CAR_Public/150716.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, July 16, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 141


                            Headlines


APEX CLEAN: Canadian Citizens Continue to Fight Wind Turbine Suit
APPLE HOSPITALITY: Time to Appeal in REITs Litigation Has Passed
APPLE HOSPITALITY: Bench Trial to Begin July 13 in DCG&T Case
APPLE HOSPITALITY: Defendants Moved to Dismiss "Moses" Case
APPLE HOSPITALITY: Motion to Dismiss Wenzel Case Fully Briefed

AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiffs Seek to File Amended Suit
BARNETT OUTDOORS: Recalls Black Widow Slingshots
BLACK DIAMOND: Recalls Airbag Packs Sold in Canada
BOULDER BRANDS: S.D.N.Y. Stayed All Activity in Class Action
BOULDER BRANDS: Class Action Filed in Colorado District Court

CANTOR FITZGERALD: Accused of Violating FLSA, N.Y. Labor Law
CHUNG'S CORP: Faces Lawsuit for Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Joseph Amey Case in Pretrial Discovery
CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Parties Agree to Dismiss Class Suit
CONTINENTAL CAFE: Faces Overtime Claims for Workers' Excess Hours

DYNEGY INC: SC Upholds Ruling in Gas Index Pricing Case
EAST TEXAS BORDER HEALTH CLINIC: Accused of Violating FLSA
ELITE PRODUCTION: Faces Suit for Alleged Violation of FLSA
ENTERGY CORPORATION: Court Denies Renewed Motion to Remand
FACEBOOK INC: B.C. Woman May Appeal Privacy Class Suit Ruling

FIRE KING: Accused of Violating FLSA, Illinois Minimum Wage Law
GALENA BIOPHARMA: To Seek Resolution to Securities Litigation
GREENWAY USA: Faces Overtime Claims for Workers' Excess Hours
GUAM: Attorney General Answers Class Suit vs. Dept. of Revenue
H&A NATURAL: Recalls Almond Bars Due to Undeclared Sesame Seeds

HOME DEPOT: Faces "Rivera" Suit Over NJ Wage Law Violations
HQ FINE: Expands Sandwich Product Recall  Due to Listeria
INSULET CORP: Goldberg Law Files Securities Suit
INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Plaintiff Appeals Decision in Class Action
JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholder Litigation Dismissed

K & M TOYS: Recalls Wooden Toy Maracas Due to Choking Hazard
KKR & CO. L.P.: Has Definitive Agreement to Settle Claims
KKR & CO. L.P.: Georgia Actions Stayed in Favor of Delaware Case
KKR & CO. L.P.: Time to Appeal Settlement Approval Expired
KKR & CO. L.P.: Plaintiffs' Appeal in Del. Supreme Court Pending

KTM: Recalls Multiple 2014 Motorcycle Models Due to Fire Risk
LAS VEGAS SANDS: Defendants Oppose Motion to Expand Class Period
LHC GROUP: Insurance Carrier Funded Entire $7.9MM Settlement
MAPLE RIDGE, BC: Trial in Leaky Basement Case Reset for Fall 2016
MET FOODMARKETS: Faces Lawsuit for Unpaid OT, Wages Under FLSA

MILLENNIAL MEDIA: Lead Plaintiffs File Voluntary Dismissal
NELNET INC: Court Has Not Certified Class in "Keating" Case
OI S.A.: Defendant in 67 Civil Class Actions
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Class Action Settlement Has Final Order
ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Co-Lead Plaintiffs File Amended Class Action

PHARMERICA CORP: Awaits Decision on Settlement Approval Bid
PLY GEM: MW Manufacturers Entered Into Settlement with Objectors
PLY GEM: Plaintiff in "Memari" Agreed to Dismiss Case
PLY GEM: Court Has Not Ruled on "Pagliaroni" Class Certification
PLY GEM: Lead Plaintiff Filed Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Filed Motion to Reconsider Court Decision
QC HOLDINGS: Court Won't Reconsider Cert. Order in Stemple Case
QC HOLDINGS: Faces Mike Marquez Class Action
REACHLOCAL INC: Class Action by Former Clients at an Early Stage
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Securities Litigation in Early Stages

SANDRIDGE ENERGY: James Hart Action in Early Stages
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Court Consolidated Surbaugh and Dakil Actions
SR SUNTOUR: Recalls Bicycle Forks Due to Fall Hazard
TARGA RESOURCES: Harris County Trial Court Rejects Injunction Bid
TARGA RESOURCES: Parties Settle Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits

TD AMERITRADE: Faces 5 Actions Regarding Routing of Client Orders
TD AMERITRADE: Settles Reserve Yield Plus Fund Litigation
TSUKI SUSHI: Accused of Violating FLSA, Family Medical Leave Act
TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY FOX: Management to Defend Claims in "Wilder"
TYCO SAFETY: Recalls Security System Keypads And Control Panels

UNITED STATES: Coal Miners To File Class Suit Over Clean Air Act
VANBC WINDOW: Recalls Fauxwood Blinds Due to Strangulation Hazard
XPO LOGISTICS: Remaining DLSE Claims Transferred to Calif. Court
XPO LOGISTICS: Reached Tentative Deal to Settle "Molina" Action


                            *********


APEX CLEAN: Canadian Citizens Continue to Fight Wind Turbine Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Summars, writing for EnidNews.com, reported that some
residents of Canadian and Kingfisher counties continue to fight a
legal battle against APEX Clean Energy.

The plaintiffs filed a motion to advance the case and seek a
permanent injunction because the process of adding wind turbines
to the area has begun.

The battle, which has been going on in court for almost a year,
began over the Kingfisher Wind project that allows landowners to
host wind turbines on their private property.

Terra Walker, one of the plaintiffs, said the motion was filed in
U.S. District Court because construction has begun.

"They are at the point where APEX has started pouring concrete for
the footing," Walker said. "It's no longer a class-action suit,
but several plaintiffs are still involved. It's just going through
a different court process now."

A judge has dismissed the plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief
based on trespassing, and the court previously had dismissed
several other claims.

The plaintiffs filed suit originally in August 2014 as a class-
action lawsuit. All but one charge, nuisance, was dismissed by the
judge. APEX requested to have the case fully dismissed but the
judge did not grant the order.

The judge allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint and the
court granted that request. What followed is a slew of procedures,
including the process of discovery and maybe a trial.

APEX spokeswoman Dahvi Wilson said the case still is in its early
stages and it remains in federal court.


APPLE HOSPITALITY: Time to Appeal in REITs Litigation Has Passed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the time for
appeal on the case, In re Apple REITs Litigation, has passed.

The Company, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc. ("ASRG"), Apple Eight
Advisors, Inc., Apple Nine Advisors, Inc., Apple Ten Advisors,
Inc. ("A10A"), Apple Fund Management, LLC, Apple REIT Six, Inc.,
Apple Seven, Apple Eight and Apple Ten, their directors and
certain officers, and David Lerner Associates, Inc. and David
Lerner were parties to a consolidated matter called In re Apple
REITs Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-02919-KAM-JO.  On March
25, 2015, United States District Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto entered a
Memorandum and Order dismissing all remaining claims in this
matter and judgment was entered in favor of the defendants,
including the Company.  The time for appeal on this matter has
passed.


APPLE HOSPITALITY: Bench Trial to Begin July 13 in DCG&T Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a bench trial was
scheduled to begin July 13, 2015, in the case DCG&T et al. v.
Knight, et al.

On January 31, 2014, two shareholders of the Company commenced a
purported class action against the Company and its directors (the
"Defendants") in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia (DCG&T, et al. v. Knight, et al., No.
3:14cv67, E.D. Va.). On December 18, 2014, the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued an
order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss in part and
denying it in part. Specifically, the court dismissed each of
Plaintiffs' class action claims, but held that Plaintiffs could
bring derivative claims for breach of fiduciary duties of care and
loyalty (Count II) and for conflicts of interest (Count IV).  On
April 1, 2015, the Court entered an agreed stipulation of
dismissal, dismissing with prejudice Count IV.

Discovery in the case is proceeding.  A bench trial is scheduled
to begin July 13, 2015.

The Company believes that Plaintiffs' claims are without merit and
intends to defend this case vigorously.  At this time, the Company
cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings or
provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of
loss due to these proceedings, if any.


APPLE HOSPITALITY: Defendants Moved to Dismiss "Moses" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in the case,
Moses, et al. v. Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc., et al., Defendants
moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on April 29, 2015.

On April 22, 2014, Plaintiff Susan Moses, purportedly a
shareholder of Apple Seven and Apple Eight, now part of the
Company, filed a class action against the Company and several
individual directors on behalf of all then-existing shareholders
and former shareholders of Apple Seven and Apple Eight, now part
of the Company, who purchased additional shares under the Apple
REITs' Dividend Reinvestment Plans between July 17, 2007 and
February 12, 2014 (Susan Moses, et al. v. Apple Hospitality REIT,
Inc., et al., 14-CV-3131 (DLI)(SMG)).

On March 9, 2015, the Court entered a Memorandum and Order
dismissing all claims.  On April 6, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Second
Amended Class Action Complaint asserting a breach of contract
claim.  Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
on April 29, 2015.

The Company believes that Plaintiff's claims are without merit and
intends to defend this case vigorously.  At this time, the Company
cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings or
provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of
loss due to these proceedings, if any.


APPLE HOSPITALITY: Motion to Dismiss Wenzel Case Fully Briefed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Hospitality REIT, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in the case,
Wenzel v. Knight et al., the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss all
claims is fully briefed.

On June 16, 2014, Plaintiff Dorothy Wenzel, purportedly a
shareholder of Apple Seven and Apple Eight, now part of the
Company, filed a class action against Apple Seven Advisors, Inc.,
Apple Eight Advisors, Inc., Apple Fund Management, LLC and several
officers and directors of the Company on behalf of all then-
existing shareholders and former shareholders of Apple Seven and
Apple Eight, now part of the Company, who purchased additional
shares under the Apple REITs' Dividend Reinvestment Plans between
July 17, 2007 and June 30, 2013 (Wenzel v. Knight, et al., Case
No. 3:14-cv-00432, E.D. Va.).

On February 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against
the Company, Apple Eight Advisors, Inc., Apple Fund Management,
LLC, and several officers and directors of the Company alleging
breach of contract, tortious interference with contract, fraud,
negligence and violation of the Virginia Securities Act.
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss all claims is fully briefed and the
case is stayed pending the Court's ruling on the Motion.

The Company believes that Plaintiff's claims are without merit and
intends to defend this case vigorously.  At this time, the Company
cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings or
provide a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of
loss due to these proceedings, if any.


AVEO PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiffs Seek to File Amended Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the lead plaintiffs in
a class action lawsuit have filed a motion with the Court
requesting leave to file a second amended complaint.

Two class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company and
certain present and former officers and members of the Company's
board of directors, (Tuan Ha-Ngoc, David N. Johnston, William
Slichenmyer and Ronald DePinho), in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts, one captioned Paul
Sanders v. Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-
JLT, filed on May 9, 2013, and the other captioned Christine
Krause v. AVEO Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. 1:13-cv-11320-
JLT, filed on May 31, 2013. On December 4, 2013, the District
Court consolidated the complaints as In re AVEO Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. Securities Litigation et al., No. 1:13-cv-11157-DJC, and an
amended complaint was filed on February 3, 2014. The amended
complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the Company's common stock between January 3, 2012 and
May 1, 2013. The amended complaint generally alleges that the
Company and certain of its present and former officers and
directors violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the
phase 3 trial design and results for our TIVO-1 study in an effort
to lead investors to believe that the drug would receive approval
from the FDA. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs.

On April 4, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action complaint with prejudice. Lead
plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on June
10, 2014, and the Company filed a reply to the opposition on July
10, 2014. The Court heard oral argument on the Company's motion to
dismiss on July 22, 2014.

On March 20, 2015, the Court allowed the motion and dismissed the
case without prejudice. On April 17, 2015, the lead plaintiffs
filed a motion with the Court requesting leave to file a second
amended complaint, attaching the proposed amended complaint to
their motion.

The Company intends to continue to deny any allegations of
wrongdoing and to vigorously defend against this lawsuit. However,
there is no assurance that the Company will be successful in its
defense or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund
any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of the action.
Moreover, the Company is unable to predict the outcome or
reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time.


BARNETT OUTDOORS: Recalls Black Widow Slingshots
------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 8, 2015
Posting date: July 8, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Physical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53972

This recall involves Barnett Outdoors' Black Widow Slingshot with
model number 17018. The slingshot is black and silver in colour
with a pouch made of grey suede connected by yellow rubber tubular
bands. It measures approximately 15.25 centimeters (6 inches) in
length.

The slingshot's wrist strap can slip off the wrist brace when the
slingshot's pouch is pulled back which can result in the body of
the slingshot to snap back and strike the user, posing a risk of
injury.

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

In the United States, Barnett Outdoors has received two consumer
injury reports which resulted in facial injuries, such as a black
eye and facial contusion.

Approximately 16,059 of the recalled slingshots were sold in
Canada, and approximately 88,000 were sold in the United States.

