CAR_Public/150720.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, July 20, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 143


                            Headlines


A & R UNDERGROUND: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
AIRMEDIA GROUP: Rosen Firm Files Securities Class Suit
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Plans to Cut Capacity Sparks Class Actions
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Youmans" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN REALTY: Litigation Over Audit Panel Probe Still Pending

AMERICAN REALTY: Plaintiff in Jet Capital Suit Amends Complaint
AMERICAN REALTY: Not Yet Required to Answer Twin Securities Case
AMERICAN REALTY: MOU Reached in ARCT III Litigation
AMERICAN REALTY: Tarver Case Remains Pending, Stayed
AMERICAN REALTY: Motion to Dismiss "Poling" Case Remains Pending

AMERICAN REALTY: Not Yet Required to Respond in Wunsch v. ARC
AMERICAN REALTY: Wunsch v. Cole Dismissed Voluntarily
AMERICAN REALTY: MOU Reached in Realistic Partners Class Action
ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Beck's Fans Can Get Refund in Settlement
ANTHEM INC: Massive Data Breach Generates Identity Theft Cases

APPLE INC: Class Action Mulled Over MacBook Display Screen Stains
APPLE INC: May Take $75-Mil. Hit From Bag Check Class Action
ARC AUTOMOTIVE: U.S. Safety Regulators Investigate Inflators
ARGOSY EDUCATION: Files Motion to Remove TCPA Suit to Fed. Court
ASCENA RETAIL: To Set Aside $50MM for Justice Line Class Action

ASSOCIATED ESTATES: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Suit
ASSURANCE WIRELESS: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Martin" Suit Says
ATLANTIC POWER: To Oppose Plaintiffs' Appeal
ATLANTIC POWER: Quebec Class Action Stayed
AVALANCHE BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action

BAYER: Women Want Essure Birth Control Device Removed From Market
BAYER: Yasmin Pill Stroke Victim Joins Aussie Class Suit
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Ordered to Pay $100MM in Vaginal Mesh Suit
BP: Juneau Meeting Turning Point in Oil Spill Settlement
BP EXPLORATION: Zirlottt, Capt. Jay Must Return Payment, Says Ct.

BP WEST: Illegally Manipulates Gasoline Price, Action Claims
CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over Natural Gas Charges
CAPITAL BUILDING: Seeks Dismissal of Janitors' Wage Class Action
CAPITAL ONE: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Robocalls
CAPITAL SOLUTIONS: Wage Garnishments Legal, Judges Rule

CENTRUS ENERGY: Sued in Ohio Over Retirees Health Care Plan
CHASE BANK: 9th Cir. Affirms Fee Award in "Herbison" Case
CHC GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
CHINA FINANCE: Aug. 4 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
COBHAM PLC: Vice Chancellor Rejects $1.5BB Aeroflex Settlement

COMPTON UNIFIED: Injunction Filed in Special Education Class Suit
CORMEDIX INC: Faces "Li" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
DFRF ENTERPRISES: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme
DISCOVER BANK: Faces Class Action in Illinois Over Robocalls
DOMINO'S PIZZA: Dist. Ct. Awards $573,972 in "Bodon" Case

DOW CHEMICAL: 10th Circ. Favors Class in $1B Plutonium Dispute
ENAGIC USA: Faces "Makaron" Suit Over Invasion of Privacy
ENERGY RECOVERY: Faces "Sabatino" and "Mowdy" Class Actions
ENTERPRISE DRILLING: Gets More Time to Respond to "Willis" Case
ESTES WEST: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

FACEBOOK INC: Court Overturns Privacy Class Action Certification
FACEBOOK INC: Plaintiff to Appeal Privacy Class Action Ruling
FARMERS INSURANCE: Female Attys Take Firmer Stand on Equality
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Design
FOX TRANSPORTATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

GENERAL MOTORS: Ct. Clarifies Order in Ignition Switch Litigation
GILTNER INC: "Marine" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
GREEN TREE: Bears Burden to Prove Intent for Third-Party Calls
HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Obtains Final OK of "Bostick" Suit Deal
HOME PROPERTIES: Brodsky & Smith Sues Over Sale to Lone Star

HOME RUN: "Velazquez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ICONIX BRAND: Aug. 24 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
ICONIX BRAND: Briscoe Firm Files Securities Class Suit
ILLINOIS: Inmates' Mental Health Class Action to Proceed
INFINITY MARKETING: Sued for $6-Mil. in Illegal Calls

INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL: "Acton" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
J'S ALL: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
JW LEE: Strip Club Chain Pays $6MM to Settle Dancers' Wage Suit
KEY FOOD: Sued Over Facility Inaccessible to Handicapped Indiv.
KEY HEALTH: Dist. Ct. Denies Motion to Dismiss "Thompkins" Case

L.A. ENTERTAINMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Compensation
LOS ANGELES: Atty Plans Class Suit Over "Teacher Jails"
LOS ANGELES: Suit Over Disabilities Act Violations Filed
MAKERBOT: Faces Class Action Over Glitchy 3D Printers
MARTHA STEWART: Faces "Schiffrin" Suit Over Sequential Merger

MARYLAND: Special Education Office Reorganization Plan Criticized
MASTEC INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Suit
METALICO INC: Faces "Arshad" Suit Over Proposed Total Merger
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Dist Ct Ruling in Contract Breach Case Upheld
MIDLAND CREDIT: Sued Over Illegal Debt Collection Policies

MOLYCORP INC: Colo. Court Granted Motion to Dismiss Class Action
MOLYCORP INC: Plaintiffs Seek Reconsideration in NY Suit
MOTHER FOOD: Sued for Facility Inaccessible to Handicapped Indiv.
NESTLE PURINA: Tells Justices Settlement Didn't Moot Appeal
NEW JERSEY: High School Student Sues Over SAT Printing Error

NOVARTIS AG: Suit Alleges Gleevec Patent Infringement Suit a Sham
OLAM SPICES: Faces "Beltran" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PACIFIC GATEWAY: Case Mgmt Conf. in "Hochstetler" Moved to Aug. 8
PETROBRAS: Investors' Class Action Over Bribery Can Proceed
PHILIPS ELECTRONICS: NACP Files Ex-Offender Discrimination Suit

PIZZA HUT: Drivers Sue Over Inadequate Mileage Compensation
PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS: Sued Over Misleading Pastry Box Labeling
QRXPHARMA LIMITED: Sued Over Federal Securities Law Violations
QUEBEC: Suit Filed Over Legionnaire's Disease Outbreak
REGIS CORPORATION: Fong Gets OK to File 2nd Amended Complaint

REMINGTON ARMS: Mo. Court to Rule on Class Settlements in Dec.
RIVIERA HOLDINGS: "Aguilar" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
ROOT9B TECHNOLOGIES: Aug. 24 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
SA MIDTOWN: Obtains Approval of "Gabel" Suit Settlement
SALOV NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Mislabeled Olive Oils

SBLI USA: Faces "Grossman" Suit Over Reorganizational Plan
SCHWABE NORTH: Falsely Marketed Ginkgold(R) Products, Suit Claims
SOLAZYME INC: Aug. 24 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
SOLAZYME INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
SOLAZYME INC: Ryan & Maniskas Files Securities Class Suit

SOUTH DAKOTA: Class Cert. Bid in "Dale" Case Denied as Premature
STRYKER CORP: Unit's Ex-Chief Gets 2-Year Prison Term
TAKATA CORP: Australian Firm Asked to Probe Airbag Class Suit
TEMPLETON RYE: Settles Whiskey Labeling Class Actions
TOP RANK: Faces "Causey" Suit in Michigan Over Pacquiao's Injury

TOP RANK: Pacquaio's Attorneys Say Class Suits Lack Merit
THUNDER BAY ENTERPRISES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
TURTLE BEACH: Nevada SC Reviews Denial of Bid to Dismiss
TYSON FOODS: U.S. Supreme Ct. Addresses Class Certification Again
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Calif. Regulators Impose Fine for Keeping Info

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Argues App's 160,000 Drivers Not Employees
UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Appeal in Shareholder Class Action Ongoing
UNITED STATES: Test Subject Veterans Entitled to Medical Care
UNITED STATES: Vietnam Vets with PTSD Win Long-Denied Benefits
WELLS FARGO: Time to Respond to Admin. Bids Extended to July 22

YAHOO! INC: Consumers Urge 9th Circ. to Turn Away Appeal
YELP INC: Sidecar Drivers File Suit Over Missing Delivery Tips
ZYNGA INC: Case Management Conference Held in "DeStefano"
ZYNGA INC: Court Granted Request to Dismiss "Reyes" Case
ZYNGA INC: Court Granted Underwriters' Motion to Dismiss

* Arbitration Clauses Limit Credit Cardholders' Damages Recovery
* Berger & Montague Named Lead Atty in Market Manipulation Suit
* Courts Restrict Ability to Sue Companies Following Data Breach
* Holdouts on Gay Same Sex-Marriage Licenses May Spark Suits
* Megan Davis Joins Nelson Mullins' West Virginia Office

* On-Demand Economy Raises Questions on Workplace Protections
* Sharing Economy Faces Litigation & Political Pressures
* U.S. Chamber Applauds House Passage of FICALA


                            *********

A & R UNDERGROUND: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Mesa Rodriguez and all others similarly situated v. A & R
Underground LLC and Alberto Rivera, Case No. 1:15-cv-22533-KMW
(S.D. Fla., July 7, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an underground wire and cable
construction company that regularly transacts business within Dade
County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AIRMEDIA GROUP: Rosen Firm Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, announces that a
class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of
AirMedia Group, Inc., American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") from
April 15, 2015 through June 15, 2015, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for AirMedia
investors under the federal securities laws.

According to the suit, AirMedia misled investors about the
purported sale of a 5% interest in AirMedia's advertising
subsidiary, AirMedia Group Co., Ltd. ("AM Advertising"), to
Shenzhen Liantronics Co. Ltd., and the valuation of the subsidiary
negotiated in the deal, stating that deal was worth $500 million.
On June 15, 2015, the Company issued an announcement stating that
it had entered into a definitive agreement to sell a 75% equity
interest in AM Advertising to Beijing Longde Wenchuang Fund
Management Co., Ltd. for $344.4 million, a significant reduction
from the value the Company had claimed during the class period.
When the true details entered the market, AirMedia's share price
declined and 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
August 24, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-593.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.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Plans to Cut Capacity Sparks Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Maxon, writing for The Dallas Morning News, reports that
American Airlines Group Inc. told investors on July 10 that it
expects to increase its schedule about 1 percent in 2015, down
from the 2 percent growth it previously had planned.

The statement indicates that American hasn't been cowed by a U.S.
Department of Justice inquiry into capacity and public statements
about such.

The department asked American, Delta Air Lines Inc., United
Airlines Inc. and Southwest Airlines Co. to provide volumes of
information on what they've said publicly and privately about
their capacity plans. Class-action lawsuits quickly followed.

Between July 1 and July 10, lawyers had filed 19 antitrust
lawsuits alleging that airlines in fact had colluded to control
capacity so they could keep airfares higher.

But American didn't shy away from the subject in its quarterly
update to investors, ahead of its earnings report later this
month.  Consensus among analysts is that American earned $2.62 a
share in the second quarter, or about $1.85 billion.

"Full year domestic capacity is expected to be up approximately 1
percent to 2 percent year-over-year, while international capacity
is expected to be up approximately 1 percent vs. 2014," American
said in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing.

Capacity is measured in available seat miles flown.  American
plans to reduce the number of flights by about 3 percent compared
with 2014.  However, the average flight in 2015 will travel about
2 percent farther and have about 2 percent more seats than in
2014.

American also reported that it filled 85.6 percent of its seats in
June, up 0.3 percent from June 2014.  Its traffic increased 2.2
percent on a 1.9 percent increase in capacity.

Among other disclosures:

American said it expects to end 2015 with 941 American Airlines
and US Airways aircraft, down from 983 on Dec. 31, 2014.  Its
regional fleet will have 585 airplanes, up from 566 a year
earlier.

It expects passenger unit revenue -- passenger revenue per
available seat mile -- to decline 6 to 8 percent in the second
quarter compared with the same three months in 2014.

Its pretax operating margin excluding special items should be 16
to 18 percent, the same number it had given in previous
disclosures.

American Airlines Group paid $1.88 to $1.93 for jet fuel,
suggesting a fuel bill of around $1.8 billion for the quarter.  It
spent around $2.8 billion for fuel in second quarter 2014.

American is parent of American Airlines Inc. and US Airways Inc.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Youmans" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Youmans, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. American Airlines, Inc., Delta Airlines, Inc.,
Southwest Airlines Co., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-01059-CKK (D.D.C., July 7, 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:

      Daniel A. Small, Esq.
      Kit A. Pierson, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      1100 New York Avenue, NW
      Suite 500 East Tower
      Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (202) 408-4600
      Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
      E-mail: dsmall@cohenmilstein.com
              KPierson@cohenmilstein.com


AMERICAN REALTY: Litigation Over Audit Panel Probe Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. and ARC Properties
Operating Partnership, L.P., continue to defend litigation
relating to an audit committee investigation., they said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

On October 29, 2014, the Company filed a Current Report on Form 8-
K (the "October 29 8-K") reporting the Audit Committee's
conclusion, based on the preliminary findings of its
investigation, that certain previously issued consolidated
financial statements of the Company, including those included in
the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2013 and Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for the
quarters ended March 31, 2014 and June 30, 2014, and related
financial information should no longer be relied upon. Prior to
that filing, the Audit Committee previewed for the SEC the
information contained in the filing. Subsequent to that filing,
the SEC provided notice that it had commenced a formal
investigation and issued subpoenas calling for the production of
various documents. In addition, the United States Attorney's
Office for the Southern District of New York contacted counsel for
the Audit Committee and counsel for the Company with respect to
this matter, and the Secretary of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts issued a subpoena calling for the production of
various documents. The Audit Committee and the Company are
cooperating with these regulators in their investigations.
As discussed below, the Company and certain of its current and
former directors and officers have been named as defendants in a
number of lawsuits filed in response to the October 29 8-K,
including class actions, derivative actions, and individual
actions under the federal securities laws and state common and
corporate laws in both federal and state courts in New York and
Maryland.

Between October 30, 2014 and January 20, 2015, the Company and its
current and former officers and directors (in addition to the
Company's underwriters for certain of the Company's securities
offerings, among other individuals and entities) were named as
defendants in ten putative securities class action complaints
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (the "SDNY Actions"): Ciraulu v. American
Realty Capital, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-8659 (AKH); Priever v.
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-8668
(AKH); Rubinstein v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et
al., No. 14-cv-8669 (AKH); Patton v. American Realty Capital
Properties, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-8671 (AKH); Edwards v.
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-8721
(AKH); Harris v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al.,
No. 14-cv-8740 (AKH); Abadi v. American Realty Capital Properties,
Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-9006 (AKH); City of Tampa General
Employees Retirement Fund v. American Realty Capital Properties,
Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-10134 (AKH); Teachers Insurance and
Annuity Association of America v. American Realty Capital
Properties, Inc., et al., No. 15-cv-0421 (AKH); and New York City
Employees Retirement System v. American Realty Capital Properties,
Inc., et al., No. 15-cv-0422 (AKH). At a February 10, 2015 status
conference, the court, among other things, consolidated the SDNY
Actions under the caption In re American Realty Capital
Properties, Inc. Litigation, No. 15-MC-00040 (AKH) (the "SDNY
Consolidated Securities Class Action") and appointed a lead
plaintiff. The lead plaintiff filed an amended class action
complaint on April 17, 2015, which asserted claims for violations
of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, arising out
of allegedly false and misleading statements in connection with
the purchase or sale of the Company's securities. The Company and
other defendants have until May 29, 2015 to file motions to
dismiss.


AMERICAN REALTY: Plaintiff in Jet Capital Suit Amends Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. and ARC Properties
Operating Partnership, L.P., said in their 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 January 15,
2015, the Company and certain of its former directors and officers
were named as defendants in an individual securities fraud action
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned Jet Capital Master Fund, L.P. v.
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 15-cv-307
(AKH) (the "Jet Capital Action"). The Jet Capital Action seeks
money damages and asserts claims for alleged violations of
Sections 10(b), 18 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as common law
fraud under New York law in connection with the purchase of the
Company's securities. On April 17, 2015, the plaintiff filed an
amended complaint. The Company and defendants are required to
respond to the amended complaint in the Jet Capital Action on the
same schedule set by the court for the SDNY Consolidated
Securities Class Action.


AMERICAN REALTY: Not Yet Required to Answer Twin Securities Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. and ARC Properties
Operating Partnership, L.P., said in their Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company and
defendants are not yet required to respond to the complaint in the
Twin Securities Action.

On February 20, 2015, the Company, certain of its current and
former directors and officers, and ARC Properties Operating
Partnership L.P. (in addition to several other individuals and
entities) were named as defendants in an individual securities
fraud action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, captioned Twin Securities, Inc. v.
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 15-cv-1291
(the "Twin Securities Action"). The Twin Securities Action seeks
money damages and asserts claims for alleged violations of
Sections 10(b), 14(a), 18, and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder,
Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
well as common law fraud under New York law in connection with the
purchase of the Company's securities. The Company and defendants
are not yet required to respond to the complaint in the Twin
Securities Action.


AMERICAN REALTY: MOU Reached in ARCT III Litigation
---------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. and ARC Properties
Operating Partnership, L.P., said in their Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that parties in the
ARCT III Litigation Matters have reached a memorandum of
understanding.

After the announcement of the merger agreement with American
Realty Capital Trust III, Inc. ("ARCT III") on December 17, 2012
(the "ARCT III Merger Agreement"), Randell Quaal filed a putative
class action lawsuit on January 30, 2013 against the Company, the
OP, ARCT III, ARCT III's operating partnership, the members of the
board of directors of ARCT III and certain subsidiaries of the
Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The
plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the board of ARCT III
breached its fiduciary duties in connection with the transactions
contemplated under the ARCT III Merger Agreement.

In February 2013, the parties agreed to a memorandum of
understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on
behalf of the alleged class of ARCT III stockholders. In
connection with the settlement contemplated by that memorandum of
understanding, the class action and all claims asserted therein
will be dismissed, subject to court approval. The proposed
settlement terms required ARCT III to make certain additional
disclosures related to the merger with ARCT III, which were
included in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed by ARCT III with
the SEC on February 21, 2013. The memorandum of understanding also
added that the parties will enter into a stipulation of
settlement, which will be subject to customary conditions,
including confirmatory discovery and court approval following
notice to ARCT III's stockholders.

If the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing
will be scheduled at which the court will consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. There can be no
assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement, that the court will approve any
proposed settlement, or that any eventual settlement will be under
the same terms as those contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding, therefore any losses that may be incurred to settle
this matter are not determinable.


AMERICAN REALTY: Tarver Case Remains Pending, Stayed
----------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. and ARC Properties
Operating Partnership, L.P., said in their Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that only the Tarver
Action currently remains pending among the CapLease Litigation
cases, although it remains stayed.

Since the announcement of the merger agreement with CapLease on
May 28, 2013, the following lawsuits have been filed:

On May 28, 2013, Jacquelyn Mizani filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the Supreme Court for the State of New York against the
Company, the OP, Safari Acquisition LLC, CapLease, CapLease LP,
CLF OP General Partner, LLC and the members of the CapLease board
of directors (the "Mizani Action"). The complaint alleges, among
other things, that the merger agreement at issue was the product
of breaches of fiduciary duty by the CapLease directors because
the proposed merger transaction (the "CapLease Transaction")
purportedly does not provide for full and fair value for the
CapLease shareholders, the CapLease Transaction allegedly was not
the result of a competitive bidding process, the merger agreement
allegedly contains coercive deal protection measures and the
merger agreement and the CapLease Transaction purportedly were
approved as a result of improper self-dealing by certain
defendants who would receive certain alleged employment
compensation benefits and continued employment pursuant to the
merger agreement. The complaint also alleges that CapLease, the
Company, the OP and Safari Acquisition LLC aided and abetted the
CapLease directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

On July 3, 2013, Fred Carach filed a putative class action and
derivative lawsuit in the Supreme Court for the State of New York
against the Company, the OP, Safari Acquisition LLC, CapLease,
CapLease LP, CLF OP General Partner, LLC and the members of the
CapLease board of directors (the "Carach Action"). The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the merger agreement was the
product of breaches of fiduciary duty by the CapLease directors
because the merger purportedly does not provide for full and fair
value for the CapLease shareholders, the CapLease Transaction
allegedly was not the result of a competitive bidding process, the
merger agreement allegedly contains coercive deal protection
measures and the merger agreement and the CapLease Transaction
purportedly were approved as a result of improper self-dealing by
certain defendants who would receive certain alleged employment
compensation benefits and continued employment pursuant to the
merger agreement. The complaint also alleges that with respect to
the Registration Statement and draft joint proxy statement issued
in connection with the proposed CapLease Transaction on July 2,
2013, that disclosures made therein were insufficient or otherwise
improper. The complaint also alleges that CapLease LP, CLF OP
General Partner, LLC, the Company, the OP and Safari Acquisition
LLC aided and abetted the CapLease directors' alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.

On June 25, 2013, Dewey Tarver filed a putative class action and
derivative lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against
the Company, the OP, Safari Acquisition LLC, CapLease, CapLease
LP, CLF OP General Partner, LLC and the members of the CapLease
board of directors (the "Tarver Action"). The complaint alleges,
among other things, that the merger agreement was the product of
breaches of fiduciary duty by the CapLease directors because the
CapLease Transaction purportedly does not provide for full and
fair value for the CapLease shareholders, the CapLease Transaction
allegedly was not the result of a competitive bidding process, the
merger agreement allegedly contains coercive deal protection
measures and the merger agreement and the CapLease Transaction
purportedly were approved as a result of improper self-dealing by
certain defendants who would receive certain alleged employment
compensation benefits and continued employment pursuant to the
merger agreement. The complaint also alleges that CapLease,
CapLease LP, CLF OP General Partner, LLC, the Company, the OP and
Safari Acquisition, LLC aided and abetted the CapLease directors'
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

Counsel who filed each of these three cases reached an agreement
with each other as to who will serve as lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiffs' counsel in the cases and where they will be
prosecuted. Thus, on August 9, 2013, counsel in the Tarver Action
filed a motion for stay in the Baltimore Court, informing the
court that they had agreed to join and participate in the
prosecution of the Mizani and Carach Actions in the New York
Court. The Defendants consented to the stay of the Tarver Action
in the Baltimore Court, and on September 5, 2013, Judge Pamela J.
White issued an order granting that stay. Consequently, there has
been no subsequent activity in the Baltimore Court in the Tarver
Action. Also on August 9, 2013, all counsel involved in the Mizani
and Carach Actions filed a joint stipulation in the New York
Court, reflecting agreement among all parties that the Mizani and
Carach Actions should be consolidated (jointly, "the Consolidated
Actions") and setting out a schedule for early motion practice in
response to the complaints filed (the "Consolidation
Stipulation").

Pursuant to the Consolidation Stipulation, an amended complaint
was also filed in the New York court on August 9, 2013 and was
designated as the operative complaint in the Consolidated Actions
("Operative Complaint"). Pursuant to the Consolidation
Stipulation, all Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims
asserted in the Operative Complaint on September 23, 2013.
Plaintiffs' response was due on or before November 7, 2013. On
November 7, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file
a second amended complaint, which the Defendants opposed. On March
24, 2014, Plaintiffs' counsel in the Consolidated Actions
dismissed those claims without prejudice. Consequently, only the
Tarver Action currently remains pending among these cases,
although it remains stayed.


AMERICAN REALTY: Motion to Dismiss "Poling" Case Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. and ARC Properties
Operating Partnership, L.P., said in their Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Plaintiff in the
John Poling class action has filed an opposition to the motion to
dismiss, which remains pending.

On October 8, 2013, John Poling filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City against the
Company, the OP, Safari Acquisition LLC, CapLease, CapLease LP,
CLF OP General Partner, LLC and the members of the CapLease board
of directors (the "Poling Action"). The complaint alleges that the
merger agreement breaches the terms of the CapLease 8.375% Series
B Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock ("Series B") and the terms
of the 7.25% Series C Cumulative Redeemable Preferred Stock
("Series C") and is in violation of the Series B Articles
Supplementary and the Series C Articles Supplementary. The
Complaint alleges claims for breach of contract and breach of
fiduciary duty against the CapLease entities and the CapLease
board of directors. The complaint also alleges that the Company,
the OP and Safari Acquisition, LLC aided and abetted CapLease and
the CapLease directors' alleged breach of contract and breach of
fiduciary duty.

On November 13, 2013, all counsel involved in the Poling Action
filed a joint stipulation, reflecting agreement among all parties
concerning a schedule for early motion practice in response to the
complaint filed (the "Scheduling Stipulation"). Pursuant to the
Scheduling Stipulation, all Defendants filed a motion to dismiss
all claims asserted in the Operative Complaint on December 20,
2013. Plaintiff has filed an opposition to that motion, which
remains pending.


AMERICAN REALTY: Not Yet Required to Respond in Wunsch v. ARC
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. and ARC Properties
Operating Partnership, L.P., said in their 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 not
yet required to respond to the complaint in the Wunsch Action.

On November 25, 2014, the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors were named as defendants in a
putative securities class action filed in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore County, Maryland, captioned Wunsch v. American Realty
Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 03-C-14-012816 (the "Wunsch
Action"). On December 23, 2014, the Company removed the Maryland
Securities Action to the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland (Northern Division), under the caption Wunsch
v. American Realty Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 14-cv-
4007 (ELH). On April 15, 2015, the Maryland court transferred the
Wunsch Action to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, under the caption Wunsch v. American Realty
Capital Properties, Inc., et al., No. 15-cv-2934. The Wunsch
Action asserts claims for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, arising out of allegedly false and
misleading statements made in connection with the Company's
securities issued in connection with the Cole Merger. The Company
is not yet required to respond to the complaint in the Wunsch
Action.


AMERICAN REALTY: Wunsch v. Cole Dismissed Voluntarily
-----------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. and ARC Properties
Operating Partnership, L.P., said in their Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that following court
approval of the settlement of the consolidated Baltimore Merger
Actions, the Wunsch case was dismissed voluntarily on January 21,
2015.

Three putative class action and/or derivative lawsuits, which were
filed in March and April 2013, assert claims for breach of
fiduciary duty, abuse of control, corporate waste, unjust
enrichment, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty and other
claims relating to the merger between a wholly owned subsidiary of
Cole and Cole Holdings Corporation, pursuant to which Cole became
a self-managed REIT.

On October 22, 2013, the Circuit Court for Baltimore City granted
all defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice the consolidated
action pending before the court, but the plaintiffs appealed that
dismissal.

On July 31, 2014, plaintiffs dismissed the pending state court
appeal based on an agreement by defendants to reimburse plaintiffs
in the amount of $100,000. The other two lawsuits, which also
purport to assert shareholder class action claims under the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), are
pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss both complaints on
January 10, 2014. Subsequently, both of those lawsuits have been
stayed by the Court pursuant to a joint request made by all
parties pending final approval of the consolidated Baltimore Cole
Merger Actions.

To date, eleven lawsuits have been filed in connection with the
Cole Merger. Two of these suits -- Wunsch v. Cole, et al.
("Wunsch"), No. 13-CV-2186, and Sobon v. Cole, et al. ("Sobon") --
were filed as putative class actions on October 25, 2013 and
November 18, 2013, respectively, in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona. Between October 30, 2013 and November 14,
2013, eight other putative stockholder class action or derivative
lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland, captioned as: (i) Operman v. Cole, et al. ("Operman");
(ii) Branham v. Cole, et al. ("Branham"); (iii) Wilfong v. Cole,
et al. ("Wilfong"); (iv) Polage v. Cole, et al. ("Polage"); (v)
Corwin v. Cole, et al. ("Corwin"); (vi) Green v. Cole, et al.
("Green"); (vii) Flynn v. Cole, et al. ("Flynn") and (viii) Morgan
v. Cole, et al. ("Morgan"). All of these lawsuits name the
Company, Cole and Cole's board of directors as defendants; Wunsch,
Sobon, Branham, Wilfong, Flynn, Green, Morgan and Polage also name
CREInvestments, LLC, a Maryland limited liability company and a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Cole, as a defendant.

All of the named plaintiffs in these actions claim to be Cole
stockholders and purport to represent all holders of Cole's stock.
Each complaint generally alleges that the individual defendants
breached fiduciary duties owed to plaintiff and the other public
stockholders of Cole in connection with the Cole Merger, and that
certain entity defendants aided and abetted those breaches. The
breach of fiduciary duty claims asserted include claims that the
Cole Merger did not provide for full and fair value for the Cole
shareholders, that the Cole Merger was the product of an
"inadequate sale process," that the Cole Merger Agreement
contained coercive deal protection measures and that the Cole
Merger Agreement and the Cole Merger were approved as a result of
or in a manner which facilitates improper self-dealing by certain
defendants.

In addition, the Flynn, Corwin, Green, Wilfong, Polage and Branham
lawsuits claim that the individual defendants breached their duty
of candor to shareholders and the Branham and Polage lawsuits
assert claims derivatively against the individual defendants for
their alleged breach of fiduciary duties owed to Cole. The Polage
lawsuit also asserts derivative claims for waste of corporate
assets and unjust enrichment. The Wunsch and Sobon lawsuits also
assert claims against Cole and the individual defendants under
Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act"), based on allegations that the proxy
materials omitted to disclose allegedly material information, and
a claim against the individual defendants under Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act. Among other remedies, the complaints seek
unspecified money damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

In January 2014, the parties to the eight lawsuits filed in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland (the "consolidated
Baltimore Cole Merger Actions") entered into a memorandum of
understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on
behalf of the alleged class of Cole stockholders. In connection
with the settlement contemplated by that memorandum of
understanding, the class action and all claims asserted therein
would be dismissed, subject to court approval. The proposed
settlement terms required Cole to make certain additional
disclosures related to the Cole Merger, which were included in a
Current Report on Form 8-K filed by Cole with the SEC on January
14, 2014. The memorandum of understanding also contemplated that
the parties would enter into a stipulation of settlement, subject
to customary conditions, including confirmatory discovery and
court approval following notice to Cole's stockholders. The Sobon
lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed on February 3, 2014.

On August 14, 2014, the parties in the consolidated Baltimore
Merger Actions executed a Stipulation and Release and Agreement of
Compromise and Settlement (the "Settlement Stipulation"). The
parties in the consolidated Baltimore Merger Actions submitted the
Settlement Stipulation, along with related filings, for approval
by the Maryland court on August 18, 2014. On August 25, 2014, the
Baltimore Circuit Court entered an Order on Preliminary Approval
of Derivative and Class Action Settlement and Class Action
Certification and scheduled a final settlement hearing in the
consolidated Baltimore Merger Actions.

The defendants in the consolidated Baltimore Merger Actions mailed
a Notice of Pendency of Derivative and Class Action (the "Class
Notice") to the Cole stockholders on October 7, 2014, following
the court's preliminary approval of the parties' Settlement
Stipulation. On December 3, 2014, the parties in the consolidated
Baltimore Merger Actions executed an Amended Stipulation and
Release and Agreement of Compromise and Settlement (the "Amended
Stipulation") modifying the Stipulation. A final settlement
hearing in the consolidated Baltimore Merger Actions was held on
December 12, 2014, and on January 13, 2015, the Baltimore Circuit
Court issued an order approving the settlement pursuant to the
terms of the Amended Stipulation. Under the terms of the approval
settlement, defendants established a $14.0 million settlement, out
of which a $7.0 million attorney's fee was paid. Two objectors
have since filed a notice of appeal of the settlement order.
Following court approval of the settlement of the consolidated
Baltimore Merger Actions, the Wunsch case was dismissed
voluntarily on January 21, 2015.


AMERICAN REALTY: MOU Reached in Realistic Partners Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Realty Capital Properties, Inc. and ARC Properties
Operating Partnership, L.P., said in their Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the parties in the
Realistic Partners class action have entered into a memorandum of
understanding regarding settlement of all claims.

On December 27, 2013, Realistic Partners filed a putative class
action lawsuit against the Company and the members of its board of
directors in the Supreme Court for the State of New York. Cole was
later added as a defendant also. The plaintiff alleges, among
other things, that the board of the Company breached its fiduciary
duties in connection with the transactions contemplated under the
Cole Merger Agreement and that Cole aided and abetted those
breaches.

In January 2014, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding regarding settlement of all claims asserted on
behalf of the alleged class of the Company's stockholders. In
connection with the settlement contemplated by that memorandum of
understanding, the class action and all claims asserted therein
will be dismissed, subject to court approval. The proposed
settlement terms required the Company to make certain additional
disclosures related to the Cole Merger, which were included in a
Current Report on Form 8-K filed by the Company with the SEC on
January 17, 2014. The memorandum of understanding also
contemplated that the parties will enter into a stipulation of
settlement, which will be subject to customary conditions,
including confirmatory discovery and court approval following
notice to the Company's stockholders.

If the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing
will be scheduled at which the court will consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. There can be no
assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement, that the court will approve any
proposed settlement, or that any eventual settlement will be under
the same terms as those contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding, therefore any losses that may be incurred to settle
this matter are not determinable.


ANHEUSER-BUSCH INBEV: Beck's Fans Can Get Refund in Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Gershman, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reported
that if you've been drinking Beck's beer thinking that you were
consuming an authentic German pilsner, Law Blog suggests that you
might want to sit down for this: Beck's is produced in St. Louis,
brewed with water from Missouri.

The good news is that you may qualify for a refund -- up to $50 if
you or your family downed hundreds of Beck's bottles since 2011
and had the foresight to save the receipts.

The compensation is thanks to a class-action settlement of a
lawsuit claiming that Beck's maker Anheuser-Busch InBev tricked
consumers into thinking Beck's was a German beer. The agreement
struck by plaintiffs and the world's largest brewer received a
preliminary approval from a federal magistrate judge in Miami. A
final approval hearing is expected to take place in the fall.

On top of the refunds, it awards up to $3.5 million in attorneys'
fees and costs split among Florida firm Kozyak Tropin &
Throckmorton, LLP and three other law firms representing the
plaintiffs.

Beck's used to be brewed in Germany, owned by local German
families until 2002 when it was sold to Belgium's Interbrew, which
then merged with Brazil's AmBev, to become InBev, which in turn
acquired Anheuser-Busch. Production of Beck's moved to St. Louis
in 2012, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit claimed that phrases featured in Beck's packaging,
such as "German Quality" beer and "Originated in Bremen, Germany,"
gave consumers the wrong impression about where the beer is made
in violation of state consumer protection laws.

"Beck's consumers in the United States knew that the only way to
get German beer of such high quality, as boasted about on Beck's
packaging, was to import the beer from Germany," the lawsuit said.

Settlement class members include consumers who purchased Beck's
beer, including Beck's Dark and Beck's Light, since May 2011. Once
it's finalized, they'll be able to fill out an online form to
claim a refund. Beck's drinkers can get 10 cents back for every
individual bottle purchased; 50 cents for a six-pack or $1.75 per
20-pack.

Refunds, though, are capped at $50 for claims backed by a valid
proof of purchase. Consumers who didn't keep receipts are entitled
to no more than $12. You can still get a refund even if you
Googled Beck's and knew all along that it's no longer made in
Germany.

As part of the settlement, Anheuser-Busch agreed to make labeling
adjustments. A statement on the bottle saying it's made in the USA
will become more visible. The green boxes in which the bottles are
packaged will also say the beer is made in America.

"We reached a compromise in the Beck's labeling case," Jorn
Socquet, vice president of marketing for Anheuser-Busch, said in a
statement. "We believe our labeling, packaging and marketing of
Beck's have always been truthful, transparent and in compliance
with all legal requirements."

AB InBev faced a similar class action in a case involving  the
marketing of Kirin beer. In that case, which settled late last
year, the claim was that consumers were led to believe the beer
was from Japan.


