CAR_Public/150721.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, July 21, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 144


                            Headlines


ACCELERATE DIAGNOSTICS: Facing "Rap" Securities Class Action
ADS WASTE: To Defend Against Suits Over Alleged Improper Fees
AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Co-Lead Plaintiffs to Amend Complaint
AERIE PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Kelley" Securities Class Action
ALPHABET HOLDING: Motions for Transfer Case Pending

ALPHABET HOLDING: Settlement in Supplements Class Action Pending
ALPHABET HOLDING: Appeal in TCPA Class Action Pending
ALTISOURCE RESIDENTIAL: Faces "Martin" Shareholder Class Action
AMARIN CORPORATION: Company and Officers Named in 4 Class Actions
AMERIGAS PARTNERS: Judicial Panel Transferred Class Suits

AMTECH SYSTEMS: MOU Reached to Settle BTU Merger Actions
AMTRAK: Plaintiffs File Train Derailment MDL Petition
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Oct. 20 Beck Settlement Approval Hearing Set
APPLE INC: Mulls Next Steps Following E-Book Price Fixing Ruling
APPLE INC: Unclaimed iPhone Settlement Funds to Go to Govt Trusts

APPLE INC: 9th Circuit Revives Antitrust Class Action
ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Filed Appeal of Dismissal
ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Montalbano" Product Liability Suit
ARTHUR SCHUMAN: Recalls Parmesan Cheese Products Due to Egg
AVID TECHNOLOGY: Insurer Paid $2.5 Million in Class Action

BALTIC TRADING: Facing Six Class Action Complaints
BANK OF NEW YORK: To Pay $335MM to Settle Customer Class Action
BBX CAPITAL: Settled NJ Tax Sales Cert. Antitrust Litigation
BLACKSTONE GROUP: Settlement in "Dahl" Case Now Final
BOULDER DOG: Recalls Turkey Sprinkles Due to Salmonella

BP PLC: Settles Oil Spill Litigation for $18.7 Million
BRETT ANTHONY: Recalls Vegetable Chili Products Due to Milk
BRIDGEWATER & ASSOCIATES: Title Examiners Win $768K Jury Award
CALUMET SPECIALTY: Parties in "Wolfe" Case Agreed to Settlement
CALUMET SPECIALTY: Parties in "Niver" Case Scheduled to Mediate

CARLYLE GROUP: Court Okays Settlements in Bidding Consortium Suit
CARNIVORE MEAT: Recalls Pet Food Due to Listeria
CBE GROUP: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.J.
CHADBOURNE & PARKE: Lawsuits Over Role in Ponzi Scheme Continue
CHARLES SCHWAB: Defendants' Petition for Rehearing Denied

CHATHAM LODGING: Affiliate Named as Defendant in Class Action
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Reed", "Sikora" Parties to Join Mediation
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Masters" Class Action Transferred
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: July Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration
CINEMARK USA: "Amey" Lawsuit in Pretrial Discovery

COMMERCE BANCSHARES: To Defend Against Customer's Class Action
CROCS INC: Class Suit Parties Planned to Participate in Mediation
DRESSER-RAND: Settlement Remains Subject to Final Documentation
EASTMAN KODAK: ERISA Litigation Proceeding
ECOLAB INC: Defendant in Six Pending Wage Hour Lawsuits

EDUCATIONAL TESTING: Faces New Suit Over Typo in SAT Test Timing
EHEALTH INC: Class Actions Filed Against Company, Chairman
ENERGY CORP: Judge Upholds Verdict in Landowners' Class Action
ENERGY XXI: Court of Chancery Dismissed EPL Merger Litigation
FACEBOOK INC: September 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

FANNIE MAE: Settlement in 2008 Securities Case Has Final OK
FANNIE MAE: Settlement in ERISA Litigation Wins Preliminary OK
FBR & CO: Underwriter Defendants Filed Motion to Dismiss
FEDERAL RESERVE: D.C. Court Struck Class Claims in "Artis" Suit
FIREEYE INC: To Defend Stockholder Action in Calif. Super. Ct.

FIREEYE INC: To Defend Stockholder Class Action in N.D. Calif.
FIRST HORIZON: FTBNA Facing Class Suit Related to Overdraft Fees
FREIGHTCAR AMERICA: Trial to Commence August 25 in "Zanghi" Case
GENCO SHIPPING: Facing Six Class Actions Filed in New York
GENERAL MOTORS: K&S Responds to Conspiracy Allegations

GENERAL MOTORS: Stockholders Can't Sue Over Ignition-Switch Issue
GENVEC INC: Court Approved Settlement in "Galitsis" Case
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Judge Decertifies Class in Wellbutrin Litigation
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces Zofran Injury Suit in W.D. Louisiana
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Antitrust Class Action Dismissal Reversed

GLOBAL CASH: Parties in "Williams" Action Reached Settlement
GLOBE SPECIALTY: Court of Chancery Consolidated 4 Class Actions
GREEN TREE: Violates Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Suit Says
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Accused of Falsely Marketing HP Smart Install
HISHMEH ENTERPRISES: Faces "Gibbins" Suit in C.D. California

HOMELAND SECURITY: Faces Civil Rights Violation Suit in Arizona
HUDSON CITY BANCORP: Class Suits May Be Dismissed
HUDSON PACIFIC: Court Denied Preliminary Injunction Bid
INFINITY MARKETING: Has Cost AEP $6MM in Illegal Calls, Suit Says
INNERWORKINGS INC: Bid to Dismiss "Van Noppen" Complaint Pending

INTELICARE DIRECT: Sued in Calif. for Violating Disabilities Act
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: No Class Cert. Materials Filed in TN Action
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: July 2015 Final Approval Settlement Hearing
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Homebuilders File Antitrust Action
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Canadian Cases Settled for Immaterial Amount

INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Remaining Deadlines Halted Pending Mediation
JEWS OFFERING: Liable for Consumer Fraud Over Gay Therapy
KELLY GEARHART: Gets 14 Years in Prison in California Fraud Case
KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Discovery Proceeding in Coal Tar Pitch Cases
KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Discovery on Merits Stayed in Gainesville Case

KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Performance Chemicals Faces Class Action
LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Delaware Court Approved Settlement
LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Plaintiffs Executed Settlement in "Sykes" Case
LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Hearing Held on Haverhill Case Settlement
LIBERTY GLOBAL: Claims Pending in Liberty Puerto Rico Matter

LIVE NATION: Accused of Failing to Pay Overtime to Stagehands
LONG ISLAND RAILROAD: Venue Argument Rejected in Pension Suit
LOUISIANA: Jindal's "Marriage and Conscience" Order Challenged
MAYA OVERSEAS: Recalls Cashew Products Due to Salmonella
MCNEIL CONSUMER: No Punitive Damages in Tylenol Bellwether Case

MEMPHIS: Can't Use Beale Street Sweep Without Reason, Court Rules
MERCK & CO: Dispositive Motions Fully Briefed in Vioxx Lawsuits
MERCK & CO: Stock Funds Dismissed as Plaintiffs in Vioxx Suit
MERCK & CO: 5,585 Cases Pending Related to Fosamax
MERCK & CO: Femur Fracture MDL Reassigned to Judge Wolfson

MERCK & CO: 3,050 Femur Fractures Cases Pending in New Jersey
MERCK & CO: 515 Femur Fractures Cases Pending in California Court
MERCK & CO: 860 Claims Served Related to Januvia/Janumet
MERCK & CO: 10 Cases Pending Outside of NuvaRing Settlement
MERCK & CO: 1,290 Lawsuits Filed Related to Propecia/Proscar

MERRILL LYNCH: Supreme Court to Decide on Case Over Short Sales
MOLSON COORS: "Hughes" Class Action at Early Stage of Proceedings
NBTY INC: Facing Class Actions Over Herbal Dietary Supplements
NBTY INC: Revised Deal in Glucosamine-Based Supplements Case
NBTY INC: Appeal From TCPA Claim Dismissal Pending

NEWS CORP: In-Store Promotions Suit Granted Class Action Status
OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Court Dismissed Aviv REIT Inc. Stockholder Case
OMNICELL INC: To Defend Against "Nelson" Class Action
OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Facing "Colley" Action in S.D. Calif.
PACIFIC COAST: Welch and Berliner Actions Consolidated

PNC FINANCIAL: Court Denied Motion to Dismiss "Montoya" Case
POLY IMPLANT: Plaintiffs Can't Seek Damages From TUV, Court Says
PPL CORP: 6th Cir. Grants Appellate Review Over Cane Run Claims
PROVECTUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Suit Over Melanoma Drug Pending
RADIAN GROUP: Reached Settlement in "Manners" Class Action

REGENCY ENERGY: Court Denied Motion to Expedite Discovery
RJ REYNOLDS: Smoker's Family Wins $13.5-Mil. Jury Award
ROCKET FUEL: Defendants Moved to Dismiss Consolidated Complaint
ROCKWELL INT'L: Nuisance Claims Must Be Resolved, 10th Cir. Rules
ROKA BIOSCIENCE: Court Appointed Yedlowski as Lead Plaintiff

ROSS DRESS: Sued for Marking Clothes w/ Fake "Compare At" Prices
SAC CAPITAL: Seeks Information on Plaintiffs' Litigation Funders
SCAPA DRYER: $4MM Verdict in Knight Asbestos Case Hangs in Balance
SIGNAL INT'L: Bankruptcy Plan Sets Aside $20MM for Guest Workers
SPARK NETWORKS: Asks Judicial Counsel to Coordinate Litigation

SPARK NETWORKS: Asks Court for Leave to Reply to ICC Opinion
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Received $40 Million From Insurer
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: To File Response on Class Certification
STATE STREET: Plaintiffs to Recover Share of Portion of Revenue
STELLA & CHEWY'S: Recalls Dog and Cat Food Due to Listeria

STEPHEN P LAMB: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Has Affirmative Defenses in FLSA Case
SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Inks MOU to Settle BB&T Merger Cases
TAKATA CORP: Airbag Defect Compensation Fund Still Uncertain
TD BANK: "Mingrone" Suit Consolidated in Debit Card Overdraft MDL

TOP RANK: Removes "Elstein" Suit to Southern District of Florida
TOP RANK: Removes "Hurwitz" Suit to California District Court
TOTAL SYSTEM: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in Telexfree Case
TRINET GROUP: Named as Defendant in Worksite Employees Action
TRUSTMARK CORP: Oct. 5 Deadline to Complete Class Cert. Briefing

TRUSTMARK CORP: Overdraft Actions Against TNB Settled, Dismissed
TURN INC: Faces Privacy Class Action Over "Supercookies"
TWEEN BRANDS: Faces Class Action Over Illusory Store Discount
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Managers to Stand Trial in Paris
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Suspends Ride-Hailing Service in France

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit Filed by Los Angeles-Based Drivers
UGI CORPORATION: Continues to Defend Suits Over Propane Tanks
UNITED STATES: D.C. Circuit Reinstates Suit Over Gun Rights
WASHINGTON PRIME: Hearing Held to Consider Settlement Approval
WELLS FARGO: ILG Illegally Collected Legal Fees, Court Says

WESBANCO INC: Memorandum of Settlement Reached in Class Suit
WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Cherry, Blackberry and Peach Pies Due to Egg
ZARA USA: Accused of Discrimination by Former General Counsel

* Consumer Watchdog Urges FCC to Toughen Do-Not-Track Rules
* Court Strikes Down Pennsylvania Law in Gun Ordinance Dispute
* Employment Lawyers Grapple with Implications of OT Proposals
* Filings in Mass Tort Program Up by 29% in Philadelphia
* New York's Local Law 15 Not in Conflict with Judiciary Law

* Pa. Supreme Court Approves Use of Tobacco Settlement Fund
* Panel Hears Debate on Punitive Damages in NYCAL Asbestos Cases
* Plaintiffs Can Challenge Housing Firms' Discriminatory Practice
* SEC Fines 36 Underwriting Firms Over Bond Market Violations


                            *********


ACCELERATE DIAGNOSTICS: Facing "Rap" Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Accelerate Diagnostics, 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 putative
securities class action lawsuit was filed on March 19, 2015,
against the Company, Lawrence Mehren, and Steve Reichling, Rapp v.
Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court,
District of Arizona, 2:2015-cv-00504.

The company said, "The complaint alleges that we violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC
Rule 10b-5, by making false or misleading statements about our
ID/AST System, formerly called the BACcel System.  Plaintiff
purports to bring the action on behalf of a class of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired our stock between March 7, 2014
and February 17, 2015.  Plaintiff seeks certification of the
action as a class action, compensatory damages for the class in an
unspecified amount, legal fees and costs, and such other relief as
the court may order.  We believe the case is without merit and
intend to defend it vigorously.  However, an adverse result could
have a material adverse effect upon our financial condition or
results of operations."


ADS WASTE: To Defend Against Suits Over Alleged Improper Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
ADS Waste Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company believes
it has meritorious defenses against purported class actions, which
it will vigorously pursue.

In February 2009, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries were
named as defendants in a purported class action suit in the
Circuit Court of Macon County, Alabama. Similar class action
complaints were brought against the Company and certain of its
subsidiaries in 2011 in Duval County, Florida and in 2013 in
Quitman County, Georgia and Barbour County, Alabama, and in
Chester County, Pennsylvania in 2014. The Georgia complaint was
dismissed in March 2014. The plaintiffs in those cases primarily
allege that the defendants charged improper fees (fuel,
administrative and environmental fees) that were in breach of the
plaintiffs' service agreements with the Company and seek damages
in an unspecified amount.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses against
these purported class actions, which it will vigorously pursue.
Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation, including the
early stage of these cases, the unknown size of any potential
class, and legal and factual issues in dispute, the outcome of
these cases cannot be predicted and a range of loss, if any,
cannot currently be estimated.


AEGERION PHARMACEUTICALS: Co-Lead Plaintiffs to Amend Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has
entered an order permitting and setting a schedule for co-lead
plaintiffs to file an Amended Complaint, and for defendants to
file responsive pleadings, co-lead plaintiffs to file any
opposition, and defendants to file reply briefs.

In January 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and certain of its executive officers in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging
certain misstatements and omissions related to the marketing of
JUXTAPID and the Company's financial performance in violation of
the federal securities laws. On March 11, 2015, the Court
appointed co-lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. On April 1, 2015,
the Court entered an order permitting and setting a schedule for
co-lead plaintiffs to file an Amended Complaint within 60 days,
and for defendants to file responsive pleadings, co-lead
plaintiffs to file any opposition, and defendants to file reply
briefs.

"As of the filing date of this Form 10-Q, the Company cannot
determine if a loss is probable and whether the outcome will have
a material adverse effect on its business and, as a result, the
Company has not recorded any amounts for a loss contingency," the
Company said.


AERIE PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Kelley" Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a putative
securities class action lawsuit captioned Kelley et al. v. Aerie
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-03007, was filed
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
April 29, 2015, on behalf of a purported class of persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
publicly traded securities between August 6, 2014 and April 23,
2015. The complaint asserts claims under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and alleges that the defendants made materially false
and misleading statements or omitted allegedly material
information during that period related to, among other things, the
prospects of the Company's initial Phase 3 registration trial of
RhopressaTM, named "Rocket 1," and RhopressaTM.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in the action are
without merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously, and
the Company expects to incur costs associated with defending the
action. In addition, the Company has various insurance policies
related to the risks associated with its business, including
directors' and officers' liability insurance policies. However,
there is no assurance that the Company will be successful in its
defense of the action, and there is no assurance that the
Company's insurance coverage, which contains a self-insured
retention, will be sufficient or that its insurance carriers will
cover all claims or litigation costs. At this time, the Company
cannot accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. Due
to the inherent uncertainties of litigation, the Company cannot
reasonably predict the timing or outcomes, or estimate the amount
of loss, or range of loss, if any, or their effect, if any, on the
Company's financial statements.


ALPHABET HOLDING: Motions for Transfer Case Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Alphabet Holding Company, 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 motions for
transfer and consolidation of all of the federal actions related
to Herbal Dietary Supplements as multidistrict litigation into a
single district before a single judge were pending.

In February 2015, the New York State Office of the Attorney
General ("NY AG") began an investigation concerning the
authenticity and purity of herbal supplements and associated
marketing. As part of this investigation, the NY AG is reviewing
the sufficiency of the measures that several manufacturers and
retailers, including NBTY, are taking to independently assess the
validity of their representations and advertising in connection
with the sale of herbal supplements. NBTY has fully cooperated
with the NY AG, however until this investigation is concluded, no
final determination can be made as to its ultimate outcome or the
amount of liability, if any, on the part of NBTY. However, we do
not believe the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse
effect on our consolidated financial statements.

Following the NY AG investigation, starting in February 2015,
numerous putative class actions were filed in various
jurisdictions against NBTY, certain of its customers and/or other
companies as to which there may be a duty to defend and indemnify,
challenging the authenticity and purity of herbal supplements and
associated marketing, under various states' consumer protection
statutes. Motions for transfer and consolidation of all of the
federal actions as multidistrict litigation into a single district
before a single judge ("MDL motions") were pending and the hearing
date of the MDL motions was scheduled for May 28, 2015. Certain
state court actions are proceeding independently or have been
removed to federal court and stayed pending a decision on the MDL
motions. These cases seek some combination of monetary damages,
injunctive relief and specific performance.


ALPHABET HOLDING: Settlement in Supplements Class Action Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alphabet Holding Company, 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 settlement in
the class actions related to Glucosamine-Based Dietary Supplements
has not yet been submitted to the court for preliminary approval.

Beginning in June 2011, certain putative class actions have been
filed in various jurisdictions against NBTY, Inc., its subsidiary
Rexall Sundown, Inc. ("Rexall"), and/or other companies as to
which there may be a duty to defend and indemnify, challenging the
marketing of glucosamine-based dietary supplements, under various
states' consumer protection statutes. The lawsuits against NBTY
and its subsidiaries are: Cardenas v. NBTY, Inc. and Rexall
Sundown, Inc. (filed June 14, 2011) in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California, on behalf of a
putative class of California consumers seeking unspecified
compensatory damages based on theories of restitution and
disgorgement, plus punitive damages and injunctive relief;
Jennings v. Rexall Sundown, Inc. (filed August 22, 2011) in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, on
behalf of a putative class of Massachusetts consumers seeking
unspecified trebled compensatory damages; and Nunez v. NBTY, Inc.
et al. (filed March 1, 2013) in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California (the "Nunez Case"), on
behalf of a putative class of California consumers seeking
unspecified compensatory damages based on theories of restitution
and disgorgement, plus injunctive relief, as well as other cases
in California and Illinois against certain wholesale customers as
to which we may have certain indemnification obligations.

In March 2013, NBTY agreed upon a proposed settlement with
plaintiffs, which included all cases and resolved all pending
claims without any admission of or concession of liability by
NBTY, and which provided for a release of all claims in return for
payments to the class, together with attorneys' fees, and notice
and administrative costs. Fairness Hearings took place on October
4, 2013 and November 20, 2013. On January 3, 2014, the court
issued an opinion and order approving the settlement as modified
(the "Order"). The final judgment was issued on January 22, 2014
(the "Judgment"). Certain objectors filed a notice of appeal of
the Order and the Judgment on January 29, 2014 and the plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal on February 3, 2014.

In fiscal 2013, NBTY recorded a provision of $12,000,000
reflecting its best estimate of exposure for payments to the class
together with attorney's fees and notice and administrative costs
in connection with this class action settlement. As a result of
the court's approval of the settlement and the closure of the
claims period, NBTY reduced its estimate of exposure to
$6,100,000. This reduction in the estimated exposure was reflected
in the Company's first quarter results for fiscal 2014.

On November 19, 2014, the appellate court issued a decision
granting the objectors' appeal. The appellate court reversed and
remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings
consistent with the appellate court's decision. In April 2015,
NBTY agreed upon a revised proposed settlement with certain
plaintiffs which includes all cases and resolves all pending
claims without any admission of or concession of liability by
NBTY. The parties have signed settlement documentation providing
for a release of all claims in return for payments to the class,
together with attorneys' fees, and notice and administrative costs
estimated to be in the amount of $9,000,000, which resulted in an
additional charge of $4,300,000 in the second quarter results for
fiscal 2015. The settlement has not yet been submitted to the
court for preliminary approval. Until the cases are resolved, no
final determination can be made as to the ultimate outcome of the
litigation or the amount of liability on the part of NBTY.


ALPHABET HOLDING: Appeal in TCPA Class Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Alphabet Holding Company, 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 Plaintiff in the
class action related to Telephone Consumer Protection Act Claim
filed an appeal to the court's dismissal of the action and that
appeal is pending.

NBTY, and certain of its subsidiaries, are defendants in a class-
action lawsuit, captioned John H. Lary Jr. v. Rexall Sundown,
Inc.; Rexall Sundown 3001, LLC; Rexall, Inc.; NBTY, Inc.;
Corporate Mailings, Inc. d/b/a CCG Marketing Solutions ("CCG") and
John Does 1-10 (originally filed October 22, 2013), brought in the
United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. The
plaintiff alleges that the defendants faxed advertisements to
plaintiff and others without invitation or permission, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

On May 2, 2014, NBTY and its named subsidiary defendants cross-
claimed against CCG, who was a third party vendor engaged by NBTY,
and CCG cross-claimed against NBTY and named subsidiary defendants
on June 13, 2014. CCG brought a third party complaint against an
unrelated entity, Healthcare Data Experts, LLC, on June 27, 2014.
On July 21, 2014, CCG filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint and on February 11, 2015 the court issued an Order and
Opinion dismissing the class-action. On February 27, 2015,
Plaintiff filed an appeal to the court's dismissal of the action
and that appeal is pending.


ALTISOURCE RESIDENTIAL: Faces "Martin" Shareholder Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Altisource Residential Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a putative
shareholder class action complaint was filed on March 27, 2015, in
the United States District Court of the Virgin Islands by a
purported shareholder of Residential under the caption Martin v.
Altisource Residential Corporation, et al., 15-cv-00024. The
action names as defendants Residential, William C. Erbey and
certain officers and a former officer of Residential and alleges
that the defendants violated federal securities laws by, among
other things, making materially false statements and/or failing to
disclose material information to Residential's shareholders
regarding RESI's relationship and transactions with Altisource
Asset Management Corporation, Ocwen Financial Corporation and Home
Loan Servicing Solutions Ltd.  These alleged misstatements and
omissions include allegations that the defendants failed to
adequately disclose Residential's reliance on Ocwen and the risks
relating to its relationship with Ocwen, including that Ocwen was
not properly servicing and selling loans, that Ocwen was under
investigation by regulators for violating state and federal laws
regarding servicing of loans, and Ocwen's lack of proper internal
controls.  The complaint also contains allegations that certain of
Residential's disclosure documents were false and misleading
because they fail to disclose fully the entire details of a
certain asset management agreement between Residential and AAMC
that allegedly benefited AAMC to the detriment of Residential's
shareholders.  The action seeks, among other things, an award of
monetary damages to the putative class in an unspecified amount,
and an award of attorney's and other fees and expenses.

"We believe the complaint is without merit. At this time, we are
not able to predict the ultimate outcome of this matter, nor can
we estimate the range of possible loss, if any," the Company said.


AMARIN CORPORATION: Company and Officers Named in 4 Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amarin Corporation plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company and
certain of its current and former executive officers and
directors, have been named as defendants in four purported class
action lawsuits initiated earlier this year.

"The market price of our ADSs declined significantly after the
October 2013 decision by the FDA Advisory Committee to recommend
against approval of Vascepa in the ANCHOR indication," the Company
said.  "We, and certain of our current and former executive
officers and directors, have been named as defendants in four
purported class action lawsuits initiated earlier this year that
generally allege that we and certain of our current and former
officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements
or material omissions concerning the ANCHOR sNDA and related FDA
regulatory approval process in an effort to lead investors to
believe that Vascepa would receive approval from the FDA in the
ANCHOR indication. The complaints seek unspecified damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs."


AMERIGAS PARTNERS: Judicial Panel Transferred Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Amerigas Partners, L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of the
purported class action cases to the Western Division of the
Western District of Missouri.

Between May and October of 2014, more than 35 purported class
action lawsuits were filed in multiple jurisdictions against the
Partnership/UGI Corporation and a competitor by certain of their
direct and indirect customers.  The class action lawsuits allege,
among other things, that the Partnership and its competitor
colluded, beginning in 2008, to reduce the fill level of portable
propane cylinders from 17 pounds to 15 pounds and combined to
persuade its common customer, Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept that
fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to retailers
and end-user customers in violation of federal and certain state
antitrust laws.  The claims seek treble damages, injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative
classes.  On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class
action cases to the Western Division of the Western District of
Missouri.

"We are unable to reasonably estimate the impact, if any, arising
from such litigation.  We believe we have strong defenses to the
claims and intend to vigorously defend against them," the Company
said.


AMTECH SYSTEMS: MOU Reached to Settle BTU Merger Actions
--------------------------------------------------------
Amtech Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company and BTU
International, Inc. ("BTU"), along with the other defendants,
entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") to settle
the Stockholder Actions related to the BTU merger.

The Company and its subsidiaries are defendants from time to time
in actions for matters arising out of their business operations.
On October 21, 2014, the Company entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") by and among the Company,
BTU Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Merger Sub"),
and BTU. Shortly after the Company entered into the Merger
Agreement with BTU, two separate putative stockholder class action
complaints were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (together, the "Stockholder Actions"). The first was
filed on November 4, 2014 and the second on November 17, 2014,
purportedly on behalf of BTU's public stockholders, against BTU,
the members of the BTU Board, Amtech and Merger Sub.

The Stockholder Actions were consolidated into one action on
December 4, 2014. These complaints generally allege, among other
things, that the members of BTU's board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties owed to BTU's public stockholders by
failing to engage in a competitive sale and bidding process, by
causing BTU to enter into the Merger Agreement and by approving
the merger, and that the Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted
such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. These complaints
further allege that these fiduciary breaches gave the Company an
unfair advantage as a result of BTU's alleged failure to solicit
other potential acquirers and also that the Merger Agreement
improperly favors the Company and unduly restricts BTU's ability
to negotiate with other potential bidders. The complaint generally
seeks, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief
concerning the alleged fiduciary breaches, injunctive relief
prohibiting the Company, Merger Sub, and BTU from consummating the
Merger, other forms of equitable relief, and compensatory damages.

On January 16, 2015, the Company and BTU, along with the other
defendants named therein, entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") to settle the Stockholder Actions.
Pursuant to the MOU, the parties to the Stockholder Actions agreed
to resolve the claims alleged and the Company and BTU agreed to
make certain additional disclosures regarding the Merger. The MOU
is expected to be memorialized in a stipulation of settlement,
which will be subject to customary terms and conditions, including
court approval, and will include an agreement by the plaintiffs in
the Stockholder Actions, on behalf of each stockholder class, to
provide a release of all claims against the Company and BTU, along
with the other defendants named therein, subject to an exception
for certain securities law claims.

In addition, as part of the settlement, BTU has agreed to be
responsible for the payment of certain amounts in plaintiffs'
attorney fees and expenses in connection with the settlement. The
Company and BTU entered into the MOU solely to avoid the costs,
risks and uncertainties inherent in litigation and without
admitting any liability or wrongdoing. There can be no assurance
that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of
settlement or that the court will approve such settlement. In such
event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the MOU may be
terminated.

The merger was consummated on January 30, 2015. The plaintiffs'
attorney fees and expenses were reflected as a liability on the
opening balance sheet of BTU on the date of the merger.


AMTRAK: Plaintiffs File Train Derailment MDL Petition
-----------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
as personal injury lawsuits continue to be filed against Amtrak in
federal court, a request has been made to funnel all of the cases
surrounding the Philadelphia derailment into a single
multidistrict litigation.

The MDL petition was filed by plaintiffs jointly represented by
the law firms of Kline & Specter and Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett &
Bendesky.  The petition called for all similar cases in different
jurisdictions, including New York and New Jersey, to be
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania where the bulk of the Amtrak derailment cases have
already been filed.

Amtrak had not filed a reply to the petition as of press time.
Reached on June 24, Amtrak's lawyer, Yuri J. Brunetti --
ybrunetti@lcbf.com -- of Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford, declined
to comment.

According to the MDL petition, 19 lawsuits involving 42 plaintiffs
have been filed in federal courts; one was filed in the District
of New Jersey, another in the Eastern District of New York, four
in the Southern District of New York, and 13 in the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

All of the cases in Pennsylvania have been assigned to a single
judge: Legrome D. Davis.

An MDL and the direction of a single judge, according to the
petition, would be critical for distributing potentially $200
million in damages.

"The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 imposes a
liability of $200 million on the aggregate allowable award to all
rail passengers, against all defendants, including claims of
punitive damages, arising from a single accident relating to rail
passenger transportation," the petition said, adding, "The
aggregate damages in litigation related to the derailment may
exceed $200 million, in which case coordinated supervision by one
judge would be essential."

Contacted for comment, Thomas R. Kline and Robert Mongeluzzi, co-
founders of their respective firms, both said they felt the
consolidation of proceedings would lead to greater judicial
efficiency.

Prior to the filing of the MDL petition, Amtrak responded to a
motion from the plaintiffs requesting Amtrak, the National
Transportation Safety Board, and the Federal Railroad
Administration preserve and track the custody of evidence.
In court papers, Amtrak said the NTSB is in charge of the
investigation of the accident and the company has no control over
the evidence gathered. Moreover, Amtrak asked that the motion be
denied as premature.

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

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

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

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

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

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


ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Oct. 20 Beck Settlement Approval Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Law.com, reports that a team of South
Florida attorneys won an uncapped settlement and a promise from
Anheuser-Busch Cos. that it will be more straightforward with
consumers about where it brews Beck's beer -- a domestic, not
imported brew.

The false advertising class action lawsuit alleged the company
generated more sales by leading consumers to believe they were
buying a beer imported from Germany when Beck's is actually brewed
in St. Louis.  Anheuser-Busch agreed as part of the settlement to
feature prominent "Product of USA" labeling on its U.S.-brewed
Beck's beer.

Although Beck's is brewed in several countries including Germany,
its U.S. customers generally receive U.S.-brewed beer.

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

The packaging for Beck's Beer stated it is "German quality" and
"Originated in Bremen, Germany," according to the complaint.

The settlement class could include hundreds of thousands of
consumers who bought Beck's from May 1, 2011, to the settlement
date.

Consumers who provide proof of purchase can receive up to $50 from
the settlement at a rate of 50 cents per six pack.  Those without
receipts can receive up to $12 by submitting an online claim.

The attorneys said the settlement has no minimum value.  Both
sides agree the plaintiffs attorney should be paid $3.5 million.

"The most important aspect of the case was making sure the
consuming public knows exactly what they're purchasing," said
plaintiffs lawyer Tucker Ronzetti -- tr@kttlaw.com -- of Kozyak
Tropin & Throckmorton in Coral Gables.

Mr. Ronzetti said class certification was one of the biggest
challenges of the case.  Many courts have begun requiring
"ascertainability" in class action lawsuits, requiring a class to
be defined by objective criteria.

"The law has evolved very recently, especially after a Third
Circuit case called Carrera, so that courts are starting to
require easily gathered objective documentation establishing
membership in a class," he said.

That doctrine often spells trouble for retail cases because
Anheuser-Busch distributes the beer to retailers and therefore
does not have a master list of every person who bought the product
in the past few years, Mr. Ronzetti said.

He said the plaintiffs also had to overcome questions about the
case's damages model.  For instance, one model was based on retail
prices.

"That can vary city by city and even store by store," he said.
"Even gathering the data around that was a challenge."

The class action lawsuit filed in the Southern District of Florida
in 2013 was led by plaintiffs Francisco Rene Marty, Seth Goldman
and Fernando Marquet.

U.S. Magistrate Judge John J. O'Sullivan in Miami preliminarily
approved the settlement and class certification June 23, setting a
hearing for final approval on Oct. 20.

The settlement was reached in mediation May 26 with Ronald B.
Ravikoff of the JAMS alternative dispute resolution firm in Miami.

Plaintiffs attorneys were Ronzetti, Adam Moskowitz, David Matz and
Tal Lifshitz of Kozyak Tropin; Howard Bushman and Lance Harke of
Harke Clasby & Bushman in Miami Shores; Robert Rodriguez of Robert
W. Rodriguez P.A. in Miami; and John Campbell of Campbell Law in
St. Louis.

Defense attorneys were Brandon Keel, David Pehlke and Edward Crane
of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom in Chicago and Stanley
Wakshlag of Kenny Nachwalter in Miami.  They referred a request
for comment to Anheuser-Busch.


APPLE INC: Mulls Next Steps Following E-Book Price Fixing Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that an
unusual settlement between Apple Inc. and private plaintiffs who
challenged e-book prices now looks like quite a good deal for the
plaintiffs and their lawyers.  When those plaintiffs agreed last
year to resolve claims that Apple Inc. fixed e-book prices, they
gambled by making the amount that Apple would pay them contingent
on the success of Apple's appeal of a separate antitrust case
brought by the U.S. Department of Justice.

That bet came closer to paying off on June 30, when the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit voted 2-1 to affirm a lower
court's finding in the DOJ case that Apple conspired with five
major book publishers to fix prices on e-books, before the 2010
launch of the iBookstore.

What this means is that Apple may have to pay out $450 million to
the private plaintiffs and their lawyers.  These consumer
plaintiffs may get $400 million, while their lawyers -- led by
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro and Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll --
could be on their way to an additional $30 million payday.
Thirty-three state attorneys general who sued alongside the
private plaintiffs could get $20 million.  The tech giant could
get these payments reduced if it succeeds in any further appeal.

If the appeals court had reversed and entered judgment in Apple's
favor, Apple would have walked away without paying anything to the
plaintiffs.  If the Second Circuit had vacated or remanded for a
new trial, the deal called for Apple to pay $50 million to
consumers and $10 million apiece to private plaintiffs lawyers and
the state AGs.

The 117-page majority decision marks a win for the Department of
Justice, which brought the antitrust lawsuit in April 2012 against
Apple and publishers Hachette Book Group, HarperCollins, Simon &
Schuster, Macmillan and Penguin (all of which subsequently
settled).  On the losing end are Apple's lawyers, led by Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher's Theodore Boutrous Jr. and Daniel Swanson.

At the time of the private plaintiff settlement, many, including
U.S. District Judge Denise Cote -- who presided over the e-books
litigation and found Apple liable for antitrust violations --
questioned the unconventional deal.  Despite her qualms, Cote
approve the settlement in November.

The private plaintiffs earlier settled with the publishers for a
combined $166 million; that deal did not change with the outcome
of the appeal.

The $30 million in attorney fees would be added to the $11.2
million that Judge Cote awarded for the publishers' settlements,
bringing total fees to more than $41 million.

"We know we did nothing wrong back in 2010 and are assessing next
steps," said an Apple spokesperson in a statement.

Hagens Berman's Steve Berman told The Litigation Daily in an email
on June 30 that class counsel took a big risk on the Apple appeal.
"The decision supports the risk we took and will help fully
compensate consumers for the economic harm caused by Apple's
misconduct," Mr. Berman added.  We also reached out to Berman's
co-lead counsel, Cohen Milstein's Kit Pierson --
kpierson@cohenmilstein.com -- but didn't immediately hear back.


APPLE INC: Unclaimed iPhone Settlement Funds to Go to Govt Trusts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that with
thousands of Apple customers failing to cash their checks from a
class action settlement, a federal judge has ordered that almost
$4.6 million in unclaimed funds go to state government trusts for
safekeeping.  U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern
District of California called the situation "wholly
unanticipated."

Apple shelled out $53 million to settle claims that it improperly
denied warranty coverage to iPhone and iPod purchasers because of
false indications that the devices had been submerged.  The
parties identified about 165,000 Apple customers eligible for
reimbursement at an average of $240 per customer -- but after the
payments were mailed, about 19,000 class members let their checks
expire.

Judge Seeborg debated what to do with the leftover money, noting
the question was not clearly addressed in the settlement
agreement, and "each of the uncashed checks was for a nontrivial
sum of money."

The question divided the lawyers involved.  Plaintiffs counsel
with Chimicles & Tikellis argued the money should be redistributed
among class members who cashed their checks.  Co-lead plaintiffs
counsel with Fazio Micheletti argued the funds should go to the
consumer-advocacy organizations designated in the settlement
agreement as cy pres recipients.  Apple's lawyers with Morrison &
Foerster argued the money should be held in trusts by the class
members' corresponding state governments until it is claimed. The
lawyers argued Apple shouldn't have to pay the costs associated
with another classwide distribution.

Judge Seeborg sided with Apple, ruling custodial escheat "most
nearly serves the goal of providing direct compensation to the
class members."

Plaintiffs' counsel Jeffrey Fazio -- jlf@fazmiclaw.com -- of Fazio
Micheletti said it's unlikely class members will ever see that
money.  He said the lawyers in this case took the unusual step of
mailing the checks directly to Apple customers, without requiring
them to submit a claim.

"Most of the time in class action settlements there's one hoop
after another that class members have to jump through," he said.
"We made it as easy as it could possibly be."

But that also means class members didn't know the checks were
coming.  Mr. Fazio said he suspects that checks sent to the
correct addresses were mistaken for junk mail and thrown out.

An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment.


APPLE INC: 9th Circuit Revives Antitrust Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has revived an antitrust
class action alleging Apple Inc. illegally locked early iPhone
customers into service contracts with AT&T Mobility.

Ruling 2-1, the appellate panel held that Apple lawyers failed to
show the case could not proceed without AT&T as a co-defendant.
The Ninth Circuit reversed a trial court ruling dismissing the
case and remanded it for further proceedings.