The recalled products were sold from July 2014 to May 2015.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Wa Cheong Plastics Factory, Ltd.
              Kowloon
              Hong Kong
              CHINA

Distributor: Barnett Outdoors, LLC
             Tarpon Springs
             Florida
             UNITED STATES

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://tinyurl.com/nd3gzcc


BLACK DIAMOND: Recalls Airbag Packs Sold in Canada
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 9, 2015
Posting date: July 9, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54150

This recall involves all first generation JetForce Black Diamond,
PIEPS and POC model airbag packs manufactured by Black Diamond,
Inc. between October 2, 2014 and March 3, 2015. The manufacturing
date codes, ranging from 14275 to 15077, can be found inside the
front pocket label. The date codes are listed in a YYDDD format.
For example, a manufacturing date of October 2, 2014 is written as
"14275". The 2014 year of manufacture is "14", and "275" is the
275th day of the year which is October 2nd. Date codes on some
products are truncated in a YDDD format (For example, 4275). The
JetForce Technology logo is on the left shoulder strap, and an
instruction label is on the inside flap of the back panel.

The backpacks contain a lithium ion battery powered fan that will
deploy and inflate a large fabric balloon that is intended to help
keep a skier caught in a snow avalanche above the snow surface.

The first generation backpacks were available in the following
colours:

  Brand           Model                        Colour
  -----           -----                        ------
  Black Diamond   Pilot 11 JetForce Avalanche  Black or Fire Red
                  Airbag Pack
                  Halo 28 JetForce Avalanche   Black or Fire Red
                  Airbag Pack
                  Saga 40 JetForce Avalanche   Black or Fire Red
                  Airbag Pack
  PEIPS           PIEPS JetForce TOUR PRO 34   Black with chili
                                               red or black with
                                               yellow
  PIEPS           JetForce TOUR RIDER 24       Black with chili
                                               red or black with
                                               yellow
  POC             POC Thorax backpack          Orange

The company has identified a system malfunction which can result
in the airbag not deploying upon activation. This can increase the
risk of burial or injury in the event of a snow avalanche, posing
a hazard to the user.

Neither Health Canada nor Black Diamond, Inc. has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries in Canada.

Black Diamond, Inc. has not received any reports of consumer
incidents or injuries in the United States.

Approximately 200 units were sold in Canada, and approximately
1,000 units were sold in the United States.

The recalled products were sold from December 2014 through June
2015.

Manufactured in the United States.

Manufacturer: Black Diamond, Inc.
              Salt Lake City
              Utah
              UNITED STATES

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://tinyurl.com/p7bcnvk


BOULDER BRANDS: S.D.N.Y. Stayed All Activity in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Boulder Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Southern District
of New York has stayed all activity in a class action lawsuit
pending a decision in the California Case on class certification.

On July 28, 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
claiming that the labeling and marketing of Smart Balance(R)
Butter & Canola Oil Blend products is false, misleading and
deceptive (the "California Case"). The plaintiffs filed a Second
Amended Complaint and substituted a new plaintiff. The Company
moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The court denied
the Company's motion to dismiss. A substantially similar class
action lawsuit related to the labeling and marketing of Smart
Balance(R) Butter & Canola Oil Blend products was filed on August
9, 2012 in the Southern District of New York. In light of its
similarity to the California Case, the Southern District of New
York stayed all activity in that case pending a decision in the
California Case on class certification. The Company believes the
allegations contained in both of these complaints are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against these
allegations.


BOULDER BRANDS: Class Action Filed in Colorado District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Boulder Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on April 1, 2015, a
putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado against the Company
and three of its officers alleging violations of federal
securities laws. The complaint alleges that beginning in December
2013, the Company made false or misleading statements in its
quarterly Securities and Exchange Commission filings and analyst
conference calls about its financial performance and prospects,
which supposedly were proven to have been untrue when the Company
pre-announced its anticipated financial results for the third
quarter of 2014. The Company believes that the allegations in the
complaint are without merit and it intends to vigorously defend
itself.


CANTOR FITZGERALD: Accused of Violating FLSA, N.Y. Labor Law
------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Puente, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated v. Cantor Fitzgerald Securities, Inc., BGC
Technology Markets, L.P., Espeed Markets, L.P., and Newmark Grubb
Knight Frank, Case 1:15-cv-05196 (S.D.N.Y., July 2, 2015), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, and New York Labor Law.

Cantor Fitzgerald is global brokerage company servicing the
financial and real estate markets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bradford D. Conover, Esq.
     Molly Smithsimon, Esq.
     345 Seventh Avenue, 21st Floor
     New York, NY 10001
     Tel: (212) 588-9080
     E-mail: brad@conoverlaw.com
             molly@conoverlaw.com


CHUNG'S CORP: Faces Lawsuit for Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
Cevenor Ramplais, and other similarly situated individuals, v.
Chung's Corporation, Thomas Liu, individually and Lavina Liu,
individually, Case 1:15-cv-22514-MGC (S.D. Fla., July 2, 2015),
seeks damages exceeding $15,000 excluding attorneys' fees or costs
for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Florida Minimum Wage Act.

Miami-Dade County is an organization that sells and or/markets its
services and/or goods to customers from throughout the United
States and also provides its services for goods sold and
transported from across state lines of other states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
     Anaeli C. Petisco, Esq.
     REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
     44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
     Miami, FL 33130
     Tel: 305-416-5000
     Fax: 305-416-5005


CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Joseph Amey Case in Pretrial Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------
Cinemark Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Joseph Amey, et al. v.
Cinemark USA, Inc., Case No. 3:13cv05669, In the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division, is in pretrial discovery, no class action has
been certified, and no representative action has been quantified
or recognized.

The case presents putative class action claims for damages and
attorney's fees arising from employee wage and hour claims under
California law for alleged meal period, rest break, reporting time
pay, unpaid wages, pay upon termination, and wage statements
violations. The claims are also asserted as a representative
action under the California Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA").
The Company denies the claims, denies that class certification is
appropriate and denies that a PAGA representative action is
appropriate, and is vigorously defending against the claims. The
case is in pretrial discovery, no class action has been certified,
and no representative action has been quantified or recognized.
The Company denies any violation of law and plans to vigorously
defend against all claims.

The Company is unable to predict the outcome of the litigation or
the range of potential loss, if any; however, the Company believes
that its potential liability with respect to such proceeding is
not material, in the aggregate, to its financial position, results
of operations and cash flows. Accordingly, the Company has not
established a reserve for loss in connection with this proceeding.


CONSOLIDATED COMMUNICATIONS: Parties Agree to Dismiss Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Communications Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that all
parties to a class action lawsuit have entered into an agreed
stipulation to dismiss all claims with prejudice and arranged for
the stipulation to be filed with the court.

Five putative class action lawsuits have been filed by alleged
Enventis shareholders challenging the Company's proposed merger
with Enventis in which the Company, Sky Merger Sub Inc., Enventis
and members of the Enventis board of directors have been named as
defendants.  The shareholder actions were filed in the Fifth
Judicial District, Blue Earth County, Minnesota.  The actions are
called: Hoepner v. Enventis Corp. et al, filed July 15, 2014, Case
No. 07-CV-14-2489, Bockley v. Finke et al, filed July 18, 2014,
Case No. 07-CV-14-2551, Kaplan et al v. Enventis Corp. et al,
filed July 21, 2014, Case No. 07-CV-14-2575, Marcial v. Enventis
Corp. et al., filed July 25, 2014, Case No. 07-CV-14-2628, and
Barta v. Finke et al, filed August 14, 2014, Case No. 07-CV-14-
2854.  The actions generally allege, among other things, that each
member of the Enventis board of directors breached fiduciary
duties to Enventis and its shareholders by authorizing the sale of
Enventis to the Company for consideration that allegedly is unfair
to the Enventis shareholders, agreeing to terms that allegedly
unduly restrict other bidders from making a competing offer, as
well as allegations regarding disclosure deficiencies in the joint
proxy statement/prospectus.  The complaints also allege that the
Company and Sky Merger Sub Inc. aided and abetted the breaches of
fiduciary duties allegedly committed by the members of the
Enventis board of directors.  The lawsuits seek, amongst other
things, equitable relief, including an order to prevent the
defendants from consummating the merger on the agreed-upon terms.
The Enventis board of directors appointed a Special Litigation
Committee to address the claims.

"We believe that these claims are without merit," the Company
said.

On September 19, 2014, the District Court entered an order
consolidating the five lawsuits as In Re: Enventis Corporation
Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 07-CV-14-2489.  On September 23,
2014, the District Court entered an order that denied the
plaintiffs' request for expedited proceedings and stayed all
proceedings "pending the completion of the Special Litigation
Committee and the issuance of its decision." On February 2, 2015,
the Special Litigation Committee issued a report stating that the
claims lack merit and should not proceed.  On March 4, 2015, the
members of the Enventis board of directors filed a motion to
dismiss all of the claims with prejudice.  On March 11, 2015, the
Company, Sky Merger Sub Inc., and Enventis filed their motion to
dismiss the matter with prejudice. A hearing on the motions to
dismiss was scheduled for May 8, 2015.  However, on April 29,
2015, all parties entered into an agreed stipulation to dismiss
all claims with prejudice and arranged for the stipulation to be
filed with the court.


CONTINENTAL CAFE: Faces Overtime Claims for Workers' Excess Hours
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Alvarado, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. Los Potrillos Food Market
LLC, Armando Miramontes, individually, and Rogelio Miramontes,
individually, Case: 1:15-cv-05886 (N.D. Ill., July 2, 2015),
alleges that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
by failing to pay employees one and one-half times their regular
rate of pay ("overtime") for hours worked in excess of forty (40)
per workweek.

Los Potrillos Food Market is a Chicago, Illinois corporation
engaged in the grocery business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
     Alexis D. Martin, Esq.
     CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
     224 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 300
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Tel: (312) 763-6880


DYNEGY INC: SC Upholds Ruling in Gas Index Pricing Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Dynegy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2015, that the Supreme Court has issued its
opinion affirming the Ninth Circuit's decision and remanding the
matter to the Nevada District Court for further proceedings in the
Gas Index Pricing Litigation.

The Company said, "We, several of our affiliates, our former joint
venture affiliate and other energy companies were named as
defendants in numerous lawsuits in state and federal court
claiming damages resulting from alleged price manipulation and
false reporting of natural gas prices to various index
publications in the 2000-2002 time frame. Many of the cases have
been resolved. All of the remaining cases contain similar claims
that we individually, and in conjunction with other energy
companies, engaged in an illegal scheme to inflate natural gas
prices in four states by providing false information to natural
gas index publications."

"In July 2011, the court granted defendants' motions for summary
judgment, thereby dismissing all of plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs
appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit which reversed the summary judgment on April 10, 2013. On
August 26, 2013, we and the other defendants filed a request for
review with the U.S. Supreme Court. On April 21, 2015, the Supreme
Court issued its opinion affirming the Ninth Circuit's decision
and remanding the matter to the Nevada District Court for further
proceedings."


EAST TEXAS BORDER HEALTH CLINIC: Accused of Violating FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
Pamela McClain Murphy, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated, v. East Texas Border Health Clinic d/b/a Community
Healthcore, Case 2:15-cv-01223 (E.D. Tex., July 2, 2015), alleges
failure by the Defendant to pay overtime for the actual hours its
Qualified Mental Healthcare Professionals and Qualified Mental
Healthcare Para-Professionals under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

East Texas Border Health Clinic is a not-for-profit corporation
that provides mental health services throughout East Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
     J. Forester, Esq.
     LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
     1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Tel: (214) 749-1400
     Fax: (214) 749-1010
     E-mail: www.overtimelawyer.com


ELITE PRODUCTION: Faces Suit for Alleged Violation of FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Bartlett, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. Elite Production Services, LLC, Case 5:15-
cv-00545 (W.D. Tex., July 2, 2015), seeks to recover compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Elite Production Services is headquartered in San Antonio, Texas
and is engaged in multiple oilfield services throughout the
drilling, completion and production cycle.  Specifically, Elite
specializes in hydrostatic testing, crane services, wash crews and
flowback services (among other things) throughout the State of
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Clif Alexander, Esq.
     Craig M. Sico, Esq.
     SICO, WHITE, HOELSCHER, HARRIS & BRAUGH LLP
     802 N. Carancahua, Suite 900
     Corpus Christi, TX 78401
     Tel: 361/653-3300
     Fax: 361/653-3333
     E-mail: calexander@swhhb.com
             csico@swhhb.com


ENTERGY CORPORATION: Court Denies Renewed Motion to Remand
----------------------------------------------------------
Entergy Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the District Court has
entered an order denying the renewed motion to remand in the
Mississippi Attorney General Complaint.

The Mississippi attorney general filed a complaint in state court
in December 2008 against Entergy Corporation, Entergy Mississippi,
Entergy Services, and Entergy Power alleging, among other things,
violations of Mississippi statutes, fraud, and breach of good
faith and fair dealing, and requesting an accounting and
restitution.  The complaint is wide ranging and relates to tariffs
and procedures under which Entergy Mississippi purchases power not
generated in Mississippi to meet electricity demand.  Entergy
believes the complaint is unfounded.  In December 2008 the
defendant Entergy companies removed the Attorney General's lawsuit
to U.S. District Court in Jackson, Mississippi.  The Mississippi
attorney general moved to remand the matter to state court.  In
August 2012 the District Court issued an opinion denying the
Attorney General's motion for remand, finding that the District
Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action
Fairness Act.

