wage Act.

The New Food Guy, Inc. owns and operates Relish Catering & Events,
a large, upscale catering company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
     123 North College Avenue, Suite 200
     Fort Collins, CO 80524
     Tel: (970) 212-4665
     Fax: (303) 539-9812
     E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com


NEW TAIPEI: CF Mulls Class Action Over Color Dust Explosion
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yuan-Ming Chiao, writing for The China Post, reports that Taiwan's
Consumers' Foundation on July 3 offered to organize and file a
class action suit for the victims of the June 27 color dust
explosion in New Taipei City, estimating that it could seek
compensation ranging from NT$3-4 billion.  Government officials,
however, stated that it could be too early to discuss a suit as
many victims are still undergoing treatment in hospitals.

CF Vice Chairman You Kai-hsiung stated during a press conference
held on July 3 that the organization could help organize the suit
as well as defray the estimated NT$6,600 in individual legal fees
in order to file the suit.  The CF said that it had already
received phone calls from 30 to 40 individuals, and placed a
preliminary estimate for compensation sought at NT$3-4 billion.
Other reports indicate the amount could go as high as NT5 billion.
It would represent the class action suit with the highest claim to
be handled by the consumer advocacy group.  Most recently, it has
aided consumers in suits pertaining to numerous tainted food
scandals.

The Executive Yuan's Consumer Protection Committee and New Taipei
City's Legal Affairs Department both stated they were unaware of
the CF's proposal.  A CPC official said that it remained to be
determined whether a class action suit would ultimately require
legal assistance from the CF and that meetings between government
and civil organizations had yet to take place.

Number in Critical Condition Rises

The Ministry of Health and Welfare (MHW) reported on July 3 that
the number of patients from the blast in critical condition rose
to 211, up from 184 on July 2.  A total of 449 patients are
receiving treatment in hospitals as far away as Taichung, with 255
in intensive care.

Officials at Linkou Chang Gung Memorial Hospital confirmed that 21
patients receiving treatment there are breathing with the aid of
ventilation tubes.  Twenty-five patients there are in "severely
critical condition," many with second- and third-degree burns
covering 50 to 60 percent of their bodies.

New Taipei City withdrew NT$73.4 million from a fund it created
for the victims for hospital expenditures.  Patients receiving
treatment in intensive care will be reimbursed NT$200,000 per day,
per person, while the number is NT$100,000 for patients receiving
general treatment.  Consolation funds (at NT$1 million, per
person) for the families of two deceased victims were set to be
made available on July 4.

Festival, Fireworks Canceled Out of Respect of Victims

Meanwhile, New Taipei City officials announced that the Gongliao
Ho-Hai Yuan Rock Festival (originally slated to run from July 24
to 26) would be cancelled this year out of respect for the victims
of Saturday's blast.  In addition, Taitung's mayor also announced
the cancellation of the high-altitude fireworks display at its
annual Makapahay Festival.


NEW YORK CITY, NY: Rikers Island Prisons to Face Huge Reforms
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rikers Island prisons will face the scrutiny of an independent
monitor watching compliance with an early warning system, beefed
up surveillance and other measures to clamp down on civil rights
abuses, prosecutors told a judge on June 22, according to Adam
Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service.

Prosecutors revealed in a letter that the city agreed to 63 pages
of conditions "intended to dismantle the decades-long culture of
violence in the city jails, and create an environment that
protects both inmates and correction officers alike."

Attorney Steve Martin, who has monitored more than 700 jailhouses
in the United States and abroad, has been tapped to oversee the
wide-ranging reforms.  These include the enforcement of a new use-
of-force policy, disciplinary guidelines to punish misconduct, and
a pilot program for body-worn cameras.

By Feb. 28, 2018, Rikers aims to have "complete camera coverage of
the jails, with certain narrow exceptions such as the interior of
shower areas and toilet areas," prosecutors said in the letter.

Other terms of the deal aim to improve recruitment, training,
supervision, anonymous reporting of violations and notifications
to federal prosecutors.

U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara described the agreement as
"groundbreaking" in a statement.

"This comprehensive framework requires the city to implement
sweeping operational changes to fix a broken system and dismantle
a decades-long culture of violence," he said.  "Its ongoing
implementation will be overseen by the court and an independent
federal monitor.  Federal prosecutors will remain vigilant to
ensure that with a federal monitor, reporting to a federal court,
the Constitution protects each and every person within the walls
of Rikers Island."

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio applauded the role that his
Department of Corrections chief appointee Joseph Ponte played in
the settlement.

"Today's settlement builds upon the important changes this
administration is bringing to our correctional system and
reinforces the necessity of Commissioner Ponte's current reforms
on Rikers Island," de Blasio said in a statement.  "We have a
moral imperative to ensure every New Yorker in this city's care is
treated with decency and respect."

The announcement falls nearly a year Bharara likened Rikers teen
lockups to the "Lord of the Flies" at a press conference on August
4, 2014, announcing the results of a lengthy probe of abuses
there.

The report found that, on a "typical day," between 15 and 25
percent that jail's population languished for 23 hours a day in
solitary confinement in six-by-eight foot cells of the Central
Punitive Segregation Unit.  Prosecutors said that an average of
682 teenagers in these jails bore the brunt of 565 "reported staff
use of force incidents" that led to 1,057 injuries in 2003, and
many of these incidents took place away from video surveillance.

In December, Bharara's office sued the city by intervening in a
three-year-old lawsuit by former Rikers inmate Mark Nunez, whose
case grew into a class action on behalf of tens of thousands of
others in 2012.

While the prosecutors' probe centered on abuses toward teen
inmates, the city's agreement reforms Rikers prisons more broadly.
Provisions covering teenage inmates are covered by separate terms,
and the plaintiffs in the Nunez lawsuit have reached "an agreement
in principle" with the city to settle their claims on an
individual basis, according to the letter.

More details about the individual settlements should come to light
following the July 1 deadline for the completion of expert
depositions in that case, prosecutors say.

In a separate statement, Ponte commented that Rikers reform "is
well under way," an apparent reference to the limitations his
department agreed to on the use of solitary confinement in
December.

"We look forward to implementing all elements of the agreement,
and pledge to work closely with the federal monitor as we further
establish a culture of safety at DOC," Ponte said.


NEW YORK LIFE: Accused of Sending Unsolicited Faxes
---------------------------------------------------
Eric B. Fromer Chiropractic, Inc., a California corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons, v. New York Life Insurance and Annuity
Corporation, NYLife Securities LLC and John Does 1-10, Case 2:15-
cv-04767-RGK-JC (C.D. Cal., June 24, 2015), challenges Defendants'
practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles in violation of the
Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005.

New York Life Insurance and Annuity Corporation and NYLife
Securities LLC are Delaware corporations registered to do business
in California. NYLife is a registered broker-dealer and is a
wholly owned subsidiary of New York Life.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark J. Geragos, Esq.
     Geragos & Geragos
     Historic Engine Co. No. 28
     644 South Figueroa Street
     Los Angeles, CA 90017-3411
     Tel: (213) 625-3900
     Fax: (213) 625-1600
     E-mail: Geragos@Geragos.com
             mark@geragos.com

        - and -

     Ben J. Meiselas, Esq.
     Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
     ANDERSON + WANCA
     3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
     Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
     Tel: 847-368- 1500
     Fax: 847-368-1501
     E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com


NEWS CORP: Court Certifies Class in N.Y. Ad-War Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
An antitrust action accusing News Corp of using Al Capone's
tactics and computer hacking to monopolize the market for
promotions in 40,000 retail stores can proceed as a class action,
reports Adam Klasfeld at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal
court ruling.

Dial Corp. led the charge against Rupert Murdoch's news empire and
its subsidiaries; its 2012 case was joined by eight other
manufacturers of packaged consumer goods who filed in the Eastern
District of Michigan.  They accused News Corp. of a 20-year scheme
to suppress the promotion of "a massive number of consumer goods
in forty thousand retail stores, and scores of newspapers
nationwide, to acquire and maintain two unlawful monopolies and
earn large monopoly profits at the expense of its purchasers."

One former top News Corp. executive boasted about its
anticompetitive tactics with a video clip from the Capone-inspired
film, "The Untouchables," according to the lawsuit.  The scene
depicts Capone serving "as a sales role model as he cudgels a
competitive enemy to death with a baseball bat," and Dial said
News Corp. Chief Operating Officer Paul Carlucci had "been equally
blunt with the press as to News' exclusionary purposes, vowing to
'destroy' his competitors as a 'man who has to have it all.'"

The complaint also accused News Corp. of elbowing out the now-
defunct Floorgraphics in its effort to control the market for in-
store-promotion services.

"Floorgraphics has alleged that News hacked into its password
protected accounts at least eleven times in 2003 and 2004 to
obtain its customer lists (and other marketing materials)," the
lawsuit said.

New Jersey-based Floorgraphics had reached a $29.5 million
settlement with News Corp., however, that prevented it from later
advancing federal fraud claims.

The suit by Dial and the others was transferred to the Southern
District of New York, where U.S. District Judge William Pauley
granted class certification June 18.

"Although prices may differ on an individual level in both the
actual and but-for worlds, plaintiffs' evidence suggests that
prices are systematic and, thus antitrust injury is measurable
with common proof," he wrote.

The certification hinged on a battle of the experts.

While Dial had Jeffrey MacKie-Mason, the dean of the University of
Michigan's School of Information, News Corp. hired Jerry Hausman,
a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.

Judge Pauley saw no trace of the problems that led the U.S.
Supreme Court to disband the class in Comcast v. Behrend.

"Plaintiffs' damages model is sufficient to show that damages are
measurable through use of a common methodology," his opinion
states.

The class approved by Pauley includes "non-retailer consumer
packaged goods firms residing in the United States which have
directly purchased in-store promotions from News Corp at any time
on or after April 5, 2008, and were not subject to mandatory
arbitration clauses."

The case is Dial Corporation, et al. v. News Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 13-cv-6802, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Sued for Delay of Gleevec Generic Drug
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers
Midwest Health Benefits Fund and Laborers Health and Welfare
Trust Fund for Northern California, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.,
Novartis AG, and Novartis Corporation, Case 1:15-cv-12732 (D.
Mass., June 22, 2015), seeks to prevent the alleged unlawful delay
of generic entry into the U.S. market for Gleevec (imatinib
mesylate), an FDA-approved prescription drug for chronic myeloid
leukemia.

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, based in Delaware, is a
subsidiary of Switzerland-based Novartis AG and the New Drug
Application holder/applicant as well as a distributor for the
prescription drug Gleevec. Novartis Corporation is based in New
York.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
     Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
     Hannah Schwarzchild, Esq.
     HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
     55 Cambridge Parkway, Suite 301
     Cambridge, MA 02142
     Tel: (617) 482-3700
     Fax: (617) 482-3003
     E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com
             kristenj@hbsslaw.com
             hannahs@hbsslaw.com

        - and -

     John Radice, Esq.
     RADICE LAW FIRM
     34 Sunset Blvd.
     Long Beach, NJ 08008
     Tel: (646) 245-8502
     E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com

        - and -

     Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
     Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
     Justin N. Boley, Esq.
     WEXLER WALLACE
     55 West Monroe St., Suite 3300
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Tel: (312) 346-2222
     E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
             eaw@wexlerwallace.com
             jnb@wexlerwallace.com

        - and -

     Jonathan D. Karmel, Esq.
     KARMEL LAW FIRM
     221 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1307
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Tel: (312) 641-2910
     E-mail: jon@karmellawfirm.com

        - and -

     J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
     Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
     BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS PLCC
     227 Second Avenue North, Fourth Floor
     Nashville, TN 37201-1631
     Tel: (615) 254-8801
     E-mail: gerards@BSJFirm.com
             joeyl@BSJFirm.com


OHIO: Environmentalists Seek Changes to Fracking Regulations
------------------------------------------------------------
Zack Lemon, writing for The Columbus Dispatch, reports that a
group of environmentalists wants to change the Columbus City
Charter to ban fracking or any other oil and gas drilling in the
city.  But if the city's petition process doesn't stop them,
recent court rulings likely will.

Carolyn Harding and other organizers seeking what they call the
"Columbus Community Bill of Rights" turned in their petition for a
charter change on July 2 with 13,587 signatures.  If 8,956 of them
are from registered Columbus voters, and the group followed the
city's petition rules correctly, the measure would be on the
November ballot.

"This is what democracy looks like!" Ms. Harding and the other
activists shouted as they turned in the petition.

However, the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled in similar cases that
cities do not have the right to regulate oil and gas drilling
because a state agency, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources,
already regulates it.

"There's a good chance court will side with the industry,"
Ms. Harding said, comparing her fight to the push for same-sex
marriage.  "We're not naive."

Though she helped organized the petition drive, Harding lives in
Bexley and cannot vote on the measure or sign the petition.

Community Bills Of Rights have passed in several other cities in
Ohio, including Broadview Heights, where on July 2 a Cuyahoga
County judge, citing the state's "sole exclusive authority" to
regulate drilling and the Ohio Supreme Court ruling, dismissed a
class-action lawsuit that sought to keep fracking out of that
city.

The Columbus Bill of Rights organizers received guidance and
support from the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, who
continue to push for community rights across the country, despite
the recent setbacks in Ohio.

"I don't think we're going away," Ohio Community Organizer Tish
O'Dell said.

The proposal submitted on July 2 outlaws drilling, and it also
seeks to enshrine rights to clean water, soil and air, among other
things.  It also says that corporations that violate the law would
not be able to defend themselves as "persons" or use state and
federal laws in their defense.

"Basically, it spells out our unalienable rights to pure water,
safe soil, clean air, self-governance in our own community, a
sustainable energy future and unimpeded usage of our private
property," said Greg Pace, one of the lead organizers.  "All of
these are spelled out as our rights in this country and our
community and based on these rights we are banning the fracking
infrastructure."

This is the first petition to be submitted at City Hall since
voters approved changes to the process in the city charter last
year.  The charter now spells out in detail how petitions must be
filed, checked and approved.  Any missteps by the petitioners
could result in the petition being thrown out.

"It'll be interesting to see how technical, how harsh, they will
be," Ms. Harding said.  She started the petition in June of 2013,
before the amendment process was changed in November, so she
believes she is operating under the old rules.

Joshua Cox, chief counsel in the City Attorney's office, said the
group must follow the new rules.

"If there are defects in the form, yes," the petition could be
thrown out, Cox said.

Harding and her organizers are planning a similar proposal for
Franklin County.  The self-funded group will continue campaigning,
this time for votes rather than signatures.

"This is my 100 percent, my job, but nobody pays me," she said,
"but honestly I'm glad.  I love being grassroots because there's
nobody, no money, to tell us what we can and cannot say."


PAIN THERAPEUTICS: KB Partners Lawsuit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------
KB Partners I, L.P., Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. Pain Therapeutics, Inc., Remi Barbier, Nadav
Friedmann and Peter S. Roddy, remains pending, Pain Therapeutics,
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.

The Company said, "On December 2, 2011, a purported class action
was filed against us and our executive officers in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas. This complaint
alleges, among other things, violations of Section 10(b), Rule
10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act arising out of
allegedly untrue or misleading statements of material facts made
by us regarding REMOXY's development and regulatory status during
the purported class period, February 3, 2011 through June 23,
2011. The complaint states that monetary damages are being sought,
but no amounts are specified. On June 3, 2013, the Court certified
a class consisting of all purchasers of our common stock and a
class period of December 27, 2010 through June 26, 2011."

