CAR_Public/150717.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, July 17, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 142


                            Headlines


324 7TH AVENUE: Faces "Luna" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
3M COMPANY: "Geiggar" Silica Exposure Suit Moved to E.D. Arkansas
ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Defers Defendants' Reply in "Rihn"
ADOBE SYSTEMS: Data Breach Lawyers Drop Monetary Relief Demands
ADVENT SOFTWARE: Plaintiffs Drop Injunction Bid in Merger Case

AIR CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Ticket Price-Fixing
ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Couple's Motion to Remand Negligence Case OK'd
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Andrade" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Kromar" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN HONDA: Removes "Jeffers" Class Suit to E.D. Pennsylvania

AMGEN INC: 9th Cir. Denies Petition for En Banc Rehearing
AMTRAK: New Lawsuits Emerge Over May 12 Train Derailment
AMTRAK: Judge Legrome Davis to Handle Derailment Cases
ANTHEM INC: MDL Panel Tosses Motion to Transfer Data Breach Cases
ANTHEM INC: Averts Connecticut Employees' Data Breach Class Suit

APACHE CORPORATION: Faces "Adams" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
APPLE INC: Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over "Staingate" Issue
APPLE INC: Ruling to Keep Compliance Monitor Upheld
AT&T MOBILITY: To Face $100MM Penalty Over Unlimited Service Plan
AU OPTRONICS: Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Antitrust Case

AUTHOR SOLUTIONS: Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion Denied
AVALANCHE BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Sept. 8 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
BANK OF AMERICA: DOJ Accord Over Rate Rigging Prompts Class Suit
BIOMET INC: Faces Suit Over Injury Caused by Vanguard Knee System
BLUE CROSS: Removes "Benton" Suit to California District Court

BMW FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action for FDCPA Violation
BOEING CO: Flight Attendants Sue Over Engine Fumes
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Jury Awards $100MM in Transvaginal Mesh Case
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Accused of Discrimination and Retaliation
CELLADON CORP: Stull Stull & Brody Files Securities Class Action

CEPHALON: Judge Denies Class Certification in Antitrust Suit
CHENG I: Consumer Group Files Suit Over Tainted Cooking Oil
COOPER TIRE: Termination Over Racist Remark Violates Labor Laws
COOPER VISION: Faces "Heidel" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
CORNERSTONE THERAPEUTICS: Del. Supreme Court Rules in Class Suit

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION: DHS Moved to Reconsider and Vacate
COSTCO: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Job Hiring Bias Case
COTY INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Case Under Judicial Review
CRAWFORD & COMPANY: "Branham" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
CSX: Faces Class Action Over July 2 Train Derailment

CSX: Train Accident Victim Can Have Access to Video Surveillance
DB STRUCTURED: Statute of Limitations Clarified
DEALERTRACK TECHNOLOGIES: Sued in Del. Over Proposed Cox Merger
DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Filed Answer to Second Amended Complaint
EACO CHEM: Pinegate Residents Mull Class Suit Over Paint Remover

ENERGY COMPLETION: "Stepherson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
EXTREME NETWORKS: Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication Denied
EXXON MOBIL: NY Seeks Dismissal of Contamination Settlement
FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: Updated Conservatorship Litigation Chart
FEDEX GROUND: Ruling on Drivers' Employee Status Reversed

FIAT CHRYSLER: Jeep Fire Death Suit Plaintiffs Open to Award Cut
FULTON COUNTY, GA: Ruling in Public Defenders' Salary Suit Upheld
GEARBOX: Pitchford Says Class Suit an "Extortion Tactic"
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Federal Appeals Court Reinstates Asbestos Suit
GENERAL MOTORS: Lawyers to Be Deposed in Ignition Switch Suit

GLAXOSMITHKLINE: 3rd Cir. Allows Thalidomide Client Interviews
H&R BLOCK: 8th Circuit Affirms Denial of "Predominance" Class
HERTZ CORP: Sued Over Consumers Legal Remedies Act Breach
HERTZ CORP: Faces Class Action Over Labor Violations
HOME DEPOT: "December" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

IC SYSTEM: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.
IDS LIFE: Preponderance of Evidence Applicable to UTPCPL Claim
INTUIT INC: Taps Fenwick to Defend TurboTax Security Case
JANSSEN PHARMA: Settlement Won't Halt Risperdal Litigation
JEFFERIES GROUP: Chancellor Awards 21.5MM Fees in Shareholder Suit

KEY SAFETY: Wants $3.7MM Seat Belt Jury Award Reversed
LAKES ENTERTAINMENT: Named as Defendant in "Orr" Action
LUXOTTICA RETAIL: Appeal Focuses on Arbitration Exemption
MACALUSO'S INC: Faces "Donnelly" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAJOR LEAGUE: Judge Rejects "Territorial Exclusivity" Claims

MARCELLO TREBITSCH: Pleads Guilty to Securities Fraud
MARTHA STEWART: Faces "Liwin" Suit Over Sequential Merger
MCCLATCHY COMPANY: No Hearing Yet on Decertification Motion
MCNEIL: Alabama Law Applies in Tylenol MDL Bellwether Case
MEDTRONIC INC: 2nd Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Infuse Suit

METRO-NORTH: Crash-Related Lawsuits Pending
MILLENNIAL MEDIA: Judge Allows Plaintiffs to Drop Securities Case
MOTOR CARS: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Leasing Contract
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Judge Tosses Athletes' Likeness Class Action
NEW YORK, NY: Faces Class Action Over Foster Care System

NEW YORK, NY: Judge Approves Fire Dep't Discrimination Settlement
NEW YORK, NY: Judge Okays Post-9/11 Cleaning Claims Settlement
NEW ZEALAND: October 9 Deadline Set for Kiwifruit Claims
NII HOLDINGS: Court Extended Stay of Class Action Lawsuit
NOVATION COMPANIES: Lower Court Vacates Class Action Dismissal

NYDJ APPAREL: Faces "Molina" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
ONTARIO, CANADA: Judge Tosses Class Action Against WISB
OSRAM SYLVANIA: $30MM Settlement Meets Ascertainability Standard
PANASONIC CORP: Settles Cathode Ray Tubes Price-Fixing Claims
PFIZER: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Zoloft Failure-to-Warn Suit

PHH CORP: CFPB Increases Penalties to $109MM Over Loan Kickbacks
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Faces Class Action Over Oil Spill
PMJ ELECTRICAL: Faces "Wrobel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss NJWHL Claim
REGIONAL HOSPITAL: Resolves Cardiac Procedure Claims for $510,000

REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Removes Warren Suit to N.D. California
RHEEM MANUFACTURING: Sued in N.J. Over Defective Evaporator Coils
ROADTEX TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Hahka" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SANDISK CORP: Taps Wilson Sonsini to Defend Shareholder Suit
SANTANDER BANK: Loan Officers File Overtime Class Action

SECURE ENERGY: "Armfield" Suit Transferred From Colorado to Texas
SILVER WHEATON: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
SIRIUS XM: $210MM Settlement Ignored Class, Turtles' Attorneys Say
SONY PICTURES: Employees' Data Breach Class Action Can Proceed
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Two Law Firms File Price-Fixing Class Actions

SPOKEO INC: WLF Wants Supreme Court to Overturn FCRA Ruling
STANDARD FIRE: Hearing Begin in Hurricane Sandy Insurance Cases
STONEHAVEN EXPLORATION: Settles Class Action; Oct. 9 Hearing Set
TAKATA CORP: CEO Apologizes Over Air Bag Defect Scandal
TAKATA CORP: Still Unable to Find Root Cause of Air Bag Defect

TAKEDA PHARMA: Lanier Calls Actos Jury Verdict "Accomplishment"
TIME WARNER: Ordered to Pay Consumer $200,000 for Robocalls
TOYOTA MOTORS: $15.6MM Verdict in Personal Injury Case Upheld
TRIVEST FUND: Faces Suit in Fla. Alleging RICO Act Violations
TYSON FOODS: Supreme Court to Consider Class Action Damages Issue

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Text Spamming
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Lawyer Says Drivers Don't Want to Be Employees
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal Focuses on Driver Classification Issue
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Rejects Arbitration Deal with Drivers
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge May Allow Drivers to Pursue Safety Claims

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Apple Privacy Lawyer Joins Legal Team
UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Settlement in Hawthorne Case Has Final Approval
UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Court Okays Accord in Sterling Merger Case
UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Opening Brief Filed in Class Action Appeal
UNION HOSPITAL: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims

UNITED PARCEL: Court Scheduled Sept. 1 Trial in "Morgate" Case
UNITED PARCEL: Court Dismissed AFMS LLC Case
UNITED PARCEL: Class Suit Remains Pending in Ontario
UNITED PARCEL: Settlement in Price-Fixing Case Awaits Approval
UNITED PARCEL: Summary Judgment Motion Appeal in Fees Suit Stayed

UNITED STATES: DOI Sued Over Alleged Racial Discrimination
UNITED STATES: Judiciary in Crisis Mode Following OPM Data Breach
UNITED STATES: Key Tool for Fighting Housing Bias Upheld
UNITED STATES: Indian Tribe's Anti-Gambling Challenge Dismissed
UNITED STATES: Post-911 Detainees' Claims v. Ex-AG Reinstated

VECTREN CORPORATION: Class Action Filed Against Combined Plan
VERIZON WIRELESS: 50 States to Share Data Cramming Settlement
WAL-MART: Can Refuse Shareholder Vote on Gun Sales Proposal
WALTER INVESTMENT: Briefing on Motions to Dismiss Completed
WILLIAM POWELL: Not Liable for Worker's Asbestos-Related Cancer

WRIGHT MEDICAL: Jury Awards $4.5MM Verdict in Hip Implant Case
XOOM CORPORATION: Sued in California Over Proposed PayPal Merger
YAHOO! INC: Defendant in Cathy Buch v. David Filo Action
YELP INC: Court Grants Motion to Transfer Review Suit to Calif.
ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Third Circuit Has Not Ruled on Appeals

* Cos. Need to Be Careful in Making Gender-Based Hiring Decisions
* Data Breach Litigation Expanding, Data-Security Attorneys Say
* FLSA Lawsuits Against Energy Industry Employers Rise
* Food Companies May Face Civil, Criminal Penalties for Outbreaks
* Government Probes Local Retailers' "On-Call" Scheduling

* Internet in Appliances May Spark Class Actions, Lawyers Say
* Mainstream Plaintiffs Losing Interest in Privacy Class Actions
* Skadden Discusses Potential Director Liability in Cyberattack
* Trial Court Can Hear Workplace Injury Cases, NJ High Court Says


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Has 83 PI Cases at May 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fiat's Summary Judgment Bid in "Gayoso" Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Cashio" Suit Transferred to La. Court
ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3d Circ. Vacates Summary Judgment in "Haas" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Plaintiffs Given More Time to Reduce Verdict

ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNFL Wins Summary Judgment in "Upton" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Ct. Affirms Denial of PTD Payment Request
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bids in "Spychalla" Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Denial of Bid to Junk Suit vs. Co. City Flipped
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment in "Sherman" Suit Reversed

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Cos. Obtain Summary Judgment in "Shearer" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: $3.3MM Verdict vs. Illinois Central Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment in "Quiroz" Suit Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. App. Reverses Dismissal of "Noll" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Refuses to Review "Meyers" Remand Order


                            *********


324 7TH AVENUE: Faces "Luna" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Romero Luna, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. 324 7th Avenue LLC d/b/a 7th Avenue Donut Shop, et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-03935 (E.D.N.Y., July 6, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a diner and coffee shop located at
324 7th Ave, Brooklyn, NY 11215.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Ste. 2020
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


3M COMPANY: "Geiggar" Silica Exposure Suit Moved to E.D. Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled Geiggar v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. CV-
2014-297-2 was removed from the Circuit Court of Jefferson County,
Arkansas, Civil Division, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas (Pine Bluff).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-00180-BRW to the proceeding.

Melvin Geiggar, a resident of Pine Bluff, Arkansas, alleges that
his injuries -- lung disease and silica related conditions -- were
caused by exposure to respirable crystalline silica while working
from approximately 1966 to 1974 for Cotton Belt Railroad, which
became Southern Pacific Railroad, which merged with Union Pacific
Railroad Company in Pine Bluff.  The Plaintiff's job duties
required him to work in and around sandblasting.  He contends that
during all or part of his working life, he worked with silica
containing products, products that produce silica or products that
cause the production of silica.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have done business in
Arkansas.  Specifically, they have all sold, designed,
manufactured, or marketed an array of defective silica-related
products in the state of Arkansas.

The other Defendants are Mine Safety Appliances Company; Union
Pacific Railroad Company; Pangborn Corporation; Precision
Packaging, Inc.; Pulmosan Safety Equipment Corp.; E. D. Bullard
Company; American Optical Corporation; Empire Abrasive Equipment
Corporation; Pauli & Griffin Company; John & Jane Does 1 - 500,
and John & Jane Doe Corporations 1-500, et al.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick C. Malouf, Esq.
          Timothy W. Porter, Esq.
          John T. Givens, Esq.
          PORTER & MALOUF, PA
          Post Office Box 12768
          Jackson, MS 39236-2768
          Telephone: (601) 957-1173
          Facsimile: (601) 957-7366
          E-mail: patrick@portermalouf.com
                  tim@portermalouf.com
                  johnny@portermalouf.com

               - and -

          R. Allen Smith, Jr., Esq.
          THE SMITH LAW FIRM, PLLC
          681 Towne Center Blvd., Suite B
          Ridgeland, MS 39157
          Telephone: (601) 952-1422
          Facsimile: (601) 952-1426
          E-mail: allen@smith-law.org

Defendant 3M Company is represented by:

          Mary Clay Morgan, Esq.
          BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLC
          188 East Capitol Street, Suite 400
          Jackson, MS 39201
          Telephone: (601) 948-8000
          Facsimile: (601) 948-3000
          E-mail: mmorgan@babc.com


ACADIA PHARMACEUTICALS: Court Defers Defendants' Reply in "Rihn"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Acadia 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 Court has
entered an order deferring the defendants' response to the Rihn
complaint until after the Court appoints a lead plaintiff and
assigns lead counsel.

In March 2015, following the Company's announcement of the update
to the timing of its planned New Drug Application ("NDA")
submission to the FDA for NUPLAZID for the treatment of
Parkinson's disease psychosis and the subsequent decline of the
price of its common stock, two putative securities class action
complaints (captioned Rihn v. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case
No. 15-cv-0575-BTM-DHB and Wright v. ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
Case No. 15-cv-0593- BTM-DHB) were filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California, or the Court,
against the Company and certain of its current and former
officers. The complaints generally allege that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements
regarding the timing of the Company's planned NDA submission to
the FDA for NUPLAZID, thereby artificially inflating the price of
its common stock. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages
and other relief.

On April 9, 2015, the Court entered an order deferring the
defendants' response to the Rihn complaint until after the Court
appoints a lead plaintiff and assigns lead counsel. The Company
has assessed such legal proceedings, and given the
unpredictability inherent in litigation, the Company cannot
predict the outcome of these matters. At this time, the Company is
unable to estimate possible losses or ranges of losses that may
result from such legal proceedings, and it has not accrued any
amounts in connection with such legal proceedings other than
ongoing attorneys' fees.


ADOBE SYSTEMS: Data Breach Lawyers Drop Monetary Relief Demands
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for Law.com, reports that the lead lawyers in a
data-breach suit against Adobe Systems Inc. have agreed to drop
demands for monetary relief and resolve claims in exchange for the
company adopting enhanced security measures.  The no-cash deal,
disclosed in a 17-page filing on June 9, is subject to approval
from U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of
California, who allowed the lawsuit to go forward in a ruling last
September.

Though the Adobe breach compromised the personal information and
credit card data of millions of consumers, plaintiffs lawyers led
by Eric Gibbs of Girard Gibbs said their investigation showed
"little to no evidence of actual damage or identity theft suffered
by Adobe customers."

The plaintiffs team told Judge Koh they are now satisfied by
Adobe's commitment to improve its intrusion detection, encryption
and other security controls and to submit to a security audit.  A
Federal Trade Commission investigation into Adobe's handling of
consumer privacy and data security ended quietly in December
without enforcement action, Mr. Gibbs noted.

"In short, plaintiffs have achieved the objectives of this lawsuit
on behalf of the class such that further litigation would be both
unnecessarily risky and wasteful," the lawyers state.

The settlement calls only for the named plaintiffs to release
their claims and individual Adobe customers retain the right to
pursue damages, though that's likely to pose practical hurdles.
Adobe has agreed to pay the named plaintiffs $5,000 apiece and to
pay plaintiffs lawyers roughly $1.2 million in attorney fees and
litigation expenses.

The Adobe breach was one of the largest and most extensive
corporate hacks of the past few years.  Beginning in mid-July
2013, hackers spent several weeks sifting through Adobe's network
undetected.  They eventually accessed databases containing
customers' personal information and source code for popular Adobe
products, which include digital imaging program Photoshop and
website and app building tool ColdFusion.  That October, the
company announced that hackers accessed the personal information
-- including passwords, log-in IDs, and credit and debit card
numbers -- of at least 38 million customers.

In November 2013, lawyers at Girard Gibbs filed the first lawsuit
against Adobe stemming from the breach.  A total of seven proposed
class actions against Adobe were ultimately consolidated before
Judge Koh.  In the consolidated complaint, plaintiffs claimed that
the company's security practices were substandard and left
customers' personal information "vulnerable to attack, theft and
misuse."  Plaintiffs asked for an injunction requiring Adobe to
implement reasonable security measures and prevent future
breaches, and for restitution for customers who chose to replace
Adobe products because of security issues.

The restitution claims were always a longshot, Mr. Gibbs wrote in
the June 9 settlement motion.  Individual Adobe customers might
have paid $10 a month, while commercial information-technology
departments might invest thousands of dollars and employee hours.

"Plaintiffs worked with experts to develop possible solutions, but
concluded it would not be possible to offer a classwide damages
model with any judicially acceptable degree of precision,"
Mr. Gibbs wrote.

The company's lawyers at Arnold & Porter had asked Judge Koh to
dismiss the suits last May maintaining that plaintiffs lacked
standing to sue, an argument which many data breach defendants
have wielded successfully to knock out claims tied to the threat
of future of identity theft.  Adobe's lawyers at Arnold & Porter
wrote that customers hadn't "suffered any cognizable injury" as a
result of the breach and that it was improper for plaintiffs to
seek injunctive relief to remedy future injuries.

Judge Koh, however, allowed the suit to go forward.  In a 41-page
opinion last September, Judge Koh wrote that "the risk that
plaintiffs' personal data will be misused by the hackers who
breached Adobe's network is immediate and very real."  Judge Koh
found that the Adobe case was unlike others where plaintiffs
claims of possible future harm were based on "highly speculative"
chains of events.  The judge pointed out that hackers allegedly
spent weeks accessing Adobe servers to seek out credit card
information and to learn how to decrypt it.

Adobe's lawyer, Arnold & Porter partner Kenneth Chernof, didn't
immediately respond to messages.

Although many data breach plaintiffs have struggled to make
headway, a few have resulted in monetary settlements.  Sony
Computer Entertainment America LLC agreed to give plaintiffs $15
million in games, online currency, and identity theft
reimbursements to settle a class action last year over a large
data breach that gave hackers access to PlayStation users's
personal information.  Target Corp. agreed in March to a $10
million settlement in the nationwide class action stemming from a
breach during the 2013 holiday shopping season which compromised
the credit and debit cards and personal information of 110 million
customers.  Although class members in the Target suit are eligible
for up to $10,000 each, they must submit documentation showing
that they were victims of fraud and that their losses likely arose
from the Target breach.

Although the Adobe litigation before Judge Koh is now poised to
wind down, another batch of high-profile data-breach cases was
recently routed to the judge.  As reported by sibling publication
The National Law Journal, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on June 8 assigned Koh more than 100 class actions
filed against Anthem Inc. on behalf of customers whose personal
information was hacked from the health insurance company's
databases.


ADVENT SOFTWARE: Plaintiffs Drop Injunction Bid in Merger Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Advent Software, 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 class action
plaintiffs have withdrawn their motion to preliminarily enjoin the
shareholder vote on a proposed merger.

Following the announcement of the proposed merger, three putative
class action complaints challenging the transactions contemplated
by the Merger Agreement were filed by purported Advent
stockholders in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
(the "Court") against Advent, the Board of Directors, SS&C, and
Merger Sub ("Defendants").  The complaints were captioned Chitwood
v. Advent Software, Inc., et al., Case No. 10623-VCL, City of
Atlanta Firefighters' Pension Fund v. David Peter F. Hess, Jr., et
al., Case No. 10633-VCL, and Klein v. Advent Software, Inc., et
al., Case No. 10670-VCL.  The complaints were consolidated into a
single action by a February 25, 2015 court order and captioned In
re Advent Software, Inc., C.A. No. 10623-VCL (the "Consolidated
Action").  On February 27, 2015, plaintiffs filed a Verified
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Consolidated
Complaint").  The Consolidated Complaint generally alleges, among
other things, that the Board of Directors breached its fiduciary
duties to Advent's stockholders by engaging in a flawed sales
process, agreeing to a transaction price that does not adequately
compensate Advent stockholders, agreeing to certain deal
protection provisions in the Merger Agreement that the plaintiffs
allege impeded or precluded a potential topping bid, and allegedly
failing to disclose material information regarding the proposed
merger.  The Consolidated Complaint also asserts that Advent,
SS&C, and Merger Sub aided and abetted the Board of Directors'
breaches of fiduciary duties.  The Consolidated Complaint sought
to enjoin the merger or, alternatively, an award of rescissory or
other compensatory damages in the event it is consummated, as well
as attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 4, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for an order
preliminarily enjoining the Advent stockholder vote on the
adoption of the Merger Agreement and approval of the Merger.  The
Court scheduled a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for April 10,
2015.

On April 1, 2015, following expedited discovery, the parties to
the Consolidated Action entered into a memorandum of understanding
("MOU") setting forth the terms of a settlement of the
Consolidated Action.  Pursuant to the MOU, defendants agreed to
make certain supplemental disclosures demanded by plaintiffs in
the Consolidated Action via a Form 8-K filed on April 1, 2015,
without admitting any wrongdoing or that these supplemental
disclosures were material or required to be made.  The MOU further
provided that, among other things, (a) the plaintiffs in the
Consolidated Action would withdraw their motion to preliminarily
enjoin the shareholder vote on the proposed merger; (b) the
parties will negotiate a definitive stipulation of settlement (the
"Stipulation") and will submit the Stipulation to the Court for
review and approval; (c) the Stipulation will provide for
dismissal of the Consolidated Action with prejudice; (d) the
Stipulation will include a release of defendants of claims
relating to, among other things, the merger and the Merger
Agreement; and (e) the settlement is conditioned on, among other
things, consummation of the merger, completion of confirmatory
discovery, class certification, and final approval of the
settlement by the Court after notice to the Advent's stockholders.
On April 1, 2015, plaintiffs withdrew their motion to
preliminarily enjoin the shareholder vote on the proposed merger.

Defendants believe that the allegations and claims in the
Consolidated Action are without merit and, if the settlement does
not receive final approval, intend to defend against them
vigorously.  Defendants entered into the settlement solely to
eliminate the burden and expense of further litigation and to put
the claims that were or could have been asserted to rest.  The
settlement will not affect the timing of the merger or the amount
or form of consideration to be paid in the merger.

Management believes that any potential losses associated with the
legal proceedings regarding the merger are neither probable nor
reasonably estimable at this time and accordingly has not accrued
any amounts for any potential loss.


AIR CANADA: Faces Class Action Over Ticket Price-Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------
Eric Rankin, writing for CBC News, reports that a proposed class-
action launched in Vancouver says airlines allegedly conspired to
keep airfares artificially high.  The lawsuit alleges that Air
Canada and several large U.S. airlines conspired to limit capacity
on their routes, in order to inflate airline ticket prices.

The federal court claim filed on July 8 seeks approval for a class
action lawsuit.  Vancouver resident Richard Maynard names Air
Canada, as well as Delta, American, United and Southwest airlines,
and says: "the Defendants . . . participated in a conspiracy with
each other to: fix, maintain, increase or control the price for
the supply of tickets for air travel in the USA or between the USA
and Canada."

The lawsuit says the airlines "had communications about their
plans for adding new flights, routes and extra seats," and
"reached agreements to limit flying routes" and "passenger
carrying capacity" in order to require customers "to pay illegal
and artificially high prices for air travel."

The suit also says airlines "took steps to disguise meetings and
communications in which they discussed the conspiracy."

Mr. Maynard's proposed class-action, if certified, would represent
any Canadian who flew to or within the United States on the five
major airlines listed in the past two years.

Mr. Maynard, a professional Vancouver riding instructor, travels
extensively throughout North America for horse shows, coaching and
purchasing horses.  He's bringing airline tickets he bought
between 2010 and 2014 as evidence.

Similar U.S. civil anti-trust action

In a written statement to CBC, Air Canada says it is has not been
advised of any legal proceedings and has no comment, but always
complies with competition laws, whether in Canada, United States
or elsewhere.  None of the allegations has been proven in court.

The Canadian suit follows a similar recently launched U.S. civil
anti-trust action.   That suit alleges that Delta, American,
United and Southwest airlines conspired to price fix by signaling
to one another how quickly they would add new flights, routes,
extra seats and by limiting access to competitive fare
information.

The American anti-trust action alleges the airlines used a code
word amongst themselves.  It says the word "discipline" was used
as "a euphemism for limiting flights and seats, higher prices and
fatter profit margins."

Earlier this year a U.S. Department of Justice investigation into
possible unlawful co-ordination among U.S. airlines was launched.

"Last year airlines had . . . record profits, so I think
competition authorities both in Canada and the United
States may be more keen to look into consumer complaints like this
case," University of British Columbia transportation professor Tae
Oum told CBC News.


ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Couple's Motion to Remand Negligence Case OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
predicting that Pennsylvania courts may allow for negligence
claims against individual insurance adjusters, a federal judge has
found a couple did not fraudulently join adjusters as defendants
in their bad-faith case to destroy federal diversity jurisdiction.

U.S. District Judge Thomas N. O'Neill Jr. of the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania granted plaintiffs Rachel and Sean Kennedy's
motion to remand their negligence and unfair trade practices case
back to the Delaware County Court of Common Pleas.

After an arbitrator valued the Kennedys' motor vehicle accident
damages at $625,000, the couple sued its insurer, Allstate
Property and Casualty Insurance Co., and its individual adjusters,
alleging the adjusters misrepresented and concealed facts in order
to delay the resolution of the couple's claims.  They sued in
Delaware County state court against various Allstate entities as
well as three employee adjusters.

The defendants removed the action to federal court, arguing the
adjusters, who are all citizens of Pennsylvania, were fraudulently
joined to create jurisdiction in the state court.  They said there
is no cause of action in Pennsylvania against adjusters for
negligence or claims under the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices
and Consumer Protection Law given an insurance adjuster owes no
duty of care to an insured.

"Pennsylvania law is silent on the question of whether there is a
cause of action for negligence against an insurance adjuster
arising from the adjuster's handling of an insurance claim on
behalf of the insurer," Judge O'Neill said.

Judge O'Neill cited to a few recent cases out of the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania in which the courts split on whether
state courts would allow such claims against adjusters.  While
district courts are at times forced to make predictions on how
state courts might rule, Judge O'Neill also noted case law
suggesting the problems with allowing a case presenting a novel
question of state law to be removed to federal court when there is
"even a possibility" a state court could find the cause of action
plausible.

"For all of these reasons, I find that there is at least 'a
possibility' that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, construing state
'substantive law in favor of the plaintiff,' could decide that an
insurance adjuster owes a duty of care to an insured that would be
breached by failing to reasonably investigate an insured's claims
and making misrepresentations regarding the ongoing status of the
investigation," Judge O'Neill said.

Given that two other states' high courts (New Hampshire and
Alaska) have reached that conclusion, Judge O'Neill said, the
defendants in Kennedy v. Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance
have "hardly carried" their heavy burden of showing the Kennedys'
claims are not colorable.

"Regardless of my opinions regarding the substantive question of
state law on the 'legal merits,' I cannot allow those
considerations to shift the outcome 'in this preliminary
jurisdictional determination,'" Judge O'Neill said.

The defendants had further argued that the Kennedys' negligence
claim would be barred by the gist-of-the-action doctrine because
it was a claim arising out of the contractual relationship with
Allstate and could not be recast as a tort claim.  Because the
claims would be barred against the insurance company, Allstate
argued, they would be barred against the adjuster defendants as
well.

Judge O'Neill said at least one Pennsylvania court, a common pleas
court, has ruled an insurer's denial of a claim without first
conducting an adequate investigation goes to negligence.  In
Kennedy, the plaintiffs are alleging the adjuster defendants made
false assurances that their UIM claims were being investigated.

Assuming those facts as alleged are true, Judge O'Neill said it
"is possible that a Pennsylvania state court would find that
plaintiffs' negligence claims have at least 'alleged breach of a
general social duty' based on the alleged misrepresentations and
'not a breach of any duty created by the insurance policy
itself.'"  Judge O'Neill dealt more swiftly with the defendants'
attack on the UTPCPL claims, finding multiple courts have
concluded such claims against insurance adjusters are colorable
under Pennsylvania law.

The judge noted that the applicability of the economic loss
doctrine to UTPCPL claims is in flux in Pennsylvania.  He
construed that uncertainty in favor of the Kennedys and declined
to bar the UTPCPL claims under the doctrine so as to permit a
finding of fraudulent joinder.

The defendants had further argued the adjusters were fraudulently
joined because the Kennedys had no real intention of prosecuting
the action against them or seeking a joint judgment, according to
the opinion.

"Plaintiffs have stated colorable claims for negligence and
violation of the UTPCPL against adjuster defendants," Judge
O'Neill said.  "They have conducted pre-complaint discovery and
attached exhibits to their complaint such as claims logs and
letter correspondence containing alleged factual
misrepresentations in support of their claims against adjuster
defendants."

The judge said the defendants didn't show the plaintiffs had no
good-faith intention of prosecuting the case against the
adjusters.

Francis J. Curran Jr. of The Curran Firm in Media represented the
Kennedys.  While the claims against Allstate dealt mainly with bad
faith, Mr. Curran said the main claims against the adjusters were
for UTPCPL violations.  Mr. Curran said the adjusters sent 29
letters to the Kennedys from August 2010 to December 2013 stating
the investigation of their claim was ongoing.  But Mr. Curran said
the facts show that was not true.  Mr. Curran said the threshold
at this stage of the case was very favorable to his clients, with
the judge not having to address anything regarding the merits.
Marshall Walthew  -- walthewm@pepperlaw.com -- of Pepper Hamilton
in Philadelphia represented the Allstate entities and the
adjusters.  He declined to comment.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Andrade" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michele Andrade, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. American Airlines Group Inc., American Airlines, Inc.,
Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., United Continental
Holdings, Inc., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-03111-
EDL (N.D. Cal., July 6, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged
unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the
price of domestic airline tickets, specifically by constraining
the seating capacity on flights within the United States, limiting
the number of flights offered within the United States, and
limiting the transparency of pricing information available to
domestic airline ticket consumers regarding flights within the
United States.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allan Steyer, Esq.
      D. Scott Macrae, Esq.
      Jill M. Manning, Esq.
      STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP
      One California Street, Suite 300
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 421-3400
      Facsimile: (415) 421-2234
      E-mail: asteyer@steyerlaw.com
              smacrae@steyerlaw.com
              jmanning@steyerlaw.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Kromar" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kromar, Sheri Rosalia, Christopher Turtzo, Josh Stamps
and Richard Warchol, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Delta Airlines, Inc., American Airlines,
Inc., Southwest Airlines Co. and United Airlines, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-03937-BMC (E.D.N.Y., July 6, 2015), arises from the
Defendants' alleged unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain,
or stabilize the price of domestic airline tickets, specifically
by constraining the seating capacity on flights within the United
States, limiting the number of flights offered within the United
States, and limiting the transparency of pricing information
available to domestic airline ticket consumers regarding flights
within the United States.

The Defendants operate the largest commercial airline in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
      Vincent M. Serra, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
      E-mail: drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com
              vserra@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
      David W. Mitchell, Esq.
      Brian O. O'Mara, Esq.
      Alexandra S. Bernay
      Carmen A. Medici, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
      E-mail: patc@rgrdlaw.com
              davidm@rgrdlaw.com
              bomara@rgrdlaw.com
              xanb@rgrdlaw.com
              cmedici@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Mark Dearman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 750-3000
      Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
      E-mail: mdearman@rgrdlaw.com


AMERICAN HONDA: Removes "Jeffers" Class Suit to E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Jeffers v. American Honda
Finance Corp., Case No. 150401707 was removed from the Court of
Common Pleas of Philadelphia to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-03181-MSG to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard E. Shenkan, Esq.
          SHENKAN INJURY LAWYERS LLC
          6775 Daly Rd., Suite 102
          West Bloomfield, MI 48322
          Telephone: (248) 562-1320
          E-mail: rshenkan@shenkanlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gerard Cedrone, Esq.
          LAVIN O'NEILL RICCI CEDRONE & DISIPIO
          190 North Independence Mall West
          6th & Race Sts., Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 627-0303
          Facsimile: (215) 627-2551
          E-mail: gcedrone@lavin-law.com


AMGEN INC: 9th Cir. Denies Petition for En Banc Rehearing
---------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that the Ninth
Circuit's 2014 decision green-lighting an ERISA class action
against biotech company Amgen Inc. has sparked a fiery exchange
between two of the court's most venerated judges.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit on May 26 denied a
petition for en banc rehearing in Harris v. Amgen.  The decision
drew interest as one of the first ERISA-related rulings following
the Supreme Court's decision last year in Fifth Third Bancorp v.
Dudenhoeffer and was hailed by the plaintiffs bar for seemingly
opening the door a bit wider for suits over the alleged
mismanagement of employee retirement funds.

In a dissent joined by three conservatives, Judge Alex Kozinski
accused his colleagues of acting with "open disregard" for the
Supreme Court's Fifth Third decision, which he said raised
pleading requirements for suits under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act.

"The panel substituted its own judgment for that of the Supreme
Court," wrote Judge Kozinski, who was joined by Judges Diarmuid
O'Scannlain, Consuelo Callahan and Carlos Bea.  "That decision
evinces an impermissible disregard for controlling authority and
will have dire consequences for corporations and employees alike.
It's a decision we will come to regret."  Judge William Fletcher,
who authored the panel decision, called Kozinski's dissent
"mistaken" and said it misrepresented the court's ruling.  Fifth
Third razed a significant hurdle for plaintiffs bringing claims
under ERISA, doing away with prior case law that afforded
companies a "presumption of prudence."

In October, the Ninth Circuit cited the ruling in allowing a class
action to proceed against Amgen on behalf of employees who lost
money in company stock following disclosures of health risks
caused by Amgen's anemia drugs.  Company executives knew or should
have known the stock was selling at an artificially inflated
price, Judge Fletcher wrote, but they nevertheless continued to
offer it to employees as part of their retirement investment
plans.

It was the second time the Ninth Circuit reversed a ruling
dismissing the 2007 case.  The Supreme Court, asked to review the
court's first ruling, instead remanded the case back to the Ninth
Circuit, ordering the court to reconsider in light of Fifth Third.
Judge Kozinski wrote that the panel ruling failed to honor the
Supreme Court's instructions and ignored its direction to
carefully weigh the pros and cons of removing company stock as an
option for employees' investment plans.  Removing the stock could
cause its value to plummet, or expose whoever made the decision to
allegations of insider trading.  Judge Kozinski claimed the
majority's opinion disregards those risks and requires a fiduciary
to sound the alarm based on every suspicion or impulse.

"That is not what we wrote," Judge Fletcher shot back.  "Our
opinion nowhere requires a fiduciary to act based on mere
suspicion or arguable violation of the federal securities laws."

Judge Kozinski is well known for crafting strongly worded
critiques of his colleague's en banc denials.  The critiques, for
which he has coined the term "dissentals," are intended in part to
catch the Supreme Court's attention, he wrote in a 2012 Yale Law
Journal piece defending the practice against "dissental
naysayers."

But even for Judge Kozinski, the back and forth in the Amgen case
seems harsh, said Richard Rosenthal, an appellate solo
practitioner with offices in San Francisco and Miami.

"What's quite rare here is the degree of venom in the words they
chose," he said.

Rex Heinke -- rheinke@akingump.com -- co-head of Akin Gump Strauss
Hauer & Feld's Supreme Court and appellate practice, said
"dissentals" are becoming increasingly common in the Ninth
Circuit, and can help pave the way to the Supreme Court.

"It certainly gives you one other thing to point to if you're
filing a cert petition," he said.  Mayer Brown partner Robert
Davis -- rdavis@mayerbrown.com -- argued the case on behalf of
Amgen before the Ninth Circuit. Mark Rifkin -- rifkin@whafh.com --
of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz in New York, argued the
case for plaintiffs.


AMTRAK: New Lawsuits Emerge Over May 12 Train Derailment
--------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
As new lawsuits continue to emerge over the May 12 Amtrak
derailment in Philadelphia, motions have begun to surface and a
firm representing Amtrak has entered its appearance.

Most recently, Amtrak has responded to a motion from the
plaintiffs requesting Amtrak, the National Transportation Safety
Board, and the Federal Railroad Administration preserve and track
the custody of evidence.

In court papers, Amtrak said the NTSB is in charge of the
investigation of the accident and the company has no control over
the evidence gathered.  Moreover, Amtrak asked that the motion be
denied as premature.

"While the NTSB has designated Amtrak as a formal party to the
investigation," court papers said, "the NTSB expects Amtrak to
observe confidentiality rules; specifically, Amtrak is not
permitted to disclose any 'investigative information' to anyone
outside the NTSB investigation."

Amtrak also said the NTSB has the last word in conducting the
investigation.

"Accordingly, given these confidentiality requirements, and the
fact that the NTSB has possession and control of the evidence at
issue in plaintiff's motion, Amtrak cannot make the evidence at
issue available for inspection and cannot take responsibility for
the preservation of all such evidence," court papers said.

A reply filed by plaintiffs Bruce and Kalita Phillips on June 16
asked the court to compel Amtrak and the NTSB to itemize every
piece of evidence and notify the plaintiffs' counsel when evidence
is to be released.

Additionally, the plaintiffs' reply said confidentiality had
already been disregarded, since Amtrak and NTSB officials have
publicly commented on the accident.

Lastly, the reply noted, "Amtrak's representation that it will
preserve evidence once released by the NTSB is insufficient to
ensure plaintiffs' rights and to provide necessary protection of
the evidence.  Amtrak's negligence killed and maimed too many
innocent employees and passengers to simply trust Amtrak to do the
right thing.  The passengers on train No. 188 had placed their
trust in Amtrak and the result was death and devastating
injuries."

Amtrak's attorney, Yuri J. Brunetti -- ybrunetti@lcbf.com -- of
Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford, declined to comment.

Landman Corsi handles transportation cases, including
representation of railroads, and has previously represented Amtrak
in other cases.  Additionally, assistant U.S. attorney Eric Gill
has entered his appearance on behalf of the NTSB.

The litigation could potentially have hundreds of plaintiffs, as
the derailment left more than 200 people injured and eight dead.
Two more complaints were filed on June 15, one by Ross Feller
Casey and another by Eisenberg, Rothweiler, Winkler, Eisenberg &
Jeck, on top of the initial grouping of suits filed last month.

Philadelphia-based McLaughlin & Lauricella is handling a case
against Amtrak, filed in May.  The plaintiff in that firm's
current case, Megan Piccirillo, 20, of Malverne, New York,
sustained head and shoulder trauma and knee injuries.

Plaintiffs in four other cases filed last month are being jointly
represented by the firms of Kline & Specter and Saltz Mongeluzzi
Barrett & Bendesky.

At a news conference held in May, Saltz Mongeluzzi co-founder
Robert Mongeluzzi repeatedly characterized the accident as "a
scene out of hell," and within the derailed train cars, "a scene
of indescribable horror."

The four plaintiffs in the suits handled by Thomas R. Kline and
Mr. Mongeluzzi include Felicidad Redondo Iban, 64, of Leon, Spain,
whose right arm was nearly severed in the accident; her cousin,
Maria Jesus Redondo Iban, 55, who suffered a concussion and
lacerations to the face; Daniel Armyn, 43, of Brooklyn, New York,
who sustained three broken ribs and lost teeth; and Amy Miller,
39, of Princeton, New Jersey, who suffered back injuries and
numerous cuts.

Mr. Kline previously said the firms anticipate filing more cases,
but have not yet done so.  The potential damages available for the
victims of the derailment are capped at $200 million as per a 1997
federal law.

The law, which has come under fire over the years for not
adequately covering victims' damages from serious train accidents,
mandates Amtrak have $200 million in liability coverage for a
single incident.


AMTRAK: Judge Legrome Davis to Handle Derailment Cases
------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
U.S. District Judge Legrome D. Davis of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania -- who has been tapped to preside over cases stemming
from Amtrak derailment in Philadelphia -- is the right person for
the job of handling the complexity of disaster litigation,
according to those who know him.

Judge Davis, who according to U.S. District Chief Judge Petrese B.
Tucker of the Eastern District was randomly assigned to the
incoming cases, has served for roughly 13 years on the federal
bench.  Prior to that, Judge Davis was a judge in the criminal
division of the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas from 1987 to
2002.  Before becoming a judge, Judge Davis was a prosecutor in
the Philadelphia District Attorney's Office.

Former Pennsylvania Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald D.
Castille, who was the city's district attorney when Davis was a
prosecutor, said Davis' skill led him to put Davis in charge of
the office's rape unit.

"He was an excellent prosecutor and he's parlayed that into the
federal courts," Judge Castille said.  "He was a good trial lawyer
in one of the most sensitive units we had and he'll probably bring
that sensitivity to this tragedy."

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Jeffrey Minehart, who
supervises the court's criminal division, worked as an assistant
district attorney alongside Davis.  Judge Minehart said
Judge Davis excels at handling administrative issues, stemming
from Judge Davis' own experience as supervising judge of the city
court's criminal division.

Judge Minehart said Judge Davis is an innovator who made changes
to Philadelphia's criminal justice system.  For example, while in
the District Attorney's Office, Judge Davis set up designated plea
rooms where prosecutors could negotiate with defendants.

Judge Minehart added the breadth of cases that a federal judge
handles has prepared Judge Davis for what is to come in the Amtrak
litigation.

"He's a judge that will dig in and get the job done," Judge
Minehart said.

James T. Giles, former chief judge of the Eastern District and
current Pepper Hamilton lawyer, said Judge Davis exhibits an even
judicial temperament.

"He's an excellent judge. Extremely bright and he will give
everyone a chance to have his or her say," Mr. Giles said.  "He's
capable of handling a case of any size and complexity."

The litigation could potentially have hundreds of plaintiffs, as
the derailment left more than 200 people injured and eight dead.

"There's never an issue that's too complex for him," said
Michael Engle, an attorney at Greenblatt, Pierce, Engle, Funt &
Flores in Philadelphia who has tried cases in front of Judge
Davis.

"He's a very, very intelligent judge who cuts right through
matters and gets to the heart of the case," Mr. Engle added.

Former Philadelphia Bar Association chancellor and Judge Davis'
friend, William P. Fedullo of Rosen, Schafer & DiMeo in
Philadelphia, said Judge Davis is respected even among those whom
he has sentenced in criminal cases.

"I've seen him in civil and criminal court and treat defendants
with such respect that they understand the sentence that they're
getting," Mr. Fedullo said.  He added, "I know he's handled
significant litigation and corporate litigation. He's actually
sentenced corporate officers to prison, which is astonishing."

Mr. Fedullo, like others who spoke about Judge Davis, emphasized
Judge Davis' intelligence and empathetic nature.

"People in the audience nod their heads because he's so wise.
Here's a guy who was made to be a judge," Mr. Fedullo said.

The Legal previously reported that at least six cases have been
filed against Amtrak in the Eastern District.

Multiple cases are being handled by the law firms of Kline &
Specter and Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky.  At a news
conference held in May, Saltz Mongeluzzi co-founder Robert
Mongeluzzi repeatedly characterized the accident as "a scene out
of hell," and within the derailed train cars, "a scene of
indescribable horror."

The four plaintiffs in the suits handled by Messrs. Kline and
Mongeluzzi include Felicidad Redondo Iban, 64, of Leon, Spain,
whose right arm was nearly severed in the accident; her cousin,
Maria Jesus Redondo Iban, 55, who suffered a concussion and
lacerations to the face; Daniel Armyn, 43, of Brooklyn, New York,
who sustained three broken ribs and lost teeth; and Amy Miller,
39, of Princeton, New Jersey, who suffered back injuries and
numerous cuts.

Reached on June 8, Thomas R. Kline of Kline & Specter said in an
email that the firms anticipate filing more cases, but have not
yet done so.

The potential damages available for the victims of the derailment
are capped at $200 million as per a 1997 federal law.

The law, which has come under fire over the years for not
adequately covering victims' damages from serious train accidents,
mandates Amtrak have $200 million in liability coverage for a
single incident.


ANTHEM INC: MDL Panel Tosses Motion to Transfer Data Breach Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that in an unusual move, a federal judicial panel has ordered more
than 100 class actions filed over Anthem Inc.'s data breach sent
to the Northern District of California.

The June 8 ruling by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation rejected Anthem's request to transfer the cases to the
Southern District of Indiana, near its Indianapolis headquarters.
In what could prove favorable to the plaintiffs, the panel
assigned the cases to U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh, who last year
issued one of the few victories for plaintiffs in data-breach
class actions.  In general, data-breach cases have not fared well
for plaintiffs, who have been unable to show actual injury from
hacking.

In court filings, Anthem had argued that the Southern District of
Indiana was more convenient because it was close to potential
documents and witnesses, including "key security personnel."  It
also cited the panel's past orders in data security cases,
including those last year to coordinate data-breach cases against
The Home Depot Inc. in Atlanta and Minneapolis-based Target Corp.
in courts near its headquarters.  Some plaintiffs attorneys who
filed cases against Anthem in Indiana also supported the Indiana
district.

"I was surprised," said William Federman of Federman & Sherwood in
Oklahoma City, who had moved to coordinate all the cases to the
Southern District of Indiana.  "I thought, based on Target and
Home Depot, the cases would have gone to Indianapolis."

Neither an Anthem representative nor its attorney, Craig Hoover --
craig.hoover@hoganlovells.com -- head of the global class action
group at Hogan Lovells in Washington, responded to a request for
comment.

Since Anthem announced the breach on Feb. 4, cases have been filed
in 22 states.

In its ruling, the panel noted Anthem's "significant ties" to
California, where it is the largest for-profit health insurer.
Some plaintiffs attorneys estimated that 13.5 million Californians
had been affected by the breach, more than in any other state.
Anthem's breach compromised the personal and health information of
80 million customers, employees and members of its nationwide
health care network.

Daniel Robinson, a partner at Newport Beach, California, law firm
Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, who argued during the
panel's May 28 hearing to transfer the cases to California, said
that Anthem has more offices in that state than in Indiana.  The
company acquired California's WellPoint Health Networks Inc. in
2004.

He liked the panel's choice of Judge Koh, who "has tremendous
experience in complicated cases, including data-breach cases."

On Sept. 4, Judge Koh found that customers of Adobe Systems Inc.
faced a real threat of harm from a 2013 breach, especially since
much of their personal information had surfaced on the Internet.
Several plaintiffs attorneys in support of that district cited
that case and other data-breach litigation that Judge Koh has
overseen.


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

Following a bench trial, Hartford, Connecticut Superior Court
Judge William Bright on June 15 sided with Anthem over the
employees' breach of contract claims.  The 90-page ruling marks a
win for a Hogan Lovells trial team led by Craig Hoover --
craig.hoover@hoganlovells.com

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

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

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

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

Company spokesman Tony Felts welcomed Bright's findings and said
the insurer maintained throughout the case that the
demutualization was fair to its members.  Anthem's defense team
also includes Hogan Lovells' Peter Bisio --
peter.bisio@hoganlovells.com -- Adam Levin --
adam.levin@hoganlovells.com -- and Erica Songer.


APACHE CORPORATION: Faces "Adams" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Adams, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Apache Corporation and Crescent Consulting, LLC, Case
No. 4:15-cv-01923 (S.D. Tex., July 6, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in
excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants operate oil and natural gas drilling rigs
throughout Texas and the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allen Ryan Vaught, Esq.
      BARON BUDD PC
      3102 Oak Lawn Ave, Ste 1100
      Dallas, TX 75214
      Telephone: (214) 521-3605
      E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com


APPLE INC: Law Firm Mulls Class Action Over "Staingate" Issue
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Smith, writing for BGR, reports that "Staingate" is yet
another issue that Apple has to deal with, and this particular
"gate" concerns the Retina MacBook Pro.  More than 2,500 people
have been affected by the issue, according to a website dedicated
to Staingate, and a law firm is already looking at initiating
legal action against Apple.

"We are a group of Apple customers that paid more than 2000
USD/EUR for a Macbook that is showing horrific stains in the
screen," the group said on the Staingate.org site.  "The stains
[as seen in the image above] can start as early as seven months
after the purchase.  There is no clear pattern as to how it
starts: some experience it in small spots around the edge, on
other screens it appears in the middle as large patches."

Apple deems the issue "cosmetic damage, and it is not covered by
the warranty," and charges up to $800 for repairs with a three-
month warranty, the site says.

Affected users are asking Apple for a free repair program for the
models that are affected by the issue, regardless of whether or
not they're covered by Apple Care.

Meanwhile, lawyers at Whitfield Bryson & Mason are collecting data
from owners of affected Retina MacBook Pro models for a potential
class action against Apple.

It's worth pointing out that similar actions against Apple have
worked in the past.  A graphics issue affecting certain MacBook
models reached the class action suit phase, and soon after that
Apple agreed to offer free repairs to affected users.


APPLE INC: Ruling to Keep Compliance Monitor Upheld
---------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
Southern District Judge Denise Cote's refusal to remove a
compliance monitor at the request of Apple Inc. while it appeals
an injunction in an ebooks antitrust case was upheld by a federal
appeals court on May 28.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said Cote was
within her authority to appoint as monitor Michael Bromwich, who
the computer giant claims has overstepped his bounds.

Circuit Judges Dennis Jacobs, Raymond Lohier and Southern District
Judge Jesse Furman, sitting by designation, also rejected a
challenge to what Apple said was a modification of the terms of
Judge Cote's 2013 injunction in United States v. Apple, 14-60.

Judge Cote found Apple liable in 2010 under the Sherman Act for a
horizontal price-fixing conspiracy in the sale of ebooks with
publishers Hachette, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, Penguin and
Macmillan.

With Apple as their shepherd as it launched its iPad and iBooks
store, Judge Cote found, the five publishers moved to the "agency
model" of pricing that was designed to break the hold Amazon had
on the ebooks market with its $9.99 per book model.

The agreements let the publishers charge $12.99 per book or more
and included most favored nation clauses, which made certain that
any of the publishers would get the same deal from Apple that
Apple made with any of the other publishers.

Judge Cote followed in 2013 by issuing an injunction that is now
before another panel of Judge Jacobs, Judge Lohier and Judge Debra
Ann Livingston.  That panel heard oral argument on Apple's appeal
of both the liability finding and the remedy in December, asking
tough questions of Justice Department attorney Malcolm Stewart
(NYLJ, Dec. 16, 2014).

Noting that Amazon had almost total control of the market, Jacobs
asked, "Would it not matter that all these people got together to
defeat the monopolist? It's like the mice that banded together to
put the bell on the cat."

Livingston said most favored nation clauses and the agency model
are "perfectly lawful" so "what's the extra thing here?"
The appeal before the December panel also has relevance to a
settlement Cote approved in 2014 between Apple, 33 states and
class action counsel.  Apple will pay $450 million if Judge Cote's
liability ruling is upheld and $50 million in attorneys fees.
Meanwhile, Apple has been bristling over the presence of
Mr. Bromwich, who was appointed in 2013.

Mr. Bromwich, the company alleges, has colluded with the
plaintiffs and has interfered too much with the company's
business, including demanding interviews with Apple executives
without counsel present, as he goes about his appointed job of
reviewing and evaluating Apple's adoption of policies and training
to ensure its people comply with antitrust laws.

Mr. Bromwich, of The Bromwich Group, claimed he ran into obstacles
almost from the outset.  On Nov. 22, he wrote Apple CEO Timothy
Cook and members of the board of directors, saying Apple had
adopted a "confrontational and obstructionist approach" that
included using the company's outside counsel as a buffer.

On Dec. 5, Mr. Bromwich told an Apple director his job was to
"crawl into a company" and Apple had to "take down barriers" to
his access.

Judge Jacobs, writing for the panel on May 28, said the appeal
concerned Judge Cote's power under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure to create and modify a monitorship, the limits on
Mr. Bromwich, and Apple's remedy if Mr. Bromwich overreached.

"These largely procedural questions have considerable resonance
because the fairness and integrity of the courts can be
compromised by inadequate constraint on a monitor's aggressive use
of judicial power," he said.

Judge Jacobs said some of Apple's allegations against Mr. Bromwich
gave the court pause.

"As even the plaintiffs concede, Bromwich was expecting from Apple
the level of submissiveness that he had found in past monitorship
engagements, which had all resulted from consent decrees rather
than from adverse judgments," Judge Jacobs said.  "Bromwich was
thus unprepared for the formal and adversarial context of a
monitorship imposed over the objection of the monitored party."

Apple also attacked Mr. Bromwich's fee of $1,265 per hour ($1,100
plus a 15 percent administrative fee).  Two weeks into his
appointment, Bromwich had billed $138,432. Apple moved to
disqualify him in December 2013 claiming he had a corrupting
incentive to bill Apple.

Judge Cote denied the motion on Jan. 16, 2014, although she did
say that the injunction explicitly permits counsel to be present
for interviews with Apple personnel.

Apple had argued before Judge Cote that Mr. Bromwich be
disqualified because he had coordinated with the plaintiffs in
their opposition to Apple's request for a stay in the district
court.  Judge Cote excused it, however, saying Mr. Bromwich
submitted a declaration in response to Apple's criticism of his
work.

On May 28, Judge Jacobs said, "it is certainly remarkable that an
arm of the court would mitigate in the side of a party in
connection with an application to the court he serves," but he
would have submitted the same declaration on his own or at the
invitation of Judge Cote.

As for the fee dispute, Judge Jacobs said the issue was "rooted in
the terms and operation of an injunction that we lack jurisdiction
to review on this appeal."

Apple also claimed that Judge Cote constructively expanded the
injunction by allowing a non-judicial investigation, letting
Mr. Bromwich assert the right to review Apple's tone and culture
and at least initially allowed his attempts to circumvent counsel.
But Judge Jacobs said the circuit had already, in a Feb. 14 order,
construed the injunction "to impose sharp limits on the monitor's
powers," and Mr. Bromwich's conduct is otherwise "limited by other
provisions of law and notions of professionalism," that prevent
him from ex parte communications and leave him bound to "respect
the role of counsel and the adversarial system."

Judge Furman issued a concurring opinion noting that Judge Cote
had established a "sensible and effective" dispute resolution
process, "presumably mindful that a monitorship imposed over
Apple's objection could be a bumpy affair."

In the end, the court found Cote did not abuse her discretion.
Theodore Boutrous of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher argued for Apple.
Finnuala Tessier, a trial attorney with the U.S. Justice
Department's Antitrust Division, argued for the government.


AT&T MOBILITY: To Face $100MM Penalty Over Unlimited Service Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris DiMarco, writing for Legaltech News, reports that on
June 17, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced
that communications provider AT&T Mobility will face a penalty of
$100 million for its violation of the Open Internet Transparency
rule.  Commission officials said the wireless phone and data
provider engaged in deceptive tactics that hid data plan details
from consumers.

In 2007 AT&T began offering an unlimited data plan service that
entitled consumers to use as much data as they wanted.  That
unlimited plan was discontinued in 2010, but consumers who had
previously elected for it received "grandfathered" status, and
could continue using the plan if they renewed it on a monthly
basis.  In 2011, however, AT&T updated its terms of service, and
implemented the Maximum Bit Rate Policy, which gave the provider
the ability to slow connection speeds once a user had surpassed
3GB of data usage.

According to the FCC's investigation of throttling complaints, the
data speeds of the unlimited plan after users had surpassed the
3GB threshold were "orders of magnitude slower than the normal
network speeds AT&T advertises."  The Open Internet Transparency
Rule of the Federal Communication Act requires that broadband
access details be accurately disclosed by providers in a manner
that facilitates the consumer's right to making informed decisions
about purchases.  The FCC said the manner in which those data caps
were implemented is a violation of that rule.

In court documents, the FCC said: "Based on the facts and
circumstances before us, we find that AT&T apparently willfully
and repeatedly violated Section 8.3 of the Commission's Rules by:
1) using the term "unlimited" in a misleading and inaccurate way
to label a data plan that was in fact subject to prolonged speed
reductions after a customer used a set amount of data."  The
commission also said the speed caps implemented by the Maximum Bit
Rate Policy were not properly disclosed to customers.