ANTHEM INC: Massive Data Breach Generates Identity Theft Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
J.K. Wall, writing for Indianapolis Business Journal, reports that
Anthem Inc.'s massive data breach reported early this year is now
generating real cases of identity theft, according to allegations
in a small but growing number of lawsuits filed across the
country.

Twenty-six people who have sued the Indianapolis-based health
insurer claim they were victims of fraud, with most saying
fraudulent tax returns were filed in their names using information
obtained from Anthem.  It had 78.8 million current and former
customers' records stolen by hackers from Dec. 10 to Jan. 27.

One woman says someone used her information from Anthem's records
to sign up for credit cards, a PayPal account, and a cell phone.
Another woman says someone bought health insurance in her name on
the Obamacare exchange in Georgia.  And a third woman received a
fraud alert from the ID-theft-protection company hired by Anthem,
reporting that her teenage daughter's Social Security number had
been used to obtain credit.

"The timing is uncanny.  We think that's it's more likely than not
that it's connected to Anthem," said Lynn Toops --
ltoops@cohenandmalad.com -- an Indianapolis attorney at Cohen &
Malad LLP, which is representing more than three dozen plaintiffs
in litigation against Anthem.  She said "hundreds" more with
identity-theft claims haven't sued, but will join the class-action
suit later this year.

Plaintiffs' attorney Lynn Toops calls the ID-theft timing
"uncanny".

But Anthem maintains it's not the source of its customers'
troubles.  That's based on weekly reports it receives from the
FBI, which is checking the black market to see if anyone is
selling information from the Anthem hack.

"As part of the ongoing investigation regarding Anthem's cyber
attack, the FBI has been routinely monitoring for fraudulent
activity related to this incident," Anthem spokeswoman Kristin
Binns wrote in an email.  "Despite allegations to the contrary,
there is no evidence that the cyber attackers have shared or sold
any individuals' data; and there is no evidence that fraud has
occurred against any individuals who could have been impacted."

Joshua Campbell, a supervisory special agent at the FBI's
Washington, D.C., office, confirmed that the FBI continues to
investigate and that "we have not observed data stolen from the
Anthem breach being sold on online dark markets."  However, he
said the FBI could not directly confirm that no fraud has occurred
against individual Anthem customers.

Figuring out who's right could play a key role in determining
whether Anthem ends up paying damages in these cases, which now
number 101.  The cases have been consolidated before a federal
judge in California.

Of those suits, nine include a claim of specific damages, on top
of the lawsuits' claims that Anthem's failure to protect its
customers' privacy was a breach of contract and, therefore, has
already created damages before any identity theft occurs.

Having a specific claim of damages could help the plaintiffs'
cases survive a motion by Anthem to dismiss based on lack of
standing, said Jeff Kosc -- jkosc@beneschlaw.com -- a litigator
and partner at the Indianapolis office of Benesch Friedlander
Coplan & Aronoff LLP.

That's because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that claiming
the potential for future harm (the case dealt with federal
government surveillance) was "too speculative" to allow plaintiffs
to sue.

"These are actual damages that will help the cases move forward,"
Mr. Kosc said.

The trouble is, he added, it could be difficult to prove it was
the Anthem data breach -- rather than some other breach of data --
that led to the identity theft.

The Indiana Department of Revenue is making the connection,
according to Kathryn Leniski, an Anthem customer in Mishawaka.

In early March, Ms. Leniski received a letter from the Department
of Revenue instructing her to claim her tax refund.  But she had
not yet filed her 2014 taxes. That prevented her from claiming a
$2,200 refund she actually was owed.

To sort it out, Ms. Leniski spent three days with investigators at
the Department of Revenue, the Internal Revenue Service and the
FBI.

"Ms. Leniski was informed by the Department of Revenue that the
attempted fraud respecting any 2014 state tax refund likely
resulted from the Anthem breach," wrote her attorneys in their
lawsuit against Anthem.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Revenue declined to say how
many other cases the department linked to Anthem.

"For security reasons, we cannot discuss the specifics of our
fraud review process," wrote Amanda Stanley in an e-mail.  "While
we may be able to speculate that a fraudulent return is related to
a recent data breach, we are not able to determine this link with
certainty."

The FBI has not publicly identified who was behind the Anthem data
breach, but private security firms have linked it to hackers in
China.

The Anthem case is part of a nationwide epidemic of breaches and
identity theft -- a proliferation that makes it difficult to
untangle which breach led to which theft.

Since launching its Identity Protection Program last year, the
Indiana Department of Revenue has helped 8,688 taxpayers discover
their identities were stolen.

In addition to Anthem, hackers have breached 410 other companies
or governments through July 7 this year, according to statistics
reported by the Identity Theft Resource Center.  In 2014, a record
783 business or government data breaches were documented by the
center.

About 80 employees at Ball State University, which is an Anthem
customer, had fraudulent tax returns filed in their names earlier
this year.  Some of the lawsuits against Anthem pointed to Ball
State's experience as evidence of the harm being caused by the
Anthem data breach.

But Ball State spokeswoman Joan Todd said the university has
"received no indication" that the ID thefts were connected to
Anthem.

Bruce Geelhoed, a Ball State history professor who had a federal
tax return filed in his name, noted that it was done before the
Anthem breach was made public and that the fraudulent return used
his salary -- which is publicly available because Ball State is a
public university -- but included no information about his wife,
who works for a private entity.

"The news of that [Anthem data breach] came sometime after we
learned we had been hacked," Mr. Geelhoed said.

Since hackers first breached Anthem's computer systems nearly two
months before the company made it public, it's possible the stolen
information could have been used before the breach hit the news.

                       More Thefts Surface

The pace of Anthem customers' claiming identity theft has
quickened as time as has gone on.  While just three people claimed
identity theft via lawsuits in February and March, 23 have done so
since April, according to court records.

Evansville resident Andy Yarber didn't file suit against Anthem
until June -- after his tax refund of $2,845 was denied because
someone had already filed taxes in his name.  He has spent more
than $1,200 for accounting work to sort out the issue.

In one of several lawsuits it has filed against Anthem, Ms. Toops'
firm claimed 11 of its plaintiffs were victims of identity theft.

Ms. Toops noted there are some details about recent cases among
Anthem customers that make her think they are connected to the
Anthem data breach.

For example, she said, a number of the reports involve the
fraudulent use of kids' Social Security numbers.  Health insurance
records would be one of the few places such information could be
obtained, she noted.

"Those are not just out there like adults' Social Security numbers
are," Ms. Toops said.

Mary Carter, an Anthem customer in California, said she signed up
her family for ID theft monitoring from AllClear, for which Anthem
is paying for all its customers for up to two years.  AllClear
offers a special service called ChildScan for minors, which
examines thousands of credit-related databases using a child's
Social Security number to uncover hard-to-find cases where a thief
has used the number with someone else's name to commit fraud.

In March, AllClear opened an investigation into Carter's teenage
daughter after her Social Security number was used to apply for
credit.  Ms. Carter is now suing on behalf of her daughter and
potentially all other minors insured by Anthem.

"Because Defendants [Anthem] have failed to safeguard the
personally identifiable information of tens of millions of
children nationwide, they must stand to account before the law,"
wrote Ms. Carter's attorneys in her lawsuit.

Ms. Binns, the Anthem spokeswoman, said the fact AllClear is
catching instances of identity theft involving minors means the
service is helping Anthem customers -- but doesn't indicate that
Anthem was the source of that identity theft.


APPLE INC: Class Action Mulled Over MacBook Display Screen Stains
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Richards, writing for Smart Office, reports that tens of
thousands of Apple MacBook owners are up in arms over what appears
to be a fault with the retina display screens in Apple notebooks.

Apple who loves to brag as to how good their gear is, has been
accused of failing to address the issue after users went online to
report "horrific stains" spreading across screens, in the forms of
spots and patches.

Apple who uses Sharp and LG to manufacture their display screens
has already replaced several display screens on MacBook's however
thousands are claiming that they still have problems with lawyers
now setting up web pages with a view to starting a class action.

Phi Chong, a software engineer, told the BBC he has had to replace
his screen twice in the last two years.  He said he had been told
Apple would not carry out further screen repairs.

Apple claims that Australians facing the problem should contact
its Apple support centre.

Users who have been affected are concerned they will face
expensive service fees once their warranties and/or extended
AppleCare protection plans expire.

"My last screen replacement had its anti-reflective coating start
peeling off within a month," said Phi Chong.

"I'm worried it will start peeling again after my AppleCare has
expired."

A website called "Staingate" has been set up by a group unhappy
with Apple's response.

Some Apple MacBook owners have been told they will have to pay
$800 for repair work, the Staingate website states.

A Facebook group formed by people experiencing problems with their
MacBook screens has 1,752 members, and Staingate claims to have
been contacted by more than 2,500 people so far.

US legal firm Whitfield Bryson & Mason has contacted the Facebook
group offering to investigate and potentially set up a class
action legal case to take on Apple.

The group has also set up a petition on the Change.org website
which asks Apple chief executive Tim Cook to "take immediate
action" to address the issue.

Some people say problems with the screen can start appearing
within a few months of purchasing the laptops, with the 13in
(33cm) display screen.

While many people on the Facebook page are reporting that Apple
stores around the world -- including in Australia and New Zealand
-- are agreeing to carry out free screen repairs outside the
warranty period, others said they had been told it was "cosmetic
damage", which is not usually covered.

Apple has not confirmed whether there is an issue with the
screens, or what might be causing the damage.  Its 2013 models
seem to be worst affected, but there are online forums discussing
the problem dating back to 2009.

"Customers who experience problems with their Apple products
should contact AppleCare," a spokesperson for Apple said.


APPLE INC: May Take $75-Mil. Hit From Bag Check Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
AppPicker reports that several former Apple Store employees are
suing Apple for the time they had to spend in searches after
shifts and meal breaks.  According to a report by The StarPhoenix,
the workers sued Apple two years ago, asking for a few dollars for
each day worked, due to having to have their electronic devices
and bags searched at breaks and at the end of shifts.  They've
asked a judge to let them add over 12,000 former co-workers from
52 stores across California. If the workers win class-action
status, it could become a real problem for Apple's reputation.  A
law professor at Villanova University School of Law in
Pennsylvania said "I assume they would take a US$75 million hit
plus bad publicity seriously.  Chump change for Apple, but nothing
to sneeze at."

The U.S. Supreme Court made a ruling last year that workers don't
have a federal right to earn compensation for time spent in
security searches post-shift, which means employees can go after
Apple under California law.


ARC AUTOMOTIVE: U.S. Safety Regulators Investigate Inflators
------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Krisher, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
problem of exploding air bags could be widening beyond Japanese
manufacturer Takata Corp.

U.S. safety regulators are investigating inflators made by ARC
Automotive Inc. that went into about 420,000 older Fiat Chrysler
Town and Country minivans and another 70,000 Kia Optima midsize
sedans.

The probe, revealed in documents posted on July 14 by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, comes just weeks after
Takata agreed to recall 33.8 million inflators in the U.S. in the
largest automotive recall in American history.  At least eight
people have been killed worldwide by flying shrapnel from Takata
inflators, and more than 100 injured.

The safety agency said it received a complaint in December about a
2009 incident in a 2002 Chrysler minivan but determined it was an
isolated case involving an ARC driver's side inflator.  Then in
June, Kia told the agency about a lawsuit involving a 2004 Optima
with an ARC driver's side inflator, so the agency decided to open
an investigation.  Both cases are the only known incidents
involving ARC inflators in vehicles made by either automaker.

"At the present time it is unknown if there is a common root cause
in these incidents," NHTSA investigators wrote in the documents.
"(The agency) is opening this investigation in order to collect
all known facts from the involved suppliers and vehicle
manufacturers."

The agency said two people were hurt in the incidents but no one
was killed.

Fiat Chrysler spokesman Eric Mayne said the company is cooperating
with the investigation and it no longer uses the inflators that
are being investigated.  Messages were left before business hours
seeking comment from ARC and Kia.

NHTSA said in documents that ARC makes inflators that are used by
other companies in their air bag systems.  The inflators use an
inert gas to fill the air bag which is supplemented by an ammonium
nitrate-based propellant.  A preliminary analysis of the Chrysler
minivan system showed that the path for the inflator gas to exit
the inflator may have been blocked by an unknown object, the
document said.

In the Takata cases, ammonium nitrate is the main propellant, and
it can become unstable over time when exposed to high humidity and
temperatures.  The chemical can burn too fast and blow apart a
metal inflator canister.  Automakers, NHTSA and Takata are trying
to find exactly what causes the malfunctions.

Documents show that the Chrysler minivan incident happened on
Jan. 29, 2009 in Ohio.  A man complained to NHTSA that his wife
was injured by flying air bag shrapnel when the minivan collided
with a snowmobile while she was turning into their driveway and
the air bag deployed.  "Most of the shrapnel went into her chest,
with the air bag plate breaking apart, striking her in the chin,
breaking her jaw in three places," wrote the man, who was not
identified in the documents.  "If it hadn't been for a great
ambulance crew, she would have bled to death."

According to NHTSA, ARC made inflators for Delphi Corp. air bags
that were sold to Kia and used in Optimas, and it made inflators
for Key Safety Systems air bags sold to Chrysler and used in
minivans.

Delphi said in a statement that it will respond to any NHTSA
inquiries in the investigation.  ARC inflators were used in some
of its air bag assemblies before the company sold its air bag
business in 2010, the statement said.  Key said it would support
the investigation.


ARGOSY EDUCATION: Files Motion to Remove TCPA Suit to Fed. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
CookCountyRecord.com reports that a for-profit institute of higher
education being sued for placing telemarketing calls to mobile
phones has asked to move the case to a higher authority.

In early June, Anthony J. Gerhardt filed a class action complaint
in Cook County Circuit Court against Argosy Education Group, which
runs Argosy University.  About a month later, Argosy has filed a
notice to remove the case to federal court.

Mr. Gerhardt accused Argosy of making unsolicited telemarketing
calls to thousands of cell phones across the country, a practice
he says violates the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
He cites "aggravation, nuisance and invasion of privacy" that come
with such calls, as well as mobile minutes recipients of the calls
may be charged for by their cell phone providers.

Mr. Gerhardt lives in Utah.  Argosy is an Illinois corporation,
though its headquarters are in Pittsburgh.  It offers online
education and has physical campus locations in 13 states,
including two in Illinois -- one in Schaumburg and another on
North Michigan Avenue in Chicago.  The initial complaint states
the phone calls in question originated from Argosy's Chicago
administrative offices.  He notes parent company Education
Management Corporation also maintains a substantial call center in
Arizona.

The complaint details Argosy's automatic calling strategy and
equipment, components of which are "capable of making numerous
calls simultaneously (all without human intervention.)"

Mr. Gerhardt said he personally received seven calls from Argosy
in a day and a half in April, and received calls after he
requested they stop.  Upon answering one call, he recounted
hearing a long pause while waiting to be connected to a live
operator.  That person said he was calling from Argosy and tried
to persuade Mr. Gerhardt to apply to one of the school's programs.
Mr. Gerhardt said he neither gave his number to Argosy nor had a
prior relationship to the school, which his complaint alleges is
common among the thousands of people Argosy has allegedly called
with its automatic dialing equipment.  His suit includes
references to complaints he found from other people similarly
frustrated with Argosy from 800notes.com, a website dedicated to
helping people track phone numbers they don't recognize.

"Argosy calling to try to sucker more people in," one user is
quoted as having written on the complaint website.  "They have
been spam calling me for months.  I have asked to be put on a do
not call list and to be taken off of any other call lists . . ."

"Kept getting these calls too and finally called back and it was
Argosy University," another allegedly wrote.  "I'm in the process
of applying to clinical psychology programs and made the mistake
of contacting this school about their program, and now they seem
to be stalking me! Scary.  Can't believe [their] programs are APA
accredited.  Hopefully they take me off their phone list otherwise
I may need to follow up with legal action for harassment (sic)."

Mr. Gerhardt has requested a jury trial and asked the court to
certify a class action, with him serving as class representative
and his lawyers -- Mr. Edelson, of Chicago, and Hughes Ellzey, of
Houston -- as class counsel.  He also requested actual and
statutory damages and an injunction preventing all future
unsolicited calls.  Argosy's motion to remove to federal court
notes Mr. Gerhardt's complaint alleges a violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, a federal statute for which
legal precedent holds is subject to federal jurisdiction, Argosy
argued.

Representing Argosy are Timothy R. Carraher --
tcarraher@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith, Chicago, and Casey
Laffey, of Reed Smith, New York.


ASCENA RETAIL: To Set Aside $50MM for Justice Line Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Armental, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
Ascena Retail Group Inc. said it will adjust the book value of its
Lane Bryant line somewhere between $275 million and $325 million
and cut its financial projections for the year.

Ascena -- one of the largest women's clothing retailers with such
brands as Dressbarn and Justice -- in May agreed to buy the parent
company of Ann Taylor and Loft in a deal valued at $2 billion.
The combined company would have annual sales of about $7.3 billion
and more than 4,900 stores.  Ascena expects the deal to close in
August.

Ascena said it will be more aggressive than it previously
projected in clearing inventory at Justice ahead of the fall
season and said sales at Dressbarn hadn't rebounded as expected.

The company, which said it also will set aside about $50 million
related to class-action litigation involving pricing practices at
its Justice line, now projects profit from continuing operations
between 57 cents and 60 cents, down from 70 cents to 75 cents a
share.

It projected earnings before certain items, including the Lane
Bryant impairment and legal-reserve charges, of $365 million to
$357 million.  Analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters had projected
Ebitda of $397.5 million.  Its fiscal year ends in July.


ASSOCIATED ESTATES: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP announces that it
filed a class action and derivative lawsuit on June 23, 2015, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division (the "Court") on behalf of the shareholders of Associated
Estates Realty Corporation ("Associated Estates") against
Associated Estates and its Board of Directors (the "Board") for,
among other things, violations of sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder.

The complaint arises out of an April 22, 2015 press release
announcing that Associated Estates had entered into a definitive
merger agreement with Brookfield Asset Management, Inc.
("Brookfield") pursuant to which Associate Estates' Board agreed
to sell Associated Estates to Brookfield for $28.75 in cash per
Associate Estate share (the "Proposed Transaction").  The
complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of the named plaintiff
and all other similarly situated Associated Estates shareholders
(the "Class").  The named plaintiff is represented by Robbins
Arroyo LLP.

The complaint alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder
approval of the Proposed Transaction, the defendants filed a
materially false and misleading Proxy Statement with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission in violation of the Exchange
Act.  The omitted and/or misrepresented information is believed to
be material to Associated Estates shareholders' ability to make an
informed decision whether to approve the Proposed Transaction.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Associated Estates stock
on, or prior to, the April 22, 2015 announcement of the Proposed
Transaction, and wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move
the Court no later than sixty days from June 24, 2015.  If you
wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this
notice or your rights or interests, please contact attorney
Darnell R. Donahue of Robbins Arroyo LLP at 800-350-6003, via the
shareholder information form on our website, or by e-mail at
info@robbinsarroyo.com.  Any member of the Class may move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice,
or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent Class member.

Robbins Arroyo LLP, a nationally recognized leader in the area of
shareholder rights litigation, represents individual and
institutional investors in securities class action lawsuits and
shareholder derivative actions.  Robbins Arroyo LLP has helped its
clients realize more than $1 billion of value for themselves and
the companies in which they have invested.  Past results do not
guarantee similar outcomes.  For more information about the firm,
please go to http://www.robbinsarroyo.com


ASSURANCE WIRELESS: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Martin" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Martin and Daneisha Singleton, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Assurance Wireless, LLC and
Wallace Morgan, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-05237-PAE (S.D.N.Y., July
7, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The Defendants are in the business of providing wireless phones
and wireless phone service to consumers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anna Purna Prakash, Esq.
      Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTERS, L.L.P.
      80 South Eighth Street, Suite 4600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 256-3200
      Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
      E-mail: aprakash@nka.com
              srey@nka.com

         - and -

      Frank Joseph Mazzaferro, Esq.
      Joseph A. Fitapelli, Esq.
      Brian Scott Schaffer, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER LLP
      475 Park Avenue South
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (315) 225-6330
      Facsimile: (212) 481-1333
      E-mail: fmazzaferro@fslawfirm.com
              jfitapelli@fslawfirm.com
              bschaffer@fslawfirm.com


ATLANTIC POWER: To Oppose Plaintiffs' Appeal
--------------------------------------------
Atlantic Power 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 U.S. District
Court has granted Company's motion to dismiss U.S. securities
class action lawsuit; plaintiffs have filed a  notice of appeal;
the Company will oppose that appeal.

The Company said, "On March 8, 14, 15 and 25, 2013 and April 23,
2013, five purported securities fraud class action complaints were
filed by alleged investors in Atlantic Power common shares in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(the "District Court") against Atlantic Power and Barry E. Welch,
our former President and Chief Executive Officer and a former
Director of Atlantic Power, in each of the actions, and, in
addition to Mr. Welch, some or all of Patrick J. Welch, our former
Chief Financial Officer, Lisa Donahue, our former interim Chief
Financial Officer, and Terrence Ronan, our current Chief Financial
Officer, in certain of the actions (the "Proposed Individual
Defendants," and together with Atlantic Power, the "Proposed
Defendants") (the "U.S. Actions")."

"The District Court complaints differed in terms of the identities
of the Proposed Individual Defendants they named, as noted above,
the named plaintiffs, and the purported class period they alleged
(July 23, 2010 to March 4, 2013 in three of the District Court
actions and August 8, 2012 to February 28, 2013 in the other two
District Court actions), but in general each alleged, among other
things, that in Atlantic Power's press releases, quarterly and
year-end filings and conference calls with analysts and investors,
Atlantic Power and the Proposed Individual Defendants made
materially false and misleading statements and omissions regarding
the sustainability of Atlantic Power's common share dividend that
artificially inflated the price of Atlantic Power's common shares.
The District Court complaints assert claims under Section 10(b)
and, against the Proposed Individual Defendants, under Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

"The parties to each District Court action filed joint motions
requesting that the District Court set a schedule in the District
Court actions, including: (i) setting a deadline for the lead
plaintiff to file a consolidated amended class action complaint
(the "Amended Complaint"), after the appointment of lead plaintiff
and counsel; (ii) setting a deadline for Proposed Defendants to
answer, file a motion to dismiss or otherwise respond to the
Amended Complaint (and for subsequent briefing regarding any such
motion to dismiss); and (iii) confirming that the Proposed
Defendants need not answer, move to dismiss or otherwise respond
to any of the five District Court complaints prior to the filing
of the Amended Complaint. On May 7, 2013, each of six groups of
investors (the "U.S. Lead Plaintiff Applicants") filed a motion
(collectively, the "U.S. Lead Plaintiff Motions") with the
District Court seeking: (i) to consolidate the five U.S. Actions
(the "Consolidated U.S. Action"); (ii) to be appointed lead
plaintiff in the Consolidated U.S. Action; and (iii) to have its
choice of lead counsel confirmed. On May 22, 2013, three of the
U.S. Lead Plaintiff Applicants filed oppositions to the other U.S.
Lead Plaintiff Motions, and on June 6, 2013, those three Lead
Plaintiff Applicants filed replies in support of their respective
motions. On August 19, 2013, the District Court held a status
conference to address certain issues raised by the U.S. Lead
Plaintiff Motions, entered an order consolidating the five U.S.
Actions, and directed two of the six U.S. Lead Plaintiff
Applicants to file supplemental submissions by September 9, 2013.
Both of those U.S. Lead Plaintiff Applicants filed the requested
supplemental submissions, and then sought leave to file additional
briefing. The Court granted those requests for leave and
additional submissions were filed on September 13 and September
18, 2013.

"On March 31, 2014, the Court entered an order consolidating the
five individual U.S. Actions, appointing the Feldman, Shapero,
Carter and Smith investor group (one of the six U.S. Lead
Plaintiffs Applicants) as Lead Plaintiff and approving Lead
Plaintiff's selection of counsel. The Court also granted the
parties' joint motion regarding initial case scheduling and
directed the parties to resubmit a proposed schedule that contains
specific dates. In response to that directive, on April 7, 2014,
Lead Plaintiff filed an application and proposed order, which
sought an extension of the schedule contained in the joint motion.
The application and proposed order requested that: (i) Lead
Plaintiff be permitted to file an amended complaint on or before
May 30, 2014, (ii) the Proposed Defendants be permitted to move to
dismiss or otherwise respond to the amended complaint on or before
July 29, 2014, (iii) Lead Plaintiff be permitted to file an
opposition, if any, on or before September 24, 2014, and (iv) the
Proposed Defendants be permitted to file a reply to Lead
Plaintiff's opposition on or before November 13, 2014. Proposed
Defendants did not object to the schedule proposed by Lead
Plaintiff. On May 29, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed a renewed
application and proposed order, which sought another extension of
the schedule, and on June 3, 2014, Lead Plaintiff and the Proposed
Defendants jointly filed a stipulation and proposed order
requesting the following revised schedule: (i) Lead Plaintiff be
permitted to file an amended complaint on or before June 6, 2014,
(ii) the Proposed Defendants be permitted to move to dismiss or
otherwise respond to the amended complaint on or before August 5,
2014, (iii) Lead Plaintiff be permitted to file an opposition, if
any, on or before October 6, 2014, and (iv) the Proposed
Defendants be permitted to file a reply to Lead Plaintiff's
opposition on or before November 20, 2014. On June 3, 2014, the
Court entered an order setting this requested schedule.

"On June 6, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed the amended complaint (the
"Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint names as defendants
Barry E. Welch and Terrence Ronan (the "Individual Defendants")
and Atlantic Power (together with the Individual Defendants, the
"Defendants") and alleges a class period of June 20, 2011 to March
4, 2013 (the "Class Period"). The Amended Complaint makes
allegations that are substantially similar to those asserted in
the five initial complaints. Specifically, the Amended Complaint
alleges, among other things, that in Atlantic Power's press
releases, quarterly and year-end filings and conference calls with
analysts and investors, Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and omissions regarding the sustainability
of Atlantic Power's common share dividend, which artificially
inflated the price of Atlantic Power's common shares during the
class period. The Amended Complaint continues to assert claims
under Section 10(b) and, against the Individual Defendants, under
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
It also asserts a claim for unjust enrichment against the
Individual Defendants. In accordance with the schedule referenced
above, Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the consolidated
(the "Motion to Dismiss") U.S. Action on August 5, 2014.

"On September 30, 2014, citing Atlantic Power's September 16, 2014
announcement of changes to its dividend and its President and CEO
transition, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion (the "Extension Motion")
requesting a thirty-day extension of its October 6, 2014 deadline
for filing its brief in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, in
which to determine whether to file a second amended complaint. On
October 2, 2014, the Court entered an order (i) extending Lead
Plaintiff's deadline to file its opposition to the Motion to
Dismiss to October 10, 2014 and (ii) requiring Defendants to file
their opposition to the Extension Motion by October 2, 2014. In
accordance with this order, on October 2, 2014, Defendants filed
their opposition to the Extension Motion. On October 10, 2014,
Lead Plaintiff filed its opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (the
"Opposition") and also filed a motion for leave to amend the
Amended Complaint, attaching a proposed second amended complaint.
On October 21, 2014, Lead Plaintiff and Defendants filed a joint
scheduling motion requesting (i) November 7, 2014 as the deadline
for Defendants to file their opposition to Lead Plaintiff's motion
for leave to amend the Amended Complaint; (ii) November 24, 2014
as the deadline for Defendants to file their reply in further
support of the Motion to Dismiss; and (iii) November 24, 2014 as
the deadline for Lead Plaintiff to file its reply in further
support of its motion for leave to amend the Amended Complaint. On
October 22, 2014, the Court entered an order setting this
requested schedule. Pursuant to that order, the Motion to Dismiss
and Extension Motion were fully briefed on November 24, 2014. On
January 22, 2015, the Court held oral argument on the Motion to
Dismiss and Extension Motion.

"On January 30, 2015, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
file a supplemental submission in opposition to Defendants' motion
to dismiss (the "Motion for Leave"). The Court denied the Motion
for Leave in an order entered on February 5, 2015, but permitted
Lead Plaintiff to submit a brief letter identifying supplemental
authorities. Lead Plaintiff filed that letter on February 9, 2015,
and Defendants filed a response on February 10, 2015.

"On March 13, 2015, the District Court entered an order granting
Defendants' motion to dismiss and denying Lead Plaintiff's motion
to amend the Amended Complaint, and on March 18, 2015, the
District Court entered an order dismissing the Amended Complaint
with prejudice. On April 16, 2015, Lead Plaintiff filed a notice
of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the First
Circuit. The Company will oppose that appeal."


ATLANTIC POWER: Quebec Class Action Stayed
------------------------------------------
Atlantic Power 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 proposed class
action in Quebec was stayed until June 18, 2015.

The Company said, "On March 19, 2013, April 2, 2013 and May 10,
2013, three notices of action relating to Canadian securities
class action claims against the Proposed Defendants were issued by
alleged investors in Atlantic Power common shares, and in one of
the actions, holders of Atlantic Power convertible debentures,
with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the Province of
Ontario. On April 8, 2013, a similar claim issued by alleged
investors in Atlantic Power common shares seeking to initiate a
class action against the Proposed Defendants was filed with the
Superior Court of Quebec in the Province of Quebec (the "Canadian
Actions")."

"On April 17, May 22, and June 7, 2013, statements of claim
relating to the notices of action were filed with the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice in the Province of Ontario.

"On August 30, 2013, the three Ontario actions were succeeded by
one action with an amended claim being issued on behalf of
Jacqeline Coffin and Sandra Lowry. As in the U.S. Action, this
claim names the Company, Barry E. Welch and Terrence Ronan as
Defendants. The Plaintiffs seek leave to commence an action for
statutory misrepresentation under the Ontario Securities Act and
assert common law claims for misrepresentation. The Plaintiffs'
allegations focus on among other things, claims the Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and omissions in
Atlantic Power's press releases, quarterly and year-end filings
and conference calls with analysts and investors, regarding the
sustainability of Atlantic Power's common share dividend that
artificially inflated the price of Atlantic Power's common shares.
The Plaintiffs seek to certify the statutory and common law claims
under the Class Proceedings Act for security holders who purchased
and held securities through a proposed class period of November 5,
2012 to February 28, 2013.

"On October 4, 2013, the Plaintiffs delivered materials supporting
their request for leave to commence an action for statutory
misrepresentations and for certification of the statutory and
common claims as class proceedings. These materials estimate the
damages claimed for statutory misrepresentation at $197.4 million.

"The Defendants and Plaintiffs subsequently exchanged responding
and reply materials in respect of the leave and certification
motions. These motions were to be heard on May 20-21, 2015.

The proposed class action in Quebec was stayed until June 18,
2015.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
all discovery is stayed in the U.S. Actions. Plaintiffs have not
yet specified an amount of alleged damages in the U.S. Actions. As
noted above, the plaintiffs in the Canadian Action have estimated
their alleged statutory damages at $197.4 million. Because both
the U.S. and Canadian Actions are in their early stages, Atlantic
Power is unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range
of losses, if any, arising from this litigation. Atlantic Power
intends to defend vigorously against each of the actions.


AVALANCHE BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on July 13 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc. and certain
of its officers.  The class action, filed in United States
District Court, Southern District of New York, and docketed under
15-cv-03231, is on behalf of all persons and entities, other than
Defendants, who purchased Avalanche securities: (1) pursuant
and/or traceable to the Company's Registration Statement and
Prospectus (defined below) issued in connection with the Company's
initial public offering on or about July 31, 2014 (the "IPO" or
the "Offering"); and/or (2) on the open market between July 31,
2014 and June 15, 2015, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Avalanche securities during
the Class Period, you have until September 8, 2015 to ask the
Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of
the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss
this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, x237.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares
purchased.

Avalanche is a biotechnology company that uses its proprietary
Ocular BioFactory(TM) platform for discovering and developing
novel medicines with the potential to offer therapeutic benefit.
Avalanche's focus is to develop treatment to combat Age-Related
Macular Degeneration ("AMD") which is a progressive disease
affecting the retinal cells in the macula, the region of the eye
responsible for central vision.

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

On May 14, 2015, Avalanche issued the press release entitled,
"Avalanche Biotechnologies Presents Three Posters at American
Society of Gene & Cell Therapy (ASGCT) Annual Meeting."  The press
release discussed Phase 2a of the AVA-101 study.

After the market closed on June 15, 2015, the Company issued a
press release entitled, "Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc. Announces
Positive Top-Line Phase 2a Results for AVA-101 in Wet Age-Related
Macular Degeneration."  Avalanche said that the company's
treatment for wet age-related macular degeneration met its primary
endpoint, however, in a conference call to discuss Phase 2
clinical trial results, the company indicated that the study
wasn't designed to show statistically significant differences
between active and control groups.

On this news, the Company's stock fell $21.83 per share, or over
56%, the next day to close at $17.05 per share on June 16, 2015.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.


BAYER: Women Want Essure Birth Control Device Removed From Market
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cooma-Monaro Express reports that Nina Bernius was so determined
not to have more children a decade ago, she opted for permanent
birth control.

Reluctant to have surgery, instead her gynaecologist fitted her
with a device he said would prevent her from ever becoming
pregnant again.

Essure is a permanent birth control device that consists of soft
coils which are inserted trans-vaginally into the fallopian tubes
to promote the growth of scar tissue and block sperm from reaching
the eggs.

But Ms. Bernius did become pregnant -- three times -- resulting in
two terminations and a baby.

A year after Ms. Bernius had her Essure fitted, she discovered she
was four months pregnant, and immediately opted to terminate in a
decision that left her traumatized.

"I was in shock. I thought there was something wrong with this
baby, because this is not right," Ms. Bernius said.

"I had to give birth to the baby in the toilet, which was
horrific, and then I broke up with my partner."

After the termination, Ms. Bernius' gynaecologist ran tests on the
Essure, which indicated that it was properly fitted and operating
as it was designed.

But three years later, with a new husband, she became pregnant
again.

This time she proceeded with the pregnancy, but it was complicated
by gestational diabetes and she was haunted by her earlier
abortion and terrified the coils would poke the fetus.

When she gave birth to a little girl, she could not look at her
without thinking of the first baby.

And then she became pregnant again.

Essure has become the subject of a major medico-legal battle in
the United States, where celebrity lawyer Erin Brockovich has
taken up the cause on behalf of aggrieved women who want to bring
a class action against Bayer, the manufacturer, but are prevented
from doing so by federal laws.

A Facebook support group for women with Essure problems has more
than 18,000 members.

In June, the US Food and Drug Administration added information to
its website about the risks of the procedure and announced that
its obstetrics and gynaecological division would hold a public
meeting on the risks and benefits of the device.

Now a group of Australian women want to have Essure deregistered
by the Therapeutic Goods Administration.

The device was pioneered in Adelaide by the late gynaecologist
John Kerin, who envisaged it as a game changer to reduce
population growth in the Third World because it did not require
surgery or anaesthetic.

But women have complained of side effects, from abdominal pain to
perforated uteruses and unintended pregnancies.

Georgina Fry, who participated in one of Professor Kerin's early
trials in 2001, said she subsequently experienced extreme pain
during menstruation and has developed an allergy to metal and
certain deodorants.

"I'm at risk of anaemia because I lose massive blood clots,
similar to afterbirth," Ms. Fry said.

"I'm in excruciating pain.  I've had two children and it's like
the early stages of labor."

Her gynaecologist has prescribed acidic tablets, though she is not
convinced Ms Fry's symptoms are related to the Essure.

"She refuses to use it in her clinic because the long-term effects
are not known, but at the same time they're very reluctant to say
this is caused by that," Ms. Fry said.

Bayer said Essure was more than 99.8 per cent effective in women
who had the coils correctly placed, based on 10 years of clinical
data, and it worked closely with regulatory bodies to monitor the
safety of its products.

"Bayer stands behind the benefit-risk profile of Essure and takes
all adverse event reports seriously," a spokeswoman said.  "It is
important that women who have questions or who experience side-
effects speak with their doctor."

Nicole Russell recently had her Essure reversed after suffering
from pain, fatigue and extreme smell sensitivity -- though she was
initially told it could only be done by hysterectomy.