No further updates were provided in the Company's Form 10-Q
report.


PALL CORP: Faces Shareholder Lawsuit Over Sale to Danaher
---------------------------------------------------------
David Markovic, on behalf of himself and the public shareholders
of Pall Corporation v. Pall Corporation, Lawrence D. Kingsley, Amy
E. Alving, Robert B. Coutts, Mark E. Goldstein, Cheryl W. Grise,
Ronald L. Hoffman, Dennis N. Longstreet, B. Craig Owens, Katharine
L. Plourde, Edward Travaglianti, Bret W. Wise, Pentagon Merger
Sub, Inc., Danaher Corporation, Index No. 603632/2015 (Supreme
Court of the State of New York County of Nassau, June 5, 2015),
seeks injunctive relief arising out of a plan to sell Pall to
Danaher.

Pall is a supplier of filtration, separation and purification
technologies. Danaher designs, manufactures and markets
professional, medical, industrial and commercial products and
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James M. Ficaro, Esq.
      THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      22 Cassatt Ave
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Tel: (610) 225-2677

      Robert I. Harwood, Esq.
      Daniella Quitt, Esq.
      Samuel K. Rosen, Esq.
      HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
      488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 935-7400
      Facsimile: (212) 753-3630


PEOPLES BANCORP: Summary Judgment Motion Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Peoples Bancorp Of North Carolina, 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 motion
for summary judgment filed in a lawsuit before the General Court
of Justice, Superior Court Division, Lincoln County, North
Carolina, remains pending.

On April 2, 2013, the Bank received notice that a lawsuit was
filed against it in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court
Division, Lincoln County, North Carolina. The complaint alleges
(i) breach of contract and the covenants of good faith and fair
dealing by the Bank, (ii) conversion, (iii) unjust enrichment and
(iv) violations of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act in its assessment and collection of overdraft fees.
It seeks the refund of overdraft fees, treble damages, attorneys'
fees and injunctive relief. The Plaintiff seeks to have the
lawsuit certified as a class action.  The Court has not acted on
that request.  The Bank has filed, briefed and argued to the Court
a motion for summary judgment.  The Court has not ruled on that
motion.  The Bank continues to believe that the allegations in the
complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the
lawsuit, including the request that the lawsuit be certified as a
class action.


PINCHO FACTORY: Faces Suit for Alleged Violations of FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
Eduardo Quijano, and others similarly-situated v. The Pincho
Factory, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Pincho Factory #2, INC., a
Florida Corporation, Nedal Ahmad, individually, and Nizar Ahmad,
individually, Case 1:15-cv-22349-MGC (S.D. Fla., June 22, 2015),
seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated damages, interests,
costs and attorney's fees for alleged willful violations of
overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Pincho Factory, Inc. and The Pincho Factory #2, Inc. operate
as restaurants within Miami-Dade County, Florida.  They were
operated as an enterprise engaged in interstate commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Isaac Mamane, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF ISAAC MAMANE, PA
     1150 Kane Concourse, Second Floor
     Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
     Tel: (786) 704 - 8898
     E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Lacks Proper Safety Systems, Capello Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Dubroff, writing for Pacific Coast Business Times, reports
that when Barry Cappello litigates, people listen.  Which is why
his June 23 lawsuit seeking class action status and unspecified
damages against Plains All American Pipeline may prove to be a
turning point in the sorry history of the Refugio oil spill.

"It was a disaster waiting to happen again and again," is the way
Mr. Cappello described the badly corroded pipeline that gave way
on May 19, spilling roughly 100,000 gallons of crude oil, sending
about 21,000 gallons down a culvert and into the ocean.  His
lawsuit, filed on behalf of Pacific Coast property owners, states:
"While this spill is a disaster it is no accident."

Mr. Cappello is the former Santa Barbara city attorney who sued
Union Oil after the 1969 oil spill that devastated the coast and
provided much of the impetus for the environmental movement.  Over
the years he's litigated on behalf of a number of corporate
clients and recently forced the city of Santa Barbara to abandon
its at-large city council election scheme on the grounds it was
disenfranchising Hispanic voters.

In a phone conversation about the Refugio spill, Mr. Cappello said
that Plains' failure to provide automatic shut-down devices for
Line 901 is at the heart of his case.

The lawsuit alleges Plains "wantonly disregarded the safety of the
people and environment by operating a pipeline it knew did not
have proper safety systems in place."

Plains did not respond to requests for comment addressed to its
Texas headquarters and Refugio Spill Unified Command response
center.

Among the remedies Mr. Cappello seeks is a court order that
requires Plains to install the automatic shut-off devices that
Plains circumvented in the late 1980s when it went to court and
won the right to have the only pipeline in Santa Barbara County
regulated only by the federal government.

"It's too late" to halt the damage from the May spill but
Mr. Cappello said he hopes to convince a judge to "eat the capital
cost" of operating safely.  "Plains has an ugly 'tradition' of
operating pipelines that fail," the lawsuit alleges, stating that
the company's way of doing business shifted the risk of
environmental damage onto the shoulders of  Santa Barbara's
"citizens, real property owners and environment" while the company
reaped the rewards.

Mr. Cappello's lawsuit is on behalf of a trust that owns property
near Refugio State Beach and it seeks class action status to
represent several thousand property owners along the Pacific
Coast.

Already tar balls have washed up on beaches in Ventura and Los
Angeles counties and Mr. Cappello thinks that more oil will wash
up on California beaches over the next "three or four years."

His lawsuit is likely to get some traction for several reasons.
First, the damages suffered by landholders are likely to be more
sustained and easier to prove than those suffered by fishermen
whose grounds were reopened on June 29.

Second, the properties involved are worth billions of dollars so
that even temporary disruptions via tar ball intrusion can be
quantified and the number of plaintiffs will likely grow.

Third, although Mr. Cappello said he hasn't talked to law
enforcement about the evidence he has gathered, there is a
parallel criminal investigation being conducted by Attorney
General Kamala Harris and Santa Barbara County District Attorney
Joyce Dudley.  Whatever the criminal probe turns up will benefit
Cappella's case and vice versa -- putting Plains in a bit of a
legal vise.

Meanwhile, yet another potential legal problem is looming for
Plains as operations shut down and ExxonMobil and Venoco among
others have no place to ship their oil.

That's because in addition to shutting down Line 901, the June 3
order by Jeffrey Weise, associate administrator of the Department
of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration has shut Line 903, which connects to the shorter
pipeline that ruptured on May 19.

Pipeline 903, which runs 128 miles from Santa Barbara to Kern
County, remains shut until Plains proves to the government that it
can be operated safely.  Even if it can re-open, volume is likely
to be limited to 80 percent of average capacity over the past few
months and other restrictions are likely to apply.

Every day they can't move oil through to Kern County, the oil
companies also are tolling up economic damages. My guess is those
will also cost Plains a pretty penny.

So far, Plains is hanging tough, stating in SEC filings that it
simply can't quantify total costs, including possible civil and
criminal claims.  Mr. Cappello said that while he's filed the suit
he hasn't served Plains -- a development expected this week or
two.


PRA GROUP: Court Stayed TCPA Litigation in S.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------
PRA Group, 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 Court has stayed
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation.

The Company has been named as defendant in a number of putative
class action cases, each alleging that the Company violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by calling consumers'
cellular telephones without their prior express consent.  On
December 21, 2011, the United States Judicial Panel on Multi-
District Litigation entered an order transferring these matters
into one consolidated proceeding in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California (the "Court").  On
November 14, 2012, the putative class plaintiffs filed their
amended consolidated complaint in the matter, now styled as In re
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Telephone Consumer Protection
Act Litigation, case No. 11-md-02295 (the "MDL action").  On May
20, 2014, the Court stayed this litigation until such time as the
United States Federal Communications Commission has ruled on
various petitions concerning the TCPA. The range of loss, if any,
on these matters cannot be estimated at this time.


PRIMERO AUTO: Faces Suit for Unpaid Overtime Work Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Luis De Jesus v. Primero Auto Parts, Inc. and Emilio Bruscantini,
Case 1:15-cv-22412-JEM (S.D. Fla., June 28, 2014), seeks to
recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Primero Auto Parts is a direct importer and a wholesale
distributor of aftermarket auto-parts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


QUANTA SERVICES: Retains Liability in "Benton" Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Quanta Services, Inc. has retained liability associated with the
case, Lorenzo Benton v. Telecom Network Specialists, Inc., et al.,
following its sale of TNS in December 2012, Quanta 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.

In June 2006, plaintiff Lorenzo Benton filed a class action
complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles, alleging various wage and hour violations against Telecom
Network Specialists (TNS), a former subsidiary of Quanta. Benton
seeks to represent a class of workers that includes all persons
who worked on TNS projects between June 2002 and the present,
including individuals that TNS retained through 29 staffing
agencies. An amended complaint was filed in August 2007, naming
two additional class representatives, one of whom has since
settled directly with his employer. The plaintiffs' motion for
class certification was heard and denied in May 2012. The
plaintiffs appealed the denial of class certification, and in
October 2013, the California Court of Appeal reversed the denial
and remanded the case to the trial court for reconsideration.

In November 2013, TNS filed a petition for review with the Supreme
Court of California, which was denied. The parties attended
mediation in December 2014; however, there was no resolution. In
March 2015, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification in the remanded proceeding. The plaintiffs seek
approximately $16 million for class damages and $5 million in
attorneys' fees. Quanta retained any liability associated with
this matter following its sale of TNS in December 2012.


RADDATZ LAW: Court Refuses to Dismiss Eviction-Related Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that The Raddatz Law Firm must
face a class action accusing it of lying in eviction lawsuits
filed in D.C. Superior Court's Landlord and Tenant Branch, a
federal judge ruled.

The case is Natasha Lipscomb, et al. v. The Raddatz Law Firm,
P.L.L.C., et al., Case No. 14-1958 (JEB), in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia.


RALLY SOFTWARE: Faces Lawsuit Over Proposed Acquisition by CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Hyer and Laura Jensen, individually and on behalf of other
public stockholders of Rally Software Development Corp., v. Rally
Software Development Corp., Tim Miller, Thomas Bogan, Mark Carges,
Bryan Stolle, Timothy Wolf, Yancey Spruill, Meg Porfido, CA, Inc.,
and Grand Prix Acquisition Corp., Case No. 11109- (Court of
Chancery of The State Of Delaware, June 5, 2015), seeking
equitable relief compelling the Board to properly exercise its
fiduciary duties to the Company's public stockholders, and to
enjoin the close of the proposed acquisition of Rally by CA.

Rally is a Delaware corporation whose stock is traded on the New
York Stock Exchange.  CA is Delaware corporation whose stock is
traded at NASDAQ Stock Exchange.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      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
      Tel: (302) 295-5310

      Brian C. Kerr, Esq.
      BROWER PIVEN
      475 Park Avenue South, 33rd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 501-9000


REALPAGE INC: "Jenkins" Class Action in Early Stage
---------------------------------------------------
RealPage, 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 November 2014, the
Company was named in a purported class action lawsuit in the
Eastern District of Virginia, Jenkins v. RealPage, Inc., Case No.
3:14cv758. On January 12, 2015, the Company filed its answer.

"This case is at an early stage and although we intend to defend
it vigorously, it is not possible to predict its outcome," the
Company said.


REALPAGE INC: "Stokes" Class Action in Early Stage
--------------------------------------------------
RealPage, 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 March 2015, "we
were named in a purported class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
styled Helen Stokes v. RealPage, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-01520.
This case is also at an early stage and although we intend to
defend it vigorously, it is not possible to predict its outcome."


ROCKPORT, MA: Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in Lease Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dimitra Lavrakas, writing for Gloucester Times, reports that at
least for now, some neighbors and members of public cannot walk
across the properties of cottages leased by the town at Long Beach
to reach the sand and sea.

Essex Superior Court Judge Robert A. Cornetta has granted a
preliminary injunction to Long Beach resident Steve Sheehan and
153 of his fellow cottage owners, members of a class action suit
against the Town of Rockport, citing a clause in the 2013 land
lease that had allowed such access.

The owners rent the land their cottages sit on from the town, as
they have for over a century, but have chafed at new leases issued
in 2013 that upped the rents and added some clauses the owners
believe are illegal.  Requests from the Long Beach tenants to
renegotiate the lease were not addressed by the Rockport Board of
Selectmen, the cottagers say.

"It was very good news for all the owners at Long Beach," said
Mr. Sheehan, who spearheaded the suit and testified in Essex
Superior Court in Lawrence before Judge Cornetta, who granted the
injunction on July 1.

"I have to say, I'm sorry it had to go like this," Mr. Sheehan
said, "but hopefully, the town will recognize that this is a
process of a lease.  It not a unilateral process."

In his decision, Judge Cornetta upheld the owners' right to bar
the public from crossing the house lots to reach the beach, which
the complainants said was in violation of a state law guaranteeing
a tenant's right to "quiet enjoyment" of the rental.

There is public access at both the Rockport and Gloucester ends of
the beach, but the road behind the rows of cottages is private and
gated.  There is also a small path off Thacher Road, but that
passes through properties of other private homes and there is no
parking.

For years, other owners were able to access the beach and their
properties by crossing their neighbors' yards, sometimes by a
path, but public access has never been allowed.


ROWAN COUNTY, KY: Clerk Sued for Refusal to Issue Marriage License
------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Byrd, writing for Baptist Joint Committee for Religious
Liberty, reports that a week after the U.S. Supreme Court declared
bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional, the ACLU of Kentucky
has filed a class-action lawsuit challenging a Rowan County
clerk's refusal on religious grounds to issue marriage licenses.

Both sides of this dispute touch on religious liberty concerns.
The defendant, County Clerk Kim Davis, argues that religious
freedom rights protect her from having to issue licenses.  The
plaintiffs, meanwhile, claim not only that their right to marry is
being unlawfully being denied, but that the Establishment Clause
of the First Amendment is also violated by the actions of the
clerk in her official government capacity.

Here is that excerpt from the complaint:

61. The official statements of purpose given by Defendant Davis
for adopting the challenged policy were her "deep religious
convictions" opposing same-sex marriage and her religiously-
motivated unwillingness to issue marriage licenses to same-sex
couples.

62. The primary or principal purpose for the adoption of
Defendants' policy was to promote one particular religious
viewpoint about marriage.

63. An objective observer would conclude, based upon the available
information regarding official statements of purpose, that the
Defendants' policy was adopted primarily for religious reasons.


SA POST OFFICE: May Face Class Action Over Delivery Problems
------------------------------------------------------------
Banele Ginindza, writing for Business Report, reports that
Independent Communications Authority of SA (Icasa) since July 2
heard the long-standing complaints about the failure by the SA
Post Office (Sapo) to reliably distribute the post. This hearing
followed an application from a group of publishing companies that
have said Sapo had put them out of pocket.

The complainants have asked Icasa's Complaints and Compliance
Committee to consider and review complaints against Sapo and the
financial and other damage to the magazine publishing industry
caused by Sapo's extended failure to meet its license conditions
relating to its obligation to reliably distribute its post.

This has affected the distribution and circulation of magazines
published by the complainants and entrusted to Sapo to distribute
to clientele.

Sapo has been besieged by industrial action by its employees,
which resulted in the post not being distributed for the better
part of last year and for some months this year.