"Unlimited means unlimited," FCC Enforcement Bureau Chief Travis
LeBlanc said in a statement.  "As the action demonstrates, the
Commission is committed to holding accountable those broadband
providers who fail to be fully transparent about data limits."
In addition to its fine of $100 million, AT&T is also required by
the FCC to detail what steps it has taken to alleviate its
violation of the Open Internet Transparency Rule.

A similar complaint was filed against AT&T by the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) in 2014.  AT&T attempted to have those charges
dismissed on the ground that the FCC and not the FTC should be
responsible for the regulation of common carrier services. But
that request for dismissal was denied on the grounds that data is
not regulated as a common carrier service.  The company may still
face additional fines from the FTC on this issue.


AU OPTRONICS: Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Antitrust Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that antitrust
lawyers looking for clarity on how U.S. law applies to overseas
cartels were disappointed on June 15 when U.S. Supreme Court
declined to review two cases that could have shed light on the
issue.

The Supreme Court denied certiorari in Motorola Mobility v. AU
Optronics and Hsiung v. United States, both of which dealt with a
murky area of antitrust law under the Foreign Trade Antitrust
Improvement Act (FTAIA).  Courts have struggled with how to apply
the law, which governs many of the Northern District of
California's massive price-fixing cases, especially those
involving electronic components manufactured in Asia and sold to
U.S. consumers in computers, televisions and cellphones.

Varying interpretations by the courts have left litigators unsure
whether the FTAIA can knock out antitrust claims in their cases.
The Supreme Court opted to steer clear of the issue for now but
many in the bar say it's only a matter of time before the high
court is forced to weigh in.

Eric Fastiff, chair of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein's
antitrust and intellectual property practice group, said he was
surprised the Supreme Court didn't take the cases.

"There appears to be a clear circuit split," he said, "and this is
a matter of importance to U.S. companies who are victims of price-
fixing [by] international cartels."

Other antitrust lawyers said they weren't holding their breath.
The Supreme Court hasn't shown much interest in this issue since
its 2004 decision in Hoffmann-La Roche v. Empagran, said
Bruce Simon of Pearson, Simon & Warshaw.  That decision
established that foreign purchasers can't sue in the U.S. unless
their purchases had an adverse effect on domestic commerce, but
even at the time, some said the ruling left key questions
unanswered.

Enacted in 1982, the FTAIA provides that U.S. antitrust statues do
not apply to nonimport foreign commerce unless it has a "direct,
substantial and reasonably foreseeable effect" on U.S. commerce,
and such effect "gives rise" to the plaintiffs' claim.

The two cases rejected by the Supreme Court on June 15 both
stemmed from ongoing price-fixing litigation over LCD panels in
television and computer monitors, pending before U.S. District
Judge Susan Illston in the Northern District of California.

Judge Illston ruled Motorola Mobility Holdings LLC, which opted
out of the class action, had claims regarding overseas purchases
that survived FTAIA scrutiny.  The case was transferred to the
Northern District of Illinois, where U.S. District Judge Joan
Gottschall reversed Illston's order and dismissed the claims.  The
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upheld the
dismissal.

"The statute itself is just hopelessly worded," said
Jacob Sorensen -- jake.sorensen@pillsburylaw.com -- head of
Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman's San Francisco litigation
department.  "So the courts have been struggling for 30 years to
interpret it."

Motorola petitioned the Supreme Court, prompting amici curiae
briefs from consumer and business advocates.  The American
Antitrust Institute, which favors strong U.S. enforcement, wrote
if the Seventh Circuit decision were allowed to stand, "American
consumers will be the losers.  International cartels are a scourge
of American commerce."

The National Association of Manufacturers also backed Supreme
Court review, in the interest of clarity.

"Regardless whether a U.S. manufacturer is in favor of or against
the application of U.S. antitrust law in the circumstances present
here," the association's lawyers wrote, "companies need to know
where the legal lines are drawn in order to structure their
transactions for goods intended for eventual import into the
United States."

Mr. Fastiff said the Supreme Court's refusal to reconsider the
Seventh Circuit ruling sent a clear message to plaintiffs lawyers:
"Don't file in the Seventh Circuit."

For now, the Ninth Circuit may seem like the more plaintiff-
friendly forum. Last year the court affirmed the criminal price-
fixing convictions of AU Optronics Corp. and two of its top
executives, who were accused of being part of the LCD panel
cartel.  The panel struck down defendants' FTAIA challenges.

That case, Hsiung, dealt with the government's ability to enforce
antitrust law rather than a private litigant's.

Still, the Supreme Court's decision to let that ruling stand on
June 15 could bode well for plaintiffs lawyers pursuing price-
fixing claims in the Northern District of California against
manufacturers of electrolytic capacitors, electricity-storing
components found in nearly all electronic devices.  Defendants are
set to file summary-judgment motions in October invoking the
FTAIA, and both Hsiung and Motorola likely will be center stage.


AUTHOR SOLUTIONS: Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Denise L. Cote of The United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, issued a ruling July 1 denying the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification in an action filed
against Author Solutions, LLC on April 26, 2013 (13 CV 2801 - U.S.
D.C. S.D. N.Y ).

In the Opinion & Order, Judge Cote wrote, "This action has been a
story of plaintiffs' search for a theory of class-wide liability;
their inability to find a winner despite numerous iterations only
bolsters the ruling of non-certifiability." (13 CV 2801 - Document
146 - 19).

In summation, Judge Cote concluded: "AS (Author Solutions) raises
several other substantial defects in plaintiffs' application for
certification of a class. Because those discussed above are fatal
to the plaintiffs' application, it is unnecessary to discuss the
remaining arguments addressed in the parties' briefs,"
(13 CV 2801 - Document 146 - 30).

Andrew Phillips, Author Solutions president and CEO, said in
response to the ruling "From the outset, we believed the court
would establish the truth and determine the class action
allegations were without merit. We are gratified with this
decision and we look forward to continuing to serve the more than
180,000 authors worldwide who have trusted Author Solutions to
bring their books to market."

                   About Author Solutions, LLC

Author Solutions, LLC, is a Penguin Random House company and
provides supported self-publishing services.


AVALANCHE BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Sept. 8 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc. pursuant and/or
traceable to the Company's Initial Public Offering on or about
July 31, 2014 and/or between July 31, 2014 and June 15, 2015.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the USDC for the Northern District of
California.  If you purchased or otherwise acquired Avalanche
securities pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Initial
Public Offering on or about July 31, 2014 and/or between July 31,
2014 and June 15, 2015, your rights may be affected by this
action.  To get more information go to:

     http://zlk.9nl.com/avalanche-technologies-aavl

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

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that Phase 2a of the study for its drug AVA-101 was not
designed to show any statistical significance between the active
and control groups in the secondary endpoints.

If you suffered a loss in Avalanche you have until September 8,
2015 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff.

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


BANK OF AMERICA: DOJ Accord Over Rate Rigging Prompts Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that riding the wake
of the U.S. Justice Department's $2.5 billion settlement, two
plaintiffs firms have sued a group of major banks, alleging that
they conspired to fix prices and overcharge customers on foreign
currency exchanges.

The lawsuit, filed on May 21 in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California by lawyers at the Alioto Law Firm
and the Law Offices of Lingel H. Winters, follows the May 20
announcement that five of the banks -- Citicorp, JPMorgan Chase &
Co., Barclays PLC, The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC and UBS A.G. --
agreed to pay the largest antitrust fines ever levied by the U.S.
Department of Justice.

The banks agreed to pay a total of $2.5 billion to settle
government charges that they violated the Sherman Act by fixing
and rigging foreign currency exchange rates.  The five banks all
signed plea agreements with the government that state that their
representatives participated in conversations nearly daily,
sometimes in code, in an exclusive electronic chat room which they
and others in the foreign exchange market referred to as "The
Cartel" or "The Mafia."

The May 21 follow-on class action also claims that Bank of America
Corp. and HSBC Finance Corp. participated in a conspiracy with
competitors to establish prices for foreign currency exchanges.
The suit seeks treble damages under the federal antitrust laws on
behalf of all consumers in the U.S. who paid above competitive
foreign exchange rates since January 2007.  The lawsuit also
asserts claims under California's antitrust law, the Cartwright
Act, as well as the state's Unfair Competition Act.

Plaintiffs lawyer is Joseph Alioto.


BIOMET INC: Faces Suit Over Injury Caused by Vanguard Knee System
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anita Chestnut v. Biomet, Inc., Biomet Orthopedics, LLC, Biomet
U.S. Reconstruction, LLC and Biomet Manufacturing, LLC, Case No.
4:15-cv-00431-ODS (W.D. Mo., June 5, 2015) alleges that the
Plaintiff has been injured due to a defective medical prosthesis
manufactured by the Defendants.

Biomet, Inc. is a citizen of the state of Indiana with its
principal place of business in Warsaw, Indiana.  Orthopedics,
Reconstruction and Manufacturing are wholly owned subsidiaries of
Biomet, Inc. and are also headquartered in Warsaw.

The Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, promoted, and
sold the Biomet Vanguard CR Total Knee System that is the subject
of this lawsuit.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Stucky, Esq.
          Benjamin C. Fields, Esq.
          STUCKY & FIELDS, LLC
          214 W. 18th Street, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 659-9970
          Facsimile: (816) 659-9969
          E-mail: chris@stuckyfields.com
                  ben@stuckyfields.com


BLUE CROSS: Removes "Benton" Suit to California District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Joyce Benton v. Blue Cross of
California, et al., Case No. RG15768786, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Alameda to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (Oakland).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:15-cv-02503-DMR to the proceeding.

The class action is brought on behalf of individuals whose
Personally Identifiable Information was stolen from Anthem, Inc.
and Blue Cross of California, doing business as Anthem Blue Cross,
as a direct result of Anthem's alleged failure to follow its
statutory and common law duties to adequately secure and protect
this information.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen F. Yunker, Esq.
          YUNKER & SCHNEIDER
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1400
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 233-5500
          Facsimile: (619) 233-5535
          E-mail: sfy@yslaw.com

               - and -

          William T. Payne, Esq.
          Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq.
          FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
          429 Forbes Avenue
          Allegheny Building, Suite 1705
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 281-8400
          Facsimile: (412) 281-1007
          E-mail: wpayne@fdpklaw.com
                  jkravec@fdpklaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Craig A. Hoover, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          555 Thirteenth Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637-5600
          Facsimile: (202) 637-5910
          E-mail: craig.hoover@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          Michael M. Maddigan, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 785-4600
          Facsimile: (310) 785--4601
          E-mail: michael.maddigan@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          Chad R. Fuller, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS
          11682 El Camino Real, Suite 400
          San Diego, CA 92140
          Telephone: (858) 509-6000
          Facsimile: (858) 509-6040
          E-mail: chad.fuller@troutmansanders.com


BMW FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action for FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Megan Nelson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. BMW Financial Services NA, LLC d/b/a Alphera Financial
Services, All Wheels Recovery, Inc. and John Doe Repossession
Agencies 1-10, Case No. 0:15-cv-02661-ADM-SER (D. Minn., June 5,
2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J. Lyons, Jr., Esq.
          CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A.
          367 Commerce Court
          Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
          Telephone: (651) 770-9707
          Facsimile: (651) 704-0907
          E-mail: tommycjc@aol.com


BOEING CO: Flight Attendants Sue Over Engine Fumes
--------------------------------------------------
David Koenig, writing for The Associated Press, reports that four
flight attendants are suing Boeing, claiming that toxic air from
an engine leaked into their plane and made them seriously ill on a
2013 flight.

A lawyer for the four said on June 23 that Boeing has known for
decades about the potential danger of drawing warm air off jet
engines to heat airplane cabins.

Boeing Co. declined to comment on the lawsuit, which was filed in
an Illinois state court in Chicago.

Similar allegations have been raised before.  In 2011, Boeing
settled a case brought by an American Airlines flight attendant;
terms were sealed.

In April, a British coroner reported that samples from a British
Airways pilot who died in 2012 were "consistent with exposure" to
toxic fumes in cabin air.  The airline said research shows that
the level of dangerous fumes in planes isn't high enough to pose a
health risk.

So-called bleed air is used to heat the cabins on most commercial
planes, although Boeing's newest aircraft, the 787 or Dreamliner,
uses a different system.

The Federal Aviation Administration says studies have shown cabin
air is as good as air in offices and homes, but a spokeswoman said
the agency is concerned that contaminants can get in if equipment
fails.  Airlines are required to report incidents involving fumes,
and FAA says from 1990 to 2010 there were about 900 of those. U.S.
airlines operate about 9 million flights a year, according to
government figures.

Boeing has repeatedly said that independent, industry and
government researchers have found that cabin air meets health and
safety standards.

But lawyers for the flight attendants suing Boeing say that
company documents suggest Boeing knew of the risk that bleed air
could contain dangerous byproducts of burning engine oil.  They
said that a Boeing engineer tried but failed to draw management's
attention to the issue, concluding in a 2007 email: "Bottom line
is I think we are looking for a tombstone before anyone with any
horsepower is going to take interest."

The women were working for Alaska Airlines when they say that all
four became sick and two passed out during a Boston-to-San Diego
flight.  The one-year-old Boeing 737 jet made an emergency landing
in Chicago, and all four were taken to hospitals, according to the
lawsuit.

Even weeks later, "I knew something was seriously wrong with me.
I just was not the same person," one of the flight attendants,
Vanessa Woods, said on conference call with reporters on June 23.
She said she suffered from fatigue, tremors, memory loss and
concentration problems and was unable to return to work.

Lawyers for the women said they weren't aware of any passengers
who got sick.  They attributed that to the women having been on
the plane longer, before passengers began boarding, and that the
air might have been more toxic higher in the cabin where standing
flight attendants would breathe it.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Jury Awards $100MM in Transvaginal Mesh Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for Delaware Law Weekly, reports that a
$100 million verdict handed up in a Wilmington courtroom in a
transvaginal mesh case is the latest in a string of high-dollar
verdicts that has plaintiffs lawyers saying the defendants should
see these as clear reasons to settle.

A Delaware Superior Court jury awarded May 28 $100 million to a
woman who experienced complications from transvaginal mesh
implants made by Boston Scientific Corp.

The verdict, according to attorneys for plaintiff Deborah Barba,
was composed of $25 million in compensatory damages and $75
million in punitive damages.

Ms. Barba's attorneys, Fred Thompson III --
fthompson@motleyrice.com -- and Fidelma Fitzpatrick --
ffitzpatrick@motleyrice.com -- of Motley Rice, said in a statement
that the punitive damages award sends a message and, they hope,
will cause Boston Scientific and other pelvic mesh manufacturers
to settle other cases quickly.
Ms. Barba's case is one of thousands faced by manufacturers of
pelvic mesh who have been sued over plaintiffs' complications from
the mesh implants. Those complications have included pain, urinary
problems, bleeding and organ perforation.  Ms. Barba had to
undergo two surgeries to repair her failed implant, but portions
of the mesh still remain "painfully embedded" with little hope of
being fully removed, her attorneys said.

A Boston Scientific spokeswoman said in an emailed statement, "At
Boston Scientific, patient safety is of the utmost importance and
we dedicate significant resources to deliver safe, high-quality
products.  We strongly disagree with the jury's finding and intend
to appeal based on the strength of our evidence."

There are nearly 17,000 cases that have been part of In re Boston
Scientific Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, a
multidistrict litigation in the Southern District of West
Virginia. About 200 of those cases have been resolved.  None
originated from Delaware, while more than 400 have been brought
into the MDL from the neighboring Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.  Several other state court cases are pending across
the country.  Between federal and state court actions, Boston
Scientific was facing more than 25,000 pelvic mesh suits,
including eight putative class actions, as of February, according
to its filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

In its 2014 annual report, filed in February, Boston Scientific
said, "We intend to vigorously contest the cases and claims
asserted against us; however, the final resolution is uncertain
and could have a material impact on our results of operations,
financial condition and/or liquidity.  Initial trials involving
our transvaginal surgical mesh products have resulted in both
favorable and unfavorable judgments for us.  We do not believe
that the judgment in any one trial is representative of potential
outcomes of all cases or claims related to our transvaginal
surgical mesh products."

Boston Scientific announced in late April that it allotted $119
million to settle close to 3,000 of the cases against it.  They
represented the full inventories of cases of several plaintiffs
lawyers, including a Texas state court action for which a $35
million judgment was rendered and on appeal.

"The settlement and the distribution of settlement funds to
participating claimants are conditioned upon, among other things,
achieving minimum required claimant participation thresholds,"
Boston Scientific said in an April 28 SEC filing.  "If the
participation thresholds are not satisfied, the company may
terminate the agreement."

While Boston Scientific intends to appeal the Barba ruling and has
said one case doesn't foreshadow the outcome of other cases,
plaintiffs lawyers say the writing is on the wall.

Thomas R. Kline of Kline & Specter is involved in his firm's
representation of more than 2,000 transvaginal mesh patients
across several jurisdictions, including several in Philadelphia
state court.

"The [Barba] verdict is a loud message that will resound among the
manufacturers of mesh products that the strategy of trying cases
in the face of punitive damages was an unsound strategy doomed to
fail," Mr. Kline said in an emailed statement.  "The string of
plaintiffs' seven-, eight-, and nine-figure jury verdicts,
including this punitive verdict, is a predictor of more to come --
all based upon a defective product that caused devastating
injuries to women.  Our firm looks forward to the seven TVM trial
listings in Philadelphia [Court of Common Pleas] beginning in
December."

Ms. Fitzpatrick said in a statement that she hoped mesh
manufacturers took note of the verdict and resolved "all pending
cases swiftly."

"The punitive damages the jury awarded in this verdict speak very
boldly for themselves," Mr. Thompson said in a statement about
Barba.  "With all the evidence we presented, the jury chose the
damages according to the irresponsible behavior it thought Boston
Scientific demonstrated.  We are pleased that Boston Scientific
may finally be receiving the message about the dangers of its
transvaginal mesh where it hurts most, its wallet."

According to Ms. Fitzpatrick and Mr. Thompson, the jury in Barba
found Boston Scientific negligently designed and manufactured its
Pinnacle and Advantage Fit devices and also failed to warn doctors
and patients of the products' risks.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Accused of Discrimination and Retaliation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dale Dudley v. Cablevision Systems New York Corporation and
Lorenzo Ammons, Case No. 1:15-cv-04363 (S.D.N.Y., June 5, 2015) is
brought to remedy the Defendants' alleged intentional, unlawful
discrimination (due to disability) and retaliation against the
Plaintiff via termination of his employment in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, the
Executive Law of the State of New York, New York State Human
Rights Law and the Administrative Code of the City of New York,
New York City Human Rights Law.

Mr. Dudley is a 51-year-old African-American resident of the
County and Borough of Bronx, City and State of New York.

Cablevision is a corporation organized under the laws of the state
of New York.  Cablevision is a company that offers digital cable
TV, high speed Internet, and home phone service.  Mr. Ammons is a
resident of New York.  He was a Billing and Collections Supervisor
at Cablevision in its Bronx office.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marshall B. Bellovin, Esq.
          Evan E. Richards, Esq.
          BALLON STOLL BADER & NADLER, P.C.
          729 Seventh Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 575-7900
          E-mail: mbellovin@ballonstoll.com
                  erichards@ballonstoll.com


CELLADON CORP: Stull Stull & Brody Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stull, Stull & Brody on July 10 filed a class action lawsuit
against Celladon Corporation and certain of its officers in the
United States Court for the Southern District of California, Case
Number 3:15-cv-01529-AJB-MDD, on behalf of purchasers of Celladon
securities during the period July 7, 2014 through June 25, 2015,
inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies pursuant to the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

If you purchased or acquired Celladon securities during the Class
Period and wish to serve as a lead plaintiff you may move the
Court no later than August 31, 2015; however you must meet certain
legal requirements.  If you wish to discuss this action or have
any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact Howard T. Longman at 1-800-337-4983 ext. 110 or via
email at celladon@ssbny.com or Patrice L. Bishop at 1-888-388-4605
or via email at info@ssbla.com

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, in violation
of the federal securities laws, defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements regarding the prospects of its core
potential product MYDICAR, which uses genetic enzyme replacement
therapy to correct an enzyme deficiency that results in an
inadequate pumping of the human heart.  However, suddenly and
without warning, on April 26, 2015, Celladon announced that its
randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of MYDICAR did
not meet primary and secondary goals.  On this announcement, as
detailed below, the Company's stock declined more than 80% from a
close of $13.68 on April 24, 2015, to $2.64 on April 27, 2015, on
a volume of over 32 million shares, and more than 90% from the
Class Period high of $27.26 per share.

On June 1, 2015, Celladon issued a press release announcing the
resignation of its Chief Executive Officer and director Krisztina
M. Zsebo, who is named as a defendant in the Complaint.  Less than
a month later, on June 26, 2015, before the start of trading,
Celladon announced it was suspending further research and
development of MYDICAR.  The Company's stock declined more than
38% to a close of $1.35 on a volume of over 9 million shares.

Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to be
appointed lead plaintiff by no later than August 31, 2015.  In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members and that the class member will adequately represent
the class.  Under certain circumstances one or more class members
may together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in
any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether to
serve as lead plaintiff.  You may retain Stull, Stull & Brody or
other counsel of your choice to serve as your counsel in this
action.

Stull, Stull & Brody has litigated many class actions for
violations of securities laws and breaches of fiduciary duty on
behalf of defrauded investors over the past 40 years and has
obtained court approval of substantial settlements on numerous
occasions.  Stull, Stull & Brody has offices in New York and
Beverly Hills.  The Stull, Stull & Brody website (www.ssbny.com)
has additional information about the firm.


CEPHALON: Judge Denies Class Certification in Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a federal judge weighing whether to approve a $1.2 billion
settlement between the Federal Trade Commission and Cephalon has
denied class certification to a group of plaintiffs suing Cephalon
and others over the same allegations of antitrust violations.

In his 72-page opinion in Vista Healthplan v. Cephalon, U.S.
District Judge Mitchell Goldberg of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania ruled on June 10 that two classes of end payors of
the wakefulness drug Provigil or its generic versions could not
meet the requirements of ascertainability, predominance and
superiority needed to certify a class.

The plaintiffs sued Cephalon, which manufactured the brand-name
Provigil, and generic manufacturers Teva Pharmaceuticals (which
now owns Cephalon), Ranbaxy Laboratories, Mylan Pharmaceuticals
and Barr Laboratories, alleging the $300 million Cephalon paid the
generics through four so-called pay-for-delay settlements was
anti-competitive and caused the plaintiffs to spend more for the
drugs.

The FTC had alleged the same facts in a related suit in 2008 when
it first sought simply to stop the settlements from going through.
But, following Judge Goldberg's 2011 finding that Cephalon's
patent for the active ingredient in Provigil was invalid, and the
entry into the market of a generic version of the drug a year
later, the FTC was prompted to change course and pursue
disgorgement, according to Judge Goldberg's opinion on that issue.

The FTC announced just two weeks ago a record settlement with
Cephalon over those issues for $1.2 billion, and that is pending
court approval.

In his ruling on June 10, Judge Goldberg said the plaintiffs were
seeking certification of two classes: a class of end payors
bringing claims under state antitrust and consumer protection laws
of 23 states and the District of Columbia, and an unjust
enrichment class, bringing claims under the laws of 25 states and
Washington, D.C. The end payors include consumers and third-party
payors such as health insurance plans that purchased the drugs
between June 1, 2006, and Sept. 30, 2013.

One of the plaintiffs' experts argued that, had the generics gone
to market in 2006 instead of 2012, the proposed class members
would have reaped significant savings.  And to calculate the
unjust enrichment, the expert also looked at the profits of the
defendants as a result of the alleged anti-competitive conduct and
what they would have been had the settlements not occurred.

The defendants argued variations in the pharmaceutical industry
prevented the plaintiffs from being able to identify class members
or prove antitrust damages without individualized inquiry.  The
defense argued any alleged damages would depend on the particular
contractual relationships the third-party payors may have had with
insureds, pharmacies, drug manufacturers and pharmacy benefit
managers.  Those contracts could have changed over time, they
argued, according to the opinion.

The defense further pointed to potential class members who would
be uninjured, such as brand loyalists, those whose health
insurance plans treat generic and brand-name drugs the same,
consumers who had no out-of-pocket expenses, and consumers whose
insurers would put the generic version on a "non-preferred" tier,
Judge Goldberg said.

Judge Goldberg addressed that last defense argument first when
deciding whether proposed class members are clearly identifiable,
or clearly ascertained.  Judge Goldberg looked to a number of
recent decisions from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit on ascertainability as well as a recent class
certification ruling from a Tennessee district court in a similar
reverse-payment settlement case.  He found the Third Circuit has
required a "rigorous analysis" be done as to ascertainability.

"Plaintiffs must, at the time of class certification, present a
methodology to identify class members, and prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that such methodology will be
effective and will not require extensive individualized inquiry
and mini-trials," Judge Goldberg said.

He said much more is needed in the Third Circuit than an expert
who did not concede that an ascertainability mechanism could not
be developed.  Plans to create a methodology at a later date is
not enough, Judge Goldberg said.  There was also no clearly
feasible way to administer the class, Judge Goldberg said, noting
many individualized questions must be answered to determine
whether someone falls within the class.

Judge Goldberg rejected the plaintiffs' argument that the defense
was confusing ascertainability with claims administration.

"My concerns about ascertainability focus on whether plaintiffs
can reliably identify class members at the outset," Judge Goldberg
said.  "By contrast, the fund administration process would occur
at the conclusion of litigation, and simply verify that any
particular consumer or TPP is indeed one of the previously-
identified members of the class."

In looking at whether the plaintiffs' antitrust claims predominate
the class member's individualized claims, Judge Goldberg similarly
found that every class member would need to be reviewed to see if
they were impacted by alleged anti-competitive actions.

"In summary, plaintiffs have not sufficiently proven that they are
able to demonstrate antitrust impact on a classwide basis," Judge
Goldberg said.  "This is due to various groups of uninjured
persons that remain within the class, and because identifying and
removing these uninjured class members would require extensive
individualized inquiry."

As to predominance in the state unjust-enrichment claims, Judge
Goldberg found the individual state laws on unjust enrichment
apply.  He disagreed with the plaintiffs' characterizations of the
differences in those laws as "minor," instead finding they are
"not amenable to concise explanation."

Judge Goldberg went on to rule similarly as to predominance and
superiority when it came to the plaintiffs' consumer protection
law claims.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, Hanzman Criden & Love, Finkelstein
Thompson and Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis represented the
plaintiffs.  Attorneys from Kirkland & Ellis and Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr represented the defense.  Calls to
attorneys on both sides were not returned by press time.


CHENG I: Consumer Group Files Suit Over Tainted Cooking Oil
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chen Chao-fu and Elaine Hou, writing for Focus Taiwan, report that
on behalf of 20,000 students and teachers, the Consumer Protection
Association filed a class-action lawsuit on July 10 with a
district court against edible oil makers that have sold sub-
standard products to schools to make school lunch meals.

The suit was filed against two scandal-ridden companies, Cheng I
Food Co. and Chang Guann Co.

Along with the suit, the association also demanded NT$3.7 billion
(US$119 million) in compensation for the students and teachers.

Before the July 10 move, the association had also filed another
class-action suit on behalf of 3,700 consumers against Chang Chi
Foodstuff Co. and in its verdict in May, the Changhua District
Court ordered the company pay NT$91.05 million in compensation to
a group of consumers who had bought sub-standard cooking oil
produced by the company.

The association was later commissioned by people who were affected
by the snowballing food scandals since last September, involving
several edible oil makers that sold tainted edible oil products to
more than 90 schools, affecting about 20,000 students and
teachers.

Three of the 20,000 consumers have also presented medical records
that prove their health was negatively affected by the problematic
oil, the association said.

The association filed the lawsuit with the Kaohsiung District
Court, because Cheng-I Food Co. and Chang Guann Company are
located in the southern city of Kaohsiung.

It said it will file another suit with the Tainan District Court
and the Changhua District Court against Beei Hae Oil and Fats Co.
and Ting Hsin Oil and Fat Industrial Co., respectively.

The four producers have been accused of using ingredients not fit
for human consumption, such as oils used in animal feed and oils
extracted from restaurant waste, in their products.


COOPER TIRE: Termination Over Racist Remark Violates Labor Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marlisse Silver Sweeney, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports
that a National Labor Relations Board administrative law judge has
ruled that a company violated the National Labor Relations Act by
firing an employee who made racist remarks on a picket line.
Cary Burke -- cburke@mckennalong.com -- of McKenna Long & Aldridge
says the decision should "unsettle employers."

In 2011, Cooper Tire and Rubber Co.'s collective bargaining
agreement with its unionized employees expired.  The company
subsequently locked them out during negotiations and used
temporary replacement workers.  As one former employee was
picketing, he yelled racist statements at the temporary employees
and was fired for doing so. Burke says the union fought his
termination, but ultimately an arbitrator upheld the company's
decision, pointing to "just cause."

However, the ALJ said the arbitrator's decision was "clearly
repugnant" to the NLRA.  The judge said that although the
employee's statements were indeed "racist, offensive and
reprehensible," they were not violent and he deserved greater
protection while on the picket line.  Mr. Burke warns employers to
"tread very carefully when making adverse employment decisions
during a strike or a lockout."


COOPER VISION: Faces "Heidel" Suit Over Contact Lens-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Heidel, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. Cooper Vision, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00831-
HES-JRK (M.D. Fla., July 6, 2015), alleges that the Defendants
entered into a conspiracy to impose minimum resale prices on
certain contact lens lines by subjecting them to so called
Unilateral Pricing Policies (UPPs) and eliminate price competition
on those products by big box stores, buying clubs, and internet-
based retailers that prevent them from discounting those products.

Cooper Vision, Inc. is a New York corporation that is engaged in
the business of making eye care products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent W. Johnson, Esq.
      Daniel A. Small, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      1100 New York Ave., NW Suite 500 West
      Washington, DC 20005
      E-mail: bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com
              dsmall@cohenmilstein.com

         - and -

      Manuel J. Dominguez, Esq.
      COHEN, MILSTEIN, SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
      Suite 200, 2925 PGA Blvd
      Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
      Telephone: (561) 578-6850
      Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
      E-mail: jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com


CORNERSTONE THERAPEUTICS: Del. Supreme Court Rules in Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Saranac Hale Spencer, writing for Law.com, reports the Delaware
Supreme Court has ruled that shareholders challenging an interest
transaction that is subject to an entire fairness review must
plead a non-exculpated claim against independent directors in
order to keep them as defendants.

The ruling came in a pair of unrelated cases that were
consolidated for the court to answer that one question, which was
common to both.

"In each case, the Court of Chancery did not analyze the
plaintiffs' duty of loyalty claims against the independent
directors because it determined that it was required to deny their
motions to dismiss regardless of whether such claims had been
sufficiently pled.  But, recognizing the important and uncertain
issue of corporate law at stake, the Court of Chancery in each
case recommended certification of an interlocutory appeal to this
court to determine whether its reading of precedent was correct,"
Chief Justice Leo E. Strine Jr. said in his opinion, written on
behalf of the high court en banc.

The state Supreme Court reversed the rulings of the Chancery
Court, which had denied the independent directors' motions to
dismiss, and remanded the cases back to the Chancery Court.

"We now resolve the question presented by these cases by
determining that plaintiffs must plead a non-exculpated claim for
breach of fiduciary duty against an independent director protected
by an exculpatory charter provision, or that director will be
entitled to be dismissed from the suit," Justice Strine said.

"When a director is protected by an exculpatory charter provision,
a plaintiff can survive a motion to dismiss by that director
defendant by pleading facts supporting a rational inference that
the director harbored self-interest adverse to the stockholders'
interests, acted to advance the self-interest of an interested
party from whom they could not be presumed to act independently,
or acted in bad faith.  But the mere fact that a plaintiff is able
to plead facts supporting the application of the entire fairness
standard to the transaction, and can thus state a duty of loyalty
claim against the interested fiduciaries, does not relieve the
plaintiff of the responsibility to plead a non-exculpated claim
against each director who moves for dismissal."

The two cases were In re Cornerstone Therapeutics Stockholder
Litigation and Leal v. Meeks and both involved stockholders
bringing damages actions after mergers in which the controlling
stockholder, who had representatives on the board of directors,
bought the rest of the shares in a Delaware public corporation,
according to the opinion.

"In both cases, the defendant directors were insulated from
liability for monetary damages for breaches of the fiduciary duty
of care by an exculpatory charter provision," Justice Strine said.
"Despite that provision, the plaintiffs in each case not only sued
the controlling stockholders and their affiliated directors, but
also sued the independent directors who had negotiated and
approved the mergers."

Justice Strine concluded, "When a complaint pleads facts creating
an inference that seemingly independent directors approved a
conflicted transaction for improper reasons, and thus, those
directors may have breached their duty of loyalty, the pro-
plaintiff inferences that must be drawn on a motion to dismiss
counsels for resolution of that question of fact only after
discovery."

"By contrast, when the plaintiffs have pled no facts to support an
inference that any of the independent directors breached their
duty of loyalty, fidelity to the purpose of Section 102(b)(7)
requires dismissal of the complaint against those directors,"
Strine said, referring to the section of Delaware law that created
the exculpatory charter provision.

Anthony Candido of Clifford Chance in New York represented the
defendants in the Cornerstone case and said in a prepared
statement, "We think this is an important decision.  The Supreme
Court resolved a debate in the Court of Chancery and clarified
that a plaintiff must plead a non-exculpated claim for breach of
fiduciary duty against an independent director protected by an
exculpatory charter provision in order to state a claim against
such a director.  We believe the decision will reduce litigation
costs and help avoid inappropriate reputational harm to
independent directors."

Chet Waldman -- cwaldman@wolfpopper.com -- of Wolf Popper in New
York represented the plaintiffs in the Cornerstone case and
couldn't be reached for comment.


CORRECTIONS CORPORATION: DHS Moved to Reconsider and Vacate
-----------------------------------------------------------
Corrections Corporation of America 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 January
2015, a class action lawsuit was filed in federal district court
for the District of Columbia against the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security, or DHS, and certain ICE
officials. The complaint sought to certify a class of plaintiffs,
consisting of Central American mothers and children who (i) have
been or will be detained in ICE family detention facilities since
June 2014, (ii) have been or will be determined to have a credible
fear of persecution in their home country under federal asylum
laws and (iii) are eligible for release on bond pursuant to
certain federal statutes but have been or will be denied such
release after being subject to an ICE custody determination that
took deterrence of mass migration into account. In February 2015,
the court certified the class and granted the plaintiffs' motion
for a preliminary injunction, enjoining DHS from detaining class
members for the purpose of deterring future immigration to the
United States and from considering deterrence of such immigration
as a factor in such custody determinations until a final
determination has been reached on the merits of the action.

On March 20, 2015, DHS moved the court to reconsider and vacate
its order, arguing that the relief the court granted exceeded that
which was appropriate in the case.  Plaintiffs responded to the
DHS motion, and DHS had until May 8, 2015, to submit a response to
that filing. As of March 31, 2015, approximately 380 women and
children resided at the South Texas Family Residential Center.

"Any adverse decision with regard to this contract could
materially affect our financial condition and results of
operations," the Company said.


COSTCO: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Job Hiring Bias Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Ben Bedell, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
New York State's Division of Human Rights erred when it sanctioned
big-box retailer Costco for discriminating against job applicants
with criminal records, the Appellate Division, First Department,
ruled on June 2.

"The evidence did not show that [Costco's] online employment
application system automatically disqualified applicants with a
prior criminal conviction," the unanimous panel said in granting
Costco's Article 78 petition to annul a finding it had violated
Executive Law Sec. 296 (15) and Article 23-A of the Corrections
Law.

The laws prohibit employment discrimination against New Yorkers
with a record of criminal convictions, unless "there is a direct
relationship between past convictions and the job, or hiring such
a person would involve an unreasonable risk to property or to the
safety of others," according to a New York City Bar Association
advisory memo.

"The fact that none of the 13 applicants with convictions (out of
625 total) advanced in the hiring process does not establish that
there was an illegal automatic disqualifier," the panel said in In
re Costco Wholesale Corporation v. New York State Division of
Human Rights, 101398/13.

The human rights division had fined Costco $40,000 for violations,
which it said stemmed from its online job application procedure.
"There is no evidence that [Costco's] grading criteria for
applicants with convictions was used in connection with the online
application," the panel said.  "Instead, the evidence showed that
this non-mandatory guideline was used only when an applicant had
reached the background check stage of the hiring process."

The panel included Justices David Friedman, David Saxe, Sallie
Manzanet-Daniels, Paul Feinman and Judith Gische.
Seyfarth Shaw partner Lorie Almon argued for Costco.

State Division of Human Rights staff attorney Michael Swirsky
represented the agency.


COTY INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Case Under Judicial Review
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coty 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 motion to dismiss a securities
litigation is currently under judicial consideration.

During fiscal 2014, two putative class action complaints were
filed in the United States Southern District of New York against
the Company, its directors and certain of its executive officers
alleging violations of the federal securities laws in connection
with the Company's IPO. The first complaint, filed on February 13,
2014, was captioned Eugene Stricker vs. Coty Inc., et al., (the
"Stricker Action"), while the second complaint, filed February 21,
2014, was captioned Norman C. Carey vs. Coty Inc., et al., (the
"Carey Action").

The Stricker Action and the Carey Action have been consolidated
under the caption In re Coty Inc. Securities Litigation
("Securities Litigation"), and following the court's appointment
of lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, a consolidated and amended
complaint (the "Securities Complaint") was filed on July 7, 2014.
The Securities Complaint asserts claims against the Company, its
directors and certain of its executive officers under Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities
Act"), and seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's
Class A Common Stock in the IPO, rescission, damages of an
unspecified amount and equitable or injunctive relief. The
Securities Complaint alleges, inter alia, a failure to disclose a
negative trend in color cosmetics and nail products sales, the end
of a partnership with a retailer, and destocking activity by U.S.
mass retailers.

In September 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Securities Complaint related to the Securities Litigation. In
October 2014, the plaintiffs in the Securities Litigation were
permitted to file an amended complaint and briefing on a revised
motion to dismiss was completed in December 2014. The motion is
currently under judicial consideration. The Company believes the
lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously defend it.


CRAWFORD & COMPANY: "Branham" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leonard Branham and Tirfari Smith, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Crawford & Company, Case No.
1:15-cv-02401-RWS (N.D. Ga., July 6, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and pre- and post-judgment
interest pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, Crawford & Company is a
provider of claims management solutions to insurance companies and
self-insured entities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward C. Konieczny, Esq.
      EDWARD C. KONIECZNY LLC
      Suite 2260, 230 Peachtree Street, NW
      Atlanta, GA 30303
      Telephone: (404) 380-1430
      Facsimile: (404) 382-6011
      E-mail: ed@koniecznylaw.com

         - and -

      April Walter, Esq.
      Michael Starzyk, Esq.
      STARZYK & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      10200 Grogans Mill Road
      The Woodland, TX 77380
      Telephone: (281) 354-7261
      E-mail: awalter@starzyklaw.com
              mstarzyk@starzyklaw.com


CSX: Faces Class Action Over July 2 Train Derailment
----------------------------------------------------
WATE.com reports that an attorney is seeking class action status
for a lawsuit filed on July 10 for residents evacuated as a result
of a recent CSX train derailment.

Kevin W. Shepherd said he has filed the lawsuit along with
affiliate law firm Bellovin and Karnas, P.C. Bellovin and Karnas,
P.C., based out of Tucson, Arizona has prior experience with class
action and toxic chemical tort litigation.  The suit names husband
and wife Aaron and Kelli Johnson as plaintiffs and alleges CSX was
"negligent and caused a nuisance resulting in evacuation."  The
Johnsons were among the 5,000 people who had to evacuate when a
train car containing toxic chemical acrylonitrile derailed on
July 2.

WATE 6 On Your Side spoke with Jill Fox who said she disagrees
with the class action lawsuit filed against CSX.

"I don't think they were negligent at all.  They were very quick
to respond.  They knew there was a possibility of severe
consequences and they acted quickly to remove the people that were
in the danger," said Ms. Fox.

Others in the Maryville community like Justin Johnson who has six
children would like some answers first.

"Was it a lack in responsibility from CSX to not maintenance their
cars? Was it just an accident?," said Mr. Johnson.

Mr. Shepherd says the lawsuit is only to cover disruption and
nuisance caused to people's lives, not those who suffered physical
injuries.  He says that will result in separate lawsuits.

CSX says it is unable to comment on pending litigation.

Maryville, Alcoa and Blount County officials said on July 10 well
water testing is still underway.  Results for 83 of 112 wells are
in and no new detections of the chemical acrylonitrile have been
discovered.  Levels remain elevated in one well near the
derailment site.  An advisory is still in place in the area.

Residents can request an application for compensation by calling
1-877-TELL-CSX.


CSX: Train Accident Victim Can Have Access to Video Surveillance
----------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a man who was severely injured after being hit by a CSX freight
train can have access to the railroad's video surveillance
recordings, but a federal judge has ruled that he may not share it
outside of the courtroom.

Jonathan Lopez, who was struck by a train in Cambria County while
walking on an adjacent sidewalk, sought data, video, documents and
information generated by the "LocoCam" system.  The recording
system "captures video of incidents that occur on or near a
railroad right-of-way and records the train's movement along the
tracks, including visual images, speed, horn, direction, bell and
emergency brake application," wrote U.S. District Judge Kim R.
Gibson of the Western District of Pennsylvania in her opinion.
CSX was willing to hand over the LocoCam recordings to Lopez, but
was concerned that Lopez would publicly disseminate the data.

According to Judge Gibson, Mr. Lopez said as much in court papers,
claiming the public had an interest in having access to the data
and that CSX has no right to privacy as a corporation.

But Judge Gibson decided the LocoCam data should be restricted
solely to litigation.

"Defendant argues that the LocoCam data disk contains information
that is relevant only to this case and should not be used to
develop other litigation or to publicly embarrass the defendant.
The court agrees," Judge Gibson said.  "The LocoCam data disk is
highly relevant to the claims and defenses in this case, and
plaintiff must be given complete access to the video and data
contained on that disk.  However, plaintiff will not be permitted
to have unrestricted use of that information for purposes not
related to the instant litigation."

According to Judge Gibson, the parties initially tried to come up
with confidentiality agreements, but neither agreed with the
other's version.

Mr. Lopez claimed CSX's proposed agreement was too broad, as it
requested blanket coverage.  The defendant argued Mr. Lopez's
confidentiality agreement did not address the company's specific
concerns over the LocoCam data.

Specifically, CSX wanted Lopez and his lawyer to return the
LocoCam data disk after the conclusion of the case, to use that
data for litigation only, and to enter into a protective order in
order to obtain the proprietary software to play the video.
Ultimately, Mr. Lopez asked the court to compel the LocoCam data.
Gibson granted the request, but with the caveat that "the video
and data on the LocoCam data disk is to be used solely for the
instant litigation; the information from the LocoCam disk is not
to be disseminated to individuals not involved in this case; and
plaintiff shall return all copies of the data disk to defendant at
the conclusion of this litigation."

CSX asked the court for a protective order regarding any recorded
depositions taken of its employees.  According to Judge Gibson,
CSX did not object to Lopez taking video depositions, but the
company wanted to protect itself from having the recordings
disseminated.

CSX asserted that it "does not wish to see videos and transcripts
of its employees appear in media outlets, uploaded to the
Internet, or displayed at conferences or on other distribution
systems," Judge Gibson said.  The defendant "contends that, if
information from the depositions is disclosed to the public, then
employees of the defendant would be subject to annoyance,
embarrassment, and oppression."

Judge Gibson said CSX was also concerned that altered images from
the depositions could be used to harm CSX's business interests and
be used "for sensationalism or to taint the jury pool."

CSX claimed that one of the reasons for its caution was the
plaintiff's objection to limiting the use of video depositions.
"Plaintiff has suggested that he should be permitted to 'share
knowledge and information about crossing collisions with any of
the hundreds of people involved in train collisions, . . . share
through continuing legal education or collaboration with other
counsel representing such persons,'" Judge Gibson said.
"Likewise, plaintiff stated that he should be permitted to combat
the 'public image campaign' concerning safety that CSX
Transportation has waged in the public sphere.  Accordingly, based
on these concessions by plaintiff, the court finds that disclosure
of the recorded depositions of defendant's employees may be used
to embarrass defendant, thus weighing in favor of a protective
order."

Mr. Lopez's attorney, Nicholas I. Timko of Kahn Gordon Timko &
Rodriques in New York, and CSX's attorney, Kendra L. Smith --
klsmith@smithbutzlaw.com -- of Smith Butz in Canonsburg, did not
return calls seeking comment.

Railroad litigation attorney James McEldrew of McEldrew Young --
jim@mceldrewyoung.com -- who is not involved in the Lopez-CSX
case, said the decision could have implications in other cases,
including the Amtrak litigation in the Eastern District,
emphasizing that public safety should always trump corporate
privacy concerns.

"I think that the big issue here is that the judge is limiting the
dissemination of crucial evidence that could be beneficial to
public welfare, law firms and other people who have been injured,"
he said.

He added, "If there were gag orders in asbestos cases . . . and
discovery was only limited to the case in front of the court, just
think of the damage that could do to other injured people who
might not have that information."

"I just think this is unfair to the people victimized by the
railroads," Mr. McEldrew said.


DB STRUCTURED: Statute of Limitations Clarified
-----------------------------------------------
Joel Stashenko, writing for Law.com, reports that New York's six-
year statute of limitations on mortgage repurchase suits begins to
run when the bonds are purchased, not after problems with the
loans become apparent, a unanimous Court of Appeals ruled on
June 11.

The case, ACE Securities Corp. v. DB Structured Products, 85, had
been watched carefully by the banking and mortgage-backed
securities industries for its potential impact on the financial
services industry.  The court had accepted a dozen amici curiae
from groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Mortgage
Bankers Association.

The 6-0 court upheld an Appellate Division, First Department,
panel's ruling that found untimely a lawsuit that claimed false
representations and warranties were made to investors about the
strength of more than $500 million worth of certificates in 2006.
The court said it was unrealistic to see the repurchase guarantees
as open-ended and contingent on unforeseeable future developments
affecting the mortgages.

"It makes sense that DBSP (DB Structured Products), as sponsor and
seller, would not guarantee future performance of the mortgage
loans," Judge Susan Phillips Read wrote for the court.  "A sponsor
does not guarantee payment for the life of the transaction because
loans may default 10 or 20 years after they have been issued for
reasons entirely unrelated to the sponsor's representations and
warranties."

Judge Read said the investor trust failed to distinguish between a
demand contingent on a party's performance and one that seeks a
remedy for a pre-existing wrong.  She wrote that the Court of
Appeals has recognized the difference for well over a century,
since Fisher v. Mayor of the City of New York, 67 NY 73 (1876),
and Dickinson v. Mayor of City of New York, 92 NY 584 (1883).

"The trust suffered a legal wrong at the moment DBSP allegedly
breached the representations and warranties," she wrote.  "This is
like the situation in Dickinson, and unlike the situation in
Fisher, where no cause of action existed until the demand was
made.  Here a cause of action existed for breach of a
representation and warranty; the trust was just limited in its
remedies for that breach.  Hence, the condition was a procedural
prerequisite to suit."

The repurchase obligation from DBSP was not a "separate and
continuing promise of future performance," but the investors' sole
remedy if DBSP breached its representations and warranties,
Judge Read wrote.

In setting the issuance date as the date when the statute of
limitations began to run, the court rejected the plaintiffs'
contention that the claim was filed validly when DBSP refused to
cure the breach of its warranties.

The mortgage loan purchase agreement contained provisions that
DBSP was required to repurchase the affected loan or substitute a
qualified loan within 90 days of receiving notice of the breach.

DBSP did not act on the investors' demand.

Judge Read wrote that DBSP's failure to cure or repurchase the
certificates was "not a substantive condition precedent" that
deferred accrual of the trust's claim past March 28, 2006, the
date that the court has now recognized as the operative one for a
suit.

The bottom line, she said, was that "the trust simply failed to
pursue its contractual remedy within six years of the alleged
breach."

Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman and Judges Eugene Pigott Jr.,
Jenny Rivera, Leslie Stein and Eugene Fahey joined in the ruling.
Judge Sheila Abdus-Salaam did not take part.

The investments consisted of 8,800 residential mortgages which
were pooled, placed in a trust and securitized through the sale of
more than $500 million in certificates to investors.

The mortgage loan purchase agreement, in which DBSP made
representations about the strength of the investments, was entered
into in March 2006.

Judge Read wrote that "importantly," the pooling and loan purchase
agreement stated that the lone remedy available to the trust if
DBSP "breach[ed] any of the representations and warranties" was
through DBSP's cure or repurchase of the non-conforming loans.

The investments, like many in the residential mortgage area, were
not sound.  Investors sued DBSP in March 2012, seeking more than
$250 million in damages.  Total losses on under- or non-performing
mortgages were about $330 million, according to court papers.

According to the June 11 ruling, two independent investment funds
which held some of the certificates, RMBS Recovery Holdings 4 and
VP Structured Products, had a forensic mortgage loan review
performed.  It showed that 99 percent of the loans checked
allegedly failed to comply with at least one of the 50
representations and guaranties that DBSP made in the purchase
agreement.

Avoiding 'Unpredictability'

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce urged the court to reach the
conclusion it did, arguing that favoring the plaintiffs would
"replace certainty with confusion" and undermine central values of
New York's commercial law by shifting the accrual of the statute
of limitations in cases involving residential mortgage-backed
securities.

The national Mortgage Bankers Association also warned the court
that it could create unpredictability if the judges interpreted
New York law as allowing the statute of limitations to accrue from
when a trustee chooses to demand redress for a breach of a
representation.

"That interpretation effectively would create a perpetual statute
of limitations over the lifetime of the loans and permit the
trustee to bring suit decades after the breach in question
occurred," the bankers' group said.

The Association of Mortgage Investors, on the other hand, said
adopting the defendant's position would put an unfair burden on
investors to tell when investments are sound based on the
representations they are given at the time of purchase agreement.

That, the mortgage investors contended, would be contrary to
"terms of the contracts, the expectations of market participants,
New York law and sound policy."

The Association of Financial Guaranty Insurers also said the
interests of investors must be protected through ruling against
DBSP in the case.

"Limiting the cure or repurchase obligation to the first six years
of the transaction, contrary to the terms of the governing
contracts, would force a financial guaranty insurer to bear the
risk of the defective loans for most of the duration of the
financial guaranty insurance policy," the financial guaranty
association said.

The ruling upheld the First Department's determination in ACE
Securities Corp. v. DB Structured Products, 112 AD3d 522 (2013).
That decision had reversed a ruling by Manhattan Supreme Court
Justice Shirley Kornreich in ACE Securities Corp. v. DB Structured
Products, 965 N.Y.S.2d 844 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County 2013).  Justice
Kornreich ruled that the claim did not accrue until the breach by
DBSP, which she dated from when it failed to repurchase the loans
(NYLJ, June 13, 2013).


DEALERTRACK TECHNOLOGIES: Sued in Del. Over Proposed Cox Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Hoff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Dealertrack Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No.
11254-CB (Del. Ch., July 6, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the
public stockholders of Dealertrack Technologies, Inc., to enjoin
the proposed acquisition of Dealertrack by Cox Automotive, Inc.,
through a flawed process, inadequate consideration, and unfair
price.

Dealertrack Technologies, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and
maintains its principal executive offices at 1111 Marcus Avenue,
Suite M04, Lake Success, New York 11042. Dealertrack is a United
States and Canadian provider of web-based software solutions and
services to the automotive industry.

Cox Automotive, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with principal
executive offices located at 3003 Summit Boulevard, Suite 200,
Atlanta, Georgia 30319. Cox is a worldwide provider of remarketing
services and digital marketing software solutions for the
automotive ecosystem.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Filed Answer to Second Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dynavax Technologies 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
has filed an answer to the Second Amended Complaint in the
securities class action lawsuit.

On June 18, 2013, the first of two substantially similar
securities class action complaints was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company
and certain of its former executive officers. The second was filed
on June 26, 2013. On August 22, 2013, these two complaints and all
related actions that subsequently may be filed in, or transferred
to, the District Court were consolidated into a single case
entitled In re Dynavax Technologies Securities Litigation. On
September 27, 2013, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel. On November 12, 2013, lead plaintiff filed his
consolidated class action complaint (the "consolidated
complaint"), which named a former director of the Company as a
defendant in addition to the Company and the former executive
officers identified in the two prior complaints (collectively, the
"defendants"). The consolidated complaint alleged that between
April 26, 2012 and June 10, 2013, the Company and certain of its
executive officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, in connection with statements related to the Company's
product, HEPLISAV-B, an investigational adult hepatitis B vaccine.
The consolidated complaint sought unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, and other costs. On January 10, 2014, defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

On March 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint. The opposition introduced a
new theory of the case, so defendants permitted plaintiffs to
amend their complaint. On April 7, 2014, plaintiffs filed an
amended consolidated complaint ("ACC"). The ACC added a new
plaintiff and several new defendants, and alleged that, between
April 26, 2012 and June 10, 2013, the Company, certain of its
executive officers and directors, and entities related to certain
of its directors, violated Sections 10(b), 20A, and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder in connection with statements related to our product
candidate, HEPLISAV-B. Specifically, the ACC alleged that the
Company made fraudulent misrepresentations or omissions regarding
the manufacture of HEPLISAV-B and that certain insiders unlawfully
profited from such misrepresentations or omissions. The ACC sought
unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs.
On June 6, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the ACC. On
August 8, 2014, plaintiffs filed their Opposition to that motion.

On September 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed the second amended
complaint ("SAC") to remove or correct erroneous statements
attributed to confidential witnesses. The SAC retains all
allegations asserted in the ACC. On October 10, 2014, defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the SAC. On November 10, 2014,
plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss
the SAC. The Company filed its reply in support of the motion on
December 1, 2014.

A hearing on the motion to dismiss the SAC occurred on February
20, 2015. The Court granted the motion with respect to some of the
alleged misrepresentations and omissions made by the Company or
certain named defendants as well as some of the insider trading
claims against certain insiders and denied the motion to dismiss
with respect to other alleged misrepresentations and omissions and
insider trading claims. The Company filed an answer to the SAC on
April 6, 2015.


EACO CHEM: Pinegate Residents Mull Class Suit Over Paint Remover
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eileen Park, writing for WNCN, reports that some residents of a
Chapel Hill apartment complex where they say paint remover was
improperly used are planning on filing a class action lawsuit.

On July 8, 10 people and three dogs at apartments on PineGate
Circle were injured when a contractor used a chemical stripper
cream.  A total of 128 units were affected and many residents were
evacuated and put in hotels.

Raleigh-based company PPE was hired by the complex to strip the
paint off the floors of some of their hallways.  Residents say
PineGate management first sent a warning notice, asking residents
to take caution when entering and exiting their apartments while
the work was being done.

Complex resident Jana Joksimovic said the apartment should have
evacuated the tenants because of what she heard one of the workers
tell her.

"He said, 'I don't know what your apartment complex was thinking
but this was not supposed to be done in building where people are
actually living.  It's supposed to be done in buildings that are
empty.' "

Virignia-based GSC, the company that owns PineGate Apartments, has
a Durham office.

Regional Vice President Terry Myers said the company was going to
investigate if it is going to compensate victims for their medical
and veterinarian expenses.

The chemical used by PPE is known as "Stripper Cream."  It is
produced by a company called EaCo Chem.

On EaCo's website, it advertises its products are "safe" but did
mention that "Stripper Cream" can cause damage to the skin, if it
makes contact.

According to the BBB, GSC has multiple complaints against it over
the years.  GSC is not an accredited BBB company.

In the meantime, residents said they plan on filing a class action
lawsuit.


ENERGY COMPLETION: "Stepherson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cody Stepherson, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. Energy Completion Services, LP, Case No.
4:15-cv-01929 (S.D. Tex., July 6, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Energy Completion Services, LP operates an oil field equipment
rental and service company that rents equipment to third parties
to be used in drilling operations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
      TRAN LAW FIRM LLP
      9801 Westheimer Road, Ste. 302
      Houston, TX 77042
      Telephone: (713) 223-8855
      Facsimile: (713) 623-6399
      E-mail: ttran@tranlawllp.com


EXTREME NETWORKS: Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Extreme Networks, 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 denied
Plaintiffs' motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication.

On or about February 3, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed in
the Commonwealth of Kentucky against Enterasys Networks, Inc. and
two other defendants.  The complaint alleges that Enterasys and
its subcontractor, TJL Information Technologies, Inc., d.b.a.
Unbridled Information Technologies ("Subcontractor"), violated
Kentucky's wage and hour laws and failed to pay the prevailing
wage in violation of the Kentucky State Prevailing Wage Act (the
"Act") on various public works projects for a number of Kentucky
government agencies since January 2010.  Plaintiffs also allege
common law actions for quantum merit and unjust enrichment and
they seek monetary damages, costs, expenses and attorney fees,
although there was no quantified amount identified.  One of the
defendants, Integrated Facility Systems, LLC ("IFS"), has also
filed a cross-claim against Enterasys.  The Company denies the
claims and filed answers to both the complaint and cross-claim on
April 16, 2014.  In addition, the Company filed a cross-claim for
indemnity against IFS.

Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on September 26, 2014,
in which they named Commonwealth of Kentucky's Office of
Technology under the State's Finance and Administration Cabinet
("COT") as a defendant.  The Company filed an answer to the
Plaintiffs' first amended complaint on October 10, 2014. COT then
filed a motion to dismiss COT as a defendant in this lawsuit and
the court granted COT's motion. Plaintiffs filed a motion for
Summary Judgment/Adjudication on the issue of whether the work
performed by the defendants constitutes "construction" under the
Act, which was denied on February 26, 2015. Given the preliminary
nature of the lawsuit, it is premature to assess the likelihood of
a particular outcome.


EXXON MOBIL: NY Seeks Dismissal of Contamination Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Keshner, writing for Law.com, reports that New York City is
asking a New Jersey judge to reject a controversial settlement in
which Exxon Mobil would pay $225 million to end long-running
litigation over contamination from refineries near the city.

"The proposed settlement does not adequately compensate for
natural resource damages caused by Exxon Facilities, does not
ensure that those damages will be remediated, and does not address
-- and in fact indefinitely defers addressing -- damages to the
[New York-New Jersey] Harbor and its resources," said Haley Stein,
senior counsel in the New York City Law Department's Environmental
Law Division.

Ms. Stein offered the city's view during a public comment period
that the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection is
holding on the proposed pact.

The proposed settlement in the 11-year-old case has come under
fire because the state originally pressed for damages up to $8.9
billion.

A $225 million settlement would pay less than 3 cents on the
dollar for the original $8.9 billion.

The case is before retired Burlington County Superior Court Judge
Michael Hogan, who is serving on recall after trying the case last
year.

Ms. Stein's letter noted the Linden and Bayonne refineries were
located in water bodies bordering the city and contamination
affected the entire harbor estuary.  Since 2002, the city has
spent more than $6 billion improving water quality in the New York
harbor.

A settlement was a "rare opportunity to further improve the health
of the harbor and its waterways and to hold Exxon accountable,"
Ms. Stein said.  But the settlement, as drafted, did not
"adequately compensate for the extensive and well documented
natural resource damage caused by the Exxon Facilities and does
not ensure that those damages will be addressed," Ms. Stein said.


FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: Updated Conservatorship Litigation Chart
------------------------------------------------------------------
At http://bankrupt.com/gselitigationsummary201507.pdfeditors of
the Troubled Company Reporter and Class Action Reporter have
posted a chart, updated on July 14, 2015, organizing information
about the 25 lawsuits complaining about how the Department of the
Treasury and the Federal Housing Finance Administration are
handling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's conservatorship proceedings.
Unaltered, this chart may be freely shared with anyone for any
purpose, notwithstanding that it is copyrighted by Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., and Beard Group, Inc., and all rights
are reserved by the publishers.  For additional information,
contact Peter A. Chapman at peter@beard.com by e-mail or (215)
945-7000 by telephone.

The newest lawsuit challenging the government's action is Saxton
v. FHFA, Case No. 15-cv-00047 (N.D. Iowa).  The plaintiffs are
represented by Alexander M. Johnson and Sean P. Moore at Brown,
Winick, Graves, Gross, Baskerville and Schoenebaum, P.L.C.  The
government's motions to dismiss are scheduled to be filed by Sept.
4, 2015, and briefing on those motions to dismiss should be
completed by Nov. 23, 2015.

Last week, the Honorable Margaret M. Sweeney entered an order in
Fairholme v. U.S., Case No. 13-465 (Ct. Fed. Cl.), setting Sept.
4, 2015, as the date to complete jurisdictional discovery, and
directing the parties to file a status report by Sept. 18, 2015,
letting her know how they want to proceed.  When jurisdictional
discovery is completed, Fairholme should have what it needs to
respond to the Government's motion to dismiss (Doc. 20, filed Dec.
9, 2013) Fairholme's complaint.  The completion of jurisdictional
discovery in Fairholme v. U.S. will also trigger in the Court of
Federal Claims:

    (A) the filing of the Government's motion to dismiss Arrowood
v. U.S.;

    (B) setting deadlines for the plaintiffs to file their
responses to the Government's motions to dismiss Cacciapalle v.
U.S., Fisher v. U.S., and Washington Federal v. U.S.; and

    (C) the filing of the Government's answers to or motions to
dismiss the complaints filed in Rafter v. U.S. and Reid v. U.S.

In Perry v. Lew, No. 14-5243 (D.C. Cir.), challenging Judge
Lamberth's dismissal of Fannie and Freddie shareholders' lawsuits
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, two
opening briefs have been filed by:

    (1) the Institutional Appellants -- Perry Capital is
represented by Theodore B. Olson and Matthew D. McGill at Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher LLP; Arrowood Indemnity is represented by Dentons
US LLP; and Fairholme is represented by Charles C. Cooper at
Cooper & Kirk PLLC; and

    (2) the Class Appellants -- the shareholder class is
represented by Hamish P.M. Hume at Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP,
and lawyers at Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP; Grant &
Eisenhofer; Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP; and Pomerantz
Grossman Hufford Dahlstron & Gross LLP.

Eight amici curiae have appeared in the appellate proceeding
before the D.C. circuit in support of the shareholder-appellants:

    (a) the Center for Individual Freedom, represented by Myron T.
Steele, Esq., at Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP (former Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court of Delaware, a Judge of the Superior
Court, and a Vice Chancellor of the Delaware Court of Chancery),
arguing that the Net Worth Sweep is unenforceable and void ab
initio under Delaware General Corporation Law Sec. 151(c);

    (b) the Independent Community Bankers of America, the
Association of Mortgage Investors, former FDIC chairman William M.
Isaac, and bank consultant Robert H. Hartheimer at Hartheimer LLC,
represented by Dechert LLP, saying something's very wrong when
shareholders would fair better and their rights are superior in a
liquidation rather than a rehabilitation;

    (c) 60 Plus Association, Inc., represented by Holland & Knight
LLP, examining the conservator-conservatee relationship and the
duties of loyalty and prudence a conservator owes a conservatee;

    (d) the National Black Chamber of Commerce (supporting neither
party), represented by Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, tell the
court about Fannie and Freddie's importance in providing
affordable conventional mortgages to African-Americans;

    (e) Investors Unite, represented by Mr. Krimminger, see n. 3,
supra, offering his unique perspective as one of HERA's authors
about how HERA was modeled on FDIC legislation, that nobody
authoring HERA contemplated anything like the Third Amendment, and
the Third Amendment is wrong;

    (f) former Fannie CFO J. Timothy Howard and the Coalition for
Mortgage Security, represented by Consovoy McCarthy Park PLLC,
providing the appellate tribunal with his insights into GSE
accounting, his conclusion that the GSEs didn't need cash from
Treasury to solve a liquidity problem, and how the one-sided
nature of the deal makes it grossly unfair;

    (g) Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P. (the GSEs'
largest shareholder), represented by Jones Day, talking about
statutory construction, suggest rules for reading HERA, and urging
the appeals court to reverse Judge Lamberth's decision and tell
him to tell the conservator to conserve; and

    (h) Prof. Jonathan R, Macey at Yale Law School providing
additional information, based on his research and expertise, about
how the Third Amendment constitutes an improper regulatory takings
by the government from GSE shareholders.

Final briefs in Perry v. Lew are due Nov. 30, 2015.


FEDEX GROUND: Ruling on Drivers' Employee Status Reversed
---------------------------------------------------------
Alyson Palmer, writing for Daily Report, reports that it's unclear
whether FedEx drivers are employees of the company, a federal
appeals court panel ruled on May 28.

The question is key to resolving a group of Florida drivers'
claims, one of several cases nationally in which FedEx drivers are
seeking reimbursement of business expenses.  Reversing a lower
court judge's ruling for FedEx that had said the drivers were
independent contractors, the panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit said factors weighing on both sides of
the argument meant the question of employee status was one for a
jury.

"If asked, a good number of [FedEx] customers would probably say
that they believe (or reasonably assume) that the drivers of those
white trucks are employed by FedEx," wrote Judge Adalberto Jordan
for the panel.  "The law, however, sometimes has a funny way of
making hard what would otherwise seem intuitively simple, and that
is the case with the legal status of FedEx's drivers."

The Florida drivers filed suit against FedEx Ground Package
Systems in 2005, asserting claims under Florida's Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act and common law claims such as breach of
contract and fraud.  For one thing, the drivers are seeking
recoupment of a fee they paid to obtain items such as uniforms and
scanners used to track packages.

Between 2003 and 2009, drivers in about 40 other states filed
similar actions against FedEx.  The cases were consolidated and
transferred to the Northern District of Indiana by the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.  Many of those actions are now
on appeal before the Seventh Circuit.

U.S. District Judge Robert Miller Jr. of the Northern District of
Indiana granted the Florida drivers' motion to certify the case as
a class action, certifying a class of about 1,600 drivers who
drove full-time for FedEx Ground or FedEx Home Delivery between
2000 and 2007.  But he then granted FedEx's motion for summary
judgment, agreeing with FedEx that the drivers were merely
independent contractors, not FedEx employees.

Miller then sent the case back to the Middle District of Florida,
where U.S. District Judge Susan Bucklew granted summary judgment
to FedEx on some individual drivers' claims.  The drivers appealed
those rulings to the Eleventh Circuit.

There, joined by Chief Judge Ed Carnes and Judge Robin Rosenbaum,
Jordan noted that the Florida drivers' claims would stand or fall
on whether FedEx properly classified them as independent
contractors.  The standard contract that FedEx drivers sign says
that they are providing services "strictly as . . . independent
contractor[s]."  Under Florida law, wrote Jordan, that agreement
helps FedEx's argument, but the drivers may still be deemed
employees if other provisions of the agreement or the parties'
actual practice demonstrate that the company's independent
contractor designation is not valid.

Several factors support FedEx's position, said Judge Jordan.  For
instance, he noted the company pays drivers based in part on the
number of packages and stops in a driver's service area and does
not withhold for taxes or health insurance. Drivers can sell part
or all of their service area to other drivers with notice to FedEx
and are responsible for all costs associated with the purchase,
lease and maintenance of their trucks.

But other factors undermine FedEx's position, said Judge Jordan.
He said the driver contract and standard practices provided "an
exhaustive and detailed list of procedures" that FedEx drivers are
to follow in handling their work.  A driver's choice of truck is
subject to FedEx's determination that the vehicle is suitable and
subject to specific requirements as to height, length, bumper
height and cargo box size, he noted.  Certain bonuses are
dependent on usage of a scanner for all pickups.  Drivers must
prepare daily logs and are even instructed by FedEx how they
should load a van -- beginning with the last package to be
delivered, Jordan wrote.

While reversing the grant of summary judgment to FedEx on the
overall question of whether the Florida drivers are employees or
independent contractors, the court upheld Judge Bucklew's grants
of summary judgment to two drivers on their individual claims.

Matthew Houston of Harwood Feffer in New York, who argued the
appeal for the drivers, said the Eleventh Circuit's decision sends
the case back to the Middle District of Florida for further pre-
trial proceedings.  "We're very pleased with the decision,"
Houston said, "because it makes clear that employment status under
Florida law is not just a matter of self-serving labels. So we
think this is a great result."

Barry Richard of Greenberg Traurig's Tallahassee office, who
argued at the Eleventh Circuit for FedEx, could not be reached for
comment.

The case is Carlson v. FedEx Ground Package Systems, No. 13-14979.


FIAT CHRYSLER: Jeep Fire Death Suit Plaintiffs Open to Award Cut
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katheryn Hayes Tucker, writing for Daily Report, reports that the
winners of a $150 million verdict for the death of a 4-year-old
boy inside a burning Jeep said on June 8 they are open to the
judge reducing the award.

It's the one point of agreement between dueling briefs filled
after the April trial in Bainbridge.  And it's a decision that
will have to be made by Superior Court Judge J. Kevin Chason of
the South Georgia Judicial Circuit.  Both sides have said they are
looking to his discretion.

The post-trial battle began in May when Fiat Chrysler Automobiles,
called by its former name "Chrysler" during the trial, complained
to the court that "the jury's stunning and unprecedented damage
awards are grossly excessive and cannot stand."  The company asked
the judge to order a new trial unless the parents of Remington
Walden "consent to a substantial remittitur."

Remi's parents filed an answer to Chrysler's motion on June 8,
saying said they are open to such a reduction in the judgment.

"Plaintiffs agree with FCA about one thing: remittitur lies in the
sound discretion of the court," plaintiffs' attorney James "Jim"
Butler Jr. of Butler Wooten Cheeley & Peak wrote in the brief.

"Plaintiffs defer to the court, and do not oppose a reasonable
remittitur that this court deems appropriate."

Beyond that, the two sides appear to disagree on everything else.
Even the company's name has become a point of contention.  The
name was Chrysler when the lawsuit was filed over the 2012 death
of Remi in his aunt's Jeep Grand Cherokee, which has just been hit
from behind.  After his aunt and the other driver -- who were both
unhurt -- stepped out of their vehicles, the Jeep gas tank
exploded, with Remi still buckled in his car seat, according to
court records filed by both sides.

The company was later purchased by the Italian automaker Fiat. In
post-trial briefing, the company objected to the plaintiffs
lawyers' use of the term "American citizens" in describing others
who'd been injured in Jeep gas tank explosions.  The company
accused the other side of inflaming prejudice against foreigners.
But it was lawyers for Chrysler, not the plaintiffs, who used the
word "Italian" to refer to the automaker, wrote Butler, who tried
the case with his son, James "Jeb" Butler III of Butler Tobin.
Also in the response filed on June 8, Mr. Butler accused Chrysler
of blaming everyone but itself for making "an indefensible
product" with a dangerous gas tank sitting below and behind the
rear axle instead of in a safer "midships" position between the
axles.

Mr. Butler said in the brief in response that Chrysler based its
new trial motion on an old lawyer's adage: "If the facts are
against you, hammer the law.  If the law is against you, hammer
the facts. If the facts and the law are against you, hammer
opposing counsel."

A spokesman for Chrysler said the company could not respond
because it had not yet been served with Mr. Butler's brief.
Chrysler is being represented by M. Diane Owens of Swift, Currie,
McGhee & Hiers and local counsel Bruce Kirbo Jr. of Bainbridge.
A showdown between the Butlers and the Chrysler lawyers was set
for 1:15 p.m. July 14 before Chason at the Decatur County Superior
Court in Bainbridge.

The case is Walden v. Chrysler, No. 12-CV-472.


FULTON COUNTY, GA: Ruling in Public Defenders' Salary Suit Upheld
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alyson Palmer, writing for Daily Report, reports that the Georgia
Court of Appeals has affirmed a ruling in favor of 64 current and
former Fulton County public defenders who claim they've been
underpaid.

The June 11 decision upholds the decision of Fulton Superior Court
Judge Kelly Lee Ellerbe, who concluded the county illegally paid
public defenders less than identically classified attorneys in the
Office of the County Attorney.  According to a release by the
public defenders' law firm, Parks Chesin & Walbert, the amount of
back pay owed to the public defenders likely exceeds $8 million --
and is growing.

Joined by Judges Anne Elizabeth Barnes and William Ray II, Judge
Carla Wong McMillian said that although the county may be correct
that differences among the function and budgets of the legal
departments warranted different pay scales, the county must -- but
did not -- follow the personnel regulations.

Lee Parks, lead counsel for the public defenders, said in the
release that the appeals court decision means "Fulton County can
no longer ignore its legal obligation to comply with its own civil
system that guarantees equal pay for equal work . . . . We hope
the county will see the 'writing on the wall' and end what is now
a decade of litigation."

Last year, Fulton County paid about $4.8 million to resolve
similar claims by current and former staff attorneys for the
Fulton State and Superior Courts, after losing its appeal in that
case.  Parks Chesin also represents attorneys for the county
solicitor's office, juvenile court and district attorney's office
on similar pending claims against the county.

Interim County Attorney Jerolyn Ferrari could not be reached for
comment.


GEARBOX: Pitchford Says Class Suit an "Extortion Tactic"
--------------------------------------------------------
Brett Makedonski, writing for Destructoid, reports that Gearbox
Software's 2013 Aliens: Colonial Marines is possibly the best
recent example of a game gone completely awry.  The reception was
almost universally negative from fans and critics alike.  The
pre-release footage was often significantly different (and better)
than the final product.  Compounding everything was the fact that
Colonial Marines was highly anticipated due to it being hyped as a
canonical sequel to the film Aliens.

When everything bottomed out, the public came looking for answers.
It led to attorneys from Edelson, LLC filing a proposed class
action lawsuit on behalf of everyone who bought the game.  Sega
ended up settling the matter for $1.25 million, but Gearbox was
recently dismissed from the suit after refusing to settle and the
action failing to earn class status.

Gearbox head Randy Pitchford has no qualms with expressing how he
thought that lawsuit was frivolous.  In a recent interview with
GamesIndustry International, Mr. Pitchford says "That whole thing
was a huge waste of time.  The legal system failed as it was being
manipulated by what appeared to me to be, essentially, mafia-style
extortion tactics."

He continued "Sadly, the manipulation would have actually worked,
as it had in other cases with those same guys and to the detriment
of the industry and gamers and actual, you know, justice.  But,
those guys made a mistake in naming us as defendants because we
stood up to them.  That's all it took -- someone to stand up to
them. And so they lost since they didn't have a legitimate case."

Mr. Pitchford also expressed that he believes that the market
should judge a product, not the legal system.  He believes it
worked in the case of Aliens: Colonial Marines, as he said "The
market proved it was doing its job perfectly.  The market is
dispassionate -- rewarding what it likes and punishing what it
doesn't.  There is an objectivity and fairness in the open
market's harsh, firm justice."

What's left unanswered is Mr. Pitchford's intention with regard to
the free market quote.  It's up to interpretation whether he means
that Colonial Marines was bad and the market reacted accordingly,
or that general interest in the Aliens franchise was too low and
that's why the game didn't succeed.  Regardless of Mr. Pitchford's
thoughts, he's right about one thing: the market wasted no time
doling out harsh and firm justice, forever cementing the legacy of
Aliens: Colonial Marines.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Federal Appeals Court Reinstates Asbestos Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Gialanella, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a New Jersey-based asbestos suit against General Electric Co.
claiming a deceased serviceman developed mesothelioma as a result
of working with jet engines manufactured by the company has been
reinstated by a federal appeals court.

In a July 7 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit found "sufficient evidence for a reasonable fact-finder to
conclude that [the plaintiff's] father was exposed to asbestos
from GE's J79 engine and that the exposure caused his
mesothelioma."

According to the opinion, Carl Brasmer served in the U.S. Air
Force from 1969 to 1973 at bases in South Vietnam, Florida and
Thailand, among other places.  He worked as an assistant crew
chief and crew chief, in which capacity he was responsible for
maintaining and repairing F-4E Phantom jets, which typically were
fitted with the GE J79 engine.

The J79 engine included 147 asbestos-containing gaskets and clamps
that periodically broke down, which an expert said caused asbestos
to proliferate in the engine compartment and the air Mr. Brasmer
was breathing, according to the opinion.

Mr. Brasmer was diagnosed with mesothelioma in February 2012, and
filed a state court suit that April against GE. Also named was
Boeing, which acquired the original manufacturer of the F-4E,
McDonnell Douglas. Boeing, which acknowledged that its engine
parts contained asbestos, was nonetheless dismissed by raising a
"government contractor defense," which protects private
contractors from state-law products liability claims under certain
circumstances, according to the opinion.

The suit was removed to federal court in New Jersey.

Mr. Brasmer was deposed over a few days but was under the
influence of strong medication for parts of the proceedings, and
died before they could be completed.  A wrongful-death claim was
added to the suit by Mr. Brasmer's daughter, Susan Haas, and,
following discovery, both sides moved for summary judgment, the
opinion said.

U.S. District Judge Freda Wolfson of the District of New Jersey
deemed Mr. Brasmer's deposition testimony hearsay, but admitted it
under an exception to the hearsay rule, rejecting GE's claims that
it was unable to cross-examine him.

However, she granted GE's summary judgment motion, holding that a
jury, in order to accept Ms. Haas' claims, would have to infer
that the dust Mr. Brasmer breathed was from GE-manufactured parts
-- and deemed the "'inferential connection . . . too tenuous to
defeat summary judgment,'" according to the Third Circuit's
opinion.

Mr. Haas appealed, and Third Circuit Judges D. Michael Fisher,
Kent A. Jordan and Patty Shwartz reversed, deeming the evidence
"sufficient to defeat summary judgment."

Mr. Brasmer testified that he worked with engine components, and
"GE's own corporate representative . . . admitted that the J79
engine's 147 seals and gaskets Judge contained asbestos and that
the asbestos 'frayed' over time," Jordan wrote for the panel.

"That the seals and gaskets could have been replaced with non-GE
parts and that Brasmer lacked personal knowledge of whether a
particular substance he encountered was actually asbestos does not
change that result," Judge Jordan added.

The court noted the lesser standard to defeat summary judgment in
mesothelioma cases as opposed to other types of asbestos claims.
The court also rejected GE's claim that Mr. Brasmer's deposition
testimony should have been excluded as hearsay, citing the
"similar-motive requirement."

"Here, the co-defendants evidently agreed to allow Boeing's
attorney to be the lead questioner during Brasmer's deposition,"
Judge Jordan said.   "Even then, GE's attorney participated in the
deposition and had the opportunity to object or interfere if it
was deemed necessary."

The attorney also was "able to successfully elicit the information
involving the GE-manufactured J79 engines that provided the basis
for GE's summary judgment motion," he said.

Boeing "avoided liability by . . . raising the 'government
contractor defense,' not by showing some hostility to GE's
interests," Judge Jordan noted.  "Boeing did not endeavor to show
that GE manufactured the asbestos-containing parts that caused
Brasmer's mesothelioma."

Christopher Placitella of Cohen, Placitella & Roth in Red Bank,
Ms. Haas' counsel, said in a statement that the court "recognized
and adopted N.J. state court precedent requiring less exposure for
causation in mesothelioma cases."

He added, "General Electric may be held responsible even if they
did not supply the asbestos replacement parts when they specified
those parts should be used."

Rebecca Wood -- rwood@sidley.com -- of Sidley Austin in
Washington, D.C., who argued for GE, didn't return a call seeking
comment.


GENERAL MOTORS: Lawyers to Be Deposed in Ignition Switch Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Reisinger, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that class
action lawyers suing General Motors Co. over its fatal ignition-
switch problems have lined up several of the automaker's top
lawyers and ex-lawyers for questioning over the next few months,
including former general counsel Michael Millikin and outside
counsel Anton Valukas.

Texas attorney Bob Hilliard, co-lead attorney in the multidistrict
class action against GM, has prepared a list of 55 people to be
deposed, according to a recent article in the Detroit News.

Sometimes called "Bulldog," Mr. Hilliard has a national
reputation.  The name partner of Hilliard Munoz Gonzales in Corpus
Christi also served as liaison counsel for the plaintiffs'
steering committee in litigation against Toyota Motor Corp. for
its unintended acceleration problems two years ago.

Mr. Millikin, who was replaced as GC on March 1 and is set to
retire in July, is scheduled for questioning on Aug. 26.  He has
denied any wrongdoing in the delayed recall of 2.6 million
vehicles with faulty ignition switches that have been blamed for
109 deaths and more than 200 injuries.

A GM internal investigation prepared by outside counsel
Anton Valukas, of Jenner & Block, essentially blamed incompetence
and poor communications for the nearly decadelong delay.
Mr. Valukas is scheduled to be deposed Sept. 24, the News said.

In all, some 15 employees were let go after the Valukas report,
including at least four in-house lawyers, but not Mr. Millikin.
Besides the former GC, the article said Hilliard plans to depose
Frederick Fromm, a vice president and former general counsel of GM
North America from 2009 to 2011.  And others could be added to the
list.

Meanwhile, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on
June 5 released two internal reports that harshly criticized the
agency's handling of GM's switch problems and identified agency
reforms.  One report found that NHTSA didn't follow up on trends
in its own data and investigation, and failed to open a formal
probe into the deadly defect or to demand a timely recall that
could have saved lives.  The other called for 380 new employees
and nearly $90 million in new spending, primarily to beef up its
office of defects investigations to make "a much larger and more
proactive presence in the automotive safety arena." Congress,
however, is unlikely to approve such a budget increase.

"Our obligation to save lives and prevent injuries must include
sober self-examination, and when we find weaknesses, we have to
fix them," NHTSA Administrator Mark Rosekind said in a statement.

         Law Firm Accused of Hiding Ignition Switch Defect

Sue Reisinger, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that in an
effort to crack attorney-client privilege, a plaintiffs lawyer has
accused General Motors Co. and King & Spalding of conspiring to
commit fraud by concealing a defect in ignition switches that led
to more than 109 known deaths and hundreds of injuries over 10
years.

Texas attorney Robert Hilliard's brief, filed on June 11 in U.S.
District Court in Manhattan, seeks production of documents "based
on the crime-fraud exception."  It alleges that GM and the law
firm "conspired to conceal a known safety defect by quietly
settling death and injury cases rather than instituting a recall."
It also accuses the two of lying to a court about the defect.

Mr. Hilliard, a partner with Hilliard Munoz Gonzales in Corpus
Christi, is one of three co-leaders of the multidistrict
litigation against the carmaker.  His brief asks that both GM in-
house counsel and the law firm be compelled to produce for in
camera inspection specific communications and work product
generated "in furtherance of the crime-fraud."  Mr. Hilliard had
subpoenaed the materials in the class action in March, but said
the defendants have declined to produce them.

GM issued a statement saying it "strongly denies the accusations"
and it intends to file "an appropriate response."

"The plaintiffs' motion is largely a rehash of issues discussed
publicly over a year ago and previously reported in the media,"
the statement said.  "Moreover, GM already has produced to
plaintiffs substantial amounts of privileged material, including
many of the very communications sought in their current motion."

King & Spalding declined comment on the brief.  However, in a
state case earlier this year in Cobb County, Georgia, involving
one fatal crash caused by the ignition-switch defect, a different
attorney made a similar demand for attorney-client information.
At that time a team of three lawyers from McKenna Long & Aldridge,
led by Buddy Darden, briefed the matter for King & Spalding.  They
argued that communication among the firm's lawyers was
confidential work product, the firm had no knowledge of any cover-
up and it had done nothing wrong.  Mr. Darden and King & Spalding
declined to comment any further then.

GM settled the Georgia case on March 13, four days before a
hearing was to be held on the work-product question.

Two weeks later, on March 31, Mr. Hilliard issued his subpoena in
the multidistrict litigation before U.S. District Judge Jesse
Furman in Manhattan.  The brief concerns this subpoena.

In an earlier work-product ruling on Jan. 15, Judge Furman said GM
did not have to turn over other privileged attorneys' notes on
interviews conducted during the Anton Valukas internal
investigation of the automaker.  Mr. Valukas, chairman of Jenner &
Block, made his final report public but not his internal notes or
transcripts of interviews.

Mr. Hilliard said his most recent request differs from any earlier
ones.  He said in earlier requests the facts were not as clear as
they are now, that King & Spalding lawyers were advising GM to
settle individual cases so the truth about the scope of the defect
would not come out.

"In documents they have produced, they are confirming that this
defect is greater than any one case they are defending,"
Mr. Hilliard told CorpCounsel.com on June 12.  "Their lawyers are
very good, saying, 'So if a jury finds this evidence [of other
cases], you are going to get hit with a huge punitive damage
award.  So settle.'"

Mr. Hilliard added, "That's good advice, but it's not legal.  That
is why this is a crime-fraud exception."

GM in 2014 finally enacted a recall and paid a $35 million
regulatory fine after signing a consent order acknowledging it
failed to alert the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
to the defect in a timely manner as required by law.

The U.S. Department of Justice is still investigating GM's actions
and is expected to decide this summer whether to charge the
automaker with a crime for taking so long to report the defect and
recall the vehicles.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: 3rd Cir. Allows Thalidomide Client Interviews
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the Third Circuit has refused Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro's
request to stop court interviews of 31 firm clients inquiring
whether they are willingly dismissing their thalidomide claims
against GlaxoSmithKline and others.

In a one-paragraph order May 29, a three-judge panel of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied Hagens Berman's
petition for a writ of mandamus that would have barred the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania from questioning the clients about the
dismissals and simply ordered the dismissals be granted.  Hagens
Berman was initially just seeking a stay of the interviews while
the Third Circuit weighed the merits of the propriety of the
interviews, which were set to begin on June 4.  But the court hit
the merits issue with one sentence and therefore found the request
for a stay moot.

The interviews were suggested by a special master in the
thalidomide litigation and adopted by the district court judge
after the two questioned how the dismissals benefited the clients.
Hagens Berman struck a deal with GSK that, in light of the
dismissals against the company, GSK would drop its bid for
sanctions against Hagens Berman for pursuing three other allegedly
meritless thalidomide cases well into discovery.

The interviews involve 27 clients who are seeking to dismiss their
cases against GSK only and four clients who are seeking to dismiss
their cases against all defendants, which also include Sanofi-
Aventis U.S. and Grunenthal GmbH.

GSK had not taken a position on the propriety of the interviews at
the district court level, but it opposed Hagens Berman's motion
for a stay in the Third Circuit, arguing the interviews were the
quickest way to get the cases dismissed.  Hagens Berman disagreed,
saying the interviews could result in further appeals. The firm's
petition was focused on the argument that the interviews would
violate attorney-client privilege.

There were initially 52 thalidomide cases filed in the Eastern
District that alleged the plaintiffs' birth injuries were caused
by their mothers taking thalidomide during pregnancy.  Some have
been voluntarily dismissed while others have been dismissed on
summary judgment.  In the three cases that resulted in sanctions
awards to GSK and Grunenthal, the court found there was either
evidence that the plaintiffs knew before the statute of
limitations ran out that thalidomide caused their injuries or that
there was no evidence the plaintiffs' mothers took thalidomide.
All three defendants in these matters opposed the stay of the
interviews, but only GSK argued as to their benefits.

"The GSK companies' only interest is and has always been the
prompt and efficient dismissal of unmeritorious claims against
them which should never have been brought in the first instance,"
GSK had said in its opposition to the plaintiffs' expedited motion
to stay.  "For the reasons discussed below, a stay would only
cause unnecessary delay."

GSK had argued that special master William Hangley promised to be
mindful of attorney-client privilege when interviewing the
clients.  The company had also argued the motion to stay was
"speculative and premature" since no interview was scheduled to
take place until June 4 and no infringing question had yet been
asked.

In its reply to the defendants' opposition to the stay, Hagens
Berman attorneys had said the defendants didn't point to any harm
they would face from a stay.  Hagens Berman also argued GSK's
interest in being done with the dismissal process does not mean
privileged communications are not in jeopardy of being revealed.
Hagens Berman had said the questions Mr. Hangley wants to ask
would be asked in front of all defense counsel with the "uniquely
coercive power" of the court's designee.

"GSK is remarkably relaxed about these communications when the
communications are not GSK's," Hagens Berman had said.  "The court
should reject GSK's suggestion that petitioners should be forced
to undergo this process when there are serious, unresolved
questions about whether it should be conducted at all."

Grunenthal and Sanofi had said in their joint response to the
motion for a stay that the district court implemented a procedure
intended to resolve the dismissals and GSK's status in the
litigation expeditiously.  Grunenthal and Sanofi said they had
nothing to add to that discussion and suggested a stay was not
warranted.

Requests for comment from Hagens Berman attorney Craig R. Spiegel
-- craigs@hbsslaw.com -- and GSK counsel Michael Scott --
mscott@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith were not returned.
Eugene Schoon -- eschoon@sidley.com -- of Sidley Austin, who filed
an opposition to Hagens Berman's request for a stay on behalf of
Sanofi and Grunenthal, declined to comment.


H&R BLOCK: 8th Circuit Affirms Denial of "Predominance" Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Luck, Esq. -- dluck@cfjblaw.com -- and Gary M. Pappas, Esq.
-- gpappas@cfjblaw.com -- of Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, in an
article for JDSupra, reports that in 2012, California resident
Ronald Perras brought suit in federal district court against H&R
Block and its affiliates (H&R), which are headquartered in Kansas
City, Missouri.  Mr. Perras alleged that H&R violated the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) by charging its customers
compliance fees in excess of H&R's actual cost of complying with
new federal regulations.  Mr. Perras sought to define a class of
all persons in all states except Missouri who had purchased tax
services from H&R and paid the compliance fees during 2011 and
2012.

Mr. Perras attempted to ground certification on Rule 23(b)(3) --
i.e., common questions of law or fact "predominate over any
questions affecting only individual members" and "a class action
is superior to other available methods for fairly and efficiently
adjudicating the controversy."  Mr. Perras argued that the class
could uniformly rely on Missouri law because that is where H&R has
its principal place of business and made the decision to adopt the
compliance fees at issue.  The federal district court denied his
motion to certify the class and the Eighth Circuit affirmed.

The denial of certification below and the affirmance of that
decision on appeal both focused on a choice-of-law question:
whether the MMPA applied uniformly to all of the nationwide class
members' causes of action or whether, instead, the claims at issue
would be governed by the consumer protection law of the given
member's particular state of residence.  The district court relied
on rules of constitutional law, focusing on due process and full
faith and credit, to conclude that the MMPA did not apply
uniformly to all of these nationwide claims, and thus,
predominance was absent.

The Eighth Circuit reached the same result but without the need to
resort to constitutional law.  It relied on the maxim that
constitutional issues should be avoided where possible and,
instead, ruled that predominance was lacking based on its Erie
prediction that the Missouri Supreme Court would enforce the
MMPA's plain text and limit its scope to "trade or commerce . . .
in or from the state of Missouri."  The appellate court thus
reasoned that the Missouri Supreme Court would not apply the MMPA
to the out-of-state transactions at issue in this putative
nationwide class action: these "transactions . . .  took place
outside of Missouri between representatives of H&R located outside
of Missouri and consumers who reside outside of Missouri."

As the Eighth Circuit held, the "law applicable to each class
member would be the consumer-protection statute of that member's
state."  Therefore, the governing substantive law would vary from
consumer to consumer, and hence, predominance was lacking.
Accordingly, there was no need to reach the issue of superiority.


HERTZ CORP: Sued Over Consumers Legal Remedies Act Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Jason Thomas, an individual, and on behalf of himself, and all
others similarly situated v. The Hertz Corporation, Gateway One
Lending & Finance, LLC, and Does 1 through 500, inclusive, Case
No. 1-15-CV-282696 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 6, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, specifically by representing to the Holder the
signatures on the contract were the Plaintiff's, changing the
terms of the contract after the Plaintiff signed, backdating the
contract, and misrepresenting the terms of the timing and amounts
of the down payment.

The Hertz Corporation is engaged in the business of buying,
repairing and re-selling used vehicles to the general public and
taking vehicles in trade.

Gateway One Lending & Finance, LLC is a financial institution
engaged in the business of holding conditional sale contracts and
collecting payments made by consumers pursuant to such contracts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Liberty, Esq.
      LIBERTY, OTTO & GUILLEN, APC
      553 Pilgrim Drive, Suite A-1
      Foster City, CA 94404
      Telephone: (650) 341-0300
      Facsimile: (650) 341-0302


HERTZ CORP: Faces Class Action Over Labor Violations
----------------------------------------------------
Samantha Masunaga, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that one
former and two current Hertz Corp. employees in the Los Angeles
area filed a class-action lawsuit on July 9 against the rental car
company, alleging staff were forced to work off-the-clock.

The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleges
that Hertz created small "Hertz Local" branches staffed with only
a handful of employees.

Each branch was given responsibility for "sizable" rental fleets
and large customer bases, making it "practically impossible" for
employees to take meal and rest breaks, according to the lawsuit.

Employees were required to clock out for meal breaks but continue
working, and were not compensated for all the hours they worked,
the lawsuit alleges.

"These employees are the face of Hertz," said Sean Andrade, an
attorney for the plaintiffs.  "For Hertz to care about only
shareholder profits . . . it's unacceptable, it's against the law
and it must stop."

Chalissa Johnson, a former Hertz employee and one of the
plaintiffs, said management at her Hertz location in Moreno Valley
would tell her to clock out, but then require her to stay and help
customer after customer.  If she asked to clock back in, the
answer would be no.  Ms. Johnson left Hertz in June after six
months on the job.

"I got into it thinking it would be better for me and my
daughter," she said.  "I was wrong."

"We take the well-being of our employees very seriously," Hertz
said in a statement.  "We are not able to comment until we have
completed a review of the complaint and an investigation of the
allegations."

According to the lawsuit, the alleged labor violations have
occurred since at least 2011.  The employees are seeking wages,
penalties and damages, though an exact amount was not listed
because the scope of the problem is unknown, Mr. Andrade said.

The lawsuit says Hertz employs or has employed more than 150
workers in the Los Angeles area during the time period.  But
Mr. Andrade said the lawsuit could potentially apply to hundreds,
if not thousands, of workers since the same problem has been found
in neighboring counties.


HOME DEPOT: "December" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Joseph December, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. The Home Depot, Inc., Home Depot U.S.A.,
Inc. and THD At-Home Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-05232-GBD
(S.D.N.Y., July 6, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate home improvement specialty retail stores
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


IC SYSTEM: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Rios, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. IC System, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03314 (E.D.N.Y.,
June 7, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gus Michael Farinella, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA PC
          460 West 42nd Street, Suite 58G
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 675-6161
          Facsimile: (212) 675-4367
          E-mail: gmf@lawgmf.com


IDS LIFE: Preponderance of Evidence Applicable to UTPCPL Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lizzy McLellan, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a preponderance of the evidence standard can be applied to a
statutory claim under the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law, rather than a clear and convincing evidence burden
of proof, the Superior Court has ruled in a matter of first
impression.

The court said in a May 19 decision that an Allegheny County judge
used the proper standard in awarding damages to plaintiffs Robert
and Beverly Boehm.  A three-judge panel said collateral estoppel
did not apply, even though a jury found in favor of the defense
when using the clear and convincing standard in a related common-
law fraud claim.

"There is no language anywhere in the UTPCPL suggesting that
private actions brought pursuant to Section 201-9.2 should be
governed by a more demanding standard of proof than proof by a
preponderance of the evidence," Judge Kate Ford Elliott wrote for
the majority.  "Moreover, the preponderance of the evidence
standard of proof, which is the standard usually applied to
remedial legislation, is consistent with the UTPCPL's purpose of
protecting the public from fraud and unfair or deceptive business
practices."

The Superior Court also ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in
deciding that the judge properly awarded damages without an offset
for inflation, and that attorney fees were properly awarded.

However, Judge Jacqueline O. Shogan filed a concurring and
dissenting opinion in which she disagreed with the decision not to
account for future inflation by decreasing the award.  The
majority decided to do so under the logic of the total offset
method, in which expected inflation and lost opportunity for
interest offset each other.  Judge Shogan said the state Supreme
Court only adopted the total offset method in the context of lost
future income resulting from a motor vehicle accident.

The Boehms' lawsuit, filed in 2001, was one of a series of cases
in Allegheny County alleging fraudulent misrepresentation in
connection with the sale of life insurance, the majority opinion
said.  According to findings of fact by the trial court, which the
Superior Court cited, the Boehms were sold a life insurance policy
with IDS Life under the understanding that it would cost $50 a
month, but they were later instructed to pay more.

According to Ford Elliott, the trial court determined that the
defendants, Riversource Life Insurance Co. and James Day II,
violated the UTPCPL, intentionally misrepresented the terms of the
policy and intentionally failed to explain the change in the
premium.

On appeal, the defendants argued that the trial court applied the
wrong standard of proof to the UTPCPL claim, Ford Elliott wrote,
and that collateral estoppel barred relitigating the issue since a
jury already issued a defense verdict on a common-law fraud claim.
The majority said that while a common-law fraud claim requires
proof by clear and convincing evidence, other types of claims do
not.

"As stated in Sutliff v. Sutliff, in the predominant number of
civil cases where only economic and property interests are at
stake, the evidentiary burden requires only proof by a
preponderance of the evidence," Ford Elliott said.  "Section 201-
9.2 of the UTPCPL, providing for private actions, does not set
forth which standard of proof applies, and apparently the matter
has never been decided by the Pennsylvania appellate courts."

The defendants argued that the standard of clear and convincing
evidence should be applied to any claims based on fraud, Ford
Elliott said, but the court looked to the trial court judge's
opinion.  That opinion said a court should not assume that the
legislature intended such a distinction for fraud-based claims
when there is no language in the consumer protection law drawing
that distinction.

With regard to the award of damages, the defendants argued that
the trial court should have reduced the award by discounting it to
present value and subtracting the future premium payments.  They
argued that damages should have been calculated at $12,766.
The majority looked to Kaczkowski v. Bolubasz, in which "our
Supreme Court adopted the 'total offset method,' whereby the rate
of interest and rate of inflation essentially cancel each other
out," Ford Elliott said.

The defendants also contested the award of $165,000 in attorney
fees and $5,000 in costs.  But the court disagreed with their
arguments that the plaintiffs' counsel included hours not spent on
the UTPCPL claims, the case was not complex, the hourly rates were
unreasonable and the fees were not commensurate with the damages
award.

"Although the fee award exceeded the damages award, we do not find
it to be disproportionate under the facts of this case," Ford
Elliott said.  "In addition, we note that the fee-shifting
statutory provision of the UTPCPL is designed to promote its
purpose of punishing and deterring unfair and deceptive business
practices, and to encourage experienced attorneys to litigate such
cases, even where recovery is uncertain."
Kenneth R. Behrend of Behrend & Ernsberger in Pittsburgh said the
decisions on collateral estoppel, calculation of damages and fee-
shifting addressed first-impression questions that will impact
future cases related to life insurance.

"Consumer protection laws are designed to place a consumer on more
even footing with a large business or corporation," said
Mr. Behrend. "The court clarified in this opinion . . . this is a
separate burden of proof, a different standard."

Christopher M. Helms and Kathy K. Condo of Babst Calland in
Pittsburgh, attorneys for the defendants, did not return calls
seeking comment.


INTUIT INC: Taps Fenwick to Defend TurboTax Security Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that Intuit Inc.
has turned to Fenwick & West to fight accusations that the company
didn't take adequate steps to stop criminals from using TurboTax
to file fraudulent tax returns.

Rodger Cole -- rcole@fenwick.com -- chair of the firm's litigation
group, entered an appearance for the company on June 11.  He is
joined by associates Angel Chiang, Sean Wikner and Songmee
Connolly.

Plaintiffs lawyers with McCuneWright; Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein; and Morgan & Morgan sued Intuit in April in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, claiming
security protections in the company's TurboTax software were not
up to par.  The lawyers contend the software didn't prevent
criminals from stealing customers' personal information, filing
false returns in their names and cashing in the resulting refunds.
And Intuit failed to notify victims after their personal
information was misappropriated, according to the complaint.

The lawyers claim Intuit could have avoided security problems
early on by implementing a "very basic" two-step authentication
system often used by email and social-media companies, but the
company didn't take that step until widespread reports of fraud
occurred.

Earlier this year an uptick in fraudulent state returns briefly
shut down TurboTax's service and reportedly prompted an FBI
investigation.

In May, two similar suits were filed against Intuit by Julian
Hammond of HammondLaw and a group of plaintiffs attorneys from
Berman DeValerio; Gustafson Gluek; and Goldman Scarlato & Penny.
The three cases have been related before U.S. District Judge
Edward Davila in San Jose.


JANSSEN PHARMA: Settlement Won't Halt Risperdal Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
after settlement of the third case to head to the courtroom in
Philadelphia's Risperdal mass tort, the lead trial attorney for
the plaintiffs said it is too soon to expect a global resolution
of the litigation.

On May 27, the day opening arguments were scheduled in Walker v.
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, the case settled for a confidential
amount, according to Thomas R. Kline of Kline & Specter, who is
trying Risperdal cases with co-counsel Christopher A. Gomez and
Stephen A. Sheller of Sheller P.C.

The first Risperdal case in Philadelphia concluded with a $2.5
million verdict for the plaintiff, Austin Pledger.

In the second trial, the case of plaintiff William Cirba, the jury
found that Risperdal was not the cause of the plaintiff's breast
growth.  However, the jury did find that Janssen was negligent in
failing to warn about the potential risk of Risperdal to cause
enlarged breast growth in males, known as gynecomastia.

In the wake of the recent settlement, Mr. Kline said he doesn't
anticipate that Janssen will settle the remainder of the cases in
the immediate future.

"There is more work to be done," Mr. Kline said.  "We see it as a
litigation road forward."

In an email to The Legal, a Janssen spokeswoman wrote, "We have
reached a resolution of the Walker case in the Philadelphia Court
of Common Pleas.  The terms of the resolution are confidential, so
we do not have any additional comment."

Observers said that case was likely settled based on its
individual facts and that a settlement this early in the game does
not illustrate a trend.

"My own hunch is that it's a case-specific issue," said Alan
Klein, a products liability attorney at Duane Morris.

"There are broad lines in terms of science and those issues, but I
think in each case there are specific facts," Mr. Klein continued,
"and here I think there would be something in the facts of this
case that motivated either side to settle it."

Mr. Klein said not enough cases have concluded for any clear
direction to emerge in the litigation.  Only after six to a dozen
more cases would there be an indication as to whether there will
be a global resolution.

"At this point with only three cases down, it's very hard to know
if there's enough of a pattern to develop some type of settlement
matrix," Mr. Klein said.

James H. Heller, chairman of Cozen O'Connor's products liability
department, also said it was likely that the case settled on a
fact-specific basis.

Additionally, Mr. Heller said Supervising Judge Arnold New's order
barring punitive damages in the cases, in accordance with New
Jersey law, stands as a roadblock to a global settlement.  Johnson
& Johnson, Janssen's parent company, is a New Jersey entity.

Mr. Heller said the plaintiffs could fight the cap.  He pointed to
a recent ruling applying Alabama law over New Jersey law in a case
in the Tylenol multidistrict litigation based in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

While the parties in the case agreed that Alabama law governs the
substantive claims, they disagreed on which state's law governs
wrongful-death claims.  McNeil -- Tylenol's manufacturer and a
Johnson & Johnson subsidiary -- argued the law of New Jersey would
control.

The plaintiff argued that Alabama law, or, alternatively,
Pennsylvania law, would control. Alabama law allows for uncapped
damages while New Jersey law prohibits punitive damages against
corporations.

Ultimately, U.S. District Judge Lawrence F. Stengel of the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania ruled Alabama law should apply, because
the plaintiff was from Alabama, and the Tylenol was distributed,
sold and ingested in Alabama.

In his opinion, Judge Stengel said New Jersey "considers limiting
damages to be more important, especially for pharmaceutical
companies operating within its borders.  Under the New Jersey
punitive damages statute, punitive damages are not available in
drug products-liability actions when a drug has been approved by
the Food and Drug Administration. In 1987, the New Jersey
Legislature enacted this provision in order to 're-balance the law
in favor of manufacturers.'"

However, Mr. Heller said, "The Eastern District didn't apply the
standard that I think Judge New applied here, which is when you're
talking about punishing specific conduct, and when you're talking
about where the conduct occurred," the allegedly inadequate
warnings for Risperdal were written by Janssen in New Jersey, thus
making New Jersey law controlling in the case.

Mr. Kline previously told The Legal the course of the mass tort
will in part be affected by the parallel appellate cases
contesting New's order barring punitive damages.


JEFFERIES GROUP: Chancellor Awards 21.5MM Fees in Shareholder Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for Delaware Business Court Insider,
reports that Chancellor Andre G. Bouchard awarded $21.5 million in
attorney fees and expenses on top of a $70 million settlement in
the shareholder derivative suit of In re Jefferies Group
Shareholders Litigation.

In so ruling, Chancellor Bouchard awarded more than the defendants
were hoping and less than the Delaware counsel in the case had
requested.  But Chancellor Bouchard declined to give 20 percent of
that fee award to the New York law firms that unsuccessfully
argued their work on related litigation in New York helped the
Delaware firms achieve the result they did in the case.

Chancellor Bouchard approved in March a $70 million settlement in
a case in which shareholders alleged half of the board members
involved in approving the stock-for-stock merger between Jefferies
and Leucadia National Corp. were conflicted in voting to approve
the $3 billion deal.  The settlement agreement included a cash
payment of $70 million to the class and an agreement that the
award of any attorney fees would come on top of that amount, with
the defendants reserving the right to oppose the fee application.

The Delaware law firms, which were Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann, Grant & Eisenhofer, Saxena White and Faruqi & Faruqi,
sought $27.5 million in fees plus about $1 million in expenses.
That amount equaled 27.5 percent of the gross value of the
settlement, which would be about $100 million when including the
fee award, they argued.

The defendants, however, argued the fee should be calculated on a
net basis, with an award representing a reasonable percentage of
the $70 million.  The defendants said settlements of more than $65
million have traditionally garnered fees between 22.5 and 25
percent of the settlement value. They proposed the plaintiffs
counsel be awarded $15.75 million in fees plus reasonable
expenses, which would equal 22.5 percent of the $70 million
settlement.

Chancellor Bouchard said the decision of whether the fee award
should be calculated on a net or gross basis was an easy one.

"Although structuring a settlement based on a net recovery may
have the salutary effect of subjecting more fee applications to an
adversarial process, the reality is that this court traditionally
has granted fee awards in common fund settlements based on a
percentage of the gross settlement value," Chancellor Bouchard
said.

In a footnote, Chancellor Bouchard said defendants generally don't
care about the percentage of a fee award when it is based on a
gross amount as the financial exposure is already capped.

"From a policy perspective, it would be beneficial in my view for
fee applications to be subject to adversarial inquiry to provide
the court with a better record with which to evaluate the
Sugarland factors, in particular the quality of the benefit
achieved in the proposed settlement and the relative complexity of
the case," Chancellor Bouchard said in the footnote to his June 5
letter opinion.

Because the defendants could not cite a case in which a fee award
was based on the net recovery, Chancellor Bouchard found the award
should be based on the gross recovery including the fee. He then
looked to the appropriateness of the fee.

While the $70 million result was impressive on a simplistic level,
Chancellor Bouchard said, other factors affect just how impressive
it was.  Chancellor Bouchard had not yet ruled in the case on
whether the business judgment rule or entire fairness standard
should apply.  If the business judgment rule applied, the $70
million would have been a "remarkable" result given no recovery
was likely under that standard.  But under the entire fairness
standard, $70 million represented only 11 percent of the $648.7
million in damages the plaintiffs said they were owed, Bouchard
said.

Chancellor Bouchard said the Delaware counsel expended "meaningful
but not Herculean efforts" litigating the case.  They reviewed
72,000 pages of discovery, which Chancellor Bouchard said was "not
monumental in the age of e-discovery."  Depositions were also
manageable, he said, and the cases were not overly complex.
Bouchard thus found that a 23.5 percent award of the gross value,
or $21.5 million inclusive of expenses, was appropriate.  That
would bring the approximate settlement value to $91.5 million.
The firms spent 9,257 hours on the case, which was filed in
November 2012 shortly after the merger was announced.

The three New York law firms that represented plaintiffs in
related New York state court actions in which no financial
recovery was gained, were Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, Abraham,
Fruchter & Twersky and Stull, Stull & Brody.  They sought 20
percent of the fee awarded to the Delaware counsel, arguing they
assisted in achieving the $70 million settlement because of
depositions they took in the New York litigation and documents
Jefferies produced as a result of the New York litigation.

But Chancellor Bouchard found that the Delaware firms did the same
depositions and were able to get the same documents from Jefferies
themselves.  He rejected the New York firms' contention that their
efforts aided the plaintiffs in beating a motion to dismiss and a
motion for summary judgment.

Calls to Stuart Grant of Grant & Eisenhofer and James R. Banko of
Faruqi & Faruqi were not returned by press time.  David A. Jenkins
of Smith, Katzenstein & Jenkins, who represented the New York
plaintiffs in the Delaware action, declined to comment.

Gregory V. Varallo -- varallo@rlf.com -- of Richards, Layton &
Finger, Bradley R. Aronstam -- baronstam@ramllp.com -- of Ross
Aronstam & Moritz and Brian A. Herman -- bherman@morganlewis.com
-- of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius led the representation of the
defendants.  Mr. Aronstam declined to comment and Messrs. Varallo
and Herman did not respond to requests for comment by press time.


KEY SAFETY: Wants $3.7MM Seat Belt Jury Award Reversed
------------------------------------------------------
Greg Land, writing for Law.com, reports that attorneys for a seat
belt manufacturer on June 10 tried to persuade a panel of Court of
Appeals judges to reverse a jury's award of $3.7 million stemming
from a 2007 wreck in Gwinnett County.

The plaintiffs in the case had claimed that a flawed seat belt
design allowed a woman to be ejected when the Jeep in which she
was riding rolled over during a single-vehicle accident.  She died
shortly thereafter.

Arguing for Key Safety Systems, Bondurant Mixson & Elmore partner
Frank Lowrey IV said the trial judge had improperly allowed the
jury to consider whether the company's "failure to warn" Jeep
owners that the seat belt did not provide complete protection
during a rollover caused the woman's death.

He also said that the trial court shouldn't have allowed expert
testimony and evidence that misrepresented what had happened
during the wreck.  That testimony violated the so-called Daubert
rule, a heightened standard of admissibility for expert testimony
promulgated in the U.S. Supreme Court's 1993 Daubert v. Merrill
Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579.

Arguing for the plaintiffs, Atlanta solo and former State Bar of
Georgia President Robin Frazer Clark responded that the trial
court had been right to reject defense calls for a directed
verdict or a judgment notwithstanding the verdict.  She said
Key Safety knew that its belts could briefly unlock during a
rollover and slip, and that technology available at the time could
have offered additional safeguards.

The accident happened in September 2007 when Amanda Bruner, then
17, lost control of the open-topped 2003 Jeep Wrangler that she
and her mother, Penney Bruner, were riding in on Peachtree
Industrial Boulevard.

The Jeep rolled five times before it came to rest, slinging Penney
Bruner clear while Amanda Bruner stayed strapped into her seat.
Penney Bruner, 47, was heard saying, "But I had my seat belt on,"
according to the plaintiff's lawyer.

Penney Bruner was taken to Gwinnett Medical Center, where she died
about five hours later.

Both women's seat belts had remained buckled.

In 2009, Jeep manufacturer Chrysler filed for bankruptcy
protection and was subsequently sold to Italian automaker Fiat.
Chrysler was declared immune from suit by the bankruptcy court.

That year, William Bruner, Penney's husband and the purchaser of
the Jeep, sued Key Safety in Gwinnett County State Court; he also
sued his daughter, Amanda, to recover from her insurance.

Bruner was represented by Anthony Powell and Melody Glouton of
Lawrenceville's Webb, Tanner, Powell, Mertz & Wilson, and
Christopher Glover -- chris.glover@beasleyallen.com -- of Beasley,
Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles in Montgomery, Alabama.
(Glouton is now with Andersen, Tate & Carr.)

During a 2013 trial before State Court Chief Judge Pamela South,
Key Safety was represented by Michael Cooney -- mcooney@dykema.com
-- and Brian Smith -- btsmith@dykema.com -- of the Michigan firm
Dykema Gossett, and Brad Marsh -- brad.marsh@swiftcurrie.com --
and Ashley Broach -- ashley.broach@swiftcurrie.com -- of Swift,
Currie, McGhee & Hiers.

Amanda Bruner was represented by Craig Avery of Athens' Cowsert &
Avery.

The jury awarded William Bruner a total of $4.6 million,
allocating $900,000 of the liability to Amanda Bruner and $3.7
million to Key Safety, which appealed the verdict.  The younger
Bruner did not appeal.

During the June 10 argument before Court of Appeals Chief Judge
Herbert Phipps and Judges Sara Doyle and Michael Boggs, Lowrey
said there were two reasons the court should grant a new trial.

"First," he said, "the plaintiff was allowed to go to the jury
with a failure to warn claim even though there was no evidence,
nothing but speculation, that a warning would have avoided the
injury."

"Second, they were allowed to prove their design defect claim
using a videotaped expert test that didn't remotely satisfy our
state's Daubert statute, and was highly misleading."

According to testimony and appellate briefs, the key to the
dispute is the design of the three-point seat belt used in the
Jeep, which the plaintiff claimed allowed 12 to 15 inches of slack
to unspool as the Jeep rolled over.

The plaintiff cited the "ball-in-cup" design, which locks the seat
belt retractor when a ball in the bottom of the cup moves due to a
sudden stop or crash, as the key to the slippage.  During a head-
on crash the design works as planned, the plaintiff argued, but
during a rollover crash the retractor can unlock then re-lock,
allowing the belt to slip.  That, said Bruner's lawyers, is what
happened to his wife.