The decision in Ward v. Apple, 12-17805, is a setback for Apple,
which has tried to keep its telecom partner linked to the case in
order to seek shelter in AT&T's arbitration agreement.  Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz partner Mark Rifkin, who argued
for the plaintiffs, said lawyers on his side of the bar will cheer
the ruling.  The June 29 opinion could help clarify under what
circumstances two parties must be joined as co-defendants,
Mr. Rifkin said, adding the appellate court hasn't had many
occasions to rule on the issue.

"It may take away some possibility for a defendant who has not
chosen to insert an arbitration agreement into his own agreement,"
he said, "to try to rely on somebody else's."

Latham & Watkins partner Daniel Wall, who argued for Apple, didn't
immediately respond to messages requesting comment.  An Apple
spokeswoman declined to comment.

Mr. Rifkin represents a potential class of iPhone buyers who claim
they were unknowingly forced into five-year contracts with AT&T.
The plaintiffs claim Apple installed software locks on their
phones that prevented them from switching service providers,
enabling AT&T to charge above-market prices and to share those
profits with Apple.  Their lawyers, who first filed suit in 2007,
had named AT&T as a defendant, but dropped the service provider
from the lawsuit after the U.S. Supreme Court's 2011 ruling in
AT&T v. Concepcion in an attempt to avoid arbitration.  U.S.
District Judge James Ware first dismissed the case in 2012, ruling
AT&T was a necessary party to the litigation under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 19.

Federal law doesn't require plaintiffs to name every party who was
complicit in alleged antitrust violations.  But Rule 19 requires
plaintiffs to name a third party if that party must be there in
order to protect its own interests in the litigation.  Writing for
the majority on June 29, Ninth Circuit Judge Milan Smith Jr. found
that standard was not met in this case.

"We conclude that the record does not disclose whether [AT&T] had
an interest in this action that was entitled to protection under
Rule 19," he wrote.  He was joined in his opinion by Judge
Michelle Friedland.  Judge J. Clifford Wallace dissented on
procedural grounds.

Apple's lawyers had argued that an adverse ruling in this case
could damage AT&T's reputation and subject it to regulatory
scrutiny.

"We are aware of no cases holding that a joint tortfeasor's
reputational interests alone may make it a required party under
Rule 19(a)," Judge Smith wrote.  "A joint torfeasor's reputation
generally will be adversely impacted in any case accusing it of
wrongdoing."

He also found Apple failed to show a sufficient risk that AT&T
would be subjected to regulatory scrutiny.

Apple's lawyers argued the ruling in this case could infringe upon
AT&T's contractual right to prevent iPhone customers from
switching service providers.  But Judge Smith wrote the contracts
between the two companies were unclear as to whether AT&T enjoys
that right.  And he rejected Apple's argument that AT&T's
arbitration agreement could be threatened by this litigation -- as
any interpretation of the agreement likely will consider how it
applies to Apple customers, not AT&T customers.

In his dissent, Judge Wallace objected to the unusual procedural
path the case followed before it reached the Ninth Circuit.  After
the case was dismissed in 2012, plaintiffs tweaked their
allegations and refiled a new suit, hoping for a better shot on
appeal.  They consented to a dismissal of the new case in order to
speed up the appellate process.  Judge Wallace found plaintiffs
skipped over proper court procedure, and as a result, the Ninth
Circuit shouldn't have heard the case.

"That the purpose of plaintiffs' strategy was to fast-track
appellate review does not give us license to dispense with the
requirement that in every separate action, the parties must take
adverse positions on an issue and give the judge an opportunity to
rule independently on their claims," he wrote.  "Otherwise,
parties could manipulate our appellate jurisdiction under the
guise of efficiency."


ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Filed Appeal of Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit against ARIAD
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. have filed an appeal of the District Court's
decision to grant the motions to dismiss with the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, ARIAD Pharmaceuticals said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2015.

On October 10, 2013, October 17, 2013, December 3, 2013 and
December 6, 2013, purported shareholder class actions, styled
Jimmy Wang v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., James L. Burch
v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Greater Pennsylvania
Carpenters' Pension Fund v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al,
and Nabil Elmachtoub v. ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al,
respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts (the "District Court"), naming the
Company and certain of its officers as defendants. The lawsuits
allege that the defendants made material misrepresentations and/or
omissions of material fact regarding clinical and safety data for
Iclusig in its public disclosures during the period from December
12, 2011 through October 8, 2013 or October 17, 2013, in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On January 9, 2014, the District Court consolidated the actions
and appointed lead plaintiffs. On February 18, 2014, the lead
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint as contemplated by the order
of the District Court. The amended complaint extends the class
period for the Securities Exchange Act claims through October 30,
2013. In addition, plaintiffs allege that certain of the Company's
officers, directors and certain underwriters made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact regarding
clinical and safety data for Iclusig in connection with the
Company's January 24, 2013 follow-on public offering of common
stock in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages
on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and
expenses, including attorney's fees.

On April 14, 2014, the defendants and the underwriters filed
separate motions to dismiss the amended complaint. On June 10,
2014, the District Court heard oral argument on the motion to
dismiss. On March 24, 2015, the District Court granted the
defendants' and the underwriters' motions to dismiss the
plaintiffs' amended complaint in these consolidated actions. On
April 21, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an appeal of the District
Court's decision to grant the motions to dismiss with the United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.


ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces "Montalbano" Product Liability Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a product
liability lawsuit, styled Thomas Montalbano, Jr. v. ARIAD
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., was filed on March 11, 2015, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida naming
the Company as defendant. The lawsuit alleges that the Company's
cancer medicine Iclusig was defective, dangerous and lacked
adequate warnings when the plaintiff used it from July to August
2013. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages, punitive
damages and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney's
fees.

The Company believes that any liability in the Montalbano lawsuit
would be covered by the Company's product liability insurance.


ARTHUR SCHUMAN: Recalls Parmesan Cheese Products Due to Egg
-----------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Schuman Inc. of Fairfield, NJ is recalling 30,200 lbs. of
Bella Rosa Grated Parmesan Cheese (1.25lbs), because it may
contain undeclared egg allergen. People who have an allergy or
sensitivity to eggs, run the risk of serious or life threatening
allergic reaction if they consume this product.

Bella Rosa Grated Parmesan Cheese (UPC 088231410041) is
distributed in: Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New
York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia,
North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Ohio and sold exclusively
through BJ's Wholesale Clubs.

Suspect product will be identified by "Sell by Dates": July 13,
2015, August 17, 2015, and September 10, 2015. Product is packaged
in 1.25 lb. PET jars with "sell by" dates printed on the side of
the jar just below the lid.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

This voluntary recall was initiated after it was discovered that
product containing egg lysozyme was packaged without declaration
on the label. This was discovered through the company's routine
Quality Assurance audit.

Consumers who have Purchased Bella Rosa Grated Parmesan Cheese
(1.25 lb.) packages are urged to return it to any BJ's Wholesale
Club store for full refund. Customers with any question should
contact Arthur Schuman directly at 973-787-8840, Monday - Friday
8am - 5pm (EST), Susan Jaquillard.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm453890.htm


AVID TECHNOLOGY: Insurer Paid $2.5 Million in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Avid Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company's
insurance carrier made the $2.5 million payment into an escrow
account on January 27, 2015, related to the securities class
action lawsuits.

In March 2013 and May 2013, two purported securities class action
lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of the
Company's former executive officers seeking unspecified damages in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. In July
2013, the two cases were consolidated and the original plaintiffs
agreed to act as co-plaintiffs in the consolidated case. In
September 2013, the co-plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint on behalf of those who purchased the Company's common
stock between October 23, 2008 and March 20, 2013. The
consolidated amended complaint, which named the Company, certain
of the Company's current and former executive officers and the
Company's former independent accounting firm as defendants,
purported to state a claim for violation of federal securities
laws as a result of alleged violations of the federal securities
laws pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

In October 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, resulting in the dismissal of some
of the claims, and the dismissal of Mr. Hernandez and one of the
two plaintiffs from the case. In December 2014 the Company agreed
in principle to settle the case for $2.6 million, of which the
Company's insurance company would pay $2.5 million and the
Company's former auditors would pay the remainder.

The Company's insurance carrier made the $2.5 million payment into
an escrow account on January 27, 2015. The payment of the
settlement amount and the finalization of this settlement is
subject to a number of procedural steps, including approval by the
court, which likely will not be complete until later this year.
Should the settlement not become final for any reason, the matter
would proceed to trial.


BALTIC TRADING: Facing Six Class Action Complaints
--------------------------------------------------
Baltic Trading Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in April 2015, six
class action complaints were filed in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of New York, styled Erol Sarikaya v.
Peter C. Georgiopoulos et al., Index No. 651244/2015, filed on
April 15, 2015, voluntarily dismissed, and refiled as Joshua
Bourne v. Peter C. Georgiopoulos et al., Index No. 651429/2015,
filed on April 28, 2015, Justin Wilson v. Baltic Trading Ltd., et
al., Index No. 651241/2015, filed on April 15, 2015, Sangeetha
Ganesan v. Baltic Trading Limited et al., Index No. 651279/2015,
filed on April 17, 2015, Edward Braunstein v. Peter C.
Georgiopoulos et al., Index No. 651368/2015, filed on April 23,
2015, Larry Williams v. Baltic Trading Ltd., et al., Index No.
651371/2015, filed on April 23, 2015, and Larry Goldstein and
Bernhard Stomporowski v. John C. Wobensmith et al., Index No.
651407/2015, filed on April 27, 2015. All six complaints purport
to be brought by and on behalf of the Company's shareholders. The
plaintiff in each action alleges the proposed merger does not
fairly compensate the Company's shareholders and undervalues the
Company. Each lawsuit names as defendants some or all of the
Company, Genco, the individual members of the Company's board, the
Company's and Genco's President and Genco's merger subsidiary. The
claims generally allege (i) breaches of fiduciary duties of good
faith, due care, disclosure to shareholders, and loyalty,
including for failing to maximize shareholder value, and (ii)
aiding and abetting those breaches. Among other relief, the
complaints seek an injunction against the merger, declaratory
judgments that the individual defendants breached fiduciary
duties, rescission of the merger agreement, and unspecified
damages. The Company does not believe that it is probable that the
resolution of these matters will have a material financial
reporting consequence.


BANK OF NEW YORK: To Pay $335MM to Settle Customer Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the
Company has agreed to pay $335 million to settle the customer
class action litigation.

In March 2015, BNY Mellon announced that it has resolved
substantially all of the foreign exchange-related actions
currently pending against the Company.

The Company reached a series of settlement agreements with the
U.S. Department of Justice, the New York Attorney General, the
U.S. Department of Labor, the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission and private customer class actions. Collectively, these
settlements fully resolve the lawsuits and enforcement matters
pursued by these parties relating to certain of the standing
instruction foreign exchange services that BNY Mellon provided to
its custody clients prior to early 2012.

The Company has agreed to pay a total of $714 million to resolve
these matters, subject to required approvals. The total settlement
amount is fully covered by pre-existing legal reserves. The U.S.
Department of Justice and New York Attorney General will each
receive $167.5 million. The U.S. Department of Labor will receive
$14 million and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, with
which the Company has reached a settlement in principle, will
receive $30 million. The Company has agreed to pay $335 million to
settle the customer class action litigation.


BBX CAPITAL: Settled NJ Tax Sales Cert. Antitrust Litigation
------------------------------------------------------------
BBX Capital Corporation has reached an agreement to settle the New
Jersey Tax Sales Certificates Antitrust Litigation, subject to
court approval, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

On December 21, 2012, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in an
existing purported class action filed in Federal District Court in
New Jersey adding BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax, LLC, a wholly
owned subsidiary of CAM, among others as defendants.  The class
action complaint is brought on behalf of a class defined as "all
persons who owned real property in the State of New Jersey and who
had a Tax Certificate issued with respect to their property that
was purchased by a Defendant during the Class Period at a public
auction in the State of New Jersey at an interest rate above 0%."
Plaintiffs allege that beginning in January 1998 and at least
through February 2009, the Defendants were part of a statewide
conspiracy to manipulate interest rates associated with tax
certificates sold at public auction from at least January 1, 1998,
through February 28, 2009. During this period, Fidelity Tax was a
subsidiary of BankAtlantic.  Fidelity Tax was contributed to CAM
in connection with the sale of BankAtlantic in the BB&T
Transaction.

BBX Capital and Fidelity Tax filed a Motion to Dismiss in March
2013 and on October 23, 2013, the Court granted the Motion to
Dismiss and dismissed the Amended Complaint with prejudice as to
certain claims, but without prejudice as to plaintiffs' main
antitrust claim.  Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint on January 6, 2014.  While BBX Capital believed the
claims to be without merit, BBX Capital has reached an agreement
to settle the action, subject to court approval.


BLACKSTONE GROUP: Settlement in "Dahl" Case Now Final
-----------------------------------------------------
The Blackstone Group L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the court has entered
a final judgment approving the settlement in the case, Kirk Dahl,
et al. v. Bain Capital Partners, LLC, et al.), and no notice of
appeal was filed.

In December 2007, a purported class of shareholders in public
companies acquired by one or more private equity firms filed a
lawsuit against a number of private equity firms and investment
banks, including The Blackstone Group L.P., in the United States
District Court in Massachusetts (Kirk Dahl, et al. v. Bain Capital
Partners, LLC, et al.). The suit alleged that, from mid-2003
through 2007, eleven defendants violated the antitrust laws by
allegedly conspiring to rig bids, restrict the supply of private
equity financing, fix the prices for target companies at
artificially low levels, and divide up an alleged market for
private equity services for leveraged buyouts.

On July 28, 2014, Blackstone entered into a settlement agreement
to resolve all of plaintiffs' claims without any admission of
wrongdoing. The settlement agreement provides for a settlement
payment to the class that was substantially covered by insurance
and did not have a material effect on our consolidated financial
statements. On August 7, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement agreement, and the
agreement was preliminarily approved by the court on September 29,
2014.

The court entered a final judgment approving the settlement on
March 2, 2015. No notice of appeal was filed by April 6, 2015, and
the settlement agreement is now final.

"We consider the matter closed," the Company said.


BOULDER DOG: Recalls Turkey Sprinkles Due to Salmonella
-------------------------------------------------------
Boulder Dog Food Company, L.L.C. is voluntarily recalling the
Turkey Sprinkles (3 oz.) with a "Best By" date of "05/18/16,
05/28/2016 and 05/30/2016", a Lot Number of "743", and a UPC Code
of 899883001224 because the product has the potential of being
contaminated with Salmonella. Salmonella can affect animals eating
the product, and there is risk to humans who handle the product,
especially if the handler does not thoroughly wash his or her
hands after having contact with the Product or any surfaces
exposed to the product.

Healthy people handling the product contaminated by Salmonella
should monitor themselves for some or all of the following
symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal
cramping, and fever. Although rare, Salmonella may result in more
serious ailments, including arterial infections, endocarditis,
arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation, and urinary tract
symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these signs after having contact
with the Product should contact their healthcare providers
immediately.

Pets with Salmonella infections may be lethargic and have diarrhea
or bloody diarrhea, fever, and vomiting. Some pets will have only
decreased appetite, fever and abdominal pain. Infected but
otherwise healthy pets can be carriers and infect other animals or
humans. If your pet has consumed the Product and has exhibited
these symptoms, you should contact your veterinarian immediately.

This voluntary recall is regarding Turkey Sprinkles 3 oz. with a
"Best By" date of "05/18/16, 05/28/2016 and 05/30/2016", a Lot
Number of "743", and a UPC Code of 899883001224. The product is in
a clear poly bag. The UPC Code is located in the lower right hand
corner of the product label on the front of the bag. The "Best By"
date and Lot Number are a label on the back of the bag in the
center.

The recalled product consists of 7 bags that were distributed to
one retail customer in the State of Colorado, one retail customer
in the State of Virginia. Boulder Dog Food Company, L.L.C. has
identified and notified the customers to whom the recalled product
was sent. If you are in possession of the recalled product ("Best
By" date of "05/18/16, 05/28/16 or 05/30/16", a Lot #"743" and a
UPC Code of 899883001224 please discontinue use and return the
unused product to either the retailer where it was purchased or
directly to Boulder Dog Food Company L.L.C.

The recall is a result of a routine sampling program by the Food
and Drug Administration which revealed a "positive" test for
Salmonella in Turkey Sprinkles (3 oz.) with a "Best By" date of
"05/30/16", a Lot Number of "743", and a UPC Code of 899883001224.

One complaint was received from a consumer who had contact with
the product.

Consumers with questions may contact Boulder Dog Food Company,
L.L.C. at 303-449-2540 Monday through Friday between 8:00 AM and
5:00 PM (M.D.T.)

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm453669.htm


BP PLC: Settles Oil Spill Litigation for $18.7 Million
------------------------------------------------------
Kevin McGill and Rebecca Santana, writing for The Associated
Press, report that BP and five Gulf states announced a record
$18.7 billion settlement on July 2 that resolves years of legal
fighting over the environmental and economic damage done by the
energy giant's oil spill in 2010.

The settlement, if accepted by a federal judge, would end a
yearslong battle between BP and the U.S. government over Clean
Water Act penalties after a judge ruled the company was grossly
negligent in the nearly 134 million gallon spill.

It would resolve the states' natural resources damage claims and
settle economic claims involving state and local governments in
Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, according to
an outline filed in federal court.

"If approved by the court, this settlement would be the largest
settlement with a single entity in American history; it would help
repair the damage done to the Gulf economy, fisheries, wetlands
and wildlife; and it would bring lasting benefits to the Gulf
region for generations to come," U.S. Attorney General Loretta
Lynch said in a statement.

The settlement will likely mark the end of major litigation
against BP, following the biggest offshore oil spill in U.S.
history.  When the Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded in April
2010, it killed 11 people on board and spread miles of black oil
across the Gulf Coast before the underwater well was capped a few
months later.

Governors and attorneys general from four of the five states to
receive money from the settlement announced it during simultaneous
news conferences on July 2 just as the court filings were made
public.

The court filings consisted of a confidentiality order that gave
broad outlines of the deal, including the money involved, but it
did not go into specifics and barred any of the parties from doing
so.

Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell said the agreement ends
litigation that could have dragged on for years, delaying the
state's ability to repair and rebuild its coast and wetlands.

"The settlement is a game-changer for Louisiana, its communities
and its families," Mr. Caldwell said.  But he cautioned that it's
a deal in principle only, with the finer details remaining to be
worked out in a final consent decree he expected to be complete in
about two months.

Louisiana received the largest share of the settlement money --
about $6.8 billion -- and Mr. Caldwell said the payments will be
received over the next 16 years.

Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange called the settlement a
"home run," and he and Gov. Robert Bentley said they believed a
looming jury trial was a significant factor in reaching the
settlement.

BP PLC chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg said the settlement reflected
the company's commitment to restoring the Gulf of Mexico
economically and environmentally, and provided the company with
closure going forward.

"It resolves the company's largest remaining legal exposures,
provides clarity on costs and creates certainty of payment for all
parties involved," Mr. Svanberg said.

The company had been facing an additional roughly $13.7 billion in
possible Clean Water Act penalties alone, with possibly billions
more resulting from other legal cases. The company had argued
against a high Clean Water Act penalty, saying its spill-related
costs already were expected to exceed $42 billion.  It's also
unclear how much BP will end up paying under a 2012 settlement
with individuals and businesses claiming spill-related losses.

Costs incurred by BP so far include an estimated $14 billion for
response and cleanup and $4.5 billion in penalties announced after
a settlement of a criminal case with the government.

Environmental groups remained concerned the settlement didn't go
far enough.  Raleigh Hoke, campaign director for the Gulf
Restoration Network, said the organization worried how much money
would actually go to coastal restoration.  That's a key concern
for many in Louisiana, which has been hurt by decades of coastal
erosion that has made it even more at risk to hurricanes and
rising ocean levels.

In Mississippi, officials said some of the money would cover
projects including restoration of marshes and artificial reef
habitats.  In Louisiana, officials planned to use money for
coastal restoration, as well as wetlands and wildlife habitat
repair.

Jacqueline Savitz, U.S. vice president for Oceana, a group
dedicated to protecting the world's oceans, said the $18.7 billion
still paled in comparison to what BP should pay.

"If the court approves this proposal, BP will be getting off easy
and 'we the people' will not be fully compensated for the natural
resource damages that we suffered, and the law requires that the
public is made whole for those damages," Ms. Savitz said.


BRETT ANTHONY: Recalls Vegetable Chili Products Due to Milk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brett Anthony Foods is recalling two 8oz cups of Whole Foods
Market(R) brand vegetable chili because they were labeled
incorrectly and may contain undeclared milk. People who have an
allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The vegetable chili was distributed by Brett Anthony Foods to
Whole Foods Market Naperville, 2607 W 75th St. Naperville Illinois
60540.

The vegetable chili is packaged in a plastic 8oz cup labeled
"Whole Foods Market, Vegetable Chili" and has an expiration date
of "70915" located on the bottom of cup. Only two cups are
affected by this recall.

NO ILLNESSES HAVE BEEN REPORTED TO DATE

The incorrect label was discovered during routine product review.
The product, labeled as "Vegetable Chili," is actually tomato
basil soup, which contains milk.

Consumers who have purchased the vegetable chili are urged to
return the product back to Whole Foods Market Naperville for a
full refund. Consumers with questions about this recall may
contact the Brett Anthony Foods at 847- 272-4309, Monday - Friday,
9am - 3pm CST.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm453786.htm


BRIDGEWATER & ASSOCIATES: Title Examiners Win $768K Jury Award
--------------------------------------------------------------
R. Robin McDonald, writing for Daily Report, reports that a
federal judge has granted more than $250,000 in legal fees to
lawyers who won more than $500,000 for land title examiners and
abstracters -- sometimes called "deed dogs" -- in a federal
wage-and-hour suit.

U.S. District Judge Timothy Batten issued the $768,823 judgment --
including the March jury award and legal fees -- on June 9.
The 14 plaintiffs were employees of a Canton title search company
who claimed they had been forced to work unpaid overtime or risk
losing their jobs, said their lawyer, Paul Chichester of The
Buckley Law Firm in Atlanta.  The verdict included nearly $66,000
for 1,830 unpaid overtime hours by lead plaintiff Chip Eason.

Cheryl Legare, a former member of the Buckley firm who is now with
Legare, Attwood & Wolfe, was co-counsel in the litigation.

"I think the jury came down on the wrong side of the evidence,"
said defense lawyer Steven J. Strelzik.  "The evidence they
believed was not factual, was not the strongest evidence.  But
that's where they came down.  We have to live with it."  He said
his clients do not intend to appeal.

The plaintiffs researched histories of property transfers for
defendants Bridgewater & Associates and Bridgewater Title Co.,
Mr. Chichester said.  A seven-member jury decided the case after a
weeklong trial.

Mr. Chichester said that as the real estate market began
collapsing in 2008, and the need for property title searches began
drying up, Bridgewater began to take advantage of its employees,
increasing the amount of work that company executives demanded
from title examiners on their payroll without compensating them
either with straight time or time-and-a-half pay for overtime
hours they put in. Increasingly, Mr. Chichester said, "There was
no way" for employees to complete the work assignments within the
confines of a 40-hour workweek.

"A few folks did try to submit [time sheets] for overtime, but it
was kicked back," he said.  Employees, he added, were forbidden to
submit time sheets claiming more than eight hours a day or 40
hours a week of work.  The federal Fair Labor Standards Act
requires employers to pay for all hours worked and time-and-a-half
pay for all hours over 40 worked by hourly workers per workweek.
When the employees complained, they were told to "do what it took
to get the job done," according to the complaint.  Mr. Chichester
said that if the title examiners fell behind, they would get
written up for failing to complete their assigned tasks.  "They
were between a rock and a hard place," he said.  "They couldn't do
anything but [continue to] work.  There were no jobs for deed dogs
at the time except for foreclosures."

But Mr. Strelzik said he argued that the company "had repeatedly
instructed" the title examiners not to work overtime and that no
one at the company was aware they were working overtime.
Mr. Strelzik said there was evidence that the plaintiff employees
"were concealing the fact that they had to work overtime to
complete the [work]load they had."

"Our client . . . took steps to have enough people so they didn't
have to work overtime and were completely unaware" that they were,
he said.


CALUMET SPECIALTY: Parties in "Wolfe" Case Agreed to Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the case, Jonathan Wolfe v. Anchor Drilling Fluids USA,
Inc., have engaged in mediation and agreed to a tentative
settlement, Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

On November 12, 2014, a nationwide collective action lawsuit
alleging that Anchor, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company,
failed to pay drilling fluid engineers overtime in compliance with
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") was filed titled Jonathan
Wolfe v. Anchor Drilling Fluids USA, Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ("Wolfe"). The
Company filed its answer to the complaint on January 9, 2015 and
the Wolfe plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 26,
2015, adding that Anchor's failure to pay overtime to a subclass
of drilling fluid engineers violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act (the "Pennsylvania Act"). For this subclass, the Wolfe
plaintiff seeks certification of a class action under the
Pennsylvania Act. The Wolfe plaintiff seeks to recover overtime
pay, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs. The portion
of the potential liability that relates to the period prior to
March 31, 2014, the date on which the Company acquired Anchor, is
eligible for indemnification under the securities purchase
agreement that effected that transaction; however, the right to
indemnification under the securities purchase agreement for the
potential Wolfe liability is subject to a deductible and
limitations otherwise set forth in the securities purchase
agreement. On May 1, 2015, the parties engaged in mediation and
agreed to a tentative settlement of this litigation. The tentative
settlement must be approved by the U.S. District Court. The
tentative settlement amount is not material to the unaudited
condensed consolidated financial statements.


CALUMET SPECIALTY: Parties in "Niver" Case Scheduled to Mediate
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the case, Timothy Niver v. Specialty Oilfield
Solutions, Ltd., were scheduled to mediate the case on June 5,
2015, Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

On November 21, 2014, a nationwide collective action lawsuit
alleging that Anchor Drilling Fluids USA, Inc. and the Company, as
well as Specialty Oilfield Solutions, Ltd. ("SOS"), failed to pay
solids control technicians overtime in compliance with the FLSA
was filed titled Timothy Niver v. Specialty Oilfield Solutions,
Ltd., et al. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania ("Niver").  The Niver plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on January 21, 2015, adding that defendants' failure to
pay overtime to a subclass of solids control technicians violated
the Pennsylvania Act.  For this subclass, the Niver plaintiff
seeks certification of a class action under the Pennsylvania Act.

The Niver plaintiff seeks to recover overtime pay, liquidated
damages and attorneys' fees and costs. Anchor and the Company
filed their answer to the amended complaint on February 2, 2015.
The Company consented to conditional certification in the case,
and notice of the collective action has been issued to potential
class members. The portion of the potential liability that relates
to the period prior to August 1, 2014, the date on which the
Company acquired the assets of SOS, was retained by, and is the
responsibility of, SOS. To the extent Anchor or the Company is
found liable for damages relating to the period prior to the
acquisition of the assets of SOS, Anchor and the Company are
eligible for indemnification under the asset purchase agreement
that effected that transaction, and no deductible is applicable;
however, the right to indemnification is subject to limitations
otherwise set forth in the asset purchase agreement. The parties
were scheduled to mediate the Niver case on June 5, 2015.


CARLYLE GROUP: Court Okays Settlements in Bidding Consortium Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Carlyle Group L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has approved
all the defendants' settlements, including the Partnership's, in a
private class-action lawsuit.

On February 14, 2008, a private class-action lawsuit challenging
"club" bids and other alleged anti-competitive business practices
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of
Detroit v. Apollo Global Management, LLC, later renamed Kirk Dahl
v. Bain Capital Partners LLC). The complaint alleges, among other
things, that certain global alternative asset firms, including the
Partnership, violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by forming
multi-sponsor consortiums for the purpose of bidding collectively
in company buyout transactions in certain going private
transactions and agreeing not to submit topping bids once such a
consortium had announced a signed deal, which the plaintiffs
allege constitutes a "conspiracy in restraint of trade."

To avoid the risk and cost associated with continuing the
litigation through trial, the Partnership entered into an
agreement with plaintiffs on August 29, 2014 to settle all claims
against the Partnership without any admission of liability. All of
the Partnership's codefendants also reached settlement agreements
with plaintiffs. The Court approved all the defendants'
settlements, including the Partnership's, on March 17, 2015.
Carlyle Partners IV, L.P. ("CP IV") and its affiliates incurred
the costs of the settlement not covered by insurance. As a result,
the Partnership's performance fees from CP IV were reduced by
$19.3 million in 2014.


CARNIVORE MEAT: Recalls Pet Food Due to Listeria
------------------------------------------------
Carnivore Meat Company, LLC is recalling select products and lots
of Carnivore Vital Essentials pet foods because they have the
potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.

Healthy cats and dogs rarely become sick from Listeria
monocytogenes. In humans, however, Listeria is an organism which
can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term
symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea,
abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

If an animal becomes ill with Listeria, it will display symptoms
similar to the ones listed above for humans. People with concerns
about whether their pet has Listeria should contact their
veterinarian.

The lots involved in this voluntary recall are:

  --- Vital Essentials Frozen Beef Tripe Patties, UPC 33211
      00809, Lot # 10930, Best by date 20160210
  --- Vital Essentials Frozen Beef Tripe Nibblets, UPC 33211 \
      00904, Lot # 10719, Best by date 12022015

The "Best By" date code and lot # is located on the back of the
package. The affected product was distributed in WA, CA, TX, GA,
IL, CO, NM, FL, PA, RI, OH and VT.

This voluntary recall has been issued because the FDA has reported
an independent lab detected the bacteria in samples during a
recent review. The company has received no reports of human
illness as a result of these products.

If you are a consumer and have purchased a bag of Vital Essentials
Frozen Beef Tripe Patties with the "Best By" date code of 20160210
or a bag of Frozen Beef Tripe Nibblets with a "Best By" date code
of 12022015, we ask that you please call 920-370-6542 Monday-
Friday 9:00AM-4:00PM CST and someone will assist you in obtaining
replacement or a full refund from your local retailer for your
original purchase.

If your package has been opened, please dispose of the raw food in
a safe manner by securing it in a covered trash receptacle.

Consumer Questions
Representatives are available from Monday - Friday 9:00AM - 4:00PM
CST at 920-370-6542.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm454409.htm


CBE GROUP: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marni Truglio, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CBE Group and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-03813-
PGS-TJB (D.N.J., June 8, 2015) accuses the Defendants of violating
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          MARCUS LAW LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 660-8169
          E-mail: ari@marcuslawyer.com


CHADBOURNE & PARKE: Lawsuits Over Role in Ponzi Scheme Continue
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anita Abedian, writing for Law.com, reports that a Texas federal
judge has allowed lawsuits to continue against Proskauer Rose,
Chadbourne & Parke, and a former lawyer at the two firms over the
roles they played representing convicted Ponzi scheme promoter R.
Allen Stanford.

On June 23, Dallas U.S. District Judge David Godbey declined to
dismiss most of the claims against the defendants brought by
Ralph Janvey, a court-appointed receiver for Stanford investors,
along with claims brought directly by investors who were sold $7
billion in fraudulent certificates of deposit.  The surviving
claims against the firms and Sjoblom include malpractice,
negligence, and civil conspiracy.

The Texas financier was convicted in 2012 and sentenced to a 110-
year-prison term.  Last year the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the
way for this lawsuit by ruling that these claims weren't barred by
the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998.

Mr. Janvey's lawsuit alleges that Mr. Sjoblom, a former attorney
with Chadbourne who moved to Proskauer, assisted Stanford's scheme
by making misrepresentations to the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission about Stanford's misconduct and hiding the SEC
investigation from Stanford's auditor. (Mr. Sjoblom now has his
own practice.)

Judge Godbey held that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged
that Mr. Sjoblom and the law firms were aware of wrongdoing by
Stanford. According to plaintiffs, Mr. Sjoblom knew that Stanford
was offering unrealistic rates of return on his CD products and
knew that Stanford had ties to Antiguan banking regulators.

The judge did, however, dismiss claims of aiding and abetting
fraudulent transfers under Texas law, because the defendants
didn't receive any of those transfers.

Receiver Janvey is represented by Douglas Buncher of Neligan
Foley.  The official investors committee is represented by Edward
Snyder and Jesse Castillo of Castillo Snyder.

Proskauer Rose is represented by James Rouhandeh of Davis Polk &
Wardwell.  Chadbourne & Park is represented by Daniel Beller of
Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison.  Mr. Sjoblom is represented
by William Mateja of Fish & Richardson and Joshua Hochberg of
McKenna Long & Aldridge.

Proskauer sent us the following statement: "We are pleased that
the district court found one of the claims in the Janvey complaint
so legally deficient that it was immediately dismissed.  The
district court's denial of the motion as to the remaining claims
was based on the preliminary status of the proceedings and did not
reach the merits. Once the merits are reached, we are confident
the remaining equally baseless claims will be dismissed."

Lawyers for Chadbourne, Mr. Sjoblom and the investors did not
immediately respond to requests for comment.

Separate litigation on behalf of Stanford investors is pending
against Greenberg Traurig and Hunton & Williams.  Last February,
Godbey allowed an investor lawsuit to go forward against the two
firms in which they're accused of helping Stanford shield his
offshore Ponzi bank from regulatory scrutiny and deceive Stanford
customers into believing his investment business was legitimate.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Defendants' Petition for Rehearing Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
The Charles Schwab 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 Defendants'
petition for rehearing was denied on April 28, 2015, in the Total
Bond Market Fund Litigation.

On August 28, 2008, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of investors in the Schwab Total Bond Market Fund(TM). The
lawsuit, which alleges violations of state law and federal
securities law in connection with the fund's investment policy,
names Schwab Investments (registrant and issuer of the fund's
shares) and CSIM as defendants. Allegations include that the fund
improperly deviated from its stated investment objectives by
investing in collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) and
investing more than 25% of fund assets in CMOs and mortgage-backed
securities without obtaining a shareholder vote. Plaintiffs seek
unspecified compensatory and rescission damages, unspecified
equitable and injunctive relief, costs and attorneys' fees.
Plaintiffs' federal securities law claim and certain of
plaintiffs' state law claims were dismissed. On August 8, 2011,
the court dismissed plaintiffs' remaining claims with prejudice.
Plaintiffs appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which issued a ruling on
March 9, 2015 reversing the district court's dismissal of the case
and remanding the case for further proceedings. Defendants'
petition for rehearing was denied on April 28, 2015.


CHATHAM LODGING: Affiliate Named as Defendant in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chatham Lodging Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that an affiliate of the
Company is currently a defendant, along with IHM, in a class
action lawsuit pending in the San Diego County Superior Court.
The class actions were filed on April 25, 2012 and February 27,
2013, and have subsequently been consolidated on November 8, 2013
under the title Martinez et al v. Island Hospitality Management,
Inc., et al. Case No. 37-2012-00096221-CU-OE-CTL.  The class
actions relate to fifteen hotels operated by IHM in the state of
CA and owned by affiliates of the Company, NewINK JV, Innkeepers
JV, and/or certain third parties.  Both complaints in the now
consolidated lawsuit allege various wage and hour law violations,
including unpaid off-the-clock work, failure to provide meal
breaks and failure to provide rest breaks.  The plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief, money damages, penalties, and interest.

"We are defending the case vigorously. As of March 31, 2015, we
have included$295 in accounts payable and accrued expenses, which
represents an estimate of our exposure to the litigation and is
also estimated as the maximum possible loss that the Company may
incur," the Company said.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Reed", "Sikora" Parties to Join Mediation
--------------------------------------------------------------
The parties in the Reed and Sikora class action lawsuits against
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated were scheduled to participate
in voluntary mediation in June 2015, the Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

On April 11, 2013, a restaurant hourly employee filed a class
action lawsuit in the California Superior Court, Placer County,
alleging that the Company violated the California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code, by requiring employees
to purchase uniforms for work (Sikora v. The Cheesecake Factory
Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No SCV0032820).

A similar lawsuit covering a different time period was also filed
in Placer County (Reed v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc.
et al; Case No. SCV27073).  By stipulation the parties agreed to
transfer the Reed and Sikora cases to Los Angeles County.  Both
cases (Case Nos. SCV0032820 and SCV27073) were subsequently
coordinated together in Los Angeles County by order of the
Judicial Council.

On November 15, 2013, the Company filed a motion in Case No.
SCV0032820 to enforce a prior judgment precluding certain claims
and to preclude the prosecution of certain claims under the
California Private Attorney General Act and California Business
and Professions Code Section 17200.  On March 11, 2015, the Court
granted the Company's motion. The parties were scheduled to
participate in voluntary mediation in June 2015.

"We intend to vigorously defend this action.  Based on the current
status of this matter, we have not reserved for any potential
future payments," the Company said.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Masters" Class Action Transferred
------------------------------------------------------
The class action, Masters v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants,
Inc., has been officially transferred in the Orange County
Superior Court, The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

On November 26, 2014, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court
alleging that the Company violated the California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code, by failing to pay
overtime, to permit required rest breaks and to provide accurate
wage statements, among other claims. (Masters v. The Cheesecake
Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No 37-2014-00040278).  By
stipulation, the parties agreed to transfer Case No. 37-2014-
00040278 to the Orange County Superior Court.

On March 2, 2015, Case No. 37-2014-00040278 was officially
transferred and assigned a new Case No. 30-2015-00775529 in the
Orange County Superior Court.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified
amounts of fees, penalties and other monetary payments on behalf
of the plaintiff and other purported class members.

"We intend to vigorously defend this action.  Based on the current
status of this matter, we have not reserved for any potential
future payments," the Company said.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: July Hearing on Motion to Compel Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has
set a hearing on the motion to compel arbitration in July 2015 in
the case, Garcia v. The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated, et al.