Redress

The publishers are hoping the Icasa hearing will pave the way for
the businesses to seek redress for the effects of Sapo's failure
to distribute the post.

Chris Yelland of EE Publishers said earlier that his company spent
about R2 million a year with Sapo to distribute magazines, many of
which never get to their subscribers.

"This formal complaint . . . is a precursor to a possible class
action" as "there are real costs involved; real damages involved"
and that Sapo had "caused us great financial damage over several
years", Mr. Yelland said.

This could include punitive financial sanctions against Sapo;
entertaining alternative license applications to that of Sapo;
considering additional license applications to supplement the
activities of Sapo; or even the removal of Sapo's (currently
exclusive) license.

In a statement on July 1, the publishers said the start of the
hearing was a breakthrough after a long process of apparent stone-
walling.

The complainants are collectively represented by Bouwer Kobeli
Morabe Attorneys, and include: Brooke Pattrick, Creamer Media,
Crown Publications, EE Publishers, Interact Media Defined, Now
Media, Technews Publishing and TE Trade Events.

In terms of the relevant legislation, Icasa is tasked with
monitoring Sapo to ensure the conditions of its license are met,
and to hear and deal with complaints against the licensee where
alleged breaches of licence conditions occur.

The complainants said Sapo's answering affidavit failed to deal
with any of the merits of the complaints levelled against it, and
that Sapo instead raised numerous procedural and technical
objections, namely prescription, impossibility of performance,
vague and embarrassing allegations and a lack of factual material,
which were not relevant or applicable to these proceedings.


SCARLETT'S CABARET: Settles Wage Class Action for $6 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a company that owns strip clubs
in Florida and Ohio has reached a $6 million settlement in a class
action lawsuit led by a former exotic dancer.  Under the terms of
the settlement recently approved by a federal judge, women who
worked at Scarlett's Cabaret clubs in Hallandale Beach, Tampa,
Fort Myers and Toledo, Ohio, could be entitled to back wages.

Adonay Encarnacion sued the clubs last year over labor violations.
She told The Miami Herald that online business classes helped her
realize that the Hallandale Beach club was violating her rights by
not offering hourly pay and requiring dancers to pay performance
fees as independent contractors.

The settlement doesn't compel Scarlett's Cabaret's owners to
change their labor practices.  The clubs' corporate officers and
attorneys declined comment.


SCHNUCK MARKETS: Data Breach Ruling to Impact Insurance Industry
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eduard Goodman, writing for Business Insurance, reports that a
recent ruling in a data breach lawsuit could have ramifications
that spread far across the retail sector and insurance industry.
The breach at Schnuck Markets Inc., a grocery chain with locations
throughout the Midwest, ran for more than three months from late
2012 to early 2013 and involved malicious code inserted into the
retailer's systems that siphoned data from payment cards swiped at
79 of its nearly 100 stores.

After being alerted to the possibility of an intrusion by its card
processor, it took Schnucks and an outside security firm another
two weeks to identify, isolate and close down the breach.  In all,
2.4 million credit and debit cards were exposed.

Afterward, Schnucks faced several liabilities, not the least of
which were class action lawsuits by customers whose cards were
affected that resulted in a $2.1 million settlement agreement.
However, one of the most problematic liabilities was the
imposition of "assessments" against Schnucks by its card processor
and bank -- First Data Merchant Services Corp. and Citicorp
Payment Services Inc., respectively.  These costs were claimed
under contracts First Data and Citicorp say made Schnucks liable
for uncapped liability regarding "third-party fees" or "fees,
fines or penalties."

Schnucks, in turn, sued First Data and Citicorp, asserting that
they had withheld too much money to cover the reimbursements
requested by banks whose cards were affected by the exposure.  The
merchant payment processing agreement is at the crux of the
litigation.  Schnucks argued that the agreements limited the
company's liability to $500,000 with certain enumerated exceptions
that included reimbursement for disputed charges and other fees,
fines and penalties.

Schnucks further claimed that there was no reference to data
breach in the liability limit exceptions.  First Data and Citicorp
contended the exceptions were applicable to data breaches and to
this particular breach.  A federal judge agreed with Schnucks and
ruled that its liability in the exposure should be capped. The
decision leaves the bank and payment processor responsible for the
rest.

This is likely to force a language change to future payment card
processor, bank and payment card operating agreements to
specifically include breaches in these penalty-based fines and
assessments.  With that in mind, there are a few main points
business owners, risk managers and management should understand
about this case and its potential implications.

The first is that potential contractual liability for data
breaches under bank, payment processor and card agreements is
intended by those organizations to be uncapped.  While the court
has agreed with Schnucks that the language of the agreements in
question was vague at best, organizations must closely review all
applicable agreements they sign and execute with all parties when
it comes to payment card processing.  There needs to be an
understanding that any perceived failures in security that lead to
a card breach will result in an attempt by the payment card
industry to impose massive penalties, or "assessments."

The Schnucks case made it clear that payment card institutions,
banks, and processors can only hold a retailer liable for $500,000
for various fines and penalties under the standard payment card
operating agreements.  Unfortunately, most organizations prefer to
pay these assessments rather than fight them.

Second, corporate risk managers need to recognize that while
liability in the form of consumer class actions for these card
breaches is typically very low, the contractual liability to the
processors, banks and card companies remains wide open.  In many
cases, the assessments that result from a breach event will simply
be taken from the retailer based on some questionable,
predetermined formulas cooked up by the card companies.  In
looking at the Schnucks situation, it's clear that few protections
exist for the breached organizations unless the organizations
choose the route of costly defensive litigation against corporate
behemoths like VISA or Mastercard.

This is where commercial insurance coverage, particularly cyber
policies, comes into play.  From a company's risk management
perspective, one may think that such coverage will protect against
these payment card industry driven assessments.  However, a close
read of many commercial cyber and data breach coverages reveals
that the vast majority of "off the shelf" data breach policies
specifically exclude contractual liability related to a breach.
This means that there would be no coverage for legal defense
against the imposition of assessments, let alone to pay the
contract-based assessment.

Finally, businesses large and small need to recognize that the
banks, card processors and card brands are not their friends -- or
enemies -- but rather they are necessary players when it comes to
an entity's ability to accept payment cards.  While banks, payment
processors and the card companies are partners in the payment
ecosystem in which businesses participate, these institutions have
their own agendas, goals and legitimate interests in preserving
the system they have built into a billion dollar industry.

Where does the breach fallout go from here?

This case gets to the heart of the reasonableness (or lack
thereof) of nebulous assessments within the payment card system.
The card companies have been trying to avoid these cases and
decisions as they set very bad precedents for them when it comes
to their ability to recoup losses, particularly without solid data
to substantiate their claims.

And a few public attempts to claw back the overzealous fines have
been made.  One state court case, Cisero's Inc. and Theodora
McComb v. ELAVON Inc., filed in Summit County District Court,
Utah, on Aug. 8, 2011, involving Cisero's Ristorante and Nightclub
in Park City, Utah, involved a similar situation. Cisero's was
targeted by the card companies for a perceived data breach
affecting cards at their institution.  Cisero's suit centered on
the fact that after Cisero's had closed its accounts with U.S.
Bank, the restaurant was sued for an overdraft after the bank paid
of an assessment to a VISA and Mastercard without Cisero's
consent.  The case quietly disappeared, possibly indicating that a
settlement was reached that prohibited its public disclosure.

Another case, Genesco Inc. v. VISA U.S.A. Inc.; VISA Inc.; and
VISA International Service Association, filed in U.S. District
Court, Middle District of Tennessee, March 7, 2013, disputes the
imposition of assessments by the card companies against Tennessee-
based retail giant Genesco Inc., whose brands include Johnston &
Murphy, Journeys shoe stores and Dockers Footwear.

There, a payment card situation arose that resulted in a $13
million assessment levied against Genesco by Visa Inc.  The
dispute centers on whether a breach even occurred as well as the
extremely vague and sometimes contradictory language in the
agreement.  That case is ongoing, with Genesco trying to levy
sanctions on Visa last summer for failing to cooperate with
discovery requests in good faith. That development is not
surprising, though the outcome is still up in the air.

Since these are standard agreements used by payment card
processors, banks, and card companies, many other retailers likely
have similar liability limitations.  This means that these
agreements will likely change.  Prudent businesses and the
insurers that underwrite them may consider reviewing those
agreements and their liabilities associated with accepting payment
cards as the data breach and litigation landscapes evolve.


SHUTTERFLY INC: Faces Suit for Using Illegal Face Print Software
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
that a federal class action claims online photo sharing service
Shutterfly illegally uses facial recognition software to create a
"face print" of anyone in its database of 20 billion photos.

Brian Norberg of Chicago says he's never used Shutterfly or its
subsidiary ThisLife and never had an account with either of them.
He claims they're violating the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act by "collecting, storing, and using -- without
providing notice, obtaining informed written consent or publishing
data retention policies -- the biometrics of millions of unwitting
individuals who are not users of Shutterfly."

Though Norberg never had anything to do with Shutterfly, but a
Shutterfly user uploaded photos of him, and now the company has
his face template stored in its database.  When the same user
uploaded photos of him a second time, the Web site automatically
recognized his picture and prompted the user to identify him.

Shutterfly boasted of having 20 billion photos in its database in
2013, and said it could identify people in the photos using "photo
ranking algorithms" and "advanced image analysis."

ThisLife states online that its service "makes face tagging quick
and easy without facial recognition [technology]," which
"automatically recognizes faces (even babies and kids!) and puts
them in groups to make it fast and easy for you to tag."
(Brackets and parentheses in complaint.)

"Specifically, defendants have created, collected and stored
millions of 'face templates' (or 'face prints') -- highly detailed
geometric maps of the face -- from millions of individuals, many
thousands of whom are non Shutterfly users residing in the State
of Illinois," Norberg says.  "Defendants create these templates
using sophisticated facial recognition technology that extracts
and analyzes data from the points and contours of faces appearing
in photos uploaded by their users.  Each face template is unique
to a particular individual, in the same way that a fingerprint or
voiceprint uniquely identifies one and only one person."

ThisLife's tagging feature automatically prompts a user to tag a
person to their face if that person's face template is already in
its database.

The Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act requires a company
to inform a person in writing that it is collecting his or her
biometric information and make its retention and destruction
practices publicly available.  Illinois is one of two states in
the nation that restricts the use of biometric data.

Under the law, a company must receive a written release from a
person before collecting his or her biometric information.

Yet "defendants' proprietary facial recognition technology scans
every user-uploaded photo from faces, extracts geometric data
relating to the unique points and contours (i.e. biometric
identifiers) of each face, and then uses that data to create and
store a template of each face -- all without every informing
anyone of this practice," the complaint states.

Norberg claims that several Shutterfly patents describe its
process for scanning photos and storing face templates without
informed consent.  He says he never gave Shutterfly permission to
collect or store his biometric information, nor was he ever
provided with a written release to sign.  He seeks class
certification, an injunction, and damages of $5,000 for each
"intentional and reckless violation" of BIPA, or alternatively,
$1,000 in statutory damages for each violation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
          211 W. Wacker Drive, Suite 500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          Facsimile: (312) 212-5919
          E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Court Dismissed Davies/Smith Action
----------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., 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 Court in the
Brenda Davies/Kourtney Smith v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers
U.S.A., Inc. II, and Skechers U.S.A. Canada Inc., action issued an
order effectively dismissing that action.

On September 5, 2012, Brenda Davies filed a Statement of Claim in
the Court of Queen's Bench in Edmonton, Alberta, on behalf of all
residents of Canada who purchased Skechers Shape-ups footwear. The
Statement of Claim alleges that Skechers marketed Shape-ups
through the use of false and misleading advertisements and
representations about the products' ability to provide fitness
benefits to users. The Statement of Claim seeks damages (including
damages for bodily injury), restitution, punitive damages, and
injunctive relief. On or about November 21, 2013, an Amended
Statement of Claim was filed to substitute a new representative
plaintiff, Kourtney Smith, in place of Ms. Davies and to allege
substantially the same claims as in the original Statement of
Claim with respect to all Skechers toning footwear sold to
residents of Canada. On or about February 28, 2014, representative
plaintiff Smith agreed to the terms and conditions of the
settlement reached in the Angell, Niras, and Dedato class actions,
and agreed to discontinue the Davies/Smith action once the
settlement in the Angell, Niras, and Dedato class actions is
finally approved by the Court and affirmed on appeal in the event
an appeal is taken. On November 5, 2014, the Quebec Superior Court
issued its formal judgment approving the settlement in the Angell
class action. On January 16, 2015, the Court in the Davies/Smith
action issued an order effectively dismissing that action.

"Notwithstanding, if approval of the class action settlement is
reversed on appeal, we cannot predict the outcome of the
Davies/Smith action or a reasonable range of potential losses or
whether the outcome of the Davies/Smith action would have a
material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial
position or result in a material loss in excess of the settlement
or a recorded accrual," the Company said.


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Mid-2016 Trials in Shape-Ups Injury Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., 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 trials are expected to
be set for dates in early to mid-2016 to the extent that the
remaining 54 accelerated personal injury cases involving Shape-ups
are not resolved by dispositive motions or otherwise.

The Company said, "On February 20, 2011, Skechers U.S.A., Inc.,
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers Fitness Group were named as
defendants in a lawsuit that alleged, among other things, that
Shape-ups are defective and unreasonably dangerous, negligently
designed and/or manufactured, and do not conform to
representations made by our company, and that we failed to provide
adequate warnings of alleged risks associated with Shape-ups. In
total, we are named as a defendant in 1,201 currently pending
cases (some on behalf of multiple plaintiffs) filed in various
courts that assert further varying injuries but employ similar
legal theories and assert similar claims to the first case, as
well as claims for breach of express and implied warranties, loss
of consortium, and fraud. Although there are some variations in
the relief sought, the plaintiffs generally seek compensatory
and/or economic damages, exemplary and/or punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs."

On December 19, 2011, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation issued an order establishing a multidistrict litigation
("MDL") proceeding in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky entitled In re Skechers Toning Shoe
Products Liability Litigation, case no. 11-md-02308-TBR. Since
2011, a total of 1,121 personal injury cases have been filed in or
transferred to the MDL proceeding and 414 additional individuals
have submitted claims by plaintiff fact sheets. The Company has
resolved 432 personal injury claims in the MDL proceedings,
comprised of 62 that were filed as formal actions and 370 that
were submitted by plaintiff fact sheets. Skechers has also settled
8 claims in principle -- 6 filed cases and 2 claims submitted by
plaintiff fact sheets -- and anticipates that those settlements
will be finalized in the near term.

Thirty-eight cases in the MDL proceeding have been dismissed
either voluntarily or on motions by Skechers and 38 unfiled claims
submitted by plaintiff fact sheet have been abandoned. The MDL
currently encompasses 1,021 personal injury cases (which include
the claims of 976 individuals who filed court approved
questionnaires) and 4 claims submitted by plaintiff fact sheets.
Under a mediation procedure authorized by the District Court, a
total of 2,353 settlement questionnaires were submitted by persons
who had yet to file a lawsuit or who were already participants in
the MDL or related coordinated proceedings pending in California
state court. Mediations were held on October 4, 2014 and December
16, 2014, but no settlements were reached.