The defendant Entergy companies answered the complaint and filed a
counterclaim for relief based upon the Mississippi Public
Utilities Act and the Federal Power Act.  In May 2009 the
defendant Entergy companies filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings asserting grounds of federal preemption, the exclusive
jurisdiction of the MPSC, and factual errors in the Attorney
General's complaint.  In September 2012 the District Court heard
oral argument on Entergy's motion for judgment on the pleadings.

In January 2014 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in which
it held that cases brought by attorneys general as the sole
plaintiff to enforce state laws were not considered "mass actions"
under the Class Action Fairness Act, so as to establish federal
subject matter jurisdiction. One day later the Attorney General
renewed his motion to remand the Entergy case back to state court,
citing the U.S. Supreme Court's decision. The defendant Entergy
companies responded to that motion reiterating the additional
grounds asserted for federal question jurisdiction, and the
District Court held oral argument on the renewed motion to remand
in February 2014. In April 2015 the District Court entered an
order denying the renewed motion to remand, holding that the
District Court has federal question subject matter jurisdiction.
The District Court has not yet ruled on the defendant Entergy
companies' motion for judgment on the pleadings, which if granted
would dismiss the case.


FACEBOOK INC: B.C. Woman May Appeal Privacy Class Suit Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
610 CKTB reported that a Vancouver lawyer says he'll seek
instructions from his client to appeal an advertising case
involving Facebook to the country's top court.

Deborah Douez alleged the now-defunct advertising product known as
Sponsored Stories used the names and images of Facebook members
without their consent, breaching Section 4 of BC's Privacy Act.

A lower court judge sided with her in May 2014, ruling the Privacy
Act overrode Facebook's Terms of Use and certified the class-
action lawsuit.  But the BC Court of Appeal has agreed with
Facebook, ruling the trial judge made a mistake in interpreting
the law and staying the class-action proceedings.

Douez's lawyer, Christopher Rhone, says he hasn't yet spoken to
his client but will seek instruction to appeal to the Supreme
Court of Canada.  He says it's important for British Columbians to
have their privacy rights protected.

Facebook says in a statement that it's pleased with the court's
ruling, and that its terms are fair and apply to all users.


FIRE KING: Accused of Violating FLSA, Illinois Minimum Wage Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Schlink, individually and on behalf of all similarly-
situated persons, v. Fire King International, Inc., d/b/a Fire
King Security Group, Case: 1:15-cv-05894 (N.D. Ill., July 2,
2015), alleges that Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law by misclassifying employees
and failing to pay them for overtime.

Fire King International, Inc. manufactures security products
including fireproof safes and files, cash handling safes and CCTV
system.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robin Potter, Esq.
     M. Nieves Bolanos, Esq.
     Patrick Cowlin, Esq.
     ROBIN POTTER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     111 East Wacker Drive, Suite 2600
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Tel: (312) 861-1800
     Fax: (312) 861-3009
     E-mail: robin@potterlaw.org
             nieves@potterlaw.org
             patrick@potterlaw.org


GALENA BIOPHARMA: To Seek Resolution to Securities Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Galena Biopharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company intends to
vigorously defend against and seek resolution to the Galena
Biopharma, Inc. Securities Litigation.

The Company said, "Five purported securities class action
complaints filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Oregon have been consolidated into a single action, In re Galena
Biopharma, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 3:14-cv-367-SI (D.
Or.), and a lead plaintiff has been appointed. On October 31,
2014, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint,
which alleges, among other things, that our company and certain of
our officers and directors violated the federal securities laws by
making materially false and misleading statements and omissions in
press releases and in filings with the SEC arising out of the same
circumstances that are the subject of the derivative actions
described above, and which alleges that certain of our officers
and directors sold company stock while in possession of material
non-public information."

"We intend to vigorously defend against and seek resolution to the
foregoing claims. At March 31, 2015, we have not recorded any
liabilities with respect to the claims in our consolidated
financial statements. We believe that claims are covered under our
liability insurance, and we have notified our insurance carriers
of the claims. The insurers have responded by requesting
additional information and by reserving their rights under the
policies, including the rights to deny coverage under various
policy exclusions. Subject to their reservation of rights, we are
being reimbursed by our insurer for substantially all legal fees
relating to our defense of the claims."


GREENWAY USA: Faces Overtime Claims for Workers' Excess Hours
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Eduardo Ascencio, and all others similarly situated under 29
U.S.C. Section 216(b), v. Greenway, U.S.A., Inc., Nelson Otano,
Case 1:15-cv-22516-RNS, (S.D. Fla., July 2, 2015), requests double
damages and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Greenway, U.S.A., Inc. is in the lawn and garden services
industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J.H. Zidell, Esq.
     J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
     300 71st Street, Suite 605
     Miami Beach, FL 33141
     Tel: (305) 865-6766
     Fax: (305) 865-7167
     E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


GUAM: Attorney General Answers Class Suit vs. Dept. of Revenue
--------------------------------------------------------------
Janela Carrera, writing for Pacificc News Center, reported that
the Calvo Administration says the Federal Court is not the
appropriate place to file a lawsuit that seeks to have the court
compel the local government to act on local tax laws.

The Attorney General's Office answered back to a class action
lawsuit filed against the Department of Rev and Tax and the
Government of Guam, asking the Federal Court to dismiss the
lawsuit.  The class action was filed by Attorney Curtis Van De
Veld on behalf of a landowner who says the government of Guam has
been collecting real property taxes for their land, even though
the government is using that property for its own public use.

The AG's Office notes that first, writs of mandamus, or an order
from a court to a government entity, were abolished on the federal
level and thus they believe the District Court of Guam lacks
jurisdiction.  Second, the AG's Office says a law exists that
prevents District Courts from acting on tax laws that a
government's local court can address.

The lawsuit asks that the federal court order GovGuam to comply
with a measure passed in 1994, Public Law 22-73, which, in part
prevents Department of Revenue and Taxation from collecting real
property taxes on private properties being used for certain
government purposes.  Despite this law, says Van De Veld, GovGuam
has consistently improperly collected real property taxes from his
client and hundreds of others. Moreover, Van De Veld says GovGuam
seems to pick and choose who to collect from.

Van De Veld goes on to suggest that in doing so is a violation of
the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.  Van De Veld
tells PNC that what he and his client are asking for is for
GovGuam to obey the law and that means for the government to
refund his clients the taxes they are owed.

Van De Veld points out that his lawsuit is not about preventing
Rev and Tax from collecting taxes.


H&A NATURAL: Recalls Almond Bars Due to Undeclared Sesame Seeds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 7, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Sesame Seeds
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: H&A Natural Bar Inc.
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9906

  Brand name    Common name    Size   Code(s) on  UPC
  ----------    ------------   ----   product     ---
                                      -------
  H&A           Natural Bar    50 g   OCT 09 15   8 17223 00052 2
                - Almond Bar


HOME DEPOT: Faces "Rivera" Suit Over NJ Wage Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Angel Rivera, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, 846 B Winchester Court Manchester, NJ 08759 v. Home
Depot, Inc., 244 Main Street Forked River, NJ 08731, and John Does
1-10, Case 3:15-cv-05100-MAS-TJB (D.N.J., July 2, 2015), seeks
payment for unpaid overtime and unpaid wages under New Jersey Wage
and Hour Law and New Jersey Wage Payment Law.

The Home Depot is a home improvement specialty retailer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel A. Horowitz, Esq.
     Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
     SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
     1101 North Kings Highway, Suite 402
     Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
     Tel: (856) 685-7420
     Fax: (856) 685-7417


HQ FINE: Expands Sandwich Product Recall  Due to Listeria
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 10, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: HQ Fine Foods
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9939

The food recall warning issued on July 4, 2015 has been updated to
include additional product information. The additional information
was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA)
food safety investigation.

HQ Fine Foods is recalling Gloria's, Oven Pride Kitchen, Quality
Fast Foods brands and Lunch Box sandwich products from the
marketplace due to possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination.
Consumers should not consume the recalled products described
below.

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

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

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

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

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

  Brand   Common name      Size    Code(s)        UPC
  name    ------------     ----    on product     ---
  -----                           ----------
None      Lunch Box Ham,   356 g   Best Before/   0 24904 47529 0
          Turkey, & Swiss          Meilleur Avant
          Cheese                   15JL16
          Multigrain
          Ciabatta Sandwich
          with Creamy
          Coleslaw
Gloria's  Ham & Cheese Sub  220 g  Best Before/   0 24904 38509 4
                                   Meilleur Avant
                                   15JL10
Gloria's  Turkey & Ham      239 g  Best Before/   0 24904 38560 5
          Club Sub                 Meilleur Avant
                                   15JL10
Gloria's  Our Super Loaded  286 g  Best Before/   0 24904 38565 0
          Sub                      Meilleur Avant
                                   15JL10
Quality   Shaved Beef Dijon 146 g  Best Before/   0 58578 37172 5
Fast      Mini Sub                 Meilleur Avant
Foods                              EXP AUG 08
Oven      Pastrami Swiss    172 g  Best Before/   0 56040 68653 7
Pride     Baguette Sub             Meilleur Avant
Kitchen                            EXP AUG 08 and
                                   AUG 14
Quality   Beef Swiss        178 g  Best Before/   0 58578 37175 6
Fast      Baguette Sub             Meilleur Avant
Foods                              EXP AUG 08
Quality Fast Foods  Pastrami Swiss Baguette Sub  172 g  Best
Before / Meilleur Avant EXP AUG 08  0 58578 37176 3

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://tinyurl.com/pupcohs


INSULET CORP: Goldberg Law Files Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------
Goldberg Law PC announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court, District of
Massachusetts, against Insulet Corporation  ("Insulet" or the
"Company"), for alleged violations of the federal securities laws.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares between
February 27, 2013 and April 30, 2015, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), have until July 6, 2015 to serve as lead plaintiff in
the class action.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss during the Class
Period, we advise you to contact Michael Goldberg or Brian Schall,
of Goldberg Law PC, 13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Suite 1404, Marina Del
Rey, CA 90292, at 800-977-7401, to discuss your rights without
cost to you. You can also reach us through the firm's website at
http://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or by email at
info@goldberglawpc.com.

The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

Insulet is a medical device corporation that manufactures the
OmniPod Insulin Management System, an insulin system for patients
with insulin-dependent diabetes. The complaint alleges that during
the class period Insulet made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company was experiencing
weaker demand for its products; (2) the Company was having
problems related to its sales and marketing efforts; (3) as a
result, the Company experienced unevenness in its financial
performance; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Insulets'
positive statements about the Company's business, prospects, and
operations lacked a reasonable basis. On May 1, 2015, shares fell
almost 10% as a result of Insulet's disappointing first quarter
results.

If you have any questions concerning your legal rights in this
case, please immediately contact Goldberg Law PC at 800-977-7401,
or visit our website at http://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or email us
at info@goldberglawpc.com.

Goldberg Law PC represents shareholders around the world and
specializes in securities class actions and shareholder rights
litigation.

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


INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Plaintiff Appeals Decision in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
InVivo Therapeutics Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal of a decision in a securities class
action lawsuit.

On July 31, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts, naming the Company and Mr. Reynolds, as defendants
(the "Securities Class Action"). The lawsuit alleges violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with allegedly
false and misleading statements related to the timing and
completion of the clinical study of the Company's Neuro-Spinal
Scaffold. The plaintiff seeks class certification for purchasers
of the Company's common stock during the period from April 5, 2013
through August 26, 2013 and unspecified damages. On April 3, 2015,
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
dismissed the plaintiff's claim with prejudice. Plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal of this decision on May 4, 2015.


JAZZ PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholder Litigation Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
Jazz Pharmaceuticals Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the
entire Shareholder Litigation lawsuit has been dismissed with
prejudice by the court.

The Company said, "In January 2014, we became aware of a purported
class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York in connection with the Gentium
Acquisition.  The lawsuit named Gentium, each of the Gentium's
directors, us and our Italian subsidiary as defendants. The
lawsuit alleged, among other things, that Gentium's directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Gentium's shareholders in
connection with the Gentium tender offer agreement that Gentium
entered into with us and our Italian subsidiary valuing Gentium
ordinary shares and American Depositary Shares at $57.00 per
share, and that we and our Italian subsidiary violated Sections
14(e) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, or the Exchange Act, by allegedly overseeing Gentium's
preparation of an allegedly false and misleading Section 14D-9
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement. On November 19, 2014, the
plaintiff dismissed us and our Italian subsidiary from the
lawsuit. On January 22, 2015, the entire lawsuit was dismissed
with prejudice by the court."