She believes the device gave her heavy metal poisoning.  "I've had
no life for the past four years," she said.

"There's a pile of evidence they need to be taken off the market.
But the TGA are still allowing it."

But biotechnology law researcher Wendy Bonython said registration
of a medical device by the TGA was not "an iron-clad guarantee" of
its safety.

"The question is really whether there was sufficient information
available at the time of registration to support that risk benefit
analysis by regulators," Associate Professor Bonython said.

"It's axiomatic that the more times a device is used, the greater
the likelihood that even rare complications will be observed.  It
is also true that in order to achieve a sufficient number of
usages to identify those risks, the device must be registered for
use."

Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and
Gynaecologists vice-president Steve Robson, who worked under
Professor Kerin during the product's development, said all
contraceptive measures had side effects and failed in some women.

But he did not use Essure in his practice because it was so
difficult to reverse.

"There's no technique that absolutely everybody is happy with,"
Dr. Robson said.

"You've just got to make sure that people are well informed about
what's good and what's potentially a negative and one of the
issues with Essure is once they're in, they're incredibly
difficult to get out."

The most recent analysis of studies that have been conducted on
hysteroscopic sterilisation methods such as Essure found that the
evidence on the effectiveness and risk factors of these procedures
was poor quality.

More research needed to be conducted into complications and
unintended pregnancies.

Ms. Bernius, who was too depressed to continue with her third
pregnancy, successfully sued her gynaecologist in the NSW District
Court last year for negligence and breach of contract because he
assured her the device was working after the first pregnancy and
failed to advise her to use further contraception.

In November she finally got rid of the Essure, by hysterectomy,
but the pain lingers.

"I feel so blessed that I've had three healthy kids, but I feel
for the two souls," she said.


BAYER: Yasmin Pill Stroke Victim Joins Aussie Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Chloe booker, writing for Brisbane Times, reported that Amy Walker
was getting her three daughters ready for school when she had the
peculiar sensation of feeling something foreign on her head. After
a moment she realised it was actually her own arm.

At just 33, the Princess Hill woman was suffering a stroke. "I
couldn't figure out how to get my arm off my head," she said.

When her daughter, Ada, came running for a pair of socks, all she
could do was grunt.

Ms Walker had been taking the contraceptive pill Yasmin for a skin
condition. She is now one of about 1100 Australian women,
including 200 from Victoria, who have registered to join a planned
class action against Bayer, the pill's manufacturer.

Andrew Montesi, from law firm Tindall Gask Bentley, said the firm
was compiling medical complaints from the use of pills Yasmin and
Yaz, which both contain the hormone drospirenone.

The law firm says Bayer may have misrepresented the risks of harm
arising from using the pills, and that some women may be entitled
to compensation after suffering health problems including stroke,
heart attack, gallbladder issues, blood clots, deep vein
thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.

A similar class action is under way in Canada, and it has been
reported that Bayer has settled cases with thousands of women
without admitting liability in the United States. The US claims,
worth more than US$1 billion in total, are for venous
thromboembolism, which includes deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary
embolism.

In 2011, the British Medical Journal published two studies that
found women who use newer combined contraceptive pills such as
Yasmin were twice as likely to develop life-threatening blood
clots as those taking pills using an older hormone called
levonorgestrel. However, a May report in the same journal found
the overall risk of venous thromboembolism was still low, with
just 14 cases in every 10,000 women.

A spokeswoman for Bayer said all pills increased the risks of
blood clots, and pointed to another study, in the journal
Contraception, which showed similar rates across different pills.
She said any class action against it would be vigorously defended.

Family Planning Victoria medical director Kathleen McNamee said
there was evidence to suggest that pills containing drospirenone
posed more risk for venous thromboembolism and recommended women
use other types.

However, she said the risk of stroke was the same for those taking
other types of pills.

A Therapeutic Goods Association spokeswoman said there was a
review under way to update contraceptive product information with
more explicit warnings about the potential health risks, including
specific reference to inherited clotting disorders.

She said it was up to the prescribing doctor to weigh the risks
with their patients.

Ms Walker said she was given no warnings when prescribed the pill
and had no family history of stroke.

Ada, who was nine at the time, said finding her mum in the midst
of having a stroke was "scary". "I sort of freaked out and didn't
know what to do," she said.

The otherwise fit single mother spent the week in hospital and the
next few months unable to drive, cook or adequately care for her
daughters.

"I cried a lot," Ms Walker said. "I was terrified I would always
be this way. The pill needs to come with a much higher warning."


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Ordered to Pay $100MM in Vaginal Mesh Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlements.com reports that Boston Scientific has been
ordered to pay a $100 million settlement by a jury hearing the
case of women who suffered injury from the company's Pinnacle and
Advantage Fit vaginal mesh.  Fifty-one year old Deborah Barba was
awarded $25 million in compensatory damages with an additional $75
million in punitive damages.

In her personal injury lawsuit, Barba alleged she received a
Boston Scientific's Pinnacle mesh product in 2009 for pelvic organ
prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI).  However,
following the implant she began experiencing serious medical
complications and despite two subsequent surgeries to rectify the
problems, parts of the vaginal mesh implant remain in her body and
continue to cause her pain.

The trial took just two weeks, after which the jury reached a
decision within seven hours.  They found Boston Scientific was
negligent in designing and making the devices and that it had
failed to warn patients and doctors about potential risks.

To date, this verdict is the largest regarding litigation over
transvaginal mesh devices against Boston Scientific or any other
mesh manufacturer.  The company announced last month it had
reached agreements to pay about $119 million to resolve 2,970
cases about transvaginal mesh.  There are more than 25,000
defective product lawsuits pending against Boston Scientific
concerning injuries resulting from the Pinnacle mesh implant.

Reuters reports that this latest verdict is the sixth so far
against the company by women who say that the devices are poorly
designed and use subpar materials, resulting in painful physical
injuries such as bleeding, infection and pain during sex.


BP: Juneau Meeting Turning Point in Oil Spill Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Richard Thompson, writing for The Advocate, reports that after
giving up on its long-running effort to oust the Lafayette lawyer
administering its multibillion-dollar oil spill settlement
program, BP decided early this spring to try a different tack:
burying the hatchet.

Soon, BP's chief executive officer, Bob Dudley, traveled to
New Orleans to sit down with that lawyer, Patrick Juneau, and try
to clear the air.

Over drinks downtown, Juneau said in an interview, the men "reset
the button."

Mr. Juneau told Mr. Dudley "what I thought about the past, what
could be done to make things smoother, more efficient, and address
issues that they had."

The meeting proved to be the turning point in unsticking long-
stalled settlement talks among BP, the federal government and five
Gulf Coast states that had been tied up in litigation over the
2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster that caused millions of barrels of
oil to spew into the Gulf of Mexico.

The face-to-face meeting set the road map for the record $18.7
billion deal that was unveiled July 2, according to interviews
with Juneau and other lawyers involved in the process.

The tentative deal, still awaiting a federal judge's approval,
will direct $6.8 billion to Louisiana -- the largest amount for
any of the five states.  The money will go largely toward coastal
restoration and repairing the oil spill's damage to wetlands and
wildlife habitats.

Apart from that, the settlement allocates up to $1 billion to
resolve claims for economic losses filed by local governments
across the region, including those in Louisiana.

After about an hour of chatting with Mr. Dudley, Mr. Juneau
steered the discussion to the possibility of brokering a global
settlement that would resolve BP's largest remaining legal
exposure from the disaster: the federal and state claims for
economic and environmental damages, plus the hundreds of local
government lawsuits.

"I've been around this federal court system for a long time,"
Mr. Juneau said.  "As a matter of course, things like this should
be addressed in a calm, rational setting."

Two others joined them for drinks: U.S. Magistrate Judge Sally
Shushan, who oversees some aspects of the federal oil spill
litigation, and former FBI Director Louis Freeh, who had
previously been tapped to investigate allegations of wrongdoing in
the claims process.

As the effort gained momentum, U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier,
who is overseeing the oil spill litigation, gave Mr. Juneau,
Mr. Freeh and Judge Shushan the go-ahead to determine if a
resolution was within reach.

Mr. Juneau, a former president of the Louisiana Association of
Defense Counsel, has mediated high-profile cases, including
liability litigation against the manufacturers of the heartburn
drug Propulsid and the painkiller Vioxx and lawsuits against
Toyota over the sudden acceleration of its vehicles.

In this case, he said, he would have initially pegged the odds of
a negotiated settlement at 5 percent.

"I've done over 3,000 mediations as a mediator, so I've been in
some big ones, but I've never been in anything like this,"
Mr. Juneau said, four months after meeting Mr. Dudley.

Although earlier settlement talks had gone nowhere, BP likely
figured that it's time to cut a deal was running out.

Legal experts expected that Judge Barbier would soon rule on how
much BP would be on the hook for in federal Clean Water Act
penalties because of its leading role in the disaster.

Already years in the making, that decision would have been based
on two previous findings that raised the possibility of a
multibillion-dollar fine against the company.

This time around, having the head of the oil giant on his home
turf led Mr. Juneau to believe that the company was ready to come
to the table.

After years of being attacked by BP in court filings and in the
media, Mr. Juneau praised the company's recent turnaround, saying
it "stepped up to the plate here, in terms of dealing with the
problem.  That's a long departure from where we were three years
ago."

Altogether, the record deal came together after about two months
of negotiations, which typically lasted 10 hours a day, including
weekends.  Entire floors worth of conference space were needed in
at least one downtown hotel to accommodate the large group
involved.

And the talks stretched on until the night before the deal was
unveiled.

So far, the settlement's specific terms have been kept largely
under wraps; participants agreed to nondisclosure agreements that
remain in place.  But interviews with Juneau as well as a handful
of lawyers involved in the process provide a glimpse into how the
pact became a reality, and the rapid pace at which the
negotiations evolved.

Not long after that initial meeting, BP dispatched its chief
financial officer, Brian Gilvary, to begin working on the
parameters of the settlement.

Even then, state officials viewed the negotiations cautiously,
according to several attorneys involved.  A deal might be
possible, the thinking went, but remembering the failure of
earlier talks, they wondered: Was BP serious this time?

"With the civil judgment pending, we knew that this was another
possible window," said Kyle Graham, executive director of the
state Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority.  "It just
became a question of how real were the discussions going to be."

Knowing Judge Barbier was close to issuing his ruling set a
looming deadline.  Everyone knew that any payout ordered by the
court was likely to get held up in years of future appeals,
whereas this settlement would begin paying dividends quickly.

As each side initially drew up priorities for a deal, they were
"as far as the Atlantic Ocean -- real far -- apart," Mr. Juneau
said.

In the litigation's first phase, Judge Barbier ruled that BP's
conduct ahead of the 2010 accident was "reckless," which, under
the federal Clean Water Act, opened the company up to elevated
penalties of up to $4,300 for each barrel of oil that spilled --
potentially as much as $13.7 billion.

Most legal experts who have followed the legal fallout from the
spill did not expect the oil giant to get hit with the maximum
penalty.  But they surmised that the potential of such a large
fine probably led BP to decide to settle rather than leave the
question in Judge Barbier's hands.

Under the settlement, the company will have 15 to 18 years to make
most of its payments, at an average rate of about $1.1 billion a
year.  It will bring BP's total price tag for the spill to more
than $50 billion, including $14 billion that the oil giant spent
on response and cleanup and $5.2 billion on Mr. Juneau's
settlement program for compensating businesses that suffered
losses.

For BP, a key aspect was setting a manageable payout schedule for
the deal.  That was "crucial," according to Mr. Juneau.

"You and I can cut a deal, but if it ain't going to work, why do
the deal?" he said.  "We were trying to put all those pieces of
the puzzle together within the confines of BP's financial
capabilities."

For Louisiana, determining how much money would flow from
environmental damage claims -- the largest chunk of money the
state was in line to get -- was the first priority, because those
proceeds would steer much-needed resources into coastal
restoration.

The two months of negotiations were largely civil, Mr. Juneau
said.  Still -- given that each of the five states was trying to
justify its piece of the proceeds -- at times, tensions emerged
over different views of the extent of a state's losses and
damages.

Mr. Juneau's message to them: "Leave all your laundry outside the
room and come in here.  Let's just have a frank discussion and try
to get what we all think is something that's feasible, doable,
payable and with excellent results for the Gulf Coast region."

Under the settlement, Florida will get $3.25 billion; Alabama,
$2.3 billion; Mississippi, $2.2 billion; and Texas, $788 million.
Some of the money isn't assigned to a particular state.

But for the most part, Louisiana officials didn't seem to be hung
up on what the other states were in line to get, as long as the
Pelican State's piece was large enough.  "If you get enough for
yourself, you don't care what your sister gets," remarked one
lawyer familiar with the state's approach.

Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell's office declined
comment, citing the pending litigation.

A BP spokesman in Houston also declined comment.

If the deal is approved in the coming weeks, the money headed to
the local governments could come within months in lump-sum
payments that local officials could then use at their discretion.

Walter Leger Jr., a New Orleans lawyer who was involved in the
negotiations and represents more than 40 local governments in
their claims against BP, said parish officials have been just as
interested in the much larger chunk of money that will be directed
to coastal restoration and repairing wetlands and damaged wildlife
habitats.

"When I was able to tell them the whole picture, universally,
their eyes opened," Mr. Leger said, adding that some officials
were "as excited about the funding that they would not get
directly but that would go toward immediately and over the long
term attacking the wetlands issues."

Leaders of local parishes, communities and other government bodies
have been discussing and voting on the individual settlement
terms, and BP will have a chance to give the deal a final up-or-
down once those results are in.

More than $200 million in settlements was approved in the metro
New Orleans area.  But a few places are holding out, choosing
instead to bring lawsuits on their own.  They include Plaquemines
Parish and the town of Jean Lafitte in Jefferson Parish, where
officials said the still-undisclosed proposed payments would not
fairly compensate them for the spill's toll on property and
resources.

Though he believes it's a fair deal overall, Juneau doesn't fault
Plaquemines or anywhere else for opting out.

"This is a good thing; we were a firm believer on that, but I
don't fault anybody for disagreeing," he said.

Now, as those approvals or rejections roll in over the coming
days, BP will have final chance to accept or kill the deal before
its fate is left up to Judge Barbier.

"My job was to put it on the table," Mr. Juneau said.  "We served
dinner. Let's see if people want to eat what's been served, and
then BP has to make the decision."


BP EXPLORATION: Zirlottt, Capt. Jay Must Return Payment, Says Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In In re: Oil Spill by the Oil Rig "Deepwater Horizon" in the Gulf
of Mexico, on April 20, 2010. SECTION J. Applies to: No. 12-970,
Bon Secour Fisheries, Inc., et al. v. BP Exploration & Production
Inc., et al., MDL NO. 2179, (E.D. La.), before the Court is the
motion of the Special Master for return of payments made to Jason
Zirlott and Capt Jay, LLC, the opposition by Mr. Zirlott and Capt.
Jay, and the Special Master's reply.

Having considered the motion and memoranda of counsel, the record,
and the applicable law, the Court found that the Special Master's
motion should be granted because the Special Master has submitted
uncontroverted and convincing evidence that the claims of Capt Jay
and Zirlott were paid based on false information furnished to the
Settlement Program. Capt Jay and Zirlott have not submitted any
evidence to controvert the Special Master's evidence on this
point. In light of this evidence and the claimants' failure to
rebut it, the Court found that the current record is sufficient to
support a finding that these claimants committed fraud, without
the necessity of an evidentiary hearing.

"In light of this finding, it is both reasonable and proper under
the terms of the Settlement Agreement to order Capt Jay, LLC and
Jason Zirlott to make restitution for the funds that they received
as a result of the fraudulent claims. It is well-accepted that one
who receives a judgment through fraud is bound to make
restitution, and even absent fraud, it is the general rule that
when a judgment is reversed, restitution is required," District
Judge Carl Barbier wrote in his order & reasons dated June 24,
2015, a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1CqddJ2from
leagle.com.

Restitution will be required of the balance due from Capt Jay and
Mr. Zirlott in the amount of $239,519.32, the Court said.  Both
are also precluded from any further participation or distributions
in the Settlement Agreement's Seafood Compensation Program.


BP WEST: Illegally Manipulates Gasoline Price, Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Persian Gulf Inc., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. BP West Coast Products LLC, et al., Case No.
201500022430-CU-AT-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct., July 7, 2015), arises
from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination,
agreement and conspiracy to artificially inflate prices for
gasoline from at least February 2012 through the present.

BP West Coast Products LLC owns and operates a network of gas and
fueling stations in California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, and
Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
      David W. Mitchell, Esq.
      Alexandra S. Bernay, Esq.
      Carmen A. Medici, Esq.
      Jennifer N. Caringal, 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
              xand@rgrdlaw.com
              jcaringal@rgrdlaw.com


CALIFORNIA: Faces Class Action Over Natural Gas Charges
-------------------------------------------------------
Eric Kroh and Jessica Corso, writing for Law360, report that
Long Beach, California, has been hit with a putative class action
in a state court alleging the gas charge the city levies on
roughly 500,000 residents does not go toward the cost of providing
the natural gas and thus is an illegal tax.

Plaintiff Matthew Aquino said about 12 percent to 15 percent of
the gas charges imposed by the city exceed the costs of providing
the service, which he alleges is not allowed under the California
Constitution.  The amount by which the charges exceed the cost are
a tax for which the city did not obtain voter approval, and a
refund is due to those who paid it, according to the complaint,
dated July 8.

"Plaintiff and the Class demand a refund of the natural gas
charges they paid, to the extent that such charges were actually
'taxes' as defined by California Constitution," the complaint
said.

According to the complaint, Long Beach has transferred millions of
dollars of revenues raised by the gas charges to the city's
general fund.  Those funds are not used for costs related to the
provision of natural gas services and are not earmarked for any
particular purpose, the complaint alleges.  As such, the amounts
transferred to the general fund meet the definition of "special
tax" or "general tax" under the state constitution, which require
voter approval, the complaint said.

The purported class is defined as anyone who paid the gas charge
within a year of May 15, when Aquino mailed his claim for a refund
to the city, according to the complaint.  The complaint estimates
that there are some 500,000 people who would meet that definition.

The defendants are the City of Long Beach and Does 1 to 100,
employees of the city who are alleged to have acted negligently
and conspired to cause the actions described in the complaint.

Representatives of the city could not immediately be reached for
comment.

In April, a similar suit was filed against Los Angeles, with
residents accusing the city in state court of taking over $1.3
billion from taxpayers without their permission, arguing that fees
tacked onto electric bills constitute an unconstitutional tax on
the putative class members.

Lead plaintiff Patrick Eck said that customers of Los Angeles'
Department of Water and Power are overcharged 8 percent in taxes
disguised as fees that are rerouted into the department's reserve
fund and not used to provide the services' customers are paying
for, as required by the California Constitution.

Under a constitutional amendment adopted by voters in 2010, any
government entity billing consumers must ensure that fees are
being used to provide for the services paid for and not being
redirected for other purposes, according to the suit.

Plaintiffs in the Long Beach case are represented by Robert Rafael
Ahdoot, Paul G. Kerkorian and Meredith S. Lierz --
mlierz@ahdootwolfson.com -- of Ahdoot & Wolfson PC.

Representation information for the City of Long Beach was not
immediately available.

The case is Matthew Aquino et al., v. City of Long Beach et al.,
case number BC 587526, in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Los Angeles.


CAPITAL BUILDING: Seeks Dismissal of Janitors' Wage Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Neal St. Anthony, writing for Star Tribune, reports that lawyers
for Capital Building Services Group have fired back at a lawsuit
that alleges it shortchanged wages of janitors, asking a federal
judge to deny class action status and an injunction barring
certain pay practices.

They deny they are shorting Minnesota workers who clean Macy's and
Herberger's stores or failing to provide payroll information
required by law.  Rather, the lawyers argue, the eight plaintiffs
who complain they were not paid what they are owed have failed to
properly "clock-in" or "clock-out," or did not request the
detailed payroll information to which they are entitled from the
third-party payroll company that Capital Building uses.

Capital Building of suburban Chicago "has detailed payroll and
timekeeping records, which show that plaintiffs received their
work hours themselves by clocking-in and out using telephones,"
the attorneys said in a memorandum in opposition to the workers'
motions.  "CBSG provides electronic earnings statements to its
employees, as well as written earnings statements if requested by
the employee."

Abraham Quevedo Orantes begs to differ. He was one of the suing
janitors since 2011 who also was promoted to manager for a time by
Capital.

In an interview, Mr. Quevedo, of Minneapolis, said he was forced
to work seven days a week and never received anything approaching
the $36,000 per year he was promised as an area manager, which
involved overseeing cleaners at 20 stores around the Twin Cities
area and filling in for absent cleaners.

Mr. Quevedo and his lawyer, Adam Hansen, of employment firm
Nichols Kaster, say he wasn't allowed to get involved with payroll
and essentially was forced to work unpaid overtime.  He returned
to a cleaner role in September 2014, after less than a year.

Capital Building cleans more than 300 facilities in 25 states.

The lawsuit against Capital Building basically outlines a race-to-
the-bottom scenario in which Macy's and Herberger's contract with
a third-party for a fixed sum, and then wash their hands of the
labor implications.  And Capital Building has all the incentives
to illegally pay the workers, mostly immigrants, as little as
possible,

"We expect business to comply with bedrock rules that have been
around for 75 years," Mr. Hansen said.  "The employees need to be
made whole . . . wages, overtime, pay stubs.  We need to clean
this up and everything we are asking is in existing Minnesota
law."

In 2013, Twin Cities janitors who contracted to clean various
Target stores received an estimated $750,000 in back overtime pay
and damages as part of a class-action settlement reached with
another national contractor, Diversified Maintenance Systems.

A hearing on the motions is scheduled before U.S. District Judge
Susan Richard Nelson in St. Paul later this month.


CAPITAL ONE: Faces TCPA Class Action Over Robocalls
---------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlements.com reports that Capital One Financial Group
is facing a robocalls class action lawsuit.  Filed by plaintiff
Nakia Pitre, this latest lawsuit alleges Capital One is in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by calling
consumers through robodialing without their consent.

Ms. Pitre claims in the Capital One lawsuit that within the space
of two months, she received 37 calls on her cellphone from the
bank, despite not being a customer.  Capital One ignored her
requests to stop calling, she claims.

According to the lawsuit, the calls were from the company's credit
card division.  During each of the calls she received and
answered, she told the bank they had the wrong number and asked
them to stop calling.  However, she continued to receive calls.
According to the suit, the frequency and nature of the calls
indicates they were made from an automatic telephone dialing
system.

Ms. Pitre further alleges she has never been a Capital One
customer, has never given the bank her number or given her consent
for them to call her.

If approved, the class would include anyone contacted by Capital
One using a robodialing system from July 1, 2014, through July 2,
2015, without prior consent and who received calls after asking
not to be contacted.

The case is Pitre v. Capital One Financial Corporation, case
number 1:15-cv-00869, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia.


CAPITAL SOLUTIONS: Wage Garnishments Legal, Judges Rule
-------------------------------------------------------
Jim Gallagher, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that
judges ruled in favor of Capital Solutions in a garnishment case.

Erica Hollins borrowed $100 in 2006 at the Loan Express store on
Olive Street downtown.  By 2011, she had paid back $3,592,
garnished from her wages at a nursing and retirement home.
She might still be paying today had she not found a lawyer to try
to stop it.

She wasn't -- and isn't -- the only one in that fix.  Other people
who borrow small amounts in St. Louis end up paying 50 and 60
times the original amount borrowed through wage garnishments.

One poor fellow borrowed $80 and ended up owing about $25,000,
according to court filings.

Holding their noses, judges of the Missouri Court of Appeals last
month ruled that the big garnishment against Ms. Hollins was legal
under state law.

The result "seems egregious and would likely shock the conscience
of the average person," wrote Presiding Judge Kurt Odenwald, who
said the judges were "very sympathetic" to Ms. Hollins.

The case shows the "inherent injustice in these lending
arrangements," wrote Judge Robert Dowd Jr. He called it a "clear
example of predatory lending."

In other words, shockingly egregious predatory injustice is
allowed under Missouri law, and judges must uphold it.

Here's how these things happen.  Ms. Hollins borrowed $100,
agreeing to pay it back in five monthly payments of $31, totaling
$155.  As it says on the loan contract, that's an annual interest
rate of 199.7 percent.  She made the first payment, knocking the
principal down a bit, but never made the other four.  So some of
this mess is Ms. Hollins' fault, as the judges noted.

"She had every opportunity to pay it off," noted Michelle Drake,
the lawyer representing Loan Express.  In court documents, Loan
Express said it made 50 attempts to contact Ms. Hollins by phone
and mail over 15 months in 2006 and 2007.

It's not worth suing over a small debt.  But the clock kept
running on the interest.  At 199 percent, that adds up fast.  By
June 2009, the debt was at $729. Loan Express tacked on a late fee
and other charges and sued Ms. Hollins for $924.

Ms. Hollins didn't show up in court.  In depositions, she said she
never learned of the suit.  A St. Louis County judge entered a
judgment, and a garnishment against her wages.

An odd thing happens in such cases.  A garnishment can only take
so much from a person's pay.  With interest running at 199
percent, the garnishment sometimes isn't enough to cover the
rapidly compounding interest.  So the debt gets bigger even as the
debtor pays and pays.

In effect, the debtor becomes a bound servant of the lender,
paying in perpetuity, with courts cracking the whip.  "You'll
never pay it off.  They'll garnish you for the rest of your life,"
said Rob Swearingen, an attorney with Legal Services of Eastern
Missouri, a nonprofit group that represents poor people.

Garnishments in Missouri can take 25 percent of a single person's
wages, and 10 percent from someone with dependents.

In court filings, Ms. Hollins lawyer lists other such cases
involving Loan Express and its owner, Capital Solutions
Investments.

A sampling:

  * S.S. borrowed $80. Capital Solutions got a judgment for
$2,137. By the time the case was filed, $5,346 had been collected,
and a balance of $19,643 remained.

  * D.W. took out a $100 loan. A judgment was entered for $705.18.
The garnishment yielded $3,174, and a balance of $4,105 remained.

  * C.R. borrowed $155. Capital Solutions sued for $1,686.93.
They had collected $9,566 and C.R. still owed $2,162.07.
For such borrowers, the only way out may be bankruptcy.  But
filing bankruptcy costs money.

Can such big collections on small debts be justified? Ms. Drake
noted that such loans go to high-risk borrowers and high interest
rates reflect the risk that the borrowers won't pay.  The
Legislature allows interest rates that reflect that risk, she
said.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch's Mr. Gallagher couldn't reach
Todd Stimson, president of Capital Solutions and Loan Express, who
describes himself on his website as a "self-made millionaire."  In
a 2013 interview with ProPublica, the investigative journalism
group, Mr. Stimson said he has to file such suits or "word gets
out in the neighborhood, 'Oh, you won't get sued anyway, just
don't pay them.'"

Consumer groups attack payday loan shops as high-interest ripoffs.
But there are actually more protections for payday loan borrowers
than for the type of loan that Ms. Hollins received.

Payday loans are limited to 30 days, although most are for two
weeks.  They can be renewed, but interest and fees on a single
loan can never exceed 75 percent. (Consumerists say there are ways
to get around that limit.)

Ms. Hollins borrowed under the state's consumer installment loan
statute.  That governs loans of 120 days or more, and there are no
interest limits.

That troubles Judge Dowd.  "The debtor in these types of
situations has absolutely zero power to negotiate a reasonable
interest rate; instead, such debtors will pay whatever amount the
lender decides to charge," he wrote.

The number of payday loan shops has been dropping in Missouri,
while the number of installment loan operations has been growing.
Among Swearingen's poor clients in debt trouble, he finds a clear
trend away from payday loans and toward installment loans.

Loan Express waited two years to sue Ms. Hollins, and Swearingen
says that's typical in small-dollar installment loan cases.  "They
want the principal and interest to accumulate to the point where
it will be profitable over the long run," he said.

Ms. Hollins' problems can be traced back to an expose published in
1989 in the Post-Dispatch.  The story showed how loan shops in
St. Louis were charging 200 percent interest and more on small
loans, and told of consumers being driven into bankruptcy.  At the
time, state law limited small-loan interest to 26 percent.

The Legislature jumped into action -- and abolished the 26 percent
limit.

For a while, the state banking commissioner was allowed to set a
higher limit.  But in 2001 even that limit was lifted.
Small-dollar installment lenders were let loose.

Ms. Hollins found a lawyer in 2011.  The lawyer, Alicia Campbell,
filed a class-action suit against Capital Solutions, owner of
Loan Express, demanding relief for everybody in Ms. Campbell's
situation.  A deposition in the court case indicated that Capital
Solutions was suing people at a rate of 75 per year and had 350
suits on record.

With the law against her, Ms. Campbell threw up various technical
objections to the judgment.  The court generally struck them down.
Ms. Hollins' case was hobbled because no one raised such
objections at the original trial, and by the fact that she waited
two years to appeal, missing a crucial deadline.

Of course, the typical loan shop customer doesn't know how to
defend a lawsuit and can't afford a lawyer.

Judge Dowd would have agreed with one contention -- that the clock
on interest stops after the initial default, and interest doesn't
start accumulating again until the lender gets a court judgment.
Ms. Drake disagrees, and says courts have never really settled
that issue.

However, even Judge Dowd ruled against Ms. Hollins because of the
delay in raising such issues.

One good came out of the lawsuit.  Capital Solutions dropped its
garnishment against Ms. Hollins after the suit was filed in 2011,
Ms. Drake said.


CENTRUS ENERGY: Sued in Ohio Over Retirees Health Care Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Newman and Gary Johnson, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Centrus Energy Corp., United
States Enrichment Corporation and United States Enrichment
Corporation Health and Welfare Plan for Retirees, Case No. 1:15-
cv-00449-SSB-KLL (S.D. Ohio, July 7, 2015), arises from the
Defendants' alleged breached of contractual and statutory
obligations, specifically by unilaterally reducing retiree health
care and prescription drug benefits and taking the position that
they can terminate coverage for all the Class Members.

Centrus Energy Corp. and United States Enrichment Corporation
operate the Portsmouth Plant, which had been used for uranium
enrichment since the 1950s.

United States Enrichment Corporation Health and Welfare Plan for
Retirees is a labor organization headquartered in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William T. Payne, Esq.
      FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
      Pittsburgh North Office
      12 Eastern Avenue, Suite 203
      Pittsburgh, PA 15215
      Telephone: (412) 492-8797
      E-mail: wpayne@fdpklaw.com

         - and -

      Pamina Ewing, Esq.
      Joel R. Hurt, Esq.
      Ruairi McDonnell, Esq.
      FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
      Allegheny Building, 17th Floor
      429 Forbes Avenue
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 281-8400
      E-mail: pewing@fdpklaw.com
              jhurt@fdpklaw.com
              rmcdonnell@fdpklaw.com


CHASE BANK: 9th Cir. Affirms Fee Award in "Herbison" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
In In re: Chase Bank USA, N.A. "CHECK Loan" Contract Litigation.
Daniel J. Herbison, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Chase Bank USA, N.A.,
Defendant-Appellee, NO. 13-15637, Daniel Herbison was held in
civil contempt by the district court for violating an order
approving a class action settlement. He appealed from the contempt
finding the fee award, but dismiss the appeal from the contempt
finding for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

Chase argued that the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth
Circuit lacks jurisdiction to review the fee award because the
stipulated order fixing the fee amount was not mentioned in the
notice of appeal.

A copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1InVMcTfrom
Leagle.com.

According to a June 12, 2015 memorandum entered by the Ninth
Circuit, the decision to impose fees was explained in the earlier
contempt order, which is named in the notice of appeal, and
Herbison challenged the fee award in his opening brief.  Thus,
there was no abuse of discretion in awarding fees.

However, the Ninth added that it lacks jurisdiction to review the
contempt finding.

The district court ruling is therefore affirmed in part, and
dismissed in part, the Ninth Circuit concluded.


CHC GROUP: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, reminds purchasers
of CHC Group Ltd. common stock during the period from the date of
the initial public offering on January 16, 2014 through July 14,
2014, of the important July 17, 2015 lead plaintiff deadline in
the class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover investors' losses
under the federal securities laws.

The complaint alleges that CHC failed to disclose in its
registration statement issued in connection with its initial
public offering that one of its two largest customers, Petroleo
Brasileiro S.A. ("Petrobras") had ceased all payments on its
contracts to CHC since at least April 2013 -- more than 9 months
before the initial public offering. On July 10, 2014, CHC finally
disclosed that would not receive revenues related to its Petrobras
contacts and that its future revenues would also be negatively
impacted as a result. This adverse news caused CHC's share price
to drop markedly, damaging investors.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
July 17, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-622.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.


CHINA FINANCE: Aug. 4 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against China Finance Online Co. Limited ("China Finance Online"
or the "Company") JRJC, -3.33% and certain of its officers.  The
class action, filed in United States District Court, Central
District of California, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased China Finance Online securities
between May 6, 2014 and June 3, 2015 inclusive (the "Class
Period").  This class action seeks to recover damages against
Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased China Finance Online
securities during the Class Period, you have until August 4, 2015
to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.
A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

China Finance Online provides Web-based financial services in the
People's Republic of China and Hong Kong. The company operates
through three segments: Precious Metals Trading Services; Online
Financial Information and Advisory Service, and Other Related
Services; and Hong Kong Brokerage Services. It provides online
access to securities and commodities trading services, wealth
management products, and securities investment advisory services
to retail investors; and financial database and analytics to
institutional investors, including financial, research, academic,
and regulatory institutions.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) China Finance Online's Chairman of the Board of
Directors and Chief Executive Officer Zhiwei Zhao ("Zhao") had an
indirect equity interest in Langfang Developer at the time of the
Company's investment; (2) Zhao suddenly resigned from his
positions at three key Chinese Variable Interest Entities of China
Finance Online; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

On June 3, 2015, a report published by GeoInvesting, LLC asserted
among other things, that:  (1) the most current SAIC records show
Chairman and CEO Zhiwei Zhao suddenly resigned from his positions
at three key Chinese VIE subsidiaries of JRJC over the past few
months; (2) Chinese media reports stating that the detention of
JRJC independent director Rongquan Leng prompted JRJC to announce
his resignation, without addressing his alleged detention; and (3)
Ling Wang, a former long-time JRJC director and associate of Zhao,
fled China in 2014, leaving his company indebted to JRJC for $25
million.

On this news, shares of China Finance fell $0.46 per share, to
$5.49, or more than 7.68%, on June 3, 2015.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and San Diego, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in the
areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class litigation.
Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the dean of the
class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the field of
securities class actions. More than 70 years later, the Pomerantz
Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting for the
rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of fiduciary
duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered numerous
multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class members.


COBHAM PLC: Vice Chancellor Rejects $1.5BB Aeroflex Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters' Alison Frankel reports that on July 8, Vice Chancellor
Laster refused to approve a settlement of shareholder litigation
stemming from Cobham PLC's $1.5 billion acquisition of the
microelectronics company Aeroflex.  Judge Laster found the global
release of shareholder claims was too broad and plaintiffs'
lawyers didn't deserve $825,000 for negotiating some additional
disclosures and a reduction in the termination fee Aeroflex would
have had to pay Cobham if another bidder had emerged.  His remarks
on deal-tax M&A shareholder suits, delivered from the bench, have
implications that The Chancery Daily described as "tectonic" for
everyone involved in these cases.

Judge Laster's hearing in the Aeroflex litigation took place in
Wilmington on July 8.  On July 8 in Dover, Vice Chancellor John
Noble withheld approval of a shareholder settlement stemming from
Roche's $8.3 billion acquisition of the biotech company InterMune.
There's no transcript yet available for the InterMune hearing, but
according to plaintiffs' lawyer Peter Andrews of Andrews &
Springer, Vice-Chancellor Noble -- like Vice Chancellor Laster in
the Aeroflex case -- said he was concerned about the scope of the
releases the class had granted to defendants in exchange for what
seemed to the judge to be not much consideration.  Vice-Chancellor
Noble said he'd take the InterMune settlement under advisement.