On December 29, 2014, the District Court ordered that a total of
sixty cases be selected by the parties for staggered, accelerated
discovery and then either be remanded to their originating
districts or set for trial. The sixty cases were selected in
January 2015 and both written and deposition discovery is
proceeding. Four of the 60 accelerated cases have been voluntarily
dismissed, and the Company expects two additional voluntary
dismissals will be filed in the near term. To the extent that the
remaining 54 accelerated cases are not resolved by dispositive
motions or otherwise, trials are expected to be set for dates in
early to mid-2016.


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Trial Dates for 2 Bellwether Cases Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., 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 Court has set
trial dates of October 26, 2015 and January 25, 2016 for the first
two bellwether cases in the personal injury actions filed in
various Superior Courts of the State of California.

Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers
Fitness Group have been named as defendants in a total of 71
personal injury actions filed in various Superior Courts of the
State of California that were brought on behalf of 914 individual
plaintiffs (360 of whom also submitted Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation court-approved questionnaires for
mediation purposes in the MDL proceeding). Of those cases, 67 were
originally filed in the Superior Court for the County of Los
Angeles (the "LASC cases"). On August 20, 2014, the Judicial
Council of California granted a petition by the Company to
coordinate all personal injury actions filed in California that
relate to Shape-ups with the LASC cases (collectively, the "LASC
Coordinated Cases").

On October 6, 2014, three cases that had been pending in other
counties were transferred to and coordinated with the LASC
Coordinated Cases. On April 17, 2015, an additional case was
transferred to and coordinated with the LASC Coordinated Cases.
Four of the actions originally filed as LASC cases, brought on
behalf of a total of 6 plaintiffs, have been dismissed. The claims
of 44 additional plaintiffs have been dismissed entirely from
certain of the lawsuits, either voluntarily, on motion by
Skechers, or pursuant to a settlement agreement. The claims of 21
additional persons have been dismissed in part, either voluntarily
or on motions by Skechers. Thus, the LASC Coordinated Cases
currently involve 67 pending personal injury lawsuits brought on
behalf of a total of 864 plaintiffs.

On March 12, 2014, the Superior Court selected twelve plaintiffs
as bellwether cases to be set for one or more trials starting in
March 2015. To date, extensive written discovery and document
productions have taken place in the LASC cases. Over twenty fact
witness depositions have been taken (all of which were cross-
noticed in the MDL), as have eight expert depositions. Two of the
bellwether cases have settled and one bellwether plaintiff
dismissed her action after Skechers filed a motion for summary
judgment.

On January 7, 2015, the Court vacated the March 2015 initial
bellwether trial date and granted Skechers' motions for summary
adjudication in five bellwether cases with respect to those
plaintiffs' advertising-related claims, including their claims for
breach of warranty, fraud, and violations of consumer protection
laws. On February 25, 2015, the Court granted Skechers' motions
for summary adjudication in the four remaining bellwether cases
with respect to those plaintiffs' advertising-related claims,
including their claims for breach of warranty, fraud, and
violations of consumer protection laws; the Court also granted
Skechers' summary adjudication motions as to two of the four
plaintiffs' products liability claims for an alleged failure to
warn, and took under submission the portion of Skechers' motions
seeking summary adjudication of all four plaintiffs' products
liability claims for alleged design defects. The Court also set
trial dates of October 26, 2015 and January 25, 2016 for the first
two bellwether cases, but deferred selection of the specific
individual bellwether plaintiff to go forward on each of those two
dates to a later time.


SKECHERS U.S.A.: Jan. 4 Trial Date for Missouri State-Court Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., 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 trial date of
January 4, 2016, has been set in one action currently pending in
Missouri state-court.

A total of 123 personal injury actions (some on behalf of numerous
plaintiffs) have been filed that have not been removed to federal
court and transferred to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation. Ten of those actions have been resolved and dismissed.
The remaining 113 actions include the claims of 680 plaintiffs,
671 of whom had submitted court-approved settlement questionnaires
in the MDL. Twenty-three of those personal injury actions have
been removed to various federal courts and are expected to be
transferred to the MDL in the near term. It is further expected
that removal petitions and requests for transfer to the MDL will
be filed for the other 90 state court personal injury actions. No
discovery has taken place in these actions. A trial date of
January 4, 2016, has been set in one action currently pending in
Missouri state-court. No other trial dates have been set.


SONY PICTURES: Employees' Negligence Class Suit Moves Forward
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sony employees' negligence lawsuit can move forward because of the
studio's failure to adequately protect its computer network
against a cyberattack, reports Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News
Service, citing a federal court ruling.

U.S. District Judge Gary Klausner on June 15 granted in part
Sony's motion to dismiss claims that North Korean hackers' data
breach compromised past and present employees' sensitive personal
information, leaving them vulnerable to identity theft and fraud.
The judge, however, denied the motion as to negligence based on
breach of duty to maintain adequate security measures.

"As a result of Sony's failure to maintain an adequate security
system and timely notify plaintiffs of the breach, plaintiffs
suffered the injury," Judge Klausner wrote.

After initially making their claims in state court, Michael Corona
and eight others filed a March federal class action complaint
against Sony Pictures Entertainment after a massive data breach in
November 2014 of Sony's computers.

The group Guardians of Peace stole almost 100 terabytes of data
from Sony, compromising the personal information of 15,000 current
and former employees.  U.S. officials suspect that North Korea
sponsored the attack in response to the Seth Rogen and James
Franco comedy "The Interview," about a plot to assassinate North
Korean leader Kim Jong-un.

Sony's own remediation efforts meant that employees had to buy
their own ID protection services and insurance after the attack,
according to the court order.

The plaintiffs' personal information has been "traded on black
market websites and used by identity thieves" after records were
posted on file sharing sites and exchanged on torrent networks,
the order states.

"Social security numbers were copied more than 1.1 million times
throughout the 601 files stolen from Sony," says the order, noting
that sensitive information included salary and bank account
information, and visa and passport numbers.

Though Judge Klausner ruled that the plaintiffs alleged a
"cognizable injury by way of costs relating to credit monitoring,
identity theft protection, and penalties" the court found it
"implausible" that Sony's alleged delay in notifying employees
about the breach had "caused any of the economic injury."

But Klausner said Sony could have foreseen the cyberattack because
of previous data breaches at other Sony companies and audits of
its security systems.

"Sony made a business decision to not expend the money needed to
shore up its system, and instead to accept the risk of a security
breach," the judge wrote in the 9-page order.

Sony won dismissal of the complaint's claims of breach of implied
contract, and violation of the California Customer Records Act, as
well as two claims relating to data breach laws in Virginia and
Colorado, where two of the plaintiffs reside.

The court ruled as "premature" Sony's move to dismiss the
plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief and a declaratory
judgment.  It also advanced claims for violation of the California
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, and unfair
competition.

Sony could not immediately be reached for comment on June 17.

The case is Michael Corona, et al v. Sony Pictures Entertainment,
Inc., Case No. 14-CV-09600 RGK (Ex), in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.


STERLING BANCORP: Parties Entered Into MOU to Settle "Graner"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sterling Bancorp 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 parties have entered
into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") regarding the
settlement of the putative class action, Graner v. Hudson Valley
Holding Corp.

On November 25, 2014, an action captioned Graner v. Hudson Valley
Holding Corp., et al., Index No. 70348/2014 (Sup. Ct., Westchester
Cnty.), was filed on behalf of a putative class of Hudson Valley
shareholders against Hudson Valley, its current directors, and
Sterling. On January 7, 2015, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. As amended, the complaint alleges that the Hudson
Valley board breached its fiduciary duties by agreeing to the HVB
Merger and certain terms of the Merger Agreement and by failing to
disclose all material information concerning the HVB Merger to the
Hudson Valley shareholders. The complaint further alleges that
Sterling aided and abetted those alleged fiduciary breaches. The
action sought, among other things, an order enjoining the
operation of certain provisions of the Merger Agreement, enjoining
any shareholder vote on the HVB Merger, as well as other equitable
relief and/or monetary damages in the event that the HVB Merger is
consummated.

On April 9, 2015, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") regarding the settlement of the putative
class action. Under the terms of the MOU, the Company, Hudson
Valley, the other named defendants and the plaintiff reached an
agreement in principle to settle the action. Pursuant to the terms
of the MOU, the plaintiff agreed to release the defendants from
all claims relating to the HVB Merger in exchange for certain
additional disclosure to the Hudson Valley shareholders, which
disclosure was made on April 13, 2015 by Hudson Valley via filing
with the SEC on Form 8-K.

Under the terms of the MOU, plaintiff's counsel also has reserved
the right to seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. The
settlement is subject to approval by the Court, and, if the Court
approves the settlement contemplated by the MOU, the action will
be dismissed with prejudice. The settlement will not affect the
merger consideration to be paid to Hudson Valley's shareholders
pursuant to, and subject to the conditions set forth in, the
Merger Agreement. The Merger Agreement and the HVB Merger were
approved by the Company's stockholders at a special meeting held
on April 28, 2015 and by Hudson Valley's shareholders at a special
meeting held on April 30, 2015, and consummation of the HVB Merger
remains subject to the satisfaction of the remaining customary
conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement. The Company, Hudson
Valley and the other defendants deny all of the allegations made
by the plaintiff. Nevertheless, the Company, Hudson Valley and the
other defendants have agreed to settle the action in order to
avoid the costs, disruption and distraction of further litigation.


SWEDBANK ROBUR: Closet Indexing Class Action Dismissal "Damaging"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Pearce, writing for Financial News, reports that the
decision by the Swedish consumer complaints board to dismiss a
landmark 3,000-strong class action against Swedbank Robur for
alleged closet indexing has been described as "damaging" by the
Swedish Shareholders' Association, which represents more than
60,000 retail investors in the country.

The association -- the largest network of retail investors in the
world -- had orchestrated a class action against EUR70 billion
manager Swedbank on behalf of around 3,000 people for the alleged
mis-selling of two funds, Allemansfond Komplett and Kapitalinvest.
It lodged the group action against the fund manager with
complaints board ARN in December 2014.

The focus on the practice of closet indexing -- fund managers
charging active-like fees while effectively tracking a benchmark
-- has sharpened across Europe in recent months.  The move by the
association was seen by the fund management industry as a stand-
out bid in Europe to tackle this area of concern.

The association claimed that about one million Swedish people,
representing some $830 billion, had been charged fees for active
management while, in effect, owning a passive fund, in other words
a closet indexing fund -- an accusation denied by Swedbank Robur.

The association claimed that retail investors in the two funds had
been overcharged over the past decade and was pressing for the
investors to be compensated for that overpayment.

On July 1, ARN dismissed the group action on the grounds that the
scope of the dispute required oral evidence from witnesses, a
measure beyond the means of the board.  ARN can only make
judgments based on written testimonies.

Albin Rannar, head of market surveillance at the Swedish
Shareholders' Association, told Financial News: "This is something
that we dispute as necessary. Evidence is the performance and
management of the funds.

"We draw the conclusion that a fundamental cornerstone in the
protection of the financial consumer has been destroyed, and that
it seems very difficult to win legally against an economically
strong counterpart.  The access to justice seems to be closed for
the guy on the street."

He described the decision as "damaging" and added that the
association would analyze the ruling before deciding on the next
step.  "If such a case can't be opened up by ARN that's a huge
disappointment," he added.

On the restrictions regarding the ability to take into account
oral evidence, Britta Ahnme Kagerman, ARN board chairman and chief
executive, told Financial News that it was a "directive from the
government that we have to follow".

In a statement published on its website, Tomas Hedberg,
Swedbank Robur CEO, said: "We are pleased that ARN does not take
up the matter.  Funds have been actively managed, although we have
not always been satisfied with the result.

"It is clear that this issue has hurt us.  We regularly review our
prices and conditions.  We have among other things reduced fees
for some 30 of our funds, including the two concerned."

The issue of closet indexing has been gaining prominence in
Europe.  In May, the Swedish financial regulator labelled closet
indexers as among the "greatest risks and problems" facing
consumers and financial stability.

Regulators in Denmark, Luxembourg and the Netherlands have also
undertaken their own closet-indexing probes in recent months.

The European Securities and Markets Authority confirmed it was
looking into the issue of closet indexing at the end of 2014.


TENNESSEE: Overhauls TennCare Hotline Following Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Belz, writing for Times Free Press, reports that in early
2014, Tennesseans trying to get enrolled in the state's Medicaid
program faced a strange new landscape with few guides to help
them.  Changes under the Affordable Care Act meant the state's
rules for determining Medicaid eligibility had changed.  But
TennCare, far behind on finishing a computer system that would
make those determinations, was telling people to enroll through
the still-glitchy federal site, HealthCare.gov.

Meanwhile, the TennCare staffers at all Department of Human
Services offices were removed.  People who had questions about
their applications were handed a little blue card and told to call
a new help line, the Tennessee Health Connection.

For pregnant mothers, new parents trying to get coverage for their
children, and people with disabilities, the 1-800 number was
supposed to be a human connection to help them wade through the
complexities of TennCare.

But for many, it has been just the opposite.  While problems with
the new state system mounted, some reported being sent in circles
to other state or federal agencies.  Others said they were told
they could not access programs they should have been eligible for.

"A help line was supposed to lighten the impact of the changes,
but it only added to the confusion and the mess. It made it all
worse," said Michele Johnson, director of the Tennessee Justice
Center, which has sued the state for months-long delays applicants
faced when trying to get coverage last year.

TennCare officials are now acknowledging problems with the hot
line as they terminate their $31 million contract with the
previous vendor, Cognosante, LLC, and bring on a new vendor,
Automated Health System, with a $56.4 million contract.

"Cognosante also was not consistently meeting all of the
performance measures included in the contract," said TennCare
spokeswoman Kelly Gunderson, adding that the contract was mutually
terminated.

The vendor switch comes as TennCare is going back to the drawing
board with a related tech project more than two years behind
schedule: The $37.5 million computer system that was supposed to
determine people's TennCare eligibility in the first place.

A consultant's report released in January said the Tennessee
Eligibility Determination System -- dubbed TEDS -- was nowhere
near completion and consistently has missed ongoing performance
benchmarks.

The state paid Northrop Grumman more than $6 million for the
largely-failed system.  Because 90 percent of the project was
funded by the federal government, the state is out about $600,000.

For the Tennessee Health Connection system, the state had already
paid about half of the $31 million contract to Cognosante,
Ms. Gunderson said.

The contract with Automated Health Systems is set for three years
and five months.

"This transition to a new call center vendor is another example of
the state continuously improving processes and customer experience
and holding our contracted vendors accountable," said
Ms. Gunderson.

Ms. Johnson said that while the programs have led to unnecessary
woes for Tennesseans, "it is good that the state has recognized
that Tennessee taxpayers are not getting their money's worth."

The lawsuit filed by the Tennessee Justice Center, the Southern
Poverty Law Center and the National Health Law Program against
TennCare for the delays is pending in federal court in Nashville,
while TennCare appeals a judge's ruling that forced the agency to
speed up its eligibility decisions to less than 45 days and gave
the lawsuit class action status.

For the time being, people who have been waiting more than 45 days
for determinations about their coverage have the right to a
hearing, the U.S. District Judge Todd J. Campbell decided last
fall.

Ms. Gunderson said the state "continues to resolve such appeals by
making an eligibility determination in the case so that a hearing
is not necessary."


TRANSPORTATION SECURITY: Sued for Dumping Older Air Marshals
------------------------------------------------------------
The Transportation Security Administration closed its field
offices with the highest percentage of older air marshals, a class
action claims in California Federal Court, reports Chris Marshall
at Courthouse News Service.