K & M TOYS: Recalls Wooden Toy Maracas Due to Choking Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 9, 2015
Posting date: July 9, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Toys
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Choking Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54134

This recall involves Wooden Toy Maracas by K & M Toys in an
assortment of animal styles: Bear, Moose, Elephant, Giraffe, Snow
Leopard, Tigers and Zebra. The affected maracas can be identified
by an earpiece attached at the top of the maraca.

The ear piece of the maraca can break and release small parts,
posing a choking hazard to young children.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries in Canada. K & M Toys has received one incident report
involving a 24 month old child. No injury was reported.

For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them
keep children safe when they play with toys, see the General Toy
Safety Tips.

Approximately 2,265 units of the affected maracas were sold in
Canada.

The affected toy maracas were sold from March 2013 to May 2015.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: HUANGYAN YOUBANG ARTS & CRAFTS
              ZHEJIANG
              CHINA

Distributor: K & M Toys Canada
             MISSISSAUGA
             Ontario
             CANADA

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://tinyurl.com/qdlyhyz


KKR & CO. L.P.: Has Definitive Agreement to Settle Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
KKR & CO. L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that KKR has entered into a
definitive agreement to settle all claims without the admission of
wrongdoing, which is subject to the approval of the Court of
Chancery.

On May 23, 2011, KKR, certain KKR affiliates and the board of
directors of Primedia Inc. (a former KKR portfolio company whose
directors at that time included certain KKR personnel) were named
as defendants, along with others, in two shareholder class action
complaints filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
challenging the sale of Primedia in a merger transaction that was
completed on July 13, 2011. These actions allege, among other
things, that Primedia board members, KKR, and certain KKR
affiliates, breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the
merger agreement at an unfair price and failing to disclose all
material information about the merger. Plaintiffs also allege that
the merger price was unfair in light of the value of certain
shareholder derivative claims, which were dismissed on August 8,
2011, based on a stipulation by the parties that the derivative
plaintiffs and any other former Primedia shareholders lost
standing to prosecute the derivative claims on behalf of Primedia
when the Primedia merger was completed. The dismissed shareholder
derivative claims included allegations concerning open market
purchases of certain shares of Primedia's preferred stock by KKR
affiliates in 2002 and allegations concerning Primedia's
redemption of certain shares of Primedia's preferred stock in 2004
and 2005, some of which were owned by KKR affiliates.

With respect to the pending shareholder class actions challenging
the Primedia merger, on June 7, 2011, the Court of Chancery denied
a motion to preliminarily enjoin the merger. On July 18, 2011, the
Court of Chancery consolidated the two pending shareholder class
actions and appointed lead counsel for plaintiffs. On October 7,
2011, defendants moved to dismiss the operative complaint in the
consolidated shareholder class action. The operative complaint
seeks, in relevant part, unspecified monetary damages and
rescission of the merger. On December 2, 2011, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint, which similarly alleges that the
Primedia board members, KKR, and certain KKR affiliates breached
their respective fiduciary duties by entering into the merger
agreement at an unfair price in light of the value of the
dismissed shareholder derivative claims. That amended complaint
seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages. On January 31,
2012, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint. On May
10, 2013, the Court of Chancery denied the motion to dismiss the
complaint as it relates to the Primedia board members, KKR and
certain KKR affiliates. On July 1, 2013, KKR and other defendants
filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that
plaintiff's claims were barred by the statute of limitations. On
December 20, 2013, the Court of Chancery granted the motion in
part and denied the motion in part.  On March 6, 2015, KKR entered
into a definitive agreement to settle all claims without the
admission of wrongdoing, which is subject to the approval of the
Court of Chancery and would operate to release all claims in the
two shareholder class actions filed in Georgia state courts that
are discussed below. The amount to be paid pursuant to the
settlement is not expected to have a material effect on KKR's
financial results.


KKR & CO. L.P.: Georgia Actions Stayed in Favor of Delaware Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
KKR & CO. L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in May 2011, two
shareholder class actions challenging the Primedia merger were
filed in Georgia state courts, asserting similar allegations and
seeking similar relief as initially sought by the Delaware
shareholder class actions. Both Georgia actions have been stayed
in favor of the Delaware action.


KKR & CO. L.P.: Time to Appeal Settlement Approval Expired
----------------------------------------------------------
KKR & CO. L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that an order of final
approval of the settlement in a class action lawsuit was entered
on March 5, 2015, and the time to appeal has expired.

In December 2007, KKR, along with 15 other private equity firms
and investment banks, were named as defendants in a purported
class action complaint filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts by shareholders in certain
public companies acquired by private equity firms since 2003. In
August 2008, KKR, along with 16 other private equity firms and
investment banks, were named as defendants in a purported
consolidated amended class action complaint. The suit alleges that
from mid-2003 defendants have violated antitrust laws by allegedly
conspiring to rig bids, restrict the supply of private equity
financing, fix the prices for target companies at artificially low
levels, and divide up an alleged market for private equity
services for leveraged buyouts. The amended complaint seeks
injunctive relief on behalf of all persons who sold securities to
any of the defendants in leveraged buyout transactions and
specifically challenges nine transactions. The first stage of
discovery concluded on or about April 15, 2010.

On August 18, 2010, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to
proceed to a second stage of discovery in part and denied it in
part. Specifically, the court granted a second stage of discovery
as to eight additional transactions but denied a second stage of
discovery as to any transactions beyond the additional eight
specified transactions. On October 7, 2010, the plaintiffs filed
under seal a fourth amended complaint that includes new factual
allegations concerning the additional eight transactions and the
original nine transactions. The fourth amended complaint also
includes eight purported sub classes of plaintiffs seeking
unspecified monetary damages and/or restitution with respect to
eight of the original nine challenged transactions and new
separate claims against two of the original nine challenged
transactions.

On January 13, 2011, the court granted a motion filed by KKR and
certain other defendants to dismiss all claims alleged by a
putative damages sub class in connection with the acquisition of
PanAmSat Corp. and separate claims for relief related to the
PanAmSat transaction. The second phase of discovery permitted by
the court is completed. On July 11, 2011, plaintiffs filed a
motion seeking leave to file a proposed fifth amended complaint
that seeks to challenge ten additional transactions in addition to
the transactions identified in the previous complaints. Defendants
opposed plaintiffs' motion. On September 7, 2011, the court
granted plaintiffs' motion in part and denied it in part.
Specifically, the court granted a third stage of limited discovery
as to the ten additional transactions identified in plaintiffs'
proposed fifth amended complaint but denied plaintiffs' motion
seeking leave to file a proposed fifth amended complaint.

On June 14, 2012, following the completion of the third phase of
discovery, plaintiffs filed a fifth amended complaint which, like
their proposed fifth amended complaint, seeks to challenge ten
additional transactions in addition to the transactions identified
in the previous complaints. On June 22, 2012, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss certain claims asserted in the fifth amended
complaint. On July 18, 2012, the court granted in part and denied
in part defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing certain
previously released claims against certain defendants.

On March 13, 2013, the United States District Court denied
defendants' motion for summary judgment on the count involving
KKR. However, the court narrowed plaintiffs' claim to an alleged
overarching agreement to refrain from jumping other defendants'
announced proprietary transactions, thereby limiting the case to a
smaller number of transactions subject to plaintiffs' claim. KKR
filed a renewed motion for summary judgment on April 16, 2013,
which the court denied on July 18, 2013. Plaintiffs moved for
class certification on October 21, 2013. Defendants filed their
opposition to the motion on January 24, 2014. On July 28, 2014,
KKR entered into a definitive agreement to settle all claims
without the admission of wrongdoing, which was preliminarily
approved by the court on September 29, 2014, and an order of final
approval of the settlement was entered on March 5, 2015.  The time
to appeal has expired.


KKR & CO. L.P.: Plaintiffs' Appeal in Del. Supreme Court Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
KKR & CO. L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that plaintiffs' appeal in
the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware is pending.

From December 19, 2013 to January 31, 2014, multiple putative
class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Francisco, the United States District
Court of the District of Northern California, and the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware by KFN shareholders against KFN,
individual members of KFN's board of directors, KKR, and certain
of KKR's affiliates in connection with KFN's entry into a merger
agreement pursuant to which it would become a subsidiary of KKR.
The merger transaction was completed on April 30, 2014.  The
actions filed in California state court were consolidated, and
prior to the filing or designation of an operative complaint for
the consolidated action, the consolidated action was voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice on December 1, 2014. The complaint
filed in the California federal court action, which was never
served on the defendants, was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice on May 6, 2014. Two of the Delaware actions were
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice, and the remaining
Delaware actions were consolidated. On February 21, 2014, a
consolidated complaint was filed in the consolidated Delaware
action which all defendants moved to dismiss on March 7, 2014.  On
October 14, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted
defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice. On November 13,
2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the Supreme Court of
the State of Delaware and the appeal is pending.

The consolidated complaint in the Delaware action alleges that the
members of the KFN board of directors breached fiduciary duties
owed to KFN shareholders by approving the proposed transaction for
inadequate consideration; approving the proposed transaction in
order to obtain benefits not equally shared by other KFN
shareholders; entering into the merger agreement containing
preclusive deal protection devices; and failing to take steps to
maximize the value to be paid to the KFN shareholders. The
Delaware action also alleges that KKR, and certain of KKR's
affiliates, aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties and that KKR is a controlling shareholder of KFN by means
of a management agreement between KFN and KKR Financial Advisors
LLC, a subsidiary of KKR, and KKR breached a fiduciary duty it
allegedly owed to KFN shareholders by causing KFN to enter into
the merger agreement. The relief sought in the Delaware action
includes, among other things, declaratory relief concerning the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.


KTM: Recalls Multiple 2014 Motorcycle Models Due to Fire Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 7, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorcycle
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Fuel Supply
Units affected: 78
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015304TC
ID number: 2015304

On certain motorcycles, the threaded inserts that affix the
internal overflow pipe to the fuel tank could leak due to an
irregularity in the coating process. This could result in a fuel
leak, which in the presence of an ignition source, could result in
a fire causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers
will inspect the threaded inserts for leaks, and repair if
necessary.

  Make     Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----     -----      ----------------------
  KTM                 2014


LAS VEGAS SANDS: Defendants Oppose Motion to Expand Class Period
----------------------------------------------------------------
Las Vegas Sands Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that defendants in the
class action by Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. have filed their opposition
to the motion to expand the class period.

On May 24, 2010, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. filed a purported class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada (the "U.S. District Court"), against LVSC,
Sheldon G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged
that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or
approved materially false information, or failed to disclose
material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls
and other means from August 1, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The
complaint sought, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On July 21,
2010, Wendell and Shirley Combs filed a purported class action
complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC, Sheldon G.
Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged that LVSC,
through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved
materially false information, or failed to disclose material
facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other
means from June 13, 2007 through November 11, 2008. The complaint,
which was substantially similar to the Fosbre complaint, discussed
above, sought, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On August 31,
2010, the U.S. District Court entered an order consolidating the
Fosbre and Combs cases, and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel. As such, the Fosbre and Combs cases are reported as one
consolidated matter.

On November 1, 2010, a purported class action amended complaint
was filed in the consolidated action against LVSC, Sheldon G.
Adelson and William P. Weidner. The amended complaint alleges that
LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved
materially false and misleading information, or failed to disclose
material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls
and other means from August 2, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The
amended complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs. On January 10,
2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, which, on August 24, 2011, was granted in part, and
denied in part, with the dismissal of certain allegations. On
November 7, 2011, the defendants filed their answer to the
allegations remaining in the amended complaint.

On July 11, 2012, the U.S. District Court issued an order allowing
defendants' Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the court's
order dated August 24, 2011, striking additional portions of the
plaintiff's complaint and reducing the class period to a period of
February 4 to November 6, 2008. On August 7, 2012, the plaintiff
filed a purported class action second amended complaint (the
"Second Amended Complaint") seeking to expand their allegations
back to a time period of 2007 (having previously been cut back to
2008 by the U.S. District Court) essentially alleging very similar
matters that had been previously stricken by the U.S. District
Court. On October 16, 2012, the defendants filed a new motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs responded to
the motion to dismiss on November 1, 2012, and defendants filed
their reply on November 12, 2012. On November 20, 2012, the U.S.
District Court granted a stay of discovery under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act pending a decision on the new
motion to dismiss and therefore, the discovery process has been
suspended. On April 16, 2013, the case was reassigned to a new
judge. On July 30, 2013, the U.S. District Court heard the motion
to dismiss and took the matter under advisement. On November 7,
2013, the judge granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motions to dismiss. On December 13, 2013, the defendants filed
their answer to the Second Amended Complaint. Discovery in the
matter has re-started.

On January 8, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to expand the
certified class period. On February 3, 2014, the judge agreed to
the parties' stipulation to defer briefing on the issue of
expanding the class period until the U.S. Supreme Court issues a
decision in the case of Halliburton Co. v. Erica P. John Fund,
Inc. On September 26, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court denied
plaintiffs' motion to expand the class period without prejudice to
re-filing a similar motion. The U.S. Supreme Court decided the
Halliburton case on June 23, 2014, and, on October 3, 2014, the
parties stipulated to a case management schedule wherein they
agree to a briefing schedule on class certification. On November
7, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to expand the class period and
on January 9, 2015, defendants filed their opposition to the
motion.