Two Delaware judges in one day refusing to approve settlements
featuring what Delaware Supreme Court Chief Justice Leo Strine has
called "intergalactic releases"? That seems like more than a
coincidence.  It seems like a coordinated effort by Delaware
Chancery Court to rein in settlements that deliver only marginal
benefits to shareholders but offer sweeping relief to defendants.

Vice-Chancellor Laster just about said as much at the Aeroflex
hearing, which is a must-read transcript.  The lead shareholder
lawyer in the case, Robert Weiser of the Weiser Law Firm, opened
the hearing with a presentation on how class members benefited
from the settlement's $18 million reduction in the termination fee
Aeroflex would have had to pay Cobham had a higher bid come in,
calling that and other relief "not a gigantic settlement but
clearly far more valuable than the types of transactional cases
that people are screaming about."

Mr. Weiser cited Vice Chancellor Laster's own 2011 opinion in In
re Compellant for the proposition that shareholders are better off
when deal protections are loosened, even if a better bid doesn't
emerge.  But Vice Chancellor Laster said the class in this case
wasn't really any better off as a result of the slashed
termination fee.  There was another potential bidder for Aeroflex,
he pointed out, and its concern was not the Cobham termination fee
but its own non-disclosure agreement with Aeroflex, which the
plaintiffs couldn't persuade Aeroflex to change in negotiations.

Vice-Chancellor Laster said that for the class -- the 24 percent
of Aeroflex's shareholders other than the insider holding company
that owned a majority stake -- the reduced termination fee was of
no more use than an oil change and a new air filter in a car with
a busted transmission.

"I mean, look, you put time in, and that's what you did here," the
vice-chancellor said.  "You put time in. But what I still have is
an undriveable, broken car. You fixed something that didn't need
fixing, and you're saying that it's worthy of a release and a
fee." (Weiser said the reduced termination fee "certainly opened
the door" for a topping bid even if the potential competing bidder
didn't walk through it.)

Vice Chancellor Laster said that perhaps Weiser and the other
plaintiffs' lawyers should have simply walked away from the case
when their investigation failed to uncover evidence that
Aeroflex's board breached its fiduciary duties.  "We pick our
cases but sometimes we pick wrong, and sometimes we get in there
and there's nothing there," the vice chancellor said. "And if
there's nothing there, you know, you win some, you lose some."

Aeroflex counsel Gregory Varallo -- varallo@rlf.com -- of Richards
Layton & Finger and Cobham lawyer Edward Welch --
edward.welch@skadden.com -- of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom
defended the settlement as a fair trade: The class got real, if
small, economic benefit and defendants got global releases.

But that seems to be just what Vice Chancellor Laster intends to
stamp out.  In a dialogue with Welch, Laster made clear his goal
(and the goal, he said, of Chief Justice Strine): "We want to be
in the business of seeing good cases litigated, and we don't want
people to file junky cases."

In his ruling at the end of the hearing, Vice Chancellor Laster
elaborated on that point.  Citing a 2015 paper by law professors
Jill Fisch of the University of Pennsylvania, Sean Griffith of
Fordham and Steven Davidoff Solomon of Berkeley, the judge said it
has become clear over the last several years, as reflexive
shareholder suits followed every major deal announcement, that
disclosure-only settlements deliver no real benefit to class
members.

Those settlements may be good for plaintiffs' lawyers, who are
awarded hundreds of thousands of dollars in fees, and for
defendants, who can buy releases for a relatively low price.  But
according to the judge, there's a real cost to such agreements.
Good cases sometimes don't get litigated because plaintiffs settle
too quickly.  Boards that have run pristine transactions become
cynical.  And Delaware's "credibility as an honest broker in the
legal realm" is damaged, Vice Chancellor Laster said, when other
state courts, such as New York's, look at disclosure-only M&A
settlements and say, "'This does not make sense.'"

"What we've learned is that routine approval of these settlements
carries real consequences, all of them bad," the judge said.

He offered three options for a new ending to the Aeroflex case:
Plaintiffs can dismiss the suit as moot, the two sides can narrow
the release so the class gives up only fiduciary breach claims, or
defendants can move to toss the case.  Under any of those options,
Vice Chancellor Laster said, plaintiffs' lawyers deserve no more
than about $250,000.  That would be quite a disappointing outcome
for the shareholder lawyers, who brought the vice chancellor an
unopposed request for more than three times that amount.

But this tough new stance on releases in M&A class action
litigation in Chancery Court has consequences way beyond one
plaintiffs' firm and one deal.  If defendants can't get broad
releases, will they be willing to settle M&A shareholder suits in
Delaware? Right now, defendants like litigating in Delaware
because state law is business-friendly and cases in Chancery Court
move fast.  But if they can't get Chancery judges to sign off on
quick disclosure-only settlements with global releases,
corporations may prefer to litigate elsewhere.

Meanwhile, if defendants aren't willing to settle quickly, will
plaintiffs' lawyers stop filing suits after every deal
announcement? What happens if corporate boards don't have to worry
about shareholders scrutinizing their sale processes?

Delaware judges from Strine down have thought a lot about these
questions, and if the recent developments are a signal, they seem
to be pretty sure that reflexive deal tax litigation is bad for
corporations, shareholders and Delaware.  And it looks like
they're now willing to act on that instinct.


COMPTON UNIFIED: Injunction Filed in Special Education Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Frey, writing for EdSource, reports that attorneys are
seeking a preliminary injunction that would require the Compton
Unified School District to train all teachers, administrators and
school-site staff on how to recognize the effects of chronic
trauma on students' ability to learn, think, read, concentrate and
communicate.

The injunction, filed on July 9, is part of a federal class-action
lawsuit that argues that the district is legally required under
special education law to address the effects of repeated violence,
abuse and neglect on learning.

Also on July 9, attorneys for Compton Unified filed a motion to
dismiss the original lawsuit, Peter P., et al. v. Compton Unified
School District, filed on May 18 in U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California, located in Los Angeles.

Compton Unified School District officials did not respond to
messages seeking comment on the injunction.  However, when the
lawsuit was filed in May, Micah Ali, president of the board of
trustees of Compton Unified, issued a statement saying "any
allegation that the district does not work hard to deal with the
consequences of childhood trauma on a daily basis is completely
unfounded."

The hearing on the preliminary injunction is expected to be heard
on Aug. 17, which is also the first day of school at Compton.

"School will be starting shortly," said Laura Faer, an attorney
with Public Counsel, a public interest law firm that has filed the
lawsuit and is seeking the injunction, along with Irell & Manella,
a Los Angeles firm working pro bono.  "The needs of the children
are immediate and now. It's imperative that they won't continue to
suffer irreparable harm."

Ms. Faer said the training is only a first step toward the full
remedy necessary to meet the needs of the student plaintiffs.
That remedy includes adequate mental health and counseling
services, teaching children to cope with their anxiety and
emotions, and implementing positive disciplinary practices aimed
at keeping students in school, she said.

The initial training can be provided in a day or less, Ms. Faer
said. Experts from the ChildTrauma Academy, a nonprofit
organization based in Houston, have offered to provide the
training free of charge, she said.

"We spoke to the district to let them know the training would be
provided for free," Ms. Faer said.  "They said they'd get back to
us, but then they filed a motion to dismiss, so I think that's the
answer."

Some teachers have filed declarations in support of the
injunction.

Despite at least 90 percent of his students having experienced
violence, Armando Castro II, a social studies teacher at Cesar
Chavez Continuation High School, said in a declaration supporting
the lawsuit that he has received no training on how to help them.

"I have never received any training on how to educate or interact
with students who have experienced trauma," he said in his
statement to the court.  "I have never even heard the word
'trauma' in a professional development training.  I have never
received any guidance as to what to do during or after a code
yellow beyond lock the doors and don't let anyone leave."

Five Compton students are named plaintiffs in the lawsuit,
including Peter P., the lead plaintiff.  Because he is under 18,
the lawsuit identified him only by his first name.  According to
the attorneys, Peter grew up suffering physical and sexual abuse,
lived in foster homes and has witnessed more than 20 people get
shot.  In March and April, he slept on the roof of the school
because he was homeless. When he was discovered, he was suspended.

The lawsuit claims that Compton Unified violated the Americans
with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973, which requires schools to provide services to meet the needs
of students with physical or mental impairments.  Compton Unified
failed to take "reasonable steps" to address the needs of students
affected by trauma and instead frequently suspended or expelled
students suffering from severe trauma, the lawsuit claims.


CORMEDIX INC: Faces "Li" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jie Li, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Cormedix, Inc., John C. Houghton, Brian Lenz, Richard
M. Cohen, Randy Milby, Steven Lefkowitz, and Harry O'Grady, Case
No. 3:15-cv-05264-PGS-DEA (D.N.J., July 7, 2015), alleges that the
Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as failed
to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.

Cormedix, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company that seeks to license,
develop, and commercialize therapeutic products for the prevention
and treatment of cardiac, renal, and infectious diseases.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce Daniel Greenberg, Esq.
      Jeffrey Alan Shooman, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Telephone: (973) 623-3000
      E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com
              jshooman@litedepalma.com


DFRF ENTERPRISES: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Boston Globe reports that federal regulators allege two
Massachusetts men were part of a $15 million scam that preyed on
Spanish- and Portuguese-speaking investors -- a case with echoes
of the TelexFree Ponzi scheme last year.  Seven men, including one
from Malden and one from Revere, are accused of defrauding more
than 1,400 investors worldwide with increasingly fabulous claims
about gold-mining investments offered by their company, DFRF
Enterprises.  The group was also the subject of a class-action
lawsuit in Middlesex County about its alleged scheme earlier this
year.  The alleged scheme began in June 2014 and accelerated this
year after the group began "flooding" YouTube with videos
encouraging people to invest, according to the SEC.


DISCOVER BANK: Faces Class Action in Illinois Over Robocalls
------------------------------------------------------------
Becky Yerak, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that Discover
made dozens of robocalls to a Virginia woman's cellphone in
violation of federal telemarketing laws, according to a lawsuit
filed on July 9 in federal court in Chicago.

Polly Hansen seeks class-action status in her lawsuit in U.S.
District Court in the Northern District of Illinois.

She says Riverwoods-based Discover violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The act prohibits the making of "any call (other than a call made
for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of
the called party) using an automatic telephone dialing system or
an artificial or prerecorded voice . . . to any telephone number
assigned to a . . . cellular telephone service," according to the
lawsuit.  The act also forbids any entity to make more than one
call a year to any number on the National Do Not Call Registry,
the lawsuit said.

Discover has previously been hit with lawsuits over its
telemarketing practices, the filing said.  In 2013, Discover
settled one case for $8.7 million.

Discover declined to comment.

On July 7, a federal judge in Manhattan ruled that Time Warner
Cable must pay $229,500 to a woman for placing 153 automated calls
meant for someone else to her cellphone in less than a year, even
after she told it to stop, Reuters reported.

In or around January 2015, Ms. Hansen said she received a recorded
telemarketing call on her cellphone from Discover Bank.  When a
person got on the line, she requested that the company stop
calling her, but she said she continued to get similar calls, the
suit says. She said she has received more than 30 calls from
Discover.  She has gotten three calls in as little as five hours,
and has gotten calls as early as 6:00 a.m. and as late as 11:00
p.m., the lawsuit said.  Ms. Hansen also said she put her phone
number on the Do Not Call Registry in 2011.

The lawsuit said the class size could exceed 1,000 consumers.  The
lawsuit seeks various damages.  For example, for violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the suit seeks $500 for each
call to cellphone numbers using a recorded voice.  Also, for
"knowing and/or willful violations" of the law, the suit seeks
damages of up to $1,500 for each call to their cellphone using a
recorded voice.

Other damages sought include $500 for each call made to consumers
whose numbers were on the Do Not Call Registry.


DOMINO'S PIZZA: Dist. Ct. Awards $573,972 in "Bodon" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
In the diversity class action captioned ERNESTO BODON, KEVIN CURRY
& DONNA ANNUNZIATO, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. DOMINO'S PIZZA, INC., Defendant,
NO. 09-CV-2941 (SLT) (RLM), (E.D. N.Y.), the parties agreed to
settle but were unable to agree on attorney's fees.

The Court approved the class settlement and referred the fee
dispute to Magistrate Judge Roanne L. Mann.

In a report and recommendation (R&R), to which Domino's has
submitted no objections, Mag. Judge Mann reviewed recent precedent
on methods of calculating fees and determined that rather than
employ a percentage-of-the-fund method, it would be more
appropriate, under the circumstances of this case, to calculate
fees using the modified lodestar/"presumptively reasonable" method
generally employed by courts in this Circuit. Mag. Judge Mann then
applied that method to calculate the award, ultimately
recommending that the Court grant in part and deny in part
plaintiffs' counsel's fee application and award $551,627.50 in
attorney's fees and $22,345.42 in costs, for a total award of
$573,972.92.

Since no objections were filed with the Court, District Judge
Sandra L. Townes adopted and affirmed the R&R in an order entered
June 24, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://bit.ly/1NPt7x3from leagle.com.

Plaintiffs are awarded $551,627.50 in attorney's fees and
$22,345.42 in costs, for a total award of $573,972.92.

Ernesto Bodon, Plaintiff, represented by Donald Harold Nichols,
Nichols Kaster PLLP, E. Michelle Drake, Nichols Kaster, PLLP,
George A. Hanson, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Ilya I. Ruvinskiy,
Weinhaus & Potashnick, Paul J. Lukas, Nichols Kaster, PLLP & Mark
A. Potashnick, Weinhaus & Potashnick.

Kevin Curry, Plaintiff, represented by Donald Harold Nichols,
Nichols Kaster PLLP, E. Michelle Drake, Nichols Kaster, PLLP,
George A. Hanson, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Ilya I. Ruvinskiy,
Weinhaus & Potashnick, Mark A. Potashnick, Weinhaus & Potashnick &
Paul J. Lukas, Nichols Kaster, PLLP.

Donna Annunziato, Plaintiff, represented by Donald Harold Nichols,
Nichols Kaster PLLP, E. Michelle Drake, Nichols Kaster, PLLP,
George A. Hanson, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, Ilya I. Ruvinskiy,
Weinhaus & Potashnick, Mark A. Potashnick, Weinhaus & Potashnick &
Paul J. Lukas, Nichols Kaster, PLLP.

Domino's Pizza, LLC, Defendant, represented by Aaron Warshaw,
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., David Simon
Kurtzer-Ellenbogen, Williams and Connolly LLP & Anne Malinee,
Williams & Connolly LLP.


DOW CHEMICAL: 10th Circ. Favors Class in $1B Plutonium Dispute
--------------------------------------------------------------
Khadijah M. Britton, writing for Law360, reported that in an
opinion published last month, the Tenth Circuit ordered a Colorado
district court to deliver landowners a ruling on their state
nuisance theory after their 25-year plutonium contamination class
action against Dow Chemical Co. and the former Rockwell
International Corp. failed on federal grounds.

In his decision for the panel's two-judge majority, Circuit Judge
Neil Gorsuch vacated and remanded the U.S. District Court for the
District of Colorado's 2012 preemption ruling against the proposed
class of more than 15,000 property owners near the former Rocky
Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant in Colorado.

He credited the plaintiffs' "judicial jiu-jitsu," saying they had
sufficiently pled a state law nuisance judgment despite losing two
separate appeals on the federal question of liability under the
Price-Anderson Act, which governs liability for nonmilitary
nuclear facilities, and thus the district court should promptly
hear their case on those grounds.

Judge Gorsuch said the defendants had forfeited their "go-big-or-
go-home" theory that arguing for federal damages under the PAA
barred pursuit of a state nuisance claim based on field
preemption, and that even if they hadn't, there was no express
preemption and "Congress knows well how to preempt a field
expressly when it wishes."

"Not only can federal claims for larger nuclear incidents subject
to the Act's limitations and benefits coexist with state law
claims for lesser nuclear occurrences, they can do so quite
sensibly," the decision said.

The court decided everything needed for a judgment on a state law
nuisance claim was already on record: not only did the original
complaint sought relief under Colorado nuisance law, but the
district court instructed the trial jury on Colorado nuisance law
and the jury returned a state law nuisance verdict in accordance
with those instructions.

The court said in the first appeal, the Tenth Circuit had held
that the jury was properly instructed on the elements of a
nuisance claim and no one had ever challenged the sufficiency of
the evidence in the record.

Judge Gorsuch also noted that the state law nuisance verdict did
not suffer the instructional error identified in the first appeal
that concerned what was needed to prove a nuclear incident under
the Act, but not the requirements to prove nuisance under Colorado
law.

"Perhaps the defendants' push in the first appeal for a narrow
definition of what qualifies as a nuclear incident won them the
battle, but it lost them the war," Judge Gorsuch wrote, "failing
to eliminate the plaintiffs' state law claim and serving only to
narrow now and in the future both sides' ability to secure the
benefits of the Price-Anderson Act."

In her concurrence, Judge Nancy Moritz said she would remand the
case for another trial on the plaintiffs' state law nuisance claim
instead of ordering the entry of a judgment now based on the
existing nuisance verdict, but Judge Gorsuch said it would be
injustice to make the plaintiffs start over with a new trial,
given the Herculean effort that had already gone into arguing
these claims.

In June 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a May 2011 petition
for certiorari filed by the class, siding with the Solicitor
General. The plaintiffs lost a previous appeal in the Tenth
Circuit seeking to revive the lower court judgment against Dow and
Rockwell International Corp., which allegedly released plutonium
particles onto property near the former Rocky Flats Nuclear
Weapons Plant in Colorado.

The property owners' claimed damages began in 1989, when FBI
agents raided the plant and unearthed evidence of environmental
crimes, which the plaintiffs blamed for plummeting property
values.

In 2006, a federal jury found against Dow and Rockwell on charges
of negligent conduct. Two years later, a Colorado federal judge
ordered the companies to pay a total of $926 million in damages,
including $549 million in prejudgment interest due to extensive
pre-trial delays.

The Tenth Circuit vacated that decision in September 2010, siding
with the defendants in finding that plutonium contamination by
itself was not adequate cause to seek damages under the PAA, which
led to the plaintiffs' appeal on state law grounds.

Representatives for the parties were not immediately available for
comment.

The plaintiffs are represented by Merrill G. Davidoff, David F.
Sorensen, Jennifer E. MacNaughton and Caitlin G. Coslett of Berger
& Montague PC, by Gary B. Blum and Steven W. Kelly of Silver &
DeBoskey PC, by Marcy G. Glenn of Holland & Hart LLP, by Jeffrey
A. Lamken, Robert K. Kry, Martin V. Totaro and Kelly M. Falls Of
Molo Lamken LLP, and by Louise M. Roselle, Paul M. De Marco and
Jean M. Geoppinger of Waite Schneider Bayless & Chesley LPA.

The defendants are represented by Christopher Landau, John K.
Crisham and Douglas Kurtenbach of Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

The case is Merilyn Cook et al. v. Rockwell International
Corporation et al., case number 14-1112, in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.


ENAGIC USA: Faces "Makaron" Suit Over Invasion of Privacy
---------------------------------------------------------
Edward Makaron, and all others similarly-situated v. Enagic USA,
Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-05145-DDP-E (C.D. Calif., July 8, 2015),
seeks damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies
pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C.
section 227 et seq. ("TCPA").

The Defendant is a nationwide distributor of alkaline water
filtration systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr. #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Tel: (877) 206-4741
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


ENERGY RECOVERY: Faces "Sabatino" and "Mowdy" Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Energy Recovery, 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 January 2015, two
stockholder class action complaints were filed against the Company
in the Northern District of California, on behalf of Energy
Recovery stockholders under the captions, Joseph Sabatino v.
Energy Recovery, Inc. et al. and Thomas C. Mowdy v. Energy
Recovery, Inc. et al. The complaints allege violations of Section
10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and seek the recovery of unspecified monetary damages.

"We are not able to estimate the possible loss, if any, due to the
early state of this matter and the Company has not been served as
of yet with these complaints," the Company said.


ENTERPRISE DRILLING: Gets More Time to Respond to "Willis" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to stipulation entered into by the parties in the case
captioned Kenneth Willis, an individual, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Enterprise Drilling
Fluids, Inc., Berry Petroleum Company, LLC, Linn Operating, Inc.,
and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, CASE NO. 1:15-CV-00688-JLT,
(E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on June 23,
2015, allowed the extension of Defendants' deadline to file a
first responsive pleading to the class action complaint from
June 24, 2015 to July 1, 2015.

Absolutely no further requests for extensions of time to file the
responsive pleading will be considered, Mag. Judge Thurston added.

A copy of the court-approved stipulation is available at
http://bit.ly/1eHmBN2from leagle.com.

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, Christian J. Rowley, Kerry M. Friedrichs, San
Francisco, California, SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, Sophia S. Kwan,
Sacramento, CA, Attorneys for Defendants, Berry Petroleum Company,
LLC and Linn Operating, Inc.

THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM, Peter R. Dion-Kindem, P.C., Peter R.
Dion-Kindem, Woodland Hills, California, THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP,
APC, Lonnie C. Blanchard, III, Los Angeles, California, HOLMES LAW
GROUP, APC, Jeffrey D. Holmes, Los Angeles, California, Attorneys
for Plaintiff Kenneth Willis.


ESTES WEST: Faces "Martinez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mario J. Martinez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Estes West, d/b/a G.I. Trucking, et al.,
Case No. BC587052 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 7, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the California Labor Code.

Estes West operates 17 terminals throughout the State of
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig J. Ackerman, Esq.
      ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
      1180 South Beverly Drive., Suite 610
      Los Angeles, CA 90035
      Telephone: (310) 277-0614
      Facsimile: (310) 277-0635
      E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com


FACEBOOK INC: Court Overturns Privacy Class Action Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Gibbons, Esq., Mathew Good, Esq., Robin Reinertson, Esq. of
Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP, in an article for JDsupra, report
that the British Columbia Court of Appeal recently overturned the
certification of a class action against Facebook Inc. in relation
to alleged breaches of B.C.'s Privacy Act, involving unauthorized
commercial use of users' names and likenesses.  The lower court
had exercised its jurisdiction over the claim despite the fact
that Facebook's standard terms of use contain a forum selection
clause requiring Facebook users to adjudicate disputes in
California.  In Douez v. Facebook Inc., (Douez) the Court of
Appeal stayed the action on the basis that California was the more
appropriate jurisdiction, finding that the provincial Privacy Act
cannot apply outside B.C. to preclude adjudication of this dispute
by the courts of California, by overriding the forum selection
clause in users' contracts.  As a result, the certification of the
class proceeding in B.C. is effectively moot.  This case sets a
strong precedent for the enforceability of forum selection clauses
included in terms of use and other similar contracts that many
companies rely on when conducting business over the Internet.

CERTIFICATION DECISION

In Douez, the plaintiff sought to certify a class proceeding on
behalf of all Facebook users in B.C. whose name or portrait was
used by Facebook for advertising through a product called
"Sponsored Stories."  Sponsored Stories were advertisements
bearing the name and likeness of a Facebook user along with the
logo or other information of the entity that purchased the
advertisement.  The Sponsored Stories were sent to users' contacts
without the knowledge of the user whose likeness was used.  The
plaintiff alleged that Facebook did not seek or obtain consent
from Facebook users to use their names or pictures in the
Sponsored Stories, contrary to section 3(2) of the B.C. Privacy
Act, which makes it a tort for a person to use the name or
portrait of another for advertising of other such commercial
purposes without consent.

Facebook's central argument in response was that its standard
terms of use contained a forum selection clause whereby the user
agreed to resolve any claim in relation to the terms of use or to
Facebook generally exclusively in the state or federal courts
located in Santa Clara County, California.  The plaintiff argued
the forum selection clause was unenforceable given that section 4
of the Privacy Act mandates that actions under that Act must be
heard and determined by the B.C. Supreme Court.  The lower court
found that, by conferring exclusive jurisdiction of such claims to
the B.C. Supreme Court, the legislature intended to override any
forum selection clauses to the contrary and that this is a strong
policy reason against enforcing such clauses.  The lower court
ultimately refused Facebook's application to have it decline
jurisdiction and certified the action as a class proceeding. For
more information, see our June 2014 Blakes Bulletin: B.C.'s
Privacy Act Trumps Jurisdiction Selection Clause.

APPEAL

The Court of Appeal reversed the lower court judge's decision on
appeal.  The Court of Appeal held that where a defendant can
establish that a forum selection clause is valid, clear and
enforceable, the plaintiff must show "strong cause" as to why the
court should not enforce the contractual term.

On the facts before it, the Court of Appeal found the exclusive
forum selection clause was enforceable.  It concluded that the
principles of territoriality and subject matter competence limited
the application of the Privacy Act to the B.C. Supreme Court only
in relation to other tribunals (such as the Provincial Court or
arbitration tribunals) also located in the province and not in
relation to courts worldwide.

In particular, the Court of Appeal held that the chambers judge
had erred in failing to give effect to the long-standing principle
of territoriality.  This principle refers to the lack of force
carried by a territory's laws outside of that territory, except
insofar as allowed by comity or as determined by the courts of the
foreign territory.  Therefore, by implication, California (or
other foreign) courts alone can decide whether California courts
have territorial competence over proceedings.

Specifically, the Court of Appeal went on to hold that the
provision of the Privacy Act on which the plaintiff relied to say
the action had to be tried by the B.C. Supreme Court actually
speaks to subject matter competence, not territorial competence.
This means that "s. 4 must be interpreted to mean that the B.C.
Supreme Court has jurisdiction to the exclusion only of other
courts in B.C., not other courts worldwide."

The Court of Appeal also overturned the lower court's finding that
there was "strong cause" not to enforce the forum selection
clause.  The lower court's conclusion, and all of the plaintiff's
arguments on appeal, depended on the lower court's inaccurate
interpretation of section 4 of the Privacy Act.  If the plaintiff
had establish that the California courts would not have
territorial competence (under California law) to hear the
plaintiff's claim, that could constitute "strong cause," but she
had not provided any evidence to satisfy her burden to establish
that there was "strong cause" for the B.C. courts not to enforce
the forum selection clause.

The Court of Appeal opted not to address the issue of class action
certification as the forum selection clause issue was dispositive
of the appeal.  The stay of proceedings, however, effectively
renders the certification moot, as the action cannot proceed.

The Court of Appeal's decision in Douez affirms that forum
selection clauses that are clear and valid will be given effect by
B.C. courts unless a plaintiff can establish a "strong cause" why
the B.C. court should decline jurisdiction.  However, such clauses
may not offer any protection in circumstances where legislators
have granted exclusive subject matter competence to courts in
their jurisdiction in conjunction with a prohibition on
contracting out of statutory protections.


FACEBOOK INC: Plaintiff to Appeal Privacy Class Action Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Review reports that a recent Austrian court
decision makes clear, the location of data processing is not the
only potential hurdle for would-be plaintiffs bringing suit
against U.S. companies in the E.U.  The Vienna Regional Court
dismissed a case against Facebook, not because of national
borders, but because of the identity of the plaintiff and how he
used his Facebook accounts.

The Austrian suit was brought by Max Schrems, an Austrian national
and outspoken privacy advocate.  Mr. Schrems alleged that Facebook
violated European data protection laws in the way it collects and
uses the personal data of its users, including that Facebook
improperly tracks users through external websites using its "Like"
buttons, and that Facebook shares user data with external
applications without consent.  While Austria does not have U.S.-
style class action procedures, Mr. Schrems invited other Facebook
users to join the lawsuit, and over 25,000 signed on, claiming
EUR550 in damages each.

Facebook argued the suit should be brought in California, where
Facebook is headquartered, or Ireland, the site of Facebook's
international headquarters.  While the court did not opine on
where the case should be filed, it agreed the case should not be
in Austria.  It ruled Mr. Schrems used his Facebook accounts for
professional reasons -- for publicity and to further his career as
a privacy activist -- and that he had a commercial interest in the
outcome of the case.  So, the court reasoned, he could not be
considered a Facebook consumer under Austrian law and thus could
not rely on Austrian laws that allow private consumers to take
legal action in their place of residence.

While the decision is a victory for Facebook, it may not be the
last word, as Mr. Schrems has stated he intends to appeal.


FARMERS INSURANCE: Female Attys Take Firmer Stand on Equality
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robin Abcarian, writing for Los Angeles Times, reported that
sitting in her attorney's conference room on June 24, Lynne Coates
had a strained look on her face. A trial lawyer who used to work
for Farmers Insurance, Coates was pressed for time because she was
due in court.

In 1993, Coates was hired by Farmers Insurance, which employs
hundreds of attorneys to battle claims. She spent five years there
before leaving for another job. In 2010, she returned to Farmers,
and spent four happy years in its San Jose office.

Her job satisfaction changed abruptly one day when she discovered
by accident that she was earning less money than a male attorney
in her office with less experience.

"It was just sort of an off-the-cuff remark that one of my male
colleagues made one day when we found out there was going to be a
management change in my office," Coates, 49, said. "He said, 'Oh,
yeah, I could stay here and continue to make X every year.' At
that point, my head started spinning."

She earned $99,000. His pay was $102,000. Not a huge difference,
until you take into account that Coates had many years more
experience.

"After that," she said, "I got nosy."

She buttonholed colleagues. She learned that one female attorney
who had been at the company for four years earned only $68,000.

What really got Coates, though, was how little she earned compared
to her trial partner, a man who had been practicing for roughly
the same number of years. She figured his salary was between
$150,000 and $200,000.

Coates stewed for a while. She tried to brush it off. But she
couldn't let it go. She complained to her supervisor. He was
sympathetic, said he'd get back to her.

A month later, she said, he informed her that the company had
acted appropriately. Her salary would not be adjusted.

Then, she said, her job responsibilities began to change. She was
effectively demoted. Instead of handling all aspects of high-
stakes cases, as she had for years, she was not allowed to make
certain court appearances, depose important witnesses or represent
the company in mediations.

"It was embarrassing and humiliating," she told me. "I've sort of
seen the old boys' thing since I started with Farmers back in the
'90s. And I always thought, 'That will go away.' And it hasn't."

Dispirited, Coates quit in August 2014.

Eight months later, she laid out her story in a federal lawsuit
against Farmers, alleging the company paid her less than male
colleagues, then illegally retaliated against her when she
complained. Her current employer, a law firm that represents
doctors in medical malpractice cases, has been supportive.

"There is a favoritism toward men," said San Francisco attorney
Lori Andrus, who is representing Coates with San Jose attorney
Lori Costanzo. "Men are given more opportunities, bigger cases,
and are promoted faster and given more raises. And that story is
repeated."

Andrus and Costanzo added three more plaintiffs to the case. One,
Angela Storey, no longer works for Farmers. But the other two,
Keever Rhodes and Sandra Carter, work for Farmers in Los Angeles.

The attorneys hope they can persuade a judge to certify the
lawsuit as a class action. If they succeed, it might grow to
include hundreds of women.

There are, of course, two sides to every story. It is not known
what Farmers' defense is, or will be, because company spokesman
Trent Frager said he couldn't comment on pending litigation. But
the company, whose online job postings say it employs more than
500 attorneys, has hired an outside law firm that is famous for
aggressively defending corporations. The attorney handling the
case for Farmers is, naturally, a woman.

In all likelihood, the lawsuit will not be resolved for years.

But it raises a larger equality issue that plagues the legal
profession. Though almost half of law school graduates are women,
women are woefully underrepresented as equity partners at big
firms. They get short shrift when it comes to compensation. Some
women report being bullied by male colleagues over who gets credit
for bringing in new business. (Another not-so-big surprise: There
are few women on law firm compensation committees.)

The imbalance trickles down into the legal trenches, where, say,
insurance company lawyers toil away.

"Pay equity is the No. 1 issue right now," said Linda Bray Chanow,
executive director of the Center for Women in Law at the
University of Texas at Austin. "That's what we're all working on.
I don't hear about work/life [balance] anymore. I hear about pay
equity."

You are thinking: But women earn less because they take time off
to raise children, right? Because they leave work earlier than men
to get home to their kids, right?

Of course, sometimes that's true.

But Joan Williams, an influential UC Hastings law professor who
has written prolifically about the barriers women face in the
workplace -- especially in law firms -- says bias is also at play.
"Even after you control for everything under the sun," she said,
"women and people of color still get paid less."

Perhaps that is why some experts were not surprised to hear about
the lawsuit.

"It's very courageous of the women to come forward," said Oakland
attorney Leslie Levy, who represented Raiderettes cheerleaders in
their successful wage theft lawsuit against the Raiders. "Just
like Silicon Valley, it's a community and word gets around fast.
You leave your employment, then go after your employer, everyone
knows about it, and you can't use them as a reference."

We know from social science that women who try to negotiate higher
salaries are often penalized just for asking. So they earn less
than male peers and fall out of favor. I doubt one class-action
lawsuit will change that. But it's a good place to start.


FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Defective Design
----------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlements.com reports that Ford got hit with a
defective design class action this month, alleging certain Ford
Explorer, Ford Edge and Lincoln MKX models allow carbon monoxide
to enter the passenger compartment.  The suit covers 2011-2015
Ford Explorers as well as Edge and MKX models from 2011-2013 with
3.5L and 3.7L TIVCT engines.

The proposed Ford class action was filed on behalf of New Jersey
owners or lessors of the vehicles in question.  The complaint also
proposes a subclass of consumers with claims under New Jersey's
Lemon Law for claimants who reported the defect to Ford in the
first two years or 24 months of ownership.

According to the legal documents, Ford has known of the defect
since 2012 but has not warned owners to get it fixed.  Apparently
Ford has issued two technical safety bulletins to dealers about
the problem but to date, has not notified owners, despite the
related safety hazard.  Ford has attempted to fix the problem on
customers' vehicles with a variety of remedies but none have
proved effective, according to the complaint.

"Given that the defect renders driving the subject vehicles a
health hazard that is potentially deadly, the vehicles are
valueless," the lawsuit states.

The lawsuit alleges breach of implied and express warranty,
violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, of the Magnuson-
Moss Warranty Act, and of the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Warrant
Act, also known as the Lemon Law.


FOX TRANSPORTATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wilmer E. Mijango and Jorge A. Menjivar, individually and on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Fox
Transportation, Inc. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
RG15776800 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 7, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
California Labor Code.


Fox Transportation, Inc. owns and operates a trucking company that
conducts business within California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jose Garay, Esq.
      JOSAY GARAY, APLC
      9861 Irvine Center Drive
      Irvine, CA 92618
      Telephone: (949) 208-3400
      Facsimile: (949) 713-0432
      E-mail: jgaray@garaylaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Ct. Clarifies Order in Ignition Switch Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jesse M. Furman issued on June 10, 2015, an opinion
and order, a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1CoiHnL
from leagle.com, in IN RE: GENERAL MOTORS LLC IGNITION SWITCH
LITIGATION, NOS. 14-MD-2543 (JMF), 14-MC-2543 (JMF), (S.D. N.Y.).

The Opinion, which relates to all actions, addresses a thorny --
and somewhat unsettled -- issue in multi-district litigation
("MDL"): the effect of a consolidated complaint, brought on behalf
of a putative class, on the underlying complaints of those not
named in the consolidated complaint. It arises in the context of
an MDL pending before the Court, relating to defects in the
ignition switches and other features of certain General Motors
vehicles and associated recalls.

According to Judge Furman, in complex MDLs like this one,
involving hundreds of individual complaints and thousands of
plaintiffs, consolidated complaints can be critical case
management tools, helping to organize and clarify what claims and
defenses are being pursued, thereby enabling the parties to
conduct discovery more efficiently and providing an effective
vehicle for motion practice with respect to common issues of law
and fact. At the same time, however, a court presiding over an MDL
must take steps to ensure that efficiency does not trump
fundamental fairness and that the desire for certainty does not
deprive any individual party of substantive rights.

"Having recently entered an Order clarifying the effect of
consolidated complaints (the "Consolidated Complaints") filed in
this MDL on individual complaints (Order No. 50), the Court
provides this Opinion to describe the background leading up to,
and rationale behind, that Order -- in the hopes that doing so
will provide the parties and other courts presiding over complex
MDLs with helpful guidance," Judge Furman said.