On January 14, 2015, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court
alleging that the Company violated the California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code, by failing to permit
required meal and rest breaks, and to provide accurate wage
statements, among other claims. (Garcia v. The Cheesecake Factory
Incorporated, et al; Case No 37-2015-00001408).

On February 19, 2015, the Company filed an ex parte application to
stay the litigation pending a hearing on the Company's motion to
compel arbitration.  The Court granted the Company's application,
stayed the litigation, and set a hearing on the motion to compel
arbitration in July 2015.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified amounts of fees, penalties and other
monetary payments on behalf of the plaintiff and other purported
class members.  "We intend to vigorously defend this action.
Based on the current status of this matter, we have not reserved
for any potential future payments," the Company said.


CINEMARK USA: "Amey" Lawsuit in Pretrial Discovery
--------------------------------------------------
Joseph Amey, et al. v. Cinemark USA, Inc., Case No. 3:13cv05669,
In the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Francisco Division, is in pretrial discovery, no
class action has been certified, and no representative action has
been quantified or recognized, Cinemark said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

The case presents putative class action claims for damages and
attorney's fees arising from employee wage and hour claims under
California law for alleged meal period, rest break, reporting time
pay, unpaid wages, pay upon termination, and wage statements
violations. The claims are also asserted as a representative
action under the California Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA").
The Company denies the claims, denies that class certification is
appropriate and denies that a PAGA representative action is
appropriate, and is vigorously defending against the claims.

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


COMMERCE BANCSHARES: To Defend Against Customer's Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Commerce Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company will
defend itself vigorously in a class action filed by a customer.

On August 15, 2014, a customer filed a purported class action
complaint against the Bank in the Circuit Court, Jackson County,
Missouri.  The case is Cassandra Warren, et al v. Commerce Bank
(Case No. 1416-CV19197).  In the case, the customer alleges
violation of the Missouri usury statute in connection with the
Bank charging overdraft fees in connection with point-of-
sale/debit and automated-teller machine cards. The case seeks
class-action status for Missouri customers of the Bank who may
have been similarly affected.  The Company believes the complaint
lacks merit and will defend itself vigorously. The amount of any
ultimate exposure cannot be determined with certainty at this
time.


CROCS INC: Class Suit Parties Planned to Participate in Mediation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Crocs, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2015, that the parties in a class action lawsuit
are exchanging documents and information relevant to the issue of
class certification and plan to participate in mediation in June
2015.

The Company said, "On August 8, 2014, a purported class action
lawsuit was filed in California state court against our
subsidiary, Crocs Retail, LLC, Zaydenberg v. Crocs Retail, LLC,
Case No. BC554214. The lawsuit alleges various employment law
violations related to overtime, meal and break periods, minimum
wage, timely payment of wages, wage statements, payroll records
and business expenses. We filed an answer on February 6, 2015,
denying the allegations and asserting several defenses. The
parties are exchanging documents and information relevant to the
issue of class certification and plan to participate in mediation
in June 2015. It is not possible at this time to predict the
outcome of this matter or reasonably estimate any potential loss."


DRESSER-RAND: Settlement Remains Subject to Final Documentation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dresser-Rand Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the settlement in the
Dresser Rand Group, Inc. Shareholders Litigation, remains subject
to final documentation and court approval.

A putative class action lawsuit challenging the proposed merger
with Siemens Energy, Inc. was filed on September 24, 2014 on
behalf of Dresser-Rand Group Inc. stockholders in the Delaware
Court of Chancery.  The action is captioned Soffer v. Volpe et
al., C.A. No. 10165-CB (Del. Ch.) (the "Soffer Action").  The
complaint in the Soffer Action alleged that the directors of the
Company breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders by
engaging in a flawed sale process, agreeing to sell the Company
for inadequate consideration and agreeing to improper deal
protection terms in the Merger Agreement.  In addition, the
lawsuit alleged that the Company, Siemens and Dynamo Acquisition
Corporation, the Delaware subsidiary formed by Siemens in
connection with the transaction, aided and abetted these purported
breaches of fiduciary duty.  The lawsuit sought, among other
things, an injunction barring the merger.

On October 21, 2014, plaintiffs amended the complaint to allege as
additional basis for relief that the directors of the Company
engaged in self-dealing because they will benefit from their
compensation arrangements and/or the sale of their personal stakes
in the Company and that the preliminary proxy statement filed by
the Company on October 9, 2014, fails to provide stockholders with
material information about the transaction and/or is materially
misleading.

On October 24, 2014, Construction Industry & Laborers Union Local
872 Pension A Trust v. Dresser-Rand Group, Inc., et al, C.A. No.
10285-CB (Del. Ch.) (the "Labor Union Action") was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery.  This complaint contained claims and
allegations similar to those in the pre-amendment Soffer complaint
and sought similar relief on behalf of the same putative class.
The Company believes that the lawsuit is without merit.

On November 10, 2014, the Soffer Action and the Labor Union Action
were consolidated under the caption In re Dresser Rand Group, Inc.
Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 10165-CB (Del. Ch.) (the
"Consolidated Case").  On November 14, 2014, the parties reached
an agreement in principle to settle the Consolidated Case in
exchange for the Company's making certain additional disclosures.
Those disclosures were contained in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC
on November 17, 2014.  The settlement remains subject to final
documentation and court approval.


EASTMAN KODAK: ERISA Litigation Proceeding
------------------------------------------
Eastman Kodak Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Eastman Kodak ERISA Litigation has been denied and the
case is proceeding.

On January 19, 2012, the Company and its U.S. subsidiaries filed
voluntary petitions for relief (the "Bankruptcy Filing") under
chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.
Subsequent to the Company's Bankruptcy Filing, between January 27,
2012 and March 22, 2012, several putative class action suits were
filed in federal court in the Western District of New York against
the committees of the Company's Stock Ownership Plan ('SOP') and
Savings and Investment Plan ("SIP"), and certain former and
current executives of the Company. The suits have been
consolidated into a single action brought under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA"), styled as In re Eastman
Kodak ERISA Litigation. The allegations concern the decline in the
Company's stock price and its alleged impact on SOP and SIP.
Plaintiffs seek the recovery of any losses to the applicable
plans, a constructive trust, the appointment of an independent
fiduciary, equitable relief, as applicable, and attorneys' fees
and costs. Defendants' motion to dismiss the litigation was denied
on December 17, 2014 and the case is proceeding. On behalf of the
defendants in this case, the Company believes that the case is
without merit and will vigorously defend the defendants on their
behalf.


ECOLAB INC: Defendant in Six Pending Wage Hour Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------
Ecolab Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2015, that the company is a defendant in six
pending wage hour lawsuits claiming violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") or a similar state law.

Of these six suits, two have been certified for class action
status. Ross (formerly Icard) v. Ecolab, U.S. District Court --
Northern District of California, case no. C 13-05097 PJH, an
action under California state law, has been certified for class
treatment of California Institutional employees.

In Cancilla v. Ecolab, U.S. District Court - Northern District of
California, case no. CV 12-03001, the Court conditionally
certified a nationwide class of Pest Elimination Service
Specialists for alleged FLSA violations. The suit also seeks a
purported California sub-class for alleged California wage hour
law violations and certifications of classes for state law
violations in Washington, Colorado, Maryland, Illinois, Missouri,
Wisconsin and North Carolina.

A third pending suit, Charlot v. Ecolab Inc., U.S. District Court-
Eastern District of New York, case no. CV 12-04543, seeks
nationwide class certification of Institutional employees for
alleged FLSA violations as well as purported state sub-classes in
New York, New Jersey, Washington and Pennsylvania alleging
violations of state wage hour laws.

A fourth pending suit, Schneider v. Ecolab, Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, case no. 2014 CH 193, seeks certification of a
class of Institutional employees for alleged violations of
Illinois wage and hour laws.

A fifth pending suit, Martino v. Ecolab, Santa Clara County
California Superior Court, seeks certification of a California
state class of Institutional employees for alleged violations of
California wage and hour laws. The Martino case has been removed
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

A sixth pending suit, LaValley v. Ecolab, United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota, seeks certification of a
class of Territory Representatives for alleged violations of the
FLSA and New York state wage and hour laws.


EDUCATIONAL TESTING: Faces New Suit Over Typo in SAT Test Timing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Rummell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
typo in the June 6 SAT test has brought three nationwide class
actions against the Educational Testing Service and The College
Board, which had to throw out results from the test section.

The typo told students they had 25 minutes for one test section,
though they should have had only 20 minutes.

Some proctors caught the error and gave the students only 20
minutes, but some gave them 25.

The section at issue, 8 or 9, was either reading or math,
depending on the version of the test.

More than 2 million students take the SAT each year, and
registration fees can exceed $100, according to the latest federal
complaint.  Similar class actions have been filed in Jacksonville,
Fla., and in Long Island.

The June 22 lawsuit in New Jersey does not say how many students
took the test on June 6.

"Examinees . . . rely on the constancy and reliability of the SAT
score as a solid, unquestioned indicator of relative ability," the
lawsuit states.  "Instead, the June 6th test examinees' scores
will be 'the SAT with the asterisk.'"

After the printing snafu, The College Board sent parents a notice
stating that scores from sections 8 or 9 of the June 6 test would
not be rescored.  Tests taken on June 7 were unaffected, according
to The College Board.

Lead plaintiff Jennie Whalen says the mistake will make it harder
for her and other class members to get into the colleges of their
choice.

A spokesman for The College Board wrote in an email: "We remain
confident in the reliability of scores from the June 6
administration of the SAT," without clarifying precisely what that
meant.  College Board spokesman Zach Goldberg said the board has
received a preliminary petition from an attorney representing one
student, but that he could not comment on pending litigation.

The College Board said on its website that the June 6 tests are
valid even with the missing sections.  "The SAT is designed to
collect enough information to provide valid and reliable scores
even with an additional unscored section within a test," the
statement says.  "From fire drills and power outages to mistiming
and disruptive behavior, school-based test administrations can be
fragile, so our assessments are not."

The College Board said affected students can retake the test for
free in October, but parents say the damage has already been done.

Many high school students take preparatory classes for the SAT
from The Princeton Review or Kaplan, which can cost $1,700 or
more.  Nearly all major U.S. colleges accept the SAT.

The Plaintiffs in the New Jersey case are represented:

          Bradley King, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
          1016 Palm Avenue
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: bking@ahdootwolfson.com


EHEALTH INC: Class Actions Filed Against Company, Chairman
----------------------------------------------------------
Two purported class action lawsuits have been filed against
Ehealth, its chairman of the board and chief executive officer,
Gary L. Lauer ("Mr. Lauer"), and its senior vice president and
chief financial officer, Stuart M. Huizinga ("Mr. Huizinga"), in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

The Company said, "On January 26 and March 10, 2015, two purported
class action lawsuits were filed against us, our chairman of the
board and chief executive officer, Gary L. Lauer ("Mr. Lauer"),
and our senior vice president and chief financial officer, Stuart
M. Huizinga ("Mr. Huizinga"), in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California.  The complaints allege
that the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding
our financial performance, guidance and operations during alleged
class periods of October 31, 2014 to January 14, 2015 and June 5,
2014 to January 14, 2015, respectively.  The complaints allege
that we and Messrs. Lauer and Huizinga violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The complaints seek compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, rescission or a rescissory measure of
damages, equitable/injunctive relief and such other relief as the
court deems proper."


ENERGY CORP: Judge Upholds Verdict in Landowners' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a federal magistrate judge has upheld a verdict in favor of a
class of landowners who claimed they were shortchanged on
royalties from an oil and gas company drilling on their property.

In the class action, Pollock v. Energy Corp. of America, U.S.
Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell of the Western District of
Pennsylvania denied Energy Corp. of America's motion for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict on an award of roughly $911,000 to the
class members.

According to Judge Mitchell's memorandum, the plaintiffs sued ECA
for breach of contract, contending that the company improperly
deducted gas transportation and marketing costs from the royalties
set forth in their leasing agreements with the company.  ECA
argued there was no evidence that class members did not receive
their full share of the royalties.

Under Pennsylvania law, in order for a gas producer to be able to
deduct those expenses, it must incur the expenses before taking
the deduction.  Judge Mitchell said that was not the case in the
matter at hand.

"Plaintiffs' theory for recovery was that it was illegal for ECA
to deduct post-production charges incurred after it sold the gas.
If the jury found that the post-production charges were incurred
after the gas was sold and title passed, then ECA was not
permitted to deduct the charges under any circumstances and
regardless of whether ECA had to absorb the post-production
costs," Judge Mitchell said.

"Moreover, the jury received evidence that ECA deducted post-
production charges from plaintiffs' royalties," he continued.
"Funds paid for the gas were deposited into an ECA-controlled
account, and plaintiffs' royalty statements reflected deductions
taken for post-production costs including interstate
transportation charges and marketing fees.  Accordingly, ECA's
argument is rejected."

ECA also argued there was not enough evidence to conclude that it
did not incur charges while it still had the gas title.

"This argument conflates the issues before the jury, as the
question posed was not whether charges were not incurred by ECA
while ECA held title, but rather, whether ECA deducted charges
incurred after it sold the gas and title passed or deducted
charges it did not incur," Judge Mitchell said.  "The court finds
that there was sufficient evidence of record for a jury to
determine that ECA breached the leases by improperly deducting
these post-production charges."

Judge Mitchell said testimony from a plaintiff's expert showed the
title passed at the receipt pool and before interstate
transportation expenses were incurred.

"Therefore it was reasonable for the jury to determine it was
improper for ECA to deduct interstate transportation charges, as
such charges were incurred after title passed to the third-party
purchasers," Judge Mitchell said.

The plaintiffs also had to prove the marketing costs were incurred
after the title had passed.

According to Judge Mitchell, the jury learned that another company
-- EMCO, with which ECA had a long-term sales contract -- incurred
the marketing costs when it sold the gas to third-party
purchasers.

Judge Mitchell said it was reasonable for the jury to conclude
that ECA never incurred marketing expenses in a way that would
allow it to deduct from the royalties.

In its final issue, ECA claimed it was entitled to judgment
notwithstanding the verdict because the class members did not
prove that the amount of royalties they received was any less than
what they would have received if the gas had been sold directly to
the buyers, Judge Mitchell said.

But Judge Mitchell added the argument ignored the issues of the
case.

"Plaintiffs did not have to prove what ECA is arguing here -- they
only needed to prove that the deductions were improper as they
were incurred after the gas was sold, and thus could not be
deducted from plaintiffs' royalties regardless if ECA directly
sold its gas directly to an end user," Judge Mitchell said.

William R. Caroselli of Caroselli, Beachler, McTiernan & Coleman,
representing the class members, did not return a call seeking
comment.  Nor did the defendant's attorney, Kevin Abbott --
kabbott@reedsmith.com -- of Reed Smith.


ENERGY XXI: Court of Chancery Dismissed EPL Merger Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Energy XXI Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware has entered an order dismissing the
litigation related to merger with EPL Oil & Gas, Inc. ("EPL") in
its entirety without prejudice.

In March and April, 2014, three alleged EPL stockholders (the
"plaintiffs") filed three separate class action lawsuits in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware on behalf of EPL
stockholders against EPL, its directors, Energy XXI, EGC, a
Delaware corporation and an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of
Energy XXI ("OpCo"), and Clyde Merger Sub, Inc., a Delaware
corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of OpCo ("Merger Sub" and
collectively, the "defendants"). The Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware consolidated these lawsuits on May 5, 2014. The
consolidated lawsuit is styled In re EPL Oil & Gas Inc.
Shareholders Litigation, C.A. No. 9460-VCN, in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "lawsuit").

Plaintiffs alleged a variety of causes of action challenging the
Agreement and Plan of Merger between Energy XXI, OpCo, Merger Sub,
and EPL (the "merger agreement"), which provided for the
acquisition of EPL by Energy XXI. Plaintiffs alleged that (a)
EPL's directors allegedly breached fiduciary duties in connection
with the merger and (b) Energy XXI, OpCo, Merger Sub, and EPL
allegedly aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties. Plaintiffs sought to have the merger agreement rescinded
and also sought damages and attorneys' fees.

On January 16, 2015, plaintiffs filed a voluntary notice of
dismissal. On January 20, 2015, the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware entered an order dismissing the lawsuit in its
entirety without prejudice.


FACEBOOK INC: September 16 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF
NEW YORK

IN RE FACEBOOK, INC., IPO SECURITIES AND DERIVATIVE LITIGATION,
MDL NO. 12-2389

This document relates to the Consolidated NASDAQ Actions:

No. 12-cv-4054 No. 12-cv-4600
No. 12-cv-4200 No. 12-cv-4716
No. 12-cv-4201 No. 12-cv-5549
No. 12-cv-4315 No. 12-cv-5630
No. 12-cv-4403 No. 12-cv-6882

If you placed retail pre-market and/or aftermarket orders to buy
and/or sell the common stock of Facebook, Inc., after its initial
public offering ("IPO") on May 18, 2012, you could be entitled to
a payment from a class action settlement.

A settlement has been proposed in a class action lawsuit (In re
Facebook, Inc., Securities and Derivative Litigation, Case No. 12-
md-2389-RWS) about the commencement of trading in the common stock
of Facebook, Inc., after Facebook's IPO on May 18, 2012.  The
Settlement will provide $26.5 million to pay claims of certain
individuals and entities that placed retail orders to buy or sell
Facebook stock that day.  If you qualify you may send in a claim
form to receive payment, exclude yourself from the settlement, or
object to the settlement.

WHO'S INCLUDED?

You are a Class Member and could receive payment if you entered
retail pre-market and/or aftermarket orders to buy and/or sell the
common stock of Facebook on May 18, 2012, and suffered monetary
losses as a result of technical issues experienced by the Nasdaq
Stock Market that day, as described in the complaint in this
lawsuit.

Contact your broker to see if you placed orders for Facebook stock
on May 18, 2012.  If you are not sure whether you are included,
you can get more information, including a detailed notice, at
www.nasdaqfbsettlement.com or by calling toll free 1-866-217-4457.

WHAT'S THIS ABOUT?

The lawsuit claimed that The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc., The Nasdaq
Stock Market LLC, and certain of their officers acted negligently
and in violation of the federal securities laws in connection with
Facebook's IPO on May 18, 2012, and that retail investors in
Facebook common stock that day suffered damages as a result of
that conduct.

The defendants all deny that they did anything wrong.  The Court
did not decide which side was right, but both sides agreed to the
proposed settlement to resolve the case.  The two sides disagree
on how much -- if any -- money the plaintiffs could have received
if they continued with the litigation.

WHAT DOES SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?

Nasdaq agreed to pay $26.5 million to be divided, after deductions
for fees and expenses, among Class Members who send in valid claim
forms.  A settlement agreement, available at
www.nasdaqfbsettlement.com describes all of the details of the
proposed settlement.  Your share of the fund will depend on
various factors, including the
number of valid claim forms that Class Members send in and other
factors related to your claim, such as how many orders for
Facebook stock you placed on May 18, 2012, whether those orders
were buys or sells, whether those orders were placed before or
after the commencement of trading and whether you sold any of the
Facebook shares on May 18 and later sold those at a profit or
still hold those shares, you may not have a Recognized Claim.

HOW DO YOU ASK FOR PAYMENT?

A detailed notice and claim form package contains everything you
need.  Call or visit www.nasdaqfbsettlement.com to get one.  To
qualify for a payment, you must send in a claim form.  Claim forms
are due by October 7, 2015.

WHAT ARE YOUR OTHER OPTIONS?

If you do not want to be legally bound by the settlement, you must
excluded yourself by August 19, 2015, or you will not be able to
sue or continue to sue The NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc., The Nasdaq
Stock Market LLC, or related persons and entities about the legal
claims in this case.  If you exclude yourself, you cannot get
money from the settlement.  If you stay in the settlement, you may
object to it by August 19, 2015.  As the detailed notice further
explains, any objection to the settlement, the plan of allocation,
the request by lawyers representing all Class Members (Finkelstein
Thompson LLP of Washington, DC; Entwistle & Cappucci LLP of New
York, NY; and Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP of New York,
NY) for attorneys' fees and costs for investigating the facts,
litigating the case, and negotiating the settlement; and awards of
service fees or incentive awards to the Lead Plaintiffs, must be
mailed to each of the following, with a postmark date no later
than August 19, 2015:

The Court:

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York
Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse
500 Pearl Street
New York, NY 10007

Plaintiff's Co-Lead Counsel:

Vincent R. Cappucci
Entwistle & Cappucci LLP
80 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West
New York, NY 10017

Nasdaq Defendants' Counsel:

William A. Slaughter
Ballard Spahr LLP
1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103

Claims Administrator:

In re Facebook, Inc., IPO Securities Litigation
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 170999
Milwaukee, WI 53217-8099

The Court will hold a e hearing in this case on September 16,
2015, to consider whether to approve the settlement; whether to
approve a request by the lawyers representing all Class Members
for attorneys' fees and costs for investigating the facts,
litigating the case, and negotiating the settlement; and whether
to approve awards of service fees or incentive awards to the Lead
Plaintiffs.  These payments will be made from the settlement fund.
These payments will be made from the settlement fund.  You may ask
to appear at the hearing, but you do not have to.  For more
information, call toll free 1-866-217-4457 or visit the website
www.nasdaqfbsettlement.com


FANNIE MAE: Settlement in 2008 Securities Case Has Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------
Federal National Mortgage Association said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the court
granted final approval of the settlement and entered an order and
judgment effecting the settlement in the case, In re Fannie Mae
2008 Securities Litigation.

The Company said, "In a consolidated amended complaint filed in
2009 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, lead plaintiffs Massachusetts Pension Reserves Investment
Management Board and Boston Retirement Board (for common
shareholders) and Tennessee Consolidated Retirement System (for
preferred shareholders) alleged that we, certain of our former
officers, and certain of our underwriters violated Sections
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. Lead plaintiffs
also alleged that we, certain of our former officers, and our
outside auditor, violated Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. Lead plaintiffs sought various forms of relief, including
rescission, damages, interest, costs, attorneys' and experts'
fees, and other equitable and injunctive relief."

"On July 15, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle the litigation. On March 3, 2015, the court granted
final approval of the settlement and entered an order and judgment
effecting the settlement. The settlement amount did not materially
impact our results of operations or financial condition. The time
for filing an appeal has expired, and this matter is concluded
with respect to Fannie Mae."


FANNIE MAE: Settlement in ERISA Litigation Wins Preliminary OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federal National Mortgage Association said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has
granted plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement in the 2008 Fannie Mae ERISA Litigation.

The Company said, "In a consolidated complaint filed in 2009 in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
plaintiffs alleged that certain of our current and former officers
and directors, including members of Fannie Mae's Benefit Plans
Committee and the Compensation Committee of Fannie Mae's Board of
Directors during the relevant time periods, as fiduciaries of
Fannie Mae's Employee Stock Ownership Plan ("ESOP"), breached
their duties to ESOP participants and beneficiaries by investing
ESOP funds in Fannie Mae common stock when it was no longer
prudent to continue to do so. Plaintiffs purported to represent a
class of participants and beneficiaries of the ESOP whose accounts
invested in Fannie Mae common stock beginning April 17, 2007.
Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages, attorneys' fees and other
fees and costs, and injunctive and other equitable relief.
On October 31, 2014, we reached an agreement in principle with
plaintiffs that would resolve this matter on behalf of all
parties. The proposed settlement amount did not impact our results
of operations or financial condition. On April 17, 2015,
plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement, which the court granted on May 5, 2015."


FBR & CO: Underwriter Defendants Filed Motion to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------
FBR & Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2015, that the underwriter defendants have filed a
motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the case,
Waterford Township Police & Fire, Retirement System, vs. Regional
Management Corp. et al.

FBR Capital Markets & Co. has been named a defendant in the
putative class action lawsuit Waterford Township Police & Fire,
Retirement System, vs. Regional Management Corp. et al., pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York. The amended complaint, filed on November 24, 2014 (the
"Amended Complaint"), names FBRCM as a co-managing underwriter of
offerings in September 2013 and December 2013.  Plaintiffs allege
that the Registration Statement and Prospectus used in connection
with these offerings were negligently prepared and, as a result,
contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted to state
other facts necessary to make the statements made not misleading.
The Amended Complaint asserts claims against all the underwriters
under Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act.  Regional
Management has agreed to indemnify all the underwriters, including
FBRCM, pursuant to the operative underwriting agreement. In
response to the defendants' motions to dismiss, filed on January
23, 2015, the putative class plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint"), which shall serve as
the operative complaint.  On April 28, 2015 the underwriter
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.


FEDERAL RESERVE: D.C. Court Struck Class Claims in "Artis" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a judge struck class
allegations in the 14-year-old case led by Cynthia Artis that
accuses the Federal Reserve of discriminating against black
secretaries and clerical workers.

The case is Cynthia Artis, et al. v. Janet L. Yellen, Case No.
01-400 (EGS), in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia.


FIREEYE INC: To Defend Stockholder Action in Calif. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
FireEye, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company intends to
defend a stockholder class action lawsuit filed in the Superior
Court of California.

The Company said, "On June 20, 2014, a purported stockholder class
action lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California,
County of Santa Clara, against the Company, the members of our
Board of Directors, our Chief Financial Officer, and the
underwriters of our March 2014 follow-on public offering.  On July
17, 2014, a substantially similar lawsuit was filed in the same
court against the same defendants. The actions were consolidated
and an amended complaint was filed, alleging violations of the
federal securities laws on behalf of a purported class consisting
of purchasers of the Company's common stock pursuant or traceable
to the registration statement and prospectus for the follow-on
public offering, and seeking unspecified compensatory damages and
other relief.  The Company intends to defend the litigation
vigorously.  Based on information currently available, the Company
has determined that the amount of any possible loss or range of
possible loss is not reasonably estimable."


FIREEYE INC: To Defend Stockholder Class Action in N.D. Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
FireEye, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company intends to
defend a stockholder class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

On November 24, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
officers. The action is purportedly brought on behalf of a
putative class of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Company's securities between January 2, 2014, and November 4,
2014. The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative
class. The Company intends to defend the litigation vigorously.
Based on information currently available, the Company has
determined that the amount of any possible loss or range of
possible loss is not reasonably estimable.


FIRST HORIZON: FTBNA Facing Class Suit Related to Overdraft Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
First Horizon National 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 First
Tennessee Bank National Association is a defendant in a putative
class action lawsuit concerning overdraft fees charged in
connection with debit card transactions. A key claim is that the
method used to order or sequence the transactions posted each day
was improper. The case is styled as Hawkins v. First Tennessee
Bank National Association, before the Circuit Court for Shelby
County, Tennessee, Case No. CT-004085-11. The plaintiff seeks
actual damages of at least $5 million, unspecified restitution of
fees charged, and unspecified punitive damages, among other
things. FHN's estimate of RPL for this matter is subject to
significant uncertainties regarding: whether a class will be
certified and, if so, the definition of the class; claims as to
which no dollar amount is specified; the potential remedies that
might be available or awarded; the ultimate outcome of potentially
significant motions such as motions to dismiss, or for summary
judgment; and the incomplete status of the discovery process.


FREIGHTCAR AMERICA: Trial to Commence August 25 in "Zanghi" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Freightcar America, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a trial has been
scheduled to commence on August 25, 2015 in Pennsylvania Court in
Zanghi, et al. v. FreightCar America, Inc., et al.

On July 9, 2013, the United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber,
Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial & Services Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (the "USW"), and certain Retiree
Defendants (collectively, the "Pennsylvania Plaintiffs") filed a
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania (the "Pennsylvania Court"),
captioned as Zanghi, et al. v. FreightCar America, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:13-cv-146. The complaint filed with the Pennsylvania
Court alleges that the Company does not have the right to
terminate welfare benefits previously provided to the Retiree
Defendants and requests, among other relief, entry of a judgment
finding that the Retiree Defendants have a vested right to
specified welfare benefits.

On July 26, 2013, the Pennsylvania Plaintiffs filed with the
Illinois Court a Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b) or in the Alternative, to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1404(a), as well as a Motion to Stay and/or Prevent Plaintiff from
Obtaining Defaults against the Retiree Defendants. On August 5,
2013, the Company filed with the Pennsylvania Court a Motion to
Dismiss Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) or in the Alternative,
to Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a).

On January 14, 2014, the Pennsylvania Court denied the Company's
motion to dismiss and, on January 16, 2014, the Illinois Court
transferred the Company's case to the Pennsylvania Court. On
January 31, 2014, the Company filed a motion to consolidate both
cases before the Pennsylvania Court. On April 3, 2014, the
Pennsylvania Court entered an order (the "Initial Procedural
Order") that, among other things, consolidated both cases before
the Pennsylvania Court, certified a class for purposes of the
consolidated actions, established discovery parameters and
deadlines and established a briefing schedule applicable to the
parties' cross motions for summary judgment as to liability only.
On July 17, 2014, the parties filed with the Pennsylvania Court
their respective motions for summary judgment as to liability. On
March 30, 2015, the Pennsylvania Court issued an order denying
both parties' summary judgment motions. A trial has been scheduled
to commence on August 25, 2015 in the Pennsylvania Court. The
ultimate outcome of the proceedings before the Pennsylvania Court
cannot be determined at this time.


GENCO SHIPPING: Facing Six Class Actions Filed in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
Genco Shipping & Trading Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in April 2015,
six class action complaints were filed in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of New York, styled:

     -- Erol Sarikaya v. Peter C. Georgiopoulos et al., Index No.
651244/2015, filed on April 15, 2015, voluntarily dismissed, and
refiled as Joshua Bourne v. Peter C. Georgiopoulos et al., Index
No. 651429/2015, filed on April 28, 2015,

     -- Justin Wilson v. Baltic Trading Ltd., et al., Index No.
651241/2015, filed on April 15, 2015,

     -- Sangeetha Ganesan v. Baltic Trading Limited et al., Index
No. 651279/2015, filed on April 17, 2015,

     -- Edward Braunstein v. Peter C. Georgiopoulos et al., Index
No. 651368/2015, filed on April 23, 2015,

     -- Larry Williams v. Baltic Trading Ltd., et al., Index No.
651371/2015, filed on April 23, 2015, and

     -- Larry Goldstein and Bernhard Stomporowski v. John C.
Wobensmith et al., Index No. 651407/2015, filed on April 27, 2015.

All six complaints purport to be brought by and on behalf of the
Baltic Trading's shareholders. The plaintiff in each action
alleges the proposed merger does not fairly compensate Baltic
Trading's shareholders and undervalues Baltic Trading. Each
lawsuit names as defendants some or all of the Company, Baltic
Trading, the individual members of Baltic Trading's board, the
Company's and Baltic Trading's President, and the Company's merger
subsidiary. The claims generally allege (i) breaches of fiduciary
duties of good faith, due care, disclosure to shareholders, and
loyalty, including for failing to maximize shareholder value, and
(ii) aiding and abetting those breaches. Among other relief, the
complaints seek an injunction against the merger, declaratory
judgments that the individual defendants breached fiduciary
duties, rescission of the merger agreement, and unspecified
damages.  The Company does not believe that it is probable that
the resolution of these matters will have a material financial
reporting consequence.


GENERAL MOTORS: K&S Responds to Conspiracy Allegations
------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that King & Spalding has fired back in court against allegations
that it helped client General Motors Co. conceal an ignition-
switch defect for years.

Plaintiffs lawyers suing GM are pressuring King & Spalding, its
outside counsel, to turn over internal memos and notes relating to
the defect, which prompted the recall of 2.6 million cars and
trucks last year and has been linked to 124 deaths.

In doing so, plaintiffs lawyers hope to pierce the attorney-client
privilege on the ground that GM used the Atlanta-based law firm to
commit a crime or fraud.  A motion filed last month, portions of
which were unsealed on July 9, alleges that GM used King &
Spalding to quietly settle ignition-switch cases rather than
disclose the defect to federal regulators.

But King & Spalding's attorney, Tai Park -- tpark@parkjensen.com
-- a partner at New York's Park Jensen Bennett, wrote in a July 10
court filing that the request could set a dangerous precedent,
particularly for products liability attorneys.

"If adopted, plaintiffs' interpretation of the crime-fraud
exception would discourage attorneys from providing unbiased and
candid advice to their clients," he wrote.

Moreover, there was "absolutely no truth to the baseless and
defamatory allegations," Mr. Park wrote.  "K&S had no reason to
think or even suspect that GM was committing any alleged crime or
fraud.  To the contrary, K&S met its ethical obligations by
providing candid and forthright legal advice regarding GM's likely
exposure in three individual product liability cases."

Mr. Park, who earlier this year represented billionaire
Ira Rennert in a trial in which he was found liable for looting
his own magnesium company, did not respond to a request for
comment.  He and Tami Stark -- tstark@parkjensen.com -- of counsel
to Park Jensen Bennett, join a Dentons team that has been
representing King & Spalding in the GM litigation. One of those
lawyers, Atlanta partner Nathan Garroway, and firm spokeswoman
Micheline Tang declined to comment.

GM, in a separate filing, said the motion was the latest in
plaintiffs attorneys' "baseless media campaigns accusing new GM
and its outside counsel of lawyer 'cover ups' and conspiracies."

Plaintiffs lawyers outline a chain of events purportedly showing
that King & Spalding's lawyers knew of the defect as early as
2010.  They cite a 2010 case evaluation letter written by
Harold Franklin, a firm partner in Atlanta, who found "clear
evidence of a defect" in a Chevrolet Cobalt.  He made similar
conclusions in 2011 when evaluating another crash.

By 2013, when GM was facing a lawsuit over the death of 29-year-
old Brooke Melton, Phillip Holladay, another firm partner in
Atlanta, concluded that a "jury here will almost certainly
conclude that the Cobalt's ignition switch is defective and
unreasonably dangerous."

Co-lead plaintiffs attorney Robert Hilliard, a partner at Hilliard
Munoz Gonzales in Corpus Christi, Texas, wrote in an email to The
National Law Journal that King & Spalding knew of the defect and
made "sure cases were quickly and quietly settled, confidentiality
agreements were signed and enforced and records were sealed."

But Park wrote in the filing that plaintiffs' lawyers "grossly
distort the scope and substance of K&S's evaluation letters."  In
the first two accidents, he wrote, GM's engineers had been focused
on an electrical "anomaly" but hadn't identified the ignition-
switch defect.

"The letters clearly set forth the reasons K&S recommended
exploring settlement in each case: based on the known facts, GM
was unlikely to win at trial and risked large jury verdicts," Park
wrote.  "It is neither a crime nor a fraud nor an ethical
violation for a law firm to recommend settlement to end or avoid
litigation."


GENERAL MOTORS: Stockholders Can't Sue Over Ignition-Switch Issue
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for Delaware Business Court Insider,
reports that a group of General Motors stockholders has been
denied a chance to file a derivative lawsuit over the company's
ignition-switch troubles, with the Court of Chancery rejecting
arguments that the board of directors was conflicted by potential
personal liability for the faulty switches.

The plaintiffs in In re General Motors Derivative Litigation
argued the board did not create proper systems to more quickly
identify the risks posed by the ignition switches or the legal
liability those risks raised.

"Pleadings, even specific pleadings, indicating that directors did
a poor job of overseeing risk in a poorly managed corporation do
not imply director bad faith," Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III
said.  "This case presents a classic example of the difference
between allegations of a breach of duty of care (involving gross
negligence) as opposed to the duty of loyalty (involving
allegations of a bad-faith conscious disregard of fiduciary
duties)."

The plaintiffs argued there was no single board committee
responsible for tracking National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration inquiries and no mechanism for GM's legal
department to ensure the general counsel or board of directors
knew of various claims for punitive damages and reports from
outside counsel on ignition-switch liability issues.

The plaintiffs sought to hold GM's board of directors personally
liable for losses the shareholders suffered due to the $1.5
billion in markdowns from recalls, a $35 million government fine,
payouts through the ignition-switch settlement fund and other
reputational losses to the company.  The plaintiffs, GM
stockholders since at least 2010, didn't argue the board was
complicit in the ignition switch defect, but that it should have
known about the troubles well before February 2014.

The plaintiffs never placed a demand on the board for the company
to bring this action, arguing it would have been futile.

"The plaintiffs have used Section 220 to obtain corporate records
to strengthen their pleadings; nonetheless, in my view, they have
failed to raise a reasonable doubt that GM's directors acted in
good faith or otherwise face a substantial likelihood of personal
liability in connection with the faulty ignition switches,"
Vice Chancellor Glasscock said in his June 26 opinion.

The plaintiffs cited a number of incidents in the few years before
the board's February 2014 discovery of the ignition switch
problems in which outside counsel, such as Eckert Seamans Cherin &
Mellott and King & Spalding, informed GM about the possible
connection between the ignition switch problems and the failure of
air bags to deploy.

"The context of this case is unsettling: GM produced defective
products, the defect became apparent to certain employees, and the
company failed to initiate a recall until after several consumers
had already been seriously injured or killed," Vice Chancellor
Glasscock said.

"This suit, however, is not about holding GM liable to these
consumers.  By and through this derivative action, the plaintiffs
seek to hold the directors personally liable to GM itself for
breaches of their fiduciary duties in bad faith.  The plaintiffs
conflate concededly bad outcomes from the point of view of the
company with bad faith on the part of the board."

Vice Chancellor Glasscock said from the outset of his opinion that
the plaintiffs had a tough hurdle to overcome, with the
requirement to demonstrate demand futility being "rigorous" so as
to prevent "frivolous usurpation of a core director function by a
stockholder, with all the distraction and chaos that would
portend."

Vice Chancellor Glasscock said the plaintiffs ignored the first of
two criteria laid out in the Delaware Supreme Court's 1984
decision in Aronson v. Lewis for when derivative suits could be
filed.  In order to sue directors derivatively, plaintiffs must
plead facts that show a reasonable doubt as to the directors'
disinterest and independence or doubt that the challenged
transaction was a valid exercise of business judgment.