The plaintiff had argued that the use of a locking lap-belt latch
plate that the wearer adjusted and did not allow any slippage
could have saved Penney Bruner's life.  They also argued that she
would have lived had her seat been equipped with a "web sensor" --
a device that supplements the ball-and-cup by "sensing" that the
belt is unspooling too quickly and locks it.

While the driver's side seat had such a sensor, the passenger seat
did not.

Judge Lowrey told the judges that, by the time the Jeep was
manufactured in 2003, the manual-lock latch plates the plaintiff
advocated were long out of date.

As for the sensors, he said, even if there had been one on Penney
Bruner's seat, it would not have prevented any belt slippage
because in the United States -- unlike Europe -- they are "tuned"
to lock for frontal collisions and are not sensitive enough to
lock during a rollover.

Asked by Doyle who had decided not to install the sensors on the
Jeep, Judge Lowrey said that was Chrysler's call, not his
client's.

"We are liable, say the plaintiffs, for failing to have something
on the belt that says, in so many words, 'Even a properly belted
passenger can be ejected in a collision.  Seat belts are not 100
percent guaranteed.'"

Key Safety, he said, is not responsible for putting labels on
items it sold for installation on Chrysler vehicles.

In any case, he said, there is no evidence that any such warning
would have prevented Penney Bruner's death, he said, other than
testimony from William Bruner that -- had he known there was a
chance for ejection -- he would not have bought the Jeep.

The second point involved the use of a high-speed video that
showed the interior of a ball-and-cup lock as it rotated though
360 degrees and became unlocked during the process.  The rotation
speed, he said, was slower than that of the Jeep as it rolled, and
the test did not take into account the angle of the retractor when
it purportedly unlocked.

"The test showed what they wanted it to show," he said.

When the plaintiff's turn came, Ms. Clark noted that the judge had
conducted a two-week trial to verdict and had entertained lengthy
arguments over both of the issues Key Safety cited on appeal.

The appeals panel, she said, should adhere to the "presumption of
correctness" of the trial court's rulings.

The Court of Appeals' own rulings, she said, stated the standard
of review for a motion for directed verdict held that such a
verdict "shall not be disturbed if there is any evidence to
support the verdict."

The trial court, she said, acts as the 13th juror, "so this court
must give deference to the trial court's rulings."

In failure to warn cases, said Ms. Clark, a minimal quantity of
evidence is sufficient to support a claim, and there is no
requirement that the plaintiff must show how he would have
modified his behavior had he been warned.  Even so, she noted,
there was at least one other vehicle available in the United
States in 2003 that carried the sensors on both front seats: a
BMW.

Had he been warned, she said, Bruner might have bought another
type of vehicle, or decided that MARTA, a bicycle or scooter was a
safer alternative for his family.

"We do not have to prove that Mr. Bruner would have bought another
vehicle that had this web sensor," she said.  "All we have to
prove is that he would have modified his behavior."

"Sufficiency of evidence is a jury question," she said.

As to Key Safety's claim concerning the admissibility of the
video, Ms. Clark said the plaintiff's lawyers had made it quite
clear that the exhibit was a demonstration, not a re-enactment, in
order to show the jury how the ball-and-cup operated when rotated.


LAKES ENTERTAINMENT: Named as Defendant in "Orr" Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Lakes Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2015, that on February 6, 2015,
Lakes, the members of the Lakes' Board of Directors, LG
Acquisition Corporation, Sartini Gaming, Inc., and the Blake L.
Sartini and Delise F. Sartini Family Trust were named as
defendants in three complaints filed in the District Court of the
State of Minnesota, Fourth Judicial District in Hennepin County.

The cases are captioned James Orr, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, as Plaintiff, vs. Lakes
Entertainment, Inc., LG Acquisition Corporation, Sartini Gaming,
Inc., Lyle A. Berman, Timothy J. Cope, Larry C. Barenbaum, Neil I.
Sell, Ray M. Moberg, and the Blake L. Sartini and Delise F.
Sartini Family Trust, as Defendants; Anthony Dacquisito, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, as Plaintiff vs.
Larry Barenbaum, Lyle Berman, Neil Sell, Ray Moberg, Timothy Cope,
LG Acquisition Corporation, Sartini Gaming, Inc., and the Blake L.
Sartini and Delise F. Sartini Family Trust, as Defendants; and
David Lehr and Pamela Lehr, as Plaintiffs, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Larry Barenbaum, Lyle
Berman, Neil Sell, Ray Moberg, Timothy Cope, LG Acquisition
Corporation, Sartini Gaming, Inc., and the Blake L. Sartini and
Delise F. Sartini Family Trust, as Defendants.

These are purported shareholder class action lawsuits brought by
certain of Lakes' shareholders on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, alleging that in entering into the proposed
transaction with Golden Gaming, the Defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty and due care, and/or have
aided and abetted such breaches. The Plaintiffs seek, among other
things, to enjoin the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement and attorney's fees. An unfavorable outcome in these
lawsuits could prevent or delay the consummation of the Merger,
result in substantial costs to Lakes, or both. It is also possible
that other lawsuits may yet be filed and Lakes cannot estimate any
possible loss from this or future litigation at this time.


LUXOTTICA RETAIL: Appeal Focuses on Arbitration Exemption
---------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
employment lawyers were expected be watching the Ninth Circuit on
June 3 to see if an arbitration exemption carved out by the
California Supreme Court holds water in federal courtrooms.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit was set to hear
arguments in three wage-and-hour cases that may determine if Labor
Code claims brought under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA)
can be signed away in arbitration agreements.

The panel's decision may not provide a final answer as to whether
plaintiffs lawyers can continue to use PAGA as an arbitration
loophole and could add more confusion by widening the gap between
the way state and federal courts in California interpret
arbitration agreements.  Some lawyers watching the case predict
the issue is likely on its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In June 2014 the California high court ruled in Iskanian v. CLS
Transportation Los Angeles that employer arbitration agreements
with workers, while generally enforceable, cannot bar suits
brought under PAGA.  The 5-2 opinion aggravated tensions between
the pro-arbitration U.S. Supreme Court and the state's more
plaintiff-friendly high court, and many U.S. district judges
refused to enforce the exemption.

Kyle Nordrehaug of California employment firm Blumenthal
Nordrehaug Bhowmik, arguing for plaintiffs in the three cases,
said companies are trying to invalidate Iskanian and nullify the
state's PAGA statute, which allows employees to act as private
attorneys general and recover civil penalties from their employers
for Labor Code violations.

"They're seeking to immunize themselves using arbitration
agreements," he said in an interview on June 2.

Mr. Nordrehaug represents Shukri Sakkab, a former general manager
at a Lenscrafters store in San Diego.  Mr. Sakkab claims his
employer denied him and other workers overtime pay by
misclassifying them as managers, when in reality they had no
supervisory duties.  Nordrehaug sued Lenscrafters' parent company,
Luxottica Retail North America Inc., for class wage-and-hour
claims.  He also filed a claim under PAGA.

Mr. Sakkab signed an arbitration agreement that waived his right
to sue in court or file any class-based, collective or
representative arbitration claims.  Because a PAGA claim by nature
is representative, Mr. Nordrehaug argues, his client lost the
right to litigate the claim in any forum.  The trial court
dismissed the entire case, including the PAGA claim, in January
2013.

"The Supreme Court has characterized the [Federal Arbitration Act]
as authorizing a choice of forum for resolving disputes," Mr.
Nordrehaug wrote, "not as a mechanism for preventing assertion of
claims."

Littler Mendelson shareholder Keith Jacoby --
kjacoby@littler.com -- who will be arguing for Luxottica,
countered in his brief that the FAA requires private arbitration
agreements be "enforced according to their terms."

"The FAA pre-empts any California rule that would bar a waiver of
the right to bring a representative PAGA claim," he wrote, "and
appellant must honor his agreement to individually arbitrate all
claims, including, but not limited to, his PAGA claim."

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Retail Litigation Center,
represented by Mayer Brown partner Andrew Pincus --
apincus@mayerbrown.com -- have weighed in as amici curiae siding
with Luxottica.

"It is the FAA that displaces state interests and policy
preferences, not the other way around," Mr. Pincus wrote.
"Iskanian accordingly amounts to an impermissible attempt to
declare private PAGA claims off-limits to arbitration."

Mr. Nordrehaug represents plaintiffs in similar claims against BCI
Coca-Cola Bottling Co. of Los Angeles and Oakley Sales Corp.,
which also were set to be argued on June 3.

The plaintiffs lawyer said he will focus on reminding the
appellate panel that PAGA claims have special status as law
enforcement actions brought by a plaintiff standing in the shoes
of the state of California. Preventing the state from enforcing
the Labor Code is a slippery slope, he said.  But Mr. Nordrehaug
said he is concerned the judges may not be as familiar with PAGA
as state judges would be, since the statute is unique to
California.

Steven Katz, a Reed Smith partner who litigates employment claims
on behalf of companies, said he expects the Ninth Circuit to
determine PAGA waivers are enforceable but said California courts
are not likely to defer until the U.S. Supreme Court has its say.

In January the high court declined to reconsider Iskanian, and on
June 1 the justices opted to forgo arguments on the PAGA issue in
another California case, Bridgestone Retail Operations v. Milton
Brown.

Both Bridgestone and Iskanian are state cases, and the U.S.
Supreme Court generally prefers to hear issues brought up through
the federal courts, Katz said.  That could make the pending Ninth
Circuit cases prime candidates.

"My suspicion," Mr. Katz said, "is that the U.S. Supreme Court is
looking at these cases with an interest in the issue."


MACALUSO'S INC: Faces "Donnelly" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Briann Donnelly, Gabriela-Adriana Vasiliu, Adela Porutiu, Carlos
Jimenez, Jorge Andres Reyes Montes, and Oscar Javier Vega Romero
v. Macaluso's, Inc., The Sweet Life Restaurant of Miami, Inc.,
Macaluso's & Co., Inc., Park Place of Miami Beach LLC and Michael
D'Andrea, Case No. 2015-015150-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., July 6,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lawrence J. McGuinness, Esq.
      MCGUINNESS & GONZALEZ, P.A.
      3126 Center Street
      Coconut Grove, FL 33133
      Telephone: (305) 448-9557
      Facsimile: (305) 448-9559
      E-mail: ljmpalaw@netzero.com


MAJOR LEAGUE: Judge Rejects "Territorial Exclusivity" Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a
federal judge has rejected class status for damages sought by
consumers challenging the exclusivity of regional sports networks
airing Major League Baseball and National Hockey League games.

But Southern District Judge Shira Scheindlin certified a class
seeking injunctive relief for baseball and hockey fans who say
antitrust laws are being violated, leaving them with fewer choices
and higher prices.

Judge Scheindlin issued two opinions in Lauman v. National Hockey
League, 12-cv-1817, and Lerner v. Officer of the Commissioner of
Baseball, 12-cv-3704.

In one, she declined to certify a class on damages and rejected
the expert report of Roger Noll, a nationally recognized sports
economist, on consumer demand that would have been the basis for a
money damages class.

But on injunctive relief, Judge Scheindlin said a class is
warranted in a challenge to the "territorial exclusivity" in the
agreements between Major League Baseball and the National Hockey
League, and regional sports networks that produce their games, and
DirecTV and Comcast.  Under league agreements, the networks are
prohibited from broadcasting their games to fans who live outside
of their home territory.

For example, under these agreements, a New York Yankees fan living
in Iowa must buy an "out-of-market package" of games for all teams
in baseball just to get Yankees games.  The Iowa consumer doesn't
have the option of just buying the YES Network.

In a better world, the plaintiffs argued, regional sports networks
would offer consumers the chance to shop … la carte and purchase
the games of the team they want at a lower price.

The defendants tried to defeat class certification for injunctive
relief by asserting that there was conflict among members of the
proposed class -- that some members would prefer the status quo
because they benefit from the anti-competitive behavior.
But the judge said this so-called "winners and losers" argument
"fails three times over."

First, she said, "there is no question that here, a common injury
exists in the form of diminished consumer choice."

"Second, at a policy level, defendants' argument threatens the
integrity of antitrust laws," Judge Scheindlin said.  "If the fact
that illegal restraints operate to the economic advantage of
certain class members were enough to defeat certification, the
efficacy of class-wide antitrust suits -- and the deterrence
function they serve -- would wither."

Finally, the judge said, the defendants' argument would subvert
the purpose of Rule 23(b)(2).  "When the remedy sought is
injunctive rather monetary divergent interests within the class
militate in favor of certification, because certification gives
affected parties a greater voice in the litigation."

In all of the cases cited by the defendants, Judge Scheindlin
said, there were class members who suffered no real injury and
thus would have lacked standing to bring a suit on their behalf.
"Here, every class member has suffered an injury, because every
class member, as a consumer in the market for baseball or hockey
broadcasting, has been deprived of an option -- a la carte
channels that would have been available absent the territorial
restraints," she said.  "On top of this general injury, certain
class members have also suffered the additional injury of having
to pay too much for the content they wanted."
The judge said the defendants will have the opportunity at trial
to argue that the lack of a la carte channels is outweighed by
pro-competitive benefits, specifically well-priced out-of-market
packages.

"It is possible, as defendants suggest, that many baseball and
hockey fans would prefer for the complained-of restraints to be
deemed lawful rather than unlawful," she said.  "Indeed, it is
even possible that many such fans would have preferred that the
instant lawsuit not be brought."

The point is, Judge Scheindlin said, the question of whether the
current arrangements are legal or illegal is a merits question,
not a matter of whether to certify the class.

On the issue of damages, Noll estimated that if territorial
restrictions were eliminated, the average monthly price of the
MLB.tv package would decrease from $20.05 to $14.50 and the
average monthly price of NHL GameCenter Live would decrease from
$26.28 to $18.08.

But the defendants attacked the statistical models Noll used and
produced an expert of their own, economist Daniel McFadden, who
concluded that Mr. Noll's methods were "junk science."

Judge Scheindlin also was critical of Mr. Noll's conclusions.
"Dr. Noll's estimates do not rely on sufficient data about
consumer tastes and preferences," she said.  "Instead, time and
time again, Dr. Noll substitutes actual, readily-obtainable
information for mathematical assumptions in determining how hockey
and baseball fans will behave" in a world without the restraints.
Edward Diver and Howard Langer of Langer, Grogan & Diver in
Philadelphia are lead counsel for the plaintiffs.

Among several attorneys representing the defendants are
Beth Wilkinson, partner at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison, and Bradley Ruskin -- bruskin@proskauer.com -- partner
at Proskauer Rose, for Major League Baseball; Shepard Goldfein --
shepard.goldfein@skadden.com -- partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom for the NHL; Arthur Burke --
arthur.burke@davispolk.com -- partner at Davis Polk & Wardwell for
Comcast; Louis Karasik -- lou.karasik@alston.com -- partner at
Alston & Bird in Los Angeles for DirecTV; Jonathan Schiller --
jschiller@bsfllp.com -- of Boies Schiller & Flexner for the
Yankees; Stephen Neuwirth -- stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com --
partner at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan for The Madison
Square Garden Company and the New York Rangers; and John
Schmidtlein -- jschmidtlein@wc.com -- partner at Williams &
Connolly for the YES Network.


MARCELLO TREBITSCH: Pleads Guilty to Securities Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------
Larry Neumeister, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
son-in-law of former New York state Assembly Speaker Sheldon
Silver pleaded guilty to securities fraud on July 13, admitting to
cheating investors out of nearly $6 million in a Ponzi scheme.

Marcello Trebitsch, 37, of Brooklyn, entered the plea in Manhattan
federal court in a written deal with prosecutors that recommended
a prison sentence of four to five years.  Sentencing was set for
Nov. 2, says AP.

"I am sorry for what I have done and I apologize to the court and
my family," Mr. Trebitsch told Judge Vernon Broderick, notes the
report.

Prosecutors said Mr. Trebitsch, who is married to Mr. Silver's
daughter, solicited more than $8 million from four investors from
2007 to 2014 based on false and misleading representations.

Mr. Silver, a Democrat who resigned from his leadership position
after his January arrest on corruption charges, has pleaded not
guilty and said he will be vindicated.  Prosecutors say Mr. Silver
took nearly $4 million in payoffs and kickbacks.

Prosecutors said Mr. Trebitsch told investors they would secure
double-digit gains with minimal risk of loss, but then
Mr. Trebitsch mainly used the investors' money for his own benefit
and to repay other investors after suffering enormous trading
losses on the portion of investors' money that he did invest.

According to court papers, Mr. Trebitsch hid losses from investors
by sending them fraudulent account statements and tax forms
showing annual returns of 15 to 19 percent.

As part of his plea agreement, Mr. Trebitsch agreed to pay $5.9
million in forfeiture and restitution to victims.

Defense attorney Benjamin Brafman said he'll seek leniency for
Mr. Trebitsch.

"Mr. Trebitsch has accepted responsibility for the poor judgment
he used," Mr. Brafman said in a statement.  "Mr. Trebitsch,
although guilty of a crime, is a fundamentally good man who was in
over his head when dealing with a very sophisticated investor, who
while defrauded, was nevertheless also trying to 'use'
Mr. Trebitsch to further his own personal agenda."

In a release, U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said Trebitsche "ran a
multimillion-dollar Ponzi scheme, defrauding investors who put
their faith in him and entrusted him with their hard-earned
savings.  He returned their faith with deceit and self-dealing,
lying about his trading losses and using investor money on
himself."


MARTHA STEWART: Faces "Liwin" Suit Over Sequential Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Harold Litwin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., et al, Case No.
11250-VCN (Del. Ch., July 6, 2015), is brought on behalf of the
public stockholders of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., to
enjoin the MSLO's Board of Directors' attempt to sell the Company
to Sequential Brands Group, Inc. by means of a flawed process and
for an inadequate price.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
      Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 682-3025
      E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com
              mrogovin@weisslawllp.com
              kkeenan@weisslawllp.com


MCCLATCHY COMPANY: No Hearing Yet on Decertification Motion
-----------------------------------------------------------
The McClatchy Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 29, 2015, that the parties in the
Fresno class action lawsuit are awaiting hearing dates on a
decertification motion.

In December 2008, carriers of The Fresno Bee filed a purported
class action lawsuit against us and The Fresno Bee in the Superior
Court of the State of California in Fresno County captioned
Becerra v. The McClatchy Company ("Fresno case") alleging that the
carriers were misclassified as independent contractors and seeking
mileage reimbursement.  In February 2009, a substantially similar
lawsuit, Sawin v. The McClatchy Company, involving similar
allegations was filed by carriers of The Sacramento Bee
("Sacramento case") in the Superior Court of the State of
California in Sacramento County. Both courts have certified the
class in these cases.  The class consists of roughly 5,000
carriers in the Sacramento case and 3,500 carriers in the Fresno
case.  The plaintiffs in both cases are seeking unspecified
damages for mileage reimbursement.  With respect to the Sacramento
case, in September 2013, all wage and hour claims were dismissed
and the only remaining claim is an equitable claim under the
California Civil Code for mileage.  In the Fresno case, in March
2014, all wage and hour claims were dismissed and the only
remaining claim is an equitable claim for mileage reimbursement
under the California Civil Code.

The court in the Sacramento case has trifurcated the trial into
three separate phases:  the first phase addressed independent
contractor status, the second phase will address liability, if
any, and the third phase will address damages, if any.  On
September 22, 2014, the court in the Sacramento case issued a
tentative decision following the first phase, finding that the
carriers that contracted directly with The Sacramento Bee during
the period from February 2005 to July 2009 were misclassified as
independent contractors.

"We objected to the tentative decision but the court ultimately
adopted it as final. The court has not yet established a date for
the second and third phases of trial concerning whether The
Sacramento Bee is liable to the carriers in the class for mileage
reimbursement or owes any damages," the Company said.

The court in the Fresno case has bifurcated the trial into two
separate phases: the first phase will address independent
contractor status and liability for mileage reimbursement and the
second phase will address damages, if any.  The first phase of the
Fresno case began in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2014 and
concluded in late March 2015. A decertification motion was filed
post-trial and the parties are awaiting hearing dates on that
motion. If that motion is denied, the court will move forward in
issuing a ruling on the first phase.

"We are defending these actions vigorously and expect that we will
ultimately prevail.  As a result, we have not established a
reserve in connection with the cases.  While we believe that a
material impact on our condensed consolidated financial position,
results of operations or cash flows from these claims is unlikely,
given the inherent uncertainty of litigation, a possibility exists
that future adverse rulings or unfavorable developments could
result in future charges that could have a material impact.  We
have and will continue to periodically reexamine our estimates of
probable liabilities and any associated expenses and make
appropriate adjustments to such estimates based on experience and
developments in litigation."


MCNEIL: Alabama Law Applies in Tylenol MDL Bellwether Case
----------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
Alabama law, which allows for uncapped damages, will apply in the
case of a woman from that state who allegedly died from liver
failure after taking Tylenol, a federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Lawrence F. Stengel of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania decided on May 20 that in the bellwether case in the
Tylenol multidistrict litigation -- headquartered in Pennsylvania
-- Alabama law would apply to all of the plaintiff's claims,
including punitive damages.

The case, scheduled for trial in June, is one of about 200 in the
MDL alleging that McNeil, the maker of Tylenol, knew that its drug
could cause liver damage at the recommended dosage.  It was
brought by Rana Terry, the sister of Denice Hayes, who died of
liver failure in Alabama in 2010.

While the parties agreed that Alabama law governs the substantive
claims in the case, they disagreed on which state's law governs
the wrongful-death claim.  McNeil argued the law of New Jersey --
where McNeil's parent company, Johnson & Johnson, is headquartered
-- would control.  The plaintiff argued that Alabama law, or,
alternatively, Pennsylvania law, would control.  McNeil
manufactures Tylenol at its Fort Washington plant.

In his opinion, Judge Stengel said the choice was based in part on
which state's interests had greater stake in the litigation.

"Alabama has several significant contacts related to this action,"
Judge Stengel said.  "It is the place of the decedent's injury and
death.  The decedent allegedly purchased Tylenol in Alabama,
ingested Tylenol in Alabama, was treated by her doctors for her
injuries in Alabama, and eventually died from those injuries in
Alabama.  Some of the conduct considered to have caused the injury
occurred in Alabama.  The decedent received warnings about the
product in Alabama and viewed advertising about Tylenol in
Alabama."

Judge Stengel said New Jersey also had a significant role in the
case as it is the home state for Tylenol's manufacturer, but the
parties' relationship was centered in Alabama.

"The defendants sold the Tylenol in Alabama, marketed the Tylenol
in Alabama, and were expected to comply with the laws of Alabama,"
Judge Stengel said.  "It appears the decedent had no contact with
New Jersey.  She didn't travel there, ingest Tylenol there, nor
was she injured there.  The two parties interacted through their
consumer relationship in Alabama."

Another aspect to consider under Pennsylvania's choice-of-law
rules was whether the two venues had conflicting laws.  Judge
Stengel pointed out that Alabama's law was more favorable to
plaintiffs while New Jersey's was a product of tort reform, aimed
at limiting damages against companies.

"Alabama has made clear that its wrongful-death statute is
intended to protect the lives of those within its borders by
imposing damages without limits on tortfeasors causing death,"
Judge Stengel said.  "By making a wrongful death 'expensive,'
Alabama seeks to deter similar tortious conduct."

"New Jersey, on the other hand," Judge Stengel continued,
"considers limiting damages to be more important, especially for
pharmaceutical companies operating within its borders.  Under the
New Jersey punitive damages statute, punitive damages are not
available in drug products-liability actions when a drug has been
approved by the Food and Drug Administration.  In 1987, the New
Jersey Legislature enacted this provision in order to 're-balance
the law in favor of manufacturers.'"

Judge Stengel said New Jersey's law prohibiting punitive damages
in the wrongful-death case would "substantially frustrate"
Alabama's interest in protecting its citizens and regulate
corporations doing business in-state.

"Applying New Jersey law to the issue of punitive damages could
require this court to apply New Jersey law on other substantive
claims," Judge Stengel said.  "Under these circumstances,
Alabama's interest in having its law applied to all of its claims
outweighs New Jersey's interest in having its law applied to the
punitive damages claim."

David Abernethy -- David.Abernethy@dbr.com -- of Drinker Biddle &
Reath represented Johnson & Johnson and did not return a call
seeking comment.

An attorney for the plaintiff, Michael Weinkowitz --
mweinkowitz@lfsblaw.com -- of Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman,
said, "The plaintiff steering committee is pleased with the
ruling."


MEDTRONIC INC: 2nd Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Infuse Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flahery, writing for Law.com, reports that facing
allegations that it improperly promoted its Infuse spinal fusion
device for off-label uses, Medtronic Inc. has fended off lawsuits
by relying on a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court case that disallows most
state law tort claims arising from a medical device when the
government has approved the device.  That case, Riegel v.
Medtronic, cropped up again on June 9, when a federal appeals
court agreed that a Vermont woman's Infuse case should be tossed.

Siding with Medtronic's lawyer, Mayer Brown's Andrew Tauber, the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the dismissal
of negligence and failure to warn claims brought against the
medical device maker.  The Second Circuit ruled that some of the
claims of plaintiff Koleen Otis-Wisher were pre-empted under the
Medical Device Amendments to the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetics
Act.

The June 9 decision by the Second Circuit marks the latest in a
string of mostly favorable rulings the firm has secured for
Medtronic in Infuse litigation.  In April, for instance, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit sided 2-1 with Medtronic's
legal team, dismissing another Infuse case while also grappling
with the scope of federal pre-emption under Riegel.

Ms. Otis-Wisher, represented by Michael Gannon of the Vermont-
based Affolter Gannon & Rose, alleges that she suffered painful
complications after a doctor implanted one of Medtronic's Infuse
devices using an unapproved surgical method.  Medtronic has faced
hundreds lawsuits over the devices, which are intended to
stimulate bone growth to repair damaged or diseased vertebrae.

At the center of most Infuse cases, including Ms. Otis-Wisher's,
are allegations that Medtronic promoted the device to be implanted
using an off-label "posterior" surgical approach.  Medtronic's
approval from FDA was limited to implants done using an "anterior"
approach, according to the suits.

Riegel dealt with the pre-emption of state laws that impose safety
or labeling requirements on medical device makers that differ from
federal requirements."Plaintiff's claims for strict liability
failure to warn, strict liability design defect, and negligent
failure to warn all seek to impose safety-related requirements on
the device or its labeling beyond those imposed by the FDA," the
Second Circuit wrote in a four-page summary order.  "Accordingly,
these claims are expressly pre-empted."

Ms. Otis-Wisher's lawsuit also included fraud claims, premised
directly on the allegation that Medtronic promoted Infuse for off-
label use.  The appeals court declined to consider whether those
claims were pre-empted, finding that Ms. Otis-Wisher's complaint
wasn't specific enough to avoid dismissal.


METRO-NORTH: Crash-Related Lawsuits Pending
-------------------------------------------
Christian Nolan, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune, reports
that train crash images are fresh in everyone's mind from the
recent Amtrak tragedy in Philadelphia.  But Connecticut has its
own recent history with rail disasters, and the state, on May 17,
just marked the two-year anniversary of the Metro-North crash and
derailment that left more than 70 passengers and crew injured.
That date also marked the deadline for lawyers to file claims
against the railroad company.  Several dozen lawsuits have been
filed in state and federal court, both in Connecticut and
New York.  Some were filed in the accident's aftermath in 2013;
numerous others were filed in the days leading up to the deadline
earlier in May.

According to plaintiffs lawyers involved in the litigation, the
injuries in some cases are as small as cuts, bruises and
respiratory issues from inhaling the dust kicked up by the
derailment.  In other cases, there are more serious injuries, such
as permanent brain and spinal damage and resulting emotional
distress, post-traumatic stress disorder and strong reluctance to
travel on these trains ever again.

Joel Faxon -- jfaxon@faxonlawgroup.com -- of the Faxon Law Group
in New Haven, filed one of the first lawsuits on behalf of
Elizabeth Sorensen of Mystic.  Ms. Sorensen suffered several
broken bones, including in her legs, arms and pelvis, and has
needed several surgeries.  She also sustained a brain injury.  Mr.
Faxon said that about three dozen or so cases have been
consolidated with his in U.S. District Court in Connecticut before
Judge Janet Bond Arterton in New Haven.

"There was a gap in the track itself. There were portions of the
track where there should've been rails and there were none,"
explained Mr. Faxon.  "You can't operate a train without a track.
That's obviously why the train derailed."

Federal reports came to the same conclusion.  For that reason,
Mr. Faxon said, Metro-North has told plaintiffs lawyers that it
wants to settle the cases.  The Connecticut cases are being
defended by lawyers from Ryan Ryan Deluca in Stamford, including
Charles "Chuck" Deluca, Beck Fineman and Robert Hickey.
Mr. Hickey confirmed that his firm was defending the state and
federal Connecticut cases.  He declined to comment on the
litigation, per his client's request.

"Ultimately, Metro-North accepts responsibility and admits it was
negligent and careless in the way the tracks were maintained,"
said Mr. Faxon. "In light of that, they have come forward to say,
'Look, we want to resolve all the cases.'"

Mr. Faxon said the plaintiffs' lawyers have been working with U.S.
Magistrate Judge William Garfinkel as a mediator.  Mr. Faxon said
he has about six other cases besides Sorensen's still pending,
while a few have already settled for undisclosed amounts.  He said
the cases involving less significant injuries have been the ones
getting settled.  "A number of cases have not settled because the
injuries or permanency of the injuries have not been ascertained
yet," said Mr. Faxon.

Mr. Faxon is hopeful that there are not any trials stemming from
the litigation.  If there are, he predicted, it won't be a dispute
over liability, but more of a hearing on damages because the two
sides can't agree on a dollar figure.

"There's been several catastrophes recently involving train
companies and railroads that have resulted in deaths, paralysis
and any number of horrific injuries that could have been avoided
if they handled themselves properly," said Mr. Faxon.  "The
concept of a trial is not something Metro-North would be
interested in getting too far into at this point.  The popular
opinion is that they're not doing their job."

While many of the complaints filed against Metro-North stemming
from the 2013 derailment do not disclose specifically how much
money the plaintiff is seeking, Sonia Ochoa-Garcia, who filed her
claim in April, has asked for $10 million.  Ms. Ochoa-Garcia
claims she suffered significant neck and back injuries as well as
emotional distress, including a fear of riding the train.

The various claims against Metro-North include breach of duty,
recklessness, negligent infliction of emotional distress and
negligence.  Some also include claims for violations of
Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act and loss of consortium.
The accident occurred when an eastbound train derailed during the
afternoon rush hour in Bridgeport and was struck about 20 seconds
later by a westbound train.  Seventy-three passengers, two
engineers and a conductor were taken to the hospital for injuries.
One passenger was critically injured.

The accident caused $18 million worth of damage and train service
in the area was disrupted for days for roughly 30,000 commuters.
Among those injured, and filing suit in state and federal court,
was Barbara Bolden, who lived in Hamden and took the train every
day to go to work in Weston.

"She was on her way home from work and fell asleep after a long
day," said Ms. Bolden's lawyer, Herbert Mendelsohn, of New Haven.
"Suddenly, she was thrown under her seat and heard people
screaming and saw smoke in the car.  Her sense at first was a
terrorist attack or a bomb or something.  When suddenly all hell
breaks loose, you don't know what to expect."

Ms. Bolden suffered injuries to her right arm and shoulder, which
Mr. Mendelsohn said have healed well. He said her emotional
injuries remain.  She was afraid to take the train after the
crash, instead trying to tough it out in traffic by driving
herself.  Mr. Mendelsohn just recently worked with one of the Ryan
Ryan DeLuca attorneys to settle Bolden's claim for an undisclosed
amount.  "You don't want to relive this for five years. She was
happy to resolve it," said Mr. Mendelsohn.  "It puts it behind
her.  Why drag it out?"

Not every lawsuit has been brought by a passenger.  New York
lawyer Steven Kantor is suing in Connecticut federal court on
behalf of Steven Bauer, a Metro-North engineer who was on the
train that derailed.  The lawsuit states he suffered "serious and
permanent injuries" from the crash, though the complaint did not
get into specifics.  Mr. Kantor did not respond to an interview
request.

Marisa Bellair -- mbellair@ltke.com -- of Lynch, Traub, Keefe &
Errante in New Haven, has clients injured in the derailment in
both state and federal court in Connecticut, including Ms. Ochoa-
Garcia's case.  Ms. Bellair said her federal cases have been
consolidated with Mr. Faxon's Sorensen case.  She said she filed
for a client in state court due to jurisdictional issues.

Specifically, her client lives in New York, where Metro-North is
incorporated, so there was no diversity jurisdiction for federal
court purposes.  Another reason cases have been filed in state
court is if damages fall below the $75,000 threshold for federal
court.  She said the state court cases against Metro-North are not
being consolidated.

Ms. Bellair has not settled any of her cases yet but is working on
it.  In addition to monetary damages, she's hopeful the cases will
bring about changes to the way the train company maintains its
tracks so that the public will stay safer.

Ms. Bellair said the latest Philadelphia derailment that left
eight people dead and more than 200 injured "dredged up a lot of
painful memories" for her clients.

"It brings back to the forefront the incident they were involved
with here," said Ms. Bellair.  "As much as you try to get on with
your day-to-day life, it hits very close to home for a lot of
them."


MILLENNIAL MEDIA: Judge Allows Plaintiffs to Drop Securities Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Litigation Daily, reports that thanks
to tough pleading standards mandated by Congress and the U.S.
Supreme Court, securities plaintiffs frequently turn to
confidential witnesses to beef up their complaints.  Relying on
informants can help nudge a case past a motion to dismiss but the
practice has also become a minefield for the securities class
action plaintiffs bar.

The latest reminder came on May 29, in a coda to a proposed
securities class action against digital advertising company
Millennial Media Inc. U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer in
Manhattan agreed to allow the plaintiffs to voluntarily dismiss
the case, but not before reprimanding the lawyers at length for
failing to adequately vet witnesses' statements or warn them about
how their statements would be used.

Before running into problems with their witnesses, lawyers at
Labaton Sucharow and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann had
accused Millennial of misleading investors about the company's
technical capabilities and financial prospects.  The most recent
complaint quoted 11 confidential witnesses, but Judge Engelmayer
wrote that 10 of them had only been interviewed by a Labaton
investigator, and never by the Labaton or Bernstein Litowitz
lawyers who brought the case.  After learning that they had been
quoted, four witnesses asked the lawyers to drop all references to
them, while others disputed the accuracy of their statements.

Judge Engelmeyer acknowledged that no legal or ethical standard
requires plaintiffs counsel to notify witnesses before quoting
them. Still, he wrote, "basic decency" should have guided the
lawyers' conduct.

"The court, the public, and above all such witnesses have the
right to expect better of counsel," wrote Judge Engelmayer.  "They
have a right to expect counsel to treat witnesses with decency.
They have a right to expect counsel, before designating a person
as a CW, to take into account how that person might be affected
were this designation to lead to his identification."

Litigation Daily reached out on June 1 to Labaton's Thomas Dubbs
and Berstein Litowitz's Avi Josefsen, both among the lead
plaintiffs lawyers in the Millennial case, but didn't immediately
hear back.  Millennial was defended by Cooley's Lyle Roberts.

The rebuke from Judge Engelmayer is just the latest example of
judges scrutinizing plaintiffs lawyers' reliance on informants.
In August 2014, a federal judge in Chicago hit Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd with sanctions for "reckless" conduct that included
failing to verify the findings of a firm investigator who relied
on statements from a confidential witness.  In 2011, a judge in
Miami similarly sanctioned Labaton and Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check over their use of confidential witnesses in a shareholder
lawsuit against BankAtlantic Bancorp.

Other challenged cases have fared better, surviving aggressive
attacks by defense lawyers.

Last October, for example, Robbins Geller won class certification
in a securities case against JPMorgan Chase & Co.  That ruling
came over the bank's accusations that Robbins Geller
misrepresented testimony from confidential witnesses.  The case
remains pending in Manhattan federal court.

Beyond the perils for lawyers, the tug-of-war over confidential
informants can also wear on witnesses themselves, as Judge
Engelmayer alluded to on May 29.  Previously, his colleague in
Manhattan, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff, lamented the state of
affairs in a July 2013 opinion in a securities class action
against Lockheed Martin.  Judge Rakoff's decision came after the
case settled for $19.5 million.

"In a nutshell, it appeared to the court that some, though not
all, of the CWs had been lured by the investigator into stating as
'facts' what were often mere surmises, but then, when their
indiscretions were revealed, felt pressured into denying outright
statements they had actually made," Judge Rakoff wrote.


MOTOR CARS: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Leasing Contract
-------------------------------------------------------------
888 Enterprise, Inc., d/b/a Personalized Auto Group, individually
and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v.
Motor Cars West, LLC, d/b/a The Auto Gallery, and Does 1-100,
Case No. BC587090 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 6, 2015), alleges that
the Defendant entered into lease transactions with California
consumers which violates the disclosure requirements as set forth
in the Vehicle Leasing Act.

Motor Cars West, LLC owns and operates a Porsche new car
dealership located in Woodland Hills, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen M. Harris, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN M. HARRIS, P.C.
      6320 Canoga Avenue, Suite 1500
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Telephone: (818) 924-3103
      Facsimile: (818) 924-3079
      E-mail: stephen@smh-legal.com


NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Judge Tosses Athletes' Likeness Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that siding with
lawyers for ESPN Inc., major network broadcasters and other
defendants, a Tennessee federal judge has shot down a proposed
class action brought by former college athletes who said they were
unfairly cut out of profits for broadcasts that used their names
and likenesses.

In an opinion on June 4, U.S. District Judge Kevin Sharp in
Nashville agreed to dismiss antitrust and other claims lodged by
10 former college football and basketball players, represented by
Bone McAllester Norton.  The ruling marks a win for lawyers at a
gaggle of defense firms, including Cravath, Swaine & Moore (for
ESPN and ABC Inc.), Weil, Gotshal & Manges (for CBS Broadcasting
Inc.), Davis Polk & Wardwell and Davis Wright Tremaine (for
NBCUniversal Media LLC) and Williams & Connolly (for Fox
Broadcasting Co.).

The judge acknowledged that the top levels of college football and
basketball in the U.S. are big business.  He also noted that many
consider the categorization of college athletes as "amateurs" to
be a stretch, since their athletic performances "lead to untold
riches for others, such as defendants.

"In this case, however," the judge continued, "the court is not
called upon to address the larger picture of whether, as a matter
of recognition, equity or fundamental fairness, student athletes
should receive 'pay for play.'"

Instead, Judge Sharp wrote, his lone duty was to determine whether
the athletes made a viable claim that they deserve compensation
for playing in televised games.  Judge Sharp determined that the
players couldn't back up their claim that they have publicity
rights to their performances in sporting events.  That finding,
the judge wrote, undermined the rest of the athletes' antitrust
and other claims.

"Because plaintiffs do not have a right to publicity under
Tennessee law -- the very basis of their claim that they have a
right to be paid for appearing in television broadcasts of games
and in advertisements for such broadcasts -- they cannot plead any
antitrust injury," Judge Sharp wrote.

Judge Sharp's ruling comes less than a year after an August 2014
decision in a similar case brought in Oakland, California, against
the National Collegiate Athletic Association and videogame maker
Electronic Arts Inc.  In that case, a class of athletes
represented by Michael Hausfeld -- mhausfeld@hausfeld.com -- of
Hausfeld LLP alleged antitrust violations in markets nationwide.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, who heard the California case,
found that the NCAA had restrained competition for certain
educational and athletic opportunities.

Judge Wilken held that top college basketball and football players
were entitled to scholarships covering the full cost of attending
school and up to $5,000 in licensing revenue from television and
video game contracts.  The money would be divided evenly among
players on each team, and held in trust until athletes graduate or
are no longer eligible to play.

An appeal of that ruling is pending at the U.S. Circuit Court for
the Ninth Circuit.  In March, Mr. Hausfeld argued for the
plaintiffs at the Ninth Circuit opposite Wilmer Cutler Pickering
Hale and Dorr's Seth Waxman.  The two sides are also still
wrangling in district court over Mr. Hausfeld's bid for $50
million in attorney fees.

The June 4 ruling in the Tennesse case includes multiple
references to the California litigation.  But, Judge Sharp wrote,
Judge Wilken's finding are "of no real help to plaintiffs in
establishing an individual participant's right of publicity in a
sports broadcast under any state's laws, let alone under Tennessee
law."

Stephen Zralek of Bone McAllester Norton, who led the plaintiffs'
efforts in Tennessee, declined to comment on June 5.  Weil's James
Quinn, who served as lead counsel for CBS, told Law.com he was
pleased with Judge Sharp's findings.  Several other defense
lawyers weren't immediately available for comment.


NEW YORK, NY: Faces Class Action Over Foster Care System
--------------------------------------------------------
Nina Wolpow, writing for Refinery 29, reports that New York City's
foster care system has failed to protect and find stable homes for
the thousands of children in its care, alleges a class action
lawsuit filed by children's advocates.

"Foster care is supposed to be safe and temporary.  For children
in New York City's foster care system, it is neither," alleges the
suit, filed on July 8 by children's activist Marcia Lowry,
New York City Public Advocate Letitia James, and lawyers from the
firm of Cravath, Swaine & Moore.

"Our foster children are suffering physical, emotional, and sexual
abuse as a result of a system that fails them every single day,"
Ms. James said in a statement.  "Lives are being ruined during our
children's most formative years, and our legal action seeks to put
an end to this injustice."

"Children stay in the foster care system in New York City longer
than anywhere else in the country . . . It's devastating to
children when they don't know where they're going to be,"
Ms. Lowry told Refinery29.  In 2014, she founded the advocacy
organization A Better Childhood.  "Some children are staying in
foster care and being physically harmed beyond the psychological
damage of not knowing where you're going to live, who your parents
are, whether you're going to change schools and make new friends,
and who you can count on."

In fact, statistics from the New York State Office of Children and
Family Services show that in 2013, children in New York State
spent 4.2 million days in foster and adoptive homes.  Of those 4.2
million days, 2.5 million were spent in New York City.

The suit details 10 specific instances of abuse, maintaining that
New York City -- and in particular the Administration for
Children's Services (ACS) and its commissioner, Gladys Carrion --
is responsible.  The suit alleges that if the system had been more
expedient in finding these children -- and thousands of others --
permanent homes, tragic instances of physical and emotional abuse
could have been prevented.

The plaintiffs in the suit range from three to 16 years old and
are both boys and girls.  Some have special needs, and all have
spent significant portions of their young lives in the foster care
system.  Today, none of the child plaintiffs is in a permanent
home, which deprives each of them of the stability experts agree
is critical for healthy development.

But the Administration for Children's Services said the lawsuit is
baseless, arguing that the city has made significant and costly --
though possibly insufficient -- progress since Mayor Bill de
Blasio took office.

"We have been working closely with the courts, attorneys, parent
advocates, advocates for children, provider agencies, and, most
critically, the parents and children whose lives are impacted by
this system," the ACS told Refinery29 in a statement.  "We have
made great strides in dramatically shrinking the foster care
census and in finding stable, permanent homes for children who
must come into care."

But the 10 cases detailed in the lawsuit tell a different story.
The complaint details the experiences of children who have spent
what their advocates believe is far too long in temporary care
after trauma struck their households.  Though these children's
initial removals were legitimate, the suit claims that viable
options for permanency have been ignored or overlooked.

One child, a three-year-old named Thierry, has spent 21 months in
ACS custody.  He was removed from his biological mother, a veteran
public school teacher, after she alerted child services that his
biological father had "held a knife to her throat threatening to
kill her, strangled her at least three times, punched her in the
face and threw household furniture at her." Thierry remains in ACS
custody and has not been reunited with his mother.

Another child, two-and-a-half-year-old Ayanna, was removed from
her biological mother just three days after birth.  Ayanna's
mother's boyfriend beat her older sister Angela to death in March
2010.  To date, she has still not been adopted.

And while the goals for Thierry and Ayanna differ -- Thierry wants
to be returned to his mother, while ACS hopes that Ayanna will be
adopted -- neither has come to fruition.

Other child-advocacy groups, however, have said the lawsuit is not
the way to fix the system's problems.  "The filing of this lawsuit
is shortsighted," wrote Tamara Steckler, an attorney with the
Juvenile Rights Practice of the Legal Aid Society, in a statement.
"This lawsuit is being brought by attorneys who have never
represented clients in New York City's foster care system, yet
purport to know how to fix it, at a time when foster care numbers
are at an all-time low and collaboration is at an all-time high."

But Gretchen Biedl and Michael Willner, foster parents who live on
New York's Upper West Side, believe the system is inherently
flawed. The couple told Refinery29 about the challenges and
rewards of raising foster children.  They also shared their
experiences with the New York City Family Court, which the city
government claims is to blame for delays in transitioning children
to permanent homes.  According to ACS, the Family Court must
"approve of any action taken by ACS with respect to foster care
placement or return to parent."

According to Ms. Biedl and Mr. Willner, the approval process drags
on for far too long.  "I get frustrated when they're asking you
the same thing over and over again," Mr. Willner said.  "They're
intrusive.  Six months after you have a doctor's approval that
you're physically capable [to foster a child], you need another
one.  They come to your house to do inspections multiple times."

Ms. Biedl shared a story that brought tears to her eyes.  When she
was volunteering as a Court Appointed Special Advocate (CASA), she
saw a father drive up to New York City from North Carolina to
petition for custody of his daughter.

"He came regularly," Ms. Biedl said.  "He wanted her.  He would be
at the court hearing and the mother would not show up, so they
wouldn't give him custody.  It went on for months and months while
[the child] was languishing in a non-family home."

That's why Ms. Biedl and Mr. Willner are supportive of Ms. Lowry's
lawsuit.  They said they are critical of ACS not because they
believe the agency has bad intentions, but because it approaches
foster care from a reprehensible policy of quantity over quality.

The couple believes that the ACS's focus on hiring more social
workers diverts its attention, and its funds, from nonprofits like
You Gotta Believe and the Council on Adoptable Children, which are
trained in and committed to achieving permanency for foster
children.

"Creating bureaucracy to solve problems doesn't solve problems; it
creates more problems," Mr. Willner said, referring to the ACS and
Commissioner Carrion's move to hire more than 300 new employees.
"What I worry about is just hiring a bunch of people. I know where
that goes, and it's not pretty."

Ms. Biedl added: "The fact of the matter is that the case workers
aren't the ones who know how to achieve permanency.  The case
workers are there to deal with emergency situations.  My case
workers have never helped me work through a situation; they just
ask if I want the kid removed."

The couple also fears the consequences of allowing children to
"age out" of the foster care system.  According to the 2011
Midwest Evaluation of the Adult Functioning of Former Foster
Youth, adults who spent time in foster care have lower-than-
average earnings, difficulty paying bills, reliance on government
benefits, and high levels of incarceration compared to other
adults their age.

Since the 1990s, the number of children in foster care in NYC has
dropped from 45,000 to less than 15,000.

In September 2014, Mayor de Blasio signed a set of laws that
require the ACS to compile annual foster care reports that would
reveal important information about the number of children who age
out of the system, and about high school enrollment and graduation
rates for children in the foster care system.  Additionally, the
laws require the ACS to intensify its efforts to connect children
removed from their parents with extended family members.

But the groups filing the lawsuit believe that if it succeeds,
those initiatives will be reduced to what Ms. Lowry, Ms. James,
and others believe they are -- good-faith attempts that have
fallen dangerously short.


NEW YORK, NY: Judge Approves Fire Dep't Discrimination Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Keshner, writing for Law.com, reports that a proposed
agreement settling allegations of intentional discrimination in
the New York City Fire Department was approved on June 5 by a
federal judge.

Eastern District Judge Nicholas Garaufis said the pact, where the
city agreed to efforts including creation of a fire department
"chief diversity and inclusion officer" and diversity advocate
were "lawful, fair, reasonable, adequate [and] consistent with
public interest."

Though the city fought the suit under Mayor Michael Bloomberg, in
March 2014 -- just months after Bill de Blasio became mayor -- the
city, the federal government and an intervening group of black
firefighters and applicants reached an agreement in principle.

The parties avoided a bench trial on whether the fire department
engaged in a pattern or practice of "disparate treatment" in
employment (NYLJ, March 19, 2014).

Meanwhile, a remedial order for a separate issue on "disparate
impact" in entrance exams was already being carried out.

The intent stipulation for the disparate treatment claim said the
city would make its "best efforts to recruit black test-takers"
and work with the city's education department, city colleges and
agencies "to create educational and other opportunities that will
enhance the ability of New York City students to pursue careers as
New York City firefighters."

Judge Garaufis previously approved a monetary relief consent
decree on back pay and fringe benefits.

"We have already begun implementing these reforms and we are
pleased the court has agreed that this settlement is a fair and
just resolution," said Eric Eichenholtz, chief of the Law
Department's Labor and Employment Law Division.

Richard Levy -- rlevy@levyratner.com -- of Levy Ratner, lead
counsel for plaintiff-intervenors the Vulcan Society, a group of
black firefighters, and individual applicants, said the
stipulation would have an "important impact on what will be the
future of the Fire Department."


NEW YORK, NY: Judge Okays Post-9/11 Cleaning Claims Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a
settlement of claims by dozens of workers who said they were
injured while cleaning "World Trade Center dust" from buildings
after the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks has been approved by a
federal judge.

Southern District Judge Alvin Hellerstein on June 9 signed the
agreement for 82 workers out of some 1,000 who claim respiratory
and gastrointestinal illnesses as a result of their cleanup work
in and around Ground Zero.  The workers settled with building
owners and their managing agents, contractors and subcontractors.
The judge said the aggregate amount of the settlements comes to
$53,801,796, with payments to plaintiffs ranging from $25,000 to
$1,453,089. The average settlement is $656,119.

Judge Hellerstein presided over the massive 2010 settlement of
claims against the City of New York and its captive insurance fund
established after the 9/11 attacks.  That settlement has resulted
in total compensation to plaintiffs of over $600 million.

He said the approach to the 82 workers was functionally similar,
with points awarded to individual plaintiffs based on the
diagnosis of various alleged conditions, their severity and "any
documented treatment received," for exposure to WTC dust, with
adjustments made for age, smoking history, death, lost earnings
and participation in the captive settlement.  Also factored in
were the time each plaintiff spent in each building.

The judge also approved the 25 percent attorney fee request of
Gregory J. Cannata & Associates, and Robert Grochow P.C., the law
firms representing the 82 plaintiffs in World Trade Center
Disaster Site Litigation, 21-mc-00102


NEW ZEALAND: October 9 Deadline Set for Kiwifruit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
3News reports that Kiwifruit growers are being urged to join a
class action against the government over poor border controls.

Kiwifruit growers and post-harvest operators affected by the Psa
virus have until October 9 to sign up to The Kiwifruit Claim, the
High Court at Wellington has ruled.  The court says they should be
allowed to bring the proceedings as a representative or class
action, which has been opposed by the Crown Law Office.

The group bringing the action says the court approved the terms of
a funding agreement for LPF Litigation Funding Ltd.  The agreement
has been signed by 72 growers and post-harvest operators.

"In a nutshell, the claim alleges that Biosecurity NZ was
negligent in allowing Psa to be introduced into New Zealand,
costing New Zealand at least $885 million," claim spokesman
Matthew Hooton said.

The combined losses of those who have already signed up is
estimated to be more than $280 million, Mr. Hooton said.

Prime Minister John Key has said the government is confident of
its position and handled things appropriately but people are free
to take legal action.


NII HOLDINGS: Court Extended Stay of Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
NII 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 extended
the stay in a class action lawsuit until the earlier of May 22,
2015 or the effective date of a plan of reorganization.

On March 4, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company, NII Capital Corp. and certain of the
Company's current and former directors and executive officers in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of the Company or NII Capital
Corp. between February 25, 2010 and February 27, 2014. The lawsuit
is captioned In re NII Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case
Number 14-CV-227.

On July 18, 2014, the parties that have been designated as the
lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed a second amended complaint
against only NII Holdings and three current and former officers,
which generally alleges that the defendants made false or
misleading statements or concealed material adverse information
about the Company's financial condition and operations in
violation of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5 and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint seeks class
certification and unspecified damages, fees and injunctive relief.
On September 22, 2014, the judge issued an order staying all
proceedings against the Company following the Company's filing of
its petition for relief under Chapter 11. On October 6, 2014, the
Company's and the individual defendants' motion to dismiss was
denied, and the case is currently continuing as to the remaining
individual defendants. On November 3, 2014, at the request of the
parties, the court ordered that the case against the three
individual defendants be stayed indefinitely, and on January 7,
2015, the court extended the stay until the earlier of May 22,
2015 or the effective date of a plan of reorganization. The
Company and the named individuals will continue to vigorously
defend themselves in this matter.


NOVATION COMPANIES: Lower Court Vacates Class Action Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Novation Companies, 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 lower court has
granted plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and vacated its
earlier dismissal in a class action case.

On May 21, 2008, a purported class action case was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, by the
New Jersey Carpenters' Health Fund, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated. Defendants in the case included
NovaStar Mortgage Funding Corporation ("NMFC"), a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Company, and its individual directors, several
securitization trusts sponsored by the Company ("affiliated
defendants") and several unaffiliated investment banks and credit
rating agencies. The case was removed to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. On June 16,
2009, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The plaintiff
seeks monetary damages, alleging that the defendants violated
sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended,
by making allegedly false statements regarding mortgage loans that
served as collateral for securities purchased by the plaintiff and
the purported class members.

On August 31, 2009, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
plaintiff's claims, which the court granted on March 31, 2011,
with leave to amend. The plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint on May 16, 2011, and the Company again filed a motion to
dismiss. On March 29, 2012, the court dismissed the plaintiff's
second amended complaint with prejudice and without leave to
replead. The plaintiff filed an appeal.

On March 1, 2013, the appellate court reversed the judgment of the
lower court, which had dismissed the case. Also, the appellate
court vacated the judgment of the lower court which had held that
the plaintiff lacked standing, even as a class representative, to
sue on behalf of investors in securities in which plaintiff had
not invested, and the appellate court remanded the case back to
the lower court for further proceedings.

On April 23, 2013 the plaintiff filed its memorandum with the
lower court seeking a reconsideration of the earlier dismissal of
plaintiff's claims as to five offerings in which plaintiff was not
invested, and on February 5, 2015 the lower court granted
plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and vacated its earlier
dismissal. Given the early stage of the litigation, the Company
cannot provide an estimate of the range of any loss. The Company
believes that the affiliated defendants have meritorious defenses
to the case and expects them to defend the case vigorously.


NYDJ APPAREL: Faces "Molina" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fidela S. Molina, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. NYDJ Apparel, LLC and Does 1-100 inclusive, Case No.
BC587034 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 6, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the California Labor Code.

NYDJ Apparel, LLC is a New York limited liability company that
manufactures and distributes female clothing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Nourmand, Esq.
      THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
      8822 West Olympic Blvd
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Facsimile: (310) 553-3603
      Telephone: (310) 553-3600


ONTARIO, CANADA: Judge Tosses Class Action Against WISB
-------------------------------------------------------
Metronews.ca reports that an Ontario Superior Court judge has
quashed a multimillion-dollar class action lawsuit against the
province's Workplace Safety and Insurance Board.

Toronto lawyer Richard Fink launched the lawsuit last year on
behalf of former Brampton sewer worker Pietro Castrillo and
thousands of other injured workers who saw their benefits for pain
and suffering reduced due to medical conditions that weren't
causing impairment before their workplace accidents.

The lawsuit alleged the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board
(WSIB) violated both its policies and provincial legislation by
failing to follow a point system that recognizes pre-existing
medical conditions when calculating non-economic loss awards for
pain and suffering.

The WSIB cuts, which began in 2012, were part of a "secret policy"
enacted in bad faith and "with public malfeasance," the lawsuit
alleged.

The WSIB moved to strike the case, arguing the lawsuit had no hope
of succeeding.  In his decision released late last month, Justice
Edward Belobaba granted the WSIB's motion, noting that provincial
law gives the board and appeal tribunal exclusive jurisdiction to
determine compensation for workplace injuries.

As a result, decisions -- outside allegations of assault or
discrimination -- are "final and not open to question or review in
a court," Justice Belobaba said, quoting previous case law.

Mr. Fink says he will appeal.

Although the WSIB formalized its cost-cutting policy change in
November 2014, benefits for workers like Mr. Castrillo were
deducted two years earlier, he said.

"The issue is whether a breach of the rule of law is sufficient to
compel the courts to force the WSIB to follow its own policy,"
Mr. Fink said.

If the ruling stands, injured workers will have to resort to the
WSIB appeal tribunal, a process that may involve legal fees and
take up to three years, he said.

"Many people will not go to the tribunal out of ignorance, etc.
and the board reaps the benefit . . . It's pretty disturbing,"
Fink added.

A spokeswoman for the WSIB defended board's action.

"Central to the WSIB's mandate is providing fair benefits for
injured workers and helping them return to work so they can lead
fulfilling, productive lives," Christine Arnott said in an email.
"A two-level appeals process exists for injured workers or
employers who wish to have a decision reconsidered."