"In complex, multidistrict litigation of this sort, courts must
grapple with -- indeed, juggle -- a host of challenges and
considerations. Among the most important of those challenges and
considerations is striking the right balance between, on the one
hand, protecting and preserving the rights and interests of
individual litigants while, on the other hand, ensuring that such
solicitude does not undermine the central purpose of MDL
consolidation -- namely, promoting "just and efficient" resolution
of the parties' disputes. 28 U.S.C. [Section] 1407(a). In its
effort to streamline the litigation, the Court's initial order
addressing the effect of the Consolidated Complaints in this MDL -
- Order No. 29 -- failed to grant appropriate weight to the former
concern. For the reasons stated above, however, the Court
concludes that Order No. 50 . . . does strike the right balance,"
Judge Furman concluded.

"As noted, Order No. 50 contemplates entry of additional orders
touching on these issues. Through those orders and others, the
Court will undoubtedly refine the balance between the individual
and collective even further. For now, however, the Court finds
that Order No. 50 appropriately protects the interests of all
individual parties while ensuring that the Court is able to
"expeditiously and thoroughly resolve" the common legal and
factual issues that motivated the JPML to transfer these cases
here," Judge Furman added.

GM Ignition Switch MDL Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by
Elizabeth J. Cabraser -- ecabraser@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein, Robert Hilliard, Hilliard Munoz Gonzales LLP,
Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Daniel Fayne Dotson, Law Office of Daniel F. Dotson,
Mark Parker Robinson, Robinson Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis,
Inc. & Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein, L.L.P.

GM Ignition Switch MDL Defendants, Defendant, represented by
Andrew Baker Bloomer -- andrew.bloomer@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis LLP.


GILTNER INC: "Marine" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martin J. Marine, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Giltner, Inc., Case No. BC587123 (Cal.
Super. Ct., July 7, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages, damages,
reimbursement, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Giltner, Inc. owns and operates a shipping company that conducts
business within Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan Harris, Esq.
      HARRIS & RUBLE
      655 N. Central Ave. 17th Floor
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (323) 962-3777
      Facsimile: (323) 962-3004
      E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com


GREEN TREE: Bears Burden to Prove Intent for Third-Party Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
debt collectors contacting third parties to locate debtors must
prove in Fair Debt Collection Practices Act cases that contact was
made solely to find the debtor's whereabouts, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled in an apparent case of
first impression.

The Third Circuit upheld a district court jury verdict in favor of
plaintiff Patricia Evankavitch, who maintained that debt collector
Green Tree Servicing repeatedly called family members and
neighbors to solicit a return call from Ms. Evankavitch.

Ms. Evankavitch, who defaulted on a roughly $43,000 mortgage, was
awarded $1,000 by a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania.

According to Third Circuit Judge Cheryl Ann Krause, Green Tree
argued the jury award and the district court's jury instructions
that the defendant had the burden of proving that it only sought
location information was improper.

Green Tree argued that debt collectors may contact third parties
if they are attempting to ascertain the location of a debtor and
additionally, may only do so once, according to an exception in
Section 1692b of the FDCPA, which generally prohibits contact with
third parties.  The exception further provides that debt
collectors may call again if they think they have been given
inaccurate information.

"We started our analysis with the default rule that a plaintiff
bears the burden of proving her claim, but we end with the canon
that, absent compelling reasons to the contrary, a party seeking
shelter in an exception to a statute has the burden of proving it.
We find no such compelling reasons in this case," Judge Krause
said.

Ms. Evankavitch took out a mortgage on her home in order to lend
money to her son.  Her son made a series of repayments to her, but
eventually stopped after running into financial difficulty,
according to Krause.  Ms. Evankavitch relied on those repayments
to pay back her debt.

Green Tree took up Ms. Evankavitch's account after she fell behind
on her payments.  Green Tree reached out to Ms. Evankavitch's
daughter as well as her neighbors, Robert and Sally Heim, after
being unable to reach Ms. Evankavitch.

In a footnote, Judge Krause said, "Although Green Tree suggests
otherwise in its briefing, it cites little in the record that
indicates that it actually attempted to discern the location of
Evankavitch during this call or any subsequent call.  Instead,
these calls to the Heims appear to have been made with the same
purpose as the calls made to Cheryl, i.e., for these third parties
to function as Green Tree's message service in soliciting a return
call from Evankavitch."

One of the factors the Third Circuit examined in determining
whether the burden of proof rested with the plaintiff or defendant
was which party had "peculiar knowledge" of the relevant facts.

"Here, Green Tree has unique access to the information at issue:
its purpose for making the calls to third parties and its basis,
if any, when making follow-up calls, to reasonably believe the
third parties did not originally provide and later had correct or
complete information," Judge Krause said.

"Where the consumer challenges a communication from a debt
collector to the consumer herself under the FDCPA, the consumer
can be expected to attach and offer into evidence a copy of a
written communication," she added.  "Where the communication is
from a debt collector to a third party, however, the consumer will
have no firsthand knowledge of the conversation, and the third
party cannot reasonably be expected to keep notes about or recall
in detail random calls to his or her home."

Therefore, Judge Krause said the burden of proof rested upon Green
Tree.

Kristin Sabatini of the Sabatini Law Firm in Dunmore represented
Evankavitch and did not return a call seeking comment.

Green Tree's attorney, Barbara Hager -- bhager@reedsmith.com -- of
Reed Smith, also did not return a call seeking comment.


HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Obtains Final OK of "Bostick" Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell issued a final judgment and
order of dismissal in the case captioned DANA BOSTICK, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL OF AMERICA, INC., et al.,
Defendants, CASE NO. CV 13-02488 BRO (RZX), (C.D. Cal.).

The Court finally certifies a Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3)
Settlement Class, from which exclusions were permitted, defined
as: "all persons who are or were Herbalife members or distributors
in the United States at any time from April 1, 2009 to December 2,
2014. Excluded from the Settlement Class are the Defendants, their
employees, family members, and any member who has been a member of
Herbalife's President's Team, Founder's Circle, Chairman's Club,
Millionaire Team, or GET Team. Also excluded from the Settlement
Class are all Herbalife members or distributors who have agreed to
be subject to the arbitration provisions of the Arbitration
Agreement for Disputes Between Members and Herbalife contained in
the Member Application Agreement revised during or after September
2013."

The named plaintiffs identified as parties to the First Amended
Complaint will serve as Class Representatives of the Settlement
Classes. The law firms of Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis, LLP and
Fabian & Clendenin, P.C. will continue to serve as Class Counsel.

The Court approved the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation and
each of the releases and other terms as fair, reasonable, and
adequate to the Settling Parties.

The Court found that the substance of the objections to the
proposed Stipulation of Settlement are without merit in light of
the substantial evidence of the fairness, adequacy, and
reasonableness of the proposed Stipulation of Settlement, and are
overruled. Konstance Armstrong's and Wyman Jong's requests to
withdraw their objections are approved.

The Court approved attorneys' fees in the amount of $4.9 million
as fair and reasonable.

The Court denied, without prejudice, Class Counsels' request for
reimbursement for costs and expenses in the amount of $212,862.64
but granted the request as to $175,609.62 of expenses, allowing
Class Counsel to submit supplemental declarations or documentation
further supporting their request and segregating meal expenses
from travel expenses.

The Court approved Class Counsels' request for incentive awards
and directed payment the Escrow Agent to pay these amounts from
the Cash Fund:

* $4,900,000 for attorneys' fees to Class Counsel
* $211,662.63 in expenses to Class Counsel
* $10,000 to Dana Bostick
* $5000 to Anita Vasko
* $5000 to Judi Trotter
* $5000 to Beverly Molnar
* $5000 to Chester Cote

A copy of the Court's June 17, 2015 final judgment is available at
http://bit.ly/1CZoE5gfrom leagle.com.

Philip D. Dracht -- pdracht@fabianlaw.com -- Scott M. Petersen
(pro hoc vice) -- spetersen@fabianlaw.com -- Jason W. Hardin (pro
hoc vice) -- jhardin@fabianlaw.com -- Fabian & Clendenin, Salt
Lake City, UT, Thomas G. Foley. Jr. -- tfoley@foleybezek.com --
Justin P. Karczag -- jkarczag@foleybezek.com -- Fole Bezek Behle &
Curtis, LLP, Santa Barbara, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiffs Dana
Bostick, Anita Vasko, Judi Trotter, Beverly Molnar, and Chester
Cote.


HOME PROPERTIES: Brodsky & Smith Sues Over Sale to Lone Star
------------------------------------------------------------
The law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announces that it is
investigating potential claims against the Board of Directors of
Home Properties, Inc. ("Home Properties" or "the Company") for
possible breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of state
law in connection with the sale of the Company to an affiliate of
the Lone Star Funds ("Lone Star").

Click here to learn more about the investigation http://brodsky-
smith.com/958-hme-home-properties-inc.html or call:877-534-2590.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

Under the terms of the transaction, Home Properties shareholders
will receive either $75.23 in cash for each Home Properties share
they own. The investigation concerns whether the Board of Home
Properties breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders and
whether Lone Star is underpaying for Home Properties. The
transaction may undervalue Home Properties and will result in a
loss or no real gain for many Home Properties shareholders. For
example, Home Properties stock traded at $77.14 per share as
recently as May 15, 2015 and an analyst has set a $79.00 per share
price target for Home Properties stock.

If you own shares of Home Properties stock and wish to discuss the
legal ramifications of the investigation, or have any questions,
you may e-mail or call the law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC who
will, without obligation or cost to you, attempt to answer your
questions. You may contact Jason L. Brodsky, Esquire or Evan J.
Smith, Esquire at Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510,
Bala Cynwyd, PA  19004, by visiting http://brodsky-smith.com/958-
hme-home-properties-inc.html or calling toll free 877-LEGAL-90.

Brodsky & Smith, LLC is a litigation law firm with extensive
expertise representing shareholders throughout the nation in
securities and class action lawsuits. The attorneys at Brodsky &
Smith have been appointed by numerous courts throughout the
country to serve as lead counsel in class actions and have
successfully recovered millions of dollars for our clients and
shareholders. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
a similar outcome.


HOME RUN: "Velazquez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pablo Velazquez, on behalf of herself individually, and all others
similarly situated v. Home Run Management, L.L.C., Inverness
Apartments, L.L.C., Inverness Gardens, L.L.C., Bay Park, L.L.C.
and Joseph Woodcox, Case No. 4:15-cv-01933 (S.D. Tex., July 7,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate rental properties located in
various locations in and around Baytown, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joe Micah Williams, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF JOE M. WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES
      810 Highway 6 South, Ste 111
      Houston, TX 77079
      Telephone: (832) 230-4125
      Facsimile: (832) 230-5310
      E-mail: jwilliams10050@gmail.com


ICONIX BRAND: Aug. 24 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------
Goldberg Law PC announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of
New York against Iconix Brand Group, Inc. ("Iconix" or the
"Company") for alleged violations of the federal securities laws.
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares between
February 20, 2013 and April 17, 2015, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), have until August 24, 2015 to serve as lead plaintiff in
the class action.

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

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

Iconix is a brand management company engaged in managing a
diversified portfolio of consumer brands. The complaint alleges
that the Company made false and/or misleading statements and
failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company had
underreported the cost basis of its brands; (2) that the Company
engaged in irregular accounting practices related to the booking
of its joint venture revenues and profits, free-cash flow, and
organic growth; (3) that, as a result, the Company's earnings and
revenues were overstated; and (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, the statements about Iconix's business, operations, and
prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis. On April 17, 2015, Iconix announced in a Securities and
Exchange Commission filing that their Chief Operating Officer had
resigned. As a result of this news, shares of Iconix tumbled over
20% to close on April 20, 2015 at $25.41 per share.

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

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

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

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Brian Schall, Esq.
          GOLDBERG LAW PC
          13650 Marina Pointe Dr., Suite 1404
          Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
          Tel: 800-977-7401


ICONIX BRAND: Briscoe Firm Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Former United States Securities and Exchange Commission attorney
Willie Briscoe, founder of The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC, and the
securities litigation firm of Powers Taylor LLP announced that a
federal class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court, Southern District of New York against Iconix Brand
Group, Inc. ("Iconix") and several officers and directors for acts
taken during the period of February 20, 2013 to April 17, 2015
(the "Class Period").

Based upon the allegations in the class action, the firms are
investigating additional legal claims against the officers and
Board of Directors of Iconix. If you are an affected Iconix
shareholder and want to learn more about the lawsuit or join the
action, contact Willie Briscoe at The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC via
email at shareholders@thebriscoelawfirm.com, Patrick Powers at
Powers Taylor LLP via email at shareholder@powerstaylor.com, or
call toll free at (877) 728-9607. There is no cost or fee to you.

According to the complaint, the defendants are alleged to have
violated certain provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things,
that Iconix had underreported the cost basis of its brands and
engaged in irregular accounting practices related to the booking
of its joint venture revenues and profits, free-cash flow, and
organic growth. According to the complaint, this caused Iconix's
earnings and revenues to be overstated. On March 30, 2015, Iconix
announced that its Chief Financial Officer had resigned. Then, on
April 17, 2015, Iconix announced the resignation of its Chief
Operating Officer. Iconix stock dropped significantly immediately
following these announcements.

The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC is a full service business litigation,
commercial transaction, and public advocacy firm with more than 20
years of experience in complex litigation and transactional
matters.

Powers Taylor LLP is a boutique litigation law firm that handles a
variety of complex business litigation matters, including claims
of investor and stockholder fraud, shareholder oppression,
shareholder derivative suits, and security class actions.


ILLINOIS: Inmates' Mental Health Class Action to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------
Edith Brady-Lunny, writing for Pantagraph, reports that a proposed
agreement for massive improvements to mental health services for
more than 10,000 state prisoners has been scrapped after lawyers
for the state conceded that it's unlikely money will be available
in the foreseeable future.

The settlement in a federal lawsuit pending since 2007 called for
about $100 million in staffing and infrastructure improvements to
help inmates with a wide range of mental disorders.

Lawyers for the Department of Corrections and inmates told U.S.
District Court Judge Michael Mihm at a hearing on July 7 that a
proposed settlement was being abandoned and the lawsuit will move
forward.

Alan Mills, one of the lawyers for inmates seeking better mental
health care, said the state indicated that the uncertainty of the
state's budget is behind the decision to end negotiations.  The
two sides have been working for months to craft a plan to renovate
several prisons to provide residential care and counseling
services.  Still unresolved was a final plan for hospital-level
care that is currently lacking for seriously mentally ill
prisoners.

Mr. Mills said on July 10 he is disappointed the agreement is off
the table for the time being.  The state's budget problem "is not
a legal barrier" to progress in the effort to improve services,
said Mr. Mills.

One piece of the proposed settlement called for renovations to a
former youth prison in Joliet to serve as a treatment facility, a
project approved in the state's capital budget, noted Mr. Mills.

The DOC said in June that a freeze on state construction projects
would not impact the state's work to improve mental health
services.

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan also has been in court to
argue for continued state funding for agreements in federal
lawsuits, said Mills.

The DOC declined comment on July 10 on the recent developments in
the federal lawsuit.

Judge Mihm also agreed this week with lawyers for the inmates that
all 11,000 mentally ill inmates may be considered for inclusion in
the class action lawsuit.  A definition adopted by Judge Mihm
states that current and future inmates who are identified or
should have been identified as in need of mental health services
are eligible parties in the lawsuit.

Documentation to support a mental health diagnosis for each
prisoner must be submitted by the inmate's legal team, Judge Mihm
ruled.

An Aug. 27 hearing is scheduled in the case that could be ready
for a trial by the end of 2015.


INFINITY MARKETING: Sued for $6-Mil. in Illegal Calls
-----------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a telemarketing firm cost a Chicago energy supplier $6
million by calling several hundred thousand numbers on the Do-Not-
Call list, the latter claims in Federal Court.

AEP Energy filed the federal action in Chicago against Infinity
Marketing Group dba Infinity Energy Solutions, a Florida
telemarketing company, and its president, Donald Wood.

The Chicago energy supplier says it first contacted Infinity about
its services in 2012.

"In communications with AEP Energy at that time, Don Wood and
others held [Infinity] out as an experienced, trustworthy
telemarketer serving deregulated electricity markets," the
complaint states. "Indeed, even [Infinity's] website continues to
proclaim that [Infinity] is a skilled and reliable telemarketing
partner for energy retailers."

Months after AEP contracted with Infinity for telemarketing to
Ohio customers in 2012, the Ohio Public Utility Commission in June
2013, "advised Ohio residents of their right to prevent unwanted
telemarketing calls by placing their telephone numbers on the
National Do Not Call (DNC) Registry," the complaint states.

Though [Infinity's] then-COO, Bart Hawk, "reassure[ed] AEP Energy
that 'we abide by all DNC and disclosure requirements,'" that
representation was false, the energy supplier claims in the
lawsuit.

Ohio resident Philip Charvat filed a class action against AEP on
April 29, 2014, claiming that it had called "hundreds of thousands
or even millions of potential customers whose numbers had been
registered to the DNC list," according to AEP's lawsuit.

But the class action "came as a surprise to AEP Energy," the
complaint states. "Throughout the life of the Ohio telemarketing
program run by [Infinity], AEP Energy had not received any
complaints."

The energy supplier says that because the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act "allows for recovery of up to $500 per violation,
without requiring any proof of actual injury, AEP Energy faced a
huge theoretical liability. If the complaint was correct that
there had been as many as 100,000 illegal calls, the potential
exposure for AEP Energy was up to $50 million. A million violative
calls would generate potential exposure of up to $500 million."
The energy provider says Infinity ultimately "conceded that it had
called several hundred thousand residential phone numbers that
were contained on the then-current federal DNC list."

Infinity's AEP call log allegedly shows that "from November 2012
onward [Infinity] had been making calls to residential telephone
numbers without regard to whether those numbers were on the
federal DNC list, sometimes calling the same registered number
multiple times."

Plus, "As many as 40 percent of the calls [Infinity] made to
numbers on the federal DNC list were placed after Phillip Charvat
filed his lawsuit against AEP," the energy supplier says.
AEP says it ultimately settled the Charvat litigation for $6
million on June 18, 2015.

The supplier demands that Infinity pay that amount, plus the
Charvat litigation costs, and the "profits [AEP] reasonably
expected to earn from customers who were brought to it by
[Infinity], but who [Infinity] solicited away from AEP Energy on
behalf of a competitor."

AEP also claims that Infinity signed an agreement that it would
"not solicit business from commercial customers it brought to AEP
Energy. Since termination of the commercial contract as of August
2014, however, [Infinity] has breached that contract by soliciting
-- on behalf of other energy companies -- commercial customers
that IES originally brought to AEP Energy."

The plaintiff seeks to permanently enjoin Infinity from marketing
to these customers.

The complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and
contractual indemnification against Infinity, fraud against Wood,
and tortious interference against both defendants.

AEP is represented by James Thompson of Lynch Stern Thompson LLP
in Chicago.

Attempts to get comment from Infinity were unsuccessful.


INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL: "Acton" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Acton, Peter Marchelos, and all others similarly-situated
v. Intellectual Capital Management, Inc., dba SMS Masterminds and
Spendsmart Networks, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-04004 (E.D. N.Y., July
8, 2015), seeks to obtain all damages, injunctive relief, attorney
fees, costs, and other remedies which Plaintiffs are entitled to
recover under law and equity for the Defendants' alleged violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

SMS Masterminds operates a mobile marketing and messaging service
throughout the U.S. and the world.

According to the lawsuit, Muscle Maker Franchising, LLC, hired SMS
Masterminds to promote its restaurants.  Muscle Maker owns and
operates a chain of fast-casual restaurants across the U.S.

The complaint says, "In an attempt to market and promote its
restaurants, Muscle Maker engaged SMS Masterminds to engage in an
especially invasive form of marketing: the transmission of
unauthorized advertisements in the form of 'text message' calls to
the cellular telephones of consumers throughout the nation in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec.
227, et seq."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Erik H. Langeland, Esq.
      ERIK H LANGELAND PC
      733 3rd Avenue, 15 Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (212) 354-6270
      Fax: (212) 898-9086
      E-mail: elangeland@langelandlaw.com


J'S ALL: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Hernandez v. J's All Night Store, Inc. and Emmery Montan,
Case No. 1:15-cv-22540-JEM (S.D. Fla., July 7, 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 convenience store in Miami-Dade
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JW LEE: Strip Club Chain Pays $6MM to Settle Dancers' Wage Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Siegal, writing for Law360, reported that the operators of
Florida and Ohio strip club chain Scarlett's Cabaret have agreed
to pay up to $6 million to end a wage-and-hour class action
brought by current and former exotic dancers, according to filings
made in Florida federal court.

Named plaintiffs Adonay Encarnacion, Andrewa Wong, Rachel
Stephenson and Brittney Roberts had alleged that Scarlett's
Cabaret operators J.W. Lee Inc., J.W. Lee Properties LLC, Ybor
Operations LC and several related entities shorted them on their
wages by unlawfully classifying them as independent contractors.


KEY FOOD: Sued Over Facility Inaccessible to Handicapped Indiv.
---------------------------------------------------------------
D.C., a minor, by and through his parent Caroline Oh, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Key Food Stores
Cooperative, Inc. d/b/a Key Food and C.T.J. Associates, LLC, Case
No. 1:15-cv-03947-PKC-SMG (E.D.N.Y., July 7, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to design and construct a
public accommodation that is not readily accessible to, or usable
by individuals with disabilities.

Key Food Stores Cooperative, Inc. is a New York corporation that
operates a market or retail food store.

C.T.J. Associates, LLC is a New York limited liability company
that owns the property and associated building located at 183-14
Hillside Ave., Jamaica, NY 11423 in Queens County, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Ryan Bell, Esq.
      BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
      100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd., Ste. 208
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Telephone: (516) 280-3008
      E-mail: JB@BellLG.com


KEY HEALTH: Dist. Ct. Denies Motion to Dismiss "Thompkins" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
LISA GAIL THOMPKINS, and HARVEY SANFORD BOONE, III Plaintiffs, v.
KEY HEALTH MEDICAL SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, NO. 1:12CV613,
(M.D. N.C.) is before the Court on a Memorandum Opinion, Order,
and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge
recommending that the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Key
Health be denied. The Magistrate Judge also ordered that the
Motion for Class Certification filed by Ms. Thompkins and Mr.
Boone be stayed and that all proceedings in this matter be stayed
pending final adjudication of the class action in Washington v.
Key Health Medical Solutions, Inc., Case No. BC473716 (Los
Angeles, CA Superior Ct.). Additionally, the Magistrate Judge
ordered that Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice be granted,
that Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice and for Leave to
Submit New Evidence in Support of the Motion for Class
Certification be granted, that Defendant's Motion to Strike
Plaintiffs' Disclosure of New Matters be denied, and that
Plaintiffs' Motion for Oral Argument on Class Certification be
denied as moot.

According to District Judge James A. Beaty, Jr.'s June 24, 2015
order, a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1gp80XPfrom
leagle.com, "Insomuch as the Objections address the Magistrate
Judge's ruling concerning Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, the Court
finds that those particular Objections do not change the substance
of the United States Magistrate Judge's ruling on the Motion to
Dismiss. The Magistrate Judge's Recommendation as to Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss is therefore affirmed and adopted. Furthermore,
to the extent that the Defendant objects to the Magistrate Judge's
rulings concerning Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice and for
Leave to Submit New Evidence in Support of the Motion for Class
Certification and Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs'
Disclosure of New Matters, the Court finds such objections to be
without merit. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge's Order as to
Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice and for Leave to Submit
New Evidence in Support of the Motion for Class Certification and
Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Disclosure of New Matters
is affirmed and adopted. Also, to the Court notes that Defendant
did not object to the Magistrate Judge's Order on Defendant's
Request for Judicial Notice. The Court finds no clear error in
such ruling, and therefore affirms and adopts the Magistrate
Judge's Order concerning Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice."

"However, in light of Defendant indicating that a final
adjudication of Washington v. Key Health Medical Solutions, Inc.
has occurred, the Court will resubmit Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification and the decision to stay proceeding in this matter
to the Magistrate Judge for further consideration. Additionally,
the Court will resubmit Plaintiffs' Motion for Oral Argument on
Class Certification, which the Magistrate Judge had previously
denied as moot, for further consideration should the Magistrate
Judge consider it necessary," Judge Beaty added.

Therefore, the Court ruled that:

* Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is denied.

* Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice is granted, that
   Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice and for Leave to Submit
   New Evidence in Support of the Motion for Class Certification1
   is granted, and that Defendant's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs'
   Disclosure of New Matters is denied.

* Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and the decision to
   stay all proceedings in this matter are resubmitted to the
   Magistrate Judge for further consideration.

* Plaintiffs' Motion for Oral Argument on Class Certification is
   also resubmitted to the Magistrate Judge for further
   consideration should the Magistrate Judge consider it
   necessary.

LISA GAIL THOMPKINS, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by DAVID H. IDOL, DAVID H. IDOL,
ATTORNEY AT LAW, FREDERICK L. BERRY, BARRON & BERRY, L.L.P. & JOHN
F. BLOSS, SR., HIGGINS BENJAMIN, PLLC.

HARVEY SANFORD BOONE, III, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by DAVID H. IDOL, DAVID
H. IDOL, ATTORNEY AT LAW, FREDERICK L. BERRY, BARRON & BERRY,
L.L.P. & JOHN F. BLOSS, SR., HIGGINS BENJAMIN, PLLC.

KEY HEALTH MEDICAL SOLUTIONS, INC., a California Corporation,
Defendant, represented by REBECCA KINLEIN LINDAHL, KATTEN MUCHIN
ROSENMAN, LLP & RICHARD L. FARLEY, KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN, LLP.


L.A. ENTERTAINMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tamera Goers, Ashley Cristine Mulligan, and all others
similarly situated v. L.A. Entertainment Group, Inc. and Amer
Salameh, Case No. 2:15-cv-00412-UA-CM (M.D. Fla., July 8, 2015),
seeks to recover all unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate an adult entertainment club under the name
of "Babes."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack C. Morgan , III, Esq.
      Roetzel & Andress, LPA
      Suite 1000, 2320 First St.
      Ft Myers, FL 33901-2904
      Tel: (239) 338-4218
      Fax: (239) 337-0970
      E-mail: jmorgan@ralaw.com


LOS ANGELES: Atty Plans Class Suit Over "Teacher Jails"
-------------------------------------------------------
Mary Plummer, writing for KPCC, reported that attorneys for Los
Angeles Unified teacher Rafe Esquith raised the stakes in their
battle to get him reinstated, signaling their intent to file a
class-action lawsuit for those in so-called teacher jails and
those they say have been denied due process.

Esquith, the award-winning Hobart Boulevard Elementary School
teacher, was reprimanded for making a joke when reading a passage
from Huckleberry Finn that described a king prancing naked,
according to his attorneys.

The episode led to his removal from his classroom. Now Esquith is
at the center of a larger debate over so-called "teacher jails"
where instructors facing various allegations wait out a resolution
of their cases at locations such as education centers or at home.

"Teachers have described this as a form of torture, having to sit
there all day doing nothing," said Ben Meiselas, one of Esquith's
attorneys. In their claim filed with LAUSD, the attorneys said
they intend to bring a class-action lawsuit on behalf of
"thousands of well-respected teachers deprived of their rights by
the Los Angeles Unified School District."

Esquith is prevented from speaking with parents and students and
is now assigned to his home with pay. His assignment to teacher
jail led to the cancellation of the annual Hobart Shakespeareans
production that he oversaw and a student trip to Oregon for a
Shakespeare festival.

School district officials declined to comment on the attorney's
filing.

In a statement, Cortines said Esquith's case raised "serious
issues" that went beyond an initial investigation. But the
district declined to disclose any details.

Meiselas rejected the superintendent's suggestion that there are
serious issues beyond the reading of the book passage and the joke
that followed.

"Those complex issues are issues that they created," he said.

According to his attorney, Esquith has been cleared by the
California credentialing agency of any wrongdoing stemming from
the Mark Twain reading.

An agency spokesperson said he was not allowed to comment on
whether other cases are or aren't pending against Esquith.

Alex Caputo-Pearl, president of the teachers union UTLA, said its
new contract with the district includes language making clear that
when there is a "very serious concern" about student safety,
teachers can be removed from the classroom. But he said the
teachers must be provided due process and told what the
allegations are against them.

"We are concerned now with this new teacher jail case that we are
seeing with Rafe Esquith, we are concerned that the district may
not be following the contract language that was clearly laid out
in this new agreement in April," Caputo-Pearl said.

He said the union is speaking with Esquith and his attorneys to
gather more details.


LOS ANGELES: Suit Over Disabilities Act Violations Filed
--------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Ceasar, writing for LA Times, reported that a disability-
rights group has filed a federal complaint alleging that the Los
Angeles County Superior Court has systemically violated the civil
rights of intellectually disabled residents who are under limited
conservatorships by failing to provide effective legal assistance
through its court-appointed attorneys.

The class-action complaint, filed with the U.S. Department of
Justice in Los Angeles, claims that court-appointed attorneys
routinely violate the Americans with Disabilities Act during
limited-conservatorship proceedings.

Parents and other guardians can seek the power to make decisions
related to their disabled child's residence, education, contracts,
medical and other legal matters after they turn 18. The court-
appointed attorneys represent the conservatees during the process.
The court determines who controls certain legal affairs of adults
if they are deemed in court to be at least partially incapable of
looking after themselves.

About 12,000 people have open limited-conservatorship cases in
L.A. County, according to the complaint.

The complaint alleges that the court system has failed to provide
adequate training to attorneys in how to comply with the Americans
with Disabilities Act, has failed to train the attorneys on how to
effectively work with a client who has developmental disabilities,
and lacks qualification and performance standards.

The court also places a conflict of interest on these attorneys,
the complaint says. The court requires attorneys to advocate for
the client while also assisting the court in resolving the matter,
violating the client's right to due process, the complaint says.

In a statement, the court said that it had not been served with
the complaint and that it had not been notified by the Department
of Justice of an investigation.

"In litigation, potential conservatees are represented by counsel
chosen from a panel selected and trained by a Bar Association. The
determination of appropriate restrictions on conservatees is made
in individual proceedings before a bench officer applying the
applicable law," the statement said.

Thomas F. Coleman, an attorney and executive director of the
Disability and Guardianship Project, which filed the complaint,
called on federal authorities to investigate and force court
officials to "clean up their act." The lack of effective
representation leads to people with disabilities inappropriately
losing their rights, Coleman said at a news conference.

"We're not interested in making people look bad -- we're
interested in solutions," he said. "But to get solutions, we need
to tell the truth."

The group filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice
contending that the court has wrongly stripped people under
limited conservatorships of the right to vote if they could not
fill out a voter registration affidavit. Federal authorities
announced that they were investigating the allegations.

Nora J. Baladerian, director of the Disability and Abuse Project,
said the court system for decades has mistreated and failed some
of society's most vulnerable citizens.

"The court routinely treats individuals with disabilities who come
before them as 'less than.' Less than human, I'm sorry to say,"
she said.

Yolande Pam Erickson, the conservatorship attorney at Bet Tzedek
Legal Services, defended the court and its attorneys, saying they
take on a tremendously difficult job with care and compassion for
the families they serve.

"The court almost bends over backward to do the right thing," she
said. "Are there some problems? Sure. But the attorneys, I
believe, are advocating for the best interests of their clients."

Thom Mrozek, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney's office in Los
Angeles, said officials will look into the allegations.

"The complaints will be reviewed to determine what, if any, action
should follow," he said.


MAKERBOT: Faces Class Action Over Glitchy 3D Printers
-----------------------------------------------------
Jon Fingas, writing for Engadget, reports that a recently filed
class action lawsuit alleges that MakerBot and its parent company
Stratasys committed a "fraudulent scheme" by knowingly shipping
these Replicator printers with flawed extruders (the part that
melts and deposits filament) that tend to clog.  Supposedly,
management was bragging about rapid growth to investors at the
same time it was skimping on quality control and dealing with
loads of returns and repairs.  By the time MakerBot was starting
to lay off workers and otherwise admit that things had gone off
the rails, shareholders had lost millions of dollars.

It's not certain how this lawsuit will shake out at this early
stage.  However, the evidence presented in the class action isn't
exactly flattering.  It suggests that QA had a hard time even
getting complete 3D printers to test, which helped get shoddy
extruders into the production run.  Also, MakerBot reportedly
preferred to downplay complaints (such as when it shut down its
Google Groups discussions) instead of tackling them head-on.  If
the claims are true, this is a classic instance of cutting corners
and trying to avoid the repercussions.


MARTHA STEWART: Faces "Schiffrin" Suit Over Sequential Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Schiffrin v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., et
al., Case No. 11257-VCN (Del. Ch., July 7, 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:

      Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
      ROSENTHAL MONHAIT & GODDESS PA
      PO Box 1070
      Wilmington, DE 19899
      Telephone: (302) 656-4433
      E-mail: ckeener@rmgglaw.com

         - and -

      James S. Notis, Esq.
      Meagan Farmer, Esq.
      GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
      Tower 56
      126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 905-0509
      E-mail: jnotis@gardylaw.com
              mfarmer@gardylaw.com


MARYLAND: Special Education Office Reorganization Plan Criticized
------------------------------------------------------------------
Erica Green, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that the legal
advocacy group that led a 30-year class-action lawsuit against the
Baltimore City school system for failing to serve special
education students is criticizing new measures taken by CEO
Gregory Thornton to reorganize and streamline services at the
district's central office.

The Maryland Disability Law Center -- which lodged the Vaughn G.
lawsuit against the school system in 1984 -- said a new
reorganization plan has eliminated points of contact for parents
and advocates of special education students, and a new call center
has added an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy in getting questions
answered and issues resolved.

In a letter to Thornton, attorneys at the MDLC requested a meeting
to discuss his new organization chart -- unveiled July 1 --
because it is unclear who would be directing special education
services. Both the office of special education and its director
position were eliminated in Thornton's reorganization.

Officials said a new position in a new office will take the
director's place. That position is vacant.

The changes to the city's special education office come about
three years after the increased court and state oversight under
the landmark lawsuit ended.  The MDLC alleged that the city had
not complied with the federal Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act that guarantees students with disabilities an
appropriate and free education.

Special education advocates have been the most vocal in expressing
their concerns about Thornton's organization chart and have
criticized him for a lack of transparency as he developed it.

Kalman "Buzzy" Hettleman, a former school board member and chair
of CityWide Special Education Advocacy Project Inc., said of the
reorganization: "It's certainly unclear who is in charge of what,
particularly with respect to special education."

MDLC attorneys also said they were concerned after they had
difficulty reaching special education officials on numerous
occasions. In one case, they said they used an automated directory
and were put on hold for 40 minutes.  Attorneys said they were
then transferred to a call switchboard, where they were told a
representative would write up a ticket that would be sent to the
appropriate office within 24 hours.

The switchboard, called the One Call Center, was launched by
Thornton's administration this month.  The school system now uses
one phone number for all of its offices, which is routed to the
call center.

Leslie Seid Margolis, managing attorney at the MDLC, said in an
interview that the previous structure allowed parents and
advocates to interact with people -- either the director of
special education or an employee with the parent response unit.

"What this has done is dismantled a process that was working and
set up something that is not working, not effective, and designed
to be a barrier for families rather than something that will
actually allow them to communicate with someone," Ms. Margolis
said.

Ken Thompson, chief information technology officer for the school
system, said his office is still ironing out kinks in the new
system, and he is using feedback to improve it.

"Nothing is perfect; this is new work," Mr. Thompson said.  "As we
grow it, I'm going to make adjustments based on the response from
my customers."

He said his office would look for ways to increase accessibility
and responsiveness, particularly in areas that require immediate
attention like special education services.

"It's a critical area," Mr. Thompson said.  "I will adjust and
make it right."


MASTEC INC: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP reminds investors that a
class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of a class
(the "Class") of investors who purchased securities of MasTec,
Inc. ("MasTec" or the "Company") between August 12, 2014 and March
17, 2015 inclusive (the "Class Period").