The plaintiffs focused on that second prong, arguing the board's
decision to transfer risk oversight from a finance and risk
committee to an audit committee was done in bad faith.  It is not
enough for hindsight to show a decision was ill-advised,
Vice Chancellor Glasscock said.  Bad faith is the absence of a
good-faith pursuit of a company's interest in violation of a duty
of loyalty, he said.

The GM plaintiffs said the transfer of risk management
responsibilities was done at a time when the function was already
poor, creating an even worse system.  They argued the audit
committee was already overburdened with the company's bankruptcy
and giving the committee more responsibility could not have been
done in good faith.

But Vice Chancellor Glasscock said there was no allegation that
the board was aware the risk management function was operating
poorly.

"These decisions were, simply put, business decisions by the board
regarding its officers and committees and there is a lack of
particularized pleading showing bad faith that would upset that
presumption," Vice Chancellor Glasscock said.  He then looked to
the plaintiffs' claims regarding the board's alleged inaction.

To prove a failure-of-oversight claim, the plaintiffs would have
had to show a likelihood of personal liability, which is all the
more difficult to do when the company has an exculpation clause
for breaches of duty of care, Vice Chancellor Glasscock said.

Vice Chancellor Glasscock said the plaintiffs allege GM had a
system for reporting safety issues and reports from outside
counsel regarding potential punitive damages, but it should have
had a better system.

"Importantly, the plaintiffs do not allege that the board had
knowledge that this system was inadequate or that the board
consciously remained uninformed on this issue," Vice Chancellor
Glasscock said.

The plaintiffs had also taken issue with a legal department policy
that the general counsel only had to approve settlements of more
than $5 million.  But Vice Chancellor Glasscock said pleading that
the GC was not informed of certain litigation risks lower than
that dollar amount does not rise to the level of showing the board
failed to implement a proper risk management system.

"It shows, perhaps, an overly bureaucratic system of 'information
silos,' but not a conscious disregard of fiduciary duties by the
board," Vice Chancellor Glasscock said.

Robert Kopecky -- robert.kopecky@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland &
Ellis in Chicago represented General Motors along with local
counsel from Richards, Layton & Finger.  He did not return a call
seeking comment.  William M. Lafferty, Susan W. Waesco and Lauren
Neal of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell represented the
individual defendants.  A call to Mr. Lafferty was not returned.

"The Delaware court properly dismissed the complaint because GM's
board of directors did its job, and exercised oversight over the
company," a GM spokesman said.  "The other shareholder derivative
actions pending against the board make the same allegations, so we
hope the courts will dismiss those as well."

The plaintiffs were represented by attorneys at Smith, Katzenstein
& Jenkins in Wilmington and Abbey Spanier, Harwood Feffer,
Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman and Morgan & Morgan in New York.
Robert Katzenstein of Smith Katzenstein declined to comment.


GENVEC INC: Court Approved Settlement in "Galitsis" Case
--------------------------------------------------------
GenVec, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has entered
orders approving the settlement in the case, Galitsis v. Swirsky,
et. al.

On October 17, 2014, a second putative class and derivative action
was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland styled Galitsis v. Swirsky, et. al., Case No. 14-cv-3265.
The Galitsis Complaint contains the same allegations and asserts
almost all the same claims as those in the Garnitschnig Amended
Complaint Shortly after the Galitsis action was filed, counsel for
the plaintiff (who was also counsel for the plaintiff in the
Garnitschnig action) voluntarily dismissed the Garnitschnig
action.

The Company and the individual defendants vigorously deny all
liability with respect to the claims alleged in the Galitsis
action. However, the Company considered it desirable that the
action be settled to avoid the substantial burden, expense, risk,
inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation and to fully
and finally resolve the settled claims.

On or about November 3, 2014, the parties to the Galitsis action
reached an agreement in principle set forth in a Settlement Term
Sheet to settle the Galitsis action. Subsequently, on January 23,
2015, the parties executed and filed with the Court a Stipulation
of Settlement embodying terms previously set forth in the
Settlement Term Sheet. On May 7, 2015, the court entered orders
approving the settlement and awarding the plaintiff's attorneys in
the Galitsis action $325,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses. The
court order approving the settlement resolves all of the claims
that were or could have been brought in the Galitsis action,
including all claims related to awards made pursuant to the 2011
Plan.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Judge Decertifies Class in Wellbutrin Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a class of indirect purchasers of GlaxoSmithKline's Wellbutrin
that claimed the drugmaker delayed the entry of generic versions
of the antidepressant into the market has been decertified by a
federal judge.

In the Wellbutrin antitrust litigation on June 30, U.S. District
Judge Mary A. McLaughlin of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
granted GSK's motion to decertify on the basis that the plaintiffs
didn't provide a mechanism to determine which class members
qualified as indirect purchasers.

In her opinion, Judge McLaughlin wrote that the plaintiffs had to
show that the class was "ascertainable," in that "it can identify
(1) which entities paid some or all of the retail purchase price
of Wellbutrin XL and later purchased its generic equivalent
('generic XL'), and (2) which individual consumers and entities
paid some or all of the retail purchase price of generic XL.
Individual consumers who made only flat co-payments for the
generic drug are excluded from the class."

While the parties agreed that third-party payers, such as
insurance companies, fell within the class, there was a dispute as
to whether pharmacy benefit managers -- those who act as middlemen
between third-party purchasers and pharmacies to offer price
discount guarantees to their third-party customers -- qualified as
part of the class.

GSK argued that the guarantees caused the middlemen to pay for
Wellbutrin and its generics, while the class argued that those
pricing arrangements were "off-transaction financial flows,"
according to Judge McLaughlin.

GSK further argued that the class had no way to discern if any
pharmacy benefit managers (referred to as PBMs by the court)
qualified as class members, according to Judge McLaughlin.

The class argued that PBMs are not potential class members, Judge
McLaughlin said, and therefore, they do not need to show that it
can ascertain which PBMs qualify as class members.

However, Judge McLaughlin said, "PBMs are potential class members
because they may have paid a portion of the retail purchase price
of Wellbutrin XL or generic XL via so-called 'spread pricing
arrangements' or 'price discount guarantees.'  An entity is a
member of the IPC [indirect purchaser class] if it paid some or
all of the retail purchase price of generic XL during the class
period."

The class members reiterated that the pricing arrangements handled
by the PBMs were not conducted within the scope of a retail
transaction.

But Judge McLaughlin said the class failed to explain why only
parties who paid for the drug at the time of the transaction
should be included in the class.

Additionally, Judge McLaughlin said the plaintiffs' damages model,
devised by their expert, Dr. Meredith Rosenthal, did not assign
damages to individual class members.  That means, according to
McLaughlin, the model could not be used to figure out which
members were overcharged for the purchase of Wellbutrin or a
generic.

"It is unclear whether the IPC has shown that if PBMs are
excluded, 'damages are susceptible to measurement across the
entire class' -- the IPC's current damages model would potentially
include damages suffered by non-class members, and may therefore
overstate the amount of damages suffered by the IPC," Judge
McLaughlin said.  "The court does not have enough information at
this point to know whether such an overstatement would be
significant or relatively minor; indeed, the court does not know
if such an overstatement even exists."

Judge McLaughlin, therefore, opted not to add an exclusion of PBMs
in the class certification.

"Such an exclusion would potentially create as many problems for
the certification of the IPC as it would solve.  Additionally,
such an exclusion would do nothing to solve the IPC's problems in
showing that individual consumers can be ascertained," Judge
McLaughlin said.

Leslie John, Stephen Kastenberg, Ed Rogers, Jason Leckerman and
Marcel Pratt of Ballard Spahr represented GSK.  A Ballard Spahr
spokeswoman deferred comment to GSK.  A GSK spokeswoman did not
return a call seeking comment.

Dianne Nast of NastLaw, an attorney for the plaintiffs, did not
return a call seeking comment.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces Zofran Injury Suit in W.D. Louisiana
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stacy Coughlin, Individually and on behalf of L.D., a Minor., and
Ashley Swann, Individually and on behalf of V.P., a Minor v.
GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv-01815 (W.D. La., June 8,
2015) seeks compensatory and punitive damages arising from the
alleged injuries caused to L.D. and V.P. as a result of their
prenatal exposure to the prescription drug Zofran, also known as
odansetron.

Zofran is a drug that was approved by the Food and Drug
Administration in 1991 to treat severe nausea in cancer patients
undergoing chemotherapy and radiation treatments.  To date, this
remains the only FDA approved use for Zofran.

GlaxoSmithKline marketed Zofran "off label" as a safe and
effective treatment for pregnancy-related nausea and vomiting,
commonly called "morning sickness."

GlaxoSmithKline is a Delaware limited liability company.  GSK's
sole member is GlaxoSmithKline Holdings, Inc., which is a Delaware
corporation, and which has identified its principal place of
business as Wilmington, Delaware.  GSK is the successor in
interest to Glaxo, Inc. and Glaxo Wellcome Inc. Glaxo, Inc. was
the sponsor of the original New Drug Application for Zofran.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen B. Murray, Sr., Esq.
          Arthur M. Murray, Esq.
          Jessica W. Hayes, Esq.
          Amanda K. Klevorn, Esq.
          MURRAY LAW FIRM
          650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 525-8100
          Facsimile: (504) 584-5249
          E-mail: smurray@murray-lawfirm.com
                  amurray@murray-lawfirm.com

               - and -

          Patrick C. Morrow, Esq.
          Richard "Richie" T. Haik, Jr., Esq.
          MORROW, MORROW, RYAN & BASSETT
          324 West Landry Street, P.O. Drawer 1787
          Opelousas, LA 70571
          Telephone: (337) 948-4483
          Facsimile: (337) 942-5234
          E-mail: patm@mmrblaw.com
                  richardh@mmrblaw.com

Plaintiff Stacy Coughlin is also represented by:

          Eric Timothy Haik, Esq.
          HAIK, MINVIELLE & GRUBBS, LLP
          1017 East Dale Street
          New Iberia, LA 70562
          Telephone: (337) 352-2406
          Facsimile: (337) 367-7069
          E-mail: ehaik@hmg-law.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Antitrust Class Action Dismissal Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled that the
U.S. Supreme Court's 2013 ruling in FTC v. Actavis, which allowed
antitrust suits over reverse cash payments by drug manufacturers
to keep generic versions of their products off the market, also
applies to noncash settlements of such disputes.

The Third Circuit reversed a ruling by U.S. District Judge William
Walls of the District of New Jersey, who dismissed an antitrust
class action against drugmakers GlaxoSmithKline and Teva
Pharmaceuticals over their agreement to postpone a generic version
of Lamictal, which is used to treat epilepsy and bipolar disorder.

The appeals court, ruling in a suit on behalf of direct purchasers
of the drug, said the holding in Actavis was not limited to
reverse payments of cash.  According to the court, a so-called
"no-AG (authorized generic) agreement," when it represents a large
transfer of value from the patent holder to the generic company,
may be subject to antitrust scrutiny.

A no-AG agreement is likely to be "as harmful" as a reverse
payment of cash, the Third Circuit said.  By using a no-AG
agreement to induce a generic company to abandon its patent fight,
a drug company eliminates the chance of defeating a questionable
patent, and along with it the prospects of a more competitive
market, the Third Circuit said.

In the Third Circuit case, Teva challenged the validity of GSK's
patent on lamotrigine, the active ingredient in Lamictal.  Teva
was also the first company to file an application with the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration seeking approval to make generic
Lamictal tablets and chewable tablets, markets with annual volume
estimated at $2 billion and $50 million, respectively.

After the patent's main claim, for the invention of lamotrigine,
was ruled invalid, GSK and Teva settled.  They agreed Teva would
end its challenge to GSK's patent in exchange for early entry into
the chewable Lamictal market and GSK's agreement not to produce
its own "authorized generic" version of Lamictal.

The plaintiffs in the present case, King Drug Co. of Florence and
Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co., claimed the agreement qualified as a
reverse payment under Actavis.  They brought suit for violations
of the Sherman Act on behalf of individuals and entities that
purchased Lamictal, claiming the no-AG agreement was designed to
induce Teva to abandon the patent fight and thereby agree to
eliminate the risk of competition in the market for the drug
longer than its patent would otherwise permit.  Judge Anthony
Scirica, joined by Judges Thomas L. Ambro and Jane R. Roth, wrote
that the deal between GSK and Teva may "give rise to the inference
that it is a payment to eliminate the risk of competition."

In the present case, GSK agreed as part of the settlement in 2005
not to market an authorized generic until January 2009, after
Teva's 180-day market exclusivity period was over, the court said.

Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, the appeals court noted, the first
generic maker to file an abbreviated new drug application for a
particular medication is entitled to an 180-day period of
exclusivity from generic competition.  But that exclusivity period
does not preclude the patent holder from marketing its own
"authorized generic."

In exchange for GSK's decision to postpone rollout of its generic,
Teva agreed to drop its suit challenging GSK's patent, and,
plaintiffs claimed, delay sale of its own generic Lamictal.  If
not for the consideration it received, according to the
plaintiffs, Teva would have launched its own version of the drug
in 2006.

The direct-purchaser plaintiffs filed the present suit in 2012.
GSK and Teva moved to dismiss, citing the Third Circuit's 2012
ruling in In re K-Dur Antitrust Litigation, which said only cash
payments constitute actionable reverse payments.  Judge Walls
granted the motion to dismiss, and the plaintiffs appealed.  The
case was stayed pending the Supreme Court's ruling in Actavis,
which said that payments by drugmakers to competitors to keep
generics off the market were not presumptively illegal but could
be challenged on antitrust grounds.

After the Actavis ruling was issued in 2013, the present case went
back to the district court, where it was again dismissed.  On
appeal a second time, the lower court's ruling was vacated and
remanded June 26.  The Supreme Court later vacated the K-Dur
decision in light of Actavis.

The appeals court rejected the defendants' argument that no-AG
agreements are distinguishable from reverse payments because they
are, in essence, "exclusive licenses," and are expressly
contemplated by patent law.  The panel said the defendants are not
seeking the right to grant licenses, but the right to use
licensing to induce a patent-challenger's delay, which the Actavis
court rejected.

"The thrust of the court's reasoning is not that it is problematic
that money is used to effect an end to the patent challenge, but
rather that the patentee leverages some part of its patent power
to cause anti-competitive harm," the appeals court said.  "We make
no statement about patent licensing more generally.  But in this
context we believe that the fact that the Patent Act expressly
authorizes licensing does not necessarily mean that it also
authorizes reverse payments to prevent generic competition."

The defendants also argued that no-AG agreements, as "exclusive
licenses," should not be subject to antitrust scrutiny because
public policy favors settlements and such scrutiny will discourage
settlements.

But the Third Circuit panel said the Actavis court rejected those
arguments, citing its findings that any possible discouragement of
settlements was outweighed by other considerations and that
parties may well find ways to settle patent disputes without
reverse payments.

GSK "continues to believe that plaintiffs have failed to plead any
facts consistent with an agreement to harm competition," and that
settling fosters competition by letting parties resolve expensive
and disruptive litigation, the company said in a statement.

Bruce Gerstein -- bgerstein@garwingerstein.com -- of Garwin
Gerstein & Fisher in New York represented the plaintiffs.
Barbara Mather -- matherb@pepperlaw.com -- of Pepper Hamilton in
Philadelphia represented GSK, and Jay Lefkowitz --
lefkowitz@kirkland.com -- of Kirkland & Ellis in New York
represented Teva.  None returned calls.  Teva spokeswoman Denise
Bradley declined to comment.


GLOBAL CASH: Parties in "Williams" Action Reached Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Global Cash Access Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the parties in
the case, Dollie Williams, et al., v. Macon County Greyhound Park,
Inc., et al., have reached a settlement that will become final
upon approval of the bankruptcy court overseeing the bankruptcy of
one of the plaintiffs.

Dollie Williams, et al., v. Macon County Greyhound Park, Inc., et
al., a civil action, was filed on March 8, 2010, in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama, Eastern
Division, against Multimedia and others. The plaintiffs, who claim
to have been patrons of VictoryLand, allege that Multimedia
participated in gambling operations that violated Alabama state
law by supplying to VictoryLand purportedly unlawful electronic
bingo machines played by the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs seek
recovery of the monies lost on all electronic bingo games played
by the plaintiffs in the six months prior to the filing of the
complaint under Ala. Code Sec. 8-1-150(A). The plaintiffs have
requested that the court certify the action as a class action.

On March 29, 2013, the court entered an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On April 12, 2013, the
defendants jointly filed a petition with the Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals seeking permission to appeal the court's ruling
on class certification. On June 18, 2013, the Eleventh Circuit
Court of Appeals entered an order granting the petition to appeal.
Following briefing and oral argument, on April 2, 2014, the
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals entered an order reversing the
district court's ruling on class certification and remanding the
case to the district court.

The parties have reached a settlement that will become final upon
approval of the bankruptcy court overseeing the bankruptcy of one
of the plaintiffs. Until the settlement becomes final, the Company
will continue to vigorously defend this matter. Given the inherent
uncertainties in this litigation, however, the Company is unable
to make any prediction as to the ultimate outcome.


GLOBE SPECIALTY: Court of Chancery Consolidated 4 Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Globe Specialty Metals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware has consolidated four class
action lawsuits.

On March 23, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed on
behalf of the Company's shareholders ("Company Shareholders") in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.  The action,
captioned Fraser v. Globe Specialty Metals, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
10823-VCG, names as defendants the Company, the members of its
board of directors, Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and
VeloNewco.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Company directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to
obtain the best price possible for Company Shareholders, that the
proposed merger consideration to be received by Company
Shareholders is inadequate and significantly undervalues the
Company, that the Company directors failed to adequately protect
against conflicts of interest in approving the transaction, and
that the Business Combination Agreement unfairly deters
competitive offers.  The complaint also alleges that the Company,
Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and VeloNewco aided and
abetted these alleged breaches.  The action seeks to enjoin or
rescind the Business Combination, damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

On April 1, 2015, a purported Company Shareholder filed a second
putative class action lawsuit on behalf of Company Shareholders
challenging the Business Combination in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware.  The action, captioned City of Providence
v. Globe Specialty Metals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10865-VCG, names
as defendants the Company, the members of its board of directors,
its Chief Executive Officer, Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub
and VeloNewco.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that
the Company's board of directors and Chief Executive Officer,
aided and abetted by Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and
VeloNewco, breached their fiduciary duties by entering into the
Business Combination for inadequate consideration and that certain
provisions in the Business Combination Agreement unfairly deter a
potential alternative transaction.  The complaint further alleges,
among other things, that the Company's Executive Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer, aided and abetted by Grupo VM,
FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and VeloNewco, breached their fiduciary
duties by negotiating the Business Combination Agreement, and, in
the case of the Executive Chairman, by entering into a voting
agreement in favor of the Business Combination Agreement, out of
self-interest.  The action seeks to enjoin the Business
Combination, to order the board of directors to obtain an
alternate transaction, damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 10, 2015, a purported Company Shareholder filed a third
putative class action lawsuit on behalf of Company Shareholders
challenging the Business Combination in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware.  The action, captioned Int'l Union of
Operating Engineers Local 478 Pension Fund v. Globe Specialty
Metals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10899-VCG, names as defendants the
Company, the members of its board of directors, its Chief
Executive Officer, Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and
VeloNewco.  The complaint makes identical allegations and seeks
the identical relief sought in City of Providence v. Globe
Specialty Metals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10865-VCG.

On April 21, 2015, a purported Company Shareholder filed a
putative class action lawsuit on behalf of Company Shareholders
challenging the Business Combination in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware.  The action, captioned Cirillo v. Globe
Specialty Metals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10929-VCG, names as
defendants the Company, its board of directors, Grupo VM,
FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and VeloNewco.  The complaint alleges,
among other things, that the Company's directors, aided and
abetted by the Company, Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and
VeloNewco, breached their fiduciary duties in agreeing to the
Business Combination for inadequate consideration and that certain
provisions in the Business Combination Agreement unfairly deters a
potential alternative transaction.  The action seeks to enjoin or
rescind the Business Combination, disclosure of information,
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On May 4, 2015, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
consolidated these four actions for all purposes into Civil Action
No. 10865-VCG, now captioned In re Globe Specialty Metals, Inc.
Stockholders Litigation, Consolidated Civil Action No. 10865-VCG.
The Court further designated the complaint filed in Civil Action
No. 10865-VCG as the operative complaint in the consolidated
action.  Plaintiffs in the consolidated action have filed a motion
for expedited proceedings, and supporting brief, in which they
have requested that the Court schedule a trial in this action
before the Company Shareholders vote on the Business Combination.


GREEN TREE: Violates Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Regina Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-01110-JGB-
SP (C.D. Cal., June 8, 2015) arises from alleged violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
          Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN PC
          324 S Beverly Drive No. 725
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com
                  sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com
                  tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Accused of Falsely Marketing HP Smart Install
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims
Hewlett-Packard advertises printers as having "HP Smart Install"
installation, though the software has been disabled in them.


HISHMEH ENTERPRISES: Faces "Gibbins" Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Gibbins, Individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. Hishmeh Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-04265 (C.D.
Cal., June 8, 2015) is brought under the U.S. Arbitration Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan L. Thompson, Esq.
          WATTS GUERRA LLP
          5250 South Douglas Street, Suite 260
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 220-8141
          Facsimile: (424) 732-8190
          E-mail: rthompson@wattsguerra.com


HOMELAND SECURITY: Faces Civil Rights Violation Suit in Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------------
Unknown Parties named as Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, and Norlan Flores,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Jeh
Johnson, Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security,
in his official capacity; R. Gil Kerlikowske, Commissioner, United
States Customs & Border Protection, in his official capacity;
Michael J. Fisher, Chief of the United States Border Patrol, in
his official capacity; Jeffrey Self, Commander, Arizona Joint
Field Command, in his official capacity; and Manuel Padilla, Jr.,
Chief Patrol Agent-Tucson Sector, in his official capacity, Case
No. 4:15-cv-00250-DCB (D. Ariz., June 8, 2015) is brought over
alleged violations of the Civil Rights Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Colette Reiner Mayer, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          755 Page Mill Rd.
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1018
          Telephone: (650) 813-5600
          Facsimile: (650) 494-0792
          E-mail: crmayer@mofo.com

               - and -

          Elizabeth Gilmore Balassone, Esq.
          Harold J. McElhinny, Esq.
          Kevin M. Coles, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market St.
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
          E-mail: EBalassone@mofo.com
                  hmcelhinny@mofo.com
                  kcoles@mofo.com

               - and -

          Louise Stoupe, Esq.
          Pieter S. DeGanon, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          Shin-Marunouchi Bldg.
          5-1 Marunouchi 1-Chome, 29th Floor
          Tokyo, Japan
          Telephone: 81-3-3214-6522
          Facsimile: 81-3-3214-6512
          E-mail: lstoupe@mofo.com
                  pdeganon@mofo.com

               - and -

          Daniel Joseph Pochoda, Esq.
          James Duff Lyall, Esq.
          Victoria Lopez, Esq.
          ACLU - PHOENIX, AZ
          P.O. Box 17148
          Phoenix, AZ 85011
          Telephone: (602) 650-1854
          Facsimile: (602) 650-1376
          E-mail: dpochoda@acluaz.org
                  jlyall@acluaz.org
                  vlopez@acluaz.org

               - and -

          Emily Creighton, Esq.
          Mary Kenney, Esq.
          Melissa Ellen Crow, Esq.
          AMERICAN IMMIGRATION COUNCIL
          1331 G St. NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 507-7512
          Facsimile: (202) 742-5619

               - and -

          Karen Cassandra Tumlin, Esq.
          Linton Joaquin, Esq.
          Nora A. Preciado, Esq.
          NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2850
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 674-2850
          Facsimile: (213) 639-3911
          E-mail: tumlin@nilc.org
                  joaquin@nilc.org
                  preciado@nilc.org

               - and -

          Travis Silva, Esq.
          LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
          131 Steuart St., Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 543-9444
          Facsimile: (415) 543-0296
          E-mail: tsilva@lccr.com


HUDSON CITY BANCORP: Class Suits May Be Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
Hudson City Bancorp, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that if the New Jersey
Court approves the settlement contemplated by a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU"), the class actions will be dismissed
with prejudice.

Since the announcement of the Merger, eighteen putative class
action complaints have been filed in the Court of Chancery,
Delaware against Hudson City Bancorp, its directors, M&T, and WTC
challenging the Merger. Six putative class actions challenging the
Merger have also been filed in the Superior Court for Bergen
County, Chancery Division, of New Jersey (the "New Jersey Court").
The lawsuits generally allege, among other things, that the Hudson
City Bancorp directors breached their fiduciary duties to Hudson
City Bancorp's public shareholders by approving the Merger at an
unfair price, that the Merger was the product of a flawed sales
process, and that Hudson City Bancorp and M&T filed a misleading
and incomplete Form S-4 with the SEC in connection with the
proposed transaction. All 24 lawsuits seek, among other things, to
enjoin completion of the Merger and an award of costs and
attorneys' fees. Certain of the actions also seek an accounting of
damages sustained as a result of the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty and punitive damages.

On April 12, 2013, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "MOU") with the plaintiffs regarding the
settlement of all of the actions (collectively, the "Actions").
Under the terms of the MOU, Hudson City Bancorp, M&T, the other
named defendants, and all the plaintiffs have reached an agreement
in principle to settle the Actions and release the defendants from
all claims relating to the Merger, subject to approval of the New
Jersey Court. Pursuant to the MOU, Hudson City Bancorp and M&T
agreed to make available additional information to Hudson City
Bancorp shareholders. The additional information was contained in
a Supplement to the Joint Proxy Statement filed with the SEC as an
exhibit to a Current Report on Form 8-K dated April 12, 2013.

In addition, under the terms of the MOU, plaintiffs' counsel also
has reserved the right to seek an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses. If the New Jersey Court approves the settlement
contemplated by the MOU, the Actions will be dismissed with
prejudice. The settlement will not affect the Merger consideration
to be paid to Hudson City Bancorp's shareholders in connection
with the proposed Merger. In the event the New Jersey Court
approves an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in connection
with the settlement, such fees and expenses shall be paid by
Hudson City Bancorp, its successor in interest, or its insurers.

Hudson City Bancorp, M&T, and the other defendants deny all of the
allegations in the Actions and believe the disclosures in the
Joint Proxy Statement are adequate under the law. Nevertheless,
Hudson City Bancorp, M&T, and the other defendants have agreed to
settle the Actions in order to avoid the costs, disruption, and
distraction of further litigation.


HUDSON PACIFIC: Court Denied Preliminary Injunction Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
Hudson Pacific Properties, Inc. and Hudson Pacific Properties,
L.P. said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2015, that the court has denied plaintiff's ex parte
motion for a preliminary injunction against the company.

Following the December 8, 2014 announcement that our company and
operating partnership had entered into the asset purchase
agreement with the sponsor stockholders, a punitive class action
lawsuit was filed on January 22, 2015 in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of San Francisco, captioned
Fundamental Partners, v. Hudson Pacific Properties, Inc. et al.,
Case No. CGC-15-543775. The complaint names as defendants, among
other parties, our company and the members of our board of
directors, and alleges, among other claims, that our directors
breached their fiduciary duties by "effectively" selling control
to the sponsor stockholders and by failing to disclose purportedly
material information to stockholders in connection with the
purchase agreement. The complaint seeks, among other things, an
order enjoining or rescinding the purchase agreement and an award
of attorneys' fees and other costs. On February 26, 2015,
plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for a preliminary injunction
against our company. The Court denied plaintiff's ex parte motion
in its entirety on March 4, 2015.

"We believe the complaint has no merit and intend to vigorously
defend against plaintiff's allegations," the Company said.


INFINITY MARKETING: Has Cost AEP $6MM in Illegal Calls, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports
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 Illinois Federal Court.

AEP Energy filed the federal action June 19 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 today [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 L. Thompson, Esq.
          LYNCH STERN THOMPSON LLP
          150 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL  60606
          Telephone: (312) 346-1600
          Facsimile: (312) 896-5883
          E-mail: jthompson@lstllp.com


INNERWORKINGS INC: Bid to Dismiss "Van Noppen" Complaint Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
InnerWorkings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a motion to dismiss
the complaint in the case, Van Noppen v. InnerWorkings et al., is
pending.

In February 2014, shortly following the Company's announcement of
its intention to restate certain historical financial statements,
an individual filed a putative securities class action complaint
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois entitled Van Noppen v. InnerWorkings et al. The
complaint, as amended in July 2014, alleges that the Company and
certain executive officers violated federal securities laws by
making materially false or misleading statements or omissions, and
by engaging in a scheme to defraud purchasers of securities,
relating to the Company's financial results and prospects. The
purported misstatements and scheme relate to the Company's inside
sales initiative and the Productions Graphics business based in
France. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and other costs. The Company and individual
defendants dispute the claims and intend to vigorously defend the
matter. On September 29, 2014, the Company and individual
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a claim, and this motion is currently pending.


INTELICARE DIRECT: Sued in Calif. for Violating Disabilities Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Montoya, on behalf of himself and classes of those
similarly situated v. Intelicare Direct, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-
01269-LAB-JMA (S.D. Cal., June 8, 2015) alleges violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Georgiy Borisovich Lyudyno, Esq.
          GEORGIY B. LYUDYNO ATTORNEY & COUNSELOR AT LAW
          4050 3rd Avenue, #413
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 717-2079
          Facsimile: (619) 655-4335
          E-mail: georgiy@hillcrestlawyer.com


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: No Class Cert. Materials Filed in TN Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that no class
certification materials have been filed to date in the Tennessee
action related to containerboard.

In September 2010, eight containerboard producers, including
International Paper and Temple-Inland, were named as defendants in
a purported class action complaint that alleged a civil violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The suit is captioned Kleen
Products LLC v. Packaging Corp. of America (N.D. Ill.). The
complaint alleges that the defendants, beginning in February 2004
through November 2010, conspired to limit the supply and thereby
increase prices of containerboard products. The alleged class is
all persons who purchased containerboard products directly from
any defendant for use or delivery in the United States during the
period February 2004 to November 2010. The complaint seeks to
recover an unspecified amount of treble actual damages and
attorney's fees on behalf of the purported class. Four similar
complaints were filed and have been consolidated in the Northern
District of Illinois. The district court certified a class of
direct purchasers of containerboard products on March 26, 2015;
the Company intends to pursue its options for appeal or
reconsideration of that decision.

Moreover, in January 2011, International Paper was named as a
defendant in a lawsuit filed in state court in Cocke County,
Tennessee alleging that International Paper violated Tennessee law
by conspiring to limit the supply and fix the prices of
containerboard from mid-2005 to the present. Plaintiffs in the
state court action seek certification of a class of Tennessee
indirect purchasers of containerboard products, damages and costs,
including attorneys' fees. No class certification materials have
been filed to date in the Tennessee action.

The Company disputes the allegations made and is vigorously
defending each action. However, because the federal action is in
the discovery stage and the Tennessee action is in a preliminary
stage, we are unable to predict an outcome or estimate a range of
reasonably possible loss.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: July 2015 Final Approval Settlement Hearing
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that notice is being
provided to members of the proposed class and the settlements are
set for a final approval hearing in July 2015.

Beginning in late December 2012, certain purchasers of gypsum
board filed a number of purported class action complaints alleging
civil violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act against Temple-
Inland and a number of other gypsum manufacturers. The complaints
were similar and alleged that the gypsum manufacturers conspired
or otherwise reached agreements to: (1) raise prices of gypsum
board either from 2008 or 2011 through the present; (2) avoid
price erosion by ceasing the practice of issuing job quotes; and
(3) restrict supply through downtime and limiting order
fulfillment.

On April 8, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
ordered transfer of all pending cases to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated and
consolidated pretrial proceedings, and the direct purchaser
plaintiffs and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed their
respective amended consolidated complaints in June 2013. The
amended consolidated complaints allege a conspiracy or agreement
beginning on or before September 2011. The alleged classes are all
persons who purchased gypsum board directly or indirectly from any
defendant. The complainants seek to recover unspecified treble
actual damages and attorneys' fees on behalf of the purported
classes.

The Company said, "In February 2015, we executed a definitive
agreement to settle these cases for an immaterial amount, which
received preliminary court approval in March 2015. Notice is being
provided to members of the proposed class and the settlements are
set for a final approval hearing in July 2015."


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Homebuilders File Antitrust Action
-------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on March 17, 2015,
several homebuilders filed an antitrust action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
alleging that they purchased gypsum board and making similar
allegations to those contained in the above settled proceeding.
The Company intends to dispute the allegations made and to
vigorously defend that lawsuit and any lawsuit brought by any
purported class member that elects to opt out of the settlement."


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Canadian Cases Settled for Immaterial Amount
-----------------------------------------------------------------
International Paper Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company has
reached an agreement in principle to settle the Canadian cases for
an immaterial amount.

In September 2013, purported class actions were filed in courts in
Quebec, Canada and Ontario, Canada, with each suit alleging
violations of the Canadian Competition Act and seeking damages and
injunctive relief.

"In May 2015, we reached an agreement in principle to settle these
Canadian cases for an immaterial amount. This settlement in
principle is subject to negotiation and execution of a definitive
settlement agreement, which would then be subject to court
approval," the Company said.


INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Remaining Deadlines Halted Pending Mediation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Intralinks Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that fact discovery is now
complete, and the Court has suspended the remaining deadlines in
the current scheduling order pending mediation in the Securities
Class Action.

On December 5, 2011, the Company became aware of a purported class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (the "SDNY" or the "Court") against the
Company and certain of its current and former executive officers.
The initial complaint (the "Wallace Complaint") alleges that the
defendants made false and misleading statements or omissions about
the Company's business prospects, financial condition and
performance in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended. The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages
for the purported class of purchasers of the Company's common
stock during the period from February 17, 2011 through November
10, 2011 (the "Allegation Period"). On December 27, 2011, a second
purported class action complaint, which makes substantially the
same claims as, and is related to, the Wallace Complaint, was
filed in the SDNY against the Company and certain of its current
and former executive officers seeking similar unspecified
compensatory damages for the Allegation Period.

On April 3, 2012, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed
Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund as lead plaintiff,
and also appointed lead counsel in the consolidated action
("Consolidated Class Action"). On June 15, 2012, the lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint ("Consolidated Class Action
Complaint") that, in addition to the original allegations made in
the Wallace Complaint, alleges that the Company, certain of its
current and former officers and directors, and the underwriters in
Intralinks' April 6, 2011 stock offering issued a registration
statement and prospectus in connection with the offering that
contained untrue statements of material fact or omitted material
information required to be stated therein in violation of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The defendants filed motions
to dismiss the action on July 31, 2012.

On May 8, 2013, the Court issued an opinion dismissing claims
based on certain allegations in the complaint, but otherwise
denied defendants' motions to dismiss. On June 28, 2013,
defendants filed their answers to the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint. On February 18, 2014, lead plaintiff filed its motion
for class certification. On September 30, 2014, the Court issued
an opinion certifying a class of all persons who purchased the
Company's stock between February 17, 2011 and November 11, 2011
and a subclass of persons who purchased the Company's stock
pursuant or traceable to the Company's April 6, 2011 offering. On
October 14, 2014, the defendants filed a petition in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for permission to appeal
the September 30, 2014 opinion granting plaintiff's motion for
class certification. On December 30, 2014, the Second Circuit
denied defendants' petition. Fact discovery is now complete, and
on March 12, 2015, the Court suspended the remaining deadlines in
the current scheduling order pending mediation. The Company
believes that these claims are without merit and intend to defend
this lawsuit vigorously.


JEWS OFFERING: Liable for Consumer Fraud Over Gay Therapy
---------------------------------------------------------
David Gialanella, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a New Jersey jury has decided that a religious organization
violated the state's consumer fraud statute when it touted the
efficacy of a form of therapy aimed at converting homosexuals to
heterosexuals.

A seven-member jury in Hudson County Superior Court on June 25
found Jersey City-based JONAH (Jews Offering New Alternatives for
Healing), its founder and an affiliated counselor liable for
advertising misrepresentations and unconscionable commercial
practices.

The panel awarded a total of $24,150 to five plaintiffs, in
amounts ranging from $500 to $17,950, according to court
documents.

JONAH -- which has maintained that the case implicates religious
liberties -- already has vowed to appeal.

The verdict came about four months after Hudson County Assignment
Judge Peter Barisio Jr. held that JONAH advertisements offered up
success statistics that had no basis in fact, which amounted to a
violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.  It is believed to
be the first ruling of its kind nationwide.

The novel claim, advanced in a complaint filed in November 2012 by
those who have gone through the therapy and family members who
helped pay for it, asserted that JONAH's treatment services were
based "on the misguided and erroneous belief that being gay is a
mental disorder -- a position rejected by the American Psychiatric
Association four decades ago."

According to the suit, JONAH's program employed the methods of
Joseph Nicolosi of the National Association for Research & Therapy
of Homosexuality, and Richard Cohen, a psychotherapist who founded
the International Healing Foundation in 1990, an organization
similar to JONAH.  Those methods are aimed at fostering
participants' male identity in order to cure homosexuality, a
condition purportedly brought on by a deficient father-son
relationship, a too-close relationship with the opposite-sex
parent, family dysfunction, or child sexual abuse.  Participants
are allegedly required to strip nude during sessions, intimately
hold other males, spend time with other nude males in health clubs
and bath houses, beat effigies of their mothers with a tennis
racket, and absorb gay slurs.

The suit charged that JONAH controverts the CFA's prohibition of
fraudulent sale or advertisement of any "merchandise" -- which, by
statutory definition, includes services.