"This consolidated action is in a preliminary stage and management
has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is currently
unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this matter
or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. The Company
intends to defend this matter vigorously," the Company said.


LHC GROUP: Insurance Carrier Funded Entire $7.9MM Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
LHC Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company's
insurance carrier has funded the entire $7.9 million settlement
amount in the shareholder securities class action.

On June 13, 2012, a putative shareholder securities class action
was filed against the Company and its Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana, styled City of Omaha Police & Fire
Retirement System v. LHC Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:12-cv-
1609-JTT-CMH. The action was filed on behalf of LHC shareholders
who purchased shares of the Company's common stock between July
30, 2008 and October 26, 2011. Plaintiff generally alleges that
the defendants caused false and misleading statements to be issued
in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended ("the Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and that the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer is a control person under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.

On November 2, 2012, Lead Plaintiff City of Omaha Police & Fire
Retirement System filed an Amended Complaint for Violations of the
Federal Securities Laws ("the Amended Complaint") on behalf of the
same putative class of LHC shareholders as the original Complaint.
In addition to claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, the Amended Complaint added a claim against the
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer for violation of Section 20A
of the Exchange Act. The Company believes these claims are without
merit. On December 17, 2012, the Company and the Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer filed a motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint, which was denied by Order dated March 15, 2013.

On June 16, 2014, following mediation, the parties entered into a
Stipulation of Settlement. On August 5, 2014, the District Court
entered an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing
for Notice. The District Court held a final fairness hearing on
December 11, 2014 and issued two Report and Recommendations on
February 11, 2015 approving the settlement plan of allocation and
Lead Plantiff's fees and expenses. On March 3, 2015, the District
Court entered its Judgments adopting the Report and Recommendation
previously issued and dismissing the action with prejudice. The
time for appeal has passed and no appeals were filed. This matter
is now concluded. The Company's insurance carrier has funded the
entire $7.9 million settlement amount.


MAPLE RIDGE, BC: Trial in Leaky Basement Case Reset for Fall 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kat Sieniuc, writing for The Globe and Mail, reported that it's a
story Marc Downey has told many times: He walked down the stairs
of his house one January day to find two-thirds of the basement
where his wife ran her daycare submerged in several inches of
water.

But this was no tear-down house. The couple hadn't bought a fixer-
upper when they signed their mortgage papers in 2008. The brand-
new house outside of Vancouver was less than a year old.

"We haven't had a basement since we moved in," Angela Downey said.
"We don't utilize it."

The Downeys are not alone: Joe Wolczyk said the lower quarters of
his home in the same development were wet when he moved in.
Another homeowner, who asked not to be named, noticed the leaks in
her basement just three days after taking up residence. A man
further down the street, who also declined to use his name,
recalled water "pouring in."

There are more than 40 houses in the Village at Kanaka
development, all constructed the same way. Fifteen of the
households have filed a class action lawsuit against the developer
and contractor, two engineering firms on the project and the City
of Maple Ridge.

The suit alleges construction failures left their basements
deficient and the defendants were negligent in letting it happen.
Some plaintiffs have since left the lawsuit, which contains
allegations that have not been proven in court.

The court battle -- at a time of booming construction in the
region -- echoes similar issues around lack of oversight and
missed attention to detail that plagued the construction industry
two decades ago during the lower mainland's leaky-condo crisis.

The question of the homeowners in Kanaka is the same as it was for
condo owners then: Who is watching to ensure the rush to develop
doesn't come at the expense of good building practice?

"How did that get the check mark, how did that get approved?" Mr.
Downey asked.

In the notice of civil claim filed in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia in 2010, the homeowners say their homes were constructed
with faulty "workmanship and design" that didn't meet
waterproofing requirements.

They also allege the City of Maple Ridge failed a "duty of care"
to inspect the basements for leaks, and that both the municipality
and the developer have "refused or neglected to repair the [leaks]
as requested or at all."

The homeowners are seeking general and special damages.

In its response filed to the court, the city "denies the
allegation that it was responsible, at all material times, for the
inspection and approval of residential premises and other
construction located within Kanaka's boundaries."

The city says it ensures contractors or owners are in "general
compliance" with the current building code. According to the
building bylaw, when the municipality issues permits, reviews
plans or sends inspectors to a project, it does not "constitute a
representation or warranty that the building code or the bylaw
have been complied with or the building or structure meets any
standard of materials or workmanship."

Gerard Sass, a code consultant with Protection Engineering who's
familiar with Mr. Wolczyk's house, said the basement was not
waterproofed to code.

The B.C. building code requires a waterproof membrane be installed
on exterior walls below ground level to prevent leakage through
cracks caused by settlement and concrete shrinkage. The membrane
typically consists of two layers of bitumen.

The Kanaka basements were constructed with no such seal, but a
water-resistant concrete mixture instead.

"Unfortunately, concrete has a tendency to develop cracks and
allow some moisture to go through regardless whether it is
enriched with a waterproofing additive or not," Mr. Sass said.

Brian Hubbs, a senior building science specialist at RDH Building
Engineering, added that waterproof cement mixtures are generally
used in underground parking lots, where some leakage is expected
and can be tolerated.

"There will be some leaks in it, and you'll have to go back and
fix those later," he said. "That's totally doable in a parkade,
but if it's someone's home and there's finished drywall on the
inside, it's a bit more difficult."

The question of who is responsible for allowing basements to be
constructed this way is still unanswered.

The city maintains it relies on the credentials of outside
professionals to "get it right."

"We don't actually do the detailed design and double check all
their stuff," said Chuck Goddard, the city's manager of
development and environmental services.

Valley Geotechnical Engineering, the firm that originally signed
off on the project, denied in its court response that it breached
a duty of care, saying it performed its "professional services for
the development in keeping with that of a reasonable geotechnical
engineer, performing similar services, for a similar development
at the material time."

Brad VanDelft of Valley Geotechnical said in an interview
waterproofing basements with a "special concrete mix" is
"typically how it's done."

When asked about other experts who've said that method doesn't
meet code, he said: "Everyone has their opinion."

Matthew Stogryn, the businessman and sole director behind both the
developer (a numbered company that was dissolved in 2012) and the
contractor, Omni Pacific, could not be immediately reached for
comment. His lawyer said in his statement of response that Mr.
Stokgryn and his companies "specifically deny that the [basement
leaks] . . . exist as alleged or at all,."

The response also "specifically [denies] that they owed any duty
of care to the Plaintiffs."

The lawsuit, which also names realtor Brian Lamb as a defendant,
has been dragging on for five years. There were hopes of reaching
a settlement in mediation before the insurer Aviva (formerly
National Home Warranty) launched its own lawsuit against the
developer, seeking costs for repairing four Kanaka basements,
including the Downeys. A trial in the spring was postponed in a
failed attempt to join the lawsuits. A new trial date has been set
for fall 2016.

Meanwhile, Joseph Power, another homeowner on the lawsuit who's
had his leaky basement patched up numerous times, said he's living
in limbo. Seven years after moving in, he hasn't finished his
basement or been able to use the space.

"You buy a new house and expect it to be nice and not walk into
new problems, so it's been so stressful."

Added neighbour Joe Wilczyk: "You don't even know who to turn to
-- who do you turn to?"


MET FOODMARKETS: Faces Lawsuit for Unpaid OT, Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Agustin Gonzales Rosete, individually, on behalf of all others
similarly situated and as class representative, v. Met
Foodmarkets, 642 Vegs. & Meat Corp., 642 Vegs. & Meat Corp. d/b/a
Met Foodmarkets, Jose Medina and Asael Medina, Case 1:15-cv-05200
(S.D. N.Y., July 2, 2015), seeks compensation for unpaid minimum
wage and overtime on behalf of cashiers, butchers, food preparers,
cooks, kitchen helpers, delivery workers, dishwashers, and
cleaners.

Met Foodmarkets, based in Bronx, New York, operates as a
supermarket.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steven B. Ross, Esq.
     Eric Dawson, Esq.
     ROSS & ASMAR LLC
     499 Seventh Avenue
     23rd Floor South Tower
     New York, NY 10018
     Tel: (212) 736-4202
     E-mail: steven@rossasmar.com
             edawson@rossasmar.com


MILLENNIAL MEDIA: Lead Plaintiffs File Voluntary Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------
Millennial Media, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the lead plaintiffs in
the consolidated action, Public Employees' Retirement System of
Mississippi v. Millennial Media, Inc. et al. and Travis Ostroviak
v. Millennial Media, Inc., et al., have filed a notice of
voluntary dismissal of the case without prejudice.

On September 30, 2014, plaintiff Public Employees' Retirement
System of Mississippi filed a purported class action complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
alleging violations of the federal securities laws against a group
of defendants including us, certain of our current and former
executive officers, directors, and large shareholders, and the
underwriters associated with our initial public offering and
secondary offering. Plaintiff alleges, among other things, that
certain defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to artificially
inflate the price of our common stock by making false and
misleading statements to investors. On October 17, 2014, plaintiff
Travis Ostroviak also filed a purported class action complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, in
which Plaintiff makes certain of the same allegations made in the
action brought by Public Employees' Retirement System of
Mississippi. The complaint names us and certain of our current and
former executive officers and directors as defendants. On February
10, 2015, the Court consolidated these two purported class
actions. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on March 20,
2015 and subsequently was amended again.  On April 21, 2015, the
Court ordered that defendants file any motion to dismiss the
operative complaint by May 25, 2015. On May 5, 2015, the lead
plaintiffs for the consolidated action filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal without prejudice.


NELNET INC: Court Has Not Certified Class in "Keating" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nelnet, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Ohio District
Court has not established, recognized, or certified a class in the
case, Grant Keating v. Peterson's Nelnet, LLC et al.

On August 6, 2012, an Amended Complaint was served on Peterson's
Nelnet, LLC, a subsidiary of Nelnet, Inc. ("Nelnet"), CUnet, LLC,
a subsidiary of Nelnet, and on Nelnet (collectively, the "Keating
Defendants"), in connection with a lawsuit by Grant Keating in the
U.S. Federal District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (the
"Ohio District Court"). The lawsuit was originally instituted on
August 24, 2011, and alleges that the Keating Defendants sent an
advertising text message to the named plaintiff in June 2011 using
an automatic telephone dialing system, and without the plaintiff's
express consent. The complaint also alleges that this text message
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, purportedly
entitling the plaintiff to $500, trebled for a willful violation.
The complaint further alleges that the Keating Defendants sent
putative class members similar text messages using an automatic
telephone dialing system, without such purported class members'
consent. The complaint seeks to establish a class action.

On August 29, 2013, the Keating Defendants filed motions for
summary judgment, and the named plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification. On May 12, 2014, the Ohio District Court granted
the Keating Defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing
the case. On September 8, 2014, the named plaintiff filed an
appeal brief with the Circuit Court of Appeals and on October 22,
2014, the Keating Defendants filed a responsive brief. As of the
filing date of this report, the Ohio District Court has not
established, recognized, or certified a class. The Keating
Defendants intend to continue to defend themselves vigorously in
this lawsuit.


OI S.A.: Defendant in 67 Civil Class Actions
--------------------------------------------
OI S.A. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014, that the Company is "a defendant in 67 civil
class actions filed by the Attorney General of the National
Treasury jointly with certain consumer agencies demanding the re-
opening of customer service centers. The lower courts have
rendered decisions in all of these proceedings, some of which have
been unfavorable to us. All of these proceedings are currently
under appeal. As of December 31, 2014, we had recorded provisions
in the amount of R$11 million for those claims in respect of which
we deemed the risk of loss as probable."


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Class Action Settlement Has Final Order
---------------------------------------------------------
Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on April 6, 2015, the
Court of Common Pleas for the Ninth Judicial Circuit, South
Carolina, entered a final order approving the parties' class
action settlement in the Litigation Relating To Hotel Taxes in
City of Columbia, South Carolina.


ORBITZ WORLDWIDE: Co-Lead Plaintiffs File Amended Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court of Chancery
on March 23, 2015, consolidated six putative stockholder class
actions relating to the execution of the merger agreement between
Orbitz and Expedia that were filed against directors of Orbitz,
Expedia, and other parties. On April 8, 2015, co-lead plaintiffs
filed an amended verified class action complaint.


PHARMERICA CORP: Awaits Decision on Settlement Approval Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pharmerica Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Corporation
continues to await a decision on a motion for preliminary approval
of the settlement in a class action lawsuit.

On October 29, 2013, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Pines
Nursing Homes (77), Inc. as a putative class action against the
Corporation. The complaint alleged that the Corporation sent
unsolicited advertisements promoting the Corporation's goods or
services by facsimile to individuals or entities, and that such
communications did not include an opt-out clause, all in violation
of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").  The
Complaint did not specify the amount of damages sought, but the
TCPA provides a statutory remedy of $500 per facsimile
communication sent in violation of the statute, which may be
trebled in the event of a willful violation.   On August 18, 2014,
the Corporation entered into a Settlement Agreement with the
putative class and class counsel resolving all claims raised in
the complaint.  The parties moved on September 8, 2014 for, among
other things, certification of the putative class for the purposes
of effectuating the settlement and preliminary approval of the
parties' settlement, and have requested a hearing on that motion.
No hearing has yet been set on that motion and the Corporation
awaits a decision on the motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement.