Wolf Haldenstein encourages all shareholders who suffered losses
of $100,000 or greater on common stock purchased within the Class
Period to contact it immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800)
575-0735.

The filed Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial performance and failed to
disclose that (1) certain cost to complete estimates, currently
believed to be in the range of zero to $13 million, which were
recognized during the company's third quarter of 2014, should have
been recognized during the second quarter of 2014; (2) MasTec's
internal controls over financial reporting were ineffective; and
(3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's public statements
were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

On March 2, 2015, the Company filed a Form 12b-25 to inform the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") that it would delay the
filing of its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2014.

On March 17, 2015, the Company issued a press release after the
close of trading announcing another delay in filing its 2014 Form
10-K. Upon this news, shares of MasTec fell $1.88 or over 9.5% on
unusually heavy volume, to close at $17.82 on March 18, 2015.

If you purchased MasTec securities during the Class Period, you
may, no later than July 6, 2015, request that the Court appoint
you lead plaintiff of the proposed class.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation.  Any member of the purported class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego.  The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by telephone at (800)
575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com, or visit its
website at www.whafh.com.  All e-mail correspondence should make
reference to the "MasTec Investigation."


METALICO INC: Faces "Arshad" Suit Over Proposed Total Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Muhammad A. Arshad, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Metalico, Inc., et al., Case No. 11259-VCL
(Del. Ch., July 7, 2015), is brought on behalf of the public
stockholders of Metalico, Inc., to enjoin the proposed acquisition
of Metalico by Total Merchant Limited, through a flawed process
and unfair price.

Metalico, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that maintains its
headquarters in Cranford, New Jersey. Metalico is a leading full-
service scrap metal recycler.

Total Merchant is a Samoan limited company that maintains its
principal offices in the Jiangsu Province of the People's Republic
of China. Total is one of the leading recyclers and producers of
aluminum and aluminum alloys in the world and a prominent Asian
scrap metal recycler with operating facilities in China and
Malaysia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Blake Bennett, Esq.
      COOCH & TAYLOR PA
      1000 W St 10th Fl
      Wilmington, DE 19899
      Telephone: (302) 984-3889
      Facsimile: (302) 984-3939
      E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com

         - and -

      W. Scott Holleman, Esq.
      JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
      99 Madison Avenue, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 602-159
      E-mail: ScottH@JohnsonandWeaver.com


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Dist Ct Ruling in Contract Breach Case Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
In ROYAL BRADFORD KEIFE, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. BRENDA J. SIMON, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee, NOS.
13-15531, 13-15562, Plaintiffs Royal Bradford Keife and Brenda J.
Simon appealed the district court's entry of summary judgment in
favor of MetLife.

The Plaintiffs in this consolidated putative class action bring a
sole cause of action against MetLife for breach of contract.

The United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court ruling saying, "Under Nevada law, 'the plaintiff in
a breach of contract action [must] show (1) the existence of a
valid contract, (2) a breach by the defendant, and (3) damage as a
result of the breach.'"

"Even assuming that MetLife breached the terms of the Federal
Employees' Group Life Insurance Policy by paying the death
benefits due by way of a retained asset account instead of a lump-
sum check, Plaintiffs have failed to present sufficient facts
establishing that they have suffered any damages as a result of
that alleged breach. Therefore, the district court properly
entered summary judgment against Plaintiffs on their claim for
breach of contract," the Ninth Circuit concluded in its June 12,
2015 opinion, a copy of which is available at
http://bit.ly/1KLNpd8from leagle.com.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Sued Over Illegal Debt Collection Policies
----------------------------------------------------------
Ari Hofstatter, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland
Funding, LLC, and Encore Capital Group, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
03953 (E.D.N.Y., July 7, 2015), arises from the Defendants' false,
deceptive, misleading and other illegal practices, in connection
with its attempts to collect an alleged debt from the Plaintiff
and others.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of collecting or
attempting to collect debts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MOLYCORP INC: Colo. Court Granted Motion to Dismiss Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Molycorp, 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 Colorado Federal
District Court has granted the Company's motion to dismiss a class
action lawsuit.

The Company said, "In February 2012, a purported class action
lawsuit was filed in the Colorado Federal District Court against
us and certain of our current and former executive officers
alleging violations of the federal securities laws. A Consolidated
Class Action Complaint filed on July 31, 2012 also named most of
our Board members and some of our stockholders as defendants,
along with other persons and entities. On March 31, 2015, the
Colorado Federal District Court granted our motion to dismiss that
Complaint without prejudice. The plaintiffs have until May 29,
2015 to amend their Complaint. We believe that this lawsuit is
without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves
against these claims."


MOLYCORP INC: Plaintiffs Seek Reconsideration in NY Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Molycorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that plaintiffs in a class
action lawsuit in New York has filed a motion for reconsideration
of certain portions of the dismissal order.

The Company said, "In August 2013, two purported class action
lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against us and certain of our current and
former executive officers, alleging violations of the federal
securities laws. A Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint,
filed on May 19, 2014, also named us and certain of our current
and former executive officers. On March 12, 2015, the Federal
Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order
dismissing the lawsuit with prejudice. On April 1, 2015, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of certain portions
of the dismissal order. Our response to the reconsideration motion
is due May 13, 2015. We believe that this lawsuit is without
merit, and we intend to continue to vigorously defend ourselves
against these claims."


MOTHER FOOD: Sued for Facility Inaccessible to Handicapped Indiv.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
D.C., a minor, by and through his parent Caroline Oh, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Mother Food Corp.
d/b/a Food Town and 173-09 Jamaica Avenue Associates LLC, Case No.
1:15-cv-03945-ENV-SMG (E.D.N.Y., July 7, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to design and construct a public
accommodation that is not readily accessible to, or usable by
individuals with disabilities.

Mother Food Corp. is a New York corporation that operates a market
or retail food store.

173-09 Jamaica Avenue Associates LLC is a New York limited
liability company that owns the property and associated building
located at 173-09 Jamaica Avenue, Jamaica, NY 11432 in Queens
County, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Ryan Bell, Esq.
      BELL LAW GROUP, PLLC
      100 Quentin Roosevelt Blvd., Ste. 208
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Telephone: (516) 280-3008
      E-mail: JB@BellLG.com


NESTLE PURINA: Tells Justices Settlement Didn't Moot Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jody Godoy, writing for Law360, reported that Nestle Purina
PetCare Co. and Waggin' Train LLC said in a brief that the U.S.
Supreme Court should review a Seventh Circuit decision that let a
Missouri state suit over the companies' allegedly harmful dog
treats go forward, even though the state suit was recently
settled.

The pet food makers took on named plaintiff Connie Curts' argument
that a settlement in the state class action moots the fight over
an injunction in an Illinois federal class action that had frozen
the Missouri suit.


NEW JERSEY: High School Student Sues Over SAT Printing Error
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Heyboer, writing for NJ.com, reported that a high school
student has filed a class action lawsuit against the creators and
administrators of the SAT after a printing error forced part of
the June 6 exam to be thrown out.

Jennie Whalen, a student from Nassau County in New York, filed the
class action lawsuit in federal court in New Jersey. The soon-to-
be high school senior is suing both the College Board, the non-
profit group that oversees the SAT, and the Educational Testing
Service, the Princeton-based firm that creates and administers the
exams.

The lawsuit accuses the College Board and ETS of breach of
contract and negligence for administering the June 6 test with a
typo that said students had "25 minutes," instead of 20 minutes,
on either Section 8 or 9 of the exam.

It is unclear how many students across the country were given the
extra five minutes after test administrators caught the error. The
College Board later said it would throw out the two sections of
the exam and send out scores to all students based on the
remaining sections not affected by the printing error.

Though they are based on fewer questions, the scores will still be
valid, the College Board said.

The lawsuit alleges throwing out two sections of exam is unfair to
students striving for the highest scores possible to get into the
colleges of their choice.

The affected students' "SAT scores are not equivalent to scores of
SATs administered before the June 6th test and cannot be
equivalent to SATs administered thereafter," the lawsuit said.

Whalen, who will be the lead plaintiff in the case, said she and
other students who took the June 6 exam should get a refund for
the money they paid for the test, plus additional money for
"damages, compensatory damages, statutory damages, and statutory
penalties, in an amount to be determined," according to the
lawsuit.

Similar class action lawsuits have been filed in New York and
Florida, according to news reports.


NOVARTIS AG: Suit Alleges Gleevec Patent Infringement Suit a Sham
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit filed against Novartis alleges that the
pharma company's patent infringement suit against generic company
Sun Pharma was a sham, and seeks a permanent injunction to prevent
Novartis or Sun from enforcing the terms of a settlement agreement
that, barring relief, will delay the launch of generic Gleevec for
months, according to attorneys at Hagens Berman.

According to Hagens Berman, the suit marks the first time
purchasers of prescription drugs have sought injunctive relief to
try to prevent antitrust overcharges or damages stemming from
delayed launch of generic drugs.

The lawsuit, filed June 22, 2015 in the U.S. District Court for
the district of Massachusetts, seeks to prevent Novartis' unlawful
delay of generic Gleevec (imatinib mesylate), an FDA-approved
prescription drug that radically improves the lives of the
thousands of patients suffering chronic myeloid leukemia, a cancer
of the blood and bone marrow. The drug's compound patent expires
on July 4, 2015, but Novartis unlawfully barred generic maker Sun
Pharma from releasing its generic version of Gleevec for at least
an additional seven months, according to the suit. Two generic
versions of the drug have already been tentatively approved by the
FDA.

"If Novartis played by the rules, a generic version of Gleevec
would be available for cancer patients this July, but Novartis
wants to illegally reap benefits from of its sham of a patent
infringement suit," said Hagens Berman partner, Thomas M. Sobol.
"Gleevec costs about $9,000 a month and has appropriately grossed
Novartis more than $13.5 billion in U.S. sales. Now it's time for
it to fairly compete with generics."

The suit calls Novartis' efforts to delay generic Gleevec "patent
gamesmanship and frivolous litigation."

The suit states that Novartis, "listed invalid follow-on patents
in the FDA's Orange Book, frivolously sued (belatedly) first-
inline generic Sun for infringing one of those patents, and
extracted from Sun a promise not to launch its generic for seven
extra months beyond the compound patent's expiration in the guise
of settling the bogus infringement lawsuit."

The suit names two end payers as plaintiffs and has been filed on
behalf of a class of all purchasers of Gleevec.


OLAM SPICES: Faces "Beltran" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Beltran, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. Olam Spices and Vegetables,
Inc. and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. RG15776976 (Cal.
Super. Ct., July 7, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor
Code.

Olam Spices and Vegetables, Inc. is a California corporation that
produces and distributes fresh fruits and vegetables.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
      LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
      410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 265-1020
      Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
      E-mail: lfj@lfjpc.com


PACIFIC GATEWAY: Case Mgmt Conf. in "Hochstetler" Moved to Aug. 8
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thelton E. Henderson signed on June 10, 2015, a
a stipulation and order continuing the initial case management
conference in RACHEL HOCHSTETLER, CIRENA TORRES, Plaintiffs, v.
PACIFIC GATEWAY CONCESSIONS LLC, et al., Defendants. PACIFIC
GATEWAY CONCESSIONS LLC, et al., Cross-Claimant, v. POINT
SOLUTIONS, LLC, Cross-Defendant, CASE NO. 3:14-CV-04748-THE, (N.D.
Cal.).

According to the court-approved stipulation, a copy of which is
available at http://bit.ly/1RjeKY3from leagle.com, Plaintiffs and
PGC continue to work together and they expect that a motion for
preliminary approval of the class action settlement will be filed
in approximately 60 days.

For this reason, the Initial Case Management Conference of June
15, 2015, should be continued for 75 days in order to permit
Plaintiffs to file the motion for preliminary approval of the
class action settlement and for PS to possibly file a motion to
sever.

The Initial Case Management Conference will, therefore, occur on
August 31, 2015 at 1:30 P.M. in Courtroom 12 on the 19th floor,
United States District Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San
Francisco, CA 94102. Not less than seven days prior, counsel must
submit a joint case management conference statement, and all other
deadlines are continued according to the new date of the Initial
Case Management Conference.

MARA E. ROSALES -- mara@rosaleslawpartners.com -- MICHELLE SEXTON
-- michelle@rosaleslawpartners.com -- ROBERT D. SANFORD --
dusty@rosaleslawpartners.com -- ROSALES LAW PARTNERS LLP, San
Francisco, CA, Attorneys for Defendant and Cross-Claimant, PACIFIC
GATEWAY CONCESSIONS LLC.

CHANT YEDALIAN, CHANT & COMPANY, A Professional Law Corporation --
chant@chant.mobi -- Attorneys for Plaintiffs, RACHEL HOCHSTETLER
and CIRENA TORRES.

ROBERT D. SANFORD, ROSALES LAW PARTNERS LLP, Attorney for
Defendant and Cross-Claimant, PACIFIC GATEWAY CONCESSIONS LLC.

ROBERT A. HUDDLESTON -- rhuddleston@hslawllp.com -- HUDDLESTON &
SIPOS LAW GROUP LLP, Attorney for Cross-Defendant, POINT
SOLUTIONS, LLC.


PETROBRAS: Investors' Class Action Over Bribery Can Proceed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that a U.S. judge has rejected Brazilian state-run
oil producer Petrobras' effort to dismiss a lawsuit claiming that
years of corruption, including bribery, caused more than $98
billion of its stock and bonds to be overvalued.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan was
made public on July 10 and clears the way for investors to pursue
much of their class action lawsuit.  A trial could begin as soon
as Feb. 1, 2016.

Judge Rakoff dismissed some claims related to Petrobras bonds
issued in 2012 and some claims based on non-U.S. transactions, and
also said some claims should be arbitrated.

He said he will explain the legal reasoning behind his decision,
which was dated July 9, "in due course."

In a statement, Petrobras said it would "continue working firmly
in defense of its rights."

Shareholders led by England's Universities Superannuation Scheme
Ltd. alleged that Petrobras, whose formal name is Petroleo
Brasileiro S.A., artificially inflated the value of its securities
by overstating the value of major assets.

The decision comes as Brazilian prosecutors pursue the largest
corruption investigation in the country's history, focusing on
what authorities have said was a years-long scheme involving
bribery, price-fixing and political kickbacks.

Some of Brazil's most powerful executives have been accused of
overcharging Petrobras while bribing politicians, mostly those
affiliated with President Dilma Rousseff's Workers' Party.

In seeking to dismiss the investor lawsuit, lawyers for Petrobras
had argued that the company was itself a victim, and not
accountable for the wrongful actions of a few individuals.

The investors' lawyers countered that the "unprecedented" scope of
the corruption made it impossible to believe Petrobras executives
were ignorant.

Jeremy Lieberman, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at the law firm
Pomerantz L.L.P., said he was pleased with the decision.

"We look forward to aggressively litigating our case and working
to achieve a substantial recovery for harmed shareholders -- the
true victims of defendants' fraud," he said in an email.

The case is In re: Petrobras Securities Litigation, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of New York, No. 14-09662.


PHILIPS ELECTRONICS: NACP Files Ex-Offender Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Cohen, writing for New York Daily News, reports that when
Mayor de Blasio signed the Fair Chance Act this month, New York
took a welcome step forward.

The new law prohibits employers from inquiring about a job
applicant's criminal history before they have made a conditional
offer.  It bans the box -- "check here if you have been convicted
of a crime" -- that is a symbol of permanent unemployment for so
many. It does not prohibit employers from taking that history into
consideration.  It does, however, make sure that every job seeker
gets a fair shot first.

With this law, New York City is beginning to face its history of
allowing employers to consign those with any criminal history in
their past -- especially low-income citizens and persons of
color -- to a lifetime of struggle to find employment.  Even
before the Fair Chance Act, employers were prohibited from banning
all applicants with criminal histories and were required to
consider a variety of factors and qualifications when using
criminal history as a screen for jobs.

Despite these progressive policies, however, employers continued
to discriminate with impunity -- underscoring the need for serious
enforcement efforts.  A quick search on any of the major job-
listing sites reveals dozens of companies whose listings outright
ignore the law.

Illegal ex-offenders-need-not-apply bans litter the online job
marketplace.  Postings from everyone from global tech companies to
local exterminators list "no felonies" or even "no arrests" as job
requirements.  These statements flaunt the law and force
individuals with criminal histories trying to rebuild their lives
to remain on society's fringes.

Discrimination based on criminal history does not harm communities
of color alone, but the burden does fall more heavily on them
because of the grim disparities in the criminal justice system.
We have heard the numbers many times, but they remain stunning.
While blacks make up 16% of New York state's population, they are
53% of its incarcerated.  Nationwide, one in three black men will
be incarcerated in their lifetimes.

The damage done to our communities is broadly felt.  Fathers and
sons are removed from society for months or years, and when they
return their economic prospects are all but dead.

While finding a decent job is hard enough for anyone, it can be
nearly impossible when a mistake you made one, five, or 20 years
ago follows you around, like a big X over your head.

With the black unemployment rate nationally twice as high as that
for whites continuously for decades, the harm caused to the black
community by illegal employer discrimination is disproportionate
and difficult to overcome.  If individuals with criminal histories
can't find work, then every sentence becomes a life sentence,
economically.  But it doesn't have to -- and shouldn't -- be that
way.

The NAACP has a long history of taking legal action when faced
with rampant, unpoliced discrimination.  In this tradition, the
NAACP New York State Conference Metropolitan Council of Branches
has filed a class-action lawsuit, not on behalf of a class of
victims but against a class of perpetrators: all employers who
openly tell New Yorkers with criminal convictions that they need
not apply.

"Our suit demands that Monster, Indeed and ZipRecruiter -- three
of the largest online job sites -- turn over lists of employers
that have posted discriminatory job listings in the past three
years.  And it asks that those companies -- like the named
defendants Philips Electronics, NTT Data, Recall Total Information
Management and Advance Tech Pest Control -- be forbidden from
continuing their illegal practices," NAACP said.

Society works better for everyone when we give those who have made
mistakes a chance to redeem themselves.

Each year, more than 20,000 people are released from New York
prisons.  Each of them faces a fork in the road. One route leads
right back to prison.  But many are eager to take the route that
leads to a better life -- to find work, contribute to society and
put their past behind them.


PIZZA HUT: Drivers Sue Over Inadequate Mileage Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Dellinger, writing for Fauquier.com, reported that drivers
are coming together for a class action lawsuit against Pizza Hut
and other pizza delivery restaurants for failing to pay adequate
mileage compensation.

The law suit includes the Pizza Hut in Warrenton on Broadview
Avenue.

Law firms Paul McInnes LLP and Weinhaus & Potashnick have filed a
law suit against ADF Restaurant Group LLC, a corporation that owns
some Pizza Hut chains.

"When you and I and other folks take our car for business purposes
the typical approach is for the company to reimburse the IRS rate,
which is about 50 cents a mile," said McInnes. "Drivers at Pizza
Hut and other pizza chains are paid $1 per delivery."

According to McInnes, the average pizza delivery is about five
miles.

"They are basically getting about 20 cents a mile instead of 50
cents," said McInnes. "The difference between what they pay for
mileage and what they should pay for mileage puts their pay below
minimum wage."

The district manager at the Warrenton Pizza Hut declined to
comment when contacted over the phone.


PUBLIX SUPER MARKETS: Sued Over Misleading Pastry Box Labeling
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Chambliss, writing for The Ledger, reports that a lawsuit was
filed against Publix Super Markets Inc. earlier this month by a
customer who says the labeling on its toaster pastry box is
misleading related to its ingredients.

The lawsuit, filed in the 18th judicial circuit in Seminole County
by Amber Jackson of Seminole County, said Publix pastries are made
with artificial colors, artificial flavors, and high fructose corn
syrup.  The Publix label, however, reads that the pastries are
"made with real fruit."

The varieties of pastries listed in the lawsuit include
strawberry, frosted strawberry, blueberry, frosted blueberry,
frosted cherry and frosted wildberry.

Ms. Jackson's lawyer, Michael Fraser, of Granite Bay, Calif.,
declined to comment on July 10.

Publix spokesman Brian West said the company does not comment
about ongoing litigation.

The class action complaint demands that Publix stop any "unfair or
deceptive business acts" related to the design of the pastries.
In addition, Fraser wants Publix to pay for damages in an amount
to be determined at trial.

In addition to the "made with real fruit" label, the toaster
pastry box states "indulge in the sweetness of juicy strawberries
surrounded by tender pastries," according to the lawsuit.

"This false, misleading, and deceptive statement is reinforced by
the fact that over this 'juicy strawberries' statement, defendant
prominently placed large, brightly colored pictures of whole
strawberries, thereby deceiving the reasonable consumer into
believing that the products actually contain real strawberries in
them, which they do not.  Indeed, although Publix delivers on its
promise to provide consumers with tender pastries to consumers, it
fails to deliver the promised 'juicy strawberries.'"


QRXPHARMA LIMITED: Sued Over Federal Securities Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie LaFrenz, writing for Financial Review, reported that failed
biotech QRxPharma and its former chief executive, John Holaday,
have been named in a class action for violations of federal
securities laws in the United States.

Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law lodged a class action complaint
against the Sydney-based company, which was suspended from the
Australian Securities Exchange and placed into voluntary
administration on May 22 after it failed to gain approval from the
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for its pain management
drug, MoxDuo.

The US lawsuit alleges that QRx issued false and misleading public
statements and omitted material facts concerning the commercial
prospects for its experiment drug, Moxduo made from morphine and
oxycodone, which are both opiates.

According to documents filed in the Southern District Court of New
York, QRx failed to disclose to investors that it received a "no
agreement letter" from the FDA regarding its Moxduo trials and
further misrepresented and concealed other material facts
concerning its attempts to get Moxduo approved.

Upon the disclosure of an FDA memorandum which denied QRx's
application, the price of QRx American Depository Receipts (ADRs),
which are traded over the counter, plummeted over 83 per cent on
April 23, 2014. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all purchasers
of QRx ADRs between January 24, 2011 and April 23, 2014.

QRx has faced a host of troubles this over the past two years
culminating in the billionaire property developer Lang Walker
rolling the board last July. He installed two of his appointees as
directors: Mr Walker's adviser Bruce Hancox and former Acrux chief
executive Richard Treagus. A campaign by Mr Walker, which had the
backing of fund manager Allan Gray, sparked the resignation of
chairman Peter Farrell and three directors. Mr Walker, who
controlled about 10 per cent of the company, has lost millions on
his investment.

QRx voluntary administrator TPH Insolvency extended its convening
period until August 31 and now expects a second creditors meeting
to be held on or before September 9. The administrator said QRx
has not been served with any documents.


QUEBEC: Suit Filed Over Legionnaire's Disease Outbreak
------------------------------------------------------
CBC News published an article about the launching of a class-
action lawsuit from the families of people who lost a loved one or
became ill during the 2012 Legionnaire's disease outbreak in
Quebec City. According to the article, 14 people died and over 180
others had become ill from the bacteria found to be in the cooling
tower of a downtown office building.

Legionnaires' disease is a very serious form of pneumonia that has
a high fatality rate especially in people with existing
immunosuppression.  If the disease can be successfully eliminated
with the proper antibiotics, there are oftentimes long-term health
effects such as extreme fatigue and cognitive impairment.

Legionella bacteria are found in natural and artificially hydrated
environments.  Legionella pneumophila is responsible for about 80%
of human cases of infection.  Of the infections caused by
Legionella pneumophila, 90% of those infections are caused by
Legionella pneumophila serotype 1. Another 20% of cases are from
species other than Legionella pneumophila such as Legionella
longbeachae and Legionella micdadei.

"In addition to EMSL's Toronto laboratory that offers Legionella
testing by culture, we will be adding Legionella testing at our
Montreal location shortly," said Diane Miskowski, MPH, Legionella
Program Manager at EMSL Analytical, Inc.  "EMSL currently has six
CDC ELITE laboratories throughout the United States. We also
provide molecular testing using DNA sequencing to determine rare
species and Multi Locus Sequence Typing to distinguish between
strains of L. pneumophila serotype 1."

To learn more about Legionella and microbial pathogen testing
services, please also visit www.LegionellaTesting.com or
www.emslcanada.ca, email info@EMSL.com or call (800) 220-3675. To
contact Diane Miskowski directly, please call 1-800-220-3675
extension 2528.


REGIS CORPORATION: Fong Gets OK to File 2nd Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Vince Chhabria signed a joint stipulation allowing
the plaintiff to file a second amended complaint in the case
captioned MELISSA FONG, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated employees and all aggrieved employees of Defendants in
the State of California, Plaintiff, v. REGIS CORPORATION d.b.a.
MINNESOTA REGIS CORPORATION, and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants,
CASE NO. 13:CV:004497-VC, (N.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiff wishes to amend her First Amended Complaint to amend
previous allegations and assert new allegations, class action
claims, causes of action, to add Christina L. Salas as an
additional Plaintiff, and to add Regis Corp. as an additional
Defendant.

The Defendant has reviewed Plaintiff's proposed Second Amended
Complaint and contends that Plaintiff's new allegations, class
action claims, and causes of action are without factual or legal
merit, but agreed, in the interests of efficiency, to the
Plaintiff's filing of her proposed Second Amended Complaint.

A copy of the court-approved stipulation dated June 12, 2015
is available at http://bit.ly/1LQIsNgfrom Leagle.com.

GRAHAMHOLLIS APC, Marta Manus -- mmanus@grahamhollis.com -- Graham
S.P. Hollis -- ghollis@grahamhollis.com -- San Diego, California,
Attorneys for Plaintiff MELISSA FONG.

SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, Catherine M. Dacre -- cdacre@seyfarth.com --
Michael W. Kopp -- mkopp@seyfarth.com -- Ari Hersher --
ahersher@seyfarth.com -- San Francisco, California, Attorneys for
Defendant REGIS CORPORATION.


REMINGTON ARMS: Mo. Court to Rule on Class Settlements in Dec.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reported that a
U.S. District Court in Kansas City, Mo., said it will rule in
December on whether to give final approval to a proposed
settlement agreement between plaintiffs and Remington Arms Co. LLC
on two class-action lawsuits.

The lawsuits involved allegations that some Remington bolt-action
rifles contained defectively designed trigger mechanisms and could
result in accidental discharges without a trigger pull.

Plaintiffs are requesting economic losses for the alleged
diminished value of the rifles, along with other equitable relief.
The suits did not seek damages for personal injuries or property
damage, and the settlement does not resolve or affect any such
claims.

Remington said it believes that the trigger mechanisms are safe
and has vigorously defended both lawsuits. However, to avoid the
uncertainties and expense of protracted litigation, Remington has
agreed to settle and to offer to retrofit certain firearms.

The proposed class-action settlement would include owners of
certain Remington bolt-action centerfire firearms that contain
either a Walker trigger mechanism, or a trigger mechanism that
utilizes a "trigger connector." The firearm models involved are
the Remington Model 700, Seven, Sportsman 78, 673, 710, 715, 770,
600, 660, XP-100, 721, 722 and 725 rifles.

Remington launched a voluntary recall in April 2014 addressing the
assembly process for those firearms with X-Mark Pro trigger
mechanisms manufactured from May 1, 2006, to April 9, 2014.


RIVIERA HOLDINGS: "Aguilar" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blanca Aguilar, and all others similarly-situated v. Riviera
Holdings Corporation dba Riviera Hotel and Casino and
DOES 1 through 50, Case No. 2:15-cv-01291 (D. Nev., July 8, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid wages due pursuant to Nevada statutory
authority and pursuant to an agreement to pay for all hours worked
and under the wage laws of the State of Nevada.

Riviera Holdings Corporation is a casino operator based in
Winchester, Nevada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
      THIERMAN BUCK LLP
      7287 Lakeside Drive
      Reno, NV 89511
      Tel: (775) 284-1500
      Fax: (775) 703-5027
      E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com


ROOT9B TECHNOLOGIES: Aug. 24 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased root9B Technologies Inc. ("root9B" or the "Company")
securities between December 1, 2014, and  June 15, 2015, inclusive
("Class Period"), alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and
certain of its officers (the "Complaint").

The Complaint alleges that Defendants during the Class Period made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(a) the Company does not have an advanced cyber security product
offering, and (b) a substantial portion of the Company's Cyber
Solutions business consists of a one-time low margin hardware
installation.  When the true details entered the market, the
Complaint alleges that investors suffered damages.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than August 24, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of
Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at
tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com


SA MIDTOWN: Obtains Approval of "Gabel" Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
WIOLETA GABEL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SA MIDTOWN LLC, et al.,
Defendants, NO. 13 CIV. 5928 (HBP), (S.D. N.Y.) is an action for
allegedly unpaid wages and overtime brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 et seq. and the New
York Labor Law.

On June 22, 2015, Magistrate Judge Henry Pitman issued an opinion
and order, a copy of which is available at http://bit.ly/1D22tv5
from leagle.com, holding that the settlement reached by the
parties is fair and reasonable.

"The claims and defenses of both sides rest primarily on
testimonial evidence, making it particularly difficult to predict
the outcome of the case. At the settlement conference, counsel for
both sides demonstrated a mastery of the evidence and pertinent
legal principles; counsel for both sides also represented their
respective clients zealously. Given the conflicting evidence, the
quality of the evidence and the allocation of the burden of proof
on plaintiffs, the settlement represents a reasonable compromise
with respect to contested issues, and, therefore, I approve it,"
Mag. Judge Pitman concluded.

Wioleta Gable, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Wisniewski, Robert
Wisniewski & Associates P.C.

Monika Bielawska, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Wisniewski,
Robert Wisniewski & Associates P.C.

Megan Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Wisniewski, Robert
Wisniewski & Associates P.C.

SA Midtown LLC, Defendant, represented by Noel P. Tripp, Jackson
Lewis P.C., Richard Ian Greenberg, Jackson Lewis LLP & Daniel
Jared Jacobs, Jackson Lewis LLP.

G & D Restaurant Associates LLC, Defendant, represented by Noel P.
Tripp, Jackson Lewis P.C., Richard Ian Greenberg, Jackson Lewis
LLP & Daniel Jared Jacobs, Jackson Lewis LLP.

Dimitri Pauli, Defendant, represented by Noel P. Tripp, Jackson
Lewis P.C., Richard Ian Greenberg, Jackson Lewis LLP & Daniel
Jared Jacobs, Jackson Lewis LLP.

Gherardo Guarducci, Defendant, represented by Noel P. Tripp,
Jackson Lewis P.C., Richard Ian Greenberg, Jackson Lewis LLP &
Daniel Jared Jacobs, Jackson Lewis LLP.

Andrea Nanni, Defendant, represented by Noel P. Tripp, Jackson
Lewis P.C., Richard Ian Greenberg, Jackson Lewis LLP & Daniel
Jared Jacobs, Jackson Lewis LLP.


SALOV NORTH AMERICA: Sued Over Mislabeled Olive Oils
----------------------------------------------------
CBC News reported that a U.S. class action lawsuit against popular
brands of olive oil alleges the products are neither "made in
Italy" nor "extra virgin" as the labels say.

A California federal judge has approved two class actions lawsuits
against the makers of Filippo Berio brand olive oil, sold through
Safeway, and against the importers of Bertolli and Carapelli olive
oils.

The lawsuits allege companies Salov North America Corp., maker of
Filippo Berio olive oil, and Deoleo USA, which makes Bertolli and
Carapelli, are mislabelling and misleading consumers.

All three brands are also sold in Canada.

A request from the companies to dismiss the lawsuits was turned
down earlier.

In the case of Filippo Berio olive oil, the bottle has a label
saying "imported from Italy" but a small print text says olives
are grown in Spain, Greece and Tunisia as well as Italy.

The suit also alleged Salov's extra virgin olive oil failed to
meet state or federal standards for the term "extra virgin,"
claiming the company mixed the products with refined oil and
packaged them in clear bottles which means the oil can be damaged
by sunlight.

Similarly, a separate class action against Deoleo alleges the oils
can't be "extra virgin" since a refined oil is added to the mix.

The Bertolli and Carapelli olive oils also are labelled "imported
from Italy" when the product also includes oil from olives from
several different countries.

The suits claim damages on behalf of all U.S. users of the
products.

The class action lawsuits are being led by Gutride Safier LLP, a
California law firm that specializes in class actions.

According to journalist Tom Mueller, lax enforcement in the U.S.
and Canada means many olive oils sold here may not even come from
olives.

The North American Olive Oil Association has been so worried about
olive oil quality it created a seal to identify products that meet
the International Olive Council standard for olive oil.

A 2011 study by University of California found most olive oils
sold in the state failed to meet international standards to be
considered "virgin" or "extra virgin."


SBLI USA: Faces "Grossman" Suit Over Reorganizational Plan
----------------------------------------------------------
Howard L. Grossman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SBLI USA Mutual Life Insurance Company, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 652402/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., July 7, 2015), arises out of
the plan of reorganization to convert from a mutual company to a
stock company that provides unfair and inadequate consideration to
the Plaintiff and the other Policyholders.

SBLI USA Mutual Life Insurance Company is a mutual insurance
company headquartered at 515 Congress Ave., Suite 2220, Austin,
Texas 78701.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq.
      Lawrence D. Levit, Esq.
      Philip T. Taylor, Esq.
      ABRAHAM, & FRUCHTER, TWERSKY, LLP
      One Penn Plaza
      Suite 2805
      New York, NY 10119
      Telephone: (212) 279-5050
      Facsimile: (212) 279-3655
      E-mail: jabraham@aftlaw.com
              llevit@aftlaw.com
              ptaylor@aftlaw.com


SCHWABE NORTH: Falsely Marketed Ginkgold(R) Products, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Sonner, on behalf of of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Schwabe North America, Inc. and Nature's Way Products,
LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-01358-VAP-SP (C.D. Cal., July 7, 2015), is
brought on behalf of all consumers who purchased Ginkgold(R)
Products, that were falsely marketed by the Defendants that can
provide actual, meaningful and significant health benefits for the
memory, concentration, mental sharpness, and overall brain health.

According to scientifically valid studies, the products at issue
have no efficacy at all, are ineffective in the improvement of
cognitive health, and provide no benefits related to increasing
the memory, concentration, or healthy functioning of consumers'
brains.

The Defendants manufacture, market, sell, and distribute a variety
of dietary supplements, plant-based medicines, and other health-
care products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
      Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq.
      Sarah Boot, Esq.
      BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
      701 B Street, Suite 1700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 338-1100
      Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
      E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
              toreardon@bholaw.com
              sboot@bholaw.com

         - and -

      Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
      CARPENTER LAW GROUP
      402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 756-6994
      Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
      E-mail: todd@carpenterlawyers.com


SOLAZYME INC: Aug. 24 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm,
reminds investors in Solazyme, Inc. ("Solazyme" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: SZYM) of the August 24, 2015 deadline to seek the role of
lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action lawsuit filed
against the Company and certain officers.

Pending in the United States District Court, Northern District of
California, the lawsuit is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Solazyme
securities pursuant and/or traceable to either of two registered
public offerings between February 27, 2014 and November 5, 2014
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The lawsuit claims that the Company and certain officers made
false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material
adverse information in offering documents filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the issuance
of (a) approximately $149.5 million in convertible notes on or
about March 27, 2014, and (b) 5.75 million shares of common stock
on the same day at $11.00 per share for aggregate gross proceeds
of approximately $63.25 million.

The lawsuit also alleges that Solazyme omitted material
information concerning the production capacity of its oil
producing facility in Moema, Brazil throughout the Class Period.
However, on November 5, 2014, the Company disclosed construction
delays at the Moema Facility and that it would "narrow [its]
production focus to smaller volumes of higher value products" due
to continued issues generating consistent power and steam.

Following this news, the Company's stock price declined $4.35 per
share, or 58%, to close at $3.14 per share following the next
trading session on November 6, 2014. Similarly, the market price
of Solazyme's Notes declined by $235.00 per Note from the prior
reported trade on November 4, 2014, or more than 30%, to close at
$540.00 per Note following the next session in which the Notes
traded on November 7, 2014.

Request more information now by clicking here:
www.faruqilaw.com/SZYM  There is no cost or obligation to you.