With individual sessions priced at $100 and group sessions at $60,
JONAH's services can cost upward of $10,000 per year for each
participant, the plaintiffs claimed.

Also named as defendants, aside from JONAH, were co-founder Arthur
Goldberg, an ex-attorney who was disbarred in New Jersey in 1995
after pleading guilty to mail fraud and conspiracy to defraud in
connection with fraudulent issuance of bonds to finance housing
projects; and Alan Downing, an affiliated counselor who provided
individual and group therapy sessions, though he allegedly lacked
a professional license.

In early February, Judge Barisio barred testimony from six defense
experts -- including a psychologist, a psychiatrist and a clinical
social worker -- because, the judge said, the testimony was
premised on the scientifically rejected view that homosexuality is
an illness.

Six days later, Judge Barisio granted partial summary judgment for
the plaintiffs, noting "the general consensus in the mental health
field that homosexuality is not a mental disorder but is instead a
normal variation of human sexuality."  Thus, "any representations
made to the contrary would qualify as . . . misrepresentations
under the CFA," the judge added.

Regarding JONAH's touted success rate, Judge Bariso acknowledged
there were factual disputes about it but held as a matter of law
that it is a misrepresentation in violation of the CFA "to use
specific success statistics in advertising and selling of services
when client outcomes are not tracked and records are not
maintained."

Judge Barisio left intact JONAH's First Amendment religious
liberty defense, and the organization maintained throughout the
case that access to the treatment was protected by that right.
JONAH also denied that the plaintiffs were harmed, as well as
other aspects of the suit.

Following the three-week trial, the jury found at least one
defendant liable in connection with each plaintiff's count.
The CFA provides for trebling of damages and includes a fee-
shifting provision.

JONAH was represented at trial by Chuck LiMandri of the Freedom of
Conscience Defense Fund of Rancho Santa Fe, California, a
nonprofit organization that provides legal services in cases
involving religious freedom.

Mr. LiMandri, in a statement, vowed to appeal.

"This is a sad day, not just for my clients, but for America: Our
freedom to choose to live according to biblical values is being
restricted by powerful forces, which in this case included the
refusal to allow highly qualified expert witnesses to testify that
change is possible for many people," Mr. LiMandri said.

"All of us can control our sexual behavior and each of us has not
only the right but the obligation to decide what is right and
wrong about our behavior," he added.  "Seeking counseling is a
very private and personal decision people make."

Lead trial counsel for the plaintiffs were James Bromley --
jbromley@cgsh.com -- of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton in New
York, which took the case pro bono, and David Dinelli, deputy
legal director of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit
civil rights advocacy group based in Montgomery, Alabama.

"There's no consumer fraud exemption for people who claim to be
religious," and the defendants' status as devoutly Jewish was
"completely irrelevant," Mr. Bromley said.

"They didn't say, 'It's a sin, let's pray about it.' They said,
'It's a disease, let's fix it.' That's consumer fraud,"
Mr. Bromley added.

Lina Bensman -- lbensman@cgsh.com -- a Cleary Gottlieb associate
who also was trial counsel, said the appeal was expected.

"I honestly think that they knew on some level that they were
going to lose," Ms. Bensman said.

Mr. Dinelli, in a statement, called the verdict "a monumental
moment in the movement to ensure the rights and acceptance of LGBT
people in America."

He added, "Conversion therapists, including the defendants in this
case, sell fake cures that don't work but can seriously harm the
unsuspecting people who fall into this trap."

The plaintiffs now will seek injunctive relief, according to
Mr. Bromley and Ms. Bensman, though they declined to say what
specific relief will be requested.

Bruce Greenberg of Lite DePalma Greenberg in Newark also
represented the plaintiffs.


KELLY GEARHART: Gets 14 Years in Prison in California Fraud Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Lee Myers, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
former California real estate developer once honored as his city's
citizen of the year was sentenced on July 2 to 14 years in prison
for bilking investors who poured millions of dollars into failed
development projects.

Kelly Gearhart, 53, pleaded guilty last year to wire fraud and
money laundering as part of a plea agreement with prosecutors.

Los Angeles federal Judge Otis Wright sentenced Gearhart, who now
lives in Ohio, after hearing on June 29 from various investors who
said the developer robbed them of their savings and ruined their
lives.

"Kelly Gearhart is a thief and a liar," said LeNeya Ross, 63, who
said she and her husband lost $85,000 they invested in one of
Gearhart's projects.  "He is the greedy one who deserves to lose
all his money and freedom.  That's what he took from the investors
and their heirs."

Monetta Grabowski, 69, spoke through tears about how she wanted to
turn the $27,000 she invested into a larger sum to supplement what
she gets from retirement.  Now it's all gone.

"We were not rich people," Ms. Grabowski said as Mr. Gearhart sat
looking down.  "Most of us can never earn the money back."

In all, Mr. Gearhart cheated more than 250 investors out of at
least $15 million, federal prosecutors said.

In his plea agreement with prosecutors, Mr. Gearhart admitted
selling the same lots in a real estate project to multiple
investors, telling them that they would be paid back with
interest.  Mr. Gearhart also admitted using the same lots to get
bank financing.

Mr. Gearhart's attorneys say their client got caught up in the
2007 housing collapse, disclosed his financial woes to investors
and dipped into his own wealth to try to get the real estate
projects finished.

"It's pretty clear that what was happening in the real estate
market was impacting everyone," Firdaus Dordi, Mr. Gearhart's
attorney, said in court on June 29.  "Mr. Gearhart still believed
at that time that he would somehow find his way through this.  He
had always found his way before, and he believed he was going to
do it again."

Unlike other fraud schemes, Mr. Dordi pointed out, Mr. Gearhart
had begun work on the projects people had invested in, even
putting in access roads, utility extensions and other
infrastructure at one project.

The federal prosecutor arguing the case acknowledged that Gearhart
isn't the worst of the worst, which is why he said he requested an
11-year prison term instead of longer.

"This was not a Ponzi scheme in the sense that it was a purely
fraudulent investment from day one," said Stephen Goorvitch, an
assistant U.S. attorney.  "Mr. Gearhart was a legitimate real
estate developer.  He misused money, and I think that
distinguishes him from someone like Bernie Madoff, who started
from day one intending to do fraud."

Mr. Gearhart had lived in Atascadero on California's central
coast.  In 2006, Atascadero's chamber of commerce city named
Mr. Gearhart citizen of the year, citing $500,000 in charitable
donations.


KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Discovery Proceeding in Coal Tar Pitch Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Koppers Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Koppers Inc., along
with other defendants, is currently a defendant in lawsuits filed
in two states in which the plaintiffs claim they suffered a
variety of illnesses (including cancer) as a result of exposure to
coal tar pitch sold by the defendants. There are approximately 112
plaintiffs in 60 cases pending as of March 31, 2015, as compared
to 111 plaintiffs in 61 cases pending as of December 31, 2014. As
of March 31, 2015, there are a total of 59 cases pending in state
court in Pennsylvania, and one case pending in state court in
Tennessee. Koppers Inc. has been dismissed from three cases
formerly pending in state court in Arkansas.

The plaintiffs in all 60 pending cases seek to recover
compensatory damages, while plaintiffs in 55 cases also seek to
recover punitive damages. The plaintiffs in the 59 cases filed in
Pennsylvania state court seek unspecified damages in excess of the
court's minimum jurisdictional limit. The plaintiffs in the
Tennessee state court case each seek damages of $15.0 million. The
other defendants in these lawsuits vary from case to case and
include companies such as Beazer East, Inc., United States Steel
Corporation, Honeywell International Inc., Vertellus Specialties
Inc., Dow Chemical Company, UCAR Carbon Company, Inc., Exxon Mobil
Corporation, SGL Carbon Corporation and Alcoa, Inc. Discovery is
proceeding in these cases. No trial dates have been set in any of
these cases.

The Company has not provided a reserve for these lawsuits because,
at this time, the Company cannot reasonably determine the
probability of a loss, and the amount of loss, if any, cannot be
reasonably estimated. The timing of resolution of these cases
cannot be reasonably determined. Although Koppers Inc. is
vigorously defending these cases, an unfavorable resolution of
these matters may have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, financial condition, cash flows and results of
operations.


KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Discovery on Merits Stayed in Gainesville Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Koppers Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that discovery on the
merits is stayed until further order of the court in the
Gainesville class action case.

Koppers Inc. operated a utility pole treatment plant in
Gainesville from December 29, 1988 until its closure in 2009. The
property upon which the utility pole treatment plant was located
was sold by Koppers Inc. to Beazer East, Inc. "Beazer East" in
2010.

In November 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit located in Alachua
County, Florida by residential real property owners located in a
neighborhood west of and immediately adjacent to the former
utility pole treatment plant in Gainesville. The complaint named
Koppers Holdings Inc., Koppers Inc., Beazer East and several other
parties as defendants. In a second amended complaint, plaintiffs
define the putative class as consisting of all persons who are
present record owners of residential real properties located in an
area within a two-mile radius of the former Gainesville wood
treating plant. Plaintiffs further allege that chemicals and
contaminants from the Gainesville plant have contaminated real
properties within the two mile geographical area, have caused
property damage (diminution in value) and have placed residents
and owners of the putative class properties at an elevated risk of
exposure to and injury from the chemicals at issue. The second
amended complaint seeks damages for diminution in property values,
the establishment of a medical monitoring fund and punitive
damages.

The case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Florida in December 2010. The district court
dismissed Koppers Holdings Inc. in September 2013 on the ground
that there was no personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs' appeal of the
dismissal of Koppers Holdings Inc. was dismissed in December 2013.
Under the current scheduling order, the Court had set a deadline
of May 20, 2015 for completion of class factual discovery with
expert witness discovery to follow. Discovery on the merits is
stayed until further order of the court.

The Company has not provided a reserve for this matter because, at
this time, it cannot reasonably determine the probability of a
loss, and the amount of loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated. The timing of resolution of this case cannot be
reasonably determined. Although the Company is vigorously
defending this case, an unfavorable resolution of this matter may
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
financial condition, cash flows and results of operations.


KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Performance Chemicals Faces Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Koppers Holdings Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Koppers Performance
Chemicals Inc. ("KPC") is currently a defendant in a putative
class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court of
the Virgin Islands. The plaintiffs claim, on behalf of themselves
and others similarly situated, that KPC's wood preservative
products and formulas are defective, and the complaint alleges the
following causes of action: breach of contract, negligence, strict
liability, fraud and violation of Virgin Islands Consumer Fraud
and Deceptive Business Practices statute. The putative class is
defined as all users (residential or commercial) of wood products
treated with KPC wood preserving products in the United States who
purchased such wood products from January 1, 2004 to the present.
Alternatively, plaintiffs allege that the putative class should be
all persons and entities that have owned or acquired buildings or
other structures physically located in the U.S. Virgin Islands
that contain wood products treated with KPC wood preserving
products from January 1, 2004 to the present. The complaint
alleges plaintiffs are entitled to unspecified "economic and
compensatory damages", punitive damages, costs and disgorgement of
profits. The complaint further requests a declaratory judgment and
injunction to establish an inspection and disposal program for
class members' structures.

The lawsuit was filed on July 16, 2014, and KPC has filed a motion
to dismiss. Plaintiffs have responded to the motion and KPC has
filed a reply. The motion has been fully briefed and the parties
are awaiting a ruling by the court. The Company has not provided a
reserve for this matter because, at this time, it cannot
reasonably determine the probability of a loss, and the amount of
loss, if any, cannot be reasonably estimated. The timing of
resolution of this case cannot be reasonably determined. Although
the Company is vigorously defending this case, an unfavorable
resolution of this matter may have a material adverse effect on
the Company's business, financial condition, cash flows and
results of operations.


LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Delaware Court Approved Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------
Leucadia National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Delaware court
approved the settlement in the Jefferies Group Inc. acquisition
class action lawsuits, but has not yet determined the amount of
attorneys' fees to be awarded.

"Seven class-action lawsuits had been filed in New York and
Delaware on behalf of a class consisting of Jefferies Group's
stockholders concerning the transaction through which Jefferies
Group Inc. became our wholly-owned subsidiary," the Company said.
"The class actions named as defendants the Company, Jefferies
Group, certain members of our board of directors, certain members
of Jefferies Group's board of directors and, in certain of the
actions, certain transaction-related subsidiaries."

"On October 31, 2014, the remaining defendants in the Delaware
litigation entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs
in the Delaware litigation. The terms of that agreement provide
for an aggregate payment of $70.0 million to certain former equity
holders of Jefferies Group Inc., other than the defendants and
certain of their affiliates, along with attorneys' fees to be
determined and approved by the court; we have accrued for this
aggregate payment and attorneys' fees.  The settlement resolves
all of the class-action claims in Delaware, and releases the
claims brought in New York.

"The Delaware court approved the settlement on March 25, 2015, but
has not yet determined the amount of attorneys' fees to be
awarded.  Plaintiffs have sought $27.5 million in fees and $1.1
million in expenses.  While the defendants continue to deny each
of the plaintiffs' claims and deny any liability, the defendants
have entered into the settlement solely to settle and resolve
their disputes, to avoid the costs and risks of further litigation
and to avoid further distractions to our management."


LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Plaintiffs Executed Settlement in "Sykes" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leucadia National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company and
plaintiffs have executed a settlement agreement in the case, Sykes
v. Mel Harris & Associates, LLC.

"We and certain of our subsidiaries and officers are named as
defendants in a consumer class action captioned Sykes v. Mel
Harris & Associates, LLC, et al., 09 Civ. 8486 (DC), in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York," the
Company said.  "The named defendants also include the Mel Harris
law firm, certain individuals and members associated with the law
firm, and a process server, Samserv, Inc. and certain of its
employees.  The complaint alleges that default judgments obtained
by the law firm against approximately 124,000 individuals in New
York courts with respect to consumer debt purchased by our
subsidiaries violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the New York
General Business Law and the New York Judiciary Law (alleged only
as to the law firm).  The complaint seeks injunctive relief,
declaratory relief and damages on behalf of the named plaintiffs
and others similarly situated.  We asserted that we were an
investor with respect to the subject purchased consumer debt and
were regularly informed of the amounts received from debt
collections, but otherwise had no involvement in any alleged
illegal debt collection activities."

"On December 29, 2010, the District Court denied defendants'
motions to dismiss in part (including as to the claims made
against us and our subsidiaries) and granted them in part
(including as to certain of the claims made against our officers).
On March 28, 2013, the Court certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class and a
Rule 23(b)(3) class.  On February 10, 2015, the Second Circuit
affirmed the certification of these classes.  None of these
decisions addresses the ultimate merits of the case.

"On March 18, 2015, we and plaintiffs executed a settlement
agreement that provided additional detail regarding the terms of a
settlement set out in a December 14, 2014 binding term sheet
pursuant to which we expensed $3.2 million in the fourth quarter.
This amount is in addition to the $20.0 million previously accrued
for this matter and the $22.8 million in deferred revenue.  The
settlement agreement will be submitted to the District Court for
its approval upon completion of the drafting of related
documents."


LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Hearing Held on Haverhill Case Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Leucadia National Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the settlement
hearing in the case, Haverhill Retirement System v. Asali, et al.,
was scheduled for April 6, 2015, and moved for June 8, 2015.

On May 2, 2014, plaintiff Haverhill Retirement System
("Haverhill")  filed an amended putative class action and
derivative lawsuit (the "Complaint") entitled Haverhill Retirement
System v. Asali, et al. in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (the "Court of Chancery") against Harbinger Capital
Partners LLC, Harbinger Capital Partners Master Fund I, Ltd.,
Global Opportunities Breakaway Ltd., Harbinger Capital Partners
Special Situations Fund, L.P. (collectively, the "Harbinger
Funds"), the members of the board of directors of Harbinger Group,
Inc. ("Harbinger"), nominal defendant Harbinger, as well as
Leucadia. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the
directors of Harbinger breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with Leucadia's March 2014 purchase of preferred
securities of subsidiaries of the Harbinger Funds that were
exchangeable into Harbinger common stock owned by the Harbinger
Funds, certain flaws in the process employed by the special
committee of directors appointed by the Harbinger board in
connection therewith, and that Leucadia aided and abetted the
Harbinger board's breaches of fiduciary, as well as a claim of
unjust enrichment against Leucadia.

On April 1, 2014, the Chancery Court denied Haverhill's motion for
expedited proceedings associated with the complaint originally
filed by Haverhill on March 26, 2014.  Haverhill filed an amended
complaint on May 2, 2014.  On July 2, 2014, the defendants moved
to dismiss the amended complaint.  On August 12, 2014, Plaintiffs
filed another amended complaint. The amended complaint dropped
Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim against Leucadia. With respect
to remedies sought, the amended complaint no longer sought an
injunction against installing Leucadia designees as Board members
and no longer sought rescission of Leucadia's right to select the
director class to which one of its designees would be appointed.
A settlement has been agreed by the parties that does not provide
for any payment by the Company and includes, among other things,
additional disclosures by Harbinger.   A term sheet reflecting the
settlement was signed on October 15, 2014.  On December 19, 2014,
final settlement papers were submitted to the Court.  A settlement
hearing was scheduled for April 6, 2015 and was moved for June 8,
2015.


LIBERTY GLOBAL: Claims Pending in Liberty Puerto Rico Matter
------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Global plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company is facing
class action claim in Liberty Puerto Rico Matter.

The Company said, "In November 2012, we completed a business
combination that resulted in, among other matters, the combination
of our then operating subsidiary in Puerto Rico with San Juan
Cable, LLC dba OneLink Communications (OneLink). In connection
with this transaction (the OneLink Acquisition), Liberty Puerto
Rico, as the surviving entity, became a party to certain claims
previously asserted by the incumbent telephone operator against
OneLink based on alleged conduct of OneLink that occurred prior to
the OneLink Acquisition (the PRTC Claim). This claim included an
allegation that OneLink acted in an anticompetitive manner in
connection with a series of legal and regulatory proceedings it
initiated against the incumbent telephone operator in Puerto Rico
beginning in 2009."

"In March 2014, a separate class action claim was filed in Puerto
Rico (the Class Action Claim) containing allegations substantially
similar to those asserted in the PRTC Claim, but alleging ongoing
injury on behalf of a consumer class (as opposed to harm to a
competitor). The former owners of OneLink have partially
indemnified us for any losses we may incur in connection with the
PRTC Claim up to a specified maximum amount. However, the
indemnity does not cover any potential losses resulting from the
Class Action Claim.

"Liberty Puerto Rico has recorded a provision and a related
indemnification asset representing its best estimate of the net
loss that it may incur upon the ultimate resolution of the PRTC
Claim. While Liberty Puerto Rico expects that the net amount
required to satisfy these contingencies will not materially differ
from the estimated amount it has accrued, no assurance can be
given that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not have
an adverse impact on our results of operations, cash flows or
financial position in any given period."


LIVE NATION: Accused of Failing to Pay Overtime to Stagehands
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Live Nation Worldwide stiffs
stagehands for overtime, a class action claims in California
Superior Court.


LONG ISLAND RAILROAD: Venue Argument Rejected in Pension Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
three people who were convicted in the Long Island Railroad
disability pension scandal have lost their attempt to win a new
federal trial on grounds that they were tried in the wrong venue.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed the
arguments that the Southern District was the improper venue and
that prosecutors engaged in venue manipulation for orthopedic
physician Peter Lesniewski, former LIRR conductor Joseph
Rutigliano, and former U.S. Railroad Retirement Board employee
Marie Baran.

All three were found guilty before Southern District Judge Victor
Marrero of mail, wire and health care fraud and conspiracies.  The
three defendants claimed before Judge Marrero, and later the
Second Circuit, that they were situated within the Eastern
District, that they lacked the required "substantial contacts"
with the Southern District and that Judge Marrero should have
instructed the jury on the definition of "substantial contacts."

Second Circuit Judges Dennis Jacobs, Denny Chin and Judge
Elizabeth Wolford of the Western District of New York, disagreed,
saying the Southern District became the proper venue as soon as
the conspirators mailed the renewal forms they or their clients
needed to continue disability payments based on fraud.

The record, Judge Jacobs wrote for the court, "suggests that the
coconspirators sent disability re-certification mailings into the
Southern District in order to ensure that they continued to
receive fraudulent benefits; they were not lured to a faraway
land."

When the defendants were charged, the eligible retirement age at
the LIRR was 50 (it is now 55) with a pension plan that gave
employees with at least 20 years service a pension that, at age
50, was half their pre-retirement income.  Those who retired and
claimed disability, however, could supplement that income with
disability payments from the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board.

Between 1995 and 2011, more than 75 percent of LIRR employees
coincided their retirement date with a declaration of disability
from a doctor.  Three so-called "go-to" doctors were responsible
for 86 percent of the disability claims filed.

One of those was Mr. Lesniewski, who was sentenced to eight years
in prison after making more than $1 million through cash payments
from persons claiming disability and by allegedly billing private
insurers for tests he never performed.

Mr. Rutligliano provided "consulting services" for railroad
workers, helping them fill out phony applications; he was
sentenced to eight years in prison.  Ms. Baran, also a facilitator
of bogus applications, was sentenced to five years.

In United States v. Rutigliano,14-152, Judge Jacobs said that
venue can be proper in more than one location for an offense to be
"continuing," and that both mail fraud and wire fraud are
continuing offenses.

"Although we have not previously considered the question, we now
hold that a scheme to violate the health care fraud statute is a
continuing offense," under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1347, he said.

Venue for the health care fraud charges was established because
clients of Mr. Rutigliano and Ms. Baran visited doctors in the
Southern District, he said, and Lesniewski "submitted insurance
claims to a health care insurance company (and received payments)
in connection with medical visits and procedures undertaken for no
reason other than to deceive the [Railroad Retirement Board]."

On mail fraud and mail fraud conspiracy, Judge Jacobs said the
mailing of disability re-certification forms to the retirement
board's Southern District address was done "in order to perpetuate
their fraud, and thereby secure continued receipt of the
disability benefits that were then object of their scheme."

The defendants had argued that the re-certification mailings took
place after the conspiracy and mail fraud schemes ended, but the
court disagreed.  It also turned aside Mr. Rutigliano's and
Ms. Baran's claim that there was no venue as they were not
directly responsible for the mailings.  The court said the law
does not require defendants to know about specific mailings.

On wire fraud, disability benefits were sent by wire and that wire
"traveled through or over waters within the Eastern District,
which are statutorily defined to also be part of the Southern
District," he said.

The three defendants failed to make the argument before
Judge Marrero that venue was "manufactured" by the Southern
District U.S. Attorney's Office, and they tried, without success,
to make it at the Second Circuit.

"In arguing manufactured venue, defendants implicitly concede that
their acts extended into the Southern District while arguing in
effect that the court should disregard these acts because the
government induced them to be made in the Southern District,"
Judge Jacobs said.

While other courts have rejected the "manufactured venue doctrine"
on grounds that defendants are protected by law from entrapment,
he said this circuit has held to the view that "under certain
circumstances, venue manipulation might be improper," he said.
That didn't help the defendants here, Judge Jacobs said, as they
were not "lured" into the district.

"And there is no basis to conclude," he said, under Federal Rule
of Criminal Procedure 21(b), "that the government preferred to try
these defendants in the Southern District (instead of the Eastern
District) or that any unfair advantage was obtained or that the
'convenience of the parties' or the 'interest[s] of justice' was
subverted by prosecution."

Joseph Ryan of Melville, who represented Mr. Rutligliano, released
a statement on June 22 saying,"Despite the court of appeals
decision, we will demonstrate in further proceedings that there
was no crime committed here as confirmed by the Railroad
Retirement Board's subsequent findings that 96 percent of the
workers were in fact occupationally disabled and that no fraud was
committed."

John Cline of San Francisco, California represented
Mr. Lesniewski.  Anne D'Elia of Kew Gardens represented Ms. Baran.

Southern District Assistant U.S. Attorneys Daniel Tehrani, Nicole
Friedlander and Michael Levy represented the government.


LOUISIANA: Jindal's "Marriage and Conscience" Order Challenged
--------------------------------------------------------------
Melinda Deslatte, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's executive order that aims to give
special protections to people who oppose same-sex marriage is
unconstitutional and should be thrown out, gay rights advocates
argue in a lawsuit filed on June 30.

The American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Louisiana, the
Forum for Equality Foundation and six New Orleans residents lodged
their challenge of the governor's May 19 order in state court in
Baton Rouge.

"Gov. Jindal has violated the Louisiana Constitution by setting up
special protections for those who share his belief system.   In
our country no one is above the law, including the Governor,"
Marjorie Esman, executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana, said
in a written statement.

The lawsuit comes days after the U.S. Supreme Court effectively
struck down bans on same-sex marriage in Louisiana and several
other states.  Louisiana parish clerks of court began issuing
marriage licenses to same-sex couples on June 29.

Mr. Jindal, who is courting evangelical voters in his campaign for
the GOP presidential nomination, framed the executive order as a
protection of "religious liberty" for Christians who oppose same-
sex marriage and called the lawsuit an "attack" on civil
liberties.

The "Marriage and Conscience" order prohibits state agencies under
Mr. Jindal's control from denying licenses, benefits, contracts or
tax deductions in response to actions taken because of someone's
"religious belief that marriage is or should be recognized as the
union of one man and one woman."

The Republican governor issued the order after lawmakers refused
to write similar provisions into Louisiana law.

The lawsuit claims Mr. Jindal tried to bypass the Legislature and
make new law on his own, exceeding his constitutional authority
and violating the separation of powers between the executive and
legislative branches.

Mr. Jindal's top lawyer referenced the order in a legal memo as
licenses began being issued, saying officials who object to same-
sex marriage on religious grounds don't have to officiate at such
weddings or approve the licenses.

However, the lawsuit says, "The governor is not authorized to
create substantive law or create substantive benefits by means of
an executive order."

Mr. Jindal described the legal challenge as a "left wing lawsuit."

"Religious liberty is fundamental to our freedom as Americans, and
I will not back down from defending it," he said in a statement.

But critics describe the order -- just like the rejected
legislation by Rep. Mike Johnson, R-Bossier City -- as sanctioning
discrimination against same-sex couples.

Businesses opposed the bill, much like they did for similar
proposals in Indiana, Arkansas and other states.  Tourism leaders
said it could heavily damage one of Louisiana's most important
industries.  Critics in the legislature called Mr. Johnson's bill
an unnecessary distraction from important work of balancing next
year's budget and stabilizing the state's finances.

When Mr. Jindal issued his executive order in May, some lawyers
suggested it had no practical effect and was unenforceable because
of limits on Mr. Jindal's power through executive order.
Mr. Jindal's office dismissed the criticism.


MAYA OVERSEAS: Recalls Cashew Products Due to Salmonella
--------------------------------------------------------
Maya Overseas Foods Inc. of Maspeth, NY, is recalling
approximately 8000 lbs. of Cashew Split because it has the
potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism which
can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience
fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and
abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella
can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and
producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e.,
infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

The Cashew Split was distributed between February 18, 2015 and
March 20, 2015 to retailers and restaurants located in New York,
New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Florida
by direct trucking and delivery.

Maya brand Cashew Split was sold uncoded in 7 oz. (UPC
020843230389), 14 oz. (UPC 020843230716), 28 oz. (UPC
020843230327) and 5 lbs. (UPC 020843230303) clear plastic pouches.
The Cashew Split was also sold in bulk 50 lbs. tins.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was as the result of routine FDA sampling at our
supplier which revealed that the bulk Cashew Split contained the
bacteria. The company has ceased the production and distribution
of the product as FDA and the supplier continue their
investigation as to what caused the problem.

Consumers who have purchased Maya brand Cashew Split are urged not
to consume the product and to return it to the place of purchase
for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the
company at 718-894-5145, Monday - Friday, 9 am - 5 pm ET.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm454506.htm


MCNEIL CONSUMER: No Punitive Damages in Tylenol Bellwether Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a federal judge has ordered that punitive damages may not be
pursued in the bellwether case in the Tylenol MDL, but the
plaintiff's lawyer said punitive damages are already factored into
the case under the law of the plaintiff's home state, Alabama.

In an order issued by U.S. District Judge Lawrence F. Stengel of
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, several counts of plaintiff
Rana Terry's complaint were dismissed to comport with the Alabama
Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine.

Alabama is the home state of Ms. Terry's sister, Denice Hayes, who
died of liver failure in 2010 allegedly caused by the consumption
of Tylenol.  In June, Judge Stengel decided that the state's
law -- which allows for uncapped damages -- would apply in the
bellwether case.

Judge Stengel's order declared Terry shall not seek punitive
damages, but noted the right to seek them was not waived.
Ms. Terry's lawyer, Michael Weinkowitz -- mweinkowitz@lfsblaw.com
-- of Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, said he isn't worried
because punitives are factored into overall damages under Alabama
law.

"We are pursuing punitives through the Alabama wrongful-death
statute, where damages are measured by looking at the defendant's
conduct," Mr. Weinkowitz said.

David Abernethy -- David.Abernethy@dbr.com -- of Drinker Biddle &
Reath represented Johnson & Johnson, the parent company of Tylenol
manufacturer McNeil Consumer Healthcare, and did not return a call
seeking comment.  A Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman did not respond
to a request for comment.

A summary judgment hearing for the case is scheduled for June 24.
The case itself is one of about 200 in the MDL with plaintiffs
alleging that McNeil knew that its drug could cause liver damage
at the recommended dosage.

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

In his May 20 opinion, Judge Stengel said the choice was based in
part on which state's interests had greater stake in the
litigation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

               Alabama Law Constitutionality Argued

P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
lawyers in the bellwether case in the Tylenol multidistrict
litigation on June 24 argued over whether the lack of a formula
for determining punitive damages under Alabama's wrongful-death
law violates the due process rights of the drug's maker.

Alabama is the home state of plaintiff Rana Terry's sister,
Denice Hayes, who died of liver failure in 2010 allegedly caused
by the consumption of Tylenol.  In May, U.S. District Judge
Lawrence F. Stengel of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
decided that the state's law -- which allows for uncapped damages
-- would apply in the bellwether case.

While Judge Stengel had previously ordered that Ms. Terry cannot
seek punitive damages specifically, those damages would already be
factored into a verdict under Alabama's wrongful-death law, which
takes into account a defendant's conduct.

But the question posed at the June 24 summary judgment hearing was
whether a jury could come up with an appropriate amount for
punitive damages without a guideline, which according to the
defendant's lawyers leaves the door wide open for a random and
potentially excessive amount.

David Abernethy of Drinker Biddle & Reath -- the attorney for
Johnson & Johnson, the parent company of Tylenol's manufacturer,
McNeil -- called Alabama's wrongful-death law "unusual, illogical,
and unfair."

Before Judge Stengel, Mr.Abernethy added, "It doesn't work on a
logical level and it doesn't work on a legal level."

According to Alabama case law, Mr. Abernethy said, compensatory
damages are not permitted in wrongful-death cases, because the
Alabama law "addresses the inherent value of human life, which
cannot be measured in dollars."

Mr. Abernethy asked, "If you can't measure it in dollars, how can
you do a proportionality review?"

He explained earlier in the hearing that under Alabama law, a
plaintiff who files a suit on behalf of a decedent is considered
less of a representative of an estate and more of a instrument to
carry out the policy of the state's legislature, which is to deter
"homicide."

"We can't and don't argue that you should refuse punitives under
the Wrongful Death Act," Mr. Abernethy said to Judge Stengel.
"The problem here is that it is a very old and different rule and
constitutional due process has passed it by."

Roberts Clay Milling II, an attorney for the plaintiff, claimed
the defense was incorrect in asserting there was no logic in
determining punitive damage amounts under Alabama law.

"The Alabama Supreme Court has said it applies proportionality;
but it is not done mathematically," Mr. Milling said.

Mr. Milling said appeals courts, and even the U.S. Supreme Court,
have agreed that Alabama's setup is constitutional, despite the
lack of mathematical precision.

"So what's the jury instruction to those eight people sitting in
that box on what standard they should use to award damages?" Judge
Stengel asked.

Mr. Milling suggested the jury would pose an amount based on its
analysis, which would ultimately be subject to the judge's
approval.

"We would mention that the jury is to look at the totality of the
evidence and if there has been a wrong, they have to determine
damages based on the defendant's conduct," Mr. Milling said.

If the amount is excessive, it would then be the judge's job to
remedy it.

The original debate in the case was whether Alabama or New Jersey
law would apply.  Johnson & Johnson is based in New Jersey, but
Hayes allegedly purchased and consumed Tylenol in Alabama.

In his May 20 opinion, Judge Stengel said the choice was based in
part on which state's interests had greater stake in the
litigation.

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


MEMPHIS: Can't Use Beale Street Sweep Without Reason, Court Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Police can no longer clear people from famed Beale Street in
downtown Memphis without reason, reports Kevin Lessmiller at
Courthouse News Service, citing a federal court ruling.

Memphis police officer Lakendus Cole and Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives special agent Leon Edmond filed a
class action against the City of Memphis, challenging the
constitutionality of the "Beale Street Sweep."

They define the practice as "the policy, procedure, custom, or
practice by which police officers of the Memphis Police Department
order all persons to immediately leave the sidewalks and street on
Beale Street when there are no circumstances present which
threaten the safety of the public or MPD police officers,"
according to court documents.

Cole and Edmond allege the Beale Street Sweep usually occurs
during the early morning weekend hours and creates a
confrontational environment.  Cole says he was assaulted and
arrested while he was off duty during one of the sweeps.  Edmonds
claims he was once placed under arrest on Beale Street before
being released when his boss arrived on the scene.

The city says it stopped ordering people off Beale Street in June
2012 but a jury found in January that the practice continued on or
after that date.  The jury awarded Cole $35,000 in damages for
false arrest and excessive force, but found that Edmond's arrest
was not unlawful and did not award him any damages.

U.S. District Judge Jon McCalla ruled earlier in June that the
City of Memphis violated the constitutional rights of thousands
who were subjected to the Beale Street Sweep.  The judge banned
the practice and ordered the removal of signage on Beale Street
saying the street will be cleared at 3 a.m.

"The court finds that sufficient evidence exists that the Beale
Street Sweep is a continuing practice of the city and that class
members continue to be at risk of the deprivation of their
constitutional rights," McCalla wrote.  "The Beale Street Sweep is
in practice not narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling
government interest . . . accordingly, the court finds that the
Beale Street Sweep is an unconstitutional custom that satisfies
the requirements for establishing municipal liability."

Memphis police are also ordered to inform its officers via
bulletin that the Beale Street Sweep is unconstitutional and to
train them accordingly.  A monitor has also been appointed to
review certain police reports to determine whether arrests were
made due to a Beale Street Sweep.

"The City of Memphis and its agents and employees, are hereby
permanently enjoined from engaging in 'the Beale Street Sweep' as
defined in this order," McCalla wrote.  "The court notes that the
ordered injunction does not prevent the MPD from conducting normal
police work or clearing Beale Street under appropriate
circumstances where an imminent threat exists to public safety
throughout the Beale Street area."

Beale Street has been a popular entertainment district in Memphis
since its carnival-esque heyday in the 1920s, according to its Web
site.  It is host to a number of annual parades and celebrations.

The case is Lakendus Cole and Leon Edmond, individually and as
representatives of all others similarly situated v. City of
Memphis, Tennessee, Case No. 2:13-cv-02117-JPM-dkv, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western
Division.


MERCK & CO: Dispositive Motions Fully Briefed in Vioxx Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., 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 dispositive motions
have been fully briefed in the securities lawsuits related to
Vioxx.

Various putative class actions and individual lawsuits under
federal securities laws and state laws have been filed against
Merck and various current and former officers and directors (the
"Vioxx Securities Lawsuits"). The Vioxx Securities Lawsuits are
coordinated in a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey before Judge Stanley R.
Chesler, and have been consolidated for all purposes.

In August 2011, Judge Chesler granted in part and denied in part
Merck's motion to dismiss the Fifth Amended Class Action Complaint
in the consolidated securities action. Among other things, the
claims based on statements made on or after the voluntary
withdrawal of Vioxx on September 30, 2004, have been dismissed.

In October 2011, defendants answered the Fifth Amended Class
Action Complaint. In April 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification and, in January 2013, Judge Chesler granted
that motion.

In March 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their
complaint to add certain allegations to expand the class period.
In May 2013, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to
amend their complaint to expand the class period, but granted
plaintiffs' leave to amend their complaint to add certain
allegations within the existing class period. In June 2013,
plaintiffs filed their Sixth Amended Class Action Complaint. In
July 2013, defendants answered the Sixth Amended Class Action
Complaint. Discovery has been completed and is now closed.
Dispositive motions have been fully briefed.


MERCK & CO: Stock Funds Dismissed as Plaintiffs in Vioxx Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a federal judge in Newark has dismissed 157 overseas stock funds
as plaintiffs in securities claims against Merck & Co. over its
alleged misrepresentations relating to the drug Vioxx, finding the
funds in question suffered no losses.

But U.S. District Judge Stanley Chesler of the District of
New Jersey denied Merck's bid for summary judgment against seven
institutional investors, rejecting the defendant's argument that
they lacked standing to sue.

The ruling involves institutional investors who opted out of a
long-running shareholder class action against Merck over its
statements to shareholders about Vioxx, a painkiller that was
taken off the market in 2004 over concerns that it caused heart
problems in users.  The latest ruling follows another in May in
which Judge Chesler denied Merck's motion to dismiss the entire
multidistrict securities litigation, which also includes class
actions on behalf of shareholders.

Merck's motion to dismiss the 157 funds cited the findings of a
plaintiff's damages expert who said those funds suffered no
economic damage from the conduct at issue.  The 157 funds are
groups of stocks, some focusing on specific categories such as the
drug industry or on North American companies, which are managed by
the institutional investors.  Whether other funds besides the 157
remain in the suit is unclear because many of the court documents
in the case are filed under seal.