OSRAM SYLVANIA: $30MM Settlement Meets Ascertainability Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a $30 million settlement by OSRAM Sylvania Inc. in a class action
over automotive replacement headlamps shows the increased efforts
class-action attorneys are making to meet the heightened
ascertainability standard set by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.

The first checks to class members were issued in the suit, which
asserted that Sylvania's top-of-the-line SilverStar headlamps cost
much more than standard bulbs but were falsely promoted as
providing better visibility.  In March, U.S. District Judge
Madeline Cox Arleo of the District of New Jersey approved the
settlement and a fee award of $10 million, which is to be drawn
from the settlement fund. An objector, Clarence Morrison, appealed
the judge's approval to the Third Circuit but withdrew his appeal
June 3.

But class counsel faced a challenge in counting and identifying
class members because Sylvania sells its products to retailers,
not to consumers.  According to Barry Eichen of Eichen, Crutchlow,
Zaslow & McElroy in Edison, that problem made the suit vulnerable
to a challenge under the Third Circuit's strict ascertainability
standard, most recently expressed in an April decision in Byrd v.
Aaron's Inc.

To identify persons who bought the SilverStar headlamps, class
counsel served third-party subpoenas on seven retailers that
represent the majority of the sales of the products.  The
retailers resisted production of data about their customers but
ultimately agreed to turn over names that were obtained from
loyalty-card programs and credit-card transactions, Mr. Eichen
said.  The seven retailers can't be identified because their
cooperation was conditioned on confidentiality orders, Mr. Eichen
said.  After spending months obtaining the data and analyzing it,
class counsel ended up with a list of nearly 1.7 million names, he
said.

Mr. Eichen represented the class along with Evan Rosenberg of his
firm and John Keefe Jr., Stephen Sullivan Jr. and Paul DiGiorgio
of Keefe Bartels in Red Bank.

The settlement will also be distributed through a more traditional
claims process, in which the call for class members is published
in major publications, in addition to the list of buyers obtained
from the retailers, Mr. Keefe said.

According to Mr. Eichen, some of the retailers the attorneys
contacted said they had never received such requests for customer
names, and took a lot of convincing.

"We had to educate some of them on the law.  I think once they
understood we were not looking for proprietary information, we
were able to break through," Mr. Keefe said.

Under the settlement, buyers of SilverStar headlamps will receive
a check averaging $12 each, which represents 70 percent of actual
damages, Mr. Eichen said.  Any funds left over from the $30
million after payments are made to class members and class counsel
will not revert to the settlement, but will be used for a
supplementary payment to class members.  The settlement also calls
for Sylvania to change the language on its packaging to eliminate
misleading claims, Mr. Eichen said.

The $10 million fee award is comprised of $277,652 in costs and
$9,772,347 in attorney fees.  The fee award is approximately 1.5
times the lodestar of roughly $6.5 million. The seven class
representatives will share in $19,000.

The settlement is unusual because it provides class members with
cash payments, rather than coupons for future purchases, and
because any leftover funds go to the class members instead of the
defendant, Mr. Eichen said.

"We don't want to be one of those class-action firms that give
coupons and only worry about their fees," Mr. Eichen said.

David Kistler -- Kistler@BlankRome.com -- and Stephen Orlofsky --
Orlofsky@BlankRome.com -- of Blank Rome in Princeton, who
represented Sylvania, did not return calls for comment about the
settlement.  A Sylvania spokesperson also did not return a call.


PANASONIC CORP: Settles Cathode Ray Tubes Price-Fixing Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that a handful
of global electronics manufacturers have agreed to pay $528
million to settle claims that they fixed the prices of cathode ray
tubes used in computer and TV monitors, bringing the total
recovery for consumers to $563 million.

A group of settlements proposed on May 29 would resolve antitrust
claims against Panasonic Corp., Hitachi Ltd., Toshiba Corp.,
Samsung SDI and Philips on behalf of customers who purchased
products containing the components. The court previously approved
a $10 million settlement with Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd. in 2012,
and a $25 million settlement with LG Electronics Inc. last year.

Lawyers with Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, representing the
indirect-purchaser plaintiffs, plan to distribute the money to
consumers on a sliding scale based on the type and quantity of
products purchased.  If the deal is approved, Samsung SDI pays
$225 million, Philips pays $175 million, Panasonic pays $70
million, Toshiba pays $30 million and Hitachi pays $28 million.

"The proposed settlements occurred after more than seven years of
litigation and after the case was fully developed for trial," the
lawyers wrote in a motion seeking preliminary approval from U.S.
District Judge Samuel Conti of the Northern District of
California.  "The settlements were reached after months of hard-
fought and, at times, contentious negotiations, including multiday
mediations before two retired judges of this court."

The parties used the mediation services of retired Northern
District judges Vaughn Walker and Fern Smith. Plaintiffs lawyers
trumpeted the deal as one of the largest indirect-purchaser price-
fixing settlements ever, second only to LCD flat panel litigation
that settled for almost $1.1 billion in 2012 and 2013.

The proposed settlements include a clause that requires the
defendants to cooperate with plaintiffs in the prosecution of any
continuing litigation, including by authenticating documents and
producing witnesses.

Plaintiffs lawyers listed a number of hurdles they faced heading
into trial, which originally was scheduled to begin March 9.  The
defendants had argued plaintiffs would be unable to show the
alleged price-fixing of cathode ray tubes led to increased prices
at the consumer level.  And plaintiffs had to contend with the
evolving landscape of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements
Act, which dictates under what circumstances foreign participants
in global conspiracies can be held accountable in the United
States.

"A successful jury verdict remained a risky proposition," the
plaintiffs lawyers wrote.

The deal stems from a string of lawsuits filed in 2007 and 2008,
and consolidated in the Northern District of California.  Lawyers
for the class of consumers allege defendants conspired to fix the
prices of cathode ray tubes worldwide between 1995 and 2007.

Hitachi is represented by Kirkland & Ellis; Panasonic is
represented by Winston & Strawn and Weil, Gotshal & Manges;
Philips is represented by Baker Botts; Samsung is represented by
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton; and Toshiba is represented by
White & Case.  Jeffrey Kessler of Winston and Eliot Adelson of
Kirkland declined to comment on the deal, and the other firms did
not respond to emails seeking comment.

The direct-purchaser plaintiffs are represented by Guido and R.
Alexander Saveri of Saveri & Saveri.  They have reached
settlements totalling tens of millions with several defendants,
including Hitachi, Samsung and LG.


PFIZER: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Zoloft Failure-to-Warn Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a Philadelphia jury on June 11 handed up a defense win in a suit
brought by an Illinois woman who said her use of the
antidepressant Zoloft during pregnancy was the cause of her
daughter's congenital heart defects.

The jury in Robinson v. Pfizer reached only the first question on
the verdict sheet, finding Pfizer was not negligent in failing to
warn of the risks of taking Zoloft while pregnant.

This is the second trial and second defense win for Pfizer in
state-court actions across the country regarding Zoloft-induced
birth defects.  A St. Louis jury found in April that a now-11-
year-old boy was not owed damages from Pfizer for his congenital
heart condition.

Both cases were selected by the plaintiffs to be among the first
to be tried.

A federal multidistrict litigation consisting of about 600 cases
is pending before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe of the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on similar claims regarding Zoloft.  A
Daubert hearing is scheduled for those cases in July, with trial
dates currently scheduled to begin in January 2016, a Pfizer
spokeswoman said.

Pfizer was represented at the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas
trial by Beth Wilkinson -- bwilkinson@paulweiss.com -- of Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.  Dechert's Judy Leone served
as local counsel. Attorneys from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart &
Sullivan, who are leading the MDL defense, were involved in the
trial as well.

Mia Robinson and her mother, Rachel Robinson, were represented by
Scott Love of Clark, Love & Hutson in Houston, with Rosemary Pinto
of Feldman & Pinto serving as local counsel.

"While we have great sympathy for families affected by birth
defects, this verdict affirms that the Zoloft label contains
adequate, science-based information on the benefits and risks of
the medicine," Pfizer said in a statement on June 11.  "A range of
independent expert organizations, such as the American Psychiatric
Association, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
and the American Heart Association, have found that Zoloft's use
during pregnancy is not associated with birth defects."

The company said in its statement that, in December 2011, the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration issued further guidance regarding all
selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs, which includes
Zoloft.  The FDA, according to Pfizer, advised health care
professionals "not to alter their current clinical practice of
treating depression during pregnancy."

"Of note, this is the second jury to find in favor of Pfizer in
the Zoloft litigation," Pfizer said in the statement.  "In the
first Zoloft case to reach the trial phase, a Missouri jury found
Pfizer not liable after hearing many of the same expert theories
presented by the plaintiffs in Robinson."

Mia Robinson was born Aug. 5, 2006, with congenital birth and
heart defects that her mother has alleged were caused by Zoloft.
Rachel Robinson began using Zoloft in 2005 for severe depression
and bipolar disorder, according to court documents.  She argued in
her 2011 complaint that she would not have taken the medicine if
the label adequately warned of the risks.  She alleged Pfizer knew
of adverse event reports from the use of Zoloft but concealed
those reports from patients, doctors and the FDA.  She sued Pfizer
and Wolters Kluwer Health, which contracted with pharmacies to
offer the written pamphlets included with prescriptions to
describe the medicines and their risks.  The Wolters Kluwer
defendants were dismissed by the plaintiffs shortly before trial.
The Robinsons sued Pfizer for failure to warn, design defect,
negligence, negligent design, fraud, misrepresentation and
suppression, constructive fraud, breach of implied and express
warranties, gross negligence with malice, loss of consortium and
punitive damages.

According to court documents filed by Pfizer, the company never
tried to hide any reports of adverse events but rather concluded
that they didn't support a finding that Zoloft had a negative
effect on pregnancy.

According to the company's motion for summary judgment in the
case, when Rachel Robinson found out she was pregnant, her
obstetrician told her Zoloft was not approved for pregnancy but
that there were not any known birth-defect risks.  He suggested
she talk to her psychiatrist about whether to continue the drug.

Pfizer said Ms. Robinson never followed up with her psychiatrist
and continued to take 50 mg of Zoloft a day for the remainder of
her pregnancy.  The company noted that Ms. Robinson took the
medication while pregnant with her second child, a son who was
born in 2009 and has no medical issues.

Pfizer said in its court filings that all drugs are required by
the FDA to include a pregnancy category on the label.  By the time
Robinson began using the drug, SSRIs such as Zoloft were
"pregnancy category C" medications, meaning they showed some
effects on the fetuses of animals during testing, but there were
no adequate studies on humans.  Pfizer said the label in place in
2005 told women to talk to their doctor if they became pregnant,
according to court filings.

Pfizer argued the Robinsons could not show Zoloft caused Mia
Robinson's condition and said the label accurately reflected the
existing scientific knowledge of the time.

Requests for comment from Mr. Love and Ms. Pinto were not
immediately returned.

The Pfizer spokeswoman couldn't comment as to what the two defense
wins might mean for future cases.  She said the key thing will be
the ruling on expert testimony in the Daubert hearing in the
federal MDL.

About 60 percent of the more than 600 cases that are currently
part of the Zoloft MDL involve claims of cardiac defects.

The parties are currently arguing over the plaintiffs' second
proposed expert witness, Dr. Nicholas Jewell.

The first expert, Anick Berard, was tossed after a weeklong
Daubert hearing last year.  It was an unusual move for the judge
to allow a second expert in the case.

If he gets through that hearing, the case will likely focus on
just cardiovascular defects, since that is Dr. Jewell's area of
research.  Ms. Berard's research had tied Zoloft to a plethora of
birth defects, but Judge Rufe rejected her testimony, finding
several problems with her methodology.


PHH CORP: CFPB Increases Penalties to $109MM Over Loan Kickbacks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
in the first appeal of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
administrative action, Director Richard Cordray on June 4 imposed
a 17-fold increase in penalties on PHH Corp., ordering the
mortgage lender to pay the bureau $109 million.

Mr. Cordray took a harder line than administrative law judge
Cameron Elliot.  In November 2014, Judge Elliot ordered PHH and
subsidiary Atrium Insurance Corp. to disgorge $6.4 million for
violating the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act by accepting
kickbacks for loans.

As director of the bureau, Mr. Cordray makes the final
determination of any administrative enforcement action brought by
the agency, though his decision can be appealed to a U.S. court of
appeals.  It's an arrangement analogous to that at agencies such
as the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or Federal Trade
Commission, except that the CFPB director alone makes the call,
rather than a five-member commission.

The suit against PHH, one of the nation's largest mortgage
lenders, was the first to come before Mr. Cordray for review. The
consumer protection agency alleged that the company referred
consumers to mortgage insurance companies in exchange for
kickbacks, which took the form of mortgage reinsurance premiums
paid to Atrium.

Judge Elliot found PHH violated the real estate settlement law on
loans that closed on or after July 21, 2008.  In calculating the
penalty, he determined that the improper payment occurred "only at
the very moment that a particular loan closed," according to
Mr. Cordray.

But Mr. Cordray went further, ruling that violations occurred
every time PHH accepted a reinsurance payment.  "Borrowers paid
for the insurance as part of every mortgage payment, and PHH
received a separate thing of value -- a portion of each borrower's
payment -- every time borrowers made their payments," Mr. Cordray
wrote.  As a result, the disgorgement penalty shot up from $6.4
million to $109 million.

A PHH spokesman in an email said the company will appeal.  "We
strongly disagree with the decision of the director.  We believe
this decision is inconsistent with the facts and is not in accord
with well-settled legal principles and interpretations," wrote
Dico Akseraylian, senior vice president, corporate communications.
"We believe our appeal will be successful and, as a result, are
not adjusting our previously issued earnings guidance for this
matter."

PHH was represented by Weiner Brodsky Kider.  Partner
Michael Kider could not immediately be reached for comment.

PHH argued unsuccessfully that a three-year statute of limitations
limited the bureau's authority.  Prior to the CFPB's creation, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development enforced the real
estate settlement law and was bound by a three-year statute of
limitations for actions it brought in court.

But if the CFPB doesn't have to go to court, it has the option of
bringing administrative cases.  And Mr. Cordray wrote that the
"section of the [Consumer Financial Protection Act] that
authorizes the bureau to enforce laws through administrative
proceedings does not contain a statute of limitations."

Still, Mr. Cordray didn't see the power as unlimited. He noted
that the bureau took over for Housing and Urban Development on
July 21, 2011.  That meant HUD could have charged a company with a
real estate settlement violation that occurred no more than three
years earlier, on July 21, 2008.  "If the bureau were to challenge
violations that occurred prior to that date, this would be a
retroactive application of the [Consumer Financial Protection Act]
because it would 'increase a party's liability for past conduct,'
" Mr. Cordray wrote.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federal regulations require the company to notify the National
Response Center, a clearinghouse for reports of hazardous-material
releases, "at the earliest practicable moment."  State law
requires immediate notification of a release or a threatened
release.

Company employees at the scene did not confirm a leak until about
1:30 p.m., and it would be nearly 3:00 p.m. before the company
would contact the response center.  By then, the federal response
led by the Coast Guard was underway.

The federal Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
is investigating the cause of the accident. The agency released
preliminary findings earlier this month that the break occurred
along a badly corroded section that had worn away to a fraction of
an inch in thickness.

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

Cleanup costs have reached $92 million.

Federal elected officials released records from Plains All
American on June 24 that provided a look inside a company trying
to contend with what became the largest coastal oil spill in
California in 25 years.

Those records said that once company workers confirmed oil was in
the ocean, two employees rode along the pipeline to look for a
source.

"It was not readily apparent from their vantage point near the
beach that the oil originated" from the company pipeline, they
said.

It was later determined the oil traveled to the beach down a
culvert near the break.  By the time company employees confirmed
the spill, it was at least an hour after firefighters reported oil
on the beach.

Plains spokeswoman Meredith Matthews said on June 24 that company
personnel were on the beach with firefighters around the same time
local officials alerted the response center to the spill.

"The response was not delayed," she said.

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

Meanwhile, a beachfront property owner became the latest to file a
proposed class-action lawsuit against the company.  Alexandra
Geremia sued on June 23, seeking to represent more than 3,000
other coastal landowners in Southern California against Plains All
American.

The lawsuit mirrors others filed this month in Los Angeles federal
court that mention the number of spills Plains has had in the past
decade and alleges the company should have had automatic shut-off
valves.

The company, which has reported 229 spills since 2006, has said it
regrets the incident and is addressing claims filed against it.
Plains said it doesn't comment on pending litigation.


PMJ ELECTRICAL: Faces "Wrobel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Piotr Wrobel and Tomasz Stankiewicz, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. PMJ Electrical Corp., et
al., Case No. 652382/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., July 6, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the New York State Labor Law.

PMJ Electrical Corp. is engaged in the construction business with
a principle place of business at 7113 Fort Hamilton Parkway,
Brooklyn, New York 11228.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
      Jack Newhouse, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad St, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com
              jnewhouse@vandallp.com


REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE: Judge Denies Motion to Dismiss NJWHL Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
addressing an issue of first impression, a federal judge in Newark
has ruled that a private cause of action is available for
nonpayment of overtime under the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, the
state's analog to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

The judge denied a mortgage company's motion to dismiss an NJWHL
claim by an underwriter who says the company failed to compensate
her with overtime pay when she worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The defendant in Thomson v. Real Estate Mortgage Network Inc.
argued that the NJWHL's provision allowing recovery from employers
failing to pay "the minimum fair wage" dictated that the statute
allowed workers to sue employers who fail to pay the minimum wage
but not those who improperly withhold overtime pay.

But U.S. District Judge Kevin McNulty of the District of New
Jersey ruled that the statute provides an express right to recover
unpaid overtime compensation based on its language, the broad
interpretation it has received in New Jersey courts, and case law
assuming such a right exists.

New Jersey courts have decided numerous cases on the premise that
a private right of action for unpaid overtime exists under the
NJWHL without directly addressing whether such a right exists,
Judge McNulty said.  Citing 10 cases where courts awarded damages
to private parties under the NJWHL, Judge McNulty said the New
Jersey Supreme Court would conclude that such a right exists.

Judge McNulty ruled in a suit on behalf of a class of about 100
underwriters who claimed they were misclassified as exempt from
overtime pay but frequently worked more than 40 hours per week,
including nights and weekends.  The named plaintiff,
Patricia Thomson, brought claims under the FLSA and the NJWHL.

Ms. Thomson was hired by Security Atlantic Mortgage Co. of Edison
in 2009, according to court documents.  In 2010, that company was
taken over by an affiliate, Real Estate Mortgage Network Inc.
Later that year, Thomson quit after she was told underwriters were
not eligible for overtime.

In 2011, Ms. Thomson filed suit against Security Atlantic and
REMN.  In 2012, U.S. District Judge Dennis Cavanaugh of the
District of New Jersey dismissed the case without prejudice, for
failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted.
Ms. Thomson appealed, seeking to hold REMN responsible for its own
nonpayment of overtime and those of Security Atlantic based on the
theory of successor liability.  In April 2014, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit reinstated the case, endorsing
successor liability for the first time in a suit under the FLSA.
McNulty said that although the section of the NJWHL cited by the
defendants to support their motion to dismiss the state-law claim
did not use the word "overtime," that word is used in the
limitations provision of the statute.  That "strongly suggests
that the New Jersey legislature intended for the NJWHL to include
an express private right of action to recover unpaid overtime
payments," Judge McNulty said.  He cited the portion of the
limitation section reading that "no claim for unpaid minimum
wages, unpaid overtime compensation, or other damages under this
act shall be valid with respect to any such claim which has arisen
more than two years prior to the commencement of an action for the
recovery thereof."

Judge McNulty also noted that state courts had interpreted the
NJWHL "broadly and in parallel" with the FLSA.  He noted that in
January of this year, the state Supreme Court said in Hargrove v.
Sleepy's that the NJWHL "is designed to protect employees from
unfair wages and excessive hours.  The statute should be construed
liberally to effectuate its purpose."  The liberal and parallel
construction of the NJWHL and FLSA, Judge McNulty said, makes it
"difficult to conclude that the NJWHL gives employees fewer or
narrower rights than the FLSA."

Mitchell Schley, a solo in East Brunswick who represents
Ms. Thomson, said the ruling is beneficial to plaintiffs bringing
overtime suits, particularly those who wish to bring cases in
state court.

Mr. Schley said the decision was "a big deal in the world of
employment law" because "for all these years people have assumed
that the state law allowed people to file suits about overtime."
"It's significant to the extent that this is the first time,
believe it or not, notwithstanding the extensive litigation in the
state of New Jersey on the subject of overtime," that a court
evaluated the law's applicability to complaints by private
parties, according to Schley. If the judge had ruled otherwise,
the NJWHL still would have applied to enforcement actions brought
by government agencies, but the government lacks the resources to
thoroughly enforce overtime and minimum wage laws and most
enforcement is by private attorneys, Mr.  Schley said.

Ari Karen and Joseph Armstrong of Offit Kurman in Philadelphia,
representing Security Atlantic and REMN, did not return calls
about the case.


REGIONAL HOSPITAL: Resolves Cardiac Procedure Claims for $510,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In a False Claims Act case in which the United States declined to
intervene, Berger & Montague on July 10 disclosed that Regional
Hospital of Jackson, Tennessee, has agreed to pay $510,000 to
resolve claims arising from medically unnecessary stent and other
cardiac procedures performed by one of its interventional
cardiologists.  The United States had intervened in claims against
the cardiologist, which settled in late 2013 for $1,150,000.  The
total amount recovered in the litigation was just under $3
million.

On June 13, 2007, Relator filed a qui tam action in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee
captioned United States of America ex rel. Wood M Deming v.
Jackson Madison County General Hospital; Regional Hospital of
Jackson, et al., No. 07-cv-01116-AJT-egb, pursuant to the qui tam
provisions of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3730(b).
Relator alleged that the defendants submitted or caused the
submission of false or fraudulent claims to the Medicare Program
and the Tennessee Medicaid Program for medically unnecessary
diagnostic and therapeutic cardiology procedures.

The Relator will receive a 27% relator share out of the proceeds
of the settlement, pursuant to the False Claims Act's relator
share provisions.  Relator's counsel will also seek attorney's
fees from the hospital.


REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Removes Warren Suit to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled City of Warren Police and Fire
Retirement System v. Revance Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No.
CIV533635, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Mateo to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California (San Francisco).  The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-02512-HSG to the
proceeding.

The State Court action is a putative class action brought against
Revance, certain of its officers and directors, and certain
underwriters of Revance's June 19, 2014 follow-on public stock
offering.  The State Court Action alleges violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1933.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Ian Jaconette, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: jamesj@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          Post Montgomery Center, Suite 1800
          One Montgomery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 288-4545
          Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
          E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367-7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
          E-mail: SRudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  mblasy@rgrdlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Adam Christopher Trigg, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          Five Palo Alto Square
          3000 El Camino Real
          Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155
          Telephone: (650) 843-5000
          E-mail: atrigg@cooley.com

               - and -

          John C. Dwyer, Esq.
          Shannon Marie Eagan, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          3175 Hanover Street
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 843-5000
          Facsimile: (650) 849-7400
          E-mail: dwyerjc@cooley.com
                  seagan@cooley.com

               - and -

          Joshua D. N. Hess, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          One Bush Street, Suite 1600
          San Francisco, CA 94104-4446
          Telephone: (415) 262-4500
          Facsimile: (415) 262-4555
          E-mail: joshua.hess@dechert.com


RHEEM MANUFACTURING: Sued in N.J. Over Defective Evaporator Coils
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Argabright, Victoria Fecht and Librado Montano,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Rheem Manufacturing Company, Case No. 1:15-cv-05243-JBS-AMD
(D.N.J., July 6, 2015), is brought on behalf of all persons and
entities in the States of New Jersey, New York, and Arizona who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Rheem HVACs that contain
defective evaporator coils made from copper based alloys that
improperly and prematurely corrode and leak refrigerant under
normal use.

Rheem Manufacturing Company is a Delaware Corporation with its
corporate headquarters located at 1100 Abernathy Road, N.E., Suite
1400, Atlanta, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Melanie H. Muhlstock
      PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
      6 Harbor Park Drive
      Port Washington, NY 11050
      Telephone: (516) 466-6500
      E-mail: mmuhlstock@yourlawyer.com

         - and -

      Jordan L. Chaikin, Esq.
      PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
      27300 Riverview Center Blvd., Suite 103
      Bonita Springs, FL 34134
      Telephone: (239) 390-1000
      E-mail: jchaikin@yourlawyer.com

         - and -

      Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
      Brendan S. Thompson, Esq.
      Benjamin Elga, Esq.
      CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
      8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810
      Bethesda, MD 20814
      Telephone: (202) 789-3960
      E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com
              brendant@cuneolaw.com
              belga@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Charles Schaffer, Esq.
      LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
      510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
      Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
      Telephone: (215) 592-1500
      E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com


ROADTEX TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Hahka" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Hahka, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Roadtex Transportation Corp., et al., Case No. BC587180 (Cal.
Super. Ct., July 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor
Code.

Roadtex Transportation Corp. is a New Jersey-based freight
shipping and trucking company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Yeremian, Esq.
      DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC
      535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 230-8380
      Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
      E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com


SANDISK CORP: Taps Wilson Sonsini to Defend Shareholder Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Patience Haggin, writing for The Recorder, reports that SanDisk
Corp. has tapped Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati to fight a
shareholder suit alleging the company failed to disclose adverse
facts about its financial outlook.

Partner Keith Eggleton, who specializes in securities litigation
and counseling, entered an appearance on May 26 in Bowers v.
SanDisk, 15-2050.

The company, a global designer and manufacturer of flash memory
storage technology, reported lower than expected results in its
2014 fourth quarter and its 2015 first quarter, prompting sharp
drops in its stock price, which fell from a high of $107.83 per
share in July 2014 to $66.20 per share in March 2015.

Plaintiffs lawyers with Pennsylvania-based Brodsky & Smith sued
SanDisk, CEO Sanjay Mehrotra and chief financial officer
Judy Bruner in the Northern District of California earlier in May,
claiming the executives failed to disclose unfavorable
information, such as delays with its products, lower than expected
sales and a "lower pricing environment in certain business areas."
The suit seeks to certify a class of shareholders who purchased
SanDisk securities between October 16 and March 25.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd filed a similar complaint against
SanDisk on May 27 on behalf of the City of Sterling Heights
General Employees' Retirement System.


SANTANDER BANK: Loan Officers File Overtime Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a class-action suit filed in federal court in Newark claims
Santander Bank N.A. failed to pay overtime to mortgage loan
officers for time worked in excess of 40 hours per week, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Santander mortgage loan officers routinely are required to work
before and after their shifts, during lunch and on weekends, but
are not paid for that time, according to the suit.

It claims that mortgage loan officers are compensated for their
time on an hourly basis and are considered eligible for overtime
but are prohibited from claiming more than 40 hours.

The bank requires mortgage loan officers to provide their personal
cellphone numbers on their business cards, so that customers can
contact them around the clock, the suit claims.  And during the
workday, mortgage loan officers "rarely, if ever, were given an
uninterrupted meal period," the suit claims.

Named plaintiff Donna Ranieri, who worked for the company from
2001 to 2008, and from July 2012 to June 2013, was a nonexempt
employee who typically worked seven days a week, the suit claims.
On weekdays, she typically used the company-issued laptop computer
to work on files from home in the morning and evening, and
answered customers' inquiries at all hours, the suit says.  On the
weekends, she was required to spend her time marketing Santander
by engaging in activities such as meeting with realtors.
Santander was aware of the hours she worked and therefore knew she
was performing uncompensated overtime, the suit says.

Ms. Ranieri's lunch break was typically interrupted by handling
customer calls, walk-ins and referrals, and company policy
requires bank employees to interrupt their lunch breaks to assist
customers, but to record an uncompensated lunch break even if they
do so, the suit claims.

The suit claims Santander violated the FLSA and the New Jersey
Wage and Hour Law by failing to pay Ms. Ranieri and other
similarly situated mortgage loan officers overtime compensation at
a rate of one-and-a-half times her hourly rate for time worked in
excess of 40 hours per week.

The collective action covers current employees -- and former
employees of the bank in the three years preceding the suit's
June 3 filing date -- who were not paid overtime or time and a
half for hours in excess of 40 per week and whose duties included
working as a mortgage loan officer.

The suit is filed as an opt-in collective action as permitted by
29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b).  The New Jersey class has more than 1,000
members, according to the suit.

Santander is an affiliate of Banco Santander S.A. of Spain, which
bought Sovereign Bancorp in 2009 and changed its name to Santander
Bank in 2013.

Plaintiffs lawyer Michael DiChiara -- md@kdlawllc.com -- of
Krakower DiChiara in Park Ridge did not return a call seeking
comment about the suit.  A spokeswoman for Santander, Nancy
Orlando, said the bank would not comment on the suit.


SECURE ENERGY: "Armfield" Suit Transferred From Colorado to Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Randal Armfield v. Secure Energy
Services USA, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-02993, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston).
The Texas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01563 to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought to recover the alleged unpaid overtime
wages owed to the Defendants' Solids Control Technicians under
federal law.  The Plaintiff was a Solids Control Technician
employed by the Defendants. He contends that he regularly worked
more than 12 hours a day, and 40 hours a week, without receiving
the overtime pay required by federal law.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
          Lindsay Itkin, Esq.
          FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
          1150 Bissonnet
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 751-0025
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
          E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
                  adunlap@fibichlaw.com
                  litkin@fibichlaw.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          David I. Moulton, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
                  dmoulton@brucknerburch.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Patricia A. Konopka, Esq.
          STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP
          1201 Walnut Street, Suite 2900
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 691-3312
          Facsimile: (816) 691-3495
          E-mail: pat.konopka@stinsonleonard.com

               - and -

          Tracey Holmes Donesky, Esq.
          STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP
          150 South Fifth Street, Suite 2300
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 335-1479
          Facsimile: (612) 335-1657
          E-mail: tracey.donesky@stinsonleonard.com

               - and -

          Perry L. Glantz, Esq.
          STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP
          6400 S. Fiddlers Green Circle, Suite 1900
          Greenwood Village, CO 80111
          Telephone: (303) 376-8400
          Facsimile: (303) 376-8439
          E-mail: perry.glantz@stinsonleonard.com


SILVER WHEATON: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on July 8
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Silver Wheaton Corp. securities from March 30, 2011
through July 6, 2015, all dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Silver Wheaton investors
under the federal securities laws.

To join the Silver Wheaton class action, go to the website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-662.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.  The lawsuit is pending in U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
issued materially false and misleading statements to investors
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Silver Wheaton's financial
statements contained errors concerning income tax owed from the
income generated by its foreign subsidiaries; (2) Silver Wheaton
lacked adequate internal controls over its financial reporting;
and (3) as a result of the foregoing, Silver Wheaton's financial
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit
claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
September 8, 2015.  If you wish to join the litigation, go to the
firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-662.htmlor to
discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact, Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen
Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


SIRIUS XM: $210MM Settlement Ignored Class, Turtles' Attorneys Say
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Shuchman, writing for Law.com, reports that Sirius XM's $210
million settlement with major record labels improperly sidelined
copyright claims by the rock band the Turtles, ignored the class
that the band's founders represent and neglected to include
attorney fees for class counsel, the band's attorneys said in a
court filing on July 8.

Calling the Sirius XM settlement "a brazen attempt to disrupt and
interfere with the class action process and the court's
jurisdiction," lawyers for Turtles founders Flo & Eddie asked U.S.
District Judge Philip Gutierrez in Los Angeles to issue an
injunction that would block Sirius' $210 million deal with the
record companies.  Instead, Flo & Eddie's lawyers at Gradstein &
Marzano want the judge to order Sirius to place the funds into an
interest-bearing account "under the court's control and direction"
until the settlement can be investigated further.

Daniel Petrocelli -- dpetrocelli@omm.com -- of O'Melveny & Myers,
who represents Sirius XM in both the Turtles' case and the record
labels' litigation, immediately rejected Flo & Eddie's arguments
in an email.

"This is a maneuver to extract unwarranted attorney fees, and it
has no substance or credibility," Mr. Petrocelli said.

The motion is just the latest development in a nasty,
multijurisdictional copyright fight that dates back to August
2013, when Flo & Eddie sued Sirius for allegedly violating the
Turtles' public performance rights to their pre-1972 sound
recordings.

Federal copyright law doesn't protect recordings made prior to
1972, but last September, Judge Gutierrez found for Flo & Eddie,
ruling that the recordings were protected under California law.
Flo & Eddie won a similar ruling in a parallel case against Sirius
XM in New York federal court, though Sirius has so far defeated
similar claims in Florida.

In May, the satellite radio giant suffered a new setback in the
California case when Gutierrez certified the case as a class
action.  The class includes all artists that own pre-1972 sound
recordings broadcast by Sirius XM without authorization on or
after August 21, 2009.

Meanwhile, members of the Recording Industry Association of
America, including ABKCO Music & Records, Capitol Records, Sony
Music Entertainment, UMG Recordings and Warner Music Group,
followed Flo & Eddie's lead in 2013 and filed their own suit
against Sirius XM -- a case the Flo & Eddie described on July 8 as
a "coattail action."  Sirius XM, the RIAA and the record labels
eventually entered negotiations and finalized a settlement in
June.  Sirius refused to allow Gradstein & Marzano, which
represents the class in the Turtles' case, to attend the
settlement discussions, according to the July 8 brief.

The June settlement agreement, which Sirius included in a
regulatory filing, purports to settle claims not only for the use
of pre-1972 recordings owned by the major labels, but also for
recordings the labels "control or otherwise have the right to
contract with."

"In other words, Sirius XM and the major labels purported to
settle claims for the use of pre-1972 recordings owned by other
class members, and by doing so usurped the role of the court and
class counsel," Flo & Eddie argue in their brief.

In an interview with The Litigation Daily, Gradstein & Marzano's
Henry Gradstein blasted the entire settlement process.  The record
labels and the RIAA had no right to act as an ombudsman class
counsel, he said.  "The settlement freezes out the independents
and others in the class," he said.  "We want a fair resolution for
the entire class."

The Gradstein & Marzano lawyers also note that the settlement
doesn't provide for them to collect attorney fees.  "The major
labels' attempt to exclude class counsel from the settlement (and
obtain a fee based upon that settlement) runs directly afoul of
the rules governing compensation of class counsel," Mr. Gradstein
wrote.

The brief asks the court to issue a temporary restraining order
and a preliminary injunction enjoining Sirius from making payments
to the record labels.  It also asks Gutierrez to permit discovery
about the circumstances of the settlement, and to bar Sirius XM
from communicating with any class members.


SONY PICTURES: Employees' Data Breach Class Action Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal
judge ruled on June 15 that employees of Sony Pictures
Entertainment Inc. whose personal information was exposed in last
year's data breach have standing to sue even if they can't prove
that information was used by criminals.

It's often difficult for lawyers to successfully show collective
harm in data-breach class actions in which plaintiffs can't prove
their personal information was used by criminals.  But U.S.
District Judge R. Gary Klausner of the Central District of
California ruled plaintiffs don't need to allege actual identity
theft, saying he was satisfied with the injury they showed through
money spent to monitor credit, protect passwords and freeze their
credit in the aftermath of the breach.

"It is reasonable to infer that the data breach and resulting
publication of plaintiffs' [personal identifying information] has
drastically increased their risk of identity theft, relative to
both the time period before the breach, as well as to the risk
born by the general public," Judge Klausner wrote, denying a key
portion of Sony's motion to dismiss.  "It is commonly known that
the consequences resulting from identity theft can be both serious
and long-lasting."

Plaintiffs claim a 2014 cyberattack, which the U.S. government
blamed on North Korea, resulted in the release of financial,
medical and other sensitive personal information of at least
15,000 current and former Sony employees.  The hack was tied to
Sony's release of "The Interview," a comedy depicting an
assassination plot against North Korea's leader, Kim Jong Un.

Plaintiffs accuse Sony of negligence in its failure to prevent the
breach, and claim executives were aware of the network's security
problems but made a business decision not to address them.

Sony's lawyers with Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr argued
plaintiffs have no standing to sue because they can't allege they
suffered identity theft, fraudulent charges or misappropriation of
medical information.

"The complaint thus falls short of the basic requirement that a
plaintiff suffer some concrete and particularized injury before he
files suit," the lawyers wrote.

Judge Klausner disagreed, citing the Supreme Court's 2013 ruling
in Clapper v. Amnesty International, which held that plaintiffs
can sue for threatened injury if the injury is "certainly
impending."  He also mentioned a September ruling, in which U.S.
District Judge Lucy Koh of the Northern District of California
found plaintiffs had standing to sue Adobe Systems Inc. over a
2013 data breach even though they couldn't show their information
was misused.

Plaintiffs in the Sony case are represented by Keller Rohrback;
Girard Gibbs; and Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein.

"We are pleased that the court has properly recognized the harm to
Sony's employees resulting from their private information escaping
their employer's protection," Lieff Cabraser partner Michael Sobol
wrote in an emailed statement.

Sony's lawyers and representatives from the company did not
immediately respond to requests for comment.

Plaintiffs also brought a negligence claim against Sony for
failing to timely notify victims of the breach that their
information had been compromised.  Some plaintiffs weren't told
for three weeks, according to the complaint.  Judge Klausner
dismissed that portion of plaintiffs' claim, ruling it's
"implausible" that the delay in notification caused the victims
harm.

Judge Klausner also dismissed plaintiffs' breach of implied
contract and California Customer Records Act claims, as well as
claims brought under Virginia and Colorado statutes that require
companies to provide timely notice to data-breach victims.  The
implied-contract claim fails because plaintiffs did not show Sony
intended to impede its employment agreement with plaintiffs,
Judge Klausner wrote.  And he ruled employees cannot be classified
as "customers" under the Customer Records Act.

The judge upheld plaintiffs' claim under the California
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, potentially allowing
plaintiffs lawyers to seek $1,000 per violation.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Two Law Firms File Price-Fixing Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Leposa, writing for International Meetings Review, reports
that following the recent announcement of a federal antitrust
investigation into alleged coordination of seat supply to
influence airfares among U.S. airlines, two law firms have filed a
class-action suit on behalf of air passengers.

The two new lawsuits, by Keller Rohrback L.L.P. in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California and Burns
Charest LLP in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Texas, allege that Southwest Airlines, American Airlines, Delta
and United Airlines conspired to raise the prices of flights
within the United States.

Both lawsuits point to the recent decline in the price of jet fuel
(40 percent, according to the California suit), and argue that
such a drop should have led to a decline in airfares.  That ticket
prices did not points to anticompetitive activities on the part of
the airlines, the two lawsuits argued.

Similar class action suits have been filed in New York, Chicago
and Washington, D.C. Burns Charest has moved to transfer and
consolidate all the civil cases in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas.

Antitrust Investigation

News of the federal antitrust investigation by the U.S. Department
of Justice broke and drew praise from industry groups representing
travelers, including the Business Travel Coalition (BTC).

"The number one concern that antitrust experts have -- with no
close second -- as with regard to radical consolidation of any
industry, is the risk of tacit competitor coordination on
policies, practices and prices among a reduced number of industry
participants," said BTC Chairman Kevin Mitchell in a statement at
the time.  "Since recent U.S. airline mega-mergers, we have
witnessed near constant airline CEO calls for 'capacity
discipline' during industry gatherings and analyst earnings calls
only to be echoed by analysts in follow-on earning calls with
other airlines.  This represents perhaps the darkest hours of
airline coordination as well as a too-cozy harmonization between
airlines and Wall Street."

At the same time, airline trade group Airlines for America
responded that the growth of low-cost airlines and competition are
benefiting travelers.

"It is customers who decide pricing, voting every day with their
wallets on what they value and are willing to pay for," the group
said in a statement to the LA Times.

Other experts have noted that federal regulators would face a
tough challenge in proving that any collusion took place.
According to experts cited by Scott Mayerowitz of the Associated
Press, the government would have to prove that the airlines were
"deliberately signaling business decisions to each other."

Similar antitrust investigations in the past have relied "smoking
gun" testimony, such as a recording of a call in a 1982
investigation between Robert Crandall, then a senior executive at
American Airlines, and Howard Putnam, then-CEO of Braniff Airways.
During that call, Mr. Crandall said, "Yes.  I have a suggestion
for you.  Raise your goddamn fares 20 percent. I'll raise mine the
next morning."

While airline executives and Wall Street analysts have been open
about discussing the need to restrict passenger capacity in recent
years, according to the AP analysis, it remains unclear whether
any airline crossed the line into illegal activity.


SPOKEO INC: WLF Wants Supreme Court to Overturn FCRA Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sue Reisinger, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that the
Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) has asked the U.S. Supreme Court
to overturn a lower court decision that could allow uninjured
plaintiffs to sue in federal court for technical violations of
federal law.

"Unless the Supreme Court reverses the holding below, it will
authorize uninjured individuals to invoke federal court
jurisdiction based on so-called injuries consisting of little more
than an affront to their sensibilities caused by the haunting fear
that someone, somewhere may not be complying with every jot and
title of federal law," said a July 9 statement from WLF senior
litigation counsel Cory Andrews.

The friend of the court brief involves the case Spokeo v. Robins.
Spokeo Inc., an online search engine that includes credit report
information on individuals, is accused of violating several
statutes in the Fair Credit Reporting Act and providing inaccurate
information about the plaintiff's employment and financial status.
The company is represented by Andrew Pincus --
apincus@mayerbrown.com -- of Mayer Brown.

The district court dismissed the action for lack of concrete harm
to Thomas Robins, the plaintiff.  But the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit reinstated the case, saying the inaccurate
information gave Mr. Robins standing to sue.  Spokeo is asking the
high court to hear the case and overrule the Ninth Circuit.

The United States, by invitation from the Supreme Court, has filed
a brief that recommends the Ninth Circuit ruling be left alone.
WLF disagrees.  In its brief, WLF argues that Article III of the
U.S. Constitution bars federal courts from hearing claims brought
by plaintiffs who suffered no concrete harm from alleged statutory
violations.  Congress cannot alter the Constitution's separation
of powers, which bars courts from hearing cases brought by
uninjured plaintiffs, it states.

Besides WLF, Spokeo is supported in friend of the court briefs by
numerous organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
and by various businesses, including eBay Inc., Facebook Inc.,
Google Inc. and Yahoo Inc.

The Chamber's brief argues that the lower court decision
"transforms a technical statutory violation into Article III
standing.  And it says the ruling "invites abusive class-action
litigation."  The brief was filed by Roy Englert Jr. --
renglert@robbinsrussell.com -- of Robbins, Russell, Englert,
Orseck, Untereiner & Sauber, with Kate Comerford Todd and Tyler
Green of the National Chamber Litigation Center Inc.

The online services companies argue in a joint brief that injury
in law alone cannot satisfy Article III's requirement.

"Enforcement of statutory violations that cause no harm is the
province of the executive branch, not the courts," it states.
Patrick Carome of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr represents
the group.

But the brief of U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr.
supports the plaintiff. It insists that "petitioner's publication
of inaccurate information about respondent is an Article III
injury-in-fact."  Disseminating the inaccurate personal
information "is a form of concrete harm that courts have
traditionally acted to redress, whether or not the plaintiff can
prove some further consequential injury," it says.

Mr. Verrilli is joined in the brief by general counsel
Meredith Fuchs and other in-house counsel of the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau.  Plaintiff Robins is represented by
Deepak Gupta, of Gupta Beck in Washington, D.C., and by the
Edelson law firm in Chicago.  The WLF's Andrews disagrees with the
U.S. stance.

"Private citizens may be unhappy to discover that someone else is
violating federal law, but it is up to the government to enforce
the law," he said.  "A sense of personal outrage gives no right to
file a lawsuit seeking damages."


STANDARD FIRE: Hearing Begin in Hurricane Sandy Insurance Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Keshner, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
hearings into allegations of improperly altered engineering
reports in Hurricane Sandy insurance cases began on May 20 in
Brooklyn federal court, despite defense concerns about the
proceedings turning into "mini-trials" on the merits of denials or
perceived underpayments.

In addition to the May 20 proceedings involving Standard Fire
Insurance Company, which said there was no evidence suggesting its
employees knew of any purported misconduct, hearings for two other
companies are scheduled before the end of June.

Overseeing the homeowner insurance litigation arising from the
2012 storm, Eastern District Magistrate Judges Cheryl Pollak, Gary
Brown and Ramon Reyes Jr. have heard plaintiff-side complaints
that reports were revised, resulting in coverage denials and
smaller payouts.

In November, Brown sanctioned one insurer for a "secretly"
rewritten engineering report in Raimey v. Wright National Flood
Insurance, 14-cv-461.  He ordered the defense in all Sandy cases
to give plaintiffs all draft, redline and mark-up reports.

The three magistrate judges had scheduled a February hearing to
delve into claims that alterations were widespread but adjourned
it without a date when the Federal Emergency Management Agency
stepped in to directly start negotiating settlements with
plaintiffs counsel.  The agency oversees the National Flood
Insurance Program, which permits insurance companies to offer
flood insurance through the "Write Your Own" program.

As of earlier in May, there were 490 open Sandy cases and 874
cases that either settled or were administratively closed.
After a hearing in April to address issues snagging settlements,
the trio decided to put the hearings back on for carriers that
would not settle their cases.

May 20 marked the first day of a two-day hearing for Standard Fire
Insurance, with Judge Pollak sitting on the matter.

In court papers submitted before the hearing, J. Steve Mostyn of
the Mostyn Law Firm in Houston, said the facts within nine
Standard Fire cases would serve as examples of "systemic patterns
of misconduct."

Specifically, Mr. Mostyn said plaintiffs would show, among other
things, evidence fabrication and the use of "form reports" with
already-determined language by the engineering firm U.S. Forensic,
as well as Standard Fire's "repeated and continued violations" of
discovery obligations.

"What should have been a cacophony of varied observations,
assessments, and conclusions from various engineers visiting a
variety of distinct properties was, in fact, a singular refrain of
canned denials. . . . Standard Fire, having received numerous U.S.
Forensic reports, cannot credibly claim it was blind to this
apparently uniformity of result," Mr. Mostyn said.

Standard Fire responded that the hearing was "unnecessary,
improper" and contrary to due process requirements because it
allowed "a mini-trial on the merits" without formal discovery and
before magistrate judges who did not have the power to conduct
such a trial.

Furthermore, Mr. Mostyn's asserted facts and law were "flatly
incorrect," wrote the insurer's attorney, Stephen Goldman --
sgoldman@rc.com -- a partner at Robinson & Cole.

"The evidentiary hearing that plaintiffs are pursuing is an
improper effort by plaintiffs' liaison counsel to raise issues
that are for trial, and to attempt to generate settlement pressure
and media attention and an attempt to obtain exorbitant attorneys'
fees," Mr. Goldman said.

The only valid issue for the hearing was on Mr. Mostyn's sanction
request, based on the claimed violation of discovery obligations
in case management orders, he said.

Sanctions were not merited, however, because the carrier and its
counsel at Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young made "a thorough, good-
faith effort" to follow court orders. Delays in producing
engineering files for two cases were an "oversight" that could
have been fixed sooner if plaintiffs brought the matter to their
attention sooner, Mr. Goldman wrote.

When the hearing started on May 20, Judge Pollak noted the
question of what she was, and was not, empowered to do.  "I think
I know what the scope of my authority is," she said, but added
that she wanted to hear more on what the parties thought the
subject of the hearing would be.

Gregory Cox of the Mostyn Firm said the proceedings pertained to
"ongoing discovery abuse."

"Every time we think we understand the universe, we keep getting
new documents," and Mr. Cox said he was not talking about things
like a "stray email."

Wystan Ackerman -- wackerman@rc.com -- an associate at Robinson &
Cole, said the defense did not dispute that if the proceedings had
to do with enforcement of case management orders, Pollak had
jurisdiction.

Judge Pollak said she saw the proceedings as a "continuation" of
Brown's orders in Raimey, pertaining to alleged discovery
failures.

The first witness was David Powell, a vice president of claims.
He said the company used a third-party vendor to handle flood
claims, which, in turn, used U.S. Forensic.

The vendor reported "very little" to the carrier, Mr. Powell said.
Asked if the carrier made any internal investigations into U.S.
Forensic, Mr. Powell said, "outside what our attorneys have done,
not that I'm aware of."

At one point, Mr. Cox asked Powell to compare two engineering
reports generated by U.S. Forensic for a case.

The company's attorney, Larry Demmons of The Demmons Law Firm in
Metairie, Louisiana, objected, saying matters were going into the
merits, not discovery.

Judge Pollak overruled him, saying what was produced, and if it
was different from related documents, was "part and parcel" of
discovery.

Mr. Cox then asked Mr. Powell if he read an internal U.S. Forensic
email as an instruction to change conclusions.

"I would agree," he said.

When Mr. Goldman questioned Mr. Powell, Mr. Powell said the
company had no financial incentive for an underpayment or denial.
Of some 20,000 claims, only 27 came through the consumer complaint
department about U.S. Forensic and had to do with responsiveness,
not ultimate conclusions.

Mr. Powell said there was industry concern about FEMA's capacity
to deal with Sandy's aftermath.

He said Standard Fire was proactive in getting advances to
customers-something the company had not done before.

"Sandy became a real risk to our brand," Mr. Powell said, adding
that Standard Fire "pride[d] ourselves on catastrophe management."
After hearing Goldman question Powell, Cox said he had heard
Mr. Powell say the "most important" thing was protecting the
brand.  Mr. Cox asked if the company's actions had "nothing to do
with" helping flood victims.

"That's exactly how we protect our brand," Mr. Powell replied.
Demmons declined to comment.

The judges scheduled a hearing on "any potential issues" in
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company cases for June 17 and 18.  They
calendered a June 29 and 30 hearing for American Bankers Insurance
Company of Florida.


STONEHAVEN EXPLORATION: Settles Class Action; Oct. 9 Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stonehaven Exploration Ltd. on July 10 disclosed that the parties
to the class action proceedings commenced in the Alberta Court of
Queen's Bench, in August 2013, have entered into an agreement
whereby they have, subject to Court approval, agreed to settle the
Class Action upon the terms and conditions set forth in the
Settlement Agreement.

Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the parties have
agreed, among other things, for the full and final release and
dismissal of all claims and allegations made in the Class Action,
by the establishment of a $5.5 million settlement fund.  If the
settlement is approved by the Court, Stonehaven will contribute
$1.0 million to the settlement amount.  The Settlement Agreement
provides for no admission of liability on the part of the
defendants.  An application by the parties to the Court to approve
the Settlement Agreement is scheduled for October 9, 2015.

Stonehaven and the other defendants have denied and continue to
deny any and all liability with respect to any of the claims made
in the Class Action.  The settlement is being made to avoid the
burden and expense of further litigation and to allow Stonehaven
to conduct its business without the continuing encumbrance of the
lawsuit.

Further information relating to Stonehaven is also available on
its website at www.stonehavenexp.com


TAKATA CORP: CEO Apologizes Over Air Bag Defect Scandal
-------------------------------------------------------
Elaine Kurtenbach, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
the CEO of Takata Corp., the Japanese air bag maker at the center
of a defect scandal that has resulted in recalls of more than 33.8
million vehicles, appeared at a news conference on June 25 for the
first time since the problems emerged but shed little light on the
underlying cause of the problems.

Earlier, Shigehisa Takada apologized to shareholders at their
annual meeting.  He then faced media questions, bowing in apology
both before and after the news conference.

"We apologize deeply for the great amount of concern and
inconvenience we have caused to everyone," he said.

On June 25, Toyota Motor Corp., Nissan Motor Co. and other
Japanese automakers announced expansions of their earlier recalls.

Toyota said it was recalling another 2.86 vehicles globally.  In
an emailed statement, the company said the recalls did not expand
the models affected but broadened the manufacturing periods
involved.  Some 1.729 million of those vehicles were sold in
Europe.  Nissan said it was recalling an additional 198,000
vehicles built between April 2007 and December 2008.

At least eight people have been killed and 100 injured by the
defective air bags, which can explode with excessive force, firing
shrapnel into the vehicle.  The problem has persisted for over a
decade, affecting 11 automakers including Honda, BMW and Toyota.

Takada said the exact cause was still under investigation.

"We are a company that should be providing safety.  Our product
quality should be assured," he said.  "What I must do now is to
handle the problem properly and deliver safety to our customers.
That is my priority, first and foremost."

A chemical inside the inflators of the air bag can kick in with
too much force, blowing apart the metal inflator and sending
shards flying.  Exposure to moisture for extended periods appears
to trigger the problem.

Takata's air bags have been installed in more than 50 million
vehicles worldwide. The company says it has changed its air bag
design and is no longer using the batwing-shaped inflator that was
involved in the eight fatal accidents and most of the injuries.

The Japanese company faces a huge financial burden in responding
to the crisis, but says its banks have been supportive.

Takada refused comment on the total cost of the quality problems.


TAKATA CORP: Still Unable to Find Root Cause of Air Bag Defect
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a top executive of air bag manufacturer Takata Corp.,
testifying before a congressional hearing on June 2, continued to
defend his company's use of an explosive chemical that he
acknowledged was a factor in spontaneous ruptures that caused at
least six deaths and 100 injuries.

Kevin Kennedy, executive vice president of North America at TK
Holdings Inc., Takata's U.S. unit, conceded that a growing number
of tests "seem to indicate that ammonium nitrate is certainly a
factor in the inflator ruptures."  But he resisted demands from
members of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce to stop
using the chemical immediately.

Plaintiffs lawyers also have pinpointed the chemical in more than
100 lawsuits against Takata, the only air bag manufacturer that
uses the chemical.

Mr. Kennedy was unable to assure committee members that Takata
would find a root cause of the defect that prompted the recall of
nearly 34 million vehicles on May 19.

"It's been very elusive to us and it's been very, very difficult
to get a consistent pattern that would tell us exactly what the
root cause is," Mr. Kennedy said.

Earlier in the hearing, Mark Rosekind, administrator at the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which is
conducting its own independent tests, also said the defect's root
cause may never be identified.

That didn't sit well with many of the committee members.
"The technology is truly rocket science, but you don't need to be
a rocket scientist to see that more needs to be done and should
have been done much quicker," said U.S. Rep. Fred Upton, R-
Michigan, chairman of the House subcommittee on commerce,
manufacturing and trade.  "Testing is overdue, change is overdue
and safety replacement parts are overdue."

The hearing was the second for Takata, whose vice president for
global quality assurance, Hiroshi Shimizu, appeared on Capitol
Hill in December but refused to make the recalls national.  The
latest recall involved 11 major automakers, many of which expanded
their own recalls in recent days.  The move doubled last year's
regional recalls involving 10 automobile manufacturers, including
Honda, BMW and Nissan.

Mr. Kennedy said on June 2 that most of the ruptures have occurred
in older driver-side air bags, which have "batwing"-shaped
inflators the company is phasing out completely. Some passenger-
side air bags also would be recalled.

In the meantime, replacement parts would either have different
designs or come from its competitors, he said.

Mr. Rosekind said seven of the 11 automakers so far have provided
a specific list of recalled cars to his agency, available at
www.safercar.gov, and that a final list should be completed in
less than two weeks. He encouraged car owners to check the website
weekly.

He said officials would coordinate with Takata and the automakers
to come up with a full replacement plan by this fall.  "Now NHTSA
is in the driver seat, and we will coordinate to prioritize that
the supplies are available and get out there as quickly as
possible," he said.

He called upon Congress to increase funding to the agency.
Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx has proposed the Grow
America Act, which would raise the maximum civil penalty for
automotive defects to $300 million from the existing $35 million.
Ranking subcommittee member Jan Schakowsky, D-Illinois, has
introduced the Vehicle Safety Improvement Act of 2015 to boost
funding to NHTSA.

"It's all about the safety division," Mr. Rosekind said.  "You
give us more resources, we'll give you more safety."


TAKEDA PHARMA: Lanier Calls Actos Jury Verdict "Accomplishment"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Alice Robbins, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that The
Lanier Law Firm accomplished something in 2014 that it had not
done before -- it won a more than $9 billion jury verdict.

"Winning $9 billion is something I'd never done," said
Mark Lanier, the only partner in the Houston-based firm.

A jury in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana awarded that amount on April 7, 2014, in Allen v. Takeda
Pharmaceuticals International, the first case to go to trial over
the link between the prescription diabetes drug Actos and bladder
cancer.

Originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of New York on July 29, 2011, Allen was transferred along
with other Actos cases to the federal court in Louisiana by the
U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in December 2011.
New York residents Terrence Allen and his wife, Susan, the
plaintiffs, alleged in their third amended complaint, filed in
May 2013, that using Actos from June 9, 2006, to April 4, 2011,
caused Terrence Allen's bladder cancer.  The plaintiffs further
alleged in the complaint that researchers and defendants became
aware in the early 2000s that Actos could cause bladder cancer but
concealed their knowledge for more than 10 years.

Eli Lilly & Co., also a defendant in the case, had partnered with
Takeda to market Actos.