Take Action

If you invested in Solazyme stock or options between February 27,
2014 and November 5, 2014 and would like to discuss your legal
rights, visit www.faruqilaw.com/SZYM  You can also contact the
firm by calling Richard Gonnello toll free at 877-247-4292 or at
212-983-9330 or by sending an e-mail to rgonnello@faruqilaw.com
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Solazyme's conduct to contact the firm, including
whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and others.

Attorney Advertising. The law firm responsible for this
advertisement is Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP (www.faruqilaw.com). Prior
results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome with respect
to any future matter. Faruqi & Faruqi welcomes the opportunity to
discuss a particular case. All communications will be treated in a
confidential manner.


SOLAZYME INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray announces the filing of a class action on
behalf of investors of Solazyme, Inc. ("Solazyme" or the
"Company") who purchased securities between February 27, 2014 and
November 5, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have
until August 24, 2015 to file a motion to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff in this class action lawsuit.

Solazyme is a bioproducts company that uses algae-based
fermentation to produce renewable oils for a range of personal and
industrial uses. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period, the Company made false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about Solazyme's
construction progress, development and production capacity at its
renewable oils production facility located in Moema, Brazil (the
"Moema Project"). Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: Solazyme
misstated and/or failed or disclose unfavorable news about the
Moema Project. Solazyme initially failed to report that the Moema
Project suffered construction delays stemming from the inadequate
availability of electricity and steam utilities. As a result, the
lawsuit alleges that Solazyme was prevented from increasing output
to its previously projected levels. On or around November 5, 2014,
when the truth regarding the Moema Project was revealed to
investors, the Company's stock declined $4.35 per share, or 58%,
to close at $3.14 per share on November 6, 2014.

If you purchased Solazyme shares during the Class Period, if you
have information or would like to learn more about these claims,
or have any questions concerning this announcement, please contact
Lesley Portnoy, of Glancy Prongay & Murray, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com
or visit the website at http://www.glancylaw.com If you inquire
by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and
number of shares purchased.

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


SOLAZYME INC: Ryan & Maniskas Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP announced that a class action lawsuit has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Solazyme, Inc.
("Solazyme" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SZYM) securities during the
period between February 27, 2014 and November 5, 2014 (the "Class
Period"), including pursuant and/or traceable to either of
Solazyme's two registered public offerings on March 27, 2014 (the
"Offerings").

Solazyme shareholders may, no later than August 24, 2015, move the
Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class.  If you
purchased shares of Solazyme and would like to learn more about
these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or to
sign up online, visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/szym

The complaint charges Solazyme, certain of its officers and
directors and the underwriters of the Offerings with violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and/or the Securities Act of
1933.  Solazyme is a bioproducts company that uses algae-based
fermentation to produce renewable oils for a range of personal and
industrial uses.

On March 25, 2014, Solazyme filed with the SEC a Registration
Statement for the Offerings, which was amended the next day to
register an additional $12.75 million in aggregate maximum
principal amount of stock and notes.  On March 27, 2014, Solazyme
filed a Prospectus in connection with the offering of $149.5
million in convertible notes paying 5% interest and scheduled to
mature in 2019 (the "Notes").  On the same day, Solazyme filed a
Prospectus for the offering of 5.75 million shares of stock at $11
per share for aggregate gross proceeds of approximately $63.25
million.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period and in the
Registration Statements and Prospectuses for the Offerings,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose adverse information about Solazyme's
construction progress, development and production capacity at its
renewable oils production facility located in Moema, Brazil (the
"Moema Facility").  Specifically, the complaint alleges
defendants' statements were false and misleading because they
failed to disclose that the Moema Facility was experiencing
construction delays due to insufficient access to electricity and
steam utility services, and that these challenges would prohibit
the Moema Facility from scaling its capacity production as
projected.  As a result of these false and misleading statements
and/or omissions, Solazyme securities traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

On May 5, 2014, Solazyme reported operational results for the
first quarter of 2014.  During the related conference call,
Solazyme's CEO stated that, rather than being "online" with
"everything functioning as expected," as defendants had previously
claimed, the Moema Facility was instead "experiencing intermittent
power and steam availability," and consequently had failed to
produce its first commercial product.  Then, after the markets
closed on November 5, 2014, Solazyme acknowledged significant and
wide-ranging construction delays at the Moema Facility.  On that
day, the Company revealed for the first time that it would "narrow
[its] production focus to smaller volumes of higher value products
at . . . Moema" and would be "prioritizing cash management and
product margin over a rapid capacity ramp."  On this news, the
price of the Company's stock declined $4.35 per share, or 58%, to
close at $3.14 per share on November 6, 2014, and the market price
of Solazyme's Notes declined by $235.00 per Note, or 30%, to close
at $540.00 per Note on November 7, 2014, the next session in which
the Notes traded.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Solazyme securities during the Class Period, including pursuant
and/or traceable to the Offerings (the "Class").

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than August
24, 2015, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of
the class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members
may together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in
any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Ryan & Maniskas,
LLP or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.


SOUTH DAKOTA: Class Cert. Bid in "Dale" Case Denied as Premature
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pending before the District Court in the case Dale v. Kaemingk is
Plaintiff James Irving Dale's Motion to Reconsider the court's
order dated June 3, 2015.  Consequently, Mr. Dale filed a Motion
for Class Action Certification and a Motion to Appoint Counsel.

In an order entered June 23, 2015, a copy of which is available at
http://bit.ly/1Tk2WSJfrom leagle.com, Magistrate Judge Veronica
L. Duffy held that "Any such motions are premature until (1) Judge
Piersol issues his ruling on the pending motion to reconsider and
(2) plaintiffs' complaint is screened as is required by 28 U.S.C.
[Section] 1915(e)(2).

Accordingly, the Motion for Class Certification and Motion to
Appoint Counsel are denied, without prejudice, as premature.  Mr.
Dale may refile these motions in the future after Judge Piersol
rules on the pending motion for reconsideration and after
screening of plaintiffs' complaint is conducted pursuant to
Section 1915(e)(2), Mag. Judge Piersol added.

The case is JAMES IRVING DALE, BRIAN MICHAEL HOLZER, MICHAEL
EUGENE KOCH, DEMETRIUS PETRO COLAITES, TREVOR JOHN ERICKSON, GUY
ALLEN BLESI, KEVIN CHRISTOPHER CRANK, JAMES EDWARD HAYES, EDWARD
EUGENE DARITY, JOSIA JEREMIAH FUERST, ROBERT EUGENE BLACKWELL,
JEFFERY JACOB-DANIEL KLINGHAGEN, DENNIS LOUIS STANISH, II, UNKNOWN
MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON INMATES, Plaintiffs, v. DENNIS KAEMINGK,
SOUTH DAKOTA SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS; IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; ROBERT DOOLEY, WARDEN AT MDSP AND THE DIRECTOR
OF PRISON OPERATIONS FOR THE SOUTH DAKOTA DOC; IN HIS INDIVIDUAL
AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; JOSHUA KLIMEK, UNIT MANAGER AT MDSP; IN HIS
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; TAMMY DEJONG, UNIT COORDINATOR
AT MDSP; IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; SUSAN JACOBS,
ASSOCIATE WARDEN AT MDSP; IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
REBECCA SCHIEFFER, ASSOCIATE WARDEN AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY
COORDINATOR AT MDSP; IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
JENNIFER STANWICK, DEPUTY WARDEN AT MDSP; IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; MICHAEL DOYLE, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, WITH THE
RANK MAJOR, AT MDSP; IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
JEREMY LARSON, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, WITH THE RANK SERGEANT, AND
THE DISCIPLINARY HEARING OFFICER AT MDSP; IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; COREY TYLER, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, WITH THE
RANK SERGEANT, AT MDSP; IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
MICHAEL MEYER, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER AT MDSP; IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; KELLY TJEERDSMA, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, WITH THE
RANK CORPORAL, AT MDSP; IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
LORI DROTZMAN, GENERAL EDUCATION DIPLOMA TEACHER, WHO ALSO IS IN
CHARGE OF THE LAW LIBRARY AT MDSP; IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; MICHAEL JOE HANVEY, PHYSICIANS ASSISTANT AND HEALTH CARE
PROVIDER AT MDSP; IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; ANDRA
GATES, NURSING SUPERVISOR AND HEALTH CARE PROVIDER AT MDSP; IN HER
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; KELLY SWANSON, HEALTH SERVICES
SUPERVISOR AT MDSP; IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
STEPHANIE HAMILTON, NURSE AT MDSP; IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; MARY CARPENTER, EMPLOYEE OF THE SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH AND ASSISTS WITH INMATE HEALTH CARE DECISIONS FOR
INMATES INCARCERATED AT MDSP; IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; BARRY SCHROETER, SUPERVISOR FOR CBM CORRECTIONAL FOOD
SERVICES AT MDSP; IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
JENNIFER BENBOON, DIETITIAN EMPLOYED BY CBM CORRECTIONAL FOOD
SERVICES; IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; CBM
CORRECTIONAL FOOD SERVICES, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT COMPANY CONTRACTED
BY THE SOUTH DAKOTA DOC TO PROVIDE MEALS TO INMATES INCARCERATED
AT MDSP; DELMAR SONNY WALTERS, ATTORNEY AT LAW CONTRACTED BY THE
SOUTH DAKOTA DOC TO PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES TO INMATES INCARCERATED
AT MDSP; IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; UNKNOWN
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS EMPLOYEES, CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS
EMPLOYED BY THE SOUTH DAKOTA DOC WHO WORK AT MDSP; UNKNOWN
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS HEALTH SERVICES STAFF, HEALTH SERVICES
DEPARTMENT STAFF EMPLOYED BY THE SOUTH DAKOTA DOC TO PROVIDE
HEALTH CARE FOR INMATES INCARCERATED AT MDSP; AND UNKNOWN CBM
CORRECTIONAL FOOD SERVICES EMPLOYEES, EMPLOYEES OF CBM
CORRECTIONAL FOOD SERVICES AT MDSP; Defendants, NO. 4:15-CV-04103-
LLP, (D.S.D.).

James Irving Dale, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Brian Michael Holzer, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Michael Eugene Koch, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Demetrius Petro Colaites, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Trevor John Erickson, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Guy Allen Blesi, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Kevin Christopher Crank, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

James Edward Hayes, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Edward Eugene Darity, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Josia Jeremiah Fuerst, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Robert Eugene Blackwell, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Jeffery Jacob-Daniel Klinghagen, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Dennis Louis Stanish, II, Plaintiff, Pro Se.


STRYKER CORP: Unit's Ex-Chief Gets 2-Year Prison Term
-----------------------------------------------------
Jane Fritsch, writing for Northenjersey.com, reported that a
federal judge in Newark sentenced a medical equipment entrepreneur
to two years in prison for selling unapproved knee-replacement
tools to hospitals and doctors around the country.

Charlie Chi, 46, had asked for probation or home confinement so
that he could take care of his elderly parents in Northern
California, but U.S. District Judge Claire C. Cecchi rejected the
request.

Still, she gave Chi a break by ordering two years instead of the
minimum of three recommended under federal sentencing guidelines.
Cecchi also said she will request that Chi be allowed to serve his
time at a minimum security facility in Northern California.

Chi, who has a doctorate in electrical engineering, was the head
of OtisMed Corp., a medical device company, when he shipped the
surgical tools, which did not have the required approval from the
federal Food and Drug Administration.

OtisMed marketed the device as a guide to assist surgeons in
making bone cuts specific to individual patients' anatomy based on
MRIs performed prior to knee-replacement surgery, according to the
government. Between May 2006 and September 2009, OtisMed sold more
than 18,000 of the devices, generating revenue of approximately
$27.1 million.

A short time later, Chi sold the company to Stryker Corp. of
Michigan and made more than $3 million, prosecutors said.

Chi has been free on $500,000 bail since he pleaded guilty to
three misdemeanor counts of fraud in December 2014. At the same
time, Stryker's OtisMed unit agreed to pay $80 million in criminal
and civil penalties after pleading guilty to a felony charge of
distributing misbranded medical devices with the intent to
defraud, according to the government.

Under Chi, OtisMed did not seek FDA approval for its device until
2008, and in September 2009, the FDA notified the company that its
request had been denied because there was insufficient evidence
about the safety of the device, prosecutors said.

But over the objections of his staff and legal counsel, Chi
ordered devices shipped to more than 90 hospitals that had ordered
them, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jacob T. Elberg said.

Two months later, Chi sold OtisMed to Stryker without telling the
company about the rejection letter from the FDA, Elberg said.

"He made the business decision to violate the law," Eldberg said,
urging the judge to impose a threeyear sentence. "Charlie still
doesn't get it."

Chi, who immigrated to the United States from Taiwan with his
family, said he had worked hard all of his life and had paid his
way through college and graduate school.

"I'd like to say I'm sorry," he told the judge. "I made a mistake,
a serious mistake, and I know it. I apologize to the FDA and to
Stryker." He added, "I am embarrassed not only for myself, but for
my family and my peers."

In November, Stryker agreed to a $1 billion settlement in an
unrelated class-action civil litigation over faulty hip
replacements produced by its Howmedica Osteonics Corp. unit, based
in Mahwah.


TAKATA CORP: Australian Firm Asked to Probe Airbag Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Rolfe, writing for News.com.au, reported that people who say
they have been injured due to defective airbags have asked a law
firm to investigate the potential for a class action over what has
become Australia's largest product recall.

Shine Lawyers has been contacted by five people who report airbags
exploding with "excessive force" in a crash, leaving them with
facial scars and bruising. Some spent weeks in hospital and others
have been unable to return to work.

Along with these claims, serious concerns have emerged about the
effectiveness of Australia's recall process. Toyota has only
managed to examine and where needed, fix, just 29 per cent of 1700
Corollas and Avensis Versos red-flagged in April 2013, when the
total number of cars considered at risk was 12,000 and there was
no parts shortage.

The number of suspect cars rose to 168,000, then 400,000 and now
850,000.

Around the world, 54 million vehicles are affected and the airbag
maker, Takata, can no longer produce replacements quickly enough.
By Christmas, Toyota hopes to have one-third of the stock needed
for recently recalled Yaris models.

And the Takata airbag recall is not alone in failing to gain
traction with consumers. Samsung triggered an official alert on
145,000 potentially deadly washing machines in 2013 but is yet to
see more than 80,000 of these.

A Toyota spokeswoman effectively blamed customers for the response
to the 2013 recall. It and other manufacturers have sent letters
to addresses believed to correlate with at-risk vehicles.

"We are relying on customers to book in their cars" for checks,
she said.

Carmakers needed to do more to get customers into safer vehicles,
either by forcing Takata to work faster or by providing loan cars,
said Shine partner Rebecca Jancauskas and Senator Nick Xenophon,
who has a record of campaigning for greater product safety and
owns a recalled 2006 Toyota Yaris.

"The manufacturers should be treating this as a consumer safety
emergency and pulling out all the stops," Senator Xenophon said.
"Would those car company executives want their family members to
be driving in cars when there is a real chance of injury or
death?"

Shine's Ms Jancauskas said questions need to be asked about the
testing of products before they hit the Australian market.

Relying on information from carmakers, the Department of
Infrastructure, which includes transport, said there has been no
report of injury due to defective airbags.

A class action would likely target Takata and carmakers.

Meanwhile, Choice said Samsung washing machine owners should not
rely on repairs and instead should insist on a refund.

           'My airbag wasn't there to protect me'

No injuries due to defective airbags? Gaik Teh begs to differ.

On November 27 Mr Teh was driving through Sydney's Dee Why at
about 35km/h when another car ploughed into the left-hand side of
his 2006 Honda Civic VTI.

He says the airbag exploded, emitting a grey-black smoke and
"small, white particles".

"It didn't inflate. It was not there to protect me," Mr Teh
recalled.

His head hit the steering wheel, causing bruising and dislodging a
stent inserted in his tear duct two weeks earlier. It had to be
removed early as a result, Mr Teh said. He has also suffered
whiplash and numbness.

Mr Teh said had the airbag inflated properly "I don't think I
would have got as bad injuries".

A Honda spokeswoman said that after a phone conversation a
"customer relations team specialist" concluded "the airbag
deployed correctly". She added: "Our records indicate the vehicle
in question is not subject to any airbag recall."

Only Honda Civics made in 2004 and 2005 are currently affected.
But Honda did not rule out expanding the recall to include the
2006 model. It has had to do so six times in the past 18 months.

Shine Lawyers said the pace at which the recall is growing -- and
the fact Mr Teh's airbag failed in a similar way to red-flagged
models -- gave reason to query whether the 2006 model should also
be subject to further investigation.


TEMPLETON RYE: Settles Whiskey Labeling Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------
The Des Moines Register reports that Iowa whiskey maker Templeton
Rye has settled three class-action lawsuits accusing the company
of intentionally misleading imbibers with claims about the
homegrown origins of its spirit.

The settlement agreement requires the company to change labeling
on its bottles and the language on its website, according to an
update filed in Polk County District Court.  The agreement also
requires Templeton Rye to set aside a cash pool that could be used
to refund customers who bought bottles of the whiskey.

Specific details about the settlement are not yet public, as the
document hasn't been filed in an Illinois chancery court where two
of the three lawsuits were filed.  Templeton Rye co-founder
Keith Kerkhoff said he could not comment because the agreement
hasn't been approved by a judge.

Attorneys for Chicago resident Christopher McNair filed the first
lawsuit in September, seeking class-action status to represent
"all individuals in the United States who have purchased a bottle
of Templeton Rye."  His lawsuit was followed by a second from
Chicago-area restaurant owner Mario Aliano and another from
attorneys for two Iowa residents seeking to represent a class of
only Iowa drinkers.

The plaintiffs' attorneys from three separate firms cooperated in
seeking a settlement.

All three lawsuits brought similar claims: That Templeton Rye
marketed its whiskey as "made in Iowa," when its recipe was
actually based on a stock spirit made in a Lawrenceburg, Ind.,
distillery.  The lawsuits said the Carroll County company
intentionally deceived consumers by labeling their product as a
"small batch rye."

Templeton Rye's producers have argued the controversy amounts to a
misunderstanding about the company's production process.  The
whiskey is not distilled following an exact Prohibition-era
recipe, but the company hired a Kentucky flavor engineering
company to develop a list of ingredients that replicates the taste
of a recipe passed down through the Kerkhoff family, the co-
founder has said.

Those ingredients are blended with the stock whiskey at the
Templeton distillery to create a unique product.

"Templeton Rye is very unique," Mr. Kerkhoff told the Register in
October.  "To say it's a stock whiskey made in Indiana that goes
directly into the bottle is totally false.  It couldn't be further
from the truth."

The company had already committed to changing its bottles'
packaging before the lawsuits were filed to include information
about the whiskey's Indiana origins.  The Des Moines Register in
August published a story questioning whether the labels complied
with federal law that requires distillers to disclose such
information.

Attorneys for the two Illinois plaintiffs did not return a
Register reporter's phone calls on July 13.  West Des Moines
attorney Randy Wilharber, one of the attorneys handling the Iowa
lawsuit, referred all questions to Templeton Rye.

The next step in the lawsuits will be getting a judge's approval
of the settlement agreement and getting class certification, a
move that will determine exactly how many people could be eligible
to receive refunds.  The attorneys who filed each of the three
lawsuits will also be paid from the same pool, according to the
Polk County update.


TOP RANK: Faces "Causey" Suit in Michigan Over Pacquiao's Injury
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Causey, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Top Rank, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
12424-BAF-DRG (E.D. Mich., July 7, 2015), is an action for damages
as a proximate result of the Defendants' failure to disclose to
the Nevada Athletic Commission the injuries suffered by Manny
Pacquiao prior to his fight with Floyd Mayweather last May 2,
2015.

Top Rank, Inc. is a Nevada corporation engaged in the business of
producing, promoting, and selling tickets to fighting events.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Caleb Marker, Esq.
      RIDOUT MARKER + OTTOSON, LLP
      555 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 500
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (877) 500-8780
      Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
      E-mail: clm@ridoutmarker.com

         - and -

      Sandesh K. Viswanath, Esq.
      SKV LAW FIRM, PLC
      1750 W. 12 Mile Road, Suite 209
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (866) 878-1443
      Facsimile: (866) 878-1443
      E-mail: skv@skvfirm.com

         - and -

      Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
      Bradley C. Buhrow, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
      14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145
      Scottsdale, AZ 85254
      Telephone: (480) 348-6400
      Facsimile: (480) 348-6415
      E-mail: Hart.Robinovitch@zimmreed.com
              Brad.Buhrow@zimmreed.com


TOP RANK: Pacquaio's Attorneys Say Class Suits Lack Merit
---------------------------------------------------------
MyCentralOregon.com reported that the so-called Fight of the
Century may prove to be the legal battle of the century.

Since Floyd Mayweather beat Manny Pacquiao May 2 in Las Vegas,
viewers who spent $90 to watch the fight on pay-per-view have
filed lawsuits in 14 states.  To date, there have been more than
40 class actions filed that essentially claim the fight was a rip-
off, since Pacquiao declined to reveal a torn rotator cuff.

The victims claim the fight was promoted as a fair and honest
sporting event between two healthy and uninjured boxers, and they
didn't get what they paid for.

Attorneys for the defendants have said the suits lack merit.


THUNDER BAY ENTERPRISES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vincent West, and others similarly-situated v. Thunder Bay
Enterprises Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-01606-SDM-MAP (M.D.
Fla., July 8, 2015), seeks relief against the Defendant for all
unpaid back wages, an equal amount in liquidated damages as well
as attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 29 U.S.C. sections 207(a)
and 216(b), or the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant is a transportation company supplying dirt, soil and
other construction products throughout Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN
      20 N Orange Ave Ste 1600
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Tel: (407) 420-1414
      Fax: (407) 245-3487
      E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com


TURTLE BEACH: Nevada SC Reviews Denial of Bid to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------
Turtle Beach 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 denial of the motion
filed by VTBH and the Company to dismiss a class action is
currently under review by the Nevada Supreme Court and briefing
was completed on February 23, 2015.

On August 5, 2013, VTBH and the Company (f/k/a Parametric)
announced that they had entered into the Merger Agreement pursuant
to which VTBH would acquire an approximately 80% ownership
interest and existing shareholders would maintain an approximately
20% ownership interest in the combined company. Following the
announcement, several shareholders filed class action lawsuits in
California and Nevada seeking to enjoin the Merger. The plaintiffs
in each case alleged that members of the Company's Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the shareholders by
agreeing to a Merger that allegedly undervalued the Company. VTBH
and the Company were named as defendants in these lawsuits under
the theory that they had aided and abetted the Company's Board of
Directors in allegedly violating their fiduciary duties. The
plaintiffs in both cases sought a preliminary injunction seeking
to enjoin closing of the Merger, which, by agreement, was heard by
the Nevada court with the California plaintiffs invited to
participate.

On December 26, 2013, the court in the Nevada cases denied the
plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Following the
closing of the Merger, the Nevada plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint, which made essentially the same allegations and
sought monetary damages as well as an order rescinding the Merger.
The California plaintiffs dismissed their action without
prejudice, and sought to intervene in the Nevada action, which was
granted. Subsequent to the intervention, the plaintiffs filed a
third amended complaint, which made essentially the same
allegations as prior complaints and sought monetary damages.

On June 20, 2014, VTBH and the Company moved to dismiss the
action, but that motion was denied on August 28, 2014. That denial
is currently under review by the Nevada Supreme Court and briefing
was completed on February 23, 2015.

The Company believes that the plaintiffs' claims against it are
without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in the
litigation. As of March 31, 2015 and the date of this report, the
Company is unable to estimate a possible loss or range of possible
loss in regards to this matter; therefore, no litigation reserve
has been recorded in the consolidated financial statements.


TYSON FOODS: U.S. Supreme Ct. Addresses Class Certification Again
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In June, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case
Bouaphakeo v. Tyson Foods.  There, the court will -- for the third
time this decade -- address the certification of a class action
under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Specifically, the court has been asked to review the use of
statistical averages in liability and damages calculations as well
as the inclusion of potentially uninjured individuals within a
class.  The court's answers will no doubt be of interest to all
court watchers lay and professional, with antitrust practitioners
and hobbyists apt to pay particularly close attention to Tyson's
potential impact on private antitrust class actions proceeding
under Section 4 of the Clayton Act.

Background
The underlying action was brought by employees at Tyson's meat-
processing facility in Storm Lake, Iowa.  Tyson paid such workers
for what the company refers to as "gang time" -- i.e., time when
employees are at their work stations and the production line is
moving.  Tyson also paid a daily amount of "K-Code" time to
employees who, because they worked with knives or in departments
where individuals worked with knives, were required to don and
doff personal protective equipment and walk to and from the
production line.  K-Code time was fixed, and Tyson did not record
the actual amount of time each employee spent donning, doffing,
and walking.

In 2007, employees sued Tyson under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and Iowa Wage Payment Collection Law (IWPCL).  The
employees argued that, even counting K-Code time, Tyson was not
compensating them sufficiently for time spent donning and doffing
protective equipment and walking to their stations.  Over the
opposition of Tyson, the Northern District of Iowa certified the
claims as a collective action under the FLSA, pursuant to 29
U.S.C. Sec. 216(b), and as a Rule 23 class action under the IWPCL.
At trial, in order to prove both injury and damages, the employees
introduced both statistical average donning, doffing, and walking
times as well as individual employee timesheets.  The jury awarded
the employees a verdict of nearly $2.9 million, which, with the
addition of liquidated damages, grew to a final judgment of
approximately $5.8 million.

Tyson appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit, where a divided 2-1 panel affirmed both class
certification and liability.  First, the court disagreed with
Tyson's contention that class certification had been improper
because factual differences among the employees prevented the
"generat[ion of] common answers apt to drive the resolution of the
litigation": "[w]hile individual plaintiffs varied in their
donning and doffing routines," the variation among class members
was not so great as to make class treatment inappropriate.

Second, the court said that any error stemming from evidence that
the class contained members who did not work overtime (and thus
were not entitled to damages and lacked standing) was invited by
Tyson's jury instruction regarding the treatment of uninjured
class members.  Third and finally, the court rejected Tyson's
argument that the class' use of statistical averages had resulted
in an impermissible "trial by formula"; although the class had
relied on "inference from average[s]," they had "appl[ied] this
analysis to each class member" by use of individual timesheets.

After the Eighth Circuit denied rehearing en banc, Tyson
petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari.  Tyson's
petition presented two questions for resolution: (1) whether
"differences among individual class members may be ignored and a
class action certified . . . where liability and damages will be
determined with statistical techniques that presume all class
members are identical to the average" and (2) whether a class may
be certified where it "contains hundreds of members who were not
injured and have no legal right to any damages."  According to
Tyson both questions have sharply divided the circuit courts.  The
class members, in their opposition, argued that Tyson had waived
the first question and that the second was not properly before the
court; it also maintained that, regardless, the lower courts had
correctly decided the issues and Tyson's "circuit split" was
illusory.

On June 8, 2015, the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Context

Tyson will be the third time in roughly a half-decade that the
Supreme Court wades into important questions surrounding class
certification.  In the past two cases, the court is generally seen
as having "ratcheted up" the Rule 23 requirements, and made it
more challenging to certify a class.  The question, then, is
whether Tyson too will demand more "rigorous analysis" of putative
class actions prior to certification.  And, in addition to having
an effect on class actions generally, Tyson could be of particular
interest to the antitrust-minded.  Although Tyson will not
directly address antitrust class actions, any real guidance on
questions of quanta of proof or uninjured class members could have
a major impact on antitrust class action litigation.

'Dukes' and 'Comcast.' Two prior Supreme Court cases provide
important context for Tyson.  In 2011, in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, the
Supreme Court addressed what the majority opinion referred to as
"one of the most expansive class actions ever," a Title VII case
against Wal-Mart brought by a group of approximately 1.5 million
current and former female employees, who alleged that Wal-Mart's
"corporate culture" of sexism resulted in common harm to all
female employees.  The court, however, held that the employees had
not pleaded a common contention "capable of classwide resolution,"
because there was no question for which "determination of its
truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the
validity of each one of the claims in one stroke."

The court also held that the employees' proposal for determining
individual monetary damages -- a sample set of employees would be
deposed under the supervision of a special master and
extrapolations would be made thereafter -- would constitute a
"trial by formula" that deprived Wal-Mart of its statutory right
under Title VII to litigate defenses to individual claims. This,
the court said, would constitute a violation of the Rules Enabling
Act,10 which requires that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
(and other judicially promulgated rules) not "abridge, enlarge, or
modify any substantive right."

Just two years later, the court again faced questions about the
strictures of class certification when, in Comcast v. Behrend,
cable subscribers in the Philadelphia area brought antitrust
claims against Comcast.  As in Dukes, the court felt that too lax
a standard had been applied by the lower courts.  The subscribers
had alleged four theories of how Comcast's behavior had injured
them, but the district court found only one of the four capable of
classwide proof.  However, the subscribers' expert witness, in
calculating the class' damages, used formulas and models that made
no attempt to focus exclusively on damages attributable to the
accepted theory of injury.  Without so distinguishing, the
subscribers had not met their burden to show that individual
damages questions would not predominate over common questions:
"such assurance is not provided by a methodology that identifies
damages that are not the result of the wrong."

Will Tyson be more of the same, or will it be a limiting
principle? Both Dukes and Comcast showed the court give bite to
its demand for "rigorous analysis" prior to certifying a class.
And both cases expressed some degree of skepticism about the use
of models to determine classwide impact.  It is easy, then, to
think that Tyson will be of the same ilk.  But both Dukes and
Comcast also exposed disagreements among the justices about just
how exacting the standards of Rule 23 are.  It is possible,
therefore, that Tyson could be the court's opportunity to draw a
line in the sand and say that -- at least in the case before it --
the class had met its burden for certification.  Because no
opinion accompanied the grant of certiorari (as is common), case-
watchers will have to wait until at least oral argument for a
preview of where the court is headed.

Antitrust. Predictions aside, Tyson nods to serious questions
about private antitrust class actions, which proceed, in
substance, under Section 4 of the Clayton Act.  Section 4 requires
not only that a defendant violate the antitrust laws but also that
the plaintiff suffer injury "to his business or property."  Some
courts have opined that this language means that proof of
individualized injury is the crux of a Section 4 private action.

Of course, antitrust suits under Section 4 have been certified as
class actions for many years.  Sometimes, proving individual
injury and its amount can reasonably be derived from common proof
(for example, in a commodity price-fixing action in which the
price list was public, combination of the price list with proof of
purchase would be sufficient to establish individual injury).  At
other times, however, individualized proof is an extremely
complicated endeavor.  In those instances, particularly given the
courts' rigorous analyses, plaintiffs in a putative class may not
be able to meet their burden to prove individual injury.

When presented with such situations, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fourth and Fifth Circuits have stated the class should not be
certified, because doing so would convey a right to damages to
individuals who had suffered no injury to their "business or
property."  Indeed, by so expanding the antitrust class, the
courts said, certification would "enlarge" substantive rights
under the Clayton Act, in violation of the Rules Enabling Act.

In Tyson, the court will address similar questions about the
effect of including uninjured individuals in a damages class
actions.  The court could -- either in its opinion or after the
fact -- purport to limit its analysis to the FLSA and disclaim a
broader import to its decision.  Even if that were the case,
however, Tyson is likely to offer important insight into how the
court views the interplay between substantive rights conveyed by
statute, like the private right to damages in Section 4 of the
Clayton Act, and the Rules Enabling Act.  Hopefully, when the
court decides Tyson, it will at least keep in mind Windham and
Blue Bird, important and longstanding precedent that seem to
suggest that inclusion of uninjured individuals in a class
definition would defeat the certification of a private antitrust
class.

Conclusion

One thing is certain: Tyson is a case to watch.  Private class
actions, in antitrust and in myriad other subject matters, are
filed frequently with courts across the nation.  They often
include high-profile defendants and damages awards that can reach
into the billions of dollars. Indeed, the issue is significant
enough to have gained some attention in Congress, where the House
Judiciary Committee recently certified a bill that would require
that "the party seeking to maintain a class action affirmatively
demonstrate[] through admissible evidentiary proof that each
proposed class member suffered an injury of the same type and
extent as the injury of the named class representative or
representatives."  Ultimately, one hopes that the court -- or
Congress -- will provide additional clarity that creates a path to
both robust and also efficient enforcement of the antitrust laws.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Calif. Regulators Impose Fine for Keeping Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Uber picked up a hefty tab on
July 15 when a judge fined the taxi-alternative's California
subsidiary $7.3 million for refusing to give state regulators
information about its business practices, including when its
drivers turn down ride requests and how accessible vehicles are to
disabled riders.

The fine was part of a ruling by an administrative law judge at
the California Public Utilities Commission, the regulatory agency
that allowed Uber and its competitors such as Lyft to operate in
the state as long as the companies reported aspects of their
activities.

The judge agreed with utility commission staff who said Uber's
California subsidiary, Rasier-CA, has not filed all required
reports, specifically about how often it provided disabled-
accessible vehicles, places where drivers tend to turn down ride
requests, and the causes of accidents.

Uber's app allows passengers to request a ride directly from
drivers in the area -- and allows drivers to decline the request.
The utilities commission wants to see whether drivers are
accepting fares evenly.

Attorneys for Rasier-CA had argued that the company provided
sufficient information to the commission.  The judge acknowledged
that the company provided some of the contested information but
said it was not enough.

In a written statement, Uber spokeswoman Eva Behrend called the
ruling and fine "deeply disappointing" and said the company would
appeal.

"Uber has already provided substantial amounts of data to the
California Public Utilities Commission, information we have
provided elsewhere with no complaints," Ms. Behrend wrote, adding
that submitting more detailed information could affect the privacy
of passengers and drivers.

In a written statement, the utilities commission said Uber was the
only company of its kind not to comply with the reporting
requirements.

Uber has previously tussled with public officials.  In Portland,
Oregon, for example it had an extended disagreement with the city
that led it to suspend operations.  In France, Uber suspended its
low-cost service following an escalating legal dispute and
sometimes-violent tensions with traditional French taxi drivers.

French authorities had ordered the service -- called UberPop --
shut down, but Uber refused, pending a legal decision at a top
French court.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Argues App's 160,000 Drivers Not Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shaun Nichols, writing for The Register, reports that Uber is
arguing in court that 160,000 drivers who offer people rides for
money via the upstart's app are not actually its employees.

The taxi-booking software startup told the California Northern
District Court that its smartphone app was only a "lead
generation" tool, and that drivers who operate on Uber are more
akin to independent contractors than hired employees.

Uber argues that drivers who offer rides on the service are a
"diverse group" who use Uber's service in different ways.

"Drivers also vary widely regarding whether they work for a
transportation company; operate their own transportation
companies; hire subcontractors; use competitors' apps; use the
Uber App consistently or sporadically; and use entrepreneurial
profit maximization techniques, such as targeting busy areas of
town or driving during periods of surge pricing," Uber told the
court.

The claim is part of an effort by Uber to fend off a would-be
class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of drivers who have argued
that Uber does not give them a larger cut of ride fees or
encourage passengers to tip.

Uber, in its argument, claims that because its drivers are
"unique" in how they use the service, the class-action plaintiffs
can't accurately represent all Uber drivers.

"Relying on outdated law and scant evidence, plaintiffs seek to
certify a statewide class of over 160,000 individuals with widely
varying personal interests and circumstances who have used the
Uber lead generation application to connect with millions of
passengers over the past six years," Uber wrote.

"They base their motion on a facially implausible theory that each
and every one of these individuals had an identical relationship
with Uber and has been misclassified as an independent
contractor."

The case is one of many Uber continues to face over the legality
of its service. Uber operates both its own fleet of private cars
and the controversial ride-sharing services where drivers use
their own cars to ferry passengers.

Governments in cities around the world (notably Paris and Sydney),
have moved to ban the ride-sharing service, known as "UberX" or
"UberPop" depending on region, on the grounds that the service
operates as an unlicensed taxi provider.