The institutional investors include government and private
entities in Germany, Sweden, Austria, Luxembourg, the Netherlands
and other nations.

The institutional investors conceded that their expert calculated
no losses for those funds but argued that summary judgment was
improper because all but one of them had sustained damages for
other funds they owned.  They cited case law to support an
argument that summary judgment cannot be granted where it would
dispose of only a portion of a claim.

But Merck noted that the case law cited by the plaintiffs predated
a 2010 revision to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, which authorizes summary judgment as to part of a claim
or defense, and Judge Chesler agreed.

Merck also argued that the seven institutional investors lacked
standing because they suffered no injuries related to Merck's
conduct.  The company cited a 2008 Supreme Court ruling, Sprint
Communications Co. v. APCC Services Inc., in which the court held
that the assignee of a legal claim had standing to bring the claim
where it agreed to remit the proceeds of the claim to the
assignor.  Merck also cited a 2008 decision from the U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, W.R. Huff Asset
Management Co., v. Deloitte & Touche, which held that Sprint made
clear that the minimum requirement for an injury-in-fact in
securities litigation is that the plaintiff have legal title to,
or a proprietary interest in, the claim.

Merck argued that the seven institutional investors presented the
same situation identified in Sprint and Huff as insufficient to
demonstrate injury in fact for standing.  Merck also maintained
that the plaintiffs did not have assignments at the time the suits
were filed in 2007, which was before the Sprint or Huff rulings,
and that the plaintiffs' post-filing assignments fail to confer
standing.

Judge Chesler said courts in the Third Circuit have routinely
recognized standing of investment advisors without assignment from
shareholders.  Merck's position that the court should reject post-
filing assignments "appears to elevate technicalities over
substance," Judge Chesler said.

Merck's argument "misses the reality of the situation: as to each
challenged plaintiff, an allegedly harmed shareholder exists, but
the lawsuit was not filed in its name.  In other words, there is
no absence of a case or controversy; rather the pursuit of
securities fraud claims against Merck has been undertaken in the
wrong name," Judge Chesler said.

Judge Chesler said he would adopt the solution used by the Second
Circuit in a similar case in 2009, In re Vivendi Universal S.A.
Sec. Litigation.  In that case, where a group of foreign
investment entities brought individual actions related to a
securities class action, the Second Circuit issued the Huff
decision while a summary judgment motion was pending.  The Vivendi
court opted to allow the real parties in interest to join the case
or substitute for the current plaintiffs.  Judge Chesler said
allowing complaints to be amended would not prejudice Merck but
terminating the claims would cause "severe" harm to shareholders.

The lead counsel for the direct action plaintiffs, Salvatore
Graziano -- sgraziano@blbglaw.com --of Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger
& Grossman in New York, did not return a call about the ruling.
Evan Chesler -- echesler@cravath.com -- of Cravath, Swaine &
Moore, and James Fitzpatrick --
james.fitzpatrick@hugheshubbard.com -- of Hughes, Hubbard & Reed,
both in New York, representing Merck, also did not return calls.
A Merck spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.


MERCK & CO: 5,585 Cases Pending Related to Fosamax
--------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., 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 as of March 31, 2015,
approximately 5,585 cases had been filed and were pending against
Merck in either federal or state court, including one case which
seeks class action certification, as well as damages and/or
medical monitoring, related to Fosamax.

Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United
States involving Fosamax (the "Fosamax Litigation"). As of March
31, 2015, approximately 5,585 cases had been filed and were
pending against Merck in either federal or state court, including
one case which seeks class action certification, as well as
damages and/or medical monitoring. In approximately 975 of these
actions, plaintiffs allege, among other things, that they have
suffered osteonecrosis of the jaw ("ONJ"), generally subsequent to
invasive dental procedures, such as tooth extraction or dental
implants and/or delayed healing, in association with the use of
Fosamax; however, substantially all of those actions are subject
to a settlement. In addition, plaintiffs in approximately 4,610 of
these actions generally allege that they sustained femur fractures
and/or other bone injuries ("Femur Fractures") in association with
the use of Fosamax.

In August 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPML") ordered that certain Fosamax product liability cases
pending in federal courts nationwide should be transferred and
consolidated into one multidistrict litigation (the "Fosamax ONJ
MDL") for coordinated pre-trial proceedings.

In December 2013, Merck reached an agreement in principle with the
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee ("PSC") in the Fosamax ONJ MDL to
resolve pending ONJ cases not on appeal in the Fosamax ONJ MDL and
in the state courts for an aggregate amount of $27.7 million.
Merck and the PSC subsequently formalized the terms of this
agreement in a Master Settlement Agreement ("ONJ Master Settlement
Agreement") that was executed in April 2014. As a condition to the
settlement, 100% of the state and federal ONJ plaintiffs had to
agree to participate in the settlement plan or Merck could either
terminate the ONJ Master Settlement Agreement, or waive the 100%
participation requirement and agree to a lesser funding amount for
the settlement fund.

On July 14, 2014, Merck elected to proceed with the ONJ Master
Settlement Agreement at a reduced funding level since the
participation level was approximately 95%. In addition, the judge
overseeing the Fosamax ONJ MDL granted a motion filed by Merck and
has entered an order that requires the approximately 40 non-
participants whose cases will remain in the Fosamax ONJ MDL once
the settlement is complete to submit expert reports in order for
their cases to proceed any further. The ONJ Master Settlement
Agreement has no effect on the cases alleging Femur Fractures.


MERCK & CO: Femur Fracture MDL Reassigned to Judge Wolfson
----------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., 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 Femur Fracture MDL
was reassigned from Judge Joel Pisano to Judge Freda L. Wolfson.

In March 2011, Merck submitted a Motion to Transfer to  the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") seeking to
have all federal cases alleging Femur Fractures consolidated into
one multidistrict litigation for coordinated pre-trial
proceedings. The Motion to Transfer was granted in May 2011, and
all federal cases involving allegations of Femur Fracture have
been or will be transferred to a multidistrict litigation in the
District of New Jersey (the "Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL").

As a result of the JPML order, approximately 1,040 cases were
pending in the Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL as of March 31, 2015. A
Case Management Order was entered requiring the parties to review
33 cases. Judge Joel Pisano selected four cases from that group to
be tried as the initial bellwether cases in the Fosamax Femur
Fracture MDL. The first bellwether case, Glynn v. Merck, began on
April 8, 2013, and the jury returned a verdict in Merck's favor on
April 29, 2013; in addition, on June 27, 2013, Judge Pisano
granted Merck's motion for judgment as a matter of law in the
Glynn case and held that the plaintiff's failure to warn claim was
preempted by federal law.

In addition, Judge Pisano entered an order in August 2013
requiring plaintiffs in the Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL to show
cause why those cases asserting claims for a femur fracture injury
that took place prior to September 14, 2010, should not be
dismissed based on the court's preemption decision in the Glynn
case. A hearing on the show cause order was held in January 2014
and, on March 26, 2014, Judge Pisano issued an opinion finding
that all claims of the approximately 650 plaintiffs who allegedly
suffered injuries prior to September 14, 2010, were preempted and
ordered that those cases be dismissed. The majority of those
plaintiffs are appealing that ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit. Furthermore, on June 17, 2014, Judge Pisano
granted Merck summary judgment in the Gaynor v. Merck case and
found that Merck's updates in January 2011 to the Fosamax label
regarding atypical femur fractures were adequate as a matter of
law and that Merck adequately communicated those changes. The
plaintiffs in Gaynor have appealed Judge Pisano's decision to the
Third Circuit.

In August 2014, Merck filed a motion requesting that Judge Pisano
enter a further order requiring all remaining plaintiffs in the
Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL who claim that the 2011 Fosamax label
is inadequate and the proximate cause of their alleged injuries to
show cause why their cases should not be dismissed based on the
court's preemption decision and its ruling in the Gaynor case.
Plaintiffs opposed that motion and asked the court to stay the
remaining cases in the Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL until the Third
Circuit rules on their appeal of Judge Pisano's preemption
decision, but Judge Pisano granted Merck's motion and entered the
requested show cause order in November 2014. In September 2014,
Judge Pisano also ordered the parties to participate in a
mediation process.

On March 10, 2015, the Femur Fracture MDL was reassigned from
Judge Pisano to Judge Freda L. Wolfson.


MERCK & CO: 3,050 Femur Fractures Cases Pending in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., 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 as of March 31, 2015,
approximately 3,050 cases alleging Femur Fractures have been filed
in New Jersey state court and are pending before Judge Jessica
Mayer in Middlesex County. The parties selected an initial group
of 30 cases to be reviewed through fact discovery. Two additional
groups of 50 cases each to be reviewed through fact discovery were
selected in November 2013 and March 2014, respectively.


MERCK & CO: 515 Femur Fractures Cases Pending in California Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., 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 as of March 31, 2015,
approximately 515 cases alleging Femur Fractures have been filed
in California state court. A petition was filed seeking to
coordinate all Femur Fracture cases filed in California state
court before a single judge in Orange County, California. The
petition was granted and Judge Thierry Colaw is currently
presiding over the coordinated proceedings. In March 2014, the
court directed that a group of 10 discovery pool cases be reviewed
through fact discovery and subsequently scheduled the Galper v.
Merck case, which plaintiffs' selected, as the first trial. The
Galper trial began on February 17, 2015 and the jury returned a
verdict in Merck's favor on April 3, 2015. Two additional trials
are scheduled for July and October 2015.

Additionally, there are six Femur Fracture cases pending in other
state courts.

Discovery is ongoing in the Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL and in
state courts where Femur Fracture cases are pending and the
Company intends to defend against these lawsuits.


MERCK & CO: 860 Claims Served Related to Januvia/Janumet
--------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., 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 as of March 31, 2015,
approximately 860 product user claims were served on, and are
pending against, Merck alleging generally that use of Januvia and/
Januvia/Janumet caused the development of pancreatic cancer.

Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United
States involving Januvia and/or Janumet. As of March 31, 2015,
approximately 860 product user claims were served on, and are
pending against, Merck alleging generally that use of Januvia
and/or Janumet caused the development of pancreatic cancer. These
complaints were filed in several different state and federal
courts. Most of the claims are pending in a consolidated
multidistrict litigation proceeding in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California called "In re Incretin-Based
Therapies Products Liability Litigation." That proceeding includes
federal lawsuits alleging pancreatic cancer due to use of the
following medicines: Januvia, Janumet, Byetta and Victoza, the
latter two of which are products manufactured by other
pharmaceutical companies. In addition to the cases noted, the
Company has agreed, as of March 31, 2015, to toll the statute of
limitations for approximately 20 additional claims. The Company
intends to defend against these lawsuits.


MERCK & CO: 10 Cases Pending Outside of NuvaRing Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., 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 as of March 31, 2015,
there were approximately 10 cases pending outside of the
settlement program, inclusive of cases filed after the settlement
program closed, related to NuvaRing.

Beginning in May 2007, a number of complaints were filed in
various jurisdictions asserting claims against the Company's
subsidiaries Organon USA, Inc., Organon Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.,
Organon International (collectively, "Organon"), and the Company
arising from Organon's marketing and sale of NuvaRing (the
"NuvaRing Litigation"), a combined hormonal contraceptive vaginal
ring. The plaintiffs contend that Organon and Schering-Plough,
among other things, failed to adequately design and manufacture
NuvaRing and failed to adequately warn of the alleged increased
risk of venous thromboembolism ("VTE") posed by NuvaRing, and/or
downplayed the risk of VTE. The plaintiffs seek damages for
injuries allegedly sustained from their product use, including
some alleged deaths, heart attacks and strokes. The majority of
the cases were pending in a federal multidistrict litigation (the
"NuvaRing MDL") venued in Missouri and in a coordinated proceeding
in New Jersey state court.

Pursuant to a settlement agreement between Merck and negotiating
plaintiffs' counsel, which became effective as of June 4, 2014,
Merck paid a lump total settlement of $100 million to resolve more
than 95% of the cases filed and under retainer by counsel as of
February 7, 2014. Plaintiffs in approximately 3,700 cases have
joined the settlement program. The filed cases will be dismissed
with prejudice once the settlement administration process is
completed. The Company expects the first dismissals to begin in
the second quarter and continue on a rolling basis throughout
2015. The Company has certain insurance coverage available to it,
which is currently being used to partially fund the Company's
legal fees. This insurance coverage has also been used to fund the
settlement.

Plaintiffs not participating in the settlement who chose to
proceed with their case in the NuvaRing MDL or New Jersey state
court were obligated to meet various discovery and evidentiary
requirements under the case management orders of the NuvaRing MDL
and New Jersey state court. The majority of plaintiffs failed to
fully and timely satisfy these requirements under set deadlines
and were subject to an Order to Show Cause why their case should
not be dismissed with prejudice. On January 22, 2015, the six
cases in the New Jersey state court proceeding not participating
in the settlement program were dismissed with prejudice for
failing to satisfy the requirements set forth in the case
management orders. For the same reason, in February and March
2015, approximately 60 cases were dismissed with prejudice in the
NuvaRing MDL.

As of March 31, 2015, there were approximately 10 cases pending
outside of the settlement program, inclusive of cases filed after
the settlement program closed. Of these cases, nine are pending in
the MDL and are subject to the case management orders requiring
plaintiffs to meet various discovery and evidentiary requirements.
As of March 31, 2015, five plaintiffs have met those requirements
and will be permitted to continue to prosecute their cases.


MERCK & CO: 1,290 Lawsuits Filed Related to Propecia/Proscar
------------------------------------------------------------
Merck & Co., 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 as of March 31, 2015,
approximately 1,290 lawsuits involving 1,580 plaintiffs who allege
that they have experienced persistent sexual side effects
following cessation of treatment with Propecia/Proscar, have been
filed against Merck.

Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the United
States involving Propecia and/or Proscar. As of March 31, 2015,
approximately 1,290 lawsuits involving a total of approximately
1,580 plaintiffs (in a few instances spouses are joined as
plaintiffs in the suits) who allege that they have experienced
persistent sexual side effects following cessation of treatment
with Propecia and/or Proscar have been filed against Merck.

Approximately 55 of the plaintiffs also allege that Propecia or
Proscar has caused or can cause prostate cancer or male breast
cancer. The lawsuits have been filed in various federal courts and
in state court in New Jersey. The federal lawsuits have been
consolidated for pretrial purposes in a federal multidistrict
litigation before Judge John Gleeson of the Eastern District of
New York. The matters pending in state court in New Jersey have
been consolidated before Judge Jessica Mayer in Middlesex County.
In addition, there is one matter pending in federal court in
California. The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits.
Governmental Proceedings


MERRILL LYNCH: Supreme Court to Decide on Case Over Short Sales
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marcia Coyle, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
raising the stakes in the new term beginning in October, the U.S.
Supreme Court on June 30 added a potential union-breaking
challenge to its docket along with important securities and
redistricting cases.

The justices said they would hear and decide Friedrichs v.
California Teachers Association in which 10 California teachers
and the Christian Educators Association International ask the high
court to overrule its 1977 seminal decision in Abood v. Detroit
Board of Education.

Abood allows unions to charge nonmembers, whom unions have a legal
duty to represent, for expenses related to collective bargaining
but not for political or ideological activities.  The Friedrichs
petition, brought by Jones Day's Michael Carvin and the Center for
Individual Rights, contends that state "agency shop" laws, which
require public employees to pay union dues as a condition of
employment, violate freedom of speech and association.  It argues
that collective bargaining between the government and public
employee unions necessarily involves political speech.  Twenty-
four states have agency-shop laws.

The petition also argues that it violates the First Amendment to
require employees to opt out of expenses unrelated to collective
bargaining.

Reacting to the grant of review, National Education Association
president Lily Eskelsen GarcĀ”a, American Federation of Teachers
president Randi Weingarten, California Teachers Association
president Eric Heins, American Federation of State, County and
Municipal Employees president Lee Saunders and Service Employees
International Union president Mary Kay Henry, said in a statement:

"We are disappointed that at a time when big corporations and the
wealthy few are rewriting the rules in their favor, knocking
American families and our entire economy off-balance, the Supreme
Court has chosen to take a case that threatens the fundamental
promise of America -- that if you work hard and play by the rules
you should be able to provide for your family and live a decent
life."

Mark Mix, president of the National Right to Work Legal Defense
Foundation said, "We hope the court will build on majority
opinions from the National Right to Work Foundation-won Knox v.
SEIU and Harris v. Quinn cases and finally rule that mandatory
union dues violate the fundamental principles laid out in the Bill
of Rights."

The justices also will return to the highly partisan nature of
redistricting in Harris v. Arizona Independent Redistricting
Commission.

In April, a three-judge federal district court, in an unsigned
decision, ruled against a group of voters who challenged the final
map of Arizona legislative districts approved by the state's
independent redistricting commission in January 2012.  The voters
contend that the districts violate the one-person, one-vote
requirement of the 14th Amendment equal protection clause by
systematically overpopulating Republican plurality districts and
underpopulating Democratic plurality districts with no lawful
justification for deviating from numerical equality.

On June 29, a 5-4 high court upheld the constitutionality of the
Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission in an elections-
clause challenge brought by the state Legislature.

The securities case, Merrill Lynch v. Manning, out of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, involves short sales and
naked short sales.  It asks the high court to resolve a circuit
conflict over federal jurisdiction under Section 27 of the
Securities Exchange Act.

"The Fifth and Ninth Circuits have held that Sec. 27 does just
what it says: it confers jurisdiction on federal courts -- and
only federal courts -- over all actions seeking to establish
liability based on violations of the act or its regulations, or
seeking to enforce duties created by the act or its regulations,"
writes Jonathan Hacker -- hacker@omm.com -- of O'Melveny & Myers.

But the Third and Second circuits, he contends, erroneously hold
that an action otherwise within Section 27's scope cannot proceed
in federal court unless there is some other, independent basis for
federal jurisdiction. "On this view, Sec/ 27's sole function is to
strip state courts of concurrent jurisdiction over that type of
action."

The justices also said they would decide questions involving the
Indian Self Determination Act in Menominee Indian Tribe of
Wisconsin v. United States, and a damages action involving
inventor Gilbert Hyatt in California Franchise Tax Board v. Hyatt.


MOLSON COORS: "Hughes" Class Action at Early Stage of Proceedings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Molson Coors Brewing Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the class action
case, David Hughes and 631992 Ontario Inc. v. Liquor Control Board
of Ontario, Brewers Retail Inc., Labatt Breweries of Canada LP,
Molson Coors Canada and Sleeman Breweries Ltd., is at an early
stage of proceedings.

On December 12, 2014, a notice of action captioned David Hughes
and 631992 Ontario Inc. v. Liquor Control Board of Ontario,
Brewers Retail Inc., Labatt Breweries of Canada LP, Molson Coors
Canada and Sleeman Breweries Ltd. No. CV-14-518059-00CP was filed
in Ontario, Canada. Brewers' Retail Inc. ("BRI") and its owners,
including Molson Coors Canada, as well as the Liquor Control Board
of Ontario ("LCBO") are named as defendants in the action. The
plaintiffs allege that The Beer Store (retail outlets owned and
operated by BRI) and LCBO improperly entered into an agreement to
fix prices and market allocation within the Ontario beer market to
the detriment of licensees and consumers. The plaintiffs seek to
have the claim certified as a class action on behalf of all
Ontario beer consumers and licensees and, among other things,
damages in the amount of CAD 1.4 billion.

The Company said, "Although we are at an early stage of the
proceedings, we note that The Beer Store operates according to the
rules established by the Government of Ontario for regulation,
sale and distribution of beer in the province. Additionally,
prices at The Beer Store are independently set by each brewer and
are approved by the LCBO on a weekly basis. As such, we currently
believe the claim has been made without merit, and we intend to
vigorously assert and defend our rights in this lawsuit."


NBTY INC: Facing Class Actions Over Herbal Dietary Supplements
--------------------------------------------------------------
NBTY, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2015, that the Company is facing numerous putative
class actions challenging the authenticity and purity of herbal
supplements and associated marketing.

In February 2015, the New York State Office of the Attorney
General ("NY AG") began an investigation concerning the
authenticity and purity of herbal supplements and associated
marketing. As part of this investigation, the NY AG is reviewing
the sufficiency of the measures that several manufacturers and
retailers, including NBTY, are taking to independently assess the
validity of their representations and advertising in connection
with the sale of herbal supplements. NBTY has fully cooperated
with the NY AG, however until this investigation is concluded, no
final determination can be made as to its ultimate outcome or the
amount of liability, if any, on the part of NBTY.

"However, we do not believe the ultimate outcome will have a
material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements,"
the Company said.

Following the NY AG investigation, starting in February 2015,
numerous putative class actions were filed in various
jurisdictions against NBTY, certain of its customers and/or other
companies as to which there may be a duty to defend and indemnify,
challenging the authenticity and purity of herbal supplements and
associated marketing, under various states' consumer protection
statutes. Motions for transfer and consolidation of all of the
federal actions as multidistrict litigation into a single district
before a single judge ("MDL motions") are pending and the hearing
date of the MDL motions was scheduled for May 28, 2015. Certain
state court actions are proceeding independently or have been
removed to federal court and stayed pending a decision on the MDL
motions. These cases seek some combination of monetary damages,
injunctive relief and specific performance.

"At this time, no determination can be made as to the ultimate
outcome of the litigation or the amount of liability, if any, on
the part of NBTY, however, we do not believe the ultimate outcome
will have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial
statements," the Company said.


NBTY INC: Revised Deal in Glucosamine-Based Supplements Case
------------------------------------------------------------
NBTY, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2015, that the Company has agreed upon a revised
proposed settlement with certain plaintiffs in the class actions
related to Glucosamine-Based Dietary Supplements.

Beginning in June 2011, certain putative class actions have been
filed in various jurisdictions against NBTY, its subsidiary Rexall
Sundown, Inc. ("Rexall"), and/or other companies as to which there
may be a duty to defend and indemnify, challenging the marketing
of glucosamine- based dietary supplements, under various states'
consumer protection statutes. The lawsuits against NBTY and its
subsidiaries are: Cardenas v. NBTY, Inc. and Rexall Sundown, Inc.
(filed June 14, 2011) in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California, on behalf of a putative class of
California consumers seeking unspecified compensatory damages
based on theories of restitution and disgorgement, plus punitive
damages and injunctive relief; Jennings v. Rexall Sundown, Inc.
(filed August 22, 2011) in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, on behalf of a putative class of
Massachusetts consumers seeking unspecified trebled compensatory
damages; and Nunez v. NBTY, Inc. et al. (filed March 1, 2013) in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California (the "Nunez Case"), on behalf of a putative class of
California consumers seeking unspecified compensatory damages
based on theories of restitution and disgorgement, plus injunctive
relief, as well as other cases in California and Illinois against
certain wholesale customers as to which we may have certain
indemnification obligations.

In March 2013, NBTY agreed upon a proposed settlement with
plaintiffs, which included all cases and resolved all pending
claims without any admission of or concession of liability by
NBTY, and which provided for a release of all claims in return for
payments to the class, together with attorneys' fees, and notice
and administrative costs. Fairness Hearings took place on October
4, 2013 and November 20, 2013.

On January 3, 2014, the court issued an opinion and order
approving the settlement as modified (the "Order"). The final
judgment was issued on January 22, 2014 (the "Judgment"). Certain
objectors filed a notice of appeal of the Order and the Judgment
on January 29, 2014 and the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on
February 3, 2014.

In fiscal 2013, NBTY recorded a provision of $12,000,000,
reflecting its best estimate of exposure for payments to the class
together with attorney's fees and notice and administrative costs
in connection with this class action settlement. As a result of
the court's approval of the settlement and the closure of the
claims period, NBTY reduced its estimate of exposure to
$6,100,000. This reduction in the estimated exposure was reflected
in the Company's first quarter results for fiscal 2014.

On November 19, 2014, the appellate court issued a decision
granting the objectors' appeal. The appellate court reversed and
remanded the matter to the district court for further proceedings
consistent with the appellate court's decision. In April 2015,
NBTY agreed upon a revised proposed settlement with certain
plaintiffs which includes all cases and resolves all pending
claims without any admission of or concession of liability by
NBTY. The parties have signed settlement documentation providing
for a release of all claims in return for payments to the class,
together with attorneys' fees, and notice and administrative costs
estimated to be in the amount of $9,000,000, which resulted in an
additional charge of $4,300,000 in the second quarter results for
fiscal 2015. The settlement has not yet been submitted to the
court for preliminary approval. Until the cases are resolved, no
final determination can be made as to the ultimate outcome of the
litigation or the amount of liability on the part of NBTY.


NBTY INC: Appeal From TCPA Claim Dismissal Pending
--------------------------------------------------
NBTY, 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 Plaintiff's appeal of the dismissal of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act Claim is pending.

NBTY, and certain of its subsidiaries, are defendants in a class-
action lawsuit, captioned John H. Lary Jr. v. Rexall Sundown,
Inc.; Rexall Sundown 3001, LLC; Rexall, Inc.; NBTY, Inc.;
Corporate Mailings, Inc. d/b/a CCG Marketing Solutions ("CCG") and
John Does 1-10 (originally filed October 22, 2013), brought in the
United States District Court, Eastern District of New York. The
plaintiff alleges that the defendants faxed advertisements to
plaintiff and others without invitation or permission, in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

On May 2, 2014, NBTY and its named subsidiary defendants cross-
claimed against CCG, who was a third party vendor engaged by NBTY,
and CCG cross-claimed against NBTY and named subsidiary defendants
on June 13, 2014. CCG brought a third party complaint against an
unrelated entity, Healthcare Data Experts, LLC, on June 27, 2014.
On July 21, 2014, CCG filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint and on February 11, 2015 the court issued an Order and
Opinion dismissing the class-action. On February 27, 2015,
Plaintiff filed an appeal to the court's dismissal of the action
and that appeal is pending.


NEWS CORP: In-Store Promotions Suit Granted Class Action Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
claims by H.J. Heinz Company and other packaged goods firms that
News Corp. is violating antitrust laws in the in-store promotion
market have been granted class status by a federal judge.

Southern District Judge William Pauley said a class action was the
proper choice for allegations that News Corp. abuses its 80
percent market share for supermarket signage, end-of-aisle
displays, shelf-mounted displays, freezer displays and floor
signage at some 52,000 retail stores.

The case is The Dial Corporation v. News Corp., 13-cv-06802, where
News Corp boasts of its "one-stop shopping" for its in-store
promotion businesses, which is part of News America marketing.
But the Dial Corp., Heinz and other packaged goods firms say it
maintains a monopoly by using long-term exclusive contracts with
retailers and the packaged goods firms.

The suit charges that News Corp hacks into computerized customer
lists and marketing materials of a competitor, enforces "shelf
exclusivity" in the markets, uses cash guarantees to derail
competitor contracts, defaces the ads of its competitors and
disparages their competitors' rate of compliance.

Judge Pauley in his opinion defined the proposed class as non-
retail companies that sell consumer packaged goods in the United
States that purchased in-store promotions directly from News Corp.
starting on April 8, 2008, that are not subject to mandatory
arbitration clauses.  The judge set about knocking down each and
every objection that News Corp. had to litigating the case as a
class action under Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

He said there were several issues "common to the class and capable
of resolution through common proof," to establish liability under
the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.  Those issues included "the
geographic market definition, the product market definition, News
Corp.'s monopoly power, the extent of News Corp.'s exclusionary
conduct, and causation."

News Corp. said that, in proving injury, there was significant
variation between prices for each one of its 12 different in-store
promotional products that class-wide proof would be difficult.
On this point, both sides offered up experts on the price issue.
Pauley concluded that the plaintiffs' evidence suggested that
"prices are systematic and thus antitrust injury is measurable
with common proof."

There were nine different "exclusionary acts" committed by News
Corp., according to the plaintiffs, who alleged the media company
obtained its monopoly through the "cumulative effect" of these
acts, including exclusive contracts and the use of cash guarantees
-- acts the judge said are capable of common proof.

And the fact that there might have to be a determination of
individualized damages does not necessarily defeat class
certification under Rule 23(b)(3), he said, because the model
presented by the plaintiffs shows "damages are measurable through
use of a common methodology."

The judge then discussed the argument of News Corp. that common
issues do not predominate in the case.  It argued that increased
competition could actually hurt some of the putative class members
who can receive discounts on some bundled offerings and benefit
from "network effects," which he said "presents a nettlesome and
unsettled question of law."

He noted that, on June 8, the U.S. Supreme Court granted
certiorari in Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo to address whether a
class may be certified when it consists of some uninjured class
members.

While the judge said the Tyson case could offer some guidance, "in
this case, the existence of 'network effects,' bundled discounts
and other ancillary benefits are questions of fact subject to
common proof at trial."

Even "assuming News Corp.'s theory that discounts and benefits
negate injury, the fact that some putative class members may be
uninjured does not automatically defeat predominance," Judge
Pauley said.  And while there may be issues as to individualized
damages, proving those damages "pales in comparison to the central
questions regarding liability."

Finally, Judge Pauley said a class is the superior method because
"in most cases, a class member's potential recovery would be
outweighed by the costs of litigation."

The plaintiffs asked for five firms to be appointed class counsel,
led by Lewis LeClair -- lleclair@mckoolsmith.com -- a partner at
McKool Smith in Dallas, Texas; R. Stephen Berry --
sberry@berrylawpllc.com -- of Berry Law PLLC in Washington, D.C.;
Steven Benz -- sbenz@khhte.com -- a partner at Kellogg, Huber,
Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel in Washington, D.C.; Daniel Goldman --
dgoldman@kramerlevin.com -- a partner at Kramer, Levin, Naftalis &
Frankel; and James Southwick -- jsouthwick@susmangodfrey.com -- a
partner at Susman Godfrey in Houston, Texas.

Judge Pauley told the lawyers to pick one lead counsel, or, at
most two co-lead counsels, by June 26.

Kenneth Gallo -- kgallo@paulweiss.com -- Jane O'Brien --
jobrien@paulweiss.com -- and William Michael, partners at Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, represent News Corp.


OMEGA HEALTHCARE: Court Dismissed Aviv REIT Inc. Stockholder Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Omega Healthcare Investors, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the court has
granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the consolidated
complaint, Aviv REIT Inc. Stockholder Litigation.

Four putative class actions were filed by purported stockholders
of Aviv against Aviv, its directors, the Company and Merger Sub
challenging the Merger. The lawsuits sought injunctive relief
preventing the parties from consummating the Merger, rescission of
the transactions contemplated by the Merger Agreement, imposition
of a constructive trust in favor of the class upon any benefits
improperly received by the defendants, compensatory damages, and
litigation costs including attorneys' fees. The four cases were
transferred to the Business and Technology Case Management Program
of the Circuit Court, Baltimore City, Maryland. The plaintiffs in
each case amended their complaints to add allegations that the
disclosures in the Form S-4 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 5, 2015 in connection with the Merger, were
inadequate to allow Aviv shareholders to make an informed decision
whether to approve the Merger.

On January 28, 2015, the court entered a stipulated consolidation
order consolidating the four lawsuits into a single proceeding
styled In re Aviv REIT Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 24-C-
14-006352. On February 6, 2015, (1) Aviv, the Aviv Partnership and
the Aviv directors filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint and (2) the Company, Merger Sub and the Omega Operating
Partnership separately moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint
as to them. The plaintiffs have moved to expedite the discovery
period. On March 20, 2015, the court granted the defendants'
motions to dismiss the consolidated complaint.


OMNICELL INC: To Defend Against "Nelson" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Omnicell, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a putative class
action lawsuit was filed on March 19, 2015, against the Company
and two executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, captioned Nelson v. Omnicell,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-01280-HSG.The complaint purports to
assert claims on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's
stock between May 2, 2014 and March 2, 2015. It alleges that
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by purportedly making false and misleading
statements regarding the existence of a "side letter" arrangement
and the adequacy of internal controls that allegedly resulted in
false and misleading financial statements. The Company and the
individual defendants have not yet been served with the complaint.
The Company believes that the claims have no merit and will defend
the lawsuit vigorously.


OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Facing "Colley" Action in S.D. Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a purported class
action lawsuit was filed on March 10, 2015, against the Company
and certain of its officers in the United States District Court,
for the Southern District of California, captioned Colley v.
Orexigen, et al. The following day, two additional putative class
action lawsuits were filed in the same court, captioned Stefanko
v. Orexigen, et al., and Yantz v. Orexigen, et al., asserting
substantially similar claims. The complaints purport to assert
claims on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's stock
between March 3, 2015 and March 5, 2015. It alleges that
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by purportedly making false and misleading
statements regarding the interim results of the Light Study. The
complaints seek an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys' fees
and equitable or injunctive relief. Motions seeking to be
appointed Lead Plaintiff were due May 11, 2015. The Company
expects a consolidated complaint to be filed approximately 60 days
after the Court appoints a Lead Plaintiff.

Although management believes that the claims lack merit and
intends to defend against them vigorously, there are uncertainties
inherent in any litigation and the Company cannot predict the
outcome. As this time, the Company is unable to estimate possible
losses or ranges of losses that may result from such legal
proceedings, and it has not accrued any amounts in connection with
such legal proceedings other than ongoing attorney's fees.


PACIFIC COAST: Welch and Berliner Actions Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Coast Oil Trust 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 Welch and Berliner
class actions have been consolidated into a single action.

On July 1, 2014, Thomas Welch, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint
in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
against the Trust, Pacific Coast Energy Company LP, a privately
held Delaware partnership ("PCEC"), PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast
Energy Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC
and others.

The complaint asserts federal securities law claims against the
Trust and other defendants and states that the claims are made on
behalf of a class of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
Trust securities pursuant or traceable to the registration
statement that became effective on May 2, 2012 and the
prospectuses issued thereto and the registration statement that
became effective purportedly on September 19, 2013 and the
prospectuses issued thereto. The complaint states that the
plaintiff is pursuing negligence and strict liability claims under
the Securities Act of 1933 and alleges that both such registration
statements contained numerous untrue statements of material facts
and omitted material facts. The plaintiff seeks class
certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission on
certain of plaintiff's claims, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs and any other relief the Court
may deem just and proper.

On October 16, 2014, Ralph Berliner, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a second putative class
action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles, against the Trust, PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast
Energy Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC
and others. The Berliner complaint asserts the same claims and
makes the same allegations, against the same defendants, as are
made in the Welch complaint. In November 2014, the Welch and
Berliner actions were consolidated into a single action.

The Trust believes that it is fully indemnified by PCEC against
any liability or expense it might incur in connection with the
consolidated action. Nevertheless, the Trust may incur expenses in
connection with the litigation. The Trust will estimate and
provide for potential losses that may arise out of litigation to
the extent that such losses are probable and can be reasonably
estimated. Significant judgment will be required in making any
such estimates and any actual liabilities of the Trust may
ultimately be materially different than any such estimates. The
Trust is currently unable to assess the probability of loss or
estimate a range of any potential loss the Trust may incur in
connection with the consolidated action described above, and has
not established any reserves relating to the litigation. The Trust
may withhold estimated amounts from future distributions to cover
future costs associated with the litigation if determined
necessary at any time.


PNC FINANCIAL: Court Denied Motion to Dismiss "Montoya" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
The PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in March
2015, in Montoya vs. PNC Bank, N.A., et al.(Case No. 14-cv-20474-
JG), the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida denied PNC's motion to dismiss, except that it granted the
motion as to the Ohio good faith and fair dealing claim.


POLY IMPLANT: Plaintiffs Can't Seek Damages From TUV, Court Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Charlton, writing for The Associated Pres, reports that a
French appeals court ruled on July 2 that a German product-testing
company does not have to compensate more than 3,000 women with
leak-prone breast implants -- and now women who sued may have to
pay back EUR5.8 million (US$6.4 million) in collective damages
they received in a lower-court ruling.

Tens of thousands of women worldwide received implants made by
French company PIP, or Poly Implant Prothese.  The implants were
found to contain industrial-grade silicone instead of medical
silicone and were prone to leakage.

PIP's owner was sentenced to prison for fraud, but his bankrupt
company couldn't pay damages. So the women's lawyers sought
compensation from German testing company TUV Rheinland and its
French subsidiary instead.

A commercial court ordered TUV in 2013 to pay damages to women and
six distributors, ruling that the testing company failed to
properly check the implants.

But the appeals court in the southern city of Aix-en-Provence
overturned that on July 2.  A court statement said that TUV and
its subsidiary "respected their obligations incumbent upon them as
certifying organizations."

The ruling says TUV couldn't have been aware of the problems with
the implants, because of PIP's efforts to hide them.

Lawyer Jacky Petitot, representing women in the case, called it an
"enormous disappointment." He said women from France, Britain and
South Africa were among those affected.

He said the women's legal team would meet this week to decide
whether to appeal to France's highest court, or to wait for a
related decision pending at the European Court of Justice.

"We lost a battle, but we have not lost the war," he said.

A lawyer for TUV, Cecile Derycke, noted that in a separate
criminal case against implant-maker PIP, the court found that TUV
was a victim of PIP's fraud.

She said TUV was ordered to pay EURR3,400 each to about 1,700
women who joined the original lawsuit, and that the July 2 ruling
"technically" means the women must now return that money to TUV.
She said TUV has not yet decided how it will handle next steps.

While the lower court lawsuit involved about 1,700 women, another
1,600 women with the implants joined the case later and were
therefore affected by the July 2 ruling, Ms. Derycke said

The implants were not available in the United States, but at least
125,000 women worldwide received them until sales ended in early
2010, from Britain to Brazil, Venezuela and Colombia.

After PIP went out of business, regulators across Europe began
demanding tighter oversight of medical devices.

In the separate criminal case against PIP, an appeals trial is
expected later this year.