Leak plaintiff K.H. claims the Department of Homeland Security
discriminated against older workers by shutting offices in
Cincinnati, Cleveland, Tampa, Phoenix, Pittsburgh and San Diego.

K.H. says he sued under his initials because "public disclosure of
his name may compromise national security or endanger his personal
safety."  He claims that at least 90 percent of Federal Air
Marshal Service employees in the targeted offices are older than
40.  Those marshals have been reassigned.

"It is the TSA's intent to force older workers from federal
service and it is the TSA's desire that the older workers will in
fact quit due to the closure of the field offices and the
mandatory office reassignment," K.H. claims.

He claims the TSA wants to "purge" its workforce of older air
marshals so it can "hire two young field air marshals for every
older field air marshal."  The move could affect approximately 300
older air marshals.

In addition, he says, "The TSA is making any potential move to
other offices extremely difficult, expensive, unpalatable, and
problematic."

K.H. says he suffered severe stress about uprooting his family
from Florida and moving to California when the TSA decided to
close the Tampa office, where he had worked.  He says he filed a
complaint with the EEOC, which failed to act within 180 days.  He
seeks class certification, an injunction and $300,000 in
compensatory damages for age discrimination.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas M. Wieczorek, Esq.
          MORRIS POLICH & PURDY LLP
          500 South Rancho Drive, Suite 17
          Las Vegas, NV 89106-4847
          Telephone: (702) 862-8300
          Facsimile: (702) 862-8400
          E-mail: nwieczorek@mpplaw.com


TRIPLE-S: Awaits Further Proceedings in Underwriting Assoc Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S Management Corporation is awaiting further court
proceedings in the Joint Underwriting Association Litigations, 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.

On August 19, 2011, plaintiffs, purportedly a class of motor
vehicle owners, filed an action in the United States District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico against the Puerto Rico
Joint Underwriting Association (JUA) and 18 other defendants,
including TSP, alleging violations under the Puerto Rico Insurance
Code, the Puerto Rico Civil Code, the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and the local statute against
organized crime and money laundering. JUA is a private association
created by law to administer a compulsory public liability
insurance program for motor vehicles in Puerto Rico (CLI). As
required by its enabling act, JUA is composed of all the insurers
that underwrite private motor vehicle insurance in Puerto Rico and
exceed the minimum underwriting percentage established in such
act. TSP is a member of JUA.

In this lawsuit, entitled Noem¡ Torres Ronda, et al v. Joint
Underwriting Association, et al., plaintiffs allege that the
defendants illegally charged and misappropriated a portion of the
CLI premiums paid by motor vehicle owners in violation of the
Puerto Rico Insurance Code. Specifically, they claim that because
the defendants did not incur acquisition or administration costs
allegedly totaling 12% of the premium dollar, charging for such
costs constitutes the illegal traffic of premiums. Plaintiffs also
claim that the defendants, as members of JUA, violated RICO
through various inappropriate actions designed to defraud motor
vehicle owners located in Puerto Rico and embezzle a portion of
the CLI premiums for their benefit.

Plaintiffs seek the reimbursement of funds for the class amounting
to $406,600 treble damages under RICO, and equitable relief,
including a permanent injunction and declaratory judgment barring
defendants from their alleged conduct and practices, along with
costs and attorneys' fees.

On December 30, 2011, TSP and other insurance companies filed a
joint motion to dismiss, arguing, among other things, that
plaintiffs' claims are barred by the filed rate doctrine, inasmuch
as a suit cannot be brought, even under RICO, to amend the
compulsory liability insurance rates that were approved by the
Puerto Rico Legislature and the Commissioner of Insurance of
Puerto Rico.

On February 17, 2012, plaintiffs filed their opposition. On April
4, 2012, TSP filed a reply in support of our motion to dismiss,
which was denied by the court. On October 2, 2012, the court
issued an order certifying the class. On October 12, 2012, several
defendants, including TSP, filed an appeal before the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the First District, requesting the court to vacate
the District Court's certification order. The First Circuit denied
the authorization to file the writ of appeals. Discovery has been
completed. On November 3, 2014, all defendants, including TSP,
filed a joint motion to decertify the class and, on November 17,
2014, a joint motion for summary judgment requesting the dismissal
of the claim.  On February 2, 2015, the court ordered the stay of
class notice proceedings. On March 10, 2015, plaintiff filed their
opposition to the joint motion.


TRIPLE-S: Discovery Ongoing in Blue Cross Antitrust Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S Management 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 discovery is
ongoing in the Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litigation.

TSS is a co-defendant with multiple Blue Plans and the BCBSA in a
multi-district class action litigation filed on July 24, 2012 that
alleges that the exclusive service area (ESA) requirements of the
Primary License Agreements with Plans violate antitrust law, and
the plaintiffs in these suits seek monetary awards and in some
instances, injunctive relief barring ESAs. Those cases have been
centralized in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Alabama. Prior to centralization, motions to dismiss
were filed by several plans, including TSS. Plaintiffs opposed
TSS' motion to dismiss. On April 9, 2014, the Court held an
argumentative hearing to discuss the motions to dismiss. During
the hearing, the Court did not issue a ruling on the motions to
dismiss thus, decision on said motions are still pending. On June
18, 2014, the court denied TSS' motion to dismiss. Discovery is
ongoing.  TSS refilled its motion to dismiss, asserting lack of
personal jurisdiction and improper venue, which plaintiff opposed,
and an argumentative hearing is set for May 19, 2015.   Discovery
is ongoing.

"Also, on April 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed suit in the United
States District Court of Puerto Rico, which we believe does not
preclude TSS' jurisdictional arguments. The Company has joined
BCBSA in vigorously contesting these claims," the Company said.


TRIPLE-S: Discovery Ongoing in Health Care Services Cases
---------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S Management 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 discovery is
ongoing in the claims relating to the provision of health care
services.

TSS is defendant in several claims for collection of monies in
connection with the provision of health care services. Among them
are individual complaints filed before the Puerto Rico Health
Insurance Administration (ASES) by six community health centers
alleging TSS' breached their contracts with respect to certain
capitation payments and other monetary claims. Such claims have an
aggregate value of approximately $9,600. Discovery is ongoing, and
given their early stage, the Company cannot assess the probability
of an adverse outcome or the reasonable financial impact that any
such outcome may have on the Company. TSS believes these
complaints are time-barred and intends to vigorously defend them
on these and other grounds.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Plaintiffs Seek Info on The Donald's Finances
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allie Conti, writing for Vice, reports that in October of 2013,
former student Art Cohen claimed in court that he paid almost
$36,000 for a three-day event in Palo Alto with hopes of learning
real estate secrets from instructors that Donald Trump handpicked.
But actually, according to New York Attorney General Eric
Schneiderman, Trump University was a scam school being run without
a license.  A court agreed, and Mr. Cohen's complaint evolved into
a class action lawsuit.

In the latest development of the case, US District Judge Gonzalo
Curiel announced on June 30 that Mr. Trump must disclose how much
money he made from tricking wannabe business moguls with deep
pockets and a shallow understanding of what differentiates an Ivy
League business school and a weekend conference held at hotel.

"In this case, plaintiffs seek more than just a figure of Trump's
net worth," Judge Curiel wrote.  "Moreover, the court finds it is
not fair to say that Mr. Trump's net worth is equally available to
plaintiff from publicly available sources.  Publicly available
figures of Mr. Trump's wealth have been the subject of wild
speculation and range anywhere from $4 to $9 billion.  Simply
stated, plaintiffs are entitled to answers made under penalty of
perjury."

The ruling could soon provide a rare glimpse into the finances of
a man who constantly brags about being rich despite having
declared bankruptcy four times.  Losing the Spanish-language
broadcast of Miss Universe and Miss USA will cost him $13.5
million, and it's said that he makes $65 million a year through
his work on The Apprentice.  It's unclear how much his mattress
contract was worth.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs in the class action case have until
August 10 to ask Mr. Trump about the finances of his so-called
university, according to the ruling.


TURN INC: Tracks Verizon Subscribers' Browsing History, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a class action claims Turn
Inc. violates privacy of (nonparty) Verizon subscribers by
tracking their browsing history and selling it to advertisers, in
California Superior Court.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Refuses to Dismiss "Yucesoy" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Writing for Courthouse News Service, Nick Cahill reports that a
federal judge let four of seven class action claims against Uber
survive, and gave employees 21 days to amend the three he
dismissed.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen on June 12 denied Uber's motion to
dismiss claims of Massachusetts tips law violations, unjust
enrichment, and tortious interference with contract.  Uber did not
seek dismissal of the claim that it misclassified drivers as
independent contractors.  He dismissed with leave to amend claims
of breach of contract and violations of Massachusetts minimum wage
and overtime laws, as insufficiently pleaded.

The original lawsuit was filed in Massachusetts by former drivers
Hakan Yucesoy and Abdi Mahammed, who accuses Uber of
misclassifying drivers as independent contractors and keeping
their tips.  The case was transferred to Northern California
because of a contract clause requiring lawsuits to be handled in
San Francisco.

Uber sought dismissal by claiming it is "abundantly clear" in its
contracts that no portion of fares are intended as tips for the
driver and that it bills the customer on defined invoices with no
express gratuity charge.

"Uber argues that the statutory definition of 'tip' only covers
separately invoiced payments, but Uber is wrong," Chen wrote, in
refusing to dismiss the claim.

Chen cited Massachusetts' broad definition of gratuity and Uber's
failure to cite a single supporting case regarding tip laws in the
state.

The class accuses Uber of misinforming customers that tips are
included in the fare, and claim that but for Uber's misinformation
customers would tip, as is customary in the taxi industry.

In a ruling in a separate class action in the second week of June,
Chen called Uber's contracts with its drivers "unconscionable" and
said it cannot force drivers to settle disputes in arbitration.

The case is Hakan Yucesoy, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et
al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00262-EMC, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Kellett" and "Cotoi" Suits in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Following a California ruling that an Uber driver is an employee
not a contractor, two LA-based drivers have filed a class action
lawsuit alleging labor violations against the ride-hailing
company, reports Matt Reynolds at Courthouse News Service.

Uber drivers Lori Kellett and David Cotoi on June 18 sued Uber
Technologies in state court for failure to pay overtime, regular
wages and for not paying for meal or rest breaks.

The lawsuit accuses Uber of "indifference and conscious disregard
of the rights of all employees" alleging that the San Francisco-
based company fails to compensate drivers for maintaining
vehicles, paying for smartphones in order to run the Uber app, or
fronting the costs of a required $1 million insurance policy.

If drivers do not own a smartphone they usually have to rent one
from Uber for "considerable personal expense," the filing says.

State prosecutors have scrutinized Uber and its competitor Lyft.
Several complaints are pending against the start-ups.

California Labor Commissioner dealt a potentially crippling blow
to Uber's business model on June 3, awarding driver Barbara
Berwick $4,152 in reimbursable business expenses and interest and
finding she was an Uber "employee" rather than independent
contractor.

Uber spokeswoman Trina Smith said that California's ruling is
"non-binding," applied only to Berwick, and was "contrary to a
previous ruling by the same commission."

"Six other states have also come to the same conclusion," Smith
said in an email, adding that Uber had appealed.

A federal judge in San Francisco allowed several class action
claims against Uber to move forward in the third week of June.

In the LA class action, the two drivers claim Uber maintains
"exclusive control over the rates of pay that drivers will
receive."

As an "Uber Plus" driver, Cotoi received a higher rate of pay.
But his complaint says Uber reclassified him as a basic vehicle
service level, or "Uber X," driver, resulting in an "instantaneous
and precipitous drop in his rate of pay."

Drivers receive a fraction of cancellation fees, and are paid
nothing if Uber decides to waive the fee, the complaint says.

Uber requires drivers to attend training seminars without pay
should they score lower than 4.6 on the company's star rating
system, the filing says.  If drivers fall below a "minimum
threshold" on the rating system, Uber disconnects their smartphone
application and fires them, according to the lawsuit.

Though drivers are "routinely required to travel to multiple
locations in a day, often times traveling hundreds of miles a day
in fulfillment of their job duties" they are not reimbursed for
their mileage, they say.

In addition to class certification, the drivers are seeking
restitution for business expenses and deductions, as well as a
court order enjoining Uber from its alleged unfair business
practices.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN PC
          324 South Beverly Drive, No 725
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Toronto Taxi Drivers Want Govt to Take Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Tencer, writing for The Huffington Post Canada, reports
that the conflict between Toronto's cabbies and Uber is coming to
a head, with some taxi drivers threatening to bring the city to a
standstill amid the Pan Am Games if the city doesn't take action
against the ride service.

"The taxi industry is on its last legs and if UberX continues the
taxi industry will be destroyed," said Sam Moini, a spokesperson
for the Toronto Taxi Alliance, as quoted at the Toronto Sun.  He
described Uber as a "rogue agency that does whatever it wants."

At Toronto City Hall on July 2, some taxi officials threatened to
"shut down" the city if Mayor John Tory didn't crack down on
Uber's UberX service, the Globe and Mail reported.

Some even threatened to overturn and burn Uber cars, as protesting
taxi drivers did in Paris.

"It's not us that want to shut down the city.  It's the mayor who
is pushing us," the Globe quoted Mr. Moini as saying.  "It's the
police chief who is pushing this cab industry to take job action."

Mr. Moini said some cab drivers have reported income drops of 50
per cent.  "We can't compete with somebody that doesn't have the
same rules as us."

Uber counters that it's good for the economy, and estimates it
will create the equivalent of 8,000 full-time jobs in Toronto this
year.

But the taxi industry argues UberX is an illegal taxi service, and
Toronto's municipal government agrees.  It has taken Uber to
court, seeking a permanent injunction against the service.

Uber argues it's not a taxi service, but a web app that connects
drivers with riders -- part of the new "sharing economy."

And despite the city's legal battle with Uber, Mayor John Tory
seems to agree.  He said last fall that the ride service "is here
to stay" and argued a way should be found to bring Uber within
city regulations.

But in many cities around the world, the conflict between Uber and
taxi drivers is escalating.

Paris was the site of some of the most violent anti-Uber protests
yet as taxi drivers set fire to tires on a major arterial route,
grinding traffic to a halt.

On June 29 French authorities arrested the CEO of Uber France and
the general manager of Uber Europe, charging them with running an
illegal taxi service and concealing documents.  On July 3, the
company said it is suspending its lowest-cost service in France,
UberPop, as a "gesture of peace."

Closer to home, Montreal has seen at least 40 Uber cars seized
this year as authorities crack down on the service.  A class-
action lawsuit on behalf of cabbies was launched in the city last
winter.

In Toronto, police ran an undercover sting on Uber drivers in
March, charging 11 Uber drivers in a three-day period.  A court
dropped one of the two charges laid against each of the drivers,
saying there is no prospect of conviction on the charge of
operating a commercial vehicle without proper insurance.  The
drivers still face a charge of operating a commercial vehicle
without a license.

The legal battle between the city and Uber could prove to be
protracted.  The presiding judge has questioned whether his court
is the right venue to settle the matter, suggesting new laws need
to be written.  And he has predicted that, whatever he rules, the
decision is likely to be appealed.


UNION PACIFIC: Sued Over Dispute on Pipelines Along Rail Lines
--------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Railroad sold rights to 1,871 miles of oil pipelines
along rail lines in six states -- but the rights aren't the
railroad's to sell, landowners say in a federal class action,
reports Victoria Prieskop at Courthouse News Service.