UBIQUITI NETWORKS: Appeal in Shareholder Class Action Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ubiquiti 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 appeal in the
Shareholder Class Action Lawsuits is ongoing before the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Beginning on September 7, 2012, two class action lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against Ubiquiti Networks, Inc., certain of
its officers and directors, and the underwriters of its initial
public offering, alleging claims under U.S. securities laws. On
January 30, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated
complaint. On March 26, 2014, the court issued an order granting a
motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. Following the
plaintiffs' decision not to file an amended complaint, on April
16, 2014, the court ordered the dismissal of the lawsuit with
prejudice, and entered judgment in favor of the Company and the
other defendants, and against the plaintiffs. On May 15, 2014, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of the
court. The appeal is ongoing before the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit. There can be no assurance that the Company will
prevail in the appeal proceeding. The Company cannot currently
estimate the possible loss, if any, that it may experience in
connection with this litigation.


UNITED STATES: Test Subject Veterans Entitled to Medical Care
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Kime, writing for Military Times, reports that veterans
used as test subjects for chemical and biological tests during the
Cold War won a small victory in court recently when appellate
judges ruled the Army must keep them apprised of developments
related to their health.

In its June 30 decision, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals also
said the Army, not the Veterans Affairs Department, should provide
medical care to those vets.

The ruling came on a class-action lawsuit filed by Vietnam
Veterans of America, Swords to Plowshares and individual veterans
over medical care for troops who participated in research programs
at Edgewood Arsenal and Fort Detrick, Maryland, from the early
1950s through the mid-1970s.

The judges ruled the Army is obligated to provide the vets updated
information on issues pertaining to their health.  They also
rejected a district court's earlier argument that even though the
Army should have furnished medical care for the veterans under its
own regulations, it didn't have to because the VA provides care to
some of the affected personnel.

The judges sent the case back to the Northern California District
Court Judge Claudia Wilken to reconsider.

"The district court could not . . . categorically deny injunctive
relief to former volunteer subjects seeking necessary medical care
because some former subjects may be entitled to receive medical
care from another government agency," the judges wrote.

Nearly 7,000 troops took part in chemical research programs at
Edgewood from 1950 to 1975 and in biological research at Fort
Detrick from 1946 to 1977, testing substances such as mescaline,
ketamine, LSD, and nerve agents like sarin.

In earlier eras, World War I and World War II troops numbering in
the tens of thousands were used for human experiments to test
chemicals and protective equipment, exposes to mustard gas and
"Lewisite," a blister agent with bodily consequences similar to
mustard gas.

The military services began developing their first policies on
human experiments in 1953, requiring that subjects be apprised of
the tests and provide informed consent.

But many Edgewood test veterans like plaintiff Frank Rochelle
volunteered for the duty thinking they were testing battle gear
for troops heading to Vietnam.

Instead, Rochelle and others were injected with an anticholinergic
-- a class of drug that includes atropine and Benadryl -- that
acts as a bronchodilator but can cause delirium, hallucinations
and seizures if ingested in large quantities, and unnamed liquids
that made them forget the entire event, according to military
records.

In a 2012 interview with Military Times, Rochelle said he never
touched a piece of equipment or uniform gear.   "To this day, the
only reason I know I got [some of the drugs are] because it's in
my record," he said.

Despite the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling, veterans will
still have to wait before they will receive medical care from
Tricare instead of the VA.

The government, which has 45 days to respond, has several options.
It can request a rehearing based on newly discovered evidence,
rebut the decision, or seek a hearing before a larger group of
justices called an en banc session.

Army spokesman Lt. Col. Ben Garrett said the Army is aware of the
ruling but cannot comment further as officials are "still
reviewing the court's findings."

The original lawsuit was filed in 2009 against the Army, the VA,
the Defense Department and the Central Intelligence Agency, with
veterans petitioning to be notified that they were used in the
experiments, told what substances they had received, released from
privacy oaths and awarded medical coverage through Tricare.

Government attorneys argued the case should be dismissed because
Congress, DoD and VA have investigated the testing for years, have
notified many participants and already provide many with health
care and disability benefits through the VA.

The Morrison & Foerster law firm has represented the veterans
groups and former troops pro bono.  None of the plaintiffs are
seeking monetary redress.

"We're pleased the case has been remanded so the district court
can now formulate an injunction that will get the Army to provide
medical care to those veterans who so desperately need it," said
attorney Eugene Illovsky.  "This is a large class of people who
felt they were promised medical care under Army regulations and
needed their voices heard."


UNITED STATES: Vietnam Vets with PTSD Win Long-Denied Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Inquister reported that Vietnam veterans won a long-denied victory
on benefits and bad conduct discharges. For years these veterans
have struggled to get long-denied benefits. Last spring five
Vietnam combat veterans filed a class action lawsuit to get their
discharges upgraded. Conley Monk, Jr. of New Haven, Connecticut,
who was the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, told WNPR that the
discharge he received from the Marine Corps had impacted his life
in many ways.

Having served in Vietnam from 1968-70, Monk suffered from Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder. According to Jennifer Tiernan, an
intern at the Yale Law School's Veterans Legal Services Clinic,
thousands of Vietnam veterans are affected by these bad conduct
discharges.

"These five men are representative of what we estimate to be
80,000 Vietnam veterans who developed PTSD during their military
service, and as a result, had conduct that led to other than
honorable discharges," she said. "And these discharges have been a
bar from receiving most VA benefits that most veterans are
entitled to."

After the suit was filed, then-Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel
issued a memo to the Records Corrections boards asking that the
boards consider a PTSD diagnosis as a reason for upgrading the
discharges. The five veterans involved in the case have all had
their discharges upgraded to honorable.

Monk stated that because of his discharge, he was unable to get
the necessary benefits he needed, including a home loan, education
benefits, and healthcare. With the correction to his discharge
papers, which took 40 years, he is now eligible to receive these
benefits. Although the five Vietnam veterans involved in the
lawsuit were able to get their discharges upgraded, some veterans
have been denied the upgrades. Veterans are encouraged to reapply
for the discharge upgrades, reports Connecticut Health I-Team.

U.S. Senator Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., and a member of the
Armed Forces Service Committee, expressed concern that the
Veterans Administration hasn't conducted an outreach program to
let veterans know that the program is available. With the new
guidelines, Vietnam veterans now have a chance to correct less-
than-honorable discharges that were the result of PTSD.

Hundreds of veterans have contacted the Yale Law School Legal
Clinic to ask about the new guidelines, said Virginia McCalmont,
another intern at the clinic that worked on the case. Although
Federal Senior Judge Warren W. Eginton dismissed the case last
November, the five Vietnam veterans involved in the case were
still allowed to receive honorable discharges because of the new
Department of Defense guidelines. For now, the Yale Law School
Veterans Legal Services Clinic has chosen not to refile the
lawsuit since the Department of Defense changed its guidelines.


WELLS FARGO: Time to Respond to Admin. Bids Extended to July 22
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Vince Chhabria signed on June 23, 2015, a
stipulation and order extending deadlines in the case captioned
KAREN LUCIA and JEFFREY LUCIA, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
d/b/a WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE; and DOES 1 through 10,
Defendants. PHILLIP R. CORVELLO, individually, and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.
d/b/a WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE d/b/a AMERICA'S SERVICING COMPANY,
Defendant. AMIRA JACKMON, individually, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMERICA'S SERVICING COMPANY and
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendants, CASE NOS. 3:10-CV-04749-VC,
10-CV-05072-VC, 11-CV-03884-VC, (N.D. Cal.).

The plaintiffs' deadline for filing their motions for class
certification fell directly before the federal Fourth of July
holiday (on July 2, 2015), and in order to provide Wells Fargo
with adequate time to evaluate the material filed by plaintiffs
and prepare, as necessary, declarations in support of sealing, the
Parties conferred and agreed upon extending the deadline for
plaintiffs to file their respective administrative motions to
seal, if any, and the deadline for Wells Fargo to respond.

The Parties agreed that no party will be prejudiced and no other
deadlines will be affected by the extension.

The court-approved stipulation, a copy of which is available at
http://bit.ly/1HOhfNzfrom leagle.com, provides that Plaintiffs'
deadline to file their administrative motions to seal, if any,
pursuant to Local Rule 79-5 is extended through and until July 8,
2015.

Wells Fargo's deadline to submit its responses to the
Administrative Motions is extended through and until July 22,
2015.

Steve W. Berman (Pro Hac Vice) Thomas E. Loeser, HAGENS BERMAN
SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP, Seattle, WA, Peter B. Fredman, LAW OFFICE OF
PETER FREDMAN PC, Berkeley, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff AMIRA
JACKMON and persons similarly situated.

Timothy G. Blood, Thomas J. O'Reardon II, BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON
LLP, San Diego, CA, Attorneys for Plaintiff PHILLIP R. CORVELLO,
and persons similarly situated.

Matthew G. Ball, K&L GATES LLP, San Francisco, CA, Irene C.
Freidel (pro hac vice) David Christensen (pro hac vice) Jennifer
J. Nagle (pro hac vice) K&L GATES LLP, State Street Financial
Center Boston, MA, Attorneys for Defendant WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.

Brian R. Strange, STRANGE & CARPENTER, Los Angeles, CA, Attorneys
for Plaintiffs KAREN LUCIA, JEFFREY LUCIA, and GAIL CAPLAN, and
persons similarly situated.


YAHOO! INC: Consumers Urge 9th Circ. to Turn Away Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for Media Post, reported that Yahoo has no
grounds to immediately appeal a ruling that allows consumers to
proceed with a class-action suit over the company's email scanning
practices, a group of consumers argues in new court papers.

"Yahoo contends that . . . review of the district court's order is
necessary but has not shown why this this is one of the 'rare'
cases in which review is appropriate," the consumers argue in
papers filed with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The consumers' filing comes in response to Yahoo's bid to convince
the 9th Circuit to hear an appeal of a recent decision issued by
U.S. District Court Judge Lucy Koh. She ruled in late May that a
group of Web users -- Cody Baker, Brian Pincus, Halima Nobles, and
Rebecca Abrams -- could bring a class-action challenging Yahoo's
practice of scanning email messages in order to surround them with
ads. Baker and the others say that Yahoo violated the federal
wiretap law and a California privacy law by allegedly intercepting
messages without the consent of both the sender and recipient.

Yahoo argues that the consumers shouldn't be able to proceed as a
class-action, because it will argue that they consented to the
scans. "Determining who has not consented (and thus is part of the
class) requires an individualized, fact-specific inquiry," the
company says in papers filed earlier with the 9th Circuit.

Yahoo's terms of service provide that the company analyzes email
in order to display ads, but the people who are suing didn't have
Yahoo email accounts themselves, and say that they never
explicitly agreed to the company's terms of service.

Baker and the others counter that they're entitled to proceed as a
class, arguing that some key questions don't require consumer-by-
consumer decisions.

Judge Koh's decision allowing the consumers to proceed as a class
was something of a surprise, given that she refused to authorize
Web users to proceed as a class in a privacy lawsuit involving
Gmail. Web users in that matter argued that Google violated
privacy laws by scanning messages in order to surround them with
ads.

Judge Koh ruled in the Gmail dispute that the consumers could
proceed with their allegations, but only on behalf of themselves.
The users settled with Google soon after that decision.


YELP INC: Sidecar Drivers File Suit Over Missing Delivery Tips
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that a pair of
drivers for ride-hailing service Sidecar sued Yelp Inc. on July 10
claiming its newly acquired food-delivery startup withheld tips
customers paid on digital bills.

Yelp paid $134 million in cash and stock in February for Eat24, a
website and mobile platform that connects restaurants to delivery
services and allows customers to order online.  Eat24 enables
customers to include a tip for delivery people when ordering or
elect to tip in cash.  The company has partnered with Sidecar in
some locations, including the Bay Area, for delivery services.

In a complaint filed on July 10, Sidecar drivers Steven Kay from
Oakland and Esteban Polonski from South San Francisco claim that
they haven't received tips on orders where Eat24 customers paid
with credit card, Google Wallet and PayPal.

"What is more, [Yelp and Eat24] conceal from delivery persons the
fact that a customer has left them a tip through Eat24's online
payment system, even though these tips are the sole property of
Eat24's delivery persons," wrote Michael Schrag --
mls@classlawgroup.com -- of the Gibbs Law Group in the proposed
class action complaint.  Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of all
delivery people in the U.S. who weren't paid tips owed them.  The
plaintiffs ask for both restitution and damages.

The suit, over an age-old employee issue of missing tips,
addresses who is responsible for wage claims when they arise in
the new on-demand economy and involve digital payments.

A spokesperson for Yelp said that suit "has no merit" and that
neither Yelp nor Eat24 hire drivers.  "For Sidecar-made
deliveries, Eat24 sends all tips to Sidecar, who we understand
then distributes those tips to Sidecar drivers," the spokesperson
said.

Mr. Schrag said in a statement that "for at least several months"
Eat24 has collected tips that drivers haven't received.  Said
Schrag: "As new aspects of the economy emerge it is important to
treat fairly those providing the services."


ZYNGA INC: Case Management Conference Held in "DeStefano"
---------------------------------------------------------
Zynga 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 case management conference was
scheduled for June 12, 2015, in the securities class action
captioned DeStefano v. Zynga Inc. et al.

The Company said, "On July 30, 2012, a purported securities class
action captioned DeStefano v. Zynga Inc. et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-
04007-JSW, was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company, and certain
of our current and former directors, officers, and executives.
Additional purported securities class actions containing similar
allegations were filed in the Northern District. On September 26,
2012, the court consolidated various of the class actions as In re
Zynga Inc. Securities Litigation, Lead Case No. 12-cv-04007-JSW.
On January 23, 2013, the court entered an order appointing a lead
plaintiff and approving lead plaintiff's selection of lead
counsel. On April 3, 2013, the lead plaintiff and another named
plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint. On February 25, 2014,
the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint and provided plaintiffs leave to file an
amended complaint."

"The lead plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on March 31,
2014. The First Amended Complaint alleges that the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by issuing false or
misleading statements regarding the Company's business and
financial projections. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
securities between February 14, 2012 and July 25, 2012. The First
Amended Complaint asserts claims for unspecified damages, and an
award of costs and expenses to the putative class, including
attorneys' fees. On March 25, 2015, the Court issued an order
denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint. On April 21, 2015, the defendants requested leave to
file a motion for reconsideration of that order. On April 24,
2015, the plaintiffs opposed the motion. On April 28, 2015, the
Court denied the defendants' motion. A case management conference
was scheduled for June 12, 2015."


ZYNGA INC: Court Granted Request to Dismiss "Reyes" Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2015, that in the case, Reyes v. Zynga Inc., the
court granted plaintiff's request for voluntary dismissal of the
action with prejudice as to the named plaintiff's claims and
without prejudice as to the claims of any other members of the
proposed class.

A purported securities class action captioned Reyes v. Zynga Inc.,
et al. was filed on August 1, 2012, in San Francisco County
Superior Court. The action was removed to federal court, and was
later remanded to San Francisco County Superior Court. The
complaint alleges that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing false or misleading statements in
connection with an April 2012 secondary offering of Class A common
stock. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who
acquired the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable to the
secondary offering.

On June 10, 2013, the defendants filed a motion to stay the action
and a demurrer arguing that the complaint should be dismissed
because the court lacks jurisdiction over the claims. On August
26, 2013, the court issued orders overruling the demurrer and
granting the motion to stay all deadlines in the action pending a
ruling on the motion to dismiss in the federal securities class
action described above. On September 29, 2014, the court issued
orders denying a motion to continue the stay of the action and
overruling a demurrer arguing that the complaint failed to state a
cause of action. On October 15, 2014, the defendants filed a
petition in the California Court of Appeal seeking review of the
denial of the motion to stay and of the trial court's ruling that
it had jurisdiction to hear the claims.

On January 29, 2015, the Court of Appeal denied defendants'
petition. On February 11, 2015, the court granted plaintiff's
request for voluntary dismissal of the action with prejudice as to
the named plaintiff's claims and without prejudice as to the
claims of any other members of the proposed class.


ZYNGA INC: Court Granted Underwriters' Motion to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------
Zynga Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2015, that in the case, Lee v. Pincus, et al., the
court denied the motion to dismiss brought by Zynga and the
directors and granted the motion to dismiss brought by the
underwriters who had been named as defendants.

The Company said, "On April 4, 2013, a purported class action
captioned Lee v. Pincus, et al. was filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware against the Company, and certain of our
current and former directors, officers, and executives. The
complaint alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties in
connection with the release of certain lock-up agreements entered
into in connection with the Company's initial public offering. The
plaintiff seeks to represent a class of certain of the Company's
shareholders who were subject to the lock-up agreements and who
were not permitted to sell shares in an April 2012 secondary
offering. On January 17, 2014, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. On March 6, 2014, the defendants filed motions to
dismiss the amended complaint and a motion to stay discovery while
the motions to dismiss were pending. On November 14, 2014, the
court denied the motion to dismiss brought by Zynga and the
directors and granted the motion to dismiss brought by the
underwriters who had been named as defendants."


* Arbitration Clauses Limit Credit Cardholders' Damages Recovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Columbus Dispatch reports that most consumers pay attention to
a few major factors when opening a new credit card: the interest
rate and credit limit, along with any bonus deals and perks they
may get in exchange for opening the account.  What most don't do
is thoroughly read all the fine print.  If they did, they often
would find that they are signing away their right to file or join
in a lawsuit against the card issuer if something goes wrong.

That doesn't matter -- until it does.  Most people never have
cause to take a credit-card company to court, but things do
happen.  Such clauses also can limit a cardholder's ability to
recover damages in class-action lawsuits, which are not uncommon.
About 32 million consumers a year are eligible to participate in
class-action cases.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau issued a report, ordered
by Congress, on this topic earlier this year.  It noted that
credit cards are just one example of financial products that
include arbitration clauses in the small print of their
agreements.  Meanwhile, 75 percent of consumers surveyed didn't
know whether there was an arbitration clause in their financial-
services agreements.

"Tens of millions of consumers are covered by arbitration clauses,
but few know about them or understand their impact," said
Richard Cordray, director of the CFPB and former attorney general
of Ohio.

Some big credit-card companies have eliminated arbitration
requirements from most of their cards.

Others allow customers to opt out.

The main thing consumers can do is actually read the paperwork,
looking for the word arbitration in the many lines of tiny print.


* Berger & Montague Named Lead Atty in Market Manipulation Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Deutsch, Esq. -- ldeutsch@bm.net -- and Robin
Switzenbaum, Esq. -- rswitzenbaum@bm.net -- of the law firm Berger
& Montague, P.C. have been appointed co-lead counsel (along with
the law firm of Bragar Eagel and Squire, P.C.) in the dividend
options market manipulation class action lawsuit, Stephen Rabin v.
John Doe Market Makers, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, and NASDAQ OMX GROUP,
INC.  The class action has been filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons
who held short call option positions on "in the money" call
options contracts on dividend paying stocks and exchange traded
funds ("ETFs") and who were adversely affected by Defendants'
manipulation of the options markets prior to the ex-dividend date
on such securities from February 6, 2010 through the present (the
"Class Period").

The lawsuit alleges widespread manipulation of call options on the
Philadelphia exchange by market makers and brokers on dividend
paying stocks and exchanged traded funds over several years.  A
market maker is a broker-dealer, who enjoys certain margin and
trading privileges because of their status, that accepts the risk
of holding a certain number of shares of a particular security in
order to facilitate trading in that security. It is alleged that
the market makers used these privileges to unfairly manipulate
certain options trades. The case is brought on behalf of writers
of call options for dividend paying stocks and ETFs that were
damaged by the scheme.

Prior to this announcement, the Court had previously granted
extraordinary discovery to co-lead counsel in order to properly
identify the participants in this scheme, who originally had to be
pled as John Doe defendants since their identities could not be
determined from public sources. Although the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1994 normally bars any discovery until
after motions to dismiss are resolved, nonetheless, the judge
granted plaintiff counsel's motion for expedited discovery to
identify the participants in this scheme from the records of
NASDAQ.

Persons who may have held short call positions or wish to discuss
this action may visit www.bergermontague.com/manipulativeoptions
or contact Lawrence Deutsch, Esq. of Berger & Montague, P.C., at
1-215-875-3062 or ldeutsch@bm.net.

Background on the Dividend Call Options Manipulation

The Complaint alleges that beginning in February 2010, Market
Maker Defendants manipulated call options in advance of dividend
payments on underlying securities to the detriment of all other
holders of short call positions in those options contracts.
Specifically, the Market Maker Defendants, with the acquiescence
of Defendants NASDAQ/PHLX and NASDAQ OMX, manipulated the options
contracts by executing among themselves huge pre-arranged matched
options trades on underlying securities immediately prior to the
date for that security's dividend payment.

These market makers flooded the options market with additional
option contracts one day before the ex-dividend date.  By greatly
inflating the size of the open interest pool for the call options,
the Market Maker Defendants, with the acquiescence of NASDAQ/PHLX
and NASDQ OMX, increased their own chances of non-assignment of
the options, thus increasing their chances to collect the dividend
on those unassigned options.  Market Maker Defendants thereby
improperly diverted the dividends that would have been paid to
plaintiff and other members of the class, resulting in damages to
the class.


* Courts Restrict Ability to Sue Companies Following Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Damon W. Silver, writing for The National Law Review, reported
that among the multitude of unpleasant issues facing a company
whose network has been breached is potential liability to
customers and employees whose personal information has been
compromised.  However, recent district court decisions from around
the country continue to limit the opportunity of those customers
and employees to have their day in court.  Specifically, these
cases have held that, in order for a customer or employee whose
data has been stolen to gain standing to sue the company that
experienced the breach, the customer or employee must show that
the stolen data was, in fact, used to the customer or employee's
financial detriment.  And such financial detriment must be
"concrete."  Increased risk of future harm does not suffice,
damages are not recoverable for "mitigation" measures -- such as
the purchase of credit monitoring services -- taken to protect
against speculative future harm, and an individual's allegations
that he fears such future harm will generally not be enough to
establish a claim for emotional distress.

In Green v. eBay Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana dismissed a putative class action brought on
behalf of eBay customers whose data was stolen when eBay user
information was hacked.  The suit alleged that, as a result of
eBay's security failure, Plaintiffs suffered (a) actual identity
theft, (b) improper disclosure of their personal information, (c)
out-of-pocket expenses incurred to mitigate the increased risk of
identity theft and/or identify fraud, (d) the value of the time
they had spent mitigating identity theft and/or identity fraud,
and (e) the deprivation of the value of their personal
information.  eBay's failure, Plaintiffs alleged, violated the
Federal Stored Communications Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act,
the Gramm-Leach-Billey Act, and several state laws.  The Court
disagreed.  Noting that the "mere increased risk of identity theft
or identify fraud alone does not constitute a cognizable injury[,]
unless the harm alleged is certainly impending," the Court
dismissed the suit in its entirety.

Similarly, in Strautins v. Trustwave Holdings, Inc., the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted
Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' class action lawsuit
seeking damages stemming from the hacking of the South Carolina
Department of Revenue.  The data breach had exposed in excess of
3.5 million social security numbers, 380,000 credit and debit card
numbers, and the tax records of more than 650,000 businesses.
Plaintiffs alleged that they had not received timely and adequate
notification of this breach, and that the breach had resulted in
the improper disclosure of their personal information, loss of
privacy, the need to incur out-of-pocket mitigation expenses
(relating both to dollars spent and time expended), and
deprivation of the value of their personal identifying
information.  They also alleged that Defendant, by failing to
protect their data, had violated their rights under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.  The Court, however, found that Plaintiffs'
"claims of injury . . . [were] too speculative to permit the
complaint to go forward." "Allegations of possible future injury
are not sufficient to establish standing," the Court held.
Instead, the "threatened injury must be certainly impending."
(Emphasis in original.)

Even if a plaintiff can show that a hacker used the data it stole
from plaintiff's employer or merchant, such use may not suffice to
confer standing on the plaintiff, unless he can also show that he
suffered financial harm as a result.  In Peters v. St. Joseph
Services Corp., for example, hackers infiltrated a health care
system provider's network and accessed personal information of
patients and employees, including names, social security numbers,
birthdates, addresses, medical records, and bank account
information.  Even though there was an attempted purchase on
Plaintiff's credit card, which she declined when she received a
fraud alert, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas held that Plaintiff did not have standing to bring suit.
The basis for the Court's holding was that Plaintiff's allegation
that the breach exposed her to certainly impending or substantial
risk of identity fraud/theft was too speculative and attenuated to
constitute injury-in-fact.  Notably, she was unable to "describe
how [she would] be injured without beginning the explanation with
the word 'if.'"

Notwithstanding the above decisions, companies should continue
striving to establish legal and technological protections against
data breaches and exposure to related liability.  Even where class
actions and other litigations fail, federal agencies and state
attorneys general may continue to investigate data breaches and
take enforcement actions.  (Many have, the Massachusetts Attorney
General being one example.)  These actions can include, among
other things, significant fines and increased oversight of the
company's data privacy and security compliance.  And, of course,
the potential consequences of data breaches do not end there.
Companies that experience a breach may also suffer damage to their
brand and to employee morale.


* Holdouts on Gay Same Sex-Marriage Licenses May Spark Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Alexa Ura, writing for The Texas Tribune, reports that with most
Texas counties now issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples,
legal experts and gay rights activists say it may take individual
lawsuits to compel the handful of county clerks still refusing to
comply with the U.S. Supreme Court's recent ruling legalizing
same-sex marriage.

But gay activists eyeing those counties, and attorneys
representing same-sex couples who ran into obstacles obtaining
licenses, say they hope recalcitrant clerks will avoid spending
taxpayer dollars on ill-fated, expensive lawsuits that could be
avoided.

"We hope and expect that county clerks across Texas and the
country will take a look at what happened [in Hood County] and do
the right thing and follow the U.S. Constitution," said
Austin Kaplan, an Austin attorney who represents a Granbury gay
couple who obtained a marriage license on July 6 after filing a
lawsuit against the Hood County Clerk's office in federal court.

The Granbury couple, Jim Cato and Joe Stapleton, who have been
together for 27 years, have said they will move forward with their
lawsuit until the county clerk's office agrees to issue marriage
licenses to all couples.  Mr. Kaplan said they have not heard from
Hood County Clerk Katie Lang, and her office would not say whether
it is issuing same-sex licenses.

With a population of 53,921 people, Hood County is the most
populous county among those still refusing to issue same-sex
marriage licenses.

"To keep my oath to uphold the Constitution, I must reject this
ruling that I believe is lawless," Criner said in a press release
from the Liberty Counsel, a national nonprofit that specializes in
religious freedom litigation.  "I have to stand for the
Constitution and the rule of law."

Legal experts did not anticipate that a ruling in the Hood County
case would force Criner and the other holdouts to begin issuing
same-sex marriage licenses.

A judge's ruling in the Hood County case would likely only apply
to those parties in that county, said Alexandra Albright, a law
professor at the University of Texas at Austin.  If the case went
to the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals -- which has appellate
jurisdiction over federal courts in Texas -- then any ruling would
apply to the entire circuit, Ms. Albright added.

Now that the Hood County gay couple has obtained a marriage
license, a federal judge may not immediately rule on the broader
issue of whether the Hood County clerk's delay "caused
constitutional damage," so other same-sex couples would likely
have to file their own lawsuits, said Meg Penrose, a law professor
at Texas A&M University.

"If this is not a class action, other individuals that are denied
marriage licenses will need to sue on their own behalf or wait for
a class action to be filed," Ms. Penrose said.  "This could become
costly for the county [or] clerk as individual lawsuits could
mount quickly."

Mr. Kaplan, the attorney for the Hood County gay couple, said
Texas lawyers were keeping an eye on "lawless clerks" and would
likely take action if clerks continued to believe "there's some
justification for failing to issue the licenses."

"We'll see what happens when that comes to head," he added.

After helping same-sex couples in eight other counties that
initially refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses, Glen Maxey,
a gay activist and the director of county affairs for the Texas
Democratic Party, said he had heard from couples who wanted to get
a license in Irion County and were seeking legal representation.

But with most counties already issuing same-sex marriage licenses,
Mr. Maxey, the first openly gay legislator in Texas, said there
wasn't much reason to file lawsuits in every holdout county --
other than Irion County -- "to make a point" because of the small
population in those counties.

The populations in the holdout counties range from 86 people in
Loving County to 8,199 in Hamilton County.

"Instead of paying $400 for legal fees for a couple to file a
lawsuit, I would prefer to pay $500 for a moving van for them to
get out of those hell holes," Mr. Maxey said.  "We're down to the
stems and seeds here."


* Megan Davis Joins Nelson Mullins' West Virginia Office
--------------------------------------------------------
Herald Dispatch reported that Megan B. Davis has joined Nelson
Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP as an associate in West Virginia
where she will practice in the areas of professional liability,
healthcare litigation, class actions and mass torts, product
liability litigation and commercial litigation, according to a
release from the firm.

Davis joins the firm from another Huntington law firm, where she
was a member of the tort and environmental litigation group. She
also has worked as a paralegal and attorney at firms in Oklahoma
City.

She earned her law degree from the University of Oklahoma College
of Law, where she graduated cum laude, and a Bachelor of Arts in
English from Marshall University, where she graduated magna cum
laude with University Honors and was a Yeager Scholar.


* On-Demand Economy Raises Questions on Workplace Protections
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Miller, writing for The Recorder, reports that walking a
fine political line, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary
Clinton told a New York audience on July 13 that while advances in
technology helped boost the nation out of recession, too many
workers have not shared in the boom times, a dilemma effectively
"polarizing our economy."

"Many Americans are making extra money renting out a room,
designing web sites, selling products they designed themselves or
even driving their own car," Ms. Clinton said in a 45-minute
economic policy speech at The New School in New York.

"This on-demand or so-called gig economy is creating exciting
opportunity and unleashing innovation," the former secretary of
state and U.S. senator continued.  "But it is also raising hard
questions about workplace protections and what a good job will
look like in the future."

Ms. Clinton did not single out any company or even a particular
sector of the sharing economy.  Nor did she offer an opinion on
whether ride-sharing drivers should be classified as employees, an
issue that's the subject of current litigation.

But she warned that many companies and investors are too focused
on short-term gains through "second-to-second financial trading"
and quarterly earnings reports and not enough on employees and
long-term investments.

"I believe we have to build a growth and fairness economy," she
said.  "You can't have one without the other."

Ms. Clinton has become a regular visitor to Silicon Valley, where
she's found a friendly reception among some of the biggest names
in the tech industry. EBay CEO John Donahoe, investor-
philanthropist Tom Steyer and Box Inc. founder Aaron Levie have
all hosted fundraisers for her presidential campaign.  She's made
appearances at Twitter Inc., Facebook Inc. and Google Inc., and
she hired Google executive Stephanie Hannon as her chief
technology officer in April.

Many of the Valley's emerging companies, however, are facing
conflicts with established communities and industries, putting
them at odds with groups ranging from renters watching the local
pool of affordable housing shrink to labor groups irate that
fledgling apps are not covered by traditional regulations.  In her
speech, Clinton put forward proposals likely to appeal to tech
leaders: overhauling the tax code, creating tax credits for hiring
and reforming the capital-gains structure.

But she also expressed repeated empathy for workers whose wages
have stagnated, offering support for an unspecified raise in the
minimum wage and President Barack Obama's recent proposals to
expand overtime rules to cover an additional 5 million employees.
As president, Ms. Clinton said, "I'll crack down on bosses who
exploit employees as contractors or even steal their wages."


* Sharing Economy Faces Litigation & Political Pressures
--------------------------------------------------------
David Ruiz, writing for The Recorder, reports that the sharing
economy is at a crossroads.

In the face of litigation and political pressure, many companies
built on a labor force of independent contractors are considering
whether to reclassify their workers as traditional employees, say
lawyers advising Silicon Valley startups.

Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr partner Daniel Zimmermann --
daniel.zimmermann@wilmerhale.com -- said that all of his clients
that operate platforms matching customers and services are taking
a serious look at adopting an employee model.  "They have to," Mr.
Zimmermann said.  "This is a land mine."

On July 13, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton
spoke about the so-called "gig economy" in a broader campaign
speech about the American economy.  She didn't sound like a fan.
"I will crack down on bosses who exploit employees by
misclassifying them as contractors or even steal their wages," she
said.

Last month, the Office of the California Labor Commissioner deemed
a driver for Uber Technologies Inc. to be an employee, not a
contractor.  And plaintiffs lawyers are going after some of the
Valley's most successful sharing economy companies, including Uber
Technologies Inc., Lyft Inc., Homejoy, Postmates Inc. and
Instacart Inc., for possible worker misclassification.

That means young companies face a hard decision, said Silicon
Legal Strategy partner and founder Andre Gharakhanian.  They don't
want to be hit with a lawsuit, but at the same time, creating an
employee base means absorbing the costs of Social Security,
Medicare and unemployment taxes, expenses and workers'
compensation.

Mr. Gharakhanian said his firm is advising more than a dozen
companies on the issue, but declined to disclose client names.

"Our guidance is requested a lot more frequently in terms of
policies and on how to manage a labor supply or the rules around
training and what makes someone look like an employee," he said.
"It's tough, though, because no one totally knows the answers.
It's an uncertain landscape."

For companies, the primary legal guidance comes from the Internal
Revenue Service's 20-factor test, which focuses on who has control
over the work being performed.  Specific factors address whether
workers are instructed on how to perform tasks, receive training
or work set hours.

Mr. Zimmermann said the factor test leaves a lot of room for
interpretation, which makes it difficult to provide ironclad
answers.

"A conservative lawyer might say 'Oh, this should be an employee.'
Maybe that's the right answer.  But an aggressive lawyer, trying
to please his or her client might say 'This is an independent
contractor and that's the position we're sticking with.'  But what
happens if there's an enforcement action after that? You could get
screwed."

Last month, Instacart, a grocery delivery service, reclassified
some of its workers as part-time employees.  In early July,
San Francisco-based delivery service Shyp Inc. made a similar
move, designating its couriers as employees and offering benefits
for those working full-time.

"This is an operational decision based on our interest in owning
the entire, end-to-end Shyp experience; it is not in response to
recent lawsuits against other technology companies," said chief
executive officer Kevin Gibbon.

King & Spalding partner Cheryl Sabnis, who defends employers, said
changing the status of workers can be a culture shock.  "There's a
psychological shift of taking an entrepreneurial independent
contractor and turning them into a rank-and-file employee."

There are also very practical considerations, she said.  Companies
must designate which workers will see their status adjusted,
decide how far back to make retroactive payments, rewrite human
resources policies and contend with the tax implications.

Mr. Gharakhanian insists an employee model isn't the right
decision for all companies. Because of recent headlines, he said,
some clients are thinking about employee classification too early
in their life cycle.

"As startup lawyers, we certainly don't want to be more bold than
our clients are.  We want to rein them in, not the other way
around," he said.  "But the issue is being brought up all the time
now. If something comes out in TechCrunch or a blog, the questions
flood in."

Yet, even as entrepreneurs start to rethink the basic business
model of the sharing economy, one group, attorneys said, still
seems gung-ho: investors.

"It's such a hot market and everyone is chasing deals,"
Mr. Gharakhanian said.  "When everyone is out raising money in a
competitive situation, investors will deal with that risk."


* U.S. Chamber Applauds House Passage of FICALA
-----------------------------------------------
Lisa A. Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal
Reform (ILR), made the following statement about the U.S. House
Judiciary Committee's passage of H.R. 1927, the "Fairness in Class
Action Litigation Act of 2015" (FICALA): "Fairness in Class Action
Litigation Act of 2015"

"Class action lawsuits are supposed to be about efficient delivery
of justice to individuals, but have become a tool of the
plaintiffs' lawyers to game the system of justice and inflate
their compensation. The FICALA legislation would curb overbroad
and no-injury class actions while preserving legitimately injured
plaintiffs' ability to sue, as well as resources to compensate
them.

"We commend the House Judiciary Committee for passing this
important legislation, and urge both the House and Senate to
swiftly follow suit."

ILR seeks to promote civil justice reform through legislative,
political, judicial, and educational activities at the national,
state, and local levels.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business
federation representing the interests of more than 3 million
businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state
and local chambers and industry associations.


                            *********

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  * * *