Describing himself as a "hired gun" on the case, Mr. Lanier said
the plaintiffs steering committee asked him to try Allen, agreeing
to his requirements that he would examine every witness and make
every argument.  Mr. Lanier said 10 lawyers from his firm were
among the approximately 45 lawyers who worked on the case.

Richard Arsenault, a partner in Neblett, Beard & Arsenault in
Alexandria, La., was one of the attorneys who brought Mr. Lanier
into the case prior to the trial.  In an email, Mr. Arsenault
credited Mr. Lanier with winning the $9 billion jury verdict.

Mr. Arsenault wrote, "As a lawyer who has taught trial advocacy
for nearly three years, I can say without any reservation that
Mark Lanier's litigation skills are legendary.  His arsenal
includes an unparalleled ability to process and communicate
complex facts, all superimposed on laser-beam attention to
detail."

Allen involved allegations of extensive spoliation by Takeda.
Lanier said he has tried other cases in which there were arguments
that a document here or there had been destroyed, but the
allegation in Allen was that there had been a systematic
destruction of documents pertaining to Actos.

U.S. District Judge Rebecca F. Doherty, who presided over Allen,
wrote in a Jan. 27, 2014, opinion that Takeda had put a litigation
hold on documents electronic data related to Actos in 2002 but
breached its obligation by repeatedly destroying documents
containing information that was likely "beneficial to the
plaintiffs' case."  Judge Doherty wrote in the opinion that she
found it "wholly reasonable" to allow the jury to hear all
evidence and arguments establishing or bearing on the good or bad
faith of Takeda's conduct and would address that in her
instructions to the jury.

The jury allocated $6 billion of its $9 billion award to the
Allens for punitive damages to Takeda, with the other $3 billion
allocated to Eli Lilly.  The jury also awarded the Allens $1.5
million in actual damages.

In October 2014, Judge Doherty reduced the punitive damages award
to approximately $37 million.  In May, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit dismissed without prejudice the appeal filed
by Takeda and Eli Lilly.  The dismissal came after Takeda
announced it would put $2.4 billion into a settlement fund
provided 97 percent of the plaintiffs and claimants opt into the
deal.  While The Lanier Law Firm was working on Allen, Lanier and
seven other lawyers from his firm met with attorneys from around
the country to help negotiate a nationwide settlement in a
proposed class action against firearms manufacture Remington Arms
Co. over an alleged defective trigger mechanism in Remington Model
700 rifles.

Lanier's firm is among the firms representing the plaintiffs in
Pollard v. Remington Arms.  Ian Pollard had filed the suit in
January 2013, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Missouri.

"We actually had a mediation one evening during the Allen trial,"
Mr. Lanier said.

Plaintiffs and defendants conducted a mediation session amid
scholarly writings on the Bible in the Lanier Theological Library
in Houston.

"It was peaceful," Mr. Lanier said.

In December 2014, the plaintiffs and Remington Arms announced a
proposed settlement that would require Remington to fix the
trigger mechanism in thousands of rifles or provide vouchers worth
up to $12.50 for Remington products.  U.S. Senior District Judge
Ortie Smith of Kansas City, Missouri, gave preliminary approval to
the settlement in April.  Mr. Lanier said the amount of the
settlement depends on how many gun owners request a retrofit.

Also in 2014, the Lanier Law Firm negotiated a $1 million
settlement for El Paso resident Benito Gonzalez, who was severely
burned in 2011 when a crane operator trying to load equipment on a
truck in which Mr. Gonzalez had been a passenger struck a power
line.  The settlement resolved Gonzalez v. Central Florida
Irrigation Services, filed in 2012 in the 10th Judicial Circuit
Court in Polk County, Florida.

Lanier attorney Judson Waltman, who represented Mr. Gonzalez, said
his client was touching the truck when an electrical current
surged into it.  Mr. Gonzalez was injured and the crane operator
was killed, said Mr. Waltman, managing attorney for personal
injury, product liability and maritime litigation in Lanier's
Houston office.

Mr. Waltman said the case required "a good bit of legwork" to
determine coverage issues and whether it would make sense to
negotiate a settlement or try the case.  He said the toughest
thing about the case was taking a deposition from the crane
operator's father, who owned the company and was determined to
have liability for the accident.

The Lanier Law Firm also has received praise from a client.
Paul Ward, Southern Methodist University's vice president for
legal and government affairs, said that SMU has had "a very good
working relationship" with the firm, which represented the
university in two matters in recent years.  Mr. Ward said the firm
represented SMU in a dispute over a real property matter, about
which he declined to elaborate, and in United Educators' denial of
insurance coverage stemming from the property dispute.

SMU was able to avoid litigation over the coverage matter, which
was resolved by a settlement in 2013, he said.

"Our goal is to resolve disputes in an appropriate manner and at
the earliest opportunity," Mr. Ward said.  "That's only possible
when a client has sufficient information and confidence in the
legal analysis and advice of its legal counsel, and we did with
The Lanier Law Firm."


TIME WARNER: Ordered to Pay Consumer $200,000 for Robocalls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for Law.com, reports that the fact that a
phone number is reassigned does not shield a company from
liability under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for
"robocalling" consumers without their consent, a federal judge has
ruled.

As a result, Southern District Judge Alvin Hellerstein awarded
Aracelli King of Texas more than $200,000 for receiving 153
unwanted calls from Time Warner Cable starting in 2013.

Judge Hellerstein said it didn't matter that the company was auto-
dialing the intended recipient.  He cited a recent series of
declaratory rulings adopted by the Federal Communications
Commission (FCC) that state, "reassigned numbers aren't loopholes
-- if a phone number has been reassigned, companies must stop
calling the number after one call."

The decision came in the case of King v. Time Warner Cable, 14
Civ. 2018, where Ms. King was assigned by Sprint the phone number
that once belonged to Time Warner customer Luiz Perez.

Time Warner's "interactive voice response" calling system, used in
part to let customers know their accounts are past due, sought out
Mr. Perez.  But in the process, it dialed Ms. King's cellphone
number 163 times between July 2013 and August 2014.

Ms. King sued under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991,
47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, which bars use of an "automatic telephone
dialing system" for making calls without the "prior express
consent of the called party."  The statute allows for statutory
damages of $500 per call, with the total to be trebled where the
violation is willful or knowing.

Ms. King claimed that 153 of the calls were willful or knowing
violations of the law because they came after an Oct. 3, 2013
conversation in which she assured a company representative that
she was not Luiz Perez and wanted the calls to stop.

A trial was set to begin on July 27 before Judge Hellerstein.
Time Warner moved for a stay until after the FCC issued guidance
on the term "called party" under the law and make a submission to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on a similar
case: Sterling v. Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, 11-cv-639, where
Western District Magistrate Judge Jeremiah McCarthy and Judge
Richard Arcara also found that a "called party" refers to the
actual person called.

The circuit delayed decision pending guidance from the FCC, but
Judge Hellerstein, with a trial approaching and interpretation of
the statute a relatively straightforward matter, denied the stay
and made the ruling himself.

"The text is clear and unambiguous on its face: called party means
the party that was called," he said.  "If Congress intended to
refer to the party that the caller wanted to reach when it dialed
the number, it would have used different language."

Judge Hellerstein rejected Time Warner's argument that its
interactive voice response system was not an automatic telephone
dialing system because it does not dial numbers at random or in
sequence, but merely assembles a list of customers who owe money
and calls them.

This, he said, "ignores the fact that the lists were not created
by a human" and there was no "human involvement at all in any
stage of the customer selection list compilation, or dialing
process.  The method is fully automated from start to finish."

The company also said it was being held liable under an
unpredictable statute, but the judge said businesses "are on clear
notice that auto-dialing phones is prohibited by default."

The judge granted summary judgment for the company on the calls
before Oct. 3, 2013 and summary judgment for Ms. King for the
calls placed after that date, awarding her $229,500 in damages.

Charles Cole of Newman Myers Kreines Gross Harris represents Time
Warner.

Time Warner spokeswoman Susan Leepson said the company was
reviewing the ruling and its options to determine how it will
proceed.

Sergei Lemberg of Lemberg Law in Stamford, Connecticut represents
King.

"We're happy the judge sought to send a message to the industry to
respect the privacy of consumers," Mr. Lemberg said.


TOYOTA MOTORS: $15.6MM Verdict in Personal Injury Case Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
in declining to hear argument in a personal injury case against
Toyota dealerships, the state Supreme Court has allowed a $15.6
million verdict against the car company to stand.

The justices denied allocatur in Lewis v. Toyota Motor on June 17.
The case involved passengers in a Toyota van who were injured when
the vehicle malfunctioned and sped into a ravine.

Thomas Duffy -- tjd@duffyfirm.com -- of Duffy + Partners, who
represented the plaintiffs, said, "Appeals are a question of
whether or not the judge got it right, not whether the lawyers got
it right, and the Supreme Court's ruling says that Judge Overton
got it right and Judge Lazarus who wrote the opinion in the
Superior Court got it right."

John J. Hare -- jjhare@mdwcg.com -- of Marshall Dennehey Warner
Coleman & Goggin represented the defendants and declined to
comment.

In October, a three-judge Superior Court panel upheld a
Philadelphia jury's award of roughly $11.3 million to Dr. Noreen
Lewis, the driver of the rented Toyota Sienna minivan, and roughly
$4.3 million to the five passengers who rode with her.  The
verdict was rendered against the Center City Toyota and Ardmore
Toyota dealerships, which the plaintiffs claimed did not properly
inspect the van for problems.

Center City Toyota and Ardmore Toyota, referred to collectively as
CCT by the court, requested a new trial, claiming the testimony of
one of its expert witnesses was unfairly limited because he could
not testify about the specifics of the accident.

However, Judge Anne E. Lazarus wrote in a memorandum decision that
CCT's auto mechanic expert, Timothy Hilsey, was not qualified to
testify on the manner in which the accident occurred.

"Hilsey was presented as an automotive mechanic, and, accordingly,
the trial court qualified him only as an automotive mechanic
expert. Additionally, Hilsey did not inspect the vehicle involved
in the instant accident," Judge Lazarus said.  "For these reasons,
the trial court found that Hilsey's testimony regarding the speed
of the car, the movement the tire made, or damage to the vehicle
would have been purely speculative and outside his realm of
expertise."

On March 8, 2008, Ms. Lewis was driving the van from Philadelphia
to Vestal, New York, accompanied by five family members.
According to the trial court's summary, Ms. Lewis heard a "jerk"
and shortly thereafter the steering wheel locked and the brakes
failed.  The van went off the road and rolled several times down a
ravine.

Ms. Lewis suffered a concussion, several fractured bones,
lacerations to her face, ripped muscles, contusions to the lungs
and heart, and disc and vertebrae injuries.  Ms. Lewis' mother's
injuries included a punctured lung and broken wrist while the
other passengers suffered broken bones and back and neck pain.

Ms. Lewis sued Toyota Motor Corp. for design defects in the van
and CCT for failing to maintain the van, according to Lazarus.
The passengers filed a separate suit. Toyota was dismissed from
the litigation after its motion for summary judgment was granted.

The plaintiffs alleged the van's steering wheel locked because of
a separation from the ball joint, which occurred prior to the
accident.  According to Judge Lazarus, the plaintiffs further
alleged that CCT improperly inspected the vehicle roughly three
months before the accident by failing to follow the instructions
in the Toyota Sienna maintenance manual.

The jury rendered its verdict March 19, 2013, and was followed
shortly thereafter by CCT's appeal.

In addition to asserting that Mr. Hilsey should have been able to
testify as to the nature of the accident, CCT argued that he
should not have been prohibited from testifying about a particular
page of the van's service manual, Judge Lazarus said.

At trial, Judge Lazarus said, the plaintiffs used a page from the
manual to show that CCT had not followed the recommended
maintenance procedure to inspect the van.  The page was used
during redirect examination of Mr. Hilsey and CCT sought to
introduce an additional page to show that the procedure was
optional.

Judge Lazarus said the trial court disallowed introduction of the
additional page because it had not been mentioned and was outside
the scope of the redirect examination.

"The page CCT sought to introduce indicated that the service
method in the manual is 'very effective to perform repair and
service' and provides warnings in the event other methods are
used," Judge Lazarus said.  "Even if this page demonstrates that
other procedures might exist for inspection purposes, the
information does not detract from plaintiffs' argument that the
manual contains the recommended procedure."

CCT also argued the trial court erroneously prevented another
expert, Lee Carr, to respond to plaintiffs' mechanic expert
Dennis DeWane's testimony on the van's ball joint, ruling
Mr. Carr's testimony was outside the scope of his pretrial report.
Judge Lazarus said the trial court should have accepted Carr's
expert testimony as "fair rebuttal."

However, "although the trial court should have permitted Carr to
testify in response to Mr. DeWane's testimony, its failure to do
so was harmless error.  Most of the substance of Carr's proposed
testimony was admitted into evidence, either through Carr's
testimony, or the testimony of CCT's other experts," Judge Lazarus
said.


TRIVEST FUND: Faces Suit in Fla. Alleging RICO Act Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elite Advantage, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; and
Edward E. Sell, an individual, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Trivest Fund IV, L.P., a Delaware
limited partnership; Trivest Partners GP, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; and Trivest Partners IV, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-22146-CMA (S.D. Fla., June 5, 2015)
is brought over alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen James Binhak, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF STEPHEN JAMES BINHAK, PLLC
          2 S. Biscayne, Blvd., Suite 3570
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 361-5500
          E-mail: binhaks@binhaklaw.com


TYSON FOODS: Supreme Court to Consider Class Action Damages Issue
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that the U.S. Supreme
Court will once again weigh the standards for class actions,
agreeing on June 8 to consider whether courts should certify a
class in situations where the class may include members who don't
have any damages.

The justices granted certiorari in Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, an
employment case accusing Tyson of failing to pay workers at an
Iowa meat-processing facility for time they spent putting on and
taking off protective gear and walking to worksites.  The appeal
comes to the high court after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eighth Circuit affirmed a jury verdict and a $5.8 million judgment
against Tyson.

Sidley Austin's Carter Phillips -- cphillips@sidley.com -- is
leading Tyson's efforts at the high court, while Scott Michelman
of Public Citizen Litigation Group represents the employee
plaintiffs.

In Tyson's certiorari petition, the company asked the justices to
consider whether a case is suitable for class action status if the
plaintiffs' damages theory is based on a statistical model that
looks at the average of a sample of employees.  The company also
asked the high court to consider whether a case should be
certified if certain class members aren't actually entitled to any
damages.

The Tyson case follows two other Supreme Court decisions on class
certification standards -- 2011's Wal-Mart v. Dukes and 2013's
Comcast v. Behrend.  In Wal-Mart, the high court decertified a
massive, nationwide class of female employees alleging sex bias,
finding the workers' individual claims overwhelmed common,
classwide questions.  In Comcast, an antitrust case, the Supreme
Court instructed lower courts to consider whether plaintiffs have
a viable model for showing classwide damages.

Tyson argued that in its case, the lower courts' rulings
contradicted Supreme Court precedent.  "Wal-Mart and Comcast
should have put a stop to class certification premised on the
notion that classwide liability and damages can be established
through a 'trial by formula,'" the petition said.

The plaintiffs, urging the Supreme Court not to hear the case,
refuted Tyson's contention that the district court allowed a
"trial by formula."  In the plaintiffs' view, the lower court
acted reasonably when it allowed "representative" proof in this
case, where there was evidence that Tyson hadn't specifically kept
track of the time each individual employee spent donning and
doffing protective equipment.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Text Spamming
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, The Recorder, writing for The Recorder, reports that
Uber Technologies Inc. is having trouble keeping its story
straight.  Or so suggests a "gotcha!" court filing by a plaintiffs
attorney suing the company for alleged text-message spamming.

Hassan Zavareei notes that in the spam case, lawyers for Uber say
text messages sent to would-be drivers are OK because they
constitute recruiting materials.  But in litigation over
employment benefits in the Northern District, Uber has insisted
that it is merely a software company and its drivers are not
employees.

"In Uber's eyes, drivers are every bit as much its customers as
its passengers," Mr. Zavareei states in opposition to Uber's
motion to dismiss.

The Washington, D.C.-based lawyer sued Uber in December under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) on behalf of individuals
who say they were bombarded with unsolicited text messages from
Uber.  The suit, styled as a class action, includes a proposed
subclass of plaintiffs who provided their telephone numbers to the
company by signing up as drivers on Uber's website.

According to the complaint, some individuals chose not to drive
for Uber but subsequently received automated texts encouraging
them to "Get on the road ASAP" or "Earn up to $31/hr on the
biggest night of the year."  Justin Bartolet of Toledo alleges he
received 44 texts from 23 phone numbers, which continued even
after he responded "Stop texting this number."

As part of their motion to dismiss the suit, Uber's lawyers at
Locke Lord claimed that the text messages to potential drivers
were hiring solicitations, which don't constitute telemarketing or
advertising under the TCPA.  But, as Mr. Zavareei was quick to
point out, Uber has argued that drivers don't qualify as employees
under California's labor laws in unrelated employment litigation
before U.S. District Judge Edward Chen.

"In short, Uber's own admissions in another case in this
courthouse establish that Uber was not trying to hire the Class B
plaintiffs.  It was marketing to them to entice them to license
its lead-generation service," he wrote.

Uber's lawyers have accused Mr. Zavareei taking the company's
litigation positions out of context and improperly invoking them
in an unrelated case.  In any event, the lawyers argue, Uber has
consistently described its drivers as independent contractors, not
customers.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar, who is overseeing the TCPA case,
seems poised to decide whether to let the case move forward on a
separate question.  The judge on June 2 asked for supplemental
briefing on whether class members who never completed their
applications to become Uber drivers can be considered to have
given consent to be contacted.

Uber's lawyer, Locke Lord's Susan Welde -- swelde@lockelord.com --
declined to comment other than to say the company plans to address
the concerns laid out in the June 2 order from Judge Tigar.

Tycko & Zavareei's Zavareei wasn't immediately available for
comment.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Lawyer Says Drivers Don't Want to Be Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that Uber
Technologies Inc.'s new trial team moved aggressively on July 9 to
shut down a high-stakes case over the company's designation of
drivers as independent contractors.

Lawyers for Uber, led by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner
Theodore Boutrous Jr., urged a federal judge not to certify a
class in the wage-and-hour suit, arguing among other things that
most Uber drivers don't even want to be employees.

Along with its 41-page opposition to class certification, Uber
submitted declarations from more than 400 California Uber drivers,
many of whom claim they enjoy the independence of being an
independent contractor.  Uber's lawyers also attacked the
credibility of plaintiffs' three class representatives, accusing
one of scamming the company out of $25,000.  And they argued it
would be impossible to litigate the case on a classwide basis, as
the experiences of individual Uber drivers vary too greatly.

Uber has been on the defensive lately in a variety of legal
challenges to the way it classifies its workforce.  U.S. District
Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California, who is
presiding over the proposed class action, rejected Uber's
contention that its drivers are not employees as a matter of law,
ruling that the question should go to a jury.  In a separate case,
the judge rejected its arbitration agreement with drivers.  Last
month, the company took a blow from the California Labor
Commissioner's Office, which deemed an Uber driver to be an
employee and ordered Uber to reimburse her for on-the-job
expenses.

With the July 9 court filing, the company seemed determined to
change the story line from one where its drivers are shut out of
the benefits of traditional employment to one where its drivers
have chosen to be free from the constraints of that arrangement.

Far from representing the interests of most drivers, Uber's
lawyers argue, the litigation "would destroy the very independence
and flexibility that countless drivers love about Uber."

Plaintiffs, represented by Boston-based attorney Shannon Liss-
Riordan, claim Uber misclassified them as independent contractors
and denied them minimum wage, overtime, reimbursement of work
expenses and tips.

Nearly two years into the case, Uber replaced lawyers at Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius with the Gibson Dunn team just in time for its
class-certification showdown, arguably the most important battle
of the case.  If Uber wins, it will take most of the air out of
the litigation.  That would save Uber, at least for now, from
having to retool its entire business model to accommodate employee
drivers.

In a statement released on July 9, Mr. Boutrous wrote that his
team's court filing "overwhelmingly demonstrates" that plaintiffs'
attempt to certify a class must fail.

"The mountain of evidence submitted with the court . . . proves
that these three plaintiffs do not and cannot represent the
interests of the thousands of other drivers who value the complete
flexibility and autonomy they enjoy as independent contractors,"
Mr. Boutrous wrote.

To bolster its case, the team solicited declarations from hundreds
of Uber drivers.

Driver Janice Fry of Los Angeles said, "I don't want anyone to
take away this flexibility by suing Uber.  I don't know what these
people are doing. . . . I wish they would just stop it."

Christopher Martinez, another driver from Los Angeles, said he
would quit if Uber tried to make him an employee.  Selenge
Thompson said she appreciates the flexibility of being an Uber
driver because it allows her to be an "entrepreneur mom," and
spend more time with her daughter.

Uber also commissioned a survey of drivers. In a written
statement, an Uber representative reported that 87 percent of
drivers say they use Uber because they enjoy being their own boss.

"As employees, drivers would drive set shifts, earn a fixed hourly
wage, and lose the ability to drive using other ride-sharing apps
as well as the personal flexibility they most value," the
representative wrote.

Ms. Liss-Riordan was unimpressed with Uber's 400 declarations.
She said more than 1,000 unhappy drivers have contacted her firm,
complaining Uber has taken advantage of them.

"The law is clear that the relevant question is not whether people
'like' the practice at issue but whether it [is] legal or not,"
she wrote in an email.

Uber argues the suit's three named plaintiffs can't possibly
represent the interests of more than 160,000 drivers "who have
little or nothing in common, other than their use of the Uber app
in California at some point over the past six years."

The drivers' experiences differ in a host of key factors, the
lawyers argue, including whether they were ever reimbursed for
work expenses by Uber, whether they accepted tips from riders, how
often they drove, and which version of Uber's user agreement they
accepted.

Uber's user agreement, which plaintiffs cite as a common thread
binding plaintiffs, includes 17 variations that have changed over
time.  The agreements differ on important questions, Uber argues,
such as whether drivers can use competitors' apps and how often
they have to drive.

Mr. Boutrous also hammered a point Uber has been making from the
beginning -- the company does not control its drivers, and
therefore they are not employees.  Uber suggests, but does not
require, that drivers dress professionally and behave in a certain
way, the lawyers wrote, because those actions may help drivers
earn higher star ratings from their passengers.

But the drivers have varying ideas about how much control Uber
exerts.  Some believe Uber can deactivate their account if they
fail to comply with the user agreement, others do not.  Some
drivers believe they have the right to turn down any ride
requests, others believe they can turn down only a limited number
of rides.

Mr. Boutrous' team also attacked the class representatives, saying
each one has demonstrated a "severe lack of credibility and
trustworthiness."

In his deposition, plaintiff Matthew Manahan conceded he made
$25,000 by fraudulently manipulating Uber's driver referral
program, Mr. Boutrous wrote.  Uber gives drivers an incentive
payment if they refer other drivers who complete a certain number
of rides.  Uber's lawyers claim Manahan told lawyers he referred
drivers to use the app temporarily, paid them to conduct fake
rides, and then collected the rewards.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal Focuses on Driver Classification Issue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that Uber
has a tough road ahead as it appeals Florida's recent decision
that a former driver was an employee, not an independent
contractor, employment law experts said.

"They vigorously fight these cases and, in my opinion, are trying
very hard to keep their business model in place," said employment
lawyer Jamie Dokovna, a shareholder of Becker & Poliakoff in West
Palm Beach.  "Whether or not they get to continue with it may not
be their choice."

Uber considers its drivers to be partners running independent
businesses.  But the state took a different position earlier in
May, when the Department of Economic Opportunity notified a former
Uber driver that he could seek unemployment benefits because he
was an employee.

The key issue: Could the San Francisco-based ride-sharing company
exercise enough control over its drivers to be considered their
employer?

There's no cut-and-dried answer, said Mark Neuberger, an
employment attorney for Foley & Lardner in Miami.

"For argument's sake, Uber does set controls on the manner and
method of how they conduct business," he said.  "They screen the
people to determine who can drive and who can't."

But on the other hand, drivers are free to pick up passengers
through the Uber app wherever and whenever they want.

"I go to work for Foley & Lardner, I've got to be here,"
Mr. Neuberger said.  "That argues for employment status.  If you
set your own hours and you decide when you work, that pulls toward
independent contractor."

A growing trend

Government agencies are getting tougher on companies who
misclassify workers as independent contractors, Mr. Neuberger
said.

It's cheaper for businesses to hire independent contractors, he
said.  Without employees, companies don't have to pay Social
Security or unemployment taxes, nor do they provide worker's
compensation or fringe benefits.

"All you do is issue a check and a 1099 at the end of the year,"
Mr. Neuberger said.

The employee-or-contractor issue is far from new, especially in
the transportation, construction and technology industries, he
said.

FedEx and its competitors have faced questions about whether their
drivers are truly independent contractors, and in the late '90s,
Microsoft paid $97 million to settle a class-action suit filed by
workers who said they were misclassified.

"Anytime somebody gets fired and files some kind of complaint, it
becomes a potential issue," Mr. Neuberger said.

Uber ended its relationship with Cutler Bay driver Darrin McGillis
earlier this year after an argument involving damage to his car.
McGillis filed for unemployment benefits, and the DEO sent him a
letter classifying him as a former employee who could qualify for
benefits.

"They were able to fire me," Mr. McGillis said.  "An independent
contractor can't quit his job.  He has to finish his job.  An
employee can quit whenever he wants and can be fired."

Uber plans to appeal the decision, said a company spokesman who
declined to comment further on the record.

The company has taken on similar filings around the country, and
it is facing a class-action lawsuit in California filed by drivers
who claim they were misclassified as independent contractors.

Weighing the factors

Uber is a unique company when it comes to classifying workers,
Mr. Dokovna said.

"Is Uber really just a technology company like they say they are?"
she asked.  "[Their position is] 'all we do is have apps, and we
link people up.' Or is it something more than that? Are they
really a transportation company?"

If Uber is a transportation company that could not exist without
its drivers, that would bolster a case that the drivers are
employees, she said.

The Florida Department of Revenue uses a 10-part test to determine
who is an independent contractor, weighing most heavily the amount
of control the business can assert over the work.

Other factors include the skill required to do the job, whether a
company provides instruments for the job -- in Uber's case, a car
-- and whether the worker's services are essential to the
company's success.

Because Uber drivers use their own cars and set their own
schedules, Mr. Neuberger said he believes the law would tend to
see them as independent contractors.

But Mr. Dokovna said she thinks Uber might have to change its
business model to make a convincing argument that its drivers are
contractors.

"They run background checks on the individuals before they are
ultimately hired," she said.  "They hand out a handbook to the
drivers about certain guidelines.  So when these people are doing
rides, there is a certain level of control."

Of course, that control matters to Uber because it helps the
company maintain service quality, said Angelo Filippi, a Fort
Lauderdale attorney who leads the employment and labor law
practice group at Kelley Kronenberg.

"While the company can dictate results, they cannot dictate the
means to achieve the results or they are likely to be considered
an employer," he wrote in an email.  "Therein lies the quandary
for any business seeking to establish independent contractor
relationships."

Uber must appeal the Florida decision by June 9.  If the state
ultimately considers Uber drivers to be employees, the company
might have to reconsider some key facets of its operation,
Mr. Neuberger said.

"If they lose this, it goes to the heart of their business model,"
he said.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge Rejects Arbitration Deal with Drivers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that Uber's losing
streak before U.S. District Judge Edward Chen continued on June 9,
as the judge rejected the company's arbitration agreement with its
drivers as unfair and one-sided.

In a 70-page decision, Judge Chen denied Uber Technologies Inc.'s
bid to enforce the arbitration clause in a pair of lawsuits on
behalf of drivers who claim the company terminated their accounts
as a result of illegal background checks.  Although Judge Chen
found that the plaintiffs in both cases agreed to the terms of
Uber's driver contract, he found the arbitration provision
"unconscionable" and therefore unenforceable under California law.

The decision is a significant blow to the transportation network
company, which faces a threatening wave of lawsuits on behalf of
drivers who claim the Uber denied them minimum wage and other
benefits by misclassifying them as independent contractors.
Judge Chen also oversees much of that litigation, making it
unlikely that Uber can minimize its legal risk by redirecting the
cases into arbitration.

Attorney Tina Wolfson of West Hollywood's Ahdoot & Wolfson, who
fought Uber's motion to compel arbitration on behalf of former
Massachusetts Uber driver Abdul Kadir Mohamed, called the
company's contract "one of the worst examples of forced
arbitration" that she's seen.  "Despite the Supreme Court
precedent favoring arbitration agreements, there are some that are
still so beyond the pale of anyone's concept of fairness that they
can be challenged," Ms. Wolfson said.

Uber introduced an arbitration clause in its driver agreement in
July 2013 after being hit with driver suits in Massachusetts and
Illinois.

Judge Chen's June 9 order examined Uber's 2013 arbitration
agreement, as well as a subsequent version introduced in 2014,
finding both to be procedurally and substantively unconscionable.
The judge took issue with requirements that drivers pay a portion
of arbitration fees and keep arbitrations confidential.  He also
found unconscionable a term exempting Uber's intellectual property
claims against drivers from arbitration "while forcing drivers to
arbitrate those claims that they are most likely to bring."

The company made improvements in its 2014 agreement but failed to
remedy those issues, Judge Chen ruled.  Touching on a hot-button
area in California arbitration law, Judge Chen also deemed both
the 2013 and 2014 arbitration agreements unenforceable because
they include a waiver of a driver's right to pursue claims under
the state's Private Attorney General Act, or PAGA.

An Uber spokesperson said the company plans to appeal the ruling.
It will be left to Judge Chen to decide if the cases will be
stayed while Uber pursues its appeal.

Given Uber's track record before Chen over the past two years,
it's easy to see why the company had hoped to steer the
background-check suits out of his San Francisco courtroom.

In March, Judge Chen allowed a class action claiming the company
misclassifies drivers as independent contractors to move a step
closer to a jury trial.  Twice last year he forced Uber to tweak
its driver contracts to offer an easier process to opt out of its
arbitration clause.

Shannon Liss-Riordan of Boston's Lichten & Liss-Riordan, who
represents drivers in the classification case, applauded Judge
Chen's ruling.  "The courts have been upholding more and more
arbitration agreements in recent years, but it's not something
they can do in every case," she said.

Judge Chen ruled on June 9 in Mohamed v. Uber, 14-5200, and
Gillette v. Uber, 14-5241.  Uber is represented in both matters by
counsel from Littler Mendelson and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.
Littler's Andrew Spurchise didn't respond to messages.

Andrew Lee -- alee@gbdhlegal.com -- of Oakland's Goldstein,
Borgen, Dardarian & Ho represents Ronald Gillette, a former San
Francisco Uber driver who accuses Uber of breaking state and
federal credit reporting laws through its background checks on
drivers.  Mr. Lee said the fact that Judge Chen found the
arbitration clause "unconscionable" will carry over to the entire
proposed class of plaintiffs and potentially drivers in other
class actions where the company might attempt to invoke the
arbitration clause.

Judge Chen's decision also found that language in the driver
agreements was not "clear and unmistakable" about whether an
arbitrator or a court should decide whether or not claims were
arbitrable.  Forcing plaintiffs to arbitrate such a threshold
issue, the judge wrote, could be cost-prohibitive since the
arbitrators picked by Uber charge retainer fees of $5,000 to
handle new matters.

"Plaintiffs here have made a sufficient showing that they would be
subject to hefty fees of a type they would not face in court if
they are forced to arbitrate arbitrability," Judge Chen wrote.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Judge May Allow Drivers to Pursue Safety Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that Uber
Technologies Inc. seems poised to lose an early round in a false-
advertising suit taking issue with the company's safety claims.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar of the Northern District of
California indicated at the beginning of a hearing on July 9 that
he's likely to allow a group of California taxi companies to
continue to pursue their Lanham Act claims against Uber.

Uber's lawyers at Irell & Manella had argued in their motion to
dismiss that all the safety statements targeted in the suit were
"classic puffery" and weren't specific or measurable enough to be
actionable.  But Judge Tigar indicated that some could be seen as
factual assertions.  "If the only statement in question was 'Uber
is the best ride on earth,' you'd win," Judge Tigar said.

Lawyers at Pearson, Simon & Warshaw and The Dolan Law Firm filed
suit on behalf of a group of California cab companies in March,
accusing the company of misleading consumers by claiming to offer
the "safest rides on the road."  The complaint in L.A. Taxi
Cooperative v. Uber, 15-1257, took particular aim at Uber's
statements about the background checks of its drivers.  Unlike
taxi drivers, Uber drivers are not required to be fingerprinted
before getting behind the wheel.  Plaintiffs also claimed that
Uber had disparaged the safety of taxi rides on its website and in
the media.

At the July 9 hearing, Judge Tigar indicated that he was inclined
to dismiss claims that related to statements Uber representatives
made to the media -- statements that Uber had argued were
protected by the First Amendment.  Judge Tigar also indicated that
the plaintiff cab companies would struggle to show that they have
standing to pursue their claims under California's Unfair
Competition Law, since they didn't allege that they relied on any
of Uber's statements themselves.

Judge Tigar took Uber's motion under submission at the end of the
hearing and said he hopes to issue an order shortly.  In the
meantime, he seemed to be considering some independent research.
"Do you think I should use Uber once?" Judge Tigar asked.
There was no objection.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Apple Privacy Lawyer Joins Legal Team
--------------------------------------------------------
David Ruiz, writing for The Recorder, reports that Uber
Technologies Inc. has hired former Apple Inc. privacy counsel
Sabrina Ross to join the company's growing legal team.  Ms. Ross
is a certified privacy professional and has experience in Internet
and information law.  Ms. Ross, who did not return a call for
comment, will be working on the legal privacy issues surrounding
Uber's regulatory and policy efforts.  She will be joining a team
of privacy lawyers led by in-house counsel Katherine Tassi, a
Facebook Inc. alum who came to Uber in August 2014. Ross is the
fourth lawyer to join the privacy group.

Uber made another notable Facebook hire in April when it poached
the social-media giant's chief security officer, Joe Sullivan.
Tassi's group works with Sullivan, who reports directly to chief
executive officer Travis Kalanick.

Uber declined to comment.

Ms. Ross has experience in matters involving data protection,
privacy, surveillance and national security.  According to an
article on the technology news site Recode, Ms. Ross will help
steer Uber on privacy matters in the partnerships it has with
other companies, including Spotify and American Express Co.

Last year, Uber suffered from a data breach that could have
affected up to 50,000 individuals.  The hack accessed the names
and driver's license numbers of former and current Uber drivers,
with roughly 21,000 names based in California.  The company
acknowledged the data breach earlier this year and Ms. Tassi said
in a company blog post that Uber fixed the issue as soon as it
surfaced.

"Uber takes seriously our responsibility to safeguard personal
information, and we are sorry for any inconvenience this incident
may cause," said Ms. Tassi on the company's website.  "In
addition, we filed a lawsuit that will enable us to gather
information to help identify and prosecute this unauthorized third
party."

That suit, filed in late February, is currently pending in the
Northern District of California.  The company tapped attorneys
from Perkins Coie and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher to pursue Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act charges against a John Doe defendant as a
route to obtain more information about who attacked its systems.
Ms. Ross was an associate at Sidley Austin from 2009 to 2013 and
worked at Ropes & Gray for the year after.  She joined Apple in
2014 and spent a little more than one year with the company.


UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Settlement in Hawthorne Case Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Umpqua Holdings 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 court entered
an Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action Settlement and
Granting in Part Plaintiffs' Motion For Attorneys' Fees, Costs,
and Enhancement Awards in the class action filed by Amber
Hawthorne.

The Company said, "In our Form 10-K for the period ending December
31, 2011, we initially reported on a class action lawsuit filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against the Bank by Amber Hawthorne relating to overdraft fees and
the posting order of point of sale and ACH items.   In March 2014,
the parties reached an agreement to settle the case and have
executed a comprehensive written settlement agreement. On
September 15, 2014, the court entered an order granting a motion
for preliminary approval of the class settlement and held a final
approval hearing on February 19, 2015. On April 28, 2015, the
court entered an Order Granting Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement and Granting in Part Plaintiffs' Motion For Attorneys'
Fees, Costs, and Enhancement Awards. Completion of the settlement
of this matter on the agreed final terms will have no material
adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position,
results of operations or cash flows."


UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Court Okays Accord in Sterling Merger Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Umpqua Holdings 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 court has
issued an Order and Final Judgment approving the settlement and
awarding attorney's fees to the plaintiffs' counsel in class
action lawsuits arising from the then-proposed Sterling Merger.

The Company said, "In our Form 10-K for the period ending December
31, 2013, we initially reported on two separate class action
lawsuits filed in Spokane County, Washington, Superior Court
against the Company and other defendants arising from the then-
proposed Sterling Merger, which the court consolidated. The
consolidated litigation generally alleged that directors of
Sterling breached their duties to the Sterling shareholders by
approving the Merger, failing to take steps to maximize
shareholder value, engaging in a flawed sales process, and
agreeing to deal protection provisions in the Merger agreement
that are alleged to unduly favor the Company. The Company was
alleged to have aided and abetted the alleged breaches of duty.
The consolidated litigation also alleged that the disclosures
approved by the Sterling board in connection with the Merger and
the vote thereon were false and misleading in various respects. As
relief, the complaints sought to enjoin the Merger and, among
other things, damages in an unspecified amount and payment of
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants believe that
the lawsuits were without merit. On January 16, 2014, the parties
executed a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") that contained
the essential terms of a settlement and dismissal of the
consolidated cases. The MOU did not call for the payment of any
money damages, but required the defendants to make certain
additional disclosures relating to the Merger and to pay the
attorney fees, costs, and expenses of plaintiffs' counsel incurred
in connection with the action. The agreed additional disclosures
were made and included in the joint proxy statement/prospectus
filed January 22, 2014. On September 26, 2014, the parties to the
litigation filed a notice of settlement with the court.  The court
preliminarily approved the proposed settlement on December 5,
2014, and on March 27, 2015, the court issued an Order and Final
Judgment approving the settlement and awarding attorney's fees to
the plaintiffs' counsel. The settlement expressly disavowed any
admission of wrongdoing or liability by any defendant."


UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Opening Brief Filed in Class Action Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Umpqua Holdings 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 appellant has
filed its opening brief in the appeal from the district court's
order granting the motion to dismiss an amended consolidated
complaint.

The Company assumed, as successor-in-interest to Sterling, the
defense of litigation matters pending against Sterling. Sterling
previously reported that on December 11, 2009, a putative
securities class action complaint captioned City of Roseville
Employees' Retirement System v. Sterling Financial Corp., et al.,
No. CV 09-00368-EFS, was filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington against Sterling and
certain of its current and former officers. On June 18, 2010, lead
plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint alleging that the
defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false and
misleading statements concerning Sterling's business and financial
results. Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and attorneys' fees
and costs.

On August 30, 2010, Sterling moved to dismiss the Complaint, and
the court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice on
August 5, 2013. On October 11, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended consolidated complaint with the same defendants, class
period, alleged violations, and relief sought. On January 24,
2014, Sterling moved to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaint, and on September 17, 2014, the court entered an order
dismissing the amended consolidated complaint in its entirety with
no further leave to amend. On October 24, 2014, plaintiffs filed a
Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit from the district court's order granting the motion to
dismiss the amended consolidated complaint and appellant filed its
opening brief on April 3, 2015.


UNION HOSPITAL: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amy L. Schneider and Janet E. Breneman, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. Union Hospital, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-00204-JMS-WGH (S.D. Ind., July 6, 2015), alleges that the
Defendant has been underpaying its hourly-paid employees' wages on
a systematic, class-wide basis as a result of an illegal time card
rounding policy and practice.

Union Hospital, Inc. operates a hospital in Terre Haute, Vigo
County, Indiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED PARCEL: Court Scheduled Sept. 1 Trial in "Morgate" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, 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, "UPS and our
subsidiary The UPS Store, Inc., are defendants in Morgate v. The
UPS Store, Inc. et al. an action in the Los Angeles Superior Court
brought on behalf of a certified class of all franchisees who
chose to rebrand their Mail Boxes Etc. franchises to The UPS Store
in March 2003. Plaintiff alleges that UPS and The UPS Store, Inc.
misrepresented and omitted facts to the class about the market
tests that were conducted before offering the class the choice of
whether to rebrand to The UPS Store. The court has scheduled a
trial for September 1, 2015, limited to the claim of the class
representative. After that trial is complete, the court will
consider how to proceed with respect to the claims of the other
class members."


UNITED PARCEL: Court Dismissed AFMS LLC Case
--------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, 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 AFMS LLC v.
UPS and FedEx Corporation, a lawsuit filed in federal court in the
Central District of California in August 2010, the plaintiff
asserts that UPS and FedEx violated U.S. antitrust law by
conspiring to refuse to negotiate with third-party negotiators
retained by shippers and by individually imposing policies that
prevent shippers from using such negotiators. UPS and FedEx have
moved for summary judgment. The Court granted these motions on
April 30, 2015, entered judgment in favor of UPS and FedEx, and
dismissed the case."


UNITED PARCEL: Class Suit Remains Pending in Ontario
----------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, 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 is
vigorously defending one outstanding class action case in Ontario.

The Company said, "In Canada, four purported class-action cases
were filed against us in British Columbia (2006); Ontario (2007)
and Quebec (2006 and 2013). The cases each allege inadequate
disclosure concerning the existence and cost of brokerage services
provided by us under applicable provincial consumer protection
legislation and infringement of interest restriction provisions
under the Criminal Code of Canada. The British Columbia class
action was declared inappropriate for certification and dismissed
by the trial judge. That decision was upheld by the British
Columbia Court of Appeal in March 2010, which ended the case in
our favor. The Ontario class action was certified in September
2011. Partial summary judgment was granted to us and the
plaintiffs by the Ontario motions court. The complaint under the
Criminal Code was dismissed. No appeal is being taken from that
decision. The allegations of inadequate disclosure were granted
and we are appealing that decision. The motion to authorize the
2006 Quebec litigation as a class action was dismissed by the
motions judge in October 2012; there was no appeal, which ended
that case in our favor. The 2013 Quebec litigation also has been
dismissed.  We deny all liability and are vigorously defending the
one outstanding case in Ontario."


UNITED PARCEL: Settlement in Price-Fixing Case Awaits Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a settlement in a
class action alleging price-fixing is subject to final court
approval.

The Company said, "In January 2008, a class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of New York alleging price-fixing activities relating to the
provision of freight forwarding services. UPS was not named in
this case. In July 2009, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended
Complaint naming numerous global freight forwarders as defendants.
UPS and UPS Supply Chain Solutions are among the 60 defendants
named in the amended complaint. After two rounds of motions to
dismiss, in October 2014, UPS entered into a settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs to settle the remaining claims asserted
against UPS for an immaterial amount. The court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement on December 16, 2014. The
settlement is subject to final court approval."


UNITED PARCEL: Summary Judgment Motion Appeal in Fees Suit Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Eizenga, Esq. -- eizengam@bennettjones.com -- and
Ashley Paterson, Esq. -- patersona@bennettjones.com -- at Bennett
Jones LLP, in an article for JDSupra, report that a recent
decision of the Divisional Court, in which Bennett Jones and its
co-counsel acted for the class, held that whether brokerage fees
charged by UPS to customers receiving deliveries in Canada are
unsolicited is an appropriate issue to be adjudicated by way of a
class action.

United Parcel Service Canada Ltd. (UPS) provides international
courier services. It is required by law to collect customs duties
and HST on shipments entering Canada.  The class members are
customers of UPS with standard-form shipping contracts. The class
members alleged that UPS unlawfully collected "brokerage fees" in
addition to standard customs duties and HST.

Justice Horkins certified the case as a class action in the first
instance.  UPS sought leave to appeal.  Leave was only granted
with respect to one common issue: whether the brokerage fees were
unsolicited.  The appeal was dismissed and certification of the
class action upheld.

The appeal turned on the fact that the contracts at issue were
standard-form.  UPS argued that the court could not determine
whether the brokerage services were unsolicited on a common basis,
since it would need to look at each transaction separately, and
consider the knowledge of the consignor and consignee about the
brokerage services on an individual basis.  The Divisional Court
disagreed.  It held that the plaintiffs' argument centered on the
standard-form contracts which, in all cases, were either "non-
negotiable" or the "entire agreement" between the parties, and
those contracts did not contain any terms relating to the
provision of brokerage services or the associated cost.  This had
nothing to do with the consignors, and since UPS had not pointed
to any ambiguity in the standard-form contracts, the rules of
contract did not permit the court to admit evidence of subjective
intention to interpret the contract.  Thus, in determining the
merits of the claim, the focus would not be on the knowledge of
the consignor at the time of entering into the contract.

Further, to the extent that UPS was arguing that the focus should
be on the conduct of the consignee in requesting the services, a
request from the consignee would require knowledge of the services
and consent by the consumer to pay for them -- neither of which
existed in this case.

Lastly, the representative plaintiffs had evidence to show that
they did not ask UPS to perform the brokerage services, and UPS
did not inform them that they would be receiving and paying for
the services.  The Divisional Court held that this provided some
basis in fact for the proposition that the services were
unsolicited by UPS's customers and that it was a question that
could be determined across the class as a common issue.

This case involved several years of pre-certification litigation.
It was a unique case procedurally since the certification motion
was heard at the same time as the summary judgment motion on
several of the issues.  This was done on the consent of the
parties.

In the first instance, the plaintiffs were successful on both
motions. UPS sought to appeal both the certification order and the
summary judgment order.  The appeal of the motions, however, has
been complex.  Due to the differences in appeal routes, UPS had an
absolute right to appeal the summary judgment decision to the
Court of Appeal, but needed leave to appeal certification of the
common issues decision to the Divisional Court.  Due to scheduling
issues, leave to appeal the certification decision alone required
two separate hearings.  Leave was only granted to appeal one of
the certified common issues.  As discussed above, UPS was
unsuccessful on its appeal of the common issue at the Divisional
Court.  It is now seeking leave to appeal the Divisional Court's
decision to the Court of Appeal, which as a result of Rule
61.03.1(1), will be heard in writing.

By direction of the Court of Appeal, the appeal of the summary
judgment motion has been stayed pending the resolution of the
common issue appeal.

In short, though steps were taken by counsel to try and streamline
the litigation by hearing the certification motion and the summary
judgment motion together, the appeal procedure has been time-
consuming as a result of the differing appeal routes.  The ongoing
saga will continue with the upcoming motion in writing for leave
to appeal the certification decision to the Court of Appeal.


UNITED STATES: DOI Sued Over Alleged Racial Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------
A.D. and C. by Carol Coghlan Carter, their next friend, S.H. and
J.H., a married couple, M.C. and K.C., a married couple, for
themselves and on behalf of a class of similarly-situated
individuals v. Kevin Washburn, Sally Jewell, U.S. Department of
The Interior, Gregory A. McKay, Case No. 2:15-cv-01259-NVW (D.
Ariz., July 6, 2015), arises from the Defendants alleged
discriminatory practices on the basis of race or ethnicity.

Kevin Washburn is the Assistant Secretary of the Bureau of Indian
Affairs.

Sally Jewell is the Secretary of the Interior, United States
Department of the Interior.

Gregory A. McKay is the Director of the Arizona Department of
Child Safety.

The Department of the Interior is the cabinet agency of which
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is a part and which is assigned
enforcement powers under Indian Child Welfare Act and Title 25 of
United States Code.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aditya Dynar, Esq.
      Clint Daniel Bolick, Esq.
      Courtney Christine Van Cott, Esq.
      GOLDWATER INSTITUTE
      500 E Coronado Rd.
      Phoenix, AZ 85004
      Telephone: (602) 462-5000
      E-mail: adynar@goldwaterinstitute.org
              cbolick@goldwaterinstitute.org
              cvancott@goldwaterinstitute.org

         - and -

      Michael W. Kirk, Esq.
      Brian W. Barnes, Esq.
      Harold S. Reeves, Esq.
      COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
      1523 New Hampshire Ave., N.W.
      Washington, D.C. 20036
      Telephone: (202) 220-9600
      Facsimile: (202) 220-9601
      E-mail: mkirk@cooperkirk.com
              bbarnes@cooperkirk.com
              hreeves@cooperkirk.com


UNITED STATES: Judiciary in Crisis Mode Following OPM Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe Tillman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
federal judges and judiciary employees were among the millions of
federal employees whose personal information were compromised in a
data breach.

Judges and judicial branch officials told the NLJ that they and
many of their colleagues received alerts in recent weeks that
their information was potentially stolen in a breach of 4.2
million federal employees' personnel records announced last month
by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

The federal judiciary has been in crisis mode, according to
David Sellers, a spokesman for the Administrative Office of the
U.S. Courts. Officials are meeting weekly at a minimum, the
judiciary set up an internal website for employees with relevant
information, and the Administrative Office has sent out seven
branchwide memos with updates to date, according to Mr. Sellers.

"Anything that compromises personal information and consequently
threatens safety and security is a great concern," Mr. Sellers
said. "We treated this at the [Administrative Office] the same way
we would treat a disaster, like if a hurricane hit a court."

On July 9, OPM announced a second data breach affecting 21.5
million people, including 19.7 million individuals who applied for
background investigations through the agency.  An estimated 3.6
million federal employees affected by the personnel records breach
announced in June were also affected by the background
investigations records breach, according to OPM.  It was not
immediately clear if judges and other judiciary employees fell
into that group.

Judicial security, including financial security, is a sensitive
issue for courts, which routinely contend with threats against
judges.  Congress over the years adopted special protections to
keep judges' personal information out of the public realm, such as
permitting judges to redact certain information about their
finances in public financial disclosure reports.

Karen Milton, circuit executive for the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, said judges had been urged to alert the U.S.
Marshals Service, which oversees judicial security, if their
information was compromised in the OPM data breaches.  A
spokeswoman for the Marshals Service referred questions about its
response to the data breaches to OPM.

"Of our judges who I know who have been notified, they are
concerned about this," Ms. Milton said.  She added that some
employees, including herself, did not receive an initial notice
from OPM and only learned that they may have been affected by the
breach after calling the company chosen by OPM to provide
identity-theft and credit-monitoring services.

A spokeswoman for the U.S. Supreme Court declined to say whether
any of the justices received a letter from OPM.

Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp of the U.S. District Court for
Nebraska said she received a letter from OPM that her information
was compromised.  She said she was at meetings with court
personnel, and "all the hands went up when I asked how many had
received letters" from OPM.

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts is concerned about
the services offered by OPM to employees affected by the personnel
records breach, according to a memo that Administrative Office
Director James Duff sent to judges and judiciary officials on
July 7.

"The credit-monitoring services are available for only 18 months
and none of the services cover family members," Mr. Duff wrote.
"Both the scope and duration of the services concern us, as well
as many of our judges and employees."

A spokesman for OPM said the agency was reviewing the judiciary's
feedback.

If judges or judiciary employees fall into the group of
individuals whose information was compromised in the background
investigations breach, they'll be eligible for more robust credit
monitoring and identity-theft protection.  Those services will be
offered for at least three years, according to OPM.

OPM said it will notify individuals affected by the background
investigations breach in the coming weeks.

Chief Judge Richard Roberts of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia said judges and employees in his courthouse
received letters from OPM that their information may have been
compromised in the personnel records breach.  He declined to say
if he received such a letter, citing security concerns.

The scope of the breach was "very unsettling," Judge Roberts said.
As for whether OPM had done enough to protect federal employees
whose information may have been stolen, he said it was too early
to tell.

Mr. Duff has said that strengthening the judiciary's cybersecurity
protections is a priority for the Administrative Office.  One
downside to the judiciary giving circuits control over local
affairs was that cybersecurity efforts were decentralized,
Mr. Duff said, speaking in late June at a meeting of D.C. judges
and court officials.  The judiciary was looking into more uniform
defense systems, he said, but added that it would also take a
"culture change" among the judges and employees to be aware of how
they protect their information online.

Judges historically have had a reputation for being tech-unsavvy.
Judge Roberts acknowledged that many judges may spend too little
time thinking about their vulnerability online.  "It's a new issue
for us," he said.

Chief Judge Fred Biery of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas said he doesn't own a personal computer, and
only uses his work computer when necessary.  He received a letter
from OPM about the data breach and signed up for the credit
monitoring and identity-theft services.  He said his presence on
the web was limited, however.

"I use voice recognition software: It's my voice and my clerks
recognize it," Judge Biery said.  "I can't get hacked on a
personal computer if I don't have one."


UNITED STATES: Key Tool for Fighting Housing Bias Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the Supreme Court handed a major
victory to the Obama administration and civil rights groups on
June 25 when it upheld a key tool used for more than four decades
to fight housing discrimination.

The justices ruled 5-4 that federal housing laws prohibit
seemingly neutral practices that harm minorities, even without
proof of intentional discrimination.  The case involved an appeal
from Texas officials accused of violating the Fair Housing Act by
awarding federal tax credits in a way that kept low-income housing
out of white neighborhoods.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, often a swing vote, joined the court's
four liberal members in upholding the use of so-called "disparate
impact" cases.

The ruling is a win for housing advocates who argued that the Fair
Housing Act allows challenges to race-neutral policies that have a
negative impact on minority groups.  The Justice Department has
used disparate impact lawsuits to win millions of dollars in legal
settlements from companies accused of bias against black and
Hispanic customers.

In upholding the tactic, the Supreme Court preserved a legal
strategy that has been used for more than 40 years to attack
discrimination in zoning laws, occupancy rules, mortgage lending
practices and insurance underwriting.  Every federal appeals court
to consider it has upheld the practice, though the Supreme Court
had never previously taken it up.

The ruling is a defeat for banks, insurance companies and other
business groups that claimed such lawsuits are not explicitly
allowed under the Fair Housing Act, the landmark 1968 law that
sought to eliminate segregation that has long existed in
residential housing.

Both the Obama administration and civil rights groups have tried
for years to keep the issue away from the Supreme Court, fearing
that conservative justices wanted to end the use of disparate
impact lawsuits in housing cases.  In fact, two similar cases out
of Minnesota and New Jersey previously had reached the court in
recent years, but those cases were settled or strategically
withdrawn just weeks before oral argument.

Yet the court took up the Texas case last year despite the fact
that there was no split among lower courts over the issue.  That
led to major worries for the NAACP and other civil rights groups
that the court was inclined to end the strategy.


UNITED STATES: Indian Tribe's Anti-Gambling Challenge Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Stashenko, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a
federal judge is steering clear of a Cayuga Indian tribe's dispute
with an upstate municipality over its attempt to enforce an anti-
gambling statute.

Northern District Judge David Hurd ruled that the faction of
Cayugas bringing the suit titled Cayuga Nation v. Tanner, 5:14-cv-
1317, has not established standing under the U.S. Constitution.
Hurd wrote from Utica that the three of the Cayuga leaders
bringing the action -- Clint Halftown, Tim Twoguns and Gary
Wheeler -- do not have a majority on the tribe's six-member
governing council and are not recognized by the U.S. Bureau of
Indian Affairs as representing the Cayugas on such gambling
issues.  The suit challenges enforcement of an ordinance in the
Village of Union Springs, Cayuga County, that blocks the Cayugas
from operating electronic bingo machines.

"As three members of the Nation 2006 Council support this lawsuit
and three members oppose it, it is unclear whether the action has
been properly authorized pursuant to Cayuga Nation law," Judge
Hurd wrote.  "The resolution of this issue would necessarily
require this court to delve into, interpret and apply Nation law."
"Federal courts do not have jurisdiction to resolve such intra-
tribal disputes that involve Nation law," he said.

Judge Hurd dismissed the case for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.

Managing partner David DeBruin led the Jenner & Block attorneys in
Washington, D.C., who represented the plaintiffs.  Partner John
Powers and associate Nina Brown of Hancock Estabrook in Syracuse
also represented the plaintiffs.

Cornelius Murray, shareholder at O'Connell & Aronowitz in Albany,
argued for Union Springs.


UNITED STATES: Post-911 Detainees' Claims v. Ex-AG Reinstated
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
claims that former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft approved
harsh confinement conditions for immigrants who had no connection
to terrorism but were detained following the Sept. 11 attacks
because they appeared to be Arab or Muslim were reinstated on
June 17 by a divided Second Circuit.

Judges Rosemary Pooler and Richard Wesley said Ashcroft, former
FBI Director Robert Mueller and former Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) Commissioner James Ziglar could be
sued for the allegedly punitive conditions imposed on detainees at
the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn from November 2001
onward.

"The only reasons why the [detention center's] plaintiffs were
held as if they were suspected of terrorism was because they were,
or appeared to be, Arab or Muslim," Judges Pooler and Wesley said
in a jointly authored 106-page opinion in Turkmen v. Hasty, 13-
981.

The circuit recognized a so-called "Bivens" cause of action
against the high-ranking officials for unconstitutional conditions
of confinement.

In Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), the U.S. Supreme Court held that
there is implied in the U.S. Constitution the right to pursue
private damages against federal officials for alleged violations
of rights.