Lead plaintiffs Ernest and Hazel Terry sued Union Pacific and
Kinder Morgan and its affiliated pipeline companies on June 12.

They claim that though right-of-way laws allow a railroad to run a
line across government land or by private landowner grant, the
easements do not allow railroads to use land under the tracks
except for purposes directly related to the railroad.

But the Terrys say Union Pacific has charged SFPP (fka Santa Fe
Pacific Pipelines) and Kinder Morgan millions of dollars in rent
for 1,871 miles of pipeline through California, Arizona, Nevada,
New Mexico, Texas and Oregon under the railroad's right-of-way.

The lawsuit traces the fight back to the 1850s, when Congress gave
enormous tracts of land to rail companies to encourage them to
build transcontinental railroads.  The plaintiffs claim these
grants were "mere easements" that "created no right of possession
in the subsurface."

President Lincoln signed the Pacific Railroad Act into law in July
1862.  More congressional rail acts followed, in 1871, 1875 and
thereafter.

Even more lawsuits followed, between landowners, states, the
federal government and the railroads.  By the 1950s, the railroad
and the pipeline companies at issue were sister subsidiaries of
Southern Pacific Corp.

Citing decades of court rulings and federal legislation, the
present lawsuit claims that the companies were granting and
accepting subsurface easements they did not own.

Corporate mergers and sales broke up the sister subsidiaries, and
in 1991 the railroad sued the pipeline for higher rent.  The
pipeline settled by paying $5.5 million and both parties agreed
the rent would be recalculated every 10 years based on fair market
value, beginning in 1994.

Another lawsuit followed that year, and the fair market value was
set at $5 million a year, according to the present lawsuit.

The next lawsuit came right on schedule, in 2004, by which time
the fair market value had risen to $14 million a year, plus $100
million in back rent and interest, the new plaintiffs say.

The pipeline appealed that judgment and won -- but actually both
it and the railroad lost, the Terry plaintiffs say.

"The 2nd District Court of Appeal of California agreed with the
Pipeline and issued an opinion finding that, under the
Congressional Acts, the Railroad did not have a sufficient
interest in the land to collect rent from the Pipeline," according
to the complaint.  "The court explained that under the Pre-1871
Acts the Railroad could only use the subsurface for railroad
purposes -- the pipeline was not for a railroad purpose -- and
that under the 1875 Act the Railroad was granted a mere easement
of the surface and had no rights to the subsurface.

"The opinion specifically noted that the Railroad, in some
instances, may have sought and collected rent for the use of
property owned by others -- including private landowners."

The landowners seek quiet title, back rent, a share of profits,
and punitive damages for trespass, unjust enrichment, slander of
title and fraudulent concealment of the years of trespass.

Their lead attorney is Sara Berger, Esq., in Albuquerque.


UNITED STATES: Fed Overstep Authority in AIG Bailout, Court Ruled
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Reserve had no authority to demand 80 percent of AIG's
equity as a condition of its $85 billion bailout in 2008, reports
Lorraine Bailey at Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court
ruling.

"There is no law permitting the Federal Reserve to take over a
company and run its business in the commercial world as
consideration for a loan," U.S. District Judge Thomas Wheeler said
in a 75-page opinion.

When the Federal Reserve bailed out American International Group,
it took 79.9 percent of the company's equity in exchange for a
loan of $85 billion to prevent the company's collapse.

AIG had entered into credit default swaps to insure $441 billion
worth of securities originally rated AAA.  But $57.8 billion of
these swaps were back by subprime loans that were unmasked as
worthless in the 2008 financial crisis.

As a result, AIG's credit rating was downgraded, and it faced a
liquidity crisis that would have doomed the company if the Federal
Reserve had not acted to save the insurance giant.

Over the next three years, AIG required more funds from the
government to stay afloat as its losses widened.  The government
loaned a total of $182.3 billion to the company, which paid back a
total of $205 billion by the end of 2012.

But former AIG chief executive Maurice Greenberg, who remains
major shareholder of the company through his Starr International,
filed a shareholder class action claiming that the Federal Reserve
overstepped its authority when it demanded equity as a condition
for the bailout, and effectively became its majority owner.

Wheeler found for Greenberg on June 15, ruling that the Fed's
actions constituted an "illegal exaction under the Fifth
Amendment."

"It is one thing for FRBNY [Federal Reserve Bank of New York] to
have made an $85 billion loan to AIG at exorbitant interest rates
under Section 13(3), but it is quite another to direct the
replacement of AIG's Chief Executive Officer, and to take control
of AIG's business operations," the judge wrote.

Even so, the judge declined to award Greenberg any damages,
because the Fed's actions did not injure shareholders -- rather,
the bailout preserved some of their equity, when AIG's alternative
was bankruptcy.

The former CEO sought at least $40 billion from the government.

"The inescapable conclusion is that AIG would have filed for
bankruptcy, most likely during the week of September 15-19, 2008.
In that event, the value of the shareholders common stock would
have been zero," Wheeler said.  "By loaning AIG $85 billion under
the September 22, 2008 Credit Agreement, the government
significantly enhanced the value of the AIG shareholders' stock."

So even if the Fed's actions were illegal, the government did not
cause shareholders any economic loss, the court concluded.

After all, "[twenty] percent of something [is] better than [100]
percent of nothing," the court said quoting government witness
John Studzinski.

In a statement, the Federal Reserve said it "strongly believes
that its actions in the A.I.G. rescue during the height of the
financial crisis in 2008 were legal, proper and effective."

"The court's decision today in Starr International Company, Inc.
v. the United States recognizes that A.I.G.'s shareholders are not
entitled to compensation for that decision, and that the Federal
Reserve's extension of credit to A.I.G. prevented losses to
millions of policyholders, small businesses and American workers
who would have been harmed by A.I.G.'s collapse during the
financial crisis," the statement continued.

Wheeler's ruling holds no immediate policy repercussions, as the
Dodd-Frank Act, passed in 2010, now prohibits the federal
government from bailing out a swaps entity such as AIG in the
future.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Boies, Esq.
          Robert B. Silver, Esq.
          Robert J. Dwyer, Esq.
          Alanna C. Rutherford, Esq.
          Amy J. Mauser, Esq.
          Abby Dennis, Esq.
          Julia C. Hamilton, Esq.
          Laura Harris, Esq.
          Ilana Miller, Esq.
          John Nicolaou, Esq.
          Matthew R. Shahabian, Esq.
          David L. Simons, Esq.
          Craig Wenner, Esq.
          William Bloom, Esq.
          James A. Kraehenbuehl, Esq.
          BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
          333 Main Street
          Armonk, NY 10504
          Telephone: (914) 749-8200
          Facsimile: (914) 749-8300
          E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com
                  rdwyer@bsfllp.com
                  arutherford@bsfllp.com
                  amauser@bsfllp.com
                  adennis@bsfllp.com
                  jchamilton@bsfllp.com
                  lharris@bsfllp.com
                  imiller@bsfllp.com
                  jnicolaou@bsfllp.com
                  mshahabian@bsfllp.com
                  dsimons@bsfllp.com
                  cwenner@bsfllp.com
                  wbloom@bsfllp.com
                  jkraehenbuehl@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          John L. Gardiner, Esq.
          R. Ryan Stoll, Esq.
          Gregory Bailey, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          4 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 735-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 735-2000
          E-mail: john.gardiner@skadden.com
                  ryan.stoll@skadden.com
                  gregory.bailey@skadden.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brian A. Mizoguchi, Esq., Assistant Director
          Benjamin C. Mizer, Esq., Acting Asst. Attorney General
          Robert E. Kirschman, Esq., Jr., Director
          Kenneth M. Dintzer, Esq., Deputy Director
          Scott D. Austin, Esq., Assistant Director
          Claudia Burke, Esq., Assistant Director
          Joshua E. Gardner, Esq., Assistant Director
          John Roberson, Esq., Senior Trial Counsel
          John J. Todor, Esq., Senior Trial Counsel
          Renee Gerber, Esq., Trial Attorney
          Matthew F. Scarlato, Esq., Trial Attorney
          Mariana T. Acevedo, Esq., Trial Attorney
          David D'Alessandris, Esq., Trial Attorney
          Vincent D. Phillips, Esq., Trial Attorney
          Zachary J. Sullivan, Esq., Trial Attorney
          U.S. Department of Justice
          Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division
          950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20530-0001
          Telephone: (202) 514-2000

The case is Starr International Company, Inc., in its own right
and on behalf of two classes of others similarly situated v. The
United States, Case No. 11-779C, in the United States Court of
Federal Claims.


US CHINA MINING: Faces $1-Bil. Shareholder Class Suit in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
"going dark" for years on public filings, China Mining was headed
by a CEO who misappropriated millions to pay off Las Vegas
gambling debts, a $1 billion lawsuit claims.

Euro Pacific Capital sued U.S. China Mining Group Inc. and its
president Hongwen Li in Manhattan Federal Court on behalf of
dozens of shareholders.  Though based in Nevada, China Mining
lives up to its name by exploring, developing and mining for coal
in the People's Republic to be sold by the metric ton for cash on
delivery.

Shareholders entered into a securities purchase agreement (SPA) on
Jan. 7, 2011.  Under the agreement, Euro Pacific became the
"investor representative" for shareholders buying an aggregate of
3,750,000 units of the company for $4.00 per unit for a total of
$15 million, according to the 33-page lawsuit.

The shareholders accuse Li of steering $2.8 million toward his
personal debts.  "A significant portion of these funds were
diverted by Mr. Li for purposes of paying down various personal
financial obligations, including gambling debts he accumulated
through Las Vegas gaming activities," the complaint states.

China Mining filed its registration statement with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on Feb. 14, 2011.

Between May 15, 2012 and Aug. 15, 2014, the company filed eight
notifications telling the SEC it could not files its annual and
quarterly reports on time, the lawsuit says.

"Most notably, China Mining's last document filed with the SEC was
a 128-25 notification of its inability to timely file its 10-Q for
the quarter ending June 30, 2014," the June 5 complaint states.

For that report, China Mining missed the grace period for a
quarter that expired on Aug. 30, 2014, shareholders say.

"The last 10-K or 10-Q China Mining filed was its 10-Q for the
period ending March 31, 2014, which it filed on May 20, 2014," the
complaint states.  "Since then, China Mining has refused to
provide any reports either publically, to Euro Pacific, or to the
shareholders."

Shareholders allege that the missed filings kept them -- and other
market participants -- from learning the fair value of their
equity holdings.  "As a result of China Mining 'going dark,' the
shareholders are deprived of a market to sell their investment, as
any decision to buy, sell, or hold by all market participants is
rendered impossible," the complaint states.

Shareholders also accuse Li of transferring millions to a "sham
company."

"Shortly after Mr. Li's misappropriation of this $2,800,000, China
Mining took out a bank loan in the amount of $3,000,000 for
purposes of providing those funds to a sham company located in the
United States called Majestic Machinery, Inc. ('Majestic'),
incorporated in the State of California on February 2, 2007," the
complaint states.  "Majestic does not to have any credible nexus
to coal mining or brokering activities."

China Mining did not disclose this transaction on 10-Ks and 10-Qs,
the lawsuit says.

Euro Pacific Capital alleges 10 counts of breach of contract,
fraudulent inducement, securities violations, fraud, derivative
and other allegations.

The investment company and the shareholders are represented by:

          David Graff, Esq.
          ANDERSON KILL, P.C.
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 278-1000
          Facsimile: (212) 278-1733
          E-mail: dgraff@andersonkill.com


WAL-MART STORES: Court Grants Partial Judgment in Sex Bias Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart at Courthouse News Service reports that after
14 years, an employee discrimination case against Wal-Mart "lives
on to fight another day," a federal judge ruled, granting Wal-Mart
only partial summary judgment.

Betty Dukes, Patricia Surgeson, Edith Arana, Deborah Gunter and
Christine Kwapnoski sued Wal-Mart in 2001 under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act, claiming the world's largest retailer has a
"pattern and practice of gender discrimination in compensation and
promotion," and that its policies "had a disparate impact not
justified by business necessity on its female employees."  Those
quotes are from the Oct. 27, 2011, fourth amended complaint.

The San Francisco Federal Court and California Supreme Court
denied class certification, leaving individual Title VII claims
brought by Surgeson, Arana and Gunter, according to Wal-Mart's
April 2015 motion for summary judgment.

That document claims that "After more than 13 years of litigation,
each of these three plaintiffs now must support her claim against
Wal-Mart with specific evidence of unlawful activity.  But there
is no such evidence."

Wal-Mart argued that many of the allegations are time-barred,
barred by failure to exhaust administrative remedies and because
they fail to show discrimination.

It claimed that Surgeson's claims fail because she offered no
evidence that Wal-Mart's actions "had anything to do with her
sex."

"Her promotion allegations fail because the only hourly positions
she identifies were awarded to female employees, and because she
did not apply to and was not qualified for the Manager-in-Training
program," Wal-Mart argued.

"Her pay allegations fail because she cannot identify a similarly
situated male who was paid more.  Her retaliation allegations fail
because they are procedurally defective and lack merit."

Wal-Mart made similar arguments regarding Arana and Gunter.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer on June 10 found that some of
the plaintiffs' claims are time-barred because they are not
protected by the "piggyback rule" allowing them to ride on the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charge filed by a former
plaintiff in the case, Stephanie Odle.

Breyer ruled that the plaintiffs' pre-Dec. 26, 1998 allegations
"fall outside the 300-day range of Odle's Oct. 2, 1999 EEOC
charge, and therefore are time barred."

Surgeson's retaliation claim is also time-barred, in part, because
she "did not allege retaliation in her EEOC complaint even under
the most liberal reading, and thus did not administratively
exhaust her claim" and she did not "respond to Wal-Mart's motion
for summary judgment on any retaliation claims and thus can be
deemed to have waived any objections."

Breyer granted summary judgment on Arana's race and pay claims.
and Gunter's pay and hostile work environment claims.

"As to every other argument by Wal-Mart in its motions for summary
judgment, the court carefully considered the factual and legal
bases advanced in support thereof and found them lacking," Breyer
concluded.  "This case, 14 years and counting, lives to fight
another day."

The case is Betty Dukes, et al. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No.
3:01-cv-02252-CRB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.


WECARE SERVICES: Faces Suit Seeking Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Love, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated employees v. WeCare Services, Inc. d/b/a Comfort Keepers,
Case 2:15-cv-02426 (W.D. Tenn., June 24, 2015) alleges that the
Defendant failed to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael L. Russell, Esq.
     Emily Emmons, Esq.
     GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
     341 Cool Springs Boulevard, Suite 230
     Franklin, TN 37067
     Tel: 615-354-1144
     E-mail: mrussell@gilbertfirm.com
             eemmons@gilbertfirm.com


YUBA COUNTY, CA: UC LAW Students to Look Into Inmate Conditions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Denny Walsh, writing for The Sacramento Bee, reports that
prisoners at the overcrowded and understaffed Yuba County Jail
have found formidable allies in law students studying civil rights
at UC Davis.

Last fall, three students from the UC Davis School of Law's
renowned Civil Rights Clinic went before the county grand jury
with detailed findings on how the Marysville jail is run.  Among
other criticisms, they said the jail has failed to provide
treatment or medication for mentally ill inmates and to protect
prisoners from assault by other inmates.  The students' role was
made public in late May with the release of the previously
confidential grand jury report for 2014-15.