And in a case in Germany, a 64-year-old woman's claim for
EUR40,000 in compensation from TUV Rheinland made its way to the
Federal Court of Justice, which in April decided to ask the
European Court of Justice for clarification on what obligations
companies face when assessing medical products.


PPL CORP: 6th Cir. Grants Appellate Review Over Cane Run Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
PPL Corporation, PPL Electric Utilities Corporation, LG&E and KU
Energy LLC, Louisville Gas and Electric Company, and Kentucky
Utilities Company 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 U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has issued an order granting
appellate review regarding the Cane Run Environmental Claims.

In December 2013, six residents, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against
LG&E and PPL in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Kentucky alleging violations of the Clean Air Act and Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976. In addition, these
plaintiffs assert common law claims of nuisance, trespass and
negligence. These plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and civil
penalties, plus costs and attorney fees, for the alleged statutory
violations. Under the common law claims, these plaintiffs seek
monetary compensation and punitive damages for property damage and
diminished property values for a class consisting of residents
within four miles of the plant. In their individual capacities,
these plaintiffs seek compensation for alleged adverse health
effects.

In response to a motion to dismiss filed by PPL and LG&E, in July
2014, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' RCRA claims and all but
one of its Clean Air Act claims, but declined to dismiss their
common law tort claims. Upon motion of LG&E and PPL, the district
court certified for appellate review the issue of whether the
state common law claims are preempted by federal statute.

In December 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
issued an order granting appellate review regarding the matter and
such issues as may appropriately be presented by the parties and
determined by the court. PPL, LKE and LG&E cannot predict the
outcome of this matter or the potential impact on operations of
the Cane Run plant. LG&E retired one coal-fired unit at the Cane
Run plant in March 2015 and anticipates retiring the remaining two
coal-fired units at the Cane Run plant in the third quarter of
2015.


PROVECTUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Suit Over Melanoma Drug Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Provectus Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. continues to face securities
class action lawsuits related to its melanoma drug, PV-10, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2015.

On May 27, 2014, Cary Farrah and James H. Harrison, Jr.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the
"Farrah Case"), and on May 29, 2014, each of Paul Jason Chaney,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the
"Chaney Case"), and Jayson Dauphinee, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated (the "Dauphinee Case") (the
plaintiffs in the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee
Case collectively referred to as the "Plaintiffs"), each filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee against the Company, H. Craig Dees,
Timothy C. Scott and Peter R. Culpepper (the "Defendants")
alleging violations by the Defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs in each of the Farrah Case, the
Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case allege that the Defendants are
liable for making false statements and failing to disclose adverse
facts known to them about the Company, in connection with the
Company's application to the FDA for Breakthrough Therapy
Designation ("BTD") of the Company's melanoma drug, PV-10, in the
Spring of 2014, and the FDA's subsequent denial of the Company's
application for BTD.

The Company intends to defend vigorously against all claims in
these complaints. However, in view of the inherent uncertainties
of litigation and the early stage of this litigation, the outcome
of these cases cannot be predicted at this time. Likewise, the
amount of any potential loss cannot be reasonably estimated. No
amounts have been recorded in the consolidated financial
statements as the outcome of these cases cannot be predicted and
the amount of any potential loss is not estimable at this time.

On July 9, 2014, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants filed joint
motions in the Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case
to consolidate the cases and transfer them to United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. By order
dated July 16, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee entered an order consolidating the
Farrah Case, the Chaney Case and the Dauphinee Case (collectively
and, as consolidated, the "Securities Litigation") and transferred
the Securities Litigation to the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Tennessee.

On November 26, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Tennessee (the "Court") entered an order
appointing Fawwaz Hamati as the Lead Plaintiff in the Securities
Litigation, with the Law Firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg, LLP as
counsel to Lead Plaintiff. On February 3, 2015, the Court entered
an order compelling the Lead Plaintiff to file a consolidated
amended complaint within 60 days of entry of the order.

On April 6, 2015, the Lead Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint (the "Consolidated Complaint") in the Class
Action Case, alleging that Provectus and the other individual
defendants made knowingly false representations about the
likelihood that PV-10 would be approved as a candidate for BTD,
and that such representations caused injury to Lead Plaintiff and
other shareholders. The Consolidated Complaint also added Eric
Wachter as a named defendant. Pursuant to order of the Court,
Provectus was to respond to the Consolidated Complaint no later
than June 5, 2015.

The Company intends to defend vigorously against all claims in the
Consolidated Complaint. However, in view of the inherent
uncertainties of litigation and the early stage of this
litigation, the outcome of the Class Action Case cannot be
predicted at this time. Likewise, the amount of any potential loss
cannot be reasonably estimated. No amounts have been recorded in
the consolidated financial statements as the outcome of the Class
Action Case cannot be predicted and the amount of any potential
loss is not estimable at this time.


RADIAN GROUP: Reached Settlement in "Manners" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Radian Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company and the
plaintiffs in the "Manners" putative class action lawsuits have
entered into a settlement agreement.

Each of the cases set forth below were putative class actions that
asserted violations of RESPA in which Radian Guaranty had been
named as a defendant and had insured at least one loan of one of
the plaintiffs.

     * On December 30, 2011, a putative class action under RESPA
titled White v. PNC Financial Services Group was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

     * On January 13, 2012, a putative class action under RESPA
titled Menichino, et al. v. Citibank, N.A., et al., was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Radian Guaranty was not named as a defendant in the original
complaint. On December 4, 2012, plaintiffs amended their complaint
to add Radian Guaranty as an additional defendant.

     * On April 5, 2012, a putative class action under RESPA
titled Manners, et al. v. Fifth Third Bank, et al was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
On March 25, 2015, Radian Guaranty and the plaintiffs in the
putative class action lawsuits above entered into a settlement
agreement, pursuant to which the plaintiffs agreed to voluntarily
dismiss their claims with prejudice and to fully release Radian
Guaranty from any future claims related to the claims in these
lawsuits.


REGENCY ENERGY: Court Denied Motion to Expedite Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------
Regency Energy Partners LP said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has denied
plaintiffs' motion to expedite discovery in the ETP Merger
Shareholder Litigation.

Following the January 26, 2015 announcement of the definitive
merger agreement with Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., purported
Partnership unitholders filed lawsuits in state and federal courts
in Dallas, Texas asserting claims relating to the proposed
transaction.

On February 3, 2015, William Engel and Enno Seago, purported
Regency Energy Partners LP (Partnership) unitholders, filed a
class action petition on behalf of the Partnership's common
unitholders and a derivative suit on behalf of the Partnership in
the 162nd Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas (the
"Engel Lawsuit"). The lawsuit names as defendants Regency GP LP,
the general partner of the Partnership, the members of the General
Partner's board of directors, Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. or
ETP, Energy Transfer Partners GP, L.P. or ETP GP, Energy Transfer
Equity, L.P. or ETE, and, as a nominal party, the Partnership. The
Engel Lawsuit alleges that (1) the General Partner's directors
breached duties to the Partnership and the Partnership's
unitholders by employing a conflicted and unfair process and
failing to maximize the merger consideration; (2) the General
Partner's directors breached the implied covenant of good faith
and fair dealing by engaging in a flawed merger process; and (3)
the non-director defendants aided and abetted in these claimed
breaches. The plaintiffs seek an injunction preventing the
defendants from closing the proposed transaction or an order
rescinding the transaction if it has already been completed. The
plaintiffs also seek money damages and court costs, including
attorney's fees.

On February 9, 2015, Stuart Yeager, a purported Partnership
unitholder, filed a class action petition on behalf of the
Partnership's common unitholders and a derivative suit on behalf
of the Partnership in the 134th Judicial District Court of Dallas
County, Texas (the "Yeager Lawsuit"). The allegations, claims, and
relief sought in the Yeager Lawsuit are nearly identical to those
in the Engel Lawsuit.

On February 10, 2015, Lucien Coggia a purported Partnership
unitholder, filed a class action petition on behalf of the
Partnership's common unitholders and a derivative suit on behalf
of the Partnership in the 192nd Judicial District Court of Dallas
County, Texas (the "Coggia Lawsuit"). The allegations, claims, and
relief sought in the Coggia Lawsuit are nearly identical to those
in the Engel Lawsuit.

On February 3, 2015, Linda Blankman, a purported Partnership
unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the
Partnership's common unitholders in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas (the "Blankman Lawsuit").
The allegations and claims in the Blankman Lawsuit are similar to
those in the Engel Lawsuit. However, the Blankman Lawsuit does not
allege any derivative claims and includes the Partnership as a
defendant rather than a nominal party. The lawsuit also omits one
of the General Partner's directors, Richard Brannon, who was named
in the Engel Lawsuit. The Blankman Lawsuit alleges that the
General Partner's directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
unitholders by failing to maximize the value of the Partnership,
failing to properly value the Partnership, and ignoring conflicts
of interest. The plaintiff also asserts a claim against the non-
director defendants for aiding and abetting the directors' alleged
breach of fiduciary duty. The Blankman Lawsuit seeks the same
relief that the plaintiffs seek in the Engel Lawsuit.

On February 6, 2015, Edwin Bazini, a purported Partnership
unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the
Partnership's common unitholders in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas (the "Bazini Lawsuit").
The allegations, claims, and relief sought in the Bazini Lawsuit
are nearly identical to those in the Blankman Lawsuit. On March
27, 2015, Plaintiff Bazini filed an amended complaint asserting
additional claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

On February 11, 2015, Mark Hinnau, a purported Partnership
unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the
Partnership's common unitholders in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas (the "Hinnau Lawsuit").
The allegations, claims, and relief sought in the Hinnau Lawsuit
are nearly identical to those in the Blankman Lawsuit.

On February 11, 2015, Stephen Weaver, a purported Partnership
unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the
Partnership's common unitholders in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas (the "Weaver Lawsuit").
The allegations, claims, and relief sought in the Weaver Lawsuit
are nearly identical to those in the Blankman Lawsuit.

On February 11, 2015, Adrian Dieckman, a purported Partnership
unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the
Partnership's common unitholders in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas (the "Dieckman Lawsuit").
The allegations, claims, and relief sought in the Dieckman Lawsuit
are similar to those in the Blankman Lawsuit, except that the
Dieckman Lawsuit does not assert an aiding and abetting claim.

On February 13, 2015, Irwin Berlin, a purported Partnership
unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the
Partnership's common unitholders in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas (the "Dieckman Lawsuit").
The allegations, claims, and relief sought in the Berlin Lawsuit
are similar to those in the Blankman Lawsuit.

On March 13, 2015, the Court in the 95th Judicial District Court
of Dallas County, Texas transferred and consolidated the Yeager
and Coggia Lawsuits into the Engel Lawsuit and captioned the
consolidated lawsuit as Engel v. Regency GP, LP, et al. (the
"Consolidated State Lawsuit").

On March 30, 2015, Leonard Cooperman, a purported Partnership
unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the
Partnership's common unitholders in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas (the "Cooperman
Lawsuit"). The allegations, claims, and relief sought in the
Cooperman Lawsuit are similar to those in the Blankman Lawsuit.

On March 31, 2015, the Court in United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas consolidated the Blankman, Bazini,
Hinnau, Weaver, Dieckman, and Berlin Lawsuits into a consolidated
lawsuit captioned Bazini v. Bradley, et al. (the "Consolidated
Federal Lawsuit"). On April 1, 2015, plaintiffs in the
Consolidated Federal Lawsuit filed an Emergency Motion to Expedite
Discovery. On April 9, 2015, by order of the Court, the parties
submitted a joint submission wherein defendants opposed plaintiffs
request to expedite discovery. On April 17, 2015, the Court denied
plaintiffs' motion to expedite discovery.

Each of these lawsuits is at a preliminary stage. The Partnership
cannot predict the outcome of these or any other lawsuits that
might be filed, nor can we predict the amount of time and expense
that will be required to resolve these lawsuits. The Partnership
and the other defendants named in the lawsuits intend to defend
vigorously against these and any other actions.


RJ REYNOLDS: Smoker's Family Wins $13.5-Mil. Jury Award
-------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a
team of South Florida attorneys have won a $13.5 million product
liability verdict against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. for the pain
and suffering of a smoker who died of cancer.

The Miami-Dade jury on July 13 awarded $4.95 million in
compensatory damages and $8.5 million in punitive damages to the
family of Carole Larkin, a longtime Winston smoker who died of
lung cancer in 2000.

That's a record award for smoker cases not sharing the benefits of
the so-called Engle findings approved by the Florida Supreme Court
when it disbanded a statewide class action in 2006.  The
plaintiffs' attorneys in Larkin's case had to prove claims of a
defective product, concealment and conspiracy to conceal.

Ms. Larkin was diagnosed with cancer in 1998.  The plaintiffs
sought relief for the pain and suffering she endured during the 19
months she lived with oral cancer, for which she had five
surgeries.

"She had to go through very radical surgery that removed her
jawbone from the corners of the lips down," said family attorney
Phil Gerson -- pgerson@gslawusa.com -- of Gerson & Schwartz in
Miami.  "Of course, all of her teeth, everything was sacrificed."

Ms. Larkin's widower, medical malpractice attorney Paul Larkin,
brought the lawsuit in 2002, four years before the Engle decision.
"Like everybody else, he just kind of sat on his case during those
years," Mr. Gerson said.

The case was tried in early 2012 as an Engle suit.  The jury
decided Carole Larkin was a member of the Engle class, but they
could not reach a decision on the allocation of fault between her
and the tobacco company.

Mr. Gerson agreed to take on the case as a non-Engle case.  For
class members, findings of product defect, negligence, fraudulent
concealment and conspiracy to conceal are established as a matter
of law.  In Ms. Larkin's case, those claims had to be proven anew.
The trial took three weeks before Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Lisa
Walsh.  The jury deliberated for more than nine hours before
delivering the compensatory damages verdict and for four hours on
punitive damages.

The jury found liability for product defect, fraudulent
concealment and conspiracy, and found that Ms. Larkin relied on
the tobacco company's fraud from when she started smoking in 1953
to when she quit in 1988.  The jury determined Ms. Larkin was 38
percent at fault and the tobacco company was 62 percent to blame
for the damages.

But because intentional wrongs were found, Ms. Larkin's estate can
collect on the full amount of compensatory and punitive damages,
Mr. Gerson said.

"This is the first time in the history of Florida outside of the
Engle class action that a jury has awarded punitive damages to a
smoker or a smoker's family," he added.

Ms. Larkin's estate was represented by Mr. Gerson and law partner
Ed Schwartz -- eschwartz@gslawusa.com -- as well as Gary Paige --
gpaige@fortheinjured.com -- of Gordon & Doner in Davie.

R.J. Reynolds was represented by Jones Day attorneys Jacqueline
Pasek -- jmpasek@jonesday.com -- and Katrina Caseldine --
klscaseldine@jonesday.com -- in Cleveland, Jose Isasi --
jisasi@jonesday.com -- in Chicago and Mark Seiden --
mrseiden@jonesday.com -- in New York, as well as Benjamine Reid --
breid@cfjblaw.com -- Douglas Chumbley -- dchumbley@cfjblaw.com --
and Olga Vieira -- ovieira@cfjblaw.com -- of Carlton Fields Jorden
Burt in Miami.

A spokesman for the company declined to comment.


ROCKET FUEL: Defendants Moved to Dismiss Consolidated Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rocket Fuel Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that all defendants have
moved to dismiss a consolidated class action complaint.

On September 3, 2014 and September 10, 2014, respectively, two
purported class actions were filed in the Northern District of
California against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors. The actions are Shah v. Rocket Fuel Inc., et al., Case
No. 4:14-cv-03998, and Mehrotra v. Rocket Fuel Inc., et al., Case
No. 4:14-cv-04114. The underwriters in the Company's initial
public offering on September 19, 2013 (the "IPO") and its
secondary offering on February 5, 2013 (the "Secondary Offering")
are also named as defendants. These actions were consolidated and
a consolidated complaint, In re Rocket Fuel Securities Litigation,
was filed on February 27, 2015.

The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants made false
and misleading statements about the ability of the Company's
technology to detect and eliminate fraudulent web traffic, and
about Rocket Fuel's future prospects. The consolidated complaint
also alleges that the Company's registration statements and
prospectuses for the IPO and the Secondary Offering contained
false and misleading statements on these topics. The consolidated
complaint purports to assert claims for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5, and for violations of Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities
Act"), on behalf of those who purchased the Company's common stock
between September 20, 2013 and August 5, 2014, inclusive, as well
as those who purchased stock in its initial public offering on
September 19, 2013, and a claim for violation of Section 12(a)(2)
of the Securities Act in connection with the Secondary Offering.
The consolidated complaint seeks monetary damages in an
unspecified amount. All defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on April 13, 2015. The Company intends to
vigorously defend itself against this purported class action.


ROCKWELL INT'L: Nuisance Claims Must Be Resolved, 10th Cir. Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Gannon at Courthouse News Service reports that a 25-year-old
challenge to pollution from a nuclear-weapons plant has boiled
down to a nuisance claim that must be resolved, the 10th Circuit
ruled June 23.

The well-written decision notes that the 1990 filing of the case
marks only a segment of a dispute that stretches back to the Cold
War when Dow Chemical began operating out of the Rocky Flats
plant, just 16 miles from downtown Denver, in 1952.

Rockwell International had taken over operations by the time the
plant down shut down in 1989 when an FBI raid revealed that plant
workers had mishandled radioactive waste for years.

In the wake of the government's criminal action, the plant's
neighbors brought their civil complaint, led by plaintiff Merilyn
Cook, seeking damages for their exposure to carcinogens and
obliterating their property values.

It took 15 years for the case to finally go to trial, but a jury's
$926 million verdict did not remain in place long.

In 2010, the 10th Circuit concluded that the damages could not
stand because they relied on violations of the Price-Anderson Act,
which allows plant owners to be held liable for a "nuclear
incident."

The plaintiffs have since conceded that a nuclear incident did not
occur, "but that does not mean the defendants are insulated from
any liability," Judge Neil Gorsuch wrote for a three-panel of the
federal appeals court June 23.

Gorsuch and his colleagues had to revisit the case because the
plaintiffs seek now to hold the plant operators liable under state
nuisance law.

Though the trial court sided with the companies, the 10th Circuit
vacated that judgment June 23, saying the "defendants have
identified no lawful impediment to the entry of a state law
nuisance judgment on the existing verdict."

"They have shown no preemption by federal law, no error in the
state law nuisance instructions, no mandate language specifically
precluding this course," Gorsuch wrote.  "No other error of any
kind is even now alleged.

Denouncing the "injustice" of now proceeding to a new trial after
all this time, the appellate panel called for the lower court to
reach a "judgment on the existing nuisance verdict promptly,
consistent with resolving the outstanding class action question,
wary of arguments that have already been rejected or forfeited."

"This long lingering litigation deserves to find resolution soon,"
Gorsuch added.

Judge Nancy Moritz concurred in the judgment to remand but split
from the panel on various details.

"The potential for retrial of the nuisance claim requires
consideration of the district court's alternative ruling that the
PAA preempted the plaintiffs' state law claims," she wrote.  "On
that issue I disagree with the majority's conclusion that the law
of the case precluded the defendants' preemption argument.  But
consistent with the majority, I would reject that argument."

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Merrill G. Davidoff, Esq.
          David F. Sorensen, Esq.
          Jennifer MacNaughton, Esq.
          Caitlin G. Coslett, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          Berger & Montague, P.C. Office
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (800) 424-6690
          Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
          E-mail: mdavidoff@bm.net
                  dsorensen@bm.net
                  jmacnaughton@bm.net
                  ccoslett@bm.net

               - and -

          Gary B. Blum, Esq.
          Steven W. Kelly, Esq.
          SILVER & DEBOSKEY, P.C.
          The Smith Mansion
          1801 York Street
          Denver, CO   80206
          Telephone: (303) 399-3000
          Facsimile: (303) 399-2650
          E-mail: blumg@s-d.com
                  skelly@s-d.com

The Defendants-Appellees are represented by:

          Christopher Landau, P.C., Esq.
          Rebecca Taibleson, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          655 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
          Washington, D.C. 20005-5793
          Telephone: (202) 879-5000
          Facsimile: (202) 879-5200
          E-mail: christopher.landau@kirkland.com
                  rebecca.taibleson@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Kevin T. Van Wart, Esq.
          Bradley H. Weidenhammer, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          300 North LaSalle
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 862-2000
          Facsimile: (312) 862-2200
          E-mail: kevin.vanwart@kirkland.com
                  bradley.weidenhammer@kirkland.com

The appellate case is Merilyn Cook; William Schierkolk, Jr.;
Delores Schierkolk; Richard Bartlett; Sally Bartlett; Lorren Babb;
Gertrude Babb, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Michael Dean Rice; Bank
Western; Thomas L. Deimer; Rhonda J. Deimer; Stephen Sandoval;
Peggy J. Sandoval, Plaintiffs v. Rockwell International
Corporation; Dow Chemical Company, Defendants-Appellees, Case No.
14-1112, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit.  The District Court case is Merilyn Cook, et al. v.
Rockwell International Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:90-CV-
00181-JLK, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Colorado.


ROKA BIOSCIENCE: Court Appointed Yedlowski as Lead Plaintiff
------------------------------------------------------------
Roka Bioscience, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the court has
appointed Stanley Yedlowski as lead plaintiff and The Rosen Law
Firm as lead counsel in the securities class action.

A putative securities class action captioned Ding v. Roka
Bioscience, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-8020, was filed against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey on December
24, 2014, on behalf of a putative class of persons and entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired securities pursuant or
traceable to the Company's IPO during the putative class period,
which ran from July 17 through November 6, 2014.  The complaint
asserts claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and contends that
the IPO Registration Statement was false and misleading, or
omitted allegedly material information, in connection with the
Company's statements about its placement of Atlas instruments and
its expectations of future growth and increased market share, and
the Company's alleged failure to disclose "known trends and
uncertainties about the Company's sales."  The alleged
misrepresentations and omissions purportedly came to light when
the Company issued its third-quarter 2014 earnings release on
November 6, 2014.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
two applicants filed motions on February 23, 2015 for appointment
as lead plaintiff.  On March 23, 2015, the applicant with the
smaller loss agreed not to oppose the application for lead
plaintiff filed by the applicant with the larger loss. The court
appointed Stanley Yedlowski as lead plaintiff and The Rosen Law
Firm as lead counsel on April 21, 2015. If lead plaintiff decides
to file an amended complaint, he was required to do so by June 23,
2015, and defendants will then respond to the operative complaint.
The parties had previously agreed, with the court's consent, that
defendants did not need to respond to the original complaint.

The Company believes that the claims in the securities class
action are without merit and intend to defend the litigation
vigorously, and the Company expects to incur costs associated with
defending the securities class action.


ROSS DRESS: Sued for Marking Clothes w/ Fake "Compare At" Prices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Ross Dress for Less stores
mark their clothes with bogus "compare at" prices that do not
truly reflect competitors' prices, a class action claims in
California Federal Court.


SAC CAPITAL: Seeks Information on Plaintiffs' Litigation Funders
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that SAC Capital
wants the firm to cough up details of its arrangements with
outside litigation funders.

A pair of heated discovery battles continues to simmer in a
securities class action stemming from insider trading at SAC
Capital Advisors.  For the second time, SAC's lawyers on July 10
sought to shed light on who's financing part of the plaintiffs
case.  Meanwhile, Mathew Martoma, the former SAC portfolio manager
convicted of insider trading, is fighting to avoid revealing if
the hedge fund covered some of his defense costs.

In separate filings on July 10, SAC and Mr. Martoma sought to undo
a June 26 discovery ruling by U.S. Magistrate Judge Kevin Fox. The
magistrate judge ordered Martoma to tell the plaintiffs whether
SAC indemnified him for defense costs. (Judge Fox didn't issue a
written opinion, so his reasoning is unclear.) At the same time,
he refused to force plaintiffs lawyers to disclose details about
their relationship with an unknown outside litigation funding
firm.  The plaintiffs had indicated that they had a funding source
in response to an early discovery request from SAC.

SAC is represented by Paul, Weiss, Rikind, Wharton & Garrison and
Willkie Farr & Gallagher, while Mr. Martoma is represented by
Goodwin Procter, which also represented him in his criminal trial.
In September, Mr. Martoma was sentenced to nine years in prison
after he was convicted of trading on inside information that an
Alzheimer's drug being developed by Wyeth Ltd. and Elan Corp. had
disappointing clinical trial results.  Mr. Martoma is appealing to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

Investors in Elan and Wyeth brought the class action alleging that
they lost money after SAC dumped its stock in the two drug
companies based on the inside tip.  The Wyeth investors are
represented by Scott + Scott and Motley Rice, and the Elan
investors are represented by Pomerantz and Wohl & Fruchter.  Only
the Elan lawyers have been asked to reveal their outside financing
arrangement.

In the July 10 filing, SAC maintains that information about the
plaintiffs' funders could be relevant to their pending motion for
class certification.  When Manhattan U.S. District Judge Victor
Marrero analyzes the adequacy of proposed class counsel, SAC
argues, he'll have to consider the lawyers' resources.

"It is critical that the Elan plaintiffs' unconventional funding
arrangement be evaluated now -- prior to the appointment of class
representatives and class counsel -- to avoid potential problems,"
SAC's lawyers wrote in their brief.  "If putative class members
only later learn, possibly years from now, that the funding
arrangement raises issues with the class representatives'
resources or adequacy, then that could have severe consequences."

Mr. Martoma's lawyers at Goodwin Procter, meanwhile, argued in a
brief that their client shouldn't have to turn over documents
concerning any indemnification by SAC.  The information is
irrelevant because it relates to defense costs for the criminal
case, they argue.

Wohl & Fruchter's Ethan Wohl declined to comment on July 13.   In
late May, plaintiffs lawyers described SAC's bid for information
on outside litigation funders as a ploy to "test the outer limits
of zealous advocacy."


SCAPA DRYER: $4MM Verdict in Knight Asbestos Case Hangs in Balance
------------------------------------------------------------------
Katheryn Hayes Tucker, writing for Daily Report, reports that five
years after he won a $10.5 million verdict, a man with a fatal
form of lung cancer called mesothelioma awaits a decision from the
Georgia Supreme Court on whether it will hear an appeal brought by
a manufacturing company where he worked that used asbestos.

A $4 million portion of the verdict -- now over $5 million with
interest -- hangs in the balance, along with either reversal or
vindication of a South Georgia trial court judge.

The 2010 trial in Ware County Superior Court over claims by Roy
Knight and his wife took a month.  The verdict went against three
defendants who either made or used asbestos.  One of them, Scapa
Dryer Fabrics Inc. -- whose portion of the judgment was just over
$4 million -- appealed, claiming a long list of errors by Waycross
Circuit Judge Michael DeVane.

The judge took harsh criticism from Scapa's defense attorney,
H. Lane Young II -- lyoung@hptylaw.com -- of Hawkins Parnell
Thackston & Young.  In a Daily Report article after the verdict,
Mr. Young called the jury "uneducated, improperly charged by the
court and hopelessly confused."  The veteran asbestos defense
attorney described the trial as the "most frustrating experience"
of his career because of the judge's inexperience with such
complex litigation.

The criticism of the judge was unfair and unfounded, according to
Mr. Knight's attorney, Robert Buck of the Buck Law Firm in
Atlanta, who tried the case with Christian Hartley of Mount
Pleasant, South Carolina.  Both are experienced asbestos
plaintiffs attorneys.

"He showed immense patience with the entire process," Mr. Buck
said of the judge.  He added that Judge DeVane never once lost his
judicial temperament in a month of long days of testimony and
evenings of hearing opposing lawyers argue over what was to be
presented to the jury the next day.

By a 5-2 vote, the Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed the verdict
on March 30, backing up the judge's calls on 11 of Scapa's 13
claims of error, and saying the other two were harmless.

Scapa challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the scientific
reliability of an expert witness' testimony, the lack of a hearing
prior to the admission of that expert testimony, the jury's
failure to allocate fault to other nonparties submitted on the
verdict form, and some of the jury charges and Judge DeVane's
evidentiary rulings.

Judge Christopher McFadden wrote for the majority that "there was
sufficient evidence to support the verdict, the expert witness'
testimony was scientifically reliable, a hearing as to the
admissibility of the testimony was not mandatory, the jury was not
required to allocate fault to others, and there has been no
showing of both harm and error as to any jury charge or
evidentiary rulings.  Accordingly, we affirm."

Presiding Judge Anne Barnes, Presiding Judge Sara Doyle, Judge
Michael Boggs and Judge William Ray II joined McFadden.

Presiding Judge Gary Andrews dissented, joined by Judge Elizabeth
Branch.  Judge Andrews framed his concerns around the testimony of
the plaintiff's expert witness, Dr. Jerrold Abraham, who said
there is no safe level of exposure to asbestos and that all
exposures to asbestos contribute to a diagnosis of mesothelioma.

"The Knights failed to produce reliable scientific testimony to
prove on the issue of specific causation that Mr. Knight's
exposure to asbestos at the Scapa Dryer Fabrics Inc. plant was a
contributing cause of his mesothelioma," Judge Andrews wrote.  He
also asserted that "the trial court erred by admitting unreliable
expert testimony on the issue of specific causation." Andrews said
the judgment should be reversed and the case should be remanded
for a new trial.

Mr. Knight, who is 75 and increasingly weakened by the disease and
chemotherapy, may not be able to endure a new trial, according to
his attorney.  "Most of my clients die before I can ever get their
case to trial," Mr. Buck said.  He added that delay is a defense
strategy because the amount awarded to the family drops after the
plaintiff's death.

If the high court approves Scapa's request to review the Court of
Appeals' decision, arguments will likely revolve around the expert
testimony that formed the basis of Andrews' dissent.
In an interview, Mr. Young said Mr. Buck's expert dispensed "junk
science."

"It's absolutely dead wrong that there is no safe level of
exposure to asbestos," he said. "I think the issue is can you get
to the jury by saying all exposures contribute" to mesothelioma.

Mr. Buck responded that Mr. Young's scientific evidence is
"fiction."

"If you look at real-world scientists, we cite 109 different
uncompensated leading scientists who all agree with Dr. Abraham."
They will have a chance to argue again if the high court decides
to hear the appeal.  If the Supreme Court says no, "Then it's
over," Mr. Young said.  The Court of Appeals decision -- and the
verdict reached in DeVane's court -- will stand.

The Supreme Court case is Scapa v. Knight, A14A1587.


SIGNAL INT'L: Bankruptcy Plan Sets Aside $20MM for Guest Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that when Crowell &
Moring convinced a jury in February that Signal International
mistreated five Indian guest workers brought in to repair oil rigs
after Hurricane Katrina, the win was also good news for more than
200 workers who had filed 11 similar cases and were awaiting
trial.  But their prospects dimmed when the marine services
company stated that it might be headed for bankruptcy, endangering
the plaintiffs' potential recovery.

Now, with the company filing for Chapter 11 on July 13, those
workers look closer to getting some compensation.  In a filing in
Delaware federal bankruptcy court, Signal proposed that $20
million be set aside to resolve the guest workers' claims. This
plan must be approved by U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Mary Walrath.

Signal was accused in a 2008 lawsuit of luring hundreds of Indian
workers to aid in Katrina cleanup efforts under false promises
that they'd get permanent residency in the U.S.  When the workers
arrived, they were allegedly forced to live in squalid and cramped
conditions in guarded facilities along the Gulf Coast.

The litigation was initially filed as a putative class action, but
the district court refused to certify a class, leaving the
plaintiffs to proceed with separate lawsuits.  The Southern
Poverty Law Center took the lead for the workers, partnering with
several law firms, including Crowell & Moring; Latham & Watkins;
Skadden, Arps, Slate Meagher & Flom; and McDermott Will & Emery.

Early this year, Crowell & Moring's Alan Howard --
ahoward@crowell.com -- took the lead for a group of five workers
in the first of what would have been about a dozen trials,
resulting in a $14.1 million jury verdict.  The district court
lowered the judgment to $12 million.  Shortly after, the company's
defense lawyers at New Orleans-based Hangartner, Rydberg, Terrell
& Hart indicated that Signal might be headed toward bankruptcy
before a second trial could take place. (The second trial -- in
which a team from Latham was set to present the plaintiffs' case
-- never happened.)

In its Chapter 11 filings made on July 13, the company lists
Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor as bankruptcy counsel and Hogan
Lovells as general corporate counsel.  Signal indicated that it
has as much as $100 million in liabilities, and less than $50
million in assets.  The company also said it had paid about $20
million toward legal expenses since 2008, although not all of that
was related to the trafficking litigation.

Under the proposed settlement of the trafficking cases, Signal
would pay between $20 million and $22 million into a trust that
could be divvied up among the plaintiffs, including the workers
who won the first trial.  The payout is expected to cover most of
the Indian guest workers employed by Signal.

Jim Knoepp, deputy legal director of the Southern Poverty Law
Center, said he's pleased with the settlement, saying that it
brings the Indian workers a step closer to the justice they've
been seeking over the past eight years.

Lawyers for Signal didn't immediately respond to a request for
comment on July 14.

Other firms that represented plaintiff workers include Covington &
Burling; DLA Piper; Fredrikson & Byron; Kaye Scholer; Kilpatrick
Townsend & Stockton; Manatt, Phelps & Phillips; and Sutherland
Asbill & Brennan.


SPARK NETWORKS: Asks Judicial Counsel to Coordinate Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Networks, Inc. has submitted a petition to the Judicial
Council of California seeking an order coordinating the litigation
of the cases Werner, et al. v. Spark Networks, Inc. and Spark
Networks USA, LLC and Wright, et al. v. Spark Networks, Inc.,
Spark Networks USA, LLC, et al., the Company said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

On July 19, 2013, Aaron Werner, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated individuals, filed a putative Class Action
Complaint (the "Werner Complaint") in the Superior Court for the
State of California, County of Los Angeles against Spark Networks,
Inc. and Spark Networks USA, LLC (collectively "Spark Networks").
The Werner Complaint alleges that Spark Networks' website
ChristianMingle.com violates California's Unruh Civil Rights Act
(the "Unruh Act") by allegedly discriminating on the basis of
sexual orientation.  The Werner Complaint requests the following
relief: an injunction, statutory, general, compensatory, treble
and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and costs, pre-judgment
interest, and an award for any other relief the Court deems just
and appropriate.

On December 23, 2013, Richard Wright, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated individuals, filed a putative Class
Action Complaint (the "Wright Complaint") in the Superior Court
for the State of California, County of San Francisco against Spark
Networks, Inc.  The Wright Complaint alleges that Spark Networks,
Inc.'s commercial dating services including ChristianMingle.com,
LDSSingles.com, CatholicMingle.com, BlackSingles.com,
MilitarySinglesConnection.com and AdventistSinglesConnection.com
violate the Unruh Act by allegedly intentionally and arbitrarily
discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.  The Wright
Complaint requests the following relief: a declaratory judgment, a
preliminary and permanent injunction, statutory penalties,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, pre-judgment interest, and
an award for any other relief the Court deems just and
appropriate.

On March 11, 2015, Spark Networks submitted a petition to the
Judicial Council of California seeking an order coordinating the
litigation of the Werner Complaint and the Wright Complaint and
assigning the coordinated matter to the judge assigned to the
Werner matter in Los Angeles County's complex court; the petition
was slated to be heard on May 15, 2015.


SPARK NETWORKS: Asks Court for Leave to Reply to ICC Opinion
------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Networks, Inc., is asking the Court for leave to reply to
the ICC opinion in the case, Jacob vs. Spark Networks (Israel)
Ltd., Gever vs. Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd. and Korland vs. Spark
Networks (Israel) Ltd., the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

Three class action law suits have been filed in Israel alleging
violations of the Israel Consumer Protection Law of 1981.  Spark
was served with a Statement of Claim and a Motion to Certify it as
a Class Action in the Ben-Jacob action on January 14, 2014.  The
plaintiff alleges that Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd. refused to
cancel her subscription and provide a refund for unused periods
and claims that such a refusal is in violation of the Consumer
Protection Law.  Spark was served with a Statement of Claim and a
motion to Certify it as a Class Action in the Gever action on
January 21, 2014.  The plaintiff alleges that Spark Networks
(Israel) Ltd. renewed his one month subscription without receiving
his positive agreement in advance and claims that such renewal is
prohibited under the Consumer Protection Law.

Spark was served with a Statement of Claim and a Motion to Certify
it as a Class Action in the Korland action on February 12, 2014.
The plaintiff alleges that Spark Networks (Israel) Ltd. refused to
give her a full refund and charged her the price of a one month
subscription to the JDate website in violation of the Consumer
Protection Law.  In each of these three cases, the plaintiff is
seeking personal damages and damages on behalf of a defined group.

On May 8, 2014, the Court granted Spark's motion to consolidate
all three cases. All three cases are now consolidated and will be
litigated jointly. Spark's combined response to their motions to
certify the classes was filed November 1, 2014, 2014 and the
plaintiffs responded to the combined response. The parties had a
hearing before the judge on December 24, 2014.  Following the
hearing the judge ordered that the pleadings filed by the parties
be transferred to the Israel Consumer Council ("ICC") so that the
ICC can provide its position as to the parties allegations within
90 days. The ICC issued its opinion on April 1, 2015.  Spark is
asking the Court for leave to reply to the ICC opinion.


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: Received $40 Million From Insurer
---------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 4, 2015, that during the first
quarter of 2015, the Company received insurance recoveries of $40
million related to the March 2010 Securities Class Action
Litigation.

In March 2010, a securities lawsuit seeking class action status
was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against the
Company and certain officers (collectively, the defendants) on
behalf of purchasers of St. Jude Medical common stock between
April 22, 2009 and October 6, 2009. The lawsuit relates to the
Company's earnings announcements for the first, second and third
quarters of 2009, as well as a preliminary earnings release dated
October 6, 2009. The complaint, which seeks unspecified damages
and other relief as well as attorneys' fees, alleges that the
defendants failed to disclose that it was experiencing a slowdown
in demand for its products and was not receiving anticipated
orders for cardiac rhythm management devices. Class members allege
that the defendant's failure to disclose the above information
resulted in the class purchasing St. Jude Medical stock at an
artificially inflated price.