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


PLY GEM: MW Manufacturers Entered Into Settlement with Objectors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 4, 2015, that MW Manufacturers, Inc.
has entered into a settlement agreement with the Objectors to
fully and finally resolve their claims.

In John Gulbankian v. MW Manufacturers, Inc. ("Gulbankian"), a
purported class action filed in March 2010 in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "Court"),
plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, allege damages as a result of the defective design and
manufacture of MW's V-Wood windows. In Eric Hartshorn and Bethany
Perry v. MW Manufacturers, Inc. ("Hartshorn"), a purported class
action filed in July 2012 in the Court, plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, allege damages as a
result of the defective design and manufacture of MW's Freedom and
Freedom 800 windows. On April 22, 2014, plaintiffs in both the
Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases filed a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint, making similar claims against all MW vinyl clad
windows, including MW's V-Wood, Freedom, Freedom 600 and Freedom
800 windows. The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief, including
(i) economic and compensatory damages, (ii) treble damages, (iii)
punitive damages, and (iv) attorneys' fees and costs of
litigation.

During 2014, MW engaged in mediation sessions with plaintiffs'
counsel for both the Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases. MW signed a
settlement agreement with plaintiffs as of April 18, 2014 to
settle both the Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases on a nationwide
basis (the "Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement"). The Vinyl Clad
Settlement Agreement provides that this settlement applies to any
and all MW vinyl clad windows manufactured from January 1, 1987
through May 23, 2014, and provides for a cash payment for eligible
consumers submitting qualified claims showing, among other
requirements, certain damage to their MW vinyl clad windows. The
Court granted preliminary approval of this settlement on May 23,
2014, and issued a Final Approval Order, Final Judgment, and Order
of Dismissal with Prejudice (the "Final Approval Order") on
December 29, 2014, granting final approval of the settlement as
well as MW's payment of attorneys' fees and costs to plaintiffs'
counsel in the amount of $2.5 million. On January 13, 2015, notice
of appeal of the Final Approval Order was given by certain
objectors to the settlement, Karl Memari, Joelene Connor-Hethcox
and Vincent Cecil Garrett, Jr. (the "Objectors"). On May 6, 2015,
MW entered into a settlement agreement with the Objectors to fully
and finally resolve their claims, including the dismissal of Karl
Memari v. Ply Gem Prime Holdings, Inc. et al., another pending
lawsuit seeking class certification, making the Vinyl Clad
Settlement Agreement final and binding on the parties. The Company
and MW deny all liability in the settlements and with respect to
the facts and claims alleged. The Company, however, is aware of
the substantial burden, expense, inconvenience and distraction of
continued litigation, and agreed to settle the litigation to avoid
these.

As a result of the Vinyl Clad Settlement Agreement, the Company
recognized a $5.0 million expense during the three months ended
March 29, 2014 within selling, general, and administrative
expenses in the Company's condensed consolidated statement of
operations and comprehensive income (loss) in the Company's
Windows and Doors segment. It is possible that the Company may
incur costs in excess of the recorded amounts; however, the
Company currently expects that the total net cost to resolve the
lawsuits will not exceed $5.0 million. Approximately $4.5 million
of this liability is currently outstanding, with $2.5 million as a
current liability within accrued expenses and $2.0 million as a
noncurrent liability within other long-term liabilities in the
Company's condensed consolidated balance sheet as of April 4,
2015.


PLY GEM: Plaintiff in "Memari" Agreed to Dismiss Case
-----------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 4, 2015, that the Plaintiff in the
case, Karl Memari v. Ply Gem Prime Holdings, Inc. et al., has
agreed to dismiss this matter in connection with the final
settlement of the Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases.

In Karl Memari v. Ply Gem Prime Holdings, Inc. et al., a purported
class action filed in March 2013 in the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina, Charleston Division,
plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
alleges damages as a result of the illegality and/or defects of
MW's vinyl clad windows. The plaintiff seeks a variety of relief,
including (i) actual and compensatory damages, (ii) punitive
damages, and (iii) attorneys' fees and costs of litigation.
Plaintiff has agreed to dismiss this matter in connection with the
final settlement of the Gulbankian and Hartshorn cases.


PLY GEM: Court Has Not Ruled on "Pagliaroni" Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 4, 2015, that the Court has not yet
ruled on the hearing regarding class certification in the case,
Anthony Pagliaroni v. Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. and Deceuninck
North America, LLC.

In Anthony Pagliaroni v. Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. and
Deceuninck North America, LLC, a purported class action filed in
January 2012 in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts, plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, alleges damages as a result of the defective
design and manufacture of Oasis composite deck and railing, which
was manufactured by Deceuninck North America, LLC ("Deceuninck")
and sold by Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc. ("MHE"). The plaintiff
seeks a variety of relief, including (i) economic and compensatory
damages, (ii) treble damages, (iii) punitive damages, and (iv)
attorneys' fees and costs of litigation. The damages sought in
this action have not yet been quantified.

Discovery regarding class certification has closed and the hearing
regarding class certification was held on March 10, 2015, although
the Court has not yet ruled on this hearing. Deceuninck, as the
manufacturer of Oasis deck and railing, has agreed to indemnify
MHE for certain liabilities related to this claim pursuant to the
sales and distribution agreement, as amended, between Deceuninck
and MHE. MHE's ability to seek indemnification from Deceuninck is,
however, limited by the terms of the indemnity as well as the
strength of Deceuninck's financial condition, which could change
in the future.


PLY GEM: Lead Plaintiff Filed Opposition to Motion to Dismiss
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 4, 2015, that the the lead plaintiff
in the Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation has filed its
opposition to the motion to dismiss.

In re Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation is a purported
federal securities class action filed on May 19, 2014 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., several of its directors and
officers, and the underwriters associated with the Company's IPO.
It is filed on behalf of all persons or entities, other than the
defendants, who purchased the common shares of the Company
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's IPO and seeks remedies
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, alleging
that the Company's Form S-1 registration statement was negligently
prepared and materially inaccurate, containing untrue statements
of material fact and omitting material information which was
required to be disclosed. The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief,
including (i) damages together with interest thereon and (ii)
attorneys' fees and costs of litigation.

On October 14, 2014, Strathclyde Pension Fund was certified as
lead plaintiff, and class counsel was appointed. On February 13,
2015, the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the complaint
and on April 14, 2015 the lead plaintiff filed its opposition to
that motion to dismiss. The damages sought in this action have not
yet been quantified.

Pursuant to the Underwriting Agreement, dated May 22, 2013,
entered into in connection with the IPO, the Company has agreed to
reimburse the underwriters for the legal fees and other expenses
reasonably incurred by the underwriters' law firm in its
representation of the underwriters in connection with this matter.
Pursuant to Indemnification Agreements, dated as of May 22, 2013,
between the Company and each of the directors and officers named
in this action, the Company has agreed to assume the defense of
such directors and officers. The Company believes the purported
federal securities class action is without merit and will
vigorously defend against the lawsuit.


PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Filed Motion to Reconsider Court Decision
---------------------------------------------------------------
Prudential Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in February 2015, the
federal District Court for New Jersey granted in part, and denied
in part, plaintiffs' renewed class certification motion in the
case Bouder v. PFI. It certified for class treatment plaintiffs'
wage payment claims which include allegations that the Company
made improper deductions from the wages of its former common law
agents in California, New York, and Pennsylvania, and its
financial services associates in California and New York. The
Court denied plaintiffs' attempt to certify a class based on the
Company's alleged failure to pay overtime to its former common law
agents and its financial services associates in California,
Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania. In March 2015, the Company
filed a motion requesting that the Court reconsider its decision
to partially grant plaintiffs' renewed class certification motion
with regard to its former common law agents.


QC HOLDINGS: Court Won't Reconsider Cert. Order in Stemple Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the court has refused
to reconsider its certification order in the class action lawsuit
filed by Paul Stemple.

On August 13, 2012, the Company was sued in the United States
District Court for the South District of California in a putative
class action lawsuit filed by Paul Stemple. Mr. Stemple alleges
that the Company used an automatic telephone dialing system with
an "artificial or prerecorded voice" in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227, et seq. The complaint does
not identify any other members of the proposed class, nor how many
members may be in the class.

On September 5, 2014, the district court granted Plaintiff's
Motion for Class Certification. The certified class consists of
persons and/or entities who were never customers of the Company,
but whose 10-digit California area code cell phone numbers were
listed by the Company's customers in the "Employment" and/or
"Contacts" fields of their loan applications, and who the Company
allegedly called using an Automatic Telephone Dialing System for
the purpose of collecting or attempting to collect an alleged debt
from the account holder, between August 13, 2008 and August 13,
2012. In April 2015, the court refused to reconsider its
certification order, but did order a stay in the litigation to
allow the parties to explore possible settlement options.


QC HOLDINGS: Faces Mike Marquez Class Action
--------------------------------------------
QC Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company was sued
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California in a putative class action lawsuit filed on April 20,
2015, by Mike Marquez. Mr. Marquez alleges that the Company was
violating California law when it allegedly failed to notify
California residents that it was recording phone calls it made to
cell phones. The complaint does not identify any other members of
the proposed class, nor how many members may be in the class. The
Company's answer was currently due in May 2015. At this time,
there is no reasonable way to determine possible exposure.


REACHLOCAL INC: Class Action by Former Clients at an Early Stage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reachlocal, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a lawsuit, purporting
to be a class action, was filed on May 2, 2014, by one of the
Company's former clients in the United States District Court in
Los Angeles. The complaint alleges breach of contract, breach of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violation
of California's unfair competition law. The complaint seeks
monetary damages, restitution and attorneys' fees. The Company
filed a motion to dismiss on June 20, 2014, which was denied on
December 4, 2014. While the case is at an early stage, the Company
believes that the case is substantively and procedurally without
merit. The Company's insurance carrier is providing the Company
with a defense under a reservation of rights.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Securities Litigation in Early Stages
-------------------------------------------------------
A securities class action against Sandridge Energy, Inc. is in the
early stages, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

On December 5, 2012, James Glitz and Rodger A. Thornberry, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
stockholders, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against
SandRidge Energy, Inc. and certain current and former executive
officers of the Company. On January 4, 2013, Louis Carbone, on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders,
filed a substantially similar putative class action complaint in
the same court and against the same defendants.

On March 6, 2013, the court consolidated these two actions under
the caption "In re SandRidge Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation"
(the "Securities Litigation") and appointed a lead plaintiff and
lead counsel. On July 23, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint, which asserts a variety of federal securities
claims against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers and directors, among other defendants, on behalf of a
putative class of (a) purchasers of SandRidge common stock during
the period from February 24, 2011 to November 8, 2012, (b)
purchasers of common units of the Mississippian Trust I in or
traceable to its initial public offering on or about April 12,
2011, and (c) purchasers of common units of the Mississippian
Trust II (together with the Mississippian Trust I, the
"Mississippian Trusts") in or traceable to its initial public
offering on or about April 23, 2012. The claims are based on
allegations that the Company, certain of its current and former
officers and directors, and the Mississippian Trusts, among other
defendants, are responsible for making false and misleading
statements, and omitting material information, concerning a
variety of subjects, including oil and natural gas reserves, the
Company's capital expenditures, and certain transactions entered
into by companies allegedly affiliated with the Company's former
CEO Tom Ward.

The defendants have filed respective motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, which are pending before the
court. Because the Securities Litigation is in the early stages,
an estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with it, if
any, cannot be made until the facts, circumstances and legal
theories relating to the plaintiffs' claims and defendants'
defenses are fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company has not
established any reserves relating to the Securities Litigation.
Each of the Mississippian Trusts has requested that the Company
indemnify it for any losses it may incur in connection with the
Securities Litigation.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: James Hart Action in Early Stages
---------------------------------------------------
A class action filed by James Hart and 15 other named plaintiffs
against Sandridge Energy, Inc. is in the early stages, the Company
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2015.

On July 15, 2013, James Hart and 15 other named plaintiffs filed
an Amended Complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Kansas in an action undertaken individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated against SandRidge Energy,
Inc., SandRidge Operating Company, SandRidge E&P, SandRidge
Midstream, Inc., and Lariat Services, Inc. In their Amended
Complaint, plaintiffs allege that the defendants failed to
properly calculate overtime pay for the plaintiffs and for other
similarly situated current and former employees. The plaintiffs
further allege that the defendants required the plaintiffs and
other similarly situated current and former employees to engage in
work-related activities without pay. The plaintiffs assert claims
against the defendants for (i) violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, (ii) violations of the Kansas Wage Payment Act,
(iii) breach of contract, and (iv) fraud, and seek to recover
unpaid wages and overtime pay, liquidated damages, statutory
penalties, economic damages, compensatory and punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, and both pre- and post-judgment
interest.