The prisoners didn't set out to get student help, but they needed
representation when the Yuba County Counsel's Office moved in
Sacramento federal court to dismiss a long-ignored consent decree
put in place in 1979 to govern the jail's operation.

The California Rural Legal Assistance lawyers who filed the 1976
lawsuit that led to the consent decree, and who monitored how the
Sheriff's Department obeyed the document's mandates, had to
abandon their roles as watchdogs in 1996 because of legal and
economic restrictions.  So there was no enforcement of the
decree's terms for 18 years, until the County Counsel's Office
filed its motion in 2013.

Consequently, the federal court in Sacramento looked for a lawyer
to represent the prisoners and reached out last year to Carter
"Cappy" White, the Civil Rights Clinic's director and supervising
attorney, who agreed to take on the task.   When you get
Mr. White, you get his students.

Over the next year and a half, the students delved into the
operations of the jail, interviewing scores of prisoners.

Amanda Whitney -- a 26-year-old third-year law student from
Bakersfield and one of nine students who have worked on the
case -- conducted interviews with inmates, met with jail staff,
and pored over documents such as grievances and incident reports.

The experience was "incredibly valuable," she said, "in terms of
learning practical skills and finding out what the real world is
like."

The grand jury report says the large number of inmates and their
"complicated needs," plus "the inadequacy of the facility itself,"
are a challenge to the staff of the jail.

That jury report, Mr. White said, "confirms much of what we have
learned about the need to improve access to medical and mental
health care at the jail."  He said attorneys and students have
found jail officials receptive to some suggestions about
improvements but resistant to others, citing budget limitations.

In response to the evidence presented by the student lawyers, the
grand jury recommended that the Yuba County jail beef up medical
and mental health care for prisons, in part by having a full-time
credentialed mental health counselor and a full-time registered
nurse available to handle their needs.  It said the county should
reduce the use of a "rubber room" to contain mentally ill
prisoners and avoid delays in transferring prisoners to outside
hospitals.

Shortcomings at the jail have been noted for decades.

The underlying lawsuit challenging conditions was eventually
certified as a class action, and the consent decree resolved most
of the suit's claims.  While the decree remains in place to this
day, its mandate that each county grand jury be made aware of the
document and its terms has been ignored since the CRLA lawyers
bowed out.

The 2014-15 grand jury reported that it discovered the decree's
existence "through media reports regarding another agency."  It
then examined federal court records, learning that the Yuba County
counsel's office knew of its legal obligation to supply a copy of
the decree to the jury but failed to do so, according to the
report.

In the 2013 motion to terminate the decree, John Vacek, Yuba
County's chief deputy counsel, wrote that while the court-approved
pact "may have made some sense in the 1970s, much of it is as
relevant today as bell bottom pants and disco music."

Since the decree was adopted, circumstances at the jail have
changed.  For example, when the suit was filed, the design
capacity for the jail was 150 and the staff numbered 19.  There
are now 60 staff members and the building, renovated in 1995, is
designed for 428 inmates.

Mr. White and his students stepped in last year and vigorously
opposed termination of the consent degree, noting that past grand
jury reports had described conditions and practices still not in
compliance with the decree, including how often inmates get clean
underwear and towels and have access to the exercise yard, how
often unusable recreation equipment is replaced, how often
detoxification holding cells are cleaned, and the frequency and
response time of medical and dental care.

The Civil Rights Clinic's team also pointed out that the jail
operates, in part, as a facility for federal immigration
detainees, and they are protected by the consent decree just like
all other prisoners.  The county argued the opposite, saying that
the Prison Litigation Reform Act does not provide a basis for such
protection.

U.S. District Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. granted time for White
and his students to do some fact-finding.  At a second round of
briefing, the clinic urged the judge to maintain the majority of
the decree, "at least in the areas of outdoor exercise, medical
care, grievance procedures, hygiene, and housing and safety."

Judge Burrell denied the dismissal motion in April 2014, ruling
that the county had failed "to demonstrate that there are no
ongoing constitutional violations" of the inmates' rights.  For
defending the motion, Judge Burrell awarded attorneys' fees and
costs totaling $7,827 to Mr. White and his students, $6,192 of
which were fees for the students' labors.

The county appealed Judge Burrell's rejection of its motion and
his award of fees and costs.  The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals has stayed the awards appeal pending its decision on the
denial of the motion.  The appeal will probably be decided next
year.

After winning the first critical round in district court, the
students investigated further under Mr. White's guidance,
monitored the jail's operation and presented their findings to the
grand jury in November.  It's that jury's report that was released
in May.

Ms. Whitney, the student who worked on the case this past academic
year, said she took away a realization of how critical the need is
for quality treatment of mentally ill inmates.  "You read about it
a lot, but there's no way you can understand the seriousness of
the problem unless you see it up close. People are getting hurt,"
she said.

The civil rights clinic is one of the reasons Ms. Whitney chose UC
Davis to study law, she said. Without it, she said, she "would
never have known what jail is really like.  It is something that
will stick with me the rest of my life."

Carter "Cappy" White, director of the UC Davis School of Law Civil
Rights Clinic and its supervising attorney, and two of his
students submitted a 43-page brief in October to the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in a case involving conditions at the
Yuba County jail.  Among their findings:

  -- Inmates are consistently denied access to adequate medical
care and inmates with serious mental health conditions, such as
schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, have been deprived of access
to mental health services and medication.

  -- The jail has failed to protect prisoners from assault by
other inmates in entirely preventable situations.

  -- Inmates are subjected to an unreasonable risk of harm due to
the fact that jail employees fail to properly (check) and
supervise cell blocks and housing units, and many jail housing
units lack a means for inmates to contact jail staff in case of
medical crisis or other emergency.

-- Evidence exists of unsanitary conditions, lack of access to
outdoor exercise and reprisals or retaliation against inmates who
file grievances.


* Delaware Labor Leaders Debate Over Impact of Overtime Proposals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The News Journal's Scott Goss and The Associated Press report that
business groups and labor unions are deeply divided about how the
Obama administration's proposed change to the federal rule
governing overtime pay could impact Delaware.

The proposal would change a long-standing exemption that allows
employers to avoid paying overtime wages to executive,
administrative or professional employees.

The Obama administration says the proposed change would boost pay
for up to 5 million workers who are currently excluded from
receiving one-and-a-half times their regular pay for working more
than 40 hours a week.

"Right now, too many Americans are working long days for less pay
than they deserve," President Barack Obama wrote in an op-ed
published on June 29 in The Huffington Post.  "That's partly
because we've failed to update overtime regulations for years."

Richard Heffron, president of the Delaware State Chamber of
Commerce, said the rule change could have a chilling effect on
future job growth while convincing businesses to limit pay offered
to new hires.  Those hardest hit will be small businesses that
employ about half of the state's private workforce, he said.

"The biggest cost for any company is labor and when you add to
that, businesses -- especially small ones -- will struggle," he
said. "The economy is slowly recovering but profit margins are
still slim for most small businesses.  Now here comes another
burden on top of all these other requirements."

The Delaware State AFL-CIO, on the other hand, praised the
proposal as a way to help struggling workers earn more pay.

"There are a lot of working poor out there who will be helped by
this," said state union President Samuel E. Lathem.  "People who
say this will hurt business make the same argument about minimum
wage but that's not true either."

Current threshold was set in 2004

Currently, U.S. businesses can avoid paying overtime to certain
salaried employees who earn more than $455 a week by classifying
them as a "manager."  At an annual salary of $23,660 a year, that
pay would put a family of four below the federal poverty guideline
with no means of earning extra income by working extra hours.

The U.S. Labor Department is proposing to more than double the
minimum threshold to $970 a week.  That would mean salaried
employees who earn less than $50,440 a year -- from fast food and
retail supervisors to bank branch managers and insurance claims
adjusters -- would be assured overtime for working beyond 40 hours
per week.

The proposal also would peg the salary threshold at the 40th
percentile of income to keep us with future inflation and wage
growth.

The current threshold set in 2004 -- combined with vague language
used to define the job duties that qualify a position for the
overtime exemption -- have led to widespread abuse of the system,
said Mike Sweeney, a partner with the New York-based law firm
Getman Sweeney.

His office has represented workers in several class action suits
filed against major corporations under federal and state wage-and-
hour laws, including Chase Bank, Bank of America and Wells Fargo.

"There are quite a few Fortune 500 companies who are gaining a
competitive advantage by classifying workers as managers and
requiring them to work 60 to 70 hours a week," he said.  "If you
go to any big box store, chances are you'll see assistant managers
stocking shelves and pricing items, while making less than hourly
employees doing the same type of work."

Mr. Sweeney said companies skirt the classification requirements
because the cost of settling a lawsuit can be less than the cost
of paying overtime.

"Employees can only collect back wages going back two years," he
said.  "And most people don't challenge their employers because
they fear losing their jobs.  Collecting back pay means nothing if
it means you're no longer able to put food on the table."

Bob Older, president of the Delaware Small Business Chamber, said
he's conflicted about the proposal because of those abuses.

"I have a friend who works for a company where everyone works
crazy hours but doesn't get overtime because they're all salary,"
he said.  "So from that perspective, I understand how this change
could help."

But, he said, Delaware small businesses are already dealing with
higher heath care costs and a 50-cent hike in the minimum wage
that raised the state's bottom wage to $7.75 on June 1 -- the
second half-dollar bump in a year.

"Now you add overtime costs and it all adds up to a lot for these
businesses to absorb in a short amount of time," he said.  "It's
feels like we're being nickel-and-dimed to death."

The proposed rule change will have a more profound impact than
simply requiring employers to limit hours or pay more in overtime,
said Carrie Leishman, president of the Delaware Restaurant
Association.

"What it's going to do is disincentivize full-time work and halt
career advancement dead in its tracks," she said.  "Flexibility in
worker hours is so important to our industry and this will force
restaurants to cut hours and cut jobs."

Ms. Leishman said restaurants -- which have an average profit
margin of 5 percent -- will likely adjust by converting more
positions to part-time work to avoid triggering the proposed
overtime rule.

The National Retail Federation raised similar concerns in a
statement released on June 30.

"Turning managers into rank-and-file hourly workers takes away the
career opportunities offered by private sector entrepreneurs and
jobs creators that are the true path to middle-class success,"
said David French, NRF's senior vice president for government
relations.

Meanwhile, Stephan Lehm said he doesn't see a problem with paying
employees for overtime work, no matter how much they might already
earn.  The president of the Wilmington-based engineering and
planning company Vandemark & Lynch said the firm had been paying
overtime to any employee who works more than 40 hours for at least
the last 25 years.

"We pay everyone hourly except the two owners, whether they're a
laborer, a draft person or an engineer," he said.  "And if they
have to sacrifice time away from their families and work a weekend
because of our deadline, they get overtime.  It just seems fair
and it's worked very well for us."

The White House's proposed changes will be open for public comment
and finalized sometime in the next year.  They can be enacted
without approval from Congress.


* Massive Data Breaches Pose Risk for Millions of Americans
-----------------------------------------------------------
David N. Rosen, Esq. of David Rosen & Associates P.C., in an
article for The Middletown Press, reports that by now it feels
familiar as well as creepy: data breaches, often massive.
Millions of Americans affected.  Private information stolen,
consequences unknown.  What's going on? The answer is, no one
knows except the hackers, and they aren't talking.

First, some facts. Three separate health insurance companies have
reported massive breaches of their record-keeping systems,
involving millions of customers: 1.1 million at CareFirst, up to
11 million at Primera, 79 million at Anthem.  Even the Internal
Revenue Service reports that more than 100,000 files were hacked.

And that's just the hacks reported.  At a recent conference of
cyber-security professionals, 20 percent said they had worked at
companies that hid security breaches.  Has your personal
information -- Social Security number, health information, other
information -- been hacked so that criminals now have it? Not
unlikely, and if it hasn't been it may well be before too long.

The Connecticut legislature seems to have awakened to the problem
with the passage of an Act Improving Data Security and Agency
Effectiveness, requiring those conducting business in the state
that own or license the personal information of residents to offer
free identity theft protection services for at least one year
following a data breach.  The bill also would require companies to
set up protocols to ensure their customers' most private data is
kept secure -- and they encrypt all data in "transit" -- whether
over the Internet, on a laptop, or a flash drive.

With all the news accounts of hacking, these companies certainly
should have known to encrypt their data.  Nevertheless, the
Senate's move is a good one.  Let's hope the House follows suit
and the bill is quickly signed by the governor.

So who is doing the hacking? Here's where it gets even creepier.
The leading suspects are foreign governments.  The New York Times
reports that the leading suspect is believed to be China -- and
there are lots of other governments that may want to get on the
bandwagon.  But why? What's in it for China -- or Russia, North
Korea or, who knows, France or Germany -- to commit this invasion?
Apparently the answer is, we don't know for sure.

On a national level, it may be all to the good that while hackers,
from whatever location, are attacking data systems they are at
least being detected at some point.  Every detection is an
opportunity to improve security and help the defense keep up with
the offense.

For individuals, this particular kind of invasion of privacy is
unprecedented.  Is it more or less scary than having our data
collected by the government on a gigantic scale? The answer may be
different for different people.  But at least with this type of
hacking there is someone -- our government -- trying to detect and
thwart it.  And at least there is some possibility of individuals
to do something about it.  Each of these massive data breaches is
responded to with class-action lawsuits on behalf of the
individuals and families whose personal data has been compromised.
The purpose of the private lawsuits is to spur large companies to
keep up with the state of the art in thwarting security breaches.
The spur, of course, is the requirement that the companies
compensate the victims for intrusions that could have been
prevented and that cause anxiety or, in some cases, worse for the
customers of these giant firms.  Most commonly, we hear about
people who discover that a bogus tax return has been filed in
their name. Who profits from that kind of nastiness? In the long
run, probably no one, but it is not only massively inconvenient,
it is disquieting, scary, like being followed.

So the good news is that most likely this kind of massive breach
is not the beachhead for a huge epidemic of fraud and identity
theft that will lead to the emptying of tens of millions of bank
accounts.  The bad news is that we don't know how, or whether, it
can be stopped or, to be realistic, just what the implications are
for our interconnected society.

David N. Rosen is the lead attorney of New Haven-based David Rosen
& Associates P.C. The firm has filed a class-action lawsuit
against one large health insurance company as a result of a data
breach.


* Multi-National Firms Dump Toxic By-Products in Asia
-----------------------------------------------------
Shireen Muhiudeen, writing for The Star, reports that multi-
national corporations (MNCs) use Asia as the dumping ground for
the toxic by-products of their ventures.  Sounds familiar?

One of the most egregious examples of this is the recently-
concluded trial on one of the region's worst industrial disasters,
which occurred in North Asia.

This trial, which took a decade to run its course, ended with the
Asian court ruling that the former technology giant was clearly
behind this industrial disaster.  The verdict was that the MNC had
to pay nearly US$20 million in damages for dumping toxic waste at
and around its Asian plant.  The sum awarded was about a fifth of
what the victims of this toxic waste had originally claimed in
their lawsuit.  The case was on the basis that certain chemicals
in the dumped toxic waste were found to be, with "reasonable
medical certainty", related directly to the many serious illnesses
that befell the victims.  Those who became ill from the pollution
were former as well as current employees of the company.

The MNC began its operations nearly 50 years ago, employing
thousands of people to make about 6,000 color television sets a
day.  The rage at that time was of course, the massive demand for
the color television.