In Turkmen, the majority of the panel said, "It might well be that
national security concerns motivated the defendants to take
action, but that is of little solace to those who felt the brunt
of the decision." It found that plaintiffs had made plausible-
enough allegations to survive a motion to dismiss.  "The suffering
endured by those who were imprisoned merely because they were
caught up in the hysteria of the days immediately following 9/11
is not without a remedy," the majority said.

Judge Reena Raggi issued a lengthy dissent faulting the majority
for extending the Bivens cause of action to violations of
substantive due process based on conditions of confinement in this
context.

Judge Raggi also dissented from the denial of qualified immunity
to Ashcroft, Mueller and Ziglar as well as Metropolitan Detention
Center warden Dennis Hasty and associate warden James Sherman.
The lawsuit, which stretches back to 2002, is a putative class
action brought by six men held at the Metropolitan Detention
Center.

The suit targets the administration's decision to sweep up people
"of interest" after 9/11 -- those of Arab descent or Muslim faith
with immigration problems.  Anyone who was the subject of a tip in
the 9/11 investigation who was found to be a non-citizen and had
violated the terms of their visa was to be held until cleared of
ties to terrorism.

A total of 762 people were detained on the INS custody list as
"hold-until-cleared." Of those, 84 were held at the Metropolitan
Detention Center from three to six months.

Turkmen claims the men were beaten and abused by guards, strip-
searched repeatedly, held in administrative segregation at the
ADMAX Special Housing Unit in cells for at least 23 hours a day
and denied sleep through the use of bright lights.  Metropolitan
Detention Center officers also called the men "camels,"
"terrorists" and worse, denied them the Quran and interrupted
their prayers, the suit alleges.

Turkmen also alleged that Ashcroft, Mueller and Ziglar merged a
national INS list with a separate, more expansive list made in
New York, where all "out-of-status" aliens encountered in the
course of investigating a lead were allegedly detained "regardless
of strength of the evidence or the origin of the lead."  This, the
plaintiffs charged, made it certain that more people would be held
in the harsh conditions in the Metropolitan Detention Center with
no individualized suspicion they had any ties to terrorism.

Eastern District Judge John Gleeson in 2013 kept claims against
Hasty and Sherman but dismissed all claims against the Justice
Department defendants (NYLJ, Jan. 17, 2013).  The prison officials
appealed and the plaintiffs cross-appealed the dismissal of the
Justice Department defendants.

Oral arguments were heard by Judges Pooler, Wesley and Raggi on
May 1, 2014, as Rachel Meeropol of the Center for Constitutional
Rights and H. Thomas Byron III of the Department of Justice
squared off over liability for the officials (NYLJ, May 2, 2014).
'Potential Terrorists'

On June 17, Judges Pooler and Wesley said that Metropolitan
Detention Center conditions of confinement "stand firmly within a
familiar Bivens context" -- a point disputed by Judge Raggi.  She
said the plaintiffs' immigration status made this a new context
that fails to clear the high bar set by the U.S. Supreme Court and
the Second Circuit for recognizing new causes of action under
Bivens.

Judges Pooler and Wesley said an Office of Inspector General
Report on the Sept. 11 investigation "makes plain" that the
Justice Department defendants were aware of the Bureau of Prisons'
decision to house Sept. 11 detainees in high-security sections.
They said the report also supports "the inference that not only
was Ashcroft's office aware of some of the conditions imposed, but
affirmatively supported them."

The defendants had argued that there was no punitive intent in
holding the men in these conditions, that Ashcroft and the others
were motivated purely by national security concerns.  That
argument was dismissed by the majority.

"They seem to imply that once 'national security' concerns become
a reason for holding someone, there is no need to show a
connection between those concerns and the captive other than that
the captive shares common traits of the terrorist: illegal
immigrant status and a perceived Arab or Muslim affiliation,"
Judges Pooler and Wesley said.

They also rejected the idea that the officials were merely erring
on the side of caution.

"It presumes, in essence, that all out-of-status Arabs or Muslims
were potential terrorists until proven otherwise," they said.  "It
is built on a perception of a race and faith that has no basis in
fact."

The majority said there was "no legitimate governmental purpose in
holding someone in the most restrictive conditions of confinement
simply because he happened to be -- or worse yet, appeared to be
-- Arab or Muslim."

It went on to revive an equal protection claim based on the harsh
conditions, because the Justice Department defendants, as alleged,
knew that the New York list was formed in a discriminatory manner.
The majority also revived a civil rights conspiracy claim against
the defendants.

The November cut-off date by the majority was imposed because that
was when the Justice Department defendants purportedly learned
that the plaintiffs were being held without individualized
suspicion that they were involved with terrorism.

Extending 'Bivens'

In her 91-page dissent, Judge Raggi concurred in the majority's
dismissal of plaintiffs' claims under the Free Exercise Clause of
the First Amendment.  But she dissented from the rest, saying the
majority failed to conduct the analysis required by the case law -
- the Second Circuit en banc decision in Arar v. Ashcroft, 585
F.3d 559 (2d Cir. 2009) -- on the standard for identifying the
Bivens context.

"I conclude that plaintiffs' constitutional challenges to an
alleged executive policy for confining lawful arrested illegal
aliens in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks cannot pass the
stringent test for recognizing a Bivens action," she said.

Judge Raggi also took sharp issue with the finding that the
officials were not protected by qualified immunity in the wake of
the unprecedented challenges following the hijackings and the
murder of 3,000 people on 9/11.

"The law did not then clearly alert federal authorities responding
to these challenges that they could not lawfully hold arrested
illegal aliens -- identified in the course of the 9/11
investigation and among the group targeted for recruitment by al
Qaida in restrictive (as opposed to general) confinement pending
FBI-CIA clearance of any ties to terrorism unless there was prior
individualized suspicion of a terrorist connection," she said.
"Indeed, I am not sure that conclusion is clearly established even
now."

Ms. Meeropol said on June 17 she was "absolutely thrilled" by the
majority's decision.

"This is a huge victory in what so far has been a 13-year struggle
by my clients and their advocates to hold the highest-level
officials accountable for their 9/11 detentions and abuse," she
said.  "It's incredibly rare for the court to allow claims against
officials at this level to move forward and that's why its taken
us 13 years to get this, but this decision is a huge step
forward."

The Department of Justice is reviewing the ruling, spokeswoman
Nicole Navas said on June 17.

Hugh Sandler, then of Crowell & Moring and now of Nussbaum Law
Group, argued for Hasty.

Jeffrey Lamken of MoloLamken argued for Sherman.

William McDaniel, a partner at Ballard Spahr in Baltimore, argued
for Ziglar.

Joshua Klein, a partner at Duval & Stachenfeld, argued for Hasty's
successor at the Metropolitan Detention Center, Michael Zenk,
against whom all claims were dismissed.


VECTREN CORPORATION: Class Action Filed Against Combined Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vectren 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 during the third
quarter of 2014, the Company was notified of claims by a group of
current and former SIGECO employees ("claimants") who participated
in the Pension Plan for Salaried Employees of SIGECO ("SIGECO
Salaried Plan").  That plan was merged into the Vectren
Corporation Combined Non-Bargaining Retirement Plan ("Vectren
Combined Plan") effective July 1, 2000. The claims relate to the
claimants' election for benefits to be calculated under the
Vectren Combined Plan's cash-balance formula rather than the
SIGECO Salaried Plan formula in effect prior to the formation of
Vectren.  On March 12, 2015, certain claimants filed a Class
Action Complaint against the Vectren Combined Plan and the Company
in federal district court requesting that a class be certified and
for various relief including that the Combined Plan be reformed
and benefits thereunder be recalculated. The Company denied the
allegations set forth in the Complaint.


VERIZON WIRELESS: 50 States to Share Data Cramming Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Nolan, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune, reports
that Connecticut and the 49 other states have reached settlements
with Verizon Wireless and Sprint worth $158 million over
allegations that the mobile giants allowed phony charges on their
customers' monthly bills so they could keep a cut of the profit.
The money -- $98 million for Verizon Wireless and $60 million for
Sprint -- will provide refunds for affected consumers in the range
of $50 million for Sprint and $70 million for Verizon Wireless.
Further, a $12 million payment from Sprint and a $16 million
payment from Verizon will be shared among the participating states
and the District of Columbia.

Connecticut's share of the Verizon and Sprint payments will come
to about $374,000.  A spokeswoman in the state Attorney General's
Office said the money would go into the state's general fund.
"This settlement is good for consumers who will get refunds,"
state Attorney General George Jepsen said in a statement.  "It's
also good for the marketplace since it sends a message that fraud
will not be tolerated, helping to level the playing field so
businesses that play by the rules, as most do, are not
disadvantaged."

The two mobile providers had partnered with third-party vendors
that sell premium text messaging services, such as daily
horoscopes, trivia and sports scores.  But consumers who hadn't
signed up for the services were being billed anyway, typically
about $9.99 a month, according to the Attorney General's Office.
The tactic, called data cramming, can affect both land and mobile
telephone lines and can be easily overlooked on consumers' monthly
bills, labeled as a "service fee" or "monthly charge."  These
charges can add up to millions if left unnoticed by the roughly 20
million consumers reportedly affected, according to the Federal
Communications Commission.

Also, according to the FCC, consumers who called the carriers to
complain were denied a refund even though the carriers were unable
to prove that the customer had authorized the charges.  At the
same time, Verizon kept at least 30 percent of each billing
charge, while Sprint kept about 35 percent.

Both Verizon and Sprint released statements saying they had
stopped allowing premium text messaging before the government
investigation began.

"The May 20 settlement reflects Verizon's continued focus on
putting customers first," said Verizon.  "Verizon thoroughly
vetted the companies that provided these services and terminated
providers who did not comply."

Sprint said it had refunded "tens of millions of dollars long
before the government initiated its investigation."  Sprint also
said it was an industry leader in enacting "rigorous safeguards"
to protect customers against the unauthorized billing practices by
third-party vendors.  The FCC acknowledged these fraud prevention
safeguards in the settlement document.

Last year, two other major mobile services reached similar
settlements with state attorneys general.  T-Mobile agreed to pay
$90 million for cramming while AT&T Mobility agreed to a $105
million settlement.  "I am glad that Verizon and Sprint have
decided to join AT&T and T-Mobile in discontinuing this deceitful
practice that has unknowingly cost consumers for too long," said
Jepsen.

The federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau brought the cases
against Verizon and Sprint, working with the FCC and attorneys
general from all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

In Connecticut, assistant attorneys general Lorrie Adeyemi, head
of the attorney general's Consumer Protection Department, and
Michele Lucan, from the Privacy and Data Security Department,
worked on the cases.


WAL-MART: Can Refuse Shareholder Vote on Gun Sales Proposal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anita Abedian, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that on
July 6 a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit gave Wal-Mart Stores Inc. a win against shareholders
concerned about the company's sales of assault rifles, ruling that
Wal-Mart can refuse to put to a vote a proposal calling for firmer
board oversight of gun sales.

Trinity Wall Street, New York City's historic Episcopal parish and
an owner of Wal-Mart stock, went to court last year calling for
the company to allow shareholders to vote on whether the board
should apply standards around decisions to sell rifles with
high-capacity magazines and other products that could endanger
public safety and the company's reputation.  Though the federal
appeals court decided the proposal interfered with the company's
"ordinary business operations," the ruling focused on questions
around corporate governance and investor involvement with hot-
button issues.

Theodore Boutrous Jr., an attorney with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
who represented Wal-Mart in the case, said the court's decision
addressed issues that boards of directors, corporate secretaries
and officers of companies often grapple with in regard to striking
a balance between the voice of shareholders and the prerogatives
of management.

"The ruling makes it clear that shareholders seeking to intrude on
the nitty-gritty, day-to-day business operations is excludable,"
he said.  "That is very important from a corporate governance
perspective."

Mr. Boutrous also noted various other ways shareholders could
express their views, including the option of voting for different
directors and sending out their own proxy materials.

He added, "I think the use of shareholder proposals simply to get
across a social viewpoint or political point diverges from a
company's business and what management should be focusing on.
Wal-Mart, like any other company, has a structure on its board to
address social policy issues, safety and the like."

Wal-Mart had argued that Trinity's proposal conflicted with U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission guidance on proxy questions.
Joel Friedlander, an attorney for Trinity, did not immediately
respond to requests for comment, but CorpCounsel.com received a
statement from Trinity.  "While agreeing that Trinity raised an
important social policy issue, we are disappointed that the
majority nonetheless accepted Wal-Mart's argument," said Rev. Dr.
William Lupfer, the church's rector.


WALTER INVESTMENT: Briefing on Motions to Dismiss Completed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Walter Investment Management 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 briefing on
the motions to dismiss a class action lawsuit was completed on
February 19, 2015.

On March 7, 2014, a putative shareholder class action complaint
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against the Company, Mark O'Brien, Charles
Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Marc Helm and Robert Yeary captioned Beck
v. Walter Investment Management Corp., et al., No. 1:14-cv-20880
(S.D. Fla.). On July 7, 2014, an amended class action complaint
was filed. The amended complaint names as defendants the Company,
Mark O'Brien, Charles Cauthen, Denmar Dixon, Keith Anderson, Brian
Corey and Mark Helm, and is captioned Thorpe, et al. v. Walter
Investment Management Corp., et al. No. 1:14-cv-20880-UU. The
amended complaint asserts federal securities law claims against
the Company and the individual defendants under Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Additional
claims are asserted against the individual defendants under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The amended complaint alleges
that between May 9, 2012 and February 26, 2014 the Company and the
individual defendants made material misstatements or omissions
relating to the Company's internal controls and financial
reporting, the processes and procedures for compliance with
applicable regulatory and legal requirements by Green Tree
Servicing (including certain of the Company's business practices
that are being reviewed by the FTC and the CFPB), the liabilities
associated with the Company's acquisition of RMS, and RMS's
internal controls. The complaint seeks class certification and an
unspecified amount of damages on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's securities between May 9, 2012 and
February 26, 2014.

On August 11, 2014, all defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. On December 23, 2014, the court granted the motions to
dismiss and dismissed the amended complaint without prejudice.

On January 6, 2015, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
which includes some additional allegations, but asserts the same
claims against the same defendants as the amended complaint. In
the second amended complaint, plaintiffs seek an expanded class
period of May 9, 2012 through August 11, 2014. On January 23,
2015, all defendants moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint. Briefing on the motions to dismiss was completed on
February 19, 2015. The Company cannot provide any assurance as to
the outcome of the putative shareholder class action or that such
an outcome will not have a material adverse effect on its
reputation, business, prospects, results of operations, liquidity
or financial condition.


WILLIAM POWELL: Not Liable for Worker's Asbestos-Related Cancer
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Bedell, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a
manufacturer is not liable for a salvage worker's asbestos-related
cancer because retrieving an item for its scrap value is not a
"reasonably foreseeable use," the Appellate Division, First
Department ruled on June 9.

A unanimous panel said that whether "dismantling constitutes a
reasonably foreseeable use of a product" had not been directly
addressed by New York courts.

Citing cases from the highest courts of Indiana and Florida, the
panel, ruling in Hockler v. The William Powell Company, 190235/13,
found the plaintiff's salvage work could not be reasonably
foreseen by the defendant William Powell Company, which
manufactured the valves the plaintiff was salvaging.

The panel overruled Justice Sherry Klein Heitler's holding that
there was no difference "between salvagers such as Mr. Hockler and
maintenance workers whose activities admittedly constituted proper
use of [Powell's] valves."

Justice Heitler, at the time she ruled on the case last October,
was the justice in charge of New York City's Asbestos Litigation
court (NYCAL), which administers all asbestos-related mass tort
cases in New York City.  Approximately 30,000 cases have come
before the court, according to Office of Court Administration
statistics.

Bryan Hockler, a 53-year-old father of two from Wappingers Falls,
was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a cancer associated with exposure
to asbestos, in 2013.

He sued 39 valve manufacturers, including multi-nationals such as
General Electric, Honeywell and 3M, along with Powell, a small,
family-owned valve manufacturer.

Mr. Hockler said he worked with an informal salvage crew in the
early 1980s just after he graduated from high school to supplement
his regular job's income.  He said his asbestos exposure occurred
when he removed piping and valves from New York City commercial
buildings under demolition and sold them for scrap value.

It was undisputed that the valves Powell manufactured at that
time, as was common in the industry, contained asbestos
components.

The panel cited the strict liability standard set forth in the
Restatement (Second) of Torts Sec. 402A, as applied in products
liability cases in holding that Powell was nonetheless not liable.
The panel said the precedents holding that "salvaging and
demolishing do not constitute foreseeable uses of a product" by
the Indiana Supreme Court in Wingett v. Teledyne Indus., Inc., 479
NE2d 51 (1985) and the Florida Supreme Court in High v.
Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 610 So 2d 1259 (1992) were "persuasive."

In Wingett, the plaintiff's injury stemmed from salvaging duct
work, and in High, from polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)
encountered while dismantling junked electrical transformers.

"As plaintiff did not use Powell's manufactured product in a
reasonably foreseeable manner and his salvage work was not an
intended use of the product, the complaint should have been
dismissed," the panel said.

Justices Rolando Acosta, David Saxe, Leland DeGrasse and Roslyn
Richter joined in the opinion.

"We don't think the ruling will have a wide impact," said
Mr. Hockler's attorney, Brendan Tully, an associate at Levy
Konigsberg.  "This is a very unusual set of facts.  This is the
only case we are aware of where the exposure was due to salvage
work."

William Mueller, a partner at Clemente Mueller who represented
Powell, declined to comment.


WRIGHT MEDICAL: Jury Awards $4.5MM Verdict in Hip Implant Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that Wright Medical Technology Inc. has lost a $4.5 million
verdict in the first trial over alleged defects in its hip
implants.

A Los Angeles County Superior Court jury on June 12 found that
Wright's Profemur R was defective in its manufacturing but not
design, according to Courtroom View Network, which videotaped the
trial.

"We had this jury tell us that a failed hip is worth several
million dollars," said George McLaughlin of the Warshauer-
McLaughlin Law Group in Denver, one of the plaintiffs lawyers.
"We've set now a very high benchmark as to what are the damages
for a failed hip.  It's not a low-damage case."

Wright Medical, which faces more than 1,000 lawsuits over its hip
implants, said in a written statement that it planned an appeal.

"This was a one-off case involving a particular component with a
strong track record of clinical success," Julie Tracy, a
spokeswoman for parent company Wright Medical Group Inc., wrote in
an email.  "It is unrelated to our consolidated metal-on-metal hip
cases."

Most of the metal-on-metal cases against Wright have been
coordinated for pretrial proceedings in either the Los Angeles
County Superior Court or the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.  The cases primarily involve Wright's
Conserve hip implant.  The first trial in that litigation is
expected to occur as soon as August, said Michael McGlamry --
mmcglamry@pmkm.com -- co-lead plaintiffs counsel in the
multidistrict-litigation and California actions.

Despite the different products at issue, the June 12 verdict could
resonate in other cases, particularly since future trials are
likely to involve the same witnesses, said Mr. McGlamry of
Atlanta's Pope McGlamry.

He said more than a dozen cases involving the Profemur line are
pending in Shelby County, Tennessee, Chancery Court near Wright's
headquarters in Memphis.

The trial in Los Angeles, which wasn't part of the coordinated
actions, came in a case brought by Alan Warner and his wife,
Patricia Warner.  Ms. Warner had the Profemur R implanted in 2007
to replace an existing hip device but suffered extreme pain three
years later.

Plaintiffs attorney Steven Vartazarian of The Vartazarian Law Firm
in Los Angeles told a jury in opening statements that a laser
etching in the manufacturing of the implant stem had caused it to
fracture in Mr. Warner's body, leading to a "whirlwind of
surgeries," according to Courtroom View Network.

Representing Wright at trial were Michael Kirby -- mkirby@knlh.com
-- and Micaela Banach -- mbanach@knlh.com -- of San Diego's Kirby
Noonan Lance & Hoge and Howard & Howard's Michael Kell --
MKell@howardandhoward.com -- in the Royal Oak, Michigan, office,
and David Van Dyke -- DVanDyke@howardandhoward.com -- in Chicago.

Trial began on May 28.

The jury's award excluded medical costs but included $500,000 for
loss of consortium for Mr. Warner's wife.


XOOM CORPORATION: Sued in California Over Proposed PayPal Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Booth Family Trust, on behalf of itself and all other
similarly situated v. Xoom Corporation, et al., Case No.
CGC15546720 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 6, 2015), is brought on behalf
of all the public stockholders of Xoom Corporation, to enjoin the
proposed acquisition of Xoom by PayPal Inc., through an inadequate
consideration and unfair price.

Xoom Corporation is a Delaware corporation that is engaged in the
digital consumer-to-consumer international money transfer
business.

PayPal Inc. is a Delaware corporation that provides digital money
transfer services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert S. Green, Esq.
      GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
      2200 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 101
      Larkspur, CA 94939-1755
      Telephone: (415) 477-6700
      Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
      E-mail: gnecf@classcounsel.com

         - and -

      Cullin A. O'Brien, Esq.
      CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A.
      6541 N.E. 21st Way
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308
      Telephone: (561) 676-6370
      Facsimile: (561) 320-0285
      E-mail: cullin@cullinobrienlaw.com


YAHOO! INC: Defendant in Cathy Buch v. David Filo Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! 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 22, 2015, a stockholder action
captioned Cathy Buch v. David Filo, et al., was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery against Yahoo and all current members
of the Board of Directors. The complaint asserts both derivative
claims, purportedly on behalf of Yahoo, and class action claims,
purportedly on behalf of the plaintiff and all similarly situated
stockholders, relating to the termination of, and severance
payments made to, our former chief operating officer, Henrique de
Castro. The plaintiff alleges that the board members breached
their fiduciary duties by enabling or acquiescing in the payment
of severance to Mr. de Castro, and by allowing Yahoo to make
allegedly false and misleading statements regarding the value of
his severance. The plaintiff has also asserted claims against Mr.
de Castro. The plaintiff seeks to recoup the severance paid to Mr.
de Castro, an equitable accounting, disgorgement in favor of
Yahoo, monetary damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief,
and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.


YELP INC: Court Grants Motion to Transfer Review Suit to Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that for nearly
two years, claims that Yelp Inc. should pay people who post on its
site have dogged the company like a bad review.

The back and forth in Los Angeles federal court has become
increasingly ugly involving a complaint against the plaintiffs'
lawyer with the State Bar of California, and a corresponding
motion for sanctions against Yelp's in-house counsel.  Perhaps as
fed up as Yelp's counsel, the judge sat on the company's motion to
dismiss without comment for more than five months.

The entire mess landed in the Northern District of California
after Yelp won a motion to move the case closer to the company's
San Francisco headquarters.  Florida attorney Daniel Bernath
claims Yelp cheated its legions of reviewers by refusing to pay
them for content they post to the website.  The reviewers were
Yelp's employees, Mr. Bernath argues, comparing the company's
practice of withholding wages to that of a "21st century galley
slave ship."

"Defendants could not exist, nor make its returns, without labors
of and its control over unpaid writers," Mr. Bernath wrote.

Yelp's lawyers persuaded U.S. District Judge Dean Pregerson in the
Central District of California to dismiss the allegations in
February 2014, but Mr. Bernath filed a new complaint in August.
In the company's motion to dismiss, Yelp senior director of
litigation Aaron Schur and Pasadena solo Adrianos Facchetti deride
the potential class action as "outrageous," saying its claims
would undermine the business model of every website that posts
user-generated content.

"Under plaintiffs' theory, popular websites like Amazon, eBay,
Facebook, Google and Twitter would suddenly gain hundreds of
millions of employees," the lawyers wrote, "all entitled to
billions of dollars in payment by the mere fact that they have
used these online forums to express themselves through content
contributions."

Furthermore, the plaintiffs never expected to be paid, Yelp's
lawyers wrote, and instead agreed to terms of service that
stipulated they would not be compensated.

Mr. Facchetti didn't immediately respond to a phone call or email
seeking comment.
Yelp's attempt to shake the claims was met with silence from the
court.

But earlier in May, Judge Fernando Olguin of the Central District
of California finally granted a motion to transfer the suit to the
Northern District of California.  Judge Olguin's eight-page order
came after Yelp filed two briefs prodding the court for a response
to the transfer motion.  In the second brief, Yelp appealed to
Chief Judge George King to intervene and set a decision date.

The company also filed a brief asking for a response to its motion
to dismiss, which is still unresolved and likely will be one of
the first orders of business for the new presiding judge.

In a sign the dispute has taken a personal turn, Mr. Bernath has
accused Yelp in-house counsel Schur of filing a complaint against
him with the state bar.  Mr. Bernath included a letter from the
bar in a motion for sanctions against Yelp's counsel.  The letter,
dated March 13, claims Mr. Bernath solicited clients online and
advertised himself as an attorney on social media while his status
in California was inactive.  It also claims he created a fake
account on Yelp under the pseudonym Alan Smithee.

In a phone call on May 20, Mr. Bernath said the bar complaint was
an intimidation tactic.

"Yelp's whole strategy is just to be petty and attack you by
nipping at your heels and tripping you," he said.  "But in the
end, the law says that they owe my clients money."

Mr. Bernath's bizarre sanctions motion, which includes a
photograph of a shingles sore on his skin and a blister on his big
toe, also accuses Yelp of abusing the mediation process.  The
company did everything it could to delay mediation, Mr. Bernath
said, which is what caused the judge to postpone ruling on Yelp's
motions.  When the two sides finally met, Mr. Bernath claims Yelp
did not negotiate in good faith, adding the stress Yelp's counsel
inflicted caused him to suffer a shingles outbreak.

Mr. Bernath also claims the walk between the mediation conference
rooms and the Orange County airport gave him a blister.  He
accuses Yelp's counsel of refusing to offer him a ride.


ZIONS BANCORPORATION: Third Circuit Has Not Ruled on Appeals
------------------------------------------------------------
Zions Bancorporation 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 as of March 31, 2015,
the Company is subject to a class action case, Reyes v. Zions
First National Bank, et. al., which was brought in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

"This case relates to our banking relationships with customers
that allegedly engaged in wrongful telemarketing practices. The
plaintiff is seeking a trebled monetary award under the federal
RICO Act. In the third quarter of 2013, the District Court denied
the plaintiff's motion for class certification in the Reyes case.
The plaintiff appealed the District Court decision to the Third
Circuit Court of Appeals. The Third Circuit had not ruled on the
appeals as of May 2015," the Company said.


* Cos. Need to Be Careful in Making Gender-Based Hiring Decisions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Mintzer, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that for
companies wanting to be good corporate citizens, encouraging
diversity at every level is becoming increasingly important.

Recently, there has been an especially strong spotlight on gender
diversity, particularly in such industries as technology, where
the case of former Kleiner Perkins employee Ellen Pao has turned
attention toward how women are represented and treated in the
workplace.

While diversifying the workforce to include more women is a
laudable goal, companies have to be aware of the limitations U.S.
law places on their ability to consider gender in hiring
decisions.  Companies have to be especially careful when drawing
comparisons to U.S. overseas neighbors, as European nations tend
to have more legal latitude to act in this area.

Several European countries have been busy over the last few years
legislating the creation of gender quotas on boards of directors
as part of an effort to give women more top leadership spots in
the corporate world.  Recently, Germany passed a law requiring
German companies to allot 30 percent of their board seats to women
starting in 2016.  In doing so, they joined France, Norway, Spain,
Italy, Iceland, Belgium and the Netherlands, all of which have
mandated some form of quota for women on boards.

Philip Berkowitz, a shareholder at Littler Mendelson and U.S.
practice co-chairman of the firm's international employment law
practice group, told CorpCounsel.com that the movement in Europe
to create more roles for women in companies is expanding beyond
just boards.  Some European companies have toyed with the idea of
bringing gender quotas into the general employee pool, requiring
that women comprise a certain percentage of the workforce.

Mr. Berkowitz explained that while the goal of getting women more
representation in the corporate world is admirable, U.S. companies
(or European companies with U.S. operations) need to be very
circumspect in how they carry out such efforts.  "The danger is
that this culture of moving toward employing a certain percentage
of women or increasing representation of women can be misconstrued
as unlawful discrimination," he said.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prevents discrimination in
hiring based on race, religion, sex or national origin in the U.S.
(and the Americans With Disabilities Act does the same for
disabled people).  It's entirely possible that under Title VII, a
company hiring a woman in part based on her being female could get
slapped with a lawsuit from a male candidate who felt he didn't
get a fair shot at the job.  Setting a quota for the number of
female workers a company wants to hire, or favoring one equally
qualified candidate over the other due to gender, could invite
potential claims.

Another reason that any type of employment quota based on
protected characteristics can be especially risky is the leeway
that the U.S. court system gives plaintiffs in discrimination
suits.  Mr. Berkowitz noted that not only are quotas "anathema in
the U.S. in general," but the employment discrimination suits that
arise in the U.S., unlike across the Atlantic, can lead to jury
trials and a much higher ceiling for the amount of damages and
types of damages paid out to plaintiffs.

All of this is not to say that U.S. companies and their diversity
and inclusion offices should refrain from making legitimate
efforts toward increased gender diversity.  "It can be a delicate
dance because the law in the U.S. is so restrictive," said
Mr. Berkowitz, but there are steps companies can take to get more
women into the hiring process without crossing the line into
discrimination.  Searching for candidates in organizations that
promote women or putting job advertisements in venues where
potentially qualified women might look would not likely pose a
risk of appearing to discriminate.  Mr. Berkowitz added that
companies should identify themselves as equal opportunity
employers, so there's no doubt that applicants of all kinds will
be considered and included.


* Data Breach Litigation Expanding, Data-Security Attorneys Say
---------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer reports that a
panel of national data-security attorneys agreed at a
cybersecurity conference on June 2 that data breach litigation is
expanding in almost every way, and big changes are coming soon.

The panelists, who have represented everything from plaintiffs in
class actions, to insurance carriers and companies, told the
audience at the NetDiligence Cyber Risk & Privacy Liability Forum
in Philadelphia that more suits are being filed, courts are
becoming more sympathetic on standing issues, and more plaintiffs
attorneys are entering the data breach field.

And a big part of that expansion, at least according to Paul G.
Karlsgodt -- pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com -- of Baker & Hostetler, is
that plaintiffs attorneys see it as a way to make money.

"There's too many dollar signs that they're seeing," Mr. Karlsgodt
said.

The litigation forum was moderated by Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard &
Smith attorney John Mullen, and was one of several discussions and
speeches at the forum being held through on June 3.

K&L Gates attorney Roberta D. Anderson agreed with Mr. Karlsgodt
that plaintiffs attorneys are increasingly eager to file these
suits, and told the audience that a suit will always be filed if a
breach is big enough and if a forensic investigator finds that the
company in question was noncompliant with the relevant standards.

However, Christopher L. Dore -- cdore@edelson.com -- of Edelson, a
plaintiffs-side class action litigation firm, said he and his firm
do not simply file class action suits just because a breach
occurred, but instead look for cases that have a clear theory of
negligence, such as failing to detect a breach for more than a
year.

"We're looking not simply for a breach," Mr. Dore said.

Mr. Dore also noted the type of data that was stolen, the length
of time the information was potentially on the market, and whether
there is evidence that the data was used fraudulently all play a
role in figuring out when to file suit.

Cameron Azari of Epiq Systems, which helps clients to develop
notice plans for class actions and bankruptcy proceedings, noted
some of the actions plaintiffs attorneys chose to pursue result in
very few individuals filing claims.

Mr. Dore also noted that, along with trying to find cases with
clear negligence, plaintiffs attorneys are also trying out cases
with uniform damages theories.

"If that takes root, these cases will get more expensive," Dore
said, noting that there are "plenty of opportunities for us to try
this."

Mr. Karlsgodt agreed.

"If this theory gets through the courts, it will be a problem," he
said.

Cases are getting farther and farther into litigation before
settling or being dismissed, attorneys said.

Ms. Anderson said that, while two years ago she used to tell her
clients that most of the data-breach class actions wouldn't pass a
standing challenge, the suits are increasingly succeeding.

"The class action bar is getting increasingly creative, and these
cases are surviving," Ms. Anderson said.  "You can't assume
anymore that these cases will be dismissed."

The panelists noted some of these standing issues might be
addressed soon, as the U.S. Supreme Court last month agreed to
hear Spokeo v. Robins, a case expected to determine whether a
plaintiff can sue for a data breach even if the plaintiff suffers
no injuries.

"We all think that, in the litigation context, we are going to get
to the net phase sometime soon," Mr. Karlsgodt said.

Although Mr. Dore said that any decision in Spokeo will likely
maintain the status quo, he added that, if the justices do make
sweeping determinations that victims of data breaches don't have
standing in federal court unless they suffer damages, data breach
cases will then be heard only in state courts, which are venues
that defendants have typically tried to avoid.

Mr. Mullen said business-to-business litigation stemming from data
breaches has also started to increase, and Ms. Anderson added that
insurance carriers will be increasingly looking to deny coverage
based on broad policy language.

She specifically said litigation over exclusions for
misrepresentations and failure to continuously monitor are likely
on the horizon.

"Those exclusions are not acceptable at all," Ms. Anderson said.
She told the audience that policy exclusions should be focused
mostly on negligence.

Pinning down the damages that result from a data breach, not only
for a purported class, but also for the business that suffers the
breach, is difficult, attorneys said.

Regarding class action suits, experts have not been able to wade
into many damages issues so far, Mr. Dore noted, and Mr. Karlsgodt
said that, once preliminary questions are determined, such as
aggregate amounts for a class, all sorts of issues arise about how
to compensate the individual class members.

According to Ms. Anderson, for companies, the damage arises not
only from payments, but also from the bad press that company can
receive.  She noted stocks often take a dip after a large data
breach.

While companies often chose to settle claims for small amounts to
avoid the litigation, "the damages to the brand, that's where the
real issue is," Ms. Anderson said.

Ms. Anderson also noted insurance carriers are even beginning to
offer coverage for business losses stemming from data breaches.


* FLSA Lawsuits Against Energy Industry Employers Rise
------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that a growing
number of energy industry workers have turned to the federal
courts to seek unpaid overtime claims against employers.  Once
well compensated, many of the workers lost jobs as oil prices
fell.  Those events prompted them to revisit their former
employers' pay practices and to allege that they are due overtime
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, both plaintiffs and defense
lawyers report.

The FLSA requires that nonexempt employees be paid at least the
national minimum wage of $7.25 per hour for all hours worked, plus
time-and-a-half their regular rates for hours worked beyond 40 per
week.  The increase in FLSA lawsuits against energy industry
employers is also recognized as lucrative by the plaintiffs bar.
The potential yields are promising, thanks to the oil and gas
industry tradition of companies paying workers high day rates, but
rarely factoring in overtime compensation.

"These claims are worth a lot," said Galvin Kennedy, partner in
Houston's Kennedy/Hodges, who represents workers in more than a
dozen pending FLSA claims against oil and gas employers. Kennedy
expects such lawsuits to keep growing in number, given the
revenues they reap.

The litigation has kept defense lawyers busy too.

"We've got more than of it than I care to admit," William
Stukenberg, who defends energy companies, said about the FLSA
lawsuits.  "The plaintiffs bar moves from industry to industry,
and this is the time the oil patch seems to be in their
crosshairs," said Mr. Stukenberg, a shareholder in Houston's
Jackson Lewis.

In contrast to other industries that previously attracted FLSA
plaintiffs lawyers' attention, energy-sector employers
historically have paid workers high wages, and the compensation
rose with the fracking boom.

"I think I could give up on this law thing and become a
directional driller," a defense lawyer reported overhearing
another lawyer joke, sitting at a deposition of a fracking worker
who made six figures a year.

But energy industry employers have also counted on their workers
to log long days, sometimes 80 hours a week, without overtime pay.
So when plaintiffs lawyers argue successfully that the workers are
due overtime, the damages awarded may be as much as $100,000 per
plaintiff.  FLSA plaintiffs may also win liquidated damages, or
double their back pay, if the court finds that an employer that
violated the FLSA also took an adverse action against employees
who reported those violations.  In addition, the FLSA statute
allows the plaintiffs lawyers to file claims as collective
actions, so other workers in the same situation may join. The FLSA
also allows for attorney fees.

Increase in Claims

In the past three years, there has been a steady increase in the
number of FLSA claims filed against energy companies, with an even
more pronounced spike this year, according to data collected from
PACER, the electronic record-keeping system of the federal courts.
From the start of this year until May 15, 2015, plaintiffs have
filed 80 FLSA lawsuits against employers with either the word
"oil" or "energy" in their company names; during the same time
period in 2014, plaintiffs had filed only 33 such suits.

Jeff Price of Moulton & Price in Tyler previously represented
employers defending against FLSA claims.  But he now represents
workers because of what he calls an explosion of plaintiffs.
"We live here in East Texas, and lots of guys are getting laid off
from their good jobs.  They are opting to hire lawyers," Mr. Price
said.

Often, the recently laid off energy workers recount for Mr. Price
how their former employers treated them.

"They'd pay them well because they wanted to attract talent.  But
they'd give them a supervisor's title and tell them they were
exempt from the overtime laws.  They might call him a safety
supervisor, but in reality, the worker was driving a truck from
job to job and doing miscellaneous jobs and no supervising,"
Mr. Price said.

The employers were playing fast and loose with FLSA rules, but
employees didn't object until the downturn and the ensuing
layoffs, Mr. Price said.

The DOL

The U.S. Department of Labor also has accelerated wage-and-hour
enforcement actions against energy industry employers.  In March
2015, the DOL announced that in an enforcement effort it had
initiated in the energy industry in the Southwest, it recovered
more than $1.3 million in 2014 for more than 1,300 oil field
workers in New Mexico and West Texas.

"There is a misconception in the industry that -- because workers
typically earn more than the minimum wage -- they are being paid
legally.  That is not always the case," said Cynthia Watson,
regional administrator for the Wage and Hour Division's Southwest
Region, said in a statement.  "You can't pay a flat day rate with
no regard for hours worked, misclassify employees as independent
contractors, or make deals with employees that violate labor
laws."

Notably, the DOL and private plaintiffs lawyers rarely act in
tandem. Instead, plaintiffs lawyers often view the DOL as a
potential rival.

"The DOL and the plaintiffs bar don't necessarily coordinate,"
Mr. Stukenberg said.  When the DOL succeeds in getting overtime
for a worker, "there is one less plaintiff that the plaintiffs bar
can represent," Mr. Stukenberg said.

Those dynamics may explain why plaintiffs lawyers are quick to
discount the DOL's effectiveness.

"The employees are not interested in getting the DOL involved,
because it creates a bottleneck.  In the current environment, the
DOL would do nothing but bring more heat," Mr. Price said.
His clients collect higher damages than they would have if they
had gone to the government, Kennedy said.

"The DOL is understaffed and underfinanced, and there is not a
profit motive for them," Kennedy said.

But government enforcers knocking at the door may ultimately
extract more money from employers than private plaintiffs lawyers.
Why? With enforcement actions, and the lawsuits it files, DOL has
the option of seeking back wages for an entire class of employees;
private plaintiffs lawyers typically represent only those
employees who sign up with them, Mr. Stukenberg said.

Change in Pay

Faced with the spike in FLSA litigation, energy industry employers
have started to change their day-rate pay structures.  Defense
lawyers have advised companies to revise their compensation
policies to protect themselves; most large employers have done so,
but some smaller ones in the industry have not yet received the
memo, defense lawyers said.

Alan Bush, a principal of the Bush Law Firm in The Woodlands, who
represents FLSA defendants, noted that energy industry employers
need not tell their workers that fears about unpaid overtime
litigation triggered the pay structure changes.

"Here's the advantage for the industry right now.  There are
enough companies changing their pay rates, so you can say, 'We're
changing our pay structure to be competitive with them,'" Mr. Bush
said.

Expect no immediate end to the increase in FLSA lawsuits in the
oil patch.  Under FLSA, workers have two years to file unpaid
overtime claims, and if the employer's violation of the wage
payment laws is willful, that time period extends to three years.
"Cases are just getting out of the chute," Mr. Price said.


* Food Companies May Face Civil, Criminal Penalties for Outbreaks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Clare Jalonick, writing for The Associated Press, reports
that following a deadly listeria outbreak in ice cream, the
Justice Department is warning food companies that they could face
criminal and civil penalties if they poison their customers.

"We have made a priority holding individuals and companies
responsible when they fail to live up to their obligations that
they have to protect the safety of the food that all of us eat,"
Associate Attorney General Stuart Delery said in an interview with
The Associated Press.

After years of relative inactivity, the administration has stepped
up criminal enforcement on safety cases.  In the most high-profile
case, a federal court in Georgia last year found an executive for
the Peanut Corporation of America guilty of conspiracy,
obstruction of justice, wire fraud and other crimes after his
company shipped out salmonella-tainted peanuts that sickened more
than 700 and killed nine in 2008 and 2009.

Mr. Delery, the No. 3 official at the Justice Department, wouldn't
say whether the government plans to pursue charges against
Texas-based Blue Bell Creameries, which recalled all its products
and shut down production earlier this year after listeria in the
company's ice cream was linked to illnesses and three deaths.  A
Food and Drug Administration investigation found that Blue Bell
knew that it had listeria in one of its plants for almost two
years before the recall.

"I will say we are following the reports and working with our
agency partners, obviously, as they conduct their reviews and
investigations," Mr. Delery said of the Blue Bell investigation
and other recent outbreaks, including deaths linked to listeria in
caramel apples.  "What I can say is we're committed to staying on
top of outbreaks and evaluating potential cases as the evidence
warrants."

Other recent actions prompted by the Justice Department during the
Obama administration:

  -- A 2013 guilty plea from Colorado brothers who grew and sold
listeria-tainted cantaloupe that killed more than 30 people in
2011.

  -- A 2014 plea deal, resulting in prison time and millions of
dollars in fines, between the government and an Iowa egg company
and its executives. An outbreak of salmonella linked to the eggs
sickened almost 2,000 people in 2010.

  -- A May 2015 settlement with ConAgra Foods for $11.2 million
after the company shipped Peter Pan peanut butter tainted with
salmonella from a plant in Georgia, sickening more than 600 people
in 2006. That sum includes the highest criminal fine in a U.S.
food safety case.

Bill Marler, a food safety lawyer who has represented victims in
many of those cases, says Justice's recent activity is especially
notable because in many of the cases, company executives didn't
know they were shipping out tainted food, but they were hit with
criminal charges anyway.

"It's been very much of a sea change," Mr. Marler said.  "Once you
start down this road you have to decide whether you are going to
do it all the time or selectively."

Mr. Delery notes the department has gone after some of these
companies with laws that aren't directly related to food safety,
such as those prohibiting wire or mail fraud.

In his effort to put food companies on warning, Mr. Delery spoke
to food manufacturers at a safety meeting in Dallas last month.
He said the majority of American food is safe, but "even a tiny
minority" can cause harm.

"The criminal prosecutions we bring should stand as a stark
reminder of the potential consequences of disregarding danger to
one's customers in the name of getting a shipment out on time --
of sacrificing what is right for what is expedient," he told the
food companies.

The food industry says it is on board with regulation and
enforcement.

"Product safety is the foundation of consumer trust, and our
industry devotes enormous resources to ensure that our products
are safe," said Pamela G. Bailey, president and CEO of the Grocery
Manufacturers Association, the leading trade group for the
industry.


* Government Probes Local Retailers' "On-Call" Scheduling
---------------------------------------------------------
James R. Hays and Shira Forman, writing for Law.com report that if
the retail world can be said to operate in seasons, then, for
New York retailers, this one could be characterized as the season
of uncertainty.

In April, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman
launched an investigation into local retailers' use of "on-call
scheduling," the last-minute scheduling of employee work shifts.
So far, the Attorney General's office has requested extensive
information from 13 major retailers regarding their scheduling and
staffing practices.  It is unclear what, if any, action will
result from the information request.

The on-call scheduling inquiry comes as political attention is
focused on workers' rights issues, including calls to raise the
minimum wage for fast-food workers and increased scrutiny of the
work conditions of local nail salon employees.  It also comes at a
time when businesses are awaiting an announcement from the U.S.
Department of Labor regarding expected changes to long-established
federal overtime laws.  Although the proposed laws have not yet
been released to the public, it is anticipated that they will lead
to many more workers becoming eligible for overtime pay.

With the on-call scheduling investigation underway and the U.S.
Department of Labor's overtime review close to completion, Law.com
examines the potential implications of these developments for New
York's retail employers.

New York's Laws

While federal law does not require employers to pay employees for
a minimum number of hours per workday, several states, including
New York, have regulations concerning what is called "call-in" or
"reporting time" pay.  New York requires the payment of call-in
pay for non-exempt employees who come to work but are dismissed
after working fewer than four hours.  The call-in pay regulation
that applies to retail employers provides that "[a]n employee who
by request or permission of the employer reports for work on any
day shall be paid for at least four hours, or the number of hours
in the regularly scheduled shift, whichever is less, at the basic
minimum hourly wage."  If an employee earns more than the minimum
wage, the employer can offset the call-in pay owed by the amount
earned above the minimum wage for a particular week.

Call-in pay is only required if the employee's hours are reduced
by the employer; the New York State Department of Labor made clear
in a 2009 opinion letter that if "there is work available to an
employee but the employee, on their own accord, stops working,
such employee is not entitled to call-in pay."4

As discussed in more detail below, it appears that the Attorney
General's concerns about on-call scheduling practices among
retailers stems from his office's interpretation of New York's
call-in pay provision.

Attorney General's Inquiry

In mid-April 2015, the New York State Attorney General's office
sent identical letters to 13 retailers, including the Gap,
Abercrombie & Fitch, Urban Outfitters, Target, and Crocs,
informing them that the office was looking into the companies' use
of on-call scheduling.  The letter stated, "Our office has
received reports that a growing number of employers, particularly
in the retail industry, require their hourly workers to work what
are sometimes known as 'on call shifts' -- that is, requiring
their employees to call in to work just a few hours in advance, or
the night before, to determine whether the worker needs to appear
for work that day or the next."

The letter expressed concern that receiving only a few hours' or a
night's notice to report to work makes it difficult for employees
to arrange for family needs and to secure an alternate source of
income in the event they are not needed on a particular day.

The letters requested that the retailers provide information and
documents, including an explanation of the process by which they
schedule employees for work and whether they utilize on-call
scheduling, as well as sample schedules from 2013 and 2014,
payroll records reflecting any instance in which an employee was
paid for a time period of fewer than four hours on any given day,
and materials provided to employees regarding scheduling.  The
letters also sought information regarding the retailers' use of
employee scheduling software that allows employers to craft staff
schedules based on up-to-the-minute data utilizing factors like
customer demand and how many workers have called out sick on a
particular day.

Though the Attorney General's letter lists concerns about the
inconveniences that result when employees are assigned shifts on
short notice, the only legal provision it cites is New York's
call-in pay provision.  Interestingly, in a 2014 webinar, the New
York State Department of Labor instructed employers that
"employees who are notified prior to their arrival on the worksite
are not entitled to call-in pay."  This guidance would seem to
indicate that, provided that employees receive some notice --
however minimal -- that their shift is cancelled, they are not
entitled to call-in pay.  However, the fact that the Attorney
General's letter cites the call-in pay requirement suggests that
his office may take a broader view of what "reporting" to work
means.

It is possible that the Attorney General's office considers the
requirement to be "on-call" in case of a shift assignment to be
akin to reporting to work on a given day.  This view dovetails
with the Fair Labor Standards Act's definition of "on-call," which
provides for a case-by-case determination as to whether an "on-
call" employee who is off the employer's premises can use the on-
call time effectively for his own purposes; if not, she must be
compensated for her time.

It remains to be seen whether any legal or legislative action will
result from the state's newfound attention to on-call scheduling
among retailers.

Current Overtime Law

The Fair Labor Standards Act provides that employees must receive
overtime pay at a rate of at least one-and-a-half times their
regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 in a workweek.  The
act provides an exemption from this requirement for employees who
are considered bona fide executive, administrative, professional
and outside sales employees.  To qualify for the overtime
exemption, employees must be paid a salary of at least $23,000, or
$455 a week, and must meet the criteria outlined in a series of
tests regarding their job duties and levels of responsibility. 29
U.S.C. 2013, 29 CFR 541.600.

The last time the federal salary threshold for exempt employees
was raised was in 2004; prior to that, the last change was in
1975.

New York's overtime regulations require that executive,
professional and administrative employees be paid a minimum weekly
salary of $656.25 in order to qualify for an exemption.  This
number will go up to $675 per week after Dec. 31, 2015. 12 NYCRR
142-2.14.

In March 2014, President Barack Obama directed the U.S. Department
of Labor to revamp the FLSA's overtime regulations.  The president
focused specifically on the overtime exemptions for executive,
administrative, and professional employees, commenting at the time
that "millions of Americans aren't getting the extra pay they
deserve . . .  because an exception that was originally meant for
high-paid, white-collar employees now covers workers earning as
little as $23,660 a year."

In early May 2015, the Department of Labor announced that it had
developed proposed changes to the overtime rules and submitted
them to the Office of Management and Budget for review.  The next
step will be a public review period, which could begin in the
coming weeks.  It is likely to take months, if not longer, before
a new rule is finalized.

What Could Change

Though it is too soon to tell what the new overtime rules will
mean for employers, there has been widespread speculation that the
Department of Labor intends to significantly increase the salary
threshold for exempt employees.  The National Retail Federation,
for one, has predicted that the new rules will permit exemptions
for employees who earn at least $51,000 a year, and could entail
an overhaul of the ad hoc tests that have traditionally been used
to establish exempt status.

The federation has cautioned that these changes would "add to
employers' costs, undermine customer service, hinder productivity,
generate more litigation opportunities for trial lawyers and
ultimately harm job creation."  Since New York's minimum salary
requirement for most exempt categories is already significantly
higher than the federal minimum, it remains to be seen what the
full impact would be on New York employers.

What other possible changes could result from the new rules?

   * An inflation adjustment. Some workers' advocates have called
for the Department of Labor to build a forward-looking inflation
adjustment for the salary threshold into the FLSA regulations.
This could prevent the need for periodic adjustment of the
requirements.

   * Elimination of the 'primary duty' test. Most of the tests
involved in determining whether an employee is subject to an
overtime exemption ask, among other things, about the employee's
"primary duty," i.e., is it managerial, professional, or
administrative in nature? The Obama administration has criticized
this standard, claiming that it permits exemptions for managers
who spend the majority of their time on non-managerial tasks.

The new regulations may change the test to a more mathematical
one, which would require that a certain percentage of an
employee's work be of a higher level than that of his reporting
staff.

   * More internal audits. If the new rules do away with the
current tests in favor of more stringent requirements, retail
employers will likely find themselves spending significantly more
time and resources to ensure they are in compliance with the new
standards.


* Internet in Appliances May Spark Class Actions, Lawyers Say
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
lax security for the growing number of appliances, televisions,
cars and other everyday items connected to the Internet will
prompt a wave of litigation in coming years, some lawyers have
predicted.

The number of devices connected to the Internet worldwide,
currently estimated at 25 billion, is expected to reach 50 billion
by 2020, according to technology company Cisco.  The fastest
growth is in what is known the "Internet of Things" -- devices
other than computers, smartphones or tablets that rely on Wi-Fi
signals to transmit data.

You can already buy a refrigerator or a Mr. Coffee that connects
to the Internet, and increasingly cars and even medical devices
send updates to remote servers.  Growth has been driven by the
popularity of apps that allow home thermostats and lights to be
controlled remotely with a smartphone, and of bracelets that
transmit data on the user's physical activity.

What could go wrong with this scenario? Plenty, according to some
attorneys.

For one, there's the risk of bodily harm from tampering with
medical devices that send the patient's vital signs wirelessly to
a doctor or hospital.  In 2007, then-Vice President Dick Cheney
received a pacemaker with wireless functionality, raising
speculation that he might be assassinated by someone who tinkers
with the device remotely.  The Showtime series "Homeland" featured
an episode in 2012 in which a fictional vice president was killed
by manipulation of his pacemaker.

Invasion of privacy is another significant risk posed by the
Internet of Things, attorneys said. In 2012, hackers posted live
video feeds online from about 700 homes, showing infants sleeping
in their cribs and adults engaging in daily activities, after
compromising wireless home security cameras made by a company
called TrendNet.  The company agreed to reform its security
measures after the Federal Trade Commission said it falsely
represented to consumers that their privacy would be protected.

"The pace of technology is outpacing our ability to provide
regulatory safeguards.  This is a recipe for disaster," said
Glen Gilmore, a Hamilton-based attorney who consults on emerging
technologies.  "Smart devices can easily become dumb and dangerous
when they are not protected against data spillage, hacking or
share information that consumers never consented to in an informed
fashion.

"This is a danger to consumers, developers, manufacturers,
marketers and society at large because of the harm it can create,"
Gilmore said.

Jay Edelson, a Chicago attorney whose 19-lawyer firm, Edelson
P.C., said many developers of products that utilize the Internet
of Things are startup companies that are eager to get their
products to market as quickly as possible, but take shortcuts on
privacy issues.

"The Internet of Things is the perfect storm -- what we see is
there's going to be an incredible amount of innovation but it's
going to come at a huge cost for consumer privacy," Mr. Edelson
said.

At Reed Smith, the Internet of Things has been identified as a
likely growth area for class actions by the firm's Innovation
Think Tank, an in-house strategic planning exercise.  The firm's
lawyers are getting ready by learning more about the subject,
according to Mark Melodia, founder of the firm's information
technology, privacy and data security group and co-leader of its
intellectual property group. The think tank's prediction was based
in part on a number of academic studies showing how cars, medical
devices and airlines are vulnerable to wireless hacking, he said.
Another factor is the sheer growth in the number of devices that
could be subject to data breaches, he said.

Mr. Melodia also said the class-action bar has been increasingly
hemmed in by case law from the U.S. Supreme Court, and is likely
to face further limits in the near future.  He cited a case the
court is expected to take up in the fall, Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.
In that case, the court will consider whether a showing of
cognizable harm is necessary to support claims of federal
statutory violations, or whether mere violation of a statute
confers standing.

Plaintiffs suing over data breaches in federal court have
struggled over their lack of economic losses.  Data breach cases
based on the Internet of Things could allow plaintiffs' counsel to
sidestep these prior problems if they can demonstrate that the
breach caused physical injury to the plaintiff, or if they claim
that the product or service is worth less than what they paid
under the expectation of adequate security, Mr. Melodia said.

One early Internet of Things case was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California against General
Motors, Ford and Toyota in March.  The suit, Cahen v. Toyota Motor
Corporation, claims the defendants sold millions of unsafe
vehicles.  The suit says the cars are vulnerable to hacking and
their value is diminished because a hacker could take control of
its steering, braking and acceleration remotely while they are
driving.

Gerald Ferguson, co-chair of the national Privacy and Data
Protection team at BakerHostetler in New York, forsees an increase
in class actions over the Internet of Things but believes it will
materialize gradually, depending on how many high-profile data
breach incidents make the headlines.  Citing a German steel mill
that caught fire and was seriously damaged in 2014 after its
business network was hacked to gain access to systems controlling
plant equipment, Mr. Ferguson notes that such instances have been
rare.

Litigation over the Internet of Things is also dependent on
whether cyber-thieves can develop a strategy for making money from
the data they can obtain by breaching online networks,
Mr. Ferguson said.  Large-scale breaches so far have focused on
credit card numbers and Social Security numbers, which enjoy ready
demand on the black market, but the Internet of Things offers
hackers access to information such as what time a particular
person leaves for work, Ferguson said.

"You can envision ways hackers could monetize it but we're not
there yet," Mr. Ferguson said.  "Hackers are very much focused on
records that can be readily monetized.  You would need to see an
expansion of focus."

But Mr. Edelson said the information generated by wireless devices
will have a monetary value to data aggregators, who can use
information about an individual's habits and routines to develop a
profile that is sold to marketers.

"Any time there's new technology and companies are incentivized to
push the boundaries, litigation ends up coming," Mr. Edelson said.
But privacy laws are widely inconsistent and bringing such claims
under common law has had "mixed results," he said.

Mr. Edelson said the plaintiffs bar has been "slow to go after
this issue" but the defense bar "has been a lot better -- almost
every big firm has its own privacy group."

Mr. Ferguson said he thinks most companies involved in the
Internet of Things are aware of the risk of litigation but some
are better prepared than others.  He said the Framework for
Improving Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity, issued by the
National Institute of Standards and Technology in February 2014,
is a "recommended guidebook" for such companies.

"This is when companies need to be assessing their
vulnerabilities.  Crossing your fingers and hoping you are not hit
is not a strategy," Mr. Ferguson said.


* Mainstream Plaintiffs Losing Interest in Privacy Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that Michael Rhodes
-- rhodesmg@cooley.com -- the charismatic chair of Cooley's
privacy and data protection practice, took the stage at an awards
dinner in late April with an extra bounce in his step -- and a
blunt prediction for his colleagues in the plaintiffs privacy bar.

"I suspect a lot of people, perhaps on the plaintiffs side, will
be out of work within the year," he said.