On October 3, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Conditional
Collective Action Certification and for Judicial Notice to the
Class and a Motion to Toll the Statute of Limitations. On October
11, 2013, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss and a Motion to
Transfer Venue to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma. All of these motions are pending before the
court.

On April 2, 2014, the court granted the defendants' Motion to
Dismiss and granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended complaint
by April 16, 2014, which they did on such date. On July 1, 2014,
the court granted plaintiffs' Motion for Conditional Collective
Action Certification and for Judicial Notice to the Class, and
denied plaintiffs' Motion to Toll the Statute of Limitations.

The Company and the other defendants intend to defend this lawsuit
vigorously. This lawsuit is in the early stages and, accordingly,
an estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with this
action, if any, cannot be made until the facts, circumstances and
legal theories relating to the plaintiffs' claims and the
defendants' defenses are fully disclosed and analyzed. The Company
has not established any reserves relating to this action.


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: Court Consolidated Surbaugh and Dakil Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sandridge Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma has consolidated the
Surbaugh and Dakil actions.

On November 10, 2014, a class action complaint was filed in the U.
S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against
certain current and former directors and officers of the Company
in the case styled Steve Surbaugh vs. SandRidge Energy, Inc., Tom
L. Ward, James D. Bennett, Eddie M. LeBlanc, and Randall D.
Cooley. The complaint asserts a federal securities class action on
behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons other than
defendants who purchased SandRidge securities between March 1,
2013, through November 4, 2014, seeking to recover damages
allegedly caused by the defendants' violations of federal
securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
complaint alleges that, throughout the class period, the
defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding SandRidge's business, operations and future prospects
because such statements failed to properly account for the
penalties SandRidge accrued under its treating agreement with
Occidental Petroleum Corporation and, as a result, SandRidge's
financial statements were materially false and misleading during
the class period. An estimate of reasonably possible losses
associated with this action cannot be made at this time. The
Company has not established any reserves relating to this action.

On November 11, 2014, a class action complaint was filed in the U.
S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against
certain current and former directors and officers of the Company
in the case styled Steven T. Dakil vs. SandRidge Energy, Inc., Tom
L. Ward, James D. Bennett, and Eddie M. LeBlanc. The complaint
asserts a federal securities class action on behalf of a putative
class consisting of all persons other than defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired SandRidge securities between
February 28, 2013, and November 3, 2014, seeking to recover
damages allegedly caused by the defendants' violations of federal
securities laws under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
complaint alleges that, throughout the class period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding
SandRidge's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, plaintiff alleges that defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
SandRidge was improperly accounting for penalties owed to
Occidental Petroleum Corp. under a treating agreement on an annual
basis when it was required to do so on a quarterly basis; (ii)
SandRidge's quarterly and annual financial and operating results
for the periods ending December 31, 2012 through June 30, 2014,
were overstated and required restatement; (iii) defendant Ward
engaged in improper related party transactions; (iv) SandRidge
lacked proper internal controls over financial reporting; and (v)
as a result of the foregoing, SandRidge's financial statements
were materially false and misleading during the class period.

On February 17, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma consolidated the Surbaugh and Dakil actions.
An estimate of reasonably possible losses associated with this
consolidated action cannot be made at this time. The Company has
not established any reserves relating to this action.


SR SUNTOUR: Recalls Bicycle Forks Due to Fall Hazard
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 10, 2015
Posting date: July 10, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fall Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54154

This recall involves SR Suntour N.A. bicycle forks that have been
incorporated into finished bicycles under the following brands:
GT, Giant, INA International, Scott, Trek, Cannondale, Diamondback
and Schwinn brands.

The following bicycle forks are included in this recall:

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

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

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

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

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

Approximately 33,644 recalled forks were sold in Canada, and
approximately 67,863 were sold in the United States.
The recalled products were sold at authorized GT, Giant, INA
International, Scott, Trek, Cannondale, Diamondback and Schwinn
dealers from November 2014 to June 2015.

Manufactured in China.

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

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

For more information, consumers may contact SR Suntour N.A. at 1-
888-820-8458, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. CST, Monday through
Friday.  Consumers may also visit the company's website.

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

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

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

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://tinyurl.com/oelm5ya


TARGA RESOURCES: Harris County Trial Court Rejects Injunction Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Targa Resources Partners LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Harris County
trial court has denied the TRC Plaintiff's request for a
preliminary injunction in the Targa Shareholder Litigation.

On January 28, 2015, a public shareholder of Targa (the "TRC
Plaintiff") filed a putative class action and derivative lawsuit
against Targa (as a nominal defendant), its directors at the time
of the ATLS merger (the "TRC Director Defendants"), and ATLS
(together with Targa and the TRC Director Defendants, the "TRC
Lawsuit Defendants"). This lawsuit is styled Inspired Investors v.
Joe Bob Perkins, et al., Cause No. 2015-04961, in the District
Court of Harris County, Texas (the "TRC Lawsuit").

The TRC Plaintiff alleged a variety of causes of action
challenging the ATLS merger and the disclosures related to the
ATLS merger. Generally, the TRC Plaintiff alleged that the TRC
Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duties.  The TRC
Plaintiff further alleged that the registration statement filed on
January 22, 2015 fails to disclose allegedly material details
concerning (i) Wells Fargo Securities, LLC's and the TRC Director
Defendants' supposed conflicts of interest with respect to the
ATLS merger, (ii) Targa's financial projections, (iii) the
background of the ATLS merger, and (iv) Wells Fargo Securities,
LLC's analysis of the ATLS merger. The TRC Plaintiff also alleged
that Targa overpaid to acquire ATLS.

Based on these allegations, the TRC Plaintiff sought to enjoin the
TRC Lawsuit Defendants from proceeding with or consummating the
ATLS merger. The TRC Plaintiff also seeks rescission, damages, and
attorneys' fees.

On February 25, 2015, the Harris County trial court denied the TRC
Plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction. The ATLS merger
occurred on February 27, 2015.  The TRC Plaintiff has indicated
that it intends to dismiss the TRC Lawsuit with prejudice. Should
the TRC Plaintiff decide not to dismiss, TRC Lawsuit Defendants
will seek dismissal of the TRC Lawsuit.


TARGA RESOURCES: Parties Settle Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Targa Resources Partners LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the parties to the
Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits agreed to settle the Consolidated
Atlas Lawsuits.

Between October and December 2014, five public unitholders of APL
(the "APL Plaintiffs") filed putative class action lawsuits
against APL, ATLS, APL GP, its managers, Targa, the Partnership,
the general partner and MLP Merger Sub (the "APL Lawsuit
Defendants"). These lawsuits are styled (a) Michael Evnin v. Atlas
Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; (b) William B. Federman Family
Wealth Preservation Trust v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et
al., in the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma (the "Tulsa
Lawsuit"); (c) Greenthal Living Trust U/A 01/26/88 v. Atlas
Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; (d) Mike Welborn v. Atlas Pipeline
Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania; and (e) Irving Feldbaum v. Atlas Pipeline
Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania, though the Tulsa Lawsuit has since been
voluntarily dismissed. The Evnin, Greenthal, Welborn and Feldbaum
lawsuits have been consolidated as In re Atlas Pipeline Partners,
L.P. Unitholder Litigation, Case No. GD-14-019245, in the Court of
Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the "Consolidated
APL Lawsuit"). In October and November 2014, two public
unitholders of ATLS (the "ATLS Plaintiffs" and, together with the
APL Plaintiffs, the "Atlas Lawsuit Plaintiffs") filed putative
class action lawsuits against ATLS, ATLS Energy GP, LLC, the
general partner of ATLS ("ATLS GP"), its managers, Targa and GP
Merger Sub (the "ATLS Lawsuit Defendants" and, together with the
APL Lawsuit Defendants, the "Atlas Lawsuit Defendants"). These
lawsuits are styled (a) Rick Kane v. Atlas Energy, L.P., et al.,
in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania
and (b) Jeffrey Ayers v. Atlas Energy, L.P., et al., in the Court
of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the "ATLS
Lawsuits"). The ATLS Lawsuits have been consolidated as In re
Atlas Energy, L.P. Unitholder Litigation, Case No. GD-14-019658,
in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania
(the "Consolidated ATLS Lawsuit" and, together with the
Consolidated APL Lawsuit, the "Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits"),
though the Tulsa lawsuit and the Kane lawsuit have been dismissed.

The Atlas Lawsuit Plaintiffs allege a variety of causes of action
challenging the Atlas mergers. Generally, the APL Plaintiffs
alleged that (a) APL GP's managers have breached the covenant of
good faith and/or their fiduciary duties and (b) Targa, the
Partnership, the general partner, MLP Merger Sub, APL, ATLS and
APL GP have aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of the
covenant of good faith and/or fiduciary duties. The APL Plaintiffs
further alleged that (a) the premium offered to APL's unitholders
is inadequate, (b) APL agreed to contractual terms that will
allegedly dissuade other potential acquirers from seeking to
acquire APL, and (c) APL GP's managers favored their self-
interests over the interests of APL's unitholders. The APL
Plaintiffs in the Consolidated APL Lawsuit also allege that the
registration statement filed on November 19, 2014 fails, among
other things, to disclose allegedly material details concerning
(i) Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated's analysis of the
ATLS merger and APL merger (the "Transactions"); (ii) APL and the
Partnership's financial projections; and (iii) the background of
the Transactions. Generally, the ATLS Plaintiffs alleged that (a)
ATLS GP's directors have breached the covenant of good faith
and/or their fiduciary duties and (b) Targa, GP Merger Sub, and
ATLS have aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of the
covenant of good faith and/or fiduciary duties. The ATLS
Plaintiffs further alleged that (a) the premium offered to the
ATLS unitholders was inadequate, (b) ATLS agreed to contractual
terms that would allegedly dissuade other potential acquirers from
seeking to acquire ATLS, (c) ATLS GP's directors favored their
self-interests over the interests of the ATLS unitholders and (d)
the registration statement failed to disclose allegedly material
details concerning, among other things, (i) Wells Fargo
Securities, LLC, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, and
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.'s analyses of the Transactions; (ii)
the Partnership, Targa, APL, and ATLS' financial projections; and
(iii) the background of the Transactions.

Based on these allegations, the Atlas Lawsuit Plaintiffs sought to
enjoin the Atlas Lawsuit Defendants from proceeding with or
consummating the Atlas mergers unless and until APL and ATLS
adopted and implemented processes to obtain the best possible
terms for their respective unitholders. The Atlas Lawsuit
Plaintiffs also sought rescission, damages and attorneys' fees.

The parties to the Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits agreed to settle
the Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits on February 9, 2015. In general,
the settlements provide that in consideration for the dismissal of
the Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits, ATLS and APL will provide
supplemental disclosures regarding the Atlas mergers in a filing
with the SEC on Form 8-K, which ATLS and APL did on February 11,
2015. The Atlas Lawsuit Defendants agreed to make such
supplemental disclosures solely to avoid the uncertainty, risk,
burden, and expense inherent in litigation and deny that any
supplemental disclosure was or is required under any applicable
rule, statute, regulation or law. The parties to the Consolidated
Atlas Lawsuits are drafting settlement agreements and expect to
seek court approval of the settlements.


TD AMERITRADE: Faces 5 Actions Regarding Routing of Client Orders
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that five putative
class action complaints have been filed regarding TD Ameritrade's
routing of client orders. The cases are pending in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nebraska: Jay Zola et al. v. TD
Ameritrade, Inc., et al.; Tyler Verdieck v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.;
Bruce Lerner v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.; Michael Sarbacker v. TD
Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al.; Gerald Klein v. TD
Ameritrade Holding Corporation, et al. The complaints in Zola,
Klein and Sarbacker allege that the defendants failed to provide
clients with "best execution" and routed orders to the market
venue that paid the most for its order flow. The complaints in
Verdieck and Lerner allege that the defendant routed its clients'
non-marketable limit orders to the venue paying the highest rates
of maker rebates, and that clients did not receive best execution
on these kinds of orders. The complaints variously include claims
of breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the
duty of best execution, fraud, negligent misrepresentation,
violations of Section 10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act and SEC
Rule 10b-5, violation of Nebraska's Consumer Protection Act,
violation of Nebraska's Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act,
aiding and abetting, unjust enrichment and declaratory judgment.
The complaints seek various kinds of relief including damages,
restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief, equitable relief and
other relief. The Company intends to vigorously defend against
these lawsuits. The Company is unable to predict the outcome or
the timing of the ultimate resolution of these lawsuits, or the
potential losses, if any, that may result.


TD AMERITRADE: Settles Reserve Yield Plus Fund Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company
and the plaintiffs in the Reserve Yield Plus Fund Litigation
reached an agreement in principle to resolve the claims against
the Company and its directors, officers and shareholders.

During September 2008, The Reserve, an independent mutual fund
company, announced that the net asset value of the Reserve Yield
Plus Fund declined below $1.00 per share. The Yield Plus Fund was
not a money market mutual fund, but its stated objective was to
maintain a net asset value of $1.00 per share. TD Ameritrade,
Inc.'s clients continue to hold shares in the Yield Plus Fund (now
known as "Yield Plus Fund -- In Liquidation"), which is being
liquidated.