As the company needed to get rid of the toxic waste, they
instructed some of its employees to dig wells, into which they
discharged the toxic waste from their manufacturing activities.
Such burying of pollutive substances was found to be illegal
because, ultimately, the toxins seeped into the soil and
contaminated the groundwater.

The court found that the company's previous employees -- mostly
women from poor families -- were exposed to as many as 20 types of
poisonous chemicals.  The findings revealed that these factory
workers used solvents to clean the printed circuit boards that
would then be assembled as part of the TV sets and other
electronic products.  Sometimes, the workers applied these
solvents with bare hands, and breathed in the solvents' volatile
compounds.  All these were done within the factory premises with
very poor ventilation and air circulation.  Whenever the workers
stopped to wash their hands, drink and eat, they did so with the
untreated groundwater pumped from, you guessed it, the same wells
into which all the toxic waste solvents had been dumped.

Exposure to solvents

Undaunted that they were up against a huge corporation with very
deep pockets and influence, these ex-employees formed a self-help
group in 1998 and, with the help of volunteer lawyers, began a
lengthy battle against this giant.  The lawsuit grew into a class
action lawsuit against the polluter in 2004, during which they
sought compensation for what was truly an occupational hazard.

The case, however, took several twists and turns.  For one thing,
the original manufacturer responsible for all the dumping became
defunct in 1986 when it was bought by another MNC technology
giant.  Then in 1988, that second giant sold the manufacturer to
yet another multi-national corporation.

To make things even worse for the victims of the prolonged
poisoning, a lot of the original information on the plant was
destroyed in a warehouse fire.  The warehouse fire seemed to be a
terribly convenient way to get rid of information and corporate
files.  Almost a trend when corporate memory is to be wiped clean.
The fire threw the legal process off for a while as there was no
longer any data on the plant's operations that might have linked
specific toxins used in production to the ex-employees' illnesses.

The size of the challenge was such that the legal team fighting
for the ex-employees was 80 in-strength, all working on a pro bono
basis.  The amount of coordination and determination needed to
keep things going well was almost like a detailed military
exercise.

Epidemiologists had to step in to painstakingly assemble the
scientific evidence to support the victims.  One among them alone
testified over more than 14 sessions, spanning 50 hours, as an
expert witness.

This landmark case has since laid the groundwork in three areas:
how big legal teams should work together on cases such as these;
how companies should behave if they want to sustain their
businesses; and how Governments need to regulate safety and health
standards.  The case also exposed how flat-footed the Government
was in being caught unaware by such a flagrant violation of
environmental responsibility.

The Government at that time had few, if any, measures to regulate
such hazardous pollution.  That, sadly, was exactly why the MNC
chose to build its factory there -- cheap labor costs and no
safety standards to adhere to, which of course was a cost that
directly impacted the MNC's bottomline.

Hindsight is always 20-20 but one would have thought that most
companies would have a plan on how to stay in business and that
would include measures on how to dump the toxic waste.

One would have thought that a basic rule of thumb would be that if
you kill off your labor force, you would be definitely shortening
if not ending, the life cycle of your business.


* Overtime Exemption Proposals to Impact Retail Workplace
---------------------------------------------------------
Cindy Westervelt, Esq. and Kevin Young, Esq. of Seyfarth Shaw LLP,
in an article for JDSupra, report that the Department of Labor's
proposed revisions to the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime
exemptions will impact the American workplace -- and especially
the retail workplace -- as much as any legal development in the
past decade.  Exempt job classifications will need to be
reassessed and, in many cases, changed.  But to view this as
merely the moment to endure a major legal audit might be to
overlook a broader opportunity.  Drawing upon our deep experience
counseling and partnering with retail clients, we advise in this
Alert how the legal analysis might be paired with retailers'
broader business strategies in an evolving market.

The DOL is tightening the FLSA's most litigated overtime
exemptions.  The exemption most relied upon in retail field
operations -- the executive exemption -- will be harder to meet.
Until now, it was generally enough if a retail manager earned a
salary of $23,660 ($455/week) and management was her most
important duty, even if she spent most of her time assisting with
non-managerial work, like stocking shelves.  Under the DOL's
proposed rules, the annual salary requirement would  more than
double to $50,440 ($970 per week) ("Salary Test").  Moreover, the
requirement would be indexed to the 40th percentile of weekly
earnings for full-time salaried workers nationally, thereby
automatically increasing over time.

In addition to an amplified salary requirement, it remains quite
possible that the DOL will overhaul the exemptions' duties
requirements as well.  Though the DOL did not publish a proposed
rule to this effect, it has invited public comment on a series of
questions on the issue.  Those questions, which can be found by
clicking here, may foreshadow a major shift to a quantifiable
duties test when the DOL releases its final rules (e.g., requiring
that managers spend a minimum percentage of time on management).
("Duties Test").  Seyfarth encourages retailers to provide
comments on these questions so that the DOL can fully consider,
among other things, the critical role a store manager plays in
running a retail store.  To this end, Seyfarth will be collecting
employer comments through a series of client roundtable
discussions and other communications aimed at obtaining the views
of the employer community.

In a retail industry where average assistant manager salaries
hover around $38,000 nationwide and all store employees, exempt or
otherwise, are often relied upon to help accomplish the day's
work, the impact of these changes cannot be understated.

The public now has a 60-day comment period to respond to the DOL's
proposal.  That time could be extended by 30 days, but probably
not longer.  Following this comment period, the DOL will take some
time to review the comments before issuing its final rules, most
likely several months later.  This gives retailers time to take
steps to protect themselves against legal risks created by the new
rules, but it is important to begin this process soon.


* SAFE Justice Act to Increase Fairness in Prison Sentencing
------------------------------------------------------------
JURIST.org reports that Human Rights Watch on July 2 said that the
SAFE Justice Act, a US criminal justice reform bill introduced in
June, could better protect prisoners' rights and increase fairness
in federal prison sentencing.  The bill proposes reforms [HRW
report] to federal sentencing statutes, which include the
modification of mandatory minimums to exclude people in drug
trafficking offenses with minimal roles.  If adopted, the reforms
would prevent prosecutors from being able to threaten unfairly
long sentences in federal drug cases.  Under the bill, the US
Attorney General would be required to ensure that the staff of
federal correctional facilities have the training necessary to
identify and respond to those in custody who have mental
disabilities.  The act would also impact the federal compassionate
release program, allowing prisoners the right to petition directly
to a court for compassionate release rather than being forced to
first seek Bureau of Prison approval.  HRW urged Congress to pass
the SAFE Justice Act, in addition to other reforms, calling it a
"promising vehicle for change."

The treatment of prisoners and prison reform has been a growing
concern in the US for years.  In May HRW released a report stating
that mentally disabled prisoners experience "unnecessary,
excessive and even malicious force" at the hands of prison staff
across the US.  In April the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments
in Kingsley v. Hendrickson over the standard that should be
applied to excessive-force claims brought by pre-trial detainees.
A federal court in February approved a settlement agreement
between the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC) and the
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in a class action lawsuit
over the health care system within Arizona prisons.  Also in
February rights group Equal Justice Under Law filed suit against
the cities of Ferguson and Jennings, Missouri, for their practice
of jailing citizens who fail to pay debts owed to the city for
minor offenses and traffic tickets.  The ACLU and the ACLU of
Texas released a report last June exposing the results of a multi-
year investigation into conditions at five Criminal Alien
Requirement prisons in Texas.


* SC May Bring Victories for Conservatives in Next Term
-------------------------------------------------------
The Register-Guard reports that the U.S. Supreme Court's just-
concluded term was pretty much a joy ride for liberals -- until
June 29, when it was conservatives' turn to cheer decisions
involving the death penalty and President Obama's environmental
agenda.  Those rulings may indicate that the court's unexpected
leftward tilt will not last, and that the next term will give
conservatives opportunities for major victories in areas ranging
from affirmative action and union organizing to voting rights and
class action lawsuits.

But the court's more liberal justices clearly dominated this term,
which legal scholars say may be the most left-leaning since the
Warren Court in the late 1960s.  Thomas Goldstein, a lawyer and
publisher of SCOTUSblog, notes that of the 26 cases this term with
close votes in which ideology played a pivotal role, liberal
justices prevailed in all but seven of them.  Of the 10 cases
widely regarded as most significant to come before the court,
liberal justices carried the day in eight, and in none of those
cases did a liberal justice leave the minority fold to vote with
conservatives.

Anyone doubting the liberal minority's sway over the term should
consider that Anthony Kennedy, the right-leaning justice regarded
as most influential because of his role as the court's swing
voter, sided with every liberal more often than any conservative.
At term's end, Justice Clarence Thomas had written 10 dissents
compared to one for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg.  Justice
Stephen Breyer had voted with the majority 92 percent of the time,
while Justice Antonin Scalia voted with the majority just 69
percent of the time.

So how did the court's four liberals -- Ginsburg, Breyer, Sonia
Sotomayor and Elena Kagan -- pull off this extraordinary judicial
coup?

For starters, the four justices nominated by Presidents Bill
Clinton and Barack Obama closed ranks, voting together nearly 90
percent of the time.  That cohesiveness positioned them to prevail
whenever they could persuade one conservative justice, usually
Kennedy but sometimes Chief Justice John Roberts, to give them the
vote they needed to form a majority.

That wasn't difficult, given the conservatives' inclination this
term to go their own ways, writing separate concurrences and
dissents.  Justice Scalia was particularly prone to criticize his
colleagues, both liberals and conservatives, with vitriolic
attacks.  In his dissent in the court's same-sex marriage decision
last month, Scalia lashed out at Kennedy's majority opinion,
calling it "pretentious," "egotistic," "silly," and replete with
"straining-to-be-memorable passages."

"If, even as the price to be paid for a fifth vote, I ever joined
an opinion for the court that began: 'The Constitution promises
liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain
specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to
define and express their identity,' I would hide my head in a
bag," he wrote.

Such attacks hardly inspired unity among the court's
conservatives.  By contrast, Ginsburg, the senior member of the
liberal bloc, reportedly has urged her fellow liberals on the
court to speak with one calm, firm and unargumentative voice. As a
result, the liberal justices produced just 13 dissenting opinions,
compared to more than 40 by their conservative counterparts.

Another reason for the liberal dominance was the frequent judicial
overreach by conservative plaintiffs.  In a number of cases, the
legal theories underlying cases were either too tenuous or too
extreme for some conservative justices, in particular Kennedy and
Roberts.

In the high-profile challenge to the Affordable Care Act, for
example, conservative plaintiffs seized on four words --
"established by the state" -- in a subsection of the voluminous
act to challenge the validity of federal subsidies provided to
citizens of states where the federal government established a
health exchange after state officials chose not to do so.  Little
wonder that neither Kennedy nor Roberts were willing to buy that
argument, which flew in the face of any common-sense reading of
the law and of the intent of Congress in passing it.

Liberals should enjoy their day in the sun, because it's likely
the next term will bring victories for conservatives.  They're
likely to heed the lessons of the recently concluded term, and
take full advantage of their majority status.

Already, the court has agreed to hear several cases in the next
term that seem more likely to produce decisions in line with the
views of the conservative majority.  They include cases in which
justices will weigh whether voting restrictions, abortion rights,
gun-control laws and college admissions have exceeded
constitutional bounds.

As they relish the victories of the past term, liberals should
keep in mind that it's unlikely they will be doing the same this
time next year.


* US Labor Dept May Issue Proposal Over White-Collar OT Exemption
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reports that the
U.S. Department of Labor may issue a final proposal that will
change the highly litigated, so-called "white-collar exemptions"
for overtime with respect to workers' duties without giving
employers the opportunity to comment on the matter.

The Labor Department's wage and hour division announced its long-
awaited proposal to amend the white-collar overtime exemption for
executive, administrative and professional employees under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, but focused only on the salary levels
required for the exemption, not the job duties.

Employers must pay nonexempt workers one-and-a-half times their
regular rate of pay when they work more than 40 hours in a week.
Under the proposal, which is expected to take effect next year,
the salary level at which employees are exempt from receiving
overtime pay would increase to $50,440 a year from the current
$23,660.

In addition, the proposal would establish an escalator mechanism
for updating the salary and compensation levels in the future.

It has been estimated that about 5 million people will be affected
by the proposal.  Its origin is a memo sent by President Barack
Obama to the Labor Department last year, in which he said rules
originally intended to limit overtime for highly paid employees
now cover workers "earning as little as $23,000 a year."

And insurers traditionally have not covered large employers' wage
and-hour litigation risks, though that is beginning to change,
with some Bermuda insurers having entered the market.  In
addition, a handful of U.S. insurers offer the coverage to smaller
employers, generally those with up to 1,000 employees.

Eligibility for overtime pay is based on salary levels and job
duties, with executive, administrative and professional the three
primary exempt categories.  Under current FLSA rules, for example,
an executive exemption is applied to an employee who regularly
directs the work of at least two employees.

Employment attorneys say that rather than issuing a firm proposal
on changing job duties, the Labor Department is seeking comments
only on related issues, including what, if any, changes could be
made to the duties tests and whether employees should be required
to spend a minimum amount of time performing their primary duty to
be exempt.

But observers are concerned the final proposal will include
changes in exempt job duties.  "It's a less transparent way to go
about things than they're doing with the salary level," said
Douglas A. Hass, an associate with law firm Franczek Radelet P.C.
in Chicago.

If the intention is to change the duties requirements "employers
should be given the opportunity to see what the changes are and
comment on them, and it doesn't seem from its notice the DOL plans
to do this," Mr. Hass said.

To comment on the issue, "you have to guess at what the department
might be considering," said Alexander J. Passantino, a partner
with law firm Seyfarth Shaw L.L.P. in Washington.

Robert A. Boonin a member of law firm Dykema Gossett P.L.L.C. in
Detroit, said the Labor Department may be seeking to reintroduce
the so-called "long" test, which was eliminated in 2004, under
which no more than 20% of the exempt administrative employee's
time -- 40% for retail workers -- could be spent on nonexempt
duties.

It could also be that Labor has taken the approach of seeking
comment rather than proposing a rule, because it doesn't
"necessarily have a good, quick fix on this issue," said Shannon
D. Farmer, a partner with law firm Ballard Spahr L.L.P. in
Philadelphia.

John E. Thompson, a partner with law firm Fisher & Phillips L.L.P.
in Atlanta, said he believes if Labor's final regulation does
cover job duties, it would be successfully challenged under the
Administrative Procedure Act.

The 1946 act governs the process federal agencies use to develop
and issue regulations and requires the public be given the
opportunity to comment on notices of proposed rulemaking.

Chris Ratajczyk, Lincolnshire, Illinois-based director of
operations at Arthur J. Gallagher Co.'s human resources and
compensation practice, said that this proposal "takes off the
table a lot of the decisions that are based on duties because it's
raising that salary level (for nonexempt employees) so much
higher," enabling employers to spend less time on the issue.

Meanwhile, "There's been a tremendous amount of litigation
involving employees claiming they're misclassified as exempt, a
lot of that driven by class-action lawyers, and not so much by the
employees themselves," said Lisa A. Schreter --
lschreter@littler.com -- Atlanta-based chairman of Littler
Mendelson P.C.'s board of directors.

Although it is "going to be a nightmare for American business,"
the salary issue itself is "unlikely on its own to contribute to
greater litigation," she said.


                            *********

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  * * *