Mr. Rhodes was referring mainly to the Supreme Court's decision
earlier that same day to grant review in Spokeo v. Robins, a case
that has the potential to radically reshape privacy litigation.
But his remarks also reflected growing confidence among defense
lawyers that they have a grip on the legal threat posed by suits
that seek to hold companies accountable for improperly collecting,
selling off, rifling through or failing to protect customers'
data.

The Recorder first used the phrase "privacy class action" 15 years
ago to describe a new class of suits aimed at dot-com companies.
There have been plenty of ambitious predictions since.  But though
the legal theories have evolved, there have been few big pay days
and some signs that mainstream plaintiffs firms are losing
interest.

After three boom years, privacy litigation filed in the Northern
District of California against Silicon Valley giants Apple Inc.,
Facebook Inc. and Google Inc. fell off dramatically in 2013,
according to a Recorder review of cases invoking the statutes most
frequently used in privacy cases.  The search turned up just a
single privacy suit against Apple, Facebook or Google filed in
2015.

Still, it may be early to write a privacy post-mortem.  U.S.
District Judge Lucy Koh gave plaintiffs hope when she certified a
class in a case against Yahoo Inc. over its scanning of email
messages.  And the next wave of litigation, according to lawyers
in the trenches, is likely to focus more on mass data breaches
than the monetization of consumer data, posing a new set of legal
issues.

Meanwhile, plaintiffs lawyers are tinkering with new approaches,
such as bringing privacy claims for customers who purchased a
service or device and say that they wouldn't have spent the money
if they'd been advised of how their personal information would be
tracked. Some are hunting for state laws that may give them more
traction.

Plaintiffs lawyers in the Yahoo suit took a lesson from past
failures to get their case past the procedural hurdle of class
certification.  Rather than seeking monetary damages, they're
asking for an injunction, which lowers the bar for a class action
but can also mean lower attorney fees.

"It's interesting how the tactics have changed," said San Mateo
solo practitioner Ara Jabagchourian, who filed the first email
scanning complaint against Yahoo in 2013 while a partner at
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy.

And then there's Spokeo, a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit that has been popular with the plaintiffs
bar because it suggests that damages written into statute may be
available for privacy breaches even absent concrete injury.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari April 27 and is likely to
hear the case next fall. Since statutory damages of $5,000 or
$10,000 per violation can add up to hundreds of millions in
privacy class actions, lawyers see a lot riding on the outcome.
EBay Inc., Facebook, Google and Yahoo united in urging the court
to overturn the decision. The Obama administration opposed the
grant of certiorari, saying the Ninth Circuit's holding was
correct.

Greenberg Traurig partner Ian Ballon, a California litigator who
specializes in the defense of privacy, data breach and other class
actions, predicts the justices will side with the defense.  Then,
Mr. Ballon said, "a lot of the current wave of privacy class
actions will evaporate."

Still, defense firms that invested in privacy practices believe
they have done so wisely, given the growing interest in privacy
from Congress, state legislatures and regulators, and the rise in
data breach incidents, which are fueling their own strain of
litigation.

"Spokeo may have an impact on certain class actions," said Keith
Eggleton of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, who has represented
companies including Netflix in privacy cases, "but it won't
fundamentally change the importance of privacy as a practice."

NO POT OF GOLD

When plaintiffs firms first started pressing privacy claims in
class actions in the early 2000s, it was traditional powerhouse
firms such as Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann and now-
defunct Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach that were testing the
waters.  But since the practice has failed to yield the hefty
damages awards more common in securities and mass torts litigation
-- and the attorney fees that come with them -- the practice has
largely fallen into the purview of specialty shops such as
Chicago's Edelson PC and New York-based KamberLaw.

With the exception of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, few big
plaintiffs shops have planted a flag in the area of privacy, and
some lawyers in smaller shops say privately that the cases have
yet to generate much income for their firms.

So far, plaintiffs have won only a few eight-digit settlements,
let alone the nine- and 10-digit blockbusters hinted at in their
complaints.

In August 2013 U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern
District of California approved a $20 million deal that Facebook
Inc. reached with users whose images appeared without consent in
its sponsored stories. Plaintiffs counsel, who asked for $7.5
million in fees, were awarded about $4.7 million, which was less
than the team said it would have collected billing at hourly
rates.

In January 2014, comScore Inc. agreed to pay $14 million to
Internet users who claimed the analytics company installed data
tracking software on their computers without consent.  Plaintiffs
counsel at Edelson were awarded $4.7 million.

On the data breach front, Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC
agreed last June to give $14.5 million in games, online currency
and identity theft reimbursement as a result of a massive hack of
credit and debit card information from its PlayStation Network.
"There's never going to come to a day where you're going to see a
privacy case worth as much as a mass tort case or a large
antitrust case," said Edelson name partner Jay Edelson, who was
the subject of a New York Times profile in April.

Still, Mr. Edelson, who said high-profile data breaches and the
Edward Snowden leaks have "had a profound effect on the
judiciary," predicts a future where settlements routinely top $50
million.

The staggering statutory damages at stake in some privacy cases
has actually worked against plaintiffs, he said.  "Judges were
looking for ways to dismiss them," Mr. Edelson said, "because no
one wants Facebook to go bankrupt because of a privacy violation."
David Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center and
the former director of the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of
Consumer Protection, said that the current privacy landscape
reminds him of the early days of tobacco and asbestos litigation,
when plaintiffs struggled to establish harm and proximate cause.

It was only through the discovery gained through early litigation
failures, he says, that plaintiffs began to show the value of
their claims. Mr. Vladeck said that he doesn't know if the cases
"will turn 180 degrees," but he thinks there's a potential for the
cases to gain value as the evidence accumulates.

Mr. Vladeck said one reason for the tepid settlement environment
is that the courts so far haven't done a very good job in thinking
through the kinds of harm that privacy invasions involve.  "In
fairness to the courts and in fairness to the lawyers, these are
fairly new problems," he said.

STALE LAWS?

If the problems are cutting-edge, plaintiffs lawyers have had to
rely on laws passed decades ago before cellular phones were
briefcase-sized luxury items, let alone the ubiquitous data-rich
handheld computers they are today.

In an amici curiae brief filed in Spokeo, EBay Inc., Facebook,
Google and Yahoo pointed to a number of stale laws commonly dusted
off for use in privacy cases: the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act and the Stored Communications Act, both passed in
1986, and the Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988.

Applying those statutes to technologies that hadn't been
contemplated at the time they were enacted would have "untoward
consequences," wrote the companies' legal team at Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr.

Jillisa Bronfman, who heads the privacy and technology clinic at
UC-Hastings College of the Law, said the tech companies have a
point that the laws, many of which contain hefty per-violation
penalties, were not written with modern mass technologies in mind.
"If we do want to rely on a statutory damages scheme, we probably
need to update those statutes," she said.

But plaintiffs lawyer Scott Kamber of KamberLaw, who has handled
privacy class actions against Facebook and Hulu among others, said
complaining that laws are outdated is a bogus defense.  Old laws
continue to govern nearly every facet of modern society, he said.
Kamber has particular conviction with respect to the Video Privacy
Protection Act, or VPPA, a law that he used to target Hulu in a
case knocked out on summary judgment by U.S. Magistrate Judge
Laurel Beeler in late March.

No one has successfully argued that VPPA, enacted after a
newspaper printed the video rental history of U.S. Supreme Court
nominee Robert Bork, doesn't apply to online video streaming
services, Kamber said. Netflix and Facebook lobbied Congress for a
2013 amendment to the law about online disclosures.  "No one at
any congressional hearing said, 'Wait a minute.  This law doesn't
apply to streaming services,'" Mr. Kamber said.

THE HARM PROBLEM

Spokeo, which will likely be heard by the Supreme Court next fall,
touches on one of the fundamental hurdles faced by privacy class
actions -- difficulty demonstrating harm.

A Ninth Circuit panel found that an unemployed man had standing in
federal court under the Fair Credit Reporting Act to sue the
company, which offers information about individuals' contact
information, marital status, age, job and wealth to users for a
fee.  The plaintiff alleged that his employment prospects had been
harmed because he'd incorrectly been listed as wealthy and holding
a graduate degree on Spokeo's website.  Spokeo's petition for
review, filed by lawyers at Mayer Brown, questioned whether
Congress could confer standing upon a plaintiff who suffers no
concrete harm just by virtue of the violation of a federal
statute.

The fact that the court is just now dealing with such a
foundational issue shows how novel issues of privacy on the
Internet are, said UC-Hastings' Bronfman, who previously worked as
an assistant general counsel at Verizon Communications Inc.
"People are certainly curious about what the court will say about
standing."

Whether or not technology companies get the outcome they want,
Bronfman said, they will at least get some welcome clarity.
"[Corporations] like things to be in their favor, but more than
that, they have some value in absolute certainty," she said.

While the case has been read by lawyers such as Cooley's Rhodes as
ripe for reversal by the Supreme Court, some caution that it could
be decided in a narrow way that punts on the standing issue that
Silicon Valley finds so vital, or that it could be decided in a
way that actually helps plaintiffs.

The Supreme Court has reviewed the Fair Credit Reporting Act, or
FCRA, multiple times since it was passed in 1970, noted
Georgetown's Vladeck.  The harm that comes from incorrect
revelations such as the ones at issue in the case are baked into
the law, not something that must be separately proven, he said.
The Ninth Circuit's unanimous ruling was authored by Diarmuid
O'Scannlain, one of the court's more conservative judges.
Moreover, the Supreme Court might be disinclined to rule in a way
that plaintiffs lawyers predict would result in more privacy
actions being filed in state court.

"This court has at least four self-identified conservative
jurists," said Mr. Kamber, the New York plaintiffs lawyer. "I'd be
surprised if those jurists would abdicate the express intentions
of Congress" in passing the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005,
which allowed defendants to remove state court class actions with
more than $5 million at stake to federal court.

Even Cooley's Rhodes has come to a more cautious view of Spokeo.
Rhodes said he could see some of the conservative justices on the
court applying a separation of powers analysis to the case.
Congress did, after all, pass the FCRA with a private right to sue
and statutory damages embedded within it. "It's a conservative
principle to defer to the legislature," Mr. Rhodes said.

Plaintiffs lawyers have already been altering their approach to
plead privacy lawsuits with an eye toward the issues raised in
Spokeo, said Munger, Tolles & Olson's Rosemarie Ring.  Rather than
focusing on statutory damages in recent suits, Ms. Ring said,
"plaintiffs lawyers have started focusing on theories of harm
where they are seeing companies make money off user data and
saying 'Hey, we should get some of that money.'" She added: "I
don't think that constitutes harm."  Fenwick & West's Tyler Newby
said that he's seen plaintiffs lawyers looking for cases that
involve the purchase of a service or a device where damages and
harm are easier to quantify, and plaintiffs can also pursue false
advertising and unfair competition claims.

Regardless of the court's ruling in Spokeo, Rhodes concedes his
colleagues in the plaintiffs bar -- the ones he predicted would be
out of work in a year -- probably won't altogether abandon privacy
litigation.  Mr. Rhodes points to the limited impact of the 1995
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, which was meant to curb
the flow of frivolous securities lawsuits.  "There have been more
securities cases filed after that act than before it," Mr. Rhodes
said.

Mr. Rhodes said he expects the evolving nature of technology and
the shifting tactics of the plaintiffs bar to create plenty of
privacy work to keep him and the rest of the defense bar busy.

"Data is data, and people are going to continue to extract new
uses out of it," Mr. Rhodes says.  "Some segment of the population
is going to be tweaked by that."


* Skadden Discusses Potential Director Liability in Cyberattack
---------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy A. Miller, Esq., Marc S. Gerber, Esq. and Richard S.
Horvath, Jr., Esq. of Skadden Arps, in an article for Law.com,
reports that most public company directors are by now well aware
that cybersecurity is a critical part of the business landscape.
In the wake of attacks against virtually every type of government
and business entity, from the White House to health insurers, the
question that remains is whether public company directors will, in
fact, face real legal exposure resulting from a malicious and
criminal cyberattack?

The answer under Delaware law, at least according to the
plaintiffs' bar, depends on whether directors failed to satisfy
the duty of oversight.  Consistent with a board's oversight
duties, directors should give regular attention to whether the
corporation has instituted adequate controls and procedures
tomitigate the risk and harm of a data security breach.  The
failure to undertake such efforts could, in theory, expose
directors to liability for the corporation's costs arising from a
data security breach, including the costs from investigating a
possible cyberattack, potential legal penalties, and the
reputational harm suffered by the corporation.  This article will
discuss the potential legal basis for such liability and suggest
some practical steps a board of directors can take in the
discharge of its oversight duties in the cybersecurity arena.

Directors bear the ultimate responsibility for managing and
overseeing the business and affairs of a corporation.  Day-to-day
responsibility is typically delegated to officers and employees,
requiring director oversight for strategic direction and risk
management, and approval of significant transactions.  In the
seminal case In re Caremark Int'l, Inc. Derivative Litigation, 698
A.2d 959 (Del. Ch. 1996), then-Chancellor William T. Allen held
that, in discharging their duty of oversight, directors must
assure themselves that a corporation's reporting systems will
enable the board to reach informed business judgments "concerning
both the corporation's compliance with law and its business
performance." See Caremark, 698 A.2d at 970.

Since Chancellor Allen's decision in Caremark, Delaware courts
have made clear that directors' oversight duties are grounded in
concepts of good faith and loyalty.  The typical provision in a
company's certificate of incorporation under 8 Del. C. Section 102
(b)(7) exculpating directors from monetary damages resulting from
conduct amounting to a breach of the duty of care will preclude
any attempt to base liability on an alleged failure to exercise
due care in overseeing the company's cybersecurity controls and
procedures.

Under the duty of good faith, which Delaware courts have made
clear is rooted in the duty of loyalty, only an extreme set of
facts beyond gross negligence can expose directors to oversight
liability.  To establish a failure of oversight, a shareholder
must plead and prove that: "(a) the directors utterly failed to
implement any reporting or information system or controls; or (b)
having implemented such a system or controls, consciously failed
to monitor or oversee its operations thus disabling themselves
from being informed of risks or problems requiring their
attention." Stone v. Ritter, 911 A.2d 362, 370 (Del. 2006).

It seems unlikely, in light of the high profile cyber attacks of
the past few years, that directors of a public corporation could
be found liable for utterly failing to implement any reporting or
information system or controls for data security.  In recent
years, corporations have expanded their efforts to promote data
security by increasing resources dedicated to such security and
clarified responsibility for those efforts.  Even relatively
modest efforts to enhance management's data security, with board
involvement or awareness, are likely to preclude a claim premised
on the first Stone factor requiring an "utter failure" to
implement controls.

A different issue is posed by the second Stone factor for an
oversight claim: whether "having implemented such a system or
controls, [directors] consciously failed to monitor or oversee its
operations thus disabling themselves from being informed of risks
or problems requiring their attention." Stone, 911 A.2d at 376.
In attempting to show this conscious failure to monitor
operations, shareholder plaintiffs' lawyers frequently allege that
directors knowingly ignored "red flags" alerting them to
misconduct or defects with the corporation's controls.  Such
claims are rarely successful, reflecting the adage that an
oversight claim is "possibly the most difficult theory in
corporation law upon which a plaintiff might hope to win a
judgment." Caremark, 698 A.2d at 967.

But ignoring "red flags" is not the only route to a possible
oversight violation.  Indeed, the second factor of Stone says
nothing about "red flags." Stone, 911 A.2d at 364.  Rather, the
Delaware Supreme Court framed the test in Stone as creating
oversight liability when, having implemented a system of internal
controls, directors consciously failed to monitor or oversee its
operation.  Accordingly, a crucial factor explored by courts in
dismissing purported oversight claims is the efforts undertaken by
directors to monitor a corporation's internal systems or controls.
Such efforts can defeat a claim for oversight liability even if
those efforts ultimately failed to prevent a corporate trauma.
Nevertheless, continuously monitoring a corporation's data
security efforts presents unique challenges because cyber issues
continue to evolve and a corporation may never be "done" securing
its data.

Courts have yet to address the merits of an oversight claim
arising from a data security breach.  For example, in response to
oversight claims arising from the data security breach during the
2013 holiday shopping season, the Target board of directors
appointed a special litigation committee to investigate, in part,
the derivative allegations and whether Target should pursue the
claims.  That investigation is pending.

In another shareholder action arising from data security breaches
at Wyndham Worldwide Corporation occurring between April 2008 and
January 2010, the court noted that the Wyndham board and its audit
committee understood the facts surrounding the data security
breaches due to repeated presentations and discussions from 2008
through 2012.  Relying in part on the directors' understanding of
the facts underlying the plaintiff's pre-suit litigation demand,
the court rejected the plaintiff's arguments that the board's
investigation into the demand was unreasonable or that the board
wrongfully rejected the demand.  Because of the procedural posture
in each of these cases, however, the courts in both the Target and
Wyndham litigation have not ruled on the merits of the oversight
claims.

In overseeing data security efforts, directors should consider
those efforts as falling into two broad categories: (1) risk
mitigation designed to prevent or minimize the impact of a cyber
attack; and (2) crisis management once an attack occurs.  Board
oversight of both aspects is recommended.  Although courts have
yet to establish guiding principles in the application of
oversight duties to data security, we suggest that directors and
corporate counsel consider the following factors and practical
steps in discharging the board's oversight duties:

Whether the entire board of directors or a committee should
oversee the corporation's data security controls;

Whether the board should have a member with data security
experience;

Which officers should have responsibility for the corporation's
day-to-day data security efforts, including if the primary focus
of that officer's responsibilities should be on such efforts;

Whether internal or external experts are needed to promote the
corporation's data security efforts;

Whether the corporation's data security efforts comply with
industry standards or best practices, and, if not, where and why
the corporation's efforts deviate;

The need for insurance to cover the costs associated with a data
security breach;

Receiving regular reports regarding both the corporation's ongoing
compliance with data security laws and the corporation's efforts
to maintain the security of its own data; and

Implementing a cyberattack response plan as a contingency for a
data security breach, including conducting "war games" to test and
refine the plan.

Not all of these measures are appropriate for every organization,
and it is important to recognize that the appropriate oversight
system for data security is a question of business judgment.
Caremark, 698 A.2d at 970.

Moreover, the board of directors and corporate counsel should keep
in mind two critical principles:

If any red flags or security breaches are reported to the board or
its designated committee, those directors should also understand
the corporation's response efforts and consider whether additional
action is needed; and,

Board or committee minutes should carefully document the board's
or committee's exercise of its business judgment, including the
attention given to reports about data security and the
consideration of actions taken or not taken in response to
potential red flags or security breaches.

While internal controls and the monitoring of data security will
not prevent all attempts to breach a corporation's cyber-defenses,
the oversight by directors before such a breach occurs will be a
powerful tool in shielding them from oversight liability arising
from such a breach.

Richard S. Horvath, Jr. is a litigation associate in the Palo Alto
office of Skadden, Arps.  He focuses his practice on complex
shareholder litigation, including corporate governance disputes,
shareholder derivative litigation, M&A litigation and securities
class action defense.  Marc S. Gerber is corporate partner in the
Washington, D.C. office of Skadden, Arps.  He concentrates his
practice in the areas of mergers and acquisitions, corporate
governance and general corporate and securities matters.
Timothy A. Miller is a litigation partner in the Palo Alto office
of Skadden, Arps.  He focuses his practice on corporate and
securities litigation, M&A litigation, shareholder derivative
litigation, trade secret misappropriation, unfair business
practices and unfair competition actions, as well as business tort
litigation.


* Trial Court Can Hear Workplace Injury Cases, NJ High Court Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Booth, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled June 11 that cases of workers
injured or killed on the job do not always have to be treated as
workers' compensation cases.

If there is disagreement over whether the worker is an employee or
independent contractor, there is no reason why the matter cannot
be handled as a tort claim in Superior Court, the court said in a
unanimous ruling in Estate of Kotsovska v. Liebman.

"We conclude that when . . . there is a genuine dispute regarding
the worker's employment status, and the plaintiff elects to file a
complaint only in the Law Division of the Superior Court, the
Superior Court has concurrent jurisdiction to resolve the
dispute," Justice Lee Solomon wrote for the court.

The ruling is a victory for the family of a Ukrainian immigrant,
Myroslava Kotsovska, who worked as a maid and was killed while
accompanying her employer on errands.  The court's ruling
reinstated a wrongful death verdict and preserves a $525,000
damages award.

An appeals court had ruled that the Division of Workers'
Compensation must decide whether Ms. Kotsovska was an employee of
the defendant or, as her estate asserted, an independent
contractor.

Ms. Kotsovska, 59, was hired in October 2008 as a live-in maid for
Saul Liebman, an 81-year-old widower, to cook, do laundry and
light housekeeping and accompany him on errands, according to the
Supreme Court's opinion.

Mr. Liebman's daughter, Robin Ross, who hired Ms. Kotsovska, paid
her $100 a day in cash.  There was no discussion as to whether she
was Mr. Liebman's employee or not, even though he had workers'
compensation coverage though his homeowner's policy, according to
the opinion.

On Dec. 8, 2008, Ms. Kotsovska and Mr. Liebman stopped for lunch
at the Millburn Diner.  Ms. Kotsovska was standing on a sidewalk
when Mr. Liebman, while parking the car, suddenly accelerated and
struck her, pinning her to a low patio wall.  The accident severed
Ms. Kotsovska's left leg below the knee, and she died of her
injuries a year later, the opinion said.

Her family filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Mr. Liebman in
Union County.  Superior Court Judge Joseph Perfilio refused to
remove the case to the workers' compensation court because no
claim had been filed there.  The jury found Ms. Kotsovska to be an
independent contractor and awarded $525,000 in damages.  With
prejudgment interest, the award was increased to $568,806.

"The Appellate Division got it wrong," the estate's attorney,
Gerald Wixted, said.

"These cases can continue to be litigated in the Law Division when
there are disputes as to the status of the plaintiffs," said
Mr. Wixted, of Princeton's Smith, Stratton, Wise, Heher &
Brennan."

Mr. Wixted said employers routinely move to have personal injury
cases removed to the workers' compensation court because the
awards are lower than those generally afforded by trial juries or
Superior Court judges.  But, he said, removal should not be
automatic.

"The Workers' Compensation Statute is not a statute of removal,"
he said.  "Employers don't just get to allege it."

The Workers' Compensation Act was enacted in 1911 as a means for
ensuring employees injured on the job receive prompt and automatic
benefits, usually set by regulation, for their injuries.  In
return, employees automatically give up their right to sue in the
Superior Court, Justice Solomon said.

The statute is silent, he said, as to the role the workers'
compensation system should play in handling independent
contractors.

However, "parties cannot be presumed to have accepted the
provisions of the compensation act, including the exclusive remedy
provision, until a threshold determination is made as to whether
the worker was an employee or independent contractor," Justice
Solomon said.

The court last year, he said, created a four-part test in Magic
Petroleum v. ExxonMobil to determine whether a trial court could
retain jurisdiction in the case of an injured worker.  Those
factors are whether the matter at issue is within the conventional
experience of judges; whether the matter is within the agency's
discretion or requires the agency's expertise; whether
inconsistent rulings would pose a danger to the statutory scheme;
and whether the plaintiff had made a previous application to the
agency.

In this case, Justice Solomon said, there was no reason to
transfer the case since courts often decide a worker's employment
status, workers' compensation courts have no greater expertise
than trial judges, there are no inconsistencies since the estate
did not file a competing claim with the division and Ms. Kotsovska
had never filed a workers' compensation claim.

Another reason the Appellate Division cited in overturning the
verdict was a flawed jury charge.

Appellate Division Judge Allison Accurso, joined by Judges Jane
Grall and Marie Simonelli, said Judge Perfilio did not fully
explain to the jury how it should consider Ms. Kotsovska's
economic dependence on Mr. Liebman.

"The trial court did not instruct the jury on this relative nature
of the work test, although highly relevant here as decedent would
appear to have been entirely economically dependent on Liebman,"
she said.

The judges said Judge Perfilio also mistakenly overstressed the
fact that Mr. Liebman paid Ms. Kotsovska in cash and did not
deduct payroll taxes.  Those factors "must be viewed critically"
since some employers choose to not deduct for taxes and pay in
cash to avoid bookkeeping costs and reporting inconveniences, the
appeals court said.

"Their inclusion by the trial judge without further explanation,
part of a larger failure to tailor the specifics of the court's
charge to the facts of the case, combined with the absence of an
instruction on the relative nature of the work test, resulted in a
charge that did not adequately convey the law and was clearly
capable of producing an unjust result," Judge Accurso said.

Justice Solomon said that while the jury instructions were,
indeed, flawed, the errors did not warrant overturning the
verdict.

The appeals court had chosen to not disturb the damages award
pending the outcome of the division's ruling.  If the Appellate
Division ruling had been affirmed and the division subsequently
ruled that Ms. Kotsovska was Mr. Liebman's employee and not an
independent contractor, the award could have been vitiated.

Mr. Liebman's attorney, Robert Cox, of McCreedy & Cox in Cranford,
did not return a call about the ruling.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aerojet Rocketdyne Has 83 PI Cases at May 31
-------------------------------------------------------------
There were 83 asbestos-related personal injury cases against
Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc., according to the Company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended May 31, 2015.

The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant in
lawsuits alleging personal injury or death due to exposure to
asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing
operations. The majority of cases are pending in Texas and
Illinois. There were 83 asbestos cases brought by individual
plaintiffs pending as of May 31, 2015.

Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as
to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed
against the Company, the Company is unable to make a reasonable
estimate of the future costs of pending claims or unasserted
claims. Accordingly, no estimate of future liability has been
accrued.

In 2011, Aerojet Rocketdyne received a letter demand from AMEC,
plc, ("AMEC") the successor entity to the 1981 purchaser of the
business assets of Barnard & Burk, Inc., a former Aerojet
Rocketdyne subsidiary, for Aerojet Rocketdyne to assume the
defense of sixteen asbestos cases, involving 271plaintiffs,
pending in Louisiana, and reimbursement of over $1.7 million in
past legal fees and expenses. AMEC is asserting that Aerojet
Rocketdyne retained those liabilities when it sold the Barnard &
Burk assets and agreed to indemnify the purchaser therefor. Under
the relevant purchase agreement, the purchaser assumed only
certain, specified liabilities relating to the operation of
Barnard & Burk before the sale, with Barnard & Burk retaining all
unassumed pre-closing liabilities, and Aerojet Rocketdyne agreed
to indemnify the purchaser against unassumed liabilities that are
asserted against it. Based on the information provided, Aerojet
Rocketdyne declined to accept the liability and requested
additional information from AMEC pertaining to the basis of the
demand. On April 3, 2013, AMEC filed a complaint for breach of
contract against Aerojet Rocketdyne in Sacramento County Superior
Court, AMEC Construction Management, Inc. v. Aerojet-General
Corporation, Case No. 342013001424718. AMEC contends it has
incurred approximately $3.0 million in past legal fees and
expenses. Aerojet Rocketdyne filed its answer to the complaint
denying AMEC's allegations as well as a cross-complaint against
AMEC for breach of its obligations under the purchase agreement in
addition to other claims for relief. Discovery is ongoing. The
parties attended a mediation session on December 9, 2014 and
negotiations are ongoing. Aerojet Rocketdyne filed a Motion for
Summary Judgment which is scheduled for hearing on August 20,
2015. Trial date is scheduled to commence on October 19, 2015. As
of May 31, 2015, the Company has accrued $0.2 million related to
this matter. None of the expenditures related to this matter are
recoverable from the U.S. government.

Aerojet Rocketdyne Holdings, Inc., formerly GenCorp, Inc., is a
manufacturer of aerospace and defense products and systems. The
Company develops and manufactures propulsion systems for defense
and space applications, and armaments for precision tactical and
long-range weapon systems applications. It has two operating
segments: Aerospace and Defense, and Real Estate. Its Aerospace
and Defense segment includes the operations of its subsidiary
Aerojet Rocketdyne, Inc., which is engaged in designing,
developing and manufacturing aerospace and defense products and
systems for the United States Government, including the United
States Department of Defense (DoD), the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA), aerospace and defense prime
contractors, as well as portions of the commercial sector. Its
real estate segment includes activities of its subsidiary Easton
Development Company, LLC related to the re-zoning, entitlement,
sale, and leasing of its excess real estate assets.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fiat's Summary Judgment Bid in "Gayoso" Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Gayoso alleges that he was exposed to asbestos while working
at a gas station and as a mechanic at an automobile service
station in the late 1970s, performing brake and clutch repairs,
including on Fiat automobiles.  He was diagnosed with mesothelioma
in May, 2014.

Defendant Fiat USA, Inc., moves to dismiss the action and all
claims and cross-claims against it on the basis that it is not a
proper party.  The Defendant asserts that it did not design,
manufacture, sell or distribute automobiles in the United States
during the relevant time period.  The Defendant further asserts
that it did not assume or acquire the liabilities of any Fiat
entity that sold or distributed cars in the United States during
the relevant period.  The Plaintiffs oppose the motion and cross-
move for discovery.

Judge Peter H. Moulton of the Supreme Court, New York County, in a
decision dated July 6, 2015, denied Fiat USA's motion for summary
judgment with leave to renew after the completion of discovery
limited to the relationship between defendant and Fiat Auto USA,
Inc., for the period of time from March 14, 1984 through 90 days
after the dissolution of FAUSA.  Judge Moulton granted the
Plaintiffs' cross-motion despite untimeliness given that no
prejudice resulted from the plaintiffs' brief delay in submission.
The Defendant had the opportunity, and did, submit opposition to
the cross-motion, Judge Moulton noted.

The case is IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
JAY A. GAYOSO and SHARON R. GAYOSO, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN HONDA
MOTOR CO., INC. (AHM) et al, Defendants, DOCKET NO. 190209/14
(N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge Moulton's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/IcWLZWfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Cashio" Suit Transferred to La. Court
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Todd J. Campbell of the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division, in a memorandum
dated July 10, 2015, transferred to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Louisiana at Shreveport the asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuit captioned MARK D. CASHIO, et al.
v. 3M COMPANY, et al., NO. 3-15-0489 (M.D. Tenn.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Campbell's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/04B5jPfrom Leagle.com.

Mark D. Cashio, Plaintiff, represented by Kathryn E. Barnett,
Morgan & Morgan, J. Dennis Weitzel, Morgan & Morgan, P.A. & Samuel
D. Elswick, Morgan & Morgan, P.A..

Kimberly W. Cashio, Plaintiff, represented by Kathryn E. Barnett,
Morgan & Morgan, J. Dennis Weitzel, Morgan & Morgan, P.A. & Samuel
D. Elswick, Morgan & Morgan, P.A..

3M Company, Defendant, represented by Russell B. Morgan, Bradley
Arant Boult Cummings LLP & Joshua J. Phillips, Bradley Arant Boult
Cummings LLP.

Avco Corporation and its Division Lycoming Engines, Defendant,
represented by Hugh C. Lawley, Huie, Fernambucq & Stewart, LLP,
Robert F. Chapski, Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C.,
Bradley W. Craig, Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C.,
Christopher S. Rodgers, Huie, Fernambucq & Stewart, LLP & Stewart
W. McCloud, Huie, Fernambucq & Stewart, LLP.

Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert F.
Chapski, Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., Bradley W.
Craig, Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg & Waldrop, P.C., Christopher
S. Rodgers, Huie, Fernambucq & Stewart, LLP, Hugh C. Lawley, Huie,
Fernambucq & Stewart, LLP & Stewart W. McCloud, Huie, Fernambucq &
Stewart, LLP.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael J. King, Woolf,
McClane, Bright, Allen & Carpenter, PLLC.

Cytec Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brigid M.
Carpenter, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC.

Dana Companies, LLC, Defendant, represented by John W. Elder,
Paine, Bickers, LLP.

Eaton Corporation, Defendant, represented by Debra Leigh Fulton,
Frantz, McConnell & Seymour, LLP & James E. Wagner, Frantz,
McConnell & Seymour, LLP.

General Dynamics Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jessalyn
H. Zeigler, Bass, Berry & Sims, John W. Dawson, IV, Bass, Berry &
Sims & Kathryn Hannen Walker, Bass, Berry & Sims.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by John W. Elder,
Paine, Bickers, LLP.

Genuine Parts Company, Defendant, represented by Alexander J.
Winston & William Mitchell Cramer, Norton & Luhn.

Georgia-Pacific LLC, Defendant, represented by John W. Elder,
Paine, Bickers, LLP.

Goodrich Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael K. Atkins,
Baker, O'Kane, Atkins & Thompson.

Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, Defendant, represented by Joy A.
Boyd, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC.

Harco, LLC, Defendant, represented by Carrie W. McCutcheon, Baker,
Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC.

Henkel Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brantley Cole
Rowlen, Lewis, Brisbois, Bisgaard & Smith, LLP.

IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew B.
Campbell, Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs & Colby Block, Wyatt, Tarrant &
Combs.

Lockheed Martin Corporation, Defendant, represented by Brian T.
Clark, Glazier Yee, LLP, Guy P. Glazier, Glazier Yee, LLP, Laura
Patricia Yee, Glazier Yee, LLP & Michael David Smith, Glazier Yee,
LLP.

MetLife, Incorporated, Defendant, represented by C. Scott Taylor,
Bernstein, Stair & McAdams.

Northrop Grumman Corporation, Defendant, represented by T. Harold
Pinkley, Butler Snow LLP & Brett Hart Knight, Butler Snow LLP.

Parker Hannifan Corporation, Defendant, represented by William
Ritchie Pigue, Taylor, Pigue, Marchetti & Mink, Keith W. Blair,
Taylor, Pigue, Marchetti & Mink, PLLC & Louis Gino Marchetti, Jr.,
Taylor, Pigue, Marchetti & Mink.

Rockwell Automation, Inc., Defendant, represented by T. Harold
Pinkley, Butler Snow LLP.

Schneider Electric USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel T.
Swanson, London Amburn, P.C. & Robert Scott Durham, London &
Amburn, PC.

The Boeing Company, Defendant, represented by Michael K. Atkins,
Baker, O'Kane, Atkins & Thompson.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by John W.
Elder, Paine, Bickers, LLP.

United Technologies Corporation, and its Division Pratt & Whitney,
Defendant, represented by Benjamin S. Willson, Lightfoot, Franklin
& White, LLC, Sanford G. Hooper, Lightfoot, Franklin & White, LLC,
Thomas Anderton Wiseman, III, Wiseman Ashworth Law Group PLC & W.
Larkin Radney, IV, Lightfoot, Franklin & White, LLC.

BASF Corporation, Defendant, represented by T. Harold Pinkley,
Butler Snow LLP & Brett Hart Knight, Butler Snow LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3d Circ. Vacates Summary Judgment in "Haas" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Haas, individually and as the executrix of the estate of her
father, Carl Brasmer, and on behalf of his individual heirs,
appeals an order issued by the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey granting summary judgment for General
Electric Company on claims that Brasmer's exposure to GE's
asbestos-containing J79-GE-17A engine during his service in the
United States Air Force caused his mesothelioma.

Because there is sufficient evidence from which a reasonable
factfinder could find that Brasmer's exposure to the J79 Engine
caused his illness, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit vacated the summary judgment order as to GE and
remanded for further proceedings.

The appeals case is SUSAN HAAS, Individually and as Executrix of
Carl Brasmer, and Individual Heirs of the Estate of Carl Brasmer,
Appellant, v. 3M COMPANY; THE BOEING COMPANY, Individually and as
Successor to McDonnell Douglas Corporation; CBS CORPORATION,
Individually and as Successor to Viacom, Inc., and Successor to
Westinghouse Electric Corporation; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Individually and as Successor to the Bendix Corporation; GENERAL
ELECTRIC COMPANY; GOODRICH CORPORATION, Individually and as
Successor to the B.F. Goodrich Company; GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER
COMPANY; NORTHROP GRUMAN CORPORATION, Individually and as
Successor to Gruman Aerospace Corporation, f/k/a Gruman Aircraft
Engineering Group. *Susan Haas, Individually and as Executrix of
Carl Brasmer, and Individual Heirs of the Estate of Carl Brasmer,
NO. 14-3342 (3d. Circ.).

A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's Opinion dated July 7,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/RA0M3Mfrom Leagle.com.

Counsel for Appellants:

     Michael E. McMahon, Esq.
     Christopher M. Placitella [ARGUED], Esq.
     COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH
     127 Maple Avenue
     Red Bank, NJ 07701

Counsel for Appellee General Electric Co.:

     Timothy K. Kapshandy, Esq.
     Edward P. Kenney, Esq.
     Laura A. Sexton, Esq.
     SIDLEY AUSTIN
     One South Dearborn St.
     Chicago, IL 60603

          - and -

     Rebecca K. Wood [ARGUED], Esq.
     Paul J. Sampson, Esq.
     SIDLEY AUSTIN
     1501 K Street, N.W.
     Washington, DC 20005


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PI Plaintiffs Given More Time to Reduce Verdict
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a consolidated action, plaintiffs Santos Assenzio, et al.,
move, by order to show cause, to enlarge the time that they may
stipulate to a reduction in verdict pursuant to the Supreme Court,
New York County's decision and order dated February 5, 2013, and
entered February 9, 2015, to a date on or before fourteen days
following the decision to be rendered by the Appellate Division,
First Department, in the appeal currently pending, entitled In re
New York City Asbestos Litigation: Peraica v. A.O. Water Products,
Co.; Index No. 190339/11, and granting the plaintiffs leave to
renew and reargue their opposition to the portion of the
defendants' post-verdict motion as sought a new trial or
remittitur of the jury's verdict.  Defendants Cleaver-Brooks, Inc.
and Burnham, LLC jointly oppose the motion.

Judge Joan A. Madden, in an opinion dated June 30, 2015, ordered
that the plaintiffs' motion is granted to the extent that the time
to stipulate to a reduced damage award set forth in the Decision
is extended from 30 days of service of a copy of the Decision with
notice of entry to 60 days from the date of the decision and
order, and is otherwise denied.

The case is SANTOS ASSENZIO and ANNITOLIA ASSENZIO, ROBERT BRUNCK,
PAUL LEVY, ROSLYN LEVY CESAR O. SERNA RAYMOND VINCENT, Plaintiffs,
v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS, ET AL., Defendants, DOCKET NOS.
190008/12, 190026/12, 190200/12, 190183/12, 190184/12 (N.Y. Sup.).
A full-text copy of Judge Madden's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/4Sa7YAfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNFL Wins Summary Judgment in "Upton" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Curtis L. Collier of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee, granted defendant BNFL, Inc.'s
motion for summary judgment in the asbestos-related personal
injury lawsuit filed by Leslie Darnell Jones, Jeffrey Lynn Keylon,
James David Parten, Timothy Edwards Robbins, and Paul David Vance.

The case is CHRIS UPTON et al., Plaintiffs, v. BNFL, INC. et al.,
Defendants, CIVIL NO. 3:12-CV-295 (E.D. Tenn.).  A full-text copy
of Judge Collier's memorandum dated June 12, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/jjd3ekfrom Leagle.com.

Leslie D Jones, Plaintiff, represented by James K Scott, Stokes,
Williams, Sharp & Davies.

Jeffery L Keylon, Plaintiff, represented by James K Scott, Stokes,
Williams, Sharp & Davies.

James D Parten, Plaintiff, represented by James K Scott, Stokes,
Williams, Sharp & Davies.

Timothy E Robbins, Plaintiff, represented by James K Scott,
Stokes, Williams, Sharp & Davies.

Paul S Vance, Plaintiff, represented by James K Scott, Stokes,
Williams, Sharp & Davies.

TSB FA Nuclear Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by Melinda
Meador, Winchester, Sellers, Foster & Steele, PC.

R&R Electric Corp, Defendant, Pro Se.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ohio Ct. Affirms Denial of PTD Payment Request
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Boyd filed an action in mandamus, seeking a writ to compel
the Industrial Commission of Ohio to vacate its order denying his
application for permanent total disability compensation and
further compel the commission to make other orders in conjunction
with reviewing the merits of his application.  Boyd acquired
asbestosis while working for Scott's Miracle-Gro Company.

In accord with Loc.R. 13(M) of the Tenth Appellate District, the
case was referred to a magistrate to conduct appropriate
proceedings.  The parties stipulated the pertinent evidence and
filed briefs.  The magistrate then issued a magistrate's decision,
which contains detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
The magistrate's decision includes a recommendation that the Court
of Appeals of Ohio, Tenth District, Franklin County, deny the
request for a writ.

Accordingly, the Court of Appeals, in a decision dated June 11,
2015, overruled the objection filed by Boyd's counsel and denied
the writ.

The case is [State ex rel.] Robert Boyd, Relator, v. The Scotts
Miracle-Gro Company et al., Respondents, NO. 14AP-413 (Ohio App.).
A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/qxWfsWfrom Leagle.com.

Michael J. Muldoon, for relator.

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP, and Robert A. Minor, for
respondent The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company.

Michael DeWine, Attorney General, and Patsy A. Thomas, for
respondent Industrial Commission of Ohio.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment Bids in "Spychalla" Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
Shirely Spychalla, individually and on behalf of her deceased
husband, Leonard Spychalla, brought an action for strict product
liability and negligence against numerous defendants.  The
Plaintiff claims Mr. Spychalla contracted mesothelioma and died as
a result of exposure to the defendants' asbestos products during
his decades-long career as a pilot and aviation mechanic at
various locations in Wisconsin.  The case was transferred to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania for consolidated pretrial
proceedings as part of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) No. 875, and then remanded to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
for trial on November 4, 2011.

Motions for summary judgment were brought by the three remaining
defendants, The Boeing Company, Cessna Aircraft Company, and
General Electric Company.  Also before the court are several
motions in limine filed by the defendants and Boeing's motion for
leave to file an additional summary judgment motion based on the
"government contractor defense."

U.S. District Judge William C. Griesbach denied the motions for
summary judgment will be denied, granted in part and denied in
part the motions in limine, and granted Boeing's motion for leave
to file.

The case is SHIRLEY D SPYCHALLA, Plaintiff, v. BOEING AEROSPACE
OPERATIONS INC. et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 11-CV-497 (E.D.
Wis.).  A full-text copy of Judge Griesbach's decision and order
on pretrial motions dated June 3, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/kz60e2from Leagle.com.

Shirley D Spychalla, Plaintiff, represented by Robert G McCoy,
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd & Michael P Cascino, Cascino
Vaughan Law Offices Ltd.

Boeing Aerospace Operations Inc, Defendant, represented by Brian D
Gross, Manion Gaynor & Manning, Howard P Goldberg, Manion Gaynor &
Manning, Steven W Celba, Celba LLC, Timothy D Pagel, Celba LLC &
Lance E Mueller, Mueller SC.

Cessna Aircraft Company, Defendant, represented by Brett B Larsen,
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Russell A Klingaman, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by David M
Setter, Forman Perry Watkins Krutz & Tardy LLP, Michael L Lisak,
Sidley Austin LLP, Timothy E Kapshandy, Sidley Austin LLP & Nora E
Gierke, Gierke Frank LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Denial of Bid to Junk Suit vs. Co. City Flipped
----------------------------------------------------------------
Smokebrush Foundation, Katherine Tudor, and Donald Herbert Goede,
III, filed an action against defendant, the City of Colorado
Springs, asserting various tort claims.  Specifically, Smokebrush
alleged that various contaminants had migrated from the City's
property onto its property, causing damages.  Claiming
governmental immunity, the City moved to dismiss for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.  After a hearing, the district court
denied the City's motion, concluding that the City's immunity was
waived under two statutory provisions of the Colorado Governmental
Immunity Act: the gas facility exception, Section 24-10-106(1)(f),
C.R.S. 2014, and the public building exception, Section 24-10-
106(1)(c).  The district court also concluded that these waiver
provisions applied retroactively to contamination that
undisputedly occurred before the CGIA was enacted.

The Court of Appeals of Colorado, Division II, first concluded
that the General Assembly did not intend to retroactively apply
the CGIA's waiver provisions.  The Court of Appeals then addressed
whether the two asserted waiver provisions apply to alleged
asbestos contamination that occurred after the effective date of
the CGIA.  The Court of Appeals concluded that they do not.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed the district court's
order and remanded with directions to grant the City's motion to
dismiss.

The case is Smokebrush Foundation, Katherine Tudor, and Donald
Herbert Goede, III, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. City of Colorado
Springs, Colorado, Defendant-Appellant, NO. 14CA0228 (Co. App.).
A full-text copy of the Opinion dated June 18, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/gGn6Tjfrom Leagle.com.

Law Offices of Randall M. Weiner, P.C., Randall M. Weiner,
Boulder, Colorado, CordingLaw, Annemarie Cording, Boulder,
Colorado, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Treece Alfrey Musat, P.C., Robert J. Zavaglia, Jr., Denver,
Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment in "Sherman" Suit Reversed
------------------------------------------------------------
Appellant Michael Sherman, individually and as successor in
interest to Debra Jean Sherman, together with appellants Richard
Sherman and Vicki Marlow, asserted claims for negligence, strict
liability, and loss of consortium against respondent Hennessy
Industries, Inc., alleging that a brake lining arcing machine made
by its predecessor in interest released asbestos dust that caused
Debra Jean Sherman's mesothelioma.  The trial court granted
summary judgment in Hennessy's favor on appellants' claims,
concluding that Hennessy was not liable for injury caused by
asbestos dust from brake linings its predecessor in interest
neither manufactured nor distributed.

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Four, reversed, holding that reports presented in the case are
sufficient to raise triable issues whether the linings emitted
fibers in the absence of grinding activity upon them.

The appeals case is MICHAEL SHERMAN et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants, v. HENNESSY INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant and
Respondent, NO. B252566 (Cal. App.).  A full-text copy of the
Opinion dated June 18, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/6CH8Wz
from Leagle.com.

Waters Kraus & Paul, Paul C. Cook, Michael B. Gurien and Jonathan
George for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Gordon & Rees, Don Willenburg and Mitchell B. Malachowski for
Defendant and Respondent.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Cos. Obtain Summary Judgment in "Shearer" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants by A.W. Chesterton Company, General Electric, and
Westinghouse filed separate motions for Summary Judgment in the
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit filed by Kenneth T.
Shearer and Barbara Shearer.

In an opinion dated June 24, 2015, Judge Joseph H. Rodriguez of
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
granted all three motions for summary judgment, finding that,
under martime law, the Defendants are entitled to summary judgment
pursuant to the "bare metal" defense.

The case is Kenneth T. Shearer and Barbara Shearer, Plaintiffs, v.
A.W. Chesterton Company, et. al., Defendants, CIVIL NO. 13-5887
(D.N.J.).  A full-text copy of Judge Rodriguez's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/CLvDyIfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: $3.3MM Verdict vs. Illinois Central Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Russell brought a Federal Employers Liability Act action
against Illinois Central Railroad Company to recover for the death
of her husband from throat cancer; she alleged the cancer was
caused by Mr. Russell's exposure to carcinogens while he worked in
the Illinois Central maintenance shops in Memphis, Tennessee.

A jury found in her favor and awarded damages of $4,255,000; on
the Defendant's motion to offset the judgment in the amount of
medical expenses paid on behalf of Mr. Russell, the trial court
reduced the judgment to $3,335,685.

On appeal, Illinois Central asserts the trial court erred in
admitting the causation opinions of three of the Plaintiff's
medical experts; in approving the jury's finding of causation; in
making certain evidentiary rulings prior to and during trial; and
in denying Defendant's post-trial motions based on the statute of
limitations and Plaintiff's counsel's alleged violations of
pretrial rulings.  In her cross appeal, Mrs. Russell appeals the
reduction of the verdict.

Finding no reversible error, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at
Jackson, in an opinion dated June 30, 2015, affirmed the trial
court.

The appeals case is LINDA J. RUSSELL, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE
OF MILFORD R. RUSSELL, JR., v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY,
NO. W2013-02453-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision is available at http://is.gd/IlFSOsfrom Leagle.com.

Thomas R. Peters and Mark R. Kurz, Belleville, Illinois; Brooks E.
Kostakis and Stephanie Camille Reifers, Memphis, Tennessee, for
the appellant, Illinois Central Railroad Company.

Donald N. Capparella, Nashville, Tennessee, and William P. Gavin,
Swansea, Illinois, for the appellee, Linda J. Russell,
Administrator of the Estate of Milford R. Russell, Jr.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Summary Judgment in "Quiroz" Suit Affirmed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Teresa Quiroz, on her own behalf and as successor in
interest to decedent Benjamin P. Thoms, Tamara A. Rose, and Donald
P. Thoms appeal from a summary judgment granted in favor of
defendant BNSF Railway Company on the plaintiffs' complaint for
claims related to Thoms' alleged exposure to asbestos while
working for BNSF.

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Four, in an opinion dated June 24, 2015, concluded, as did the
trial court, that the plaintiffs failed to establish a triable
issue of material fact regarding whether Thoms was exposed to
asbestos during his BNSF employment.  Accordingly, the Court of
Appeals affirmed.

The appeals case is TERESA QUIROZ et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants, v. BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, Defendant and Respondent, NO.
B250165 (Cal. App.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is
available at http://is.gd/OfcYORfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wash. App. Reverses Dismissal of "Noll" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One, in an opinion
dated June 29, 2015, reversed a trial court dismissal of an
asbestos-related complaint seeking damages arising from the death
of Donald Noll due to malignant pleural mesothelioma.

In reversing the lower court, the Court of Appeals held that
Special Electric, the only defendant party to the appeal, does not
claim that the presence of its asbestos on the construction sites
in Washington where Donald Noll cut pipe was an isolated event.
Whether Special knew that CertainTeed's Santa Clara plant was
shipping pipe into Washington is not dispositive, the Court of
Appeals further held.

The Court of Appeals added, "Special's contacts with Washington
were systematic.  They were not random, isolated, fortuitous,
attenuated, or anomalous.  Pipe containing Special's asbestos
flowed into Washington in the regular stream of commerce, not in a
mere eddy.  Special benefited indirectly from the laws of
Washington that protected the marketing, sale, and use of asbestos
pipe in Washington during the years that Donald Noll was exposed
to it.  Having accepted that benefit, Special cannot claim that
its relationship with Washington lacked purpose."

The appeals case is CANDANCE NOLL, individually and as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Donald Noll, Deceased, Appellant,
v. AMERICAN BILTRITE, INC.; AMETEK, INC.; BIRD INCORPORATED;
BORGWARNER MORSE TEC, INC., as successor-by-merger to BORGWARNER
CORPORATION; CBS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, f/k/a VIACOM
INC., successor by merger to CBS CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania
corporation, f/k/a WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION; CERTAINTEED
CORPORATION; CONWED CORPORATION; DOMCO PRODUCTS TEXAS INC.; FORD
MOTOR COMPANY; GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY; GEORGIA-PACIFIC, LLC;
HERCULES INCORPORATED; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.; INDUSTRIAL
HOLDINGS CORPORATION, f/k/a THE CARBORUNDUM COMPANY; INGERSOLL-
RAND COMPANY; J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.; KAISER GYPSUM
COMPANY, INC.; KELLY MOORE PAINT COMPANY, INC.; SABERHAGEN
HOLDINGS, INC.; SIMPSON LUMBER COMPANY, LLC; SIMPSON TIMBER
COMPANY; Defendants, SPECIAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, INC., Respondent,
NO. 71345-1-I (Wash. App.).

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals' Decision is available at
http://is.gd/HXjkuQfrom Leagle.com.

Counsel for Appellants:

     Brian D. Weinstein, Esq.
     WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC
     818 Stewart St Ste 930
     Seattle, WA, 98101-3334

          - and -

     Benjamin Robert Couture, Esq.
     WEINSTEIN COUTURE PLLC
     818 Stewart St Ste 930
     Seattle, WA, 98101-3334

          - and -


     William Kohlburn, Esq.
     231 S. Bemiston Suite 525
     St. Louis, MO, 63105

          - and -

     Ryan Kiwala, Esq.
     One Court Street
     Alton, IL, 62002

Counsel for Respondents:

     Melissa Kay Roeder, Esq.
     FOLEY MANSFIELD
     800 5th Ave Ste 3850
     Seattle, WA, 98104-3101

          - and -

     Sarah Stephens Visbeek, Esq.
     FORSBERG & UMLAUF
     901 5th Ave Ste 1400
     Seattle, WA, 98164-2047

          - and -

     Michael Barr King, Esq.
     CARNEY BADLEY SPELLMAN PS
     701 5th Ave Ste 3600
     Seattle, WA, 98104-7010

          - and -

     Justin Price Wade, Esq.
     CARNEY BADLEY SPELLMAN
     701 5th Ave Ste 3600
     Seattle, WA, 98104-7010


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Refuses to Review "Meyers" Remand Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eldon E. Fallon of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana, in an order and reasons dated
June 18, 2015, denied Crane Co.'s motion for reconsideration of an
order issued May 20, 2015, remanding to state court the asbestos-
related lawsuit styled DEBRA DUMMITT MEYERS AND RONALD PALMERO v.
A.W. CHESTERTON, ET AL., SECTION "L," CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-292
(E.D. La.).  A full-text copy of Judge Fallon's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/4z4cKvfrom Leagle.com.

Debra Dummitt Meyers, Plaintiff, represented by Terrance A. Prout,
Prout Law Firm, Anders F. Holmgren, Flanagan Partners, LLP, Andy
Joseph Dupre, Flanagan Partners, LLP, Harold J. Flanagan, Flanagan
Partners, LLP & Sean Patrick Brady, Flanagan Partners, LLP.

Ronald T. Palermo, Plaintiff, represented by Terrance A. Prout,
Prout Law Firm, Anders F. Holmgren, Flanagan Partners, LLP, Andy
Joseph Dupre, Flanagan Partners, LLP, Harold J. Flanagan, Flanagan
Partners, LLP & Sean Patrick Brady, Flanagan Partners, LLP.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, successor-by-merger to Buffalo
Pumps, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stacey Leigh Strain,
Hubbard, Mitchell, Williams & Strain, PLLC.

CBS Corporation, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel,
III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H.
Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C.,
Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot
L.L.C..

Clark-Reliance Corporation, Defendant, represented by Daniel J.
Caruso, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Robert Leland
Redfearn, Jr., Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Susan
Marie Caruso, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

Crane Company, individually and as successor to Cochran,
Defendant, represented by Aleta W. Barnes, Dogan & Wilkinson,
PLLC.

Foster Wheeler LLC, Defendant, represented by John Joseph Hainkel,
III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C., James H.
Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot L.L.C.,
Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C.
& Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C..

Gardner Denver, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kaye N.
Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & James Matthew
Matherne, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by John Joseph
Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C.,
James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot
L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti,
Frilot L.L.C..

IMO Industries Inc, Defendant, represented by Leigh Ann Tschirn
Schell, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Joseph Henry
Hart, IV, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Lori Allen
Waters, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Magali Ann
Puente-Martin, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Thomas
A. Porteous, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC.

Trane US, Inc., formerly known as American Standard, Inc.,
Defendant, represented by Joseph Benjamin Morton, III, Forman,
Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP & Ebony Shadae Morris, Forman,
Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP.

Velan Valve Corporation, Defendant, represented by Forrest Ren
Wilkes, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP.

Atwood & Morrill Co., Inc., doing business as Weir Valves &
Controls USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jennifer E. Adams,
Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Arthur Wendel Stout, III,
Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Barbara Bourgeois Ormsby,
Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Marc John Bitner, Deutsch,
Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP & William Claudy Harrison, Jr., Deutsch,
Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP.

Elliott Company, named in complaint as Elliott Turbomachinery Co.,
Inc., Defendant, represented by Lauren Ann McCulloch, Morgan,
Lewis & Bockius.

Warren Pumps, LLC, named in state court petition as Warren Pumps
Inc., Defendant, represented by Leigh Ann Tschirn Schell, Kuchler
Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Joseph Henry Hart, IV, Kuchler
Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Lori Allen Waters, Kuchler
Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Magali Ann Puente-Martin,
Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Thomas A. Porteous,
Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC.

Boland Machine and Manufacturing Co., named in state court
petition as Boland Machine & Manufacturing Company, Inc.,
Defendant, represented by Scott P. Yount, Garrison, Yount, Forte &
Mulcahy, LLC, Jeremiah Nathan Johns, Garrison, Yount, Forte,
Mulcahy & Lehner, LLC & Kevin Truxillo, Garrison, Yount, Forte,
Mulcahy & Lehner, LLC.

Grinnell LLC, named in complaint as Grinnell Corporation,
Defendant, represented by Lauren Ann McCulloch, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius.

Puget Sound Commerce Center, Inc., formerly known as Todd
Shipyards Corporation, Defendant, represented by Sherman Gene
Fendler, Liskow & Lewis, Charles B. Wilmore, Liskow & Lewis, Scott
C. Seiler, Liskow & Lewis & Tracy C. Rotharmel, Liskow & Lewis.

Aurora Pump Company, named in complaint as Aurora Pump, Defendant,
represented by Jennifer E. Adams, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP,
Arthur Wendel Stout, III, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Barbara
Bourgeois Ormsby, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP, Marc John
Bitner, Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP & William Claudy Harrison,
Jr., Deutsch, Kerrigan & Stiles, LLP.


                            *********

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  * * *