In November 2008, a purported class action lawsuit was filed with
respect to the Yield Plus Fund. The lawsuit is captioned Ross v.
Reserve Management Company, Inc. et al. and is pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Ross
lawsuit is on behalf of persons who purchased shares of Reserve
Yield Plus Fund. On November 20, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a
first amended complaint naming as defendants the fund's advisor,
certain of its affiliates and the Company and certain of its
directors, officers and shareholders as alleged control persons.
The complaint alleges claims of violations of the federal
securities laws and other claims based on allegations that false
and misleading statements and omissions were made in the Reserve
Yield Plus Fund prospectuses and in other statements regarding the
fund. On March 19, 2015, the plaintiffs entered into an agreement
with Reserve Management Company, Inc. and related defendants to
settle the claims against them, subject to court approval. On
March 26, 2015, the Company and the plaintiffs reached an
agreement in principle to resolve the claims against the Company
and its directors, officers and shareholders named as defendants,
subject to definitive written terms that will require court
approval. Under the agreement, the Company will make a cash
contribution of $3.75 million toward a class settlement fund.


TSUKI SUSHI: Accused of Violating FLSA, Family Medical Leave Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Guerrier, and other similarly situated individuals, v. Tsuki
Sushi & Bar, LLC, Jesus Meneses, individually, Jesus Argenis Leon,
individually, and Carlos Adarmes, individually, Case No. 1:15-cv-
22512-RNS (S.D. Fla., July 2, 2015), alleges non-payment of wages
in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and violations of
the Family Medical Leave Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
     Anaeli C. Petisco, Esq.
     REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
     44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
     Miami, FL 33130
     Tel: 305-416-5000
     Fax: 305-416-5005


TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY FOX: Management to Defend Claims in "Wilder"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-First Century Fox, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company's
management intends to vigorously defend claims in the Wilder
litigation.

On July 19, 2011, a purported class action lawsuit captioned
Wilder v. News Corp., et al. ("Wilder Litigation"), was filed on
behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock between
March 3, 2011 and July 11, 2011, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff brought
claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act, alleging that false and misleading statements were
issued regarding the alleged acts of voicemail interception at The
News of the World. The suit names as defendants the Company,
Rupert Murdoch, James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, and seeks
compensatory damages, rescission for damages sustained, and costs.

On June 5, 2012, the court issued an order appointing the Avon
Pension Fund ("Avon") as lead plaintiff and Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd as lead counsel. Thereafter, on July 3, 2012, the court
issued an order providing that an amended consolidated complaint
shall be filed by July 31, 2012. Avon filed an amended
consolidated complaint on July 31, 2012, which among other things,
added as defendants NI Group Limited (now known as News Corp UK &
Ireland Limited) and Les Hinton, and expanded the class period to
include February 15, 2011 to July 18, 2011. The defendants filed
motions to dismiss the litigation, which were granted by the court
on March 31, 2014. Plaintiffs were allowed to amend their
complaint, and on April 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed a second
amended consolidated complaint, which generally repeats the
allegations of the amended consolidated complaint and also expands
the class period to July 8, 2009 to July 18, 2011.

On August 11, 2014, defendants filed motions to dismiss the second
amended consolidated complaint, and on October 24, 2014,
plaintiffs opposed those motions. On November 21, 2014, defendants
filed their replies to plaintiffs' opposition. The Company's
management believes the claims in the Wilder Litigation are
entirely without merit, and intends to vigorously defend those
claims.


TYCO SAFETY: Recalls Security System Keypads And Control Panels
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 9, 2015
Posting date: July 9, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Electrical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54148

This recall involves the DSC PowerSeries Neo Security Version 1.0
intrusion security system keypads and control panels. Only version
1.0 of the keypads and control panels are affected by this recall.
The security system keypads and control panels require
professional installation and configuration.

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

  Model Number   Dates of Manufacture         Serial Number Range
  ------------   --------------------         -------------------
  HSM2108        March 2014 - December 2014   1800000F - 18001703
  HSM2208        March 2014 - December 2014   28000007 - 280002E8
  HSM2300        March 2014 - December 2014   30000007 - 300003E0
  HSM2204        May 2014 - December 2014     24000007 - 240006BC
  HSM2HOST9      June 2014 - December 2014    2414326890 -
                                              3014196593
  HS2ICN         June 2014 - January 2015     510003DE - 510014BF
  HS2ICNENG      May 2014 - January 2015      51000004 -
                                              51000B60
  HS2ICNP        September 2014 -             530001EC - 5300021F
                 January 2015
  HS2ICNPENG     May 2014 - January 2015      53000041 - 53000183
  HS2ICNRF9      June 2014 - January 2015     5A000191 - 5A000FB3
  HSICNRF9ENG    May 2014 - January 2015      5A000004 - 5A000F1A
  HS2ICNRFP9     August 2014 - January 2015   5C0000F4 - 5C00011E
  HS2ICNRFP9ENG  May 2014 - January 2015      5C000006 - 5C0000F2
  HS2LCD         June 2014 - January 2015     50000412 -
                                              50001BFA1
  HS2LCDENG      May 2014 - January 2015      50000001 - 50001D62
  HS2LCDP        July 2014 - January 2015     52000160 - 5200033F
  HS2LCDPENG     May 2014 - January 2015      52000073 - 52000313
  HS2LCDRF9      June 2014 - January 2015     59000559 - 5900149D
  HS2LCDRF9ENG   May 2014 - January 2015      59000001 - 5900143D
  HS2LCDRFP9     June 2014 - January 2015     5B0001CB - 5B0003E1
  HS2LCDRFP9ENG  May 2015 - January 2015      5B00014A - 5B00037A
  HS2LED         June 2014 - January 2015     560000FC - 56000884
  HS2LEDENG      May 2014 - January 2015      56000010 - 560006FD
  HS32-119       June 2014 - January 2015     5A000191 - 5A000FB3
  HS32-19CP01    June 2014 - January 2015     5A000191 - 5A000FB3
  HS32-412HC     June 2014 - January 2015     510003DE - 510014BF
  HS32-412TLHC   June 2014 - January 2015     510003DE - 510014BF
  HS16-412C      May 2014 - January 2015      51000004 - 51000B60
  HS16-419C      May 2014 - January 2015      59000001 - 5900143D
  HS16-419CFRE   June 2014 - January 2015     59000559 - 5900149D
  HS16-421C      May 2014 - January 2015      5A000004 - 5A000F1A
  HS16-421CFRE   June 2014 - January 2015     5A000191 - 5A000FB3

  HS2032CLC2SPA  June 2014 - January 2015     510003DE - 510014BF
  HS32-219       May 2014 - January 2015      59000001 - 5900143D
  HS32-219CP01   May 2014 - January 2015      59000001 - 5900143D
  HS32-51        May 2014 - January 2015      50000001 - 50001D62
  HS32-51CP01    May 2014 - January 2015      50000001 - 50001D62

Tyco Safety Products Canada Ltd. has become aware of an issue
affecting Version 1.0 of certain DSC PowerSeries Neo intrusion
security system keypads and control panels used in residential and
small business installations.  The issue involves a potential
system malfunction that can occur when a system component (motion
detector, window/door sensor, smoke/carbon monoxide detector or
other system component) sends a signal to a PowerSeries Neo module
that becomes corrupted.  Such a signal can become corrupted for a
number of reasons, including power surges and other electrical
interference.  In such event, if there is a corrupted message
generated, there is a small chance that the panel will lose
communication with the connected devices and not show a local
trouble.  The resulting effect is that any alarm signals sent by
any security devices or smoke or carbon monoxide detectors
connected to the module would not be communicated to the system
alarm panel, and therefore would not be subsequently communicated
to an alarm monitoring company that was monitoring the security
system.  However, any smoke and carbon monoxide detectors
connected to the system will remain functional locally, and will
sound a local alarm if an alarm condition or event occurs.

Neither Health Canada nor Tyco Safety Products Canada Ltd. has
received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to
the use of this product.

Approximately 8,107 units were sold in Canada through professional
alarm installers.

The recalled products were sold from March 2014 to January 2015.

Manufactured in Israel and Canada.

Manufacturer: Tyco Safety Products Canada Ltd.
              doing business as DSC and Digital Security Controls
              Concord
              Ontario
              CANADA

Manufacturer: Visonic Ltd.
              Kiryat Gat
              ISRAEL

Consumers with affected units should contact their
dealer/installer/distributor or contact DSC to receive
instructions for repair of their panel.

For more information, consumers may contact DSC's support center
toll free at 1-800-387-3630 from 8:30 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. EST,
Monday through Friday.

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

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

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://tinyurl.com/oqmx8sl


UNITED STATES: Coal Miners To File Class Suit Over Clean Air Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
WTRF.com reported that laid off coal miners, and some still
employed, are compiling signatures for a class-action lawsuit
against the Environmental Protection Agency's Clean Air Act. The
petition currently has thousands of signatures.

Those coal miners from West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky and
Pennsylvania met at the Moundsville Eagles Hall from noon to 6
p.m. to show their support for the lawsuit against the EPA for
violations that occurred during the process of enacting
legislation.

"This is a provision that can be challenged now. It is an
administrative and legislative error. It doesn't have to do with
the final rule and we are not attacking the rule in its entirety.
We'll let the states and the coal companies do that at a later
date," said one of the plaintiffs, Kurtis Armann.

Armann said officials found serious problems that occurred during
the legislative process, specifically the lack of peer review.  He
adds the pending regulations are destroying economies and a way of
life for people in West Virginia.

Armann anticipates the class to exceed 2,000 plaintiffs and if
Indiana and Illinois get involved, it'll reach between 4,000 to
5,000 plaintiffs.


VANBC WINDOW: Recalls Fauxwood Blinds Due to Strangulation Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 9, 2015
Posting date: July 9, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Strangulation Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54138

This recall involves 2" Fauxwood Horizontal Blind manufactured by
VanBC Window Blinds. The products are custom made and are
available in various colors like Snow White, Dove White and Pearl
White and in different sizes.

Health Canada's sampling and evaluation program has determined
that the recalled blinds pose a strangulation hazard by having
exposed looped operating cords. Young children may pull looped
cords around their neck, posing a risk of strangulation.

The blinds also do not have the required hang tag warnings and
company information or year of manufacture listed on the product.

Neither Health Canada nor VanBC Window Blinds has received reports
of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these
blinds.

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

Approximately 390 of the recalled products were sold by different
agents and/or installers in British Columbia or directly at VanBC
Window Blinds manufacture.

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

Manufactured in Canada.

Manufacturer: VanBC Window Blinds
              #117-12651 80 Ave, V3W 3A6
              Surrey
              British Columbia
              CANADA

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://tinyurl.com/qc2w4f6


XPO LOGISTICS: Remaining DLSE Claims Transferred to Calif. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the remaining DLSE
claims have been transferred to California Superior Court in three
separate actions involving approximately 200 claimants.

Certain of the Company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries, which
were acquired on March 31, 2014, received notices from the
California Labor Commissioner, Division of Labor Standards
Enforcement (the "DLSE"), that a total of 153 owner operators
contracted with these subsidiaries have filed claims with the DLSE
in which they assert that they should be classified as employees,
as opposed to independent contractors. These claims seek
reimbursement for the owner operators' business expenses,
including fuel, tractor maintenance and tractor lease payments. A
decision was rendered by a DLSE hearing officer in seven of these
claims, awarding a total of $2.2 million to the seven claimants.
The Company appealed these awards to California Superior Court,
San Diego, where a de novo trial was held on the merits of those
claims. On March 6, 2015, the court issued a statement of decision
finding that the seven claimants were employees rather than
independent contractors, and awarding an aggregate of $2.0 million
to the claimants. The court, however, has asked for additional
briefing on the measure of damages before it enters its final
judgment.

The court's judgment is subject to appeal, but the Company cannot
provide assurance that the Company will determine to pursue an
appeal or that an appeal will be successful. The remaining DLSE
claims have been transferred to California Superior Court in three
separate actions involving approximately 200 claimants, including
the 153 claimants. These matters are in the initial procedural
stages.


XPO LOGISTICS: Reached Tentative Deal to Settle "Molina" Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company has
reached a tentative agreement to settle the putative class action
litigation brought by Edwin Molina.

A subsidiary of the Company is a party to a putative class action
litigation brought by Edwin Molina in the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of California. Mr. Molina asserts that he should
be classified as an employee, as opposed to an independent
contractor, and seeks damages for alleged violation of various
California wage and hour laws. Mr. Molina seeks to have the
litigation certified as a class action involving all owner-
operators contracted with this subsidiary at any time from August
2009 to the present, which could involve as many as 600 claimants.
Certain of these potential claimants also may have claims under
the actions pending in California Superior Court as described
above. This matter is in the initial stages of discovery and the
court has not yet determined whether to certify the matter as a
class action.

The Company has reached a tentative agreement to settle this
litigation with the claimant, subject to court approval and
acceptance by a minimum percentage of members of the purported
class. There can be no assurance that the settlement agreement
will be finalized and executed, that the court will approve any
such settlement agreement or that it will be accepted by the
requisite members of the purported class.


                            *********

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  * * *