In December 2011, the Court issued a decision denying a motion to
dismiss filed by the defendants in October 2010. In October 2012,
the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify the case as a
class action and the discovery phase of the case closed in
September 2013.

In October 2013, the defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment. In November 2014, the defendants filed a motion for
leave to proceed with a motion to decertify the class, which the
Court denied in December 2014.

On February 18, 2015, the parties entered into a written
settlement agreement resolving the case, pending notification to
class members and subject to court approval. Under the settlement,
the Company agreed to make a payment of $50 million to resolve all
of the class claims and recorded a charge of that amount during
the fourth quarter of 2014.

The Company had estimated its damages exposure on the claims
alleged to be approximately $475 million. A preliminary order
approving the settlement was entered by the District Court on
March 9, 2015. The final settlement approval hearing was to take
place on June 12, 2015.

During the first quarter of 2015, the Company received insurance
recoveries of $40 million. The Company intends to pursue
collection of additional insurance recoveries from one of its
insurance carriers.


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: To File Response on Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 4, 2015, that in the December 2012
Securities Litigation, the Company will file a response, and a
hearing before the Court on the plaintiffs' class certification
will be scheduled at some point in the future.

On December 7, 2012, a putative securities class action lawsuit
was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against the
Company and an officer (collectively, the defendants) for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws, on behalf of all
purchasers of the publicly traded securities of the defendants
between October 17, 2012 and November 20, 2012. The complaint,
which sought unspecified damages and other relief as well as
attorneys' fees, challenges the Company's disclosures concerning
its high voltage cardiac rhythm lead products during the purported
class period.

On December 10, 2012, a second putative securities class action
lawsuit was filed in federal district court in Minnesota against
the Company and certain officers for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws, on behalf of all purchasers of the
publicly traded securities of the Company between October 19, 2011
and November 20, 2012. The second complaint alleged similar claims
and sought similar relief.

In March 2013, the Court consolidated the two cases and appointed
a lead counsel and lead plaintiff. A consolidated amended
complaint was served and filed in June 2013, alleging false or
misleading representations made during the class period extending
from February 5, 2010 through November 7, 2012. In September 2013,
the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint.

On March 10, 2014, the Court ruled on the motion to dismiss,
denying the motion in part and granting the motion in part. On
October 7, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint. Like the original consolidated amended complaint, the
plaintiffs did not assert any specific amount of compensation in
the second amended complaint.

The plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on
January 15, 2015. The Company will file a response, and a hearing
before the Court on the plaintiffs' class certification will be
scheduled at some point in the future. The Company intends to
continue to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in this
matter.


STATE STREET: Plaintiffs to Recover Share of Portion of Revenue
---------------------------------------------------------------
State Street Corporation expects that plaintiffs in class action
lawsuits will seek to recover their share of all or a portion of
the revenue that the Company has recorded from indirect foreign
exchange trades, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

In February 2011, a putative class action was filed in federal
court in Boston seeking unspecified damages, including treble
damages, on behalf of all custodial clients that executed certain
foreign exchange transactions with State Street from 1998 to 2009.
The putative class action alleges, among other things, that the
rates at which State Street executed foreign currency trades
constituted an unfair and deceptive practice under Massachusetts
law and a breach of the duty of loyalty.

Two other putative class actions are currently pending in federal
court in Boston alleging various violations of ERISA on behalf of
all ERISA plans custodied with us that executed indirect foreign
exchange trades with State Street from 1998 onward. The complaints
allege that State Street caused class members to pay unfair and
unreasonable rates on indirect foreign exchange trades with State
Street. The complaints seek unspecified damages, disgorgement of
profits, and other equitable relief. Other claims may be asserted
in the future, including in response to developments in the
actions discussed above or governmental proceedings.

"We expect that plaintiffs will seek to recover their share of all
or a portion of the revenue that we have recorded from indirect
foreign exchange trades. We cannot predict whether a court, in the
event of an adverse resolution, would consider our revenue to be
the appropriate measure of damages," the Company said.


STELLA & CHEWY'S: Recalls Dog and Cat Food Due to Listeria
----------------------------------------------------------
Stella & Chewy's is voluntarily recalling some of its products due
to concerns of a possible presence of Listeria Monocytogenes. The
recall was prompted by a positive test confirming Listeria
monocytogenes in Chewy's Chicken Freeze-Dried Dinner Patties for
Dogs, 15 ounce, Lot #111-15, during routine surveillance testing
by the Maryland Department of Agriculture.

There have been no reported pet or human illnesses associated with
this recall.

Listeria is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals
may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe
headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, listeria
infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant
women.

As a precautionary measure, Stella & Chewy's is voluntarily
recalling all products nationwide from
Lot # 111-15 which includes:

  Product Description   Size   UPC            Lot #     Use By
  -------------------   ----   ---            -----     ------
  Freeze-Dried        15 oz. 186011000045   111-15   4/23/2016
  Chewy's Chicken                                       and
  Dinner for Dogs                                       4/26/2016
  Freeze-Dried        12 oz. 186011000434   111-15   4/29/2016
  Chick, Chick,                                         and
  Chicken Dinner for                                    5/3/2016
  Cats
  Carnivore  Crunch-  3.25   186011001103   111-15   5/3/2016
  Turkey  Recipe        oz.                             and
                                                        5/4/2016
  Frozen Duck Duck      4 lb.  186011001394   111-15   4/21/2016
  Goose Dinner
  Morsels  for  Dogs    4 lb.  186011001387   111-15   4/21/2016
  Frozen  Chewy's
  Chicken  Dinner
  Morsels  for  Dogs    6 lb.  186011000533   111-15   4/21/2016
  Frozen  Surf 'N
  Turf Dinner Patties for
  Dogs
  Frozen Chewy's        6 lb.  186011000120   111-15   4/21/2016
  Chicken Dinner Patties
  for Dogs
  Frozen Chewy's        3 lb.  186011000038   111-15   4/21/2016
  Chicken Dinner Patties
  for Dogs

Moreover, while the below listed product has not tested positive
for Listeria monocytogenes, in an abundance of caution, we are
also recalling the following products which may have come into
contact with the affected lot:

  Product Description   Size   UPC            Lot #     Use By
  -------------------   ----   ---            -----     ------
  Freeze-Dried        18 oz. 186011000229   105-15   5/3/2016
  Tantalizing Turkey
  Meal Mixers
  Freeze-Dried        9 oz.  186011000205   105-15   5/3/2016
  Tantalizing Turkey
  Meal Mixers
  Freeze-Dried Chick, 12 oz. 186011000434   109-15   4/29/2016
  Chick, Chicken
  Dinner  for  Cats
  Freeze-Dried Chick, 12 oz. 186011000434   104-15   4/23/2016
  Chick, Chicken
  Dinner for Cats
  Carnivore Crunch-   3.25   186011001080   110-15   5/3/2016
  Chicken Recipe        oz.
  Freeze-Dried        18 oz. 186011000229   113-15   5/3/2016
  Tantalizing  Turkey
  Meal  Mixers
  Freeze-Dried        15 oz. 186011000045   114-15   4/26/2016
  Chewy's Chicken
  Dinners for Dogs
  Freeze-Dried Tummy  12 oz. 186011000663   114-15   5/4/2016
  Ticklin' Turkey
  Dinner for  Cats
  Freeze-Dried Tummy  12 oz. 186011000663   115-15   5/4/2016
  Ticklin' Turkey
  Dinner  for  Cats
  Freeze-Dried Salmon 12 oz. 186011000403   107-15   4/23/2016
  & Chicken Dinner for
  Cats

Retailers and consumers can find the full product recall list at
http://www.stellaandchewys.com/stella-chewys-recall-notice/.

Consumers should look at the lot numbers and UPC codes printed on
the bag to determine if it's subject to the recall. People who
have purchased these products are instructed to dispose of the
food or return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.


STEPHEN P LAMB: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tina D. Gentry, individually and on behalf of others simlarly
situated v. Law Office of Stephen P. Lamb, Case No. 6:15-cv-06059-
RTD (W.D. Ark., June 8, 2015) accuses the Defendant of violating
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Greenwald, Esq.
          GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
          5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 826-5477
          Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
          E-mail: mgreenwald@gdrlawfirm.com


SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Has Affirmative Defenses in FLSA Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company has
filed an answer with affirmative defenses and is vigorously
defending the claims asserted in the Fair Labor Standards Act
Litigation.

On January 14, 2015, Patricia Struett, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, filed suit against Susquehanna
Bancshares, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Docket No. 15-cv-00176-JFL. The
Plaintiffs' complaint is a purported collective and class action
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and
the New Jersey Wage and Hour Laws and Regulations. The Plaintiffs
allege the potential collective and class members worked as
Residential Mortgage Bankers who were improperly classified as
exempt from the overtime pay requirements of the FLSA and state
law and who worked more than 40 hours in any week without
receiving all overtime compensation required by the FLSA and state
law.

This legal proceeding is in its early stages. Susquehanna filed an
answer with affirmative defenses and is vigorously defending the
claims asserted. It is not yet possible for us to estimate
potential loss, if any. Although it is not possible to predict the
ultimate resolution of financial liability with respect to this
litigation, management, after consultation with legal counsel,
currently does not anticipate that the aggregate liability, if
any, arising out of this proceeding will have a material adverse
effect on our results of operation, financial position, or cash
flows.


SUSQUEHANNA BANCSHARES: Inks MOU to Settle BB&T Merger Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Susquehanna Bancshares, 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 defendants in the
class action lawsuits related to Susquehanna's merger with BB&T
have entered into a memorandum of understanding with the
plaintiffs in the demands and actions regarding the settlement of
those demands and actions.

Nine individuals claiming to be shareholders of Susquehanna have
made seven separate demands under Pennsylvania law on
Susquehanna's board of directors, requesting the board to remedy
alleged failures to engage in an independent and fair process in
connection with Susquehanna's pending merger with BB&T (the
"Merger"). Eight of these individuals have filed six separate
purported shareholder class action and derivative lawsuits
challenging the Merger and alleging, among other things, that
Susquehanna's directors failed to fulfill their fiduciary duties
with regard to the Merger. Certain of the complaints also allege
that the preliminary Form S-4 filed by BB&T on December 15, 2014
provides inadequate and/or materially misleading information. The
plaintiffs seek, among other things, injunctive relief to prevent
the consummation of Susquehanna's merger with BB&T or, in the
event the Merger is consummated, monetary damages.

On December 30, 2014, Plaintiffs Wayne Waldeck and Linda and Wade
Burkholder filed a motion seeking to consolidate their actions and
any other related shareholder actions under the caption In re
Susquehanna Bancshares, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, No. CI-14-
10817 and to appoint interim co-lead plaintiffs' counsel. The
Court granted that motion on January 26, 2015.

On February 25, 2015, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs in the demands and actions
regarding the settlement of those demands and actions.
Susquehanna, BB&T, and the other defendants deny all of the
allegations made in the demands and the actions and believe the
disclosures in the Proxy Statement are adequate under the law.
Nevertheless, Susquehanna, BB&T, and the other defendants have
agreed to settle those demands and actions in order to avoid the
costs, disruption, and distraction of further litigation.


TAKATA CORP: Airbag Defect Compensation Fund Still Uncertain
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that talk of a compensation fund for victims of Takata Corp.'s
faulty air bags might not carry the same allure as General Motors
Co.'s plan to address ignition-switch defects, plaintiffs lawyers
said.

A defect in its air bags linked to eight deaths prompted Takata in
May to recall nearly 34 million vehicles from 11 automakers.
During a June 23 hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce,
Science and Transportation, U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal,
D-Connecticut, asked a top Takata executive to set up a victim
compensation fund.

Kevin Kennedy, executive vice president of North America at TK
Holdings Inc., Takata's U.S. unit, acknowledging that more deaths
were likely because many of the defective parts remained "in the
field," agreed to provide an answer about a fund within two weeks.

On June 25, chief executive officer Shigehisa Takada said during a
news conference following the company's annual shareholder meeting
that he was considering such a fund.

But it is far from a sure bet.

"For it to start a compensation fund, it needs to make it
attractive enough to draw people to use it," said Peter Henning, a
professor at Wayne State University Law School in Detroit who is
following the Takata and GM litigation.  "And at this point,
whether that path is open or not is questionable."

To be sure, the GM fund, which is uncapped but limited to certain
vehicles and injuries, was initially criticized by plaintiffs
attorneys.  So far, the fund had rejected 3,027 of the 4,342
claims submitted.

But there are other differences.  For one, GM had a strategic
advantage in that its 2009 bankruptcy could bar many of the
lawsuits.

"That limited its exposure to damages and essentially let it run
its compensation fund as a 'take it or leave it' proposition,"
Mr. Henning said.  "That's not true for Takata.  There is another,
potentially more expensive, game in town, which is federal
district court or state courts."

Rich Newsome, senior partner at Newsome Melton in Orlando, who
leads a coalition of attorneys who have filed suits in state
courts in Florida on behalf of about 20 alleged Takata victims,
called a compensation fund "a lot more bureaucracy and unnecessary
red tape."  He said he hoped to begin depositions of Takata
executives as soon as September.

"Until we start to put people under oath, we won't know the whole
story," he said.

One sticking point is that Takata has yet to acknowledge a
specific root cause.  Plaintiffs lawyers have blamed the ruptures
on Takata's use of ammonium nitrate, a cheap but volatile
chemical, but Kennedy has insisted in hearings on Capitol Hill
that ammonium nitrate, while a factor, isn't the root cause of the
exploding inflators.

"How do you set up a compensation fund to compensate people for a
defect when you're saying you don't know what the defect is?" said
Kevin Dean -- kdean@motleyrice.com -- of Mount Pleasant, South
Carolina-based Motley Rice, who has filed eight lawsuits against
Takata.  "At least with GM, they admitted and came forward and
said this ignition switch as a whole is bad."

Takata also faces financial constraints. In its annual report last
month, the company reported a $240 million net loss.  A victim
fund could be expensive to administer, Mr. Dean said, particularly
if run by attorney Kenneth Feinberg, who is handling GM's fund.

Some lawyers predicted that the number and magnitude of the
injuries wouldn't be as big as GM's. GM's fund has compensated for
119 deaths and 243 injuries, including brain damage or paraplegia.

In many cases against Takata, the air bags have exploded, sending
shrapnel at drivers.  But a June 15 amended complaint cited
injuries such as cuts, fractures or blindness.

"Even though 34 million vehicles have been recalled, there
probably have not been -- fortunately -- as many serious injuries
or deaths if you take that and compare it to the ignition-switch
problem," said Jere Beasley, principal and founder of Beasley,
Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles in Montgomery, whose firm
hasn't filed any cases against Takata but is investigating about a
dozen of them.


TD BANK: "Mingrone" Suit Consolidated in Debit Card Overdraft MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Mingrone v. TD Bank, National
Association, Case No. 1:15-cv-02897, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York to the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina (Greenville).
The South Carolina District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:15-cv-
02293-BHH to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: TD Bank, N.A., Debit Card Overdraft Fee
Litigation, MDL No. 6:15-mn-02613-BHH.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions relating to
the imposition of overdraft fees by TD Bank on its customers'
checking accounts in a manner that, according to the Plaintiffs,
improperly results in maximizing the amount of these fees.  The
actions focus on TD Bank's overdraft fee practices following its
settlement of similar claims that had been transferred to an
earlier MDL.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Y. Lewis, Esq.
          FREEMAN LEWIS LLP
          228 East 45th Street, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 980-4084
          Facsimile: (212) 980-4055


TOP RANK: Removes "Elstein" Suit to Southern District of Florida
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Elstein v. Top Rank, Inc., et
al., Case No. CACE-15-007929, was removed from the 17th Judicial
Circuit in Broward County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida (Ft. Lauderdale).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:15-cv-61219-RNS to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Matthew Lewis, Esq.
          Todd Robert Falzone, Esq.
          KELLEY UUSTAL, PLC
          700 SE 3rd Avenue, Suite 300
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 522-6601
          Facsimile: (954) 522-6608
          E-mail: jml@kulaw.com
                  jody@kulegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David Michael Gersten, Esq.
          Lori P. Lustrin, Esq.
          BILZIN SUMBERG BAENA PRICE & AXELROD LLP
          1450 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2300
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 350-7230
          Facsimile: (305) 351-2211
          E-mail: dgersten@bilzin.com
                  llustrin@bilzin.com


TOP RANK: Removes "Hurwitz" Suit to California District Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Hurwitz v. Pacquiao, et al., Case
No. BC581191, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California (Western Division -
Los Angeles).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-
04319 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit asserts fraud-related claims.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Barker, Esq.
          Daniel M. Petrocelli, Esq.
          O'MELVENY AND MYERS LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 700
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6045
          Telephone: (310) 553-6700
          Facsimile: (310) 246-6779
          E-mail: jbarker@omm.com
                  dpetrocelli@omm.com


TOTAL SYSTEM: 2nd Amended Complaint Filed in Telexfree Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total System Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that plaintiffs in the
Telexfree Matter filed a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint
(the "Second Amended Complaint"), which amends and supersedes the
Consolidated Complaint.

ProPay, Inc. ("ProPay"), a subsidiary of the Company, has been
named as one of a number of defendants (including other merchant
processors) in several purported class action lawsuits relating to
the activities of Telexfree, Inc. and its affiliates and
principals. Telexfree is a former merchant customer of ProPay.
With regard to Telexfree, each purported class action lawsuit
generally alleges that Telexfree engaged in an improper multi-tier
marketing scheme involving voice-over Internet protocol telephone
services. The plaintiffs in each of the purported class action
complaints generally allege that the various merchant processor
defendants, including ProPay, knowingly furthered the improper
activities of Telexfree with knowledge that Telexfree did not have
legitimate business operations. Telexfree filed for bankruptcy
protection in Nevada. The bankruptcy was subsequently transferred
to the Massachusetts Bankruptcy Court.

Specifically, ProPay has been named as one of a number of
defendants (including other merchant processors) in each of the
following purported class action complaints relating to Telexfree:
(i) Waldermara Martin, et al. v. TelexFree, Inc., et al. (Case No.
BK-S-14-12524-ABL) filed on May 3, 2014 in the United States
Bankruptcy Court District of Nevada, (ii) Anthony Cellucci, et al.
v. TelexFree, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 4:14-BK-40987) filed on May
15, 2014 in the United States Bankruptcy Court District of
Massachusetts, (iii) Maduako C. Ferguson Sr., et al. v.
Telexelectric, LLLP, et. al (Case No. 5:14-CV-00316-D) filed on
June 5, 2014 in the United States District Court of North
Carolina, (iv) Todd Cook v. TelexElectric LLLP et al. (Case No.
2:14-CV-00134), filed on June 24, 2014 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, (v) Felicia
Guevara v. James M. Merrill et al., CA No. 1:14-cv-22405-DPG),
filed on June 27, 2014 in the United State District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, and (vi) Reverend Jeremiah Githere,
et al. v. TelexElectric LLLP et al. (Case No. 1:14-CV-12825-GAO),
filed on June 30, 2014 in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (together, the "Actions"). A motion to
consolidate the Actions was filed by one of the plaintiffs. On
October 21, 2014, the Actions were transferred to and consolidated
before the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. After the consolidation motion was filed, an
additional class action complaint was filed on August 20, 2014, in
the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of
Massachusetts, Paulo Eduardo Ferrari et al. v. Telexfree, Inc. et
al. (Case No. 14-04080). The Ferrari action was later transferred
to the District of Massachusetts. To date, ProPay has not been
served with the Ferrari complaint.

The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel on behalf of the putative class
of plaintiffs in the consolidated action. On March 31, 2015, the
plaintiffs filed a First Consolidated Amended Complaint (the
"Consolidated Complaint"). The Consolidated Complaint purports to
bring claims on behalf of all persons who purchased certain
TelexFree "memberships" and suffered a "net loss" between January
1, 2012 and April 16, 2014. The Consolidated Complaint supersedes
the complaints filed prior to consolidation of the Actions, and
alleges that ProPay aided and abetted tortious acts committed by
TelexFree, and that ProPay was unjustly enriched in the course of
providing payment processing services to TelexFree.

On April 30, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint"), which amends
and supersedes the Consolidated Complaint. Like the Consolidated
Complaint, the Second Amended Complaint generally alleges that
ProPay aided and abetted tortious acts committed by TelexFree, and
that ProPay was unjustly enriched in the course of providing
payment processing services to TelexFree. ProPay has not yet
responded to the Second Amended Complaint.


TRINET GROUP: Named as Defendant in Worksite Employees Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
TriNet Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company has been
named as a defendant in various class action lawsuits arising from
the nature of its relationship with its worksite employees, or
WSEs.

"Management is currently unable to estimate a possible loss or
range of loss for these class action lawsuits," the Company said.
"However, at this stage of the lawsuits, management currently
believes that none of the pending legal proceedings or claims is
reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on our
financial position, results of operations or cash flows.
Nevertheless, regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an
adverse impact on us because of defense costs, diversion of
management resources and other factors."


TRUSTMARK CORP: Oct. 5 Deadline to Complete Class Cert. Briefing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trustmark 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 in the class action
lawsuits against Trustmark National Bank (TNB), the court has
entered an order authorizing the parties to conduct discovery
regarding class certification and setting a deadline of October 5,
2015 for the parties to complete briefing on class certification
issues.

Trustmark's wholly-owned subsidiary, TNB, has been named as a
defendant in two lawsuits related to the collapse of the Stanford
Financial Group.  The first is a purported class action complaint
that was filed on August 23, 2009 in the District Court of Harris
County, Texas, by Peggy Roif Rotstain, Guthrie Abbott, Catherine
Burnell, Steven Queyrouze, Jaime Alexis Arroyo Bornstein and Juan
C. Olano (collectively, "Class Plaintiffs"), on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, naming TNB and four
other financial institutions unaffiliated with Trustmark as
defendants.  The complaint seeks to recover (i) alleged fraudulent
transfers from each of the defendants in the amount of fees and
other monies received by each defendant from entities controlled
by R. Allen Stanford (collectively, the "Stanford Financial
Group") and (ii) damages allegedly attributable to alleged
conspiracies by one or more of the defendants with the Stanford
Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and abet fraud on the
asserted grounds that defendants knew or should have known the
Stanford Financial Group was conducting an illegal and fraudulent
scheme.  Plaintiffs have demanded a jury trial.  Plaintiffs did
not quantify damages.

In November 2009, the lawsuit was removed to federal court by
certain defendants and then transferred by the United States Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation to federal court in the Northern
District of Texas (Dallas) where multiple Stanford related matters
are being consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.  In May 2010,
all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to dismiss the
lawsuit.  In August 2010, the court authorized and approved the
formation of an Official Stanford Investors Committee ("OSIC") to
represent the interests of Stanford investors and, under certain
circumstances, to file legal actions for the benefit of Stanford
investors.

In December 2011, the OSIC filed a motion to intervene in this
action.  In September 2012, the district court referred the case
to a magistrate judge for hearing and determination of certain
pretrial issues.  In December 2012, the court granted the OSIC's
motion to intervene, and the OSIC filed an Intervenor Complaint
against one of the other defendant financial institutions.

In February 2013, the OSIC filed an additional Intervenor
Complaint that asserts claims against TNB and the remaining
defendant financial institutions.  The OSIC seeks to recover: (i)
alleged fraudulent transfers in the amount of the fees each of the
defendants allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group, the
profits each of the defendants allegedly made from Stanford
Financial Group deposits, and other monies each of the defendants
allegedly received from Stanford Financial Group; (ii) damages
attributable to alleged conspiracies by each of the defendants
with the Stanford Financial Group to commit fraud and/or aid and
abet fraud and conversion on the asserted grounds that the
defendants knew or should have known the Stanford Financial Group
was conducting an illegal and fraudulent scheme; and (iii)
punitive damages.  The OSIC did not quantify damages.

In July 2013, all defendants (including TNB) filed motions to
dismiss the OSIC's claims.  In March 2015, the court entered an
order authorizing the parties to conduct discovery regarding class
certification and setting a deadline of October 5, 2015 for the
parties to complete briefing on class certification issues.

In April 2015, the court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motions to dismiss the Class Plaintiffs' claims and
the OSIC's claims.  The court dismissed all of the Class
Plaintiffs' fraudulent transfer claims and dismissed certain of
the OSIC's fraudulent transfer claims.  The court denied the
defendants' motions to dismiss in all other regards.


TRUSTMARK CORP: Overdraft Actions Against TNB Settled, Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trustmark 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 Trustmark National
Bank (TNB), was the defendant in two putative class actions
challenging TNB's practices regarding "overdraft" or "non-
sufficient funds" fees charged by TNB in connection with customer
use of debit cards, including TNB's order of processing
transactions, notices and calculations of charges, and
calculations of fees.  Both of those cases have now been dismissed
pursuant to a court-approved class action settlement.  The period
has ended in which any party could appeal the order approving the
settlement.


TURN INC: Faces Privacy Class Action Over "Supercookies"
--------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that plaintiffs
lawyers at Kabateck Brown Kellner have jumped into a spate of
privacy litigation against Redwood City's Turn Inc. with a class
action claiming that the digital marketing company tracked and
stored the Internet browsing histories of Verizon Wireless Inc.
customers.

According to a complaint filed on June 19 in Los Angeles Superior
Court, Verizon injected unique tracking numbers into subscribers'
browser requests when they accessed websites through the company's
mobile network.

The Kabateck lawyers maintain that Turn attached a so-called
supercookie to those tracking numbers to log subscriber activity,
build personal profiles and sell targeted ads.  The supercookies
would regenerate even if users deleted them from their mobile
devices, according to the complaint.

The lawsuit, which includes claims of trespass, invasion of
privacy and violations of California's Unfair Competition Act,
asks that Turn pay restitution and damages.  The suit also seeks
an injunction barring the company from continuing to collect,
store and sell Verizon customers' browsing patterns.

The suit filed on June 19 is one of a number Turn and Verizon have
faced since the existence of the supercookie was first reported by
Pro Publica in January.  Plaintiffs firm Clanton Legal Group sued
both Verizon and Turn in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Mississippi on behalf of all U.S. Verizon customers in
February, but voluntarily dismissed the case a little more than a
month later.

The Clanton firm joined a group headed by Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein's Michael Sobol in April to sue Turn in U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of a class
of New York Verizon subscribers.  That suit doesn't name Verizon.
Even so, Turn's lawyers at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati have
argued in their motion to dismiss that plaintiffs agreed to
arbitrate any disputes rising out of their Verizon service.
(Verizon, which has appeared as an amicus in the Northern District
case, is represented by counsel at Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd,
Evans & Figel and Munger, Tolles & Olson.)

Brian Kabateck -- bsk@kbklawyers.com -- of Kabateck Brown Kellner
said his team will fight the "insidious" tactic of forcing
consumer protection suits loosely related to telecom companies
into arbitration -- at least for California Verizon customers.

"We think that this kind of practice that we've alleged in the
complaint is contrary to California policy," Mr. Kabateck said.
"We are convinced that they were making money off the class'
information and that to the extent that they profited from that,
they should be required to turn over those profits."

Wilson Sonsini's Michael Rubin -- mrubin@wsgr.com -- who has been
leading Turn's defense in the Northern District of California,
didn't immediately respond to messages on June 22.


TWEEN BRANDS: Faces Class Action Over Illusory Store Discount
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Seal, Marisa Kendall and Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com,
report that a New Jersey man is seeking compensatory damages in
excess of $5 million in a putative class action against a
children's clothing company, alleging it inappropriately
advertises sales that don't actually exist.

David Legendre, who filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, alleges that Tween Brands Inc., which
operates 34 New Jersey stores under the Justice name and over 850
nationwide, continuously advertises a 40 percent sale on all
items.  By consistently telling customers the stores' clothing,
which is targeted at tween girls, is being sold at a discount,
consumers are not actually getting any discount.

Mr. Legendre, represented by Michael J. Deem of R.C. Shea &
Associates in Toms River, alleges violations of the New Jersey
Consumer Fraud Act, as well as breach of contract, breach of
express warranty, unjust enrichment, breach of good faith and fair
dealing, and negligent misrepresentation.

"Defendant utilizes these in-store signs and in- and out-of-store
advertisements for the purpose of attracting customers to
defendant's stores to make purchases of the 'discounted' products,
with the promise of a discount which never exists," Legendre says
in the complaint, filed June 17.

Mr. Legendre proposes a class that would include anyone who
purchased consumer products from the stores within the last six
years.

In addition to $5 million in compensatory damages, the suit seeks
treble damages and attorney fees.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Managers to Stand Trial in Paris
---------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that two Uber France managers have
been ordered to stand trial to face charges including "deceptive
commercial practices" and complicity in illegal activities linked
to its low-cost ride-hailing service, the Paris prosecutor's
office said on June 30.

Thibault Simphal and Pierre-Dimitri Gore-Coty, who have been
targeted in their capacities as representatives of the San
Francisco-based company, were taken into custody on June 29 after
a police sweep at Uber France headquarters.  They were later
released and ordered to appear in a Paris criminal court on
Sept. 30.

A spokesman for Uber France could not immediately be reached for
comment.

The app-based service connects drivers with riders, while the
low-cost UberPop links users to drivers without professional taxi
or chauffeur licenses.

French authorities say UberPop is illegal and have expressed
frustration that Uber doesn't pay the same taxes and social
charges as traditional taxis.  Uber insists the French is system
outdated and says it needs reform to keep up with technological
changes.

Tensions have been growing over the issue.  Claiming unfair
competition, taxi drivers staged a violence-marred strike on the
issue last week, blocking many roads across France.

A law banning UberPop was approved in October, but its drivers
continue to ply French roads.  The company has been actively
recruiting drivers and passengers alike.  Uber claims to have a
total of 400,000 customers a month in France.

The prosecutor's office mobilized a special transportation police
force and another that focuses on fraud related to information
technology as part of a probe of Uber opened in November.  It said
202 people have been fined, one was handed a 15-day suspended
prison sentence and another 79 cases are under way.

The six counts faced by the Uber executives include "deceptive
commercial practices," complicity in instigating an illegal taxi-
driving activity, and the illegal stocking of personal
information.

San Francisco-based Uber Technologies Inc. has also run into legal
problems elsewhere in Europe, as well as in China and India.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Suspends Ride-Hailing Service in France
----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Uber is suspending its low-cost
ride-hailing service in France, hoping to defuse an escalating
legal dispute and sometimes-violent tensions with traditional
French taxi drivers.

The unusual concession comes after the stakes mounted in Uber's
standoff with France: Two senior European managers for San
Francisco-based company were detained on June 29 and ordered to
stand trial, charged with "deceptive commercial practices."

It reflects the broader struggle of governments to keep up with
fast-moving technology -- and how to tax operations like Uber's
and protect workers and consumers.  Companies like Uber argue that
governments are unfairly protecting entrenched industries instead
of adapting to the times.

Uber Technologies Inc. has run into legal problems elsewhere in
Europe, as well as in China and India.

The French battle centers around Uber's low-cost service, in
France called UberPop, which links users to drivers without
professional taxi or chauffeur licenses.  French authorities had
ordered it shut down, but Uber refused, pending a legal decision
at a top French court.

Uber France chief Thibaud Simphaud said in an interview published
on July 3 in Le Monde that the company changed its mind "in a
spirit of bringing peace" with authorities.  An Uber spokesman
confirmed to The Associated Press that the service was being
suspended starting on July 3.

Mr. Simphaud and another European manager for San Francisco-based
Uber were detained and ordered to stand trial Sept. 30.  They are
accused of six counts including deceptive commercial practices,
complicity in instigating an illegal taxi-driving activity, and
the illegal stocking of personal information.

Claiming unfair competition, taxi drivers staged a violence-marred
strike, blocking many roads across France.

Uber's regular app-based service, which connects registered
drivers with riders, continues to function in France.  Uber claims
to have a total of 400,000 customers a month in France.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit Filed by Los Angeles-Based Drivers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Uber Technologies failed to
pay overtime, LA-based drivers Lori Kellett and David Cotoi claim,
on the heels of a ruling that says Uber drivers are employees not
contractors.


UGI CORPORATION: Continues to Defend Suits Over Propane Tanks
-------------------------------------------------------------
UGI Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company intends to
vigorously defend against purported class action lawsuits.

Between May and October of 2014, more than 35 purported class
action lawsuits were filed in multiple jurisdictions against the
Partnership/UGI Corporation and a competitor by certain of their
direct and indirect customers.  The class action lawsuits allege,
among other things, that the Partnership and its competitor
colluded, beginning in 2008, to reduce the fill level of portable
propane cylinders from 17 pounds to 15 pounds and combined to
persuade its common customer, Walmart Stores, Inc., to accept that
fill reduction, resulting in increased cylinder costs to retailers
and end-user customers in violation of federal and certain state
antitrust laws.  The claims seek treble damages, injunctive
relief, attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of the putative
classes.  On October 16, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred all of these purported class
action cases to the Western Division of the Western District of
Missouri.

"We are unable to reasonably estimate the impact, if any, arising
from such litigation.  We believe we have strong defenses to the
claims and intend to vigorously defend against them," the Company
said.


UNITED STATES: D.C. Circuit Reinstates Suit Over Gun Rights
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports a divided D.C.
Circuit reinstated a Second Amendment lawsuit brought by a
nonresident U.S. citizen who lives in Canada but wishes to buy
firearms here.

Stephen Dearth is a U.S. citizen but permanently resides in
Winnipeg, Canada.

Dearth says he attempted to purchase a firearm on two visits to
the States, in 2006 and 2007, and was unable to do so.

He filed a federal lawsuit in Washington, joined by the Second
Amendment Foundation, claiming that the federal law preventing a
nonresident from purchasing a firearm violates his Second
Amendment rights.

A federal judge found for the government, but the D.C. Circuit
reinstated the suit June 23, finding that Dearth's complaint
lacked the factual information necessary for the court to rule.

"Here there are too many unanswered questions regarding Dearth's
particular situation even though he seeks to mount an as applied
challenge," Judge Raymond Randolph wrote for the panel's 2-1
majority.

Judge Thomas Griffith reluctantly joined the six-page opinion to
allow the case to proceed, though he said he agreed with the
dissent's argument that the court already has enough information
to decide the case.

Randolph's opinion calls it is unclear whether Dearth has ever
been a resident of any state for tax purposes, or if he pays
federal taxes or votes in federal elections.

Dearth's affidavit does not state where he attempted to purchase
the firearms, what kind of firearm he sought to buy, or whether he
intended to use the weapon for sport or self-defense, the opinion
states.

"Where Dearth sought to engage in these transactions he neglects
to mention," Randolph said.  "The omission may be significant.
The laws of many states bar non-state residents like Dearth from
buying a handgun so that no matter what the outcome of this case,
Dearth still could not purchase a handgun in such a state."

Dearth claims he holds a valid Utah permit to publicly carry a
handgun, but it is unclear whether the permit is recognized by the
same state in which he attempted to buy a firearm, or if he
qualifies as a Utah resident in order to renew the license, the
opinion states.

The court said the lawsuit seemed "deliberately ambiguous," and
claimed to be reciting a class action allegation without telling
the court much about Dearth's specific situation.

"In short, for the foregoing reasons, we exercise our discretion
to require that the case proceed to trial on the subjects we have
mentioned and any others that bear on Dearth's claims," Randolph
said.

Judge Karen Henderson dissented, finding no need for additional
information, and writing that that court should affirm the
constitutionality of a ban on the sale of a firearm to a
nonresident citizen.

"The government has demonstrated that the challenged provisions
are tailored to the specific interests identified: preventing
international firearms trafficking and circumvention of state
firearms regulations," Henderson said.

The case is Stephen Dearth and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc.,
Appellants v. Loretta E. Lynch, Appellee, Case No. 12-5305, in the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit.  The appeal is from the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia, Case No. 1:09-cv-00587.


WASHINGTON PRIME: Hearing Held to Consider Settlement Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Prime Group Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 7, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a hearing has been
scheduled for July 17, 2015 at which the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and
adequacy of the settlement in merger-related class actions.

Two shareholder lawsuits challenging Merger-related transactions
have been filed in Maryland state court, respectively captioned
Zucker v. Glimcher Realty Trust et al., 24-C-14-005675 (Circ. Ct.
Baltimore City), filed on October 2, 2014, and Motsch v. Glimcher
Realty Trust et al., 24-C-14-006011 (Circ. Ct. Baltimore City),
filed on October 23, 2014. The actions were consolidated, and on
November 12, 2014 plaintiffs filed a consolidated shareholder
class action and derivative complaint, captioned In re Glimcher
Realty Trust Shareholder Litigation, 24-C-14-005675 (Circ. Ct.
Baltimore City) (the "Consolidated Action"). The Consolidated
Action names as defendants the trustees of Glimcher, and alleges
these defendants breached fiduciary duties. Specifically,
plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action allege that the trustees of
Glimcher agreed to sell Glimcher for inadequate consideration and
agreed to improper deal protection provisions that precluded other
bidders from making successful offers.

Plaintiffs further allege that the sales process was flawed and
conflicted in several respects, including the allegation that the
trustees failed to canvas the market for potential buyers, failed
to secure a "go-shop" provision in the merger agreement allowing
Glimcher to seek alternative bids after signing the merger
agreement, and were improperly influenced by WPG's early
suggestion that the surviving entity would remain headquartered in
Ohio and would retain a significant portion of Glimcher
management, including the retention of Michael Glimcher as CEO of
the surviving entity and positions for Michael Glimcher and
another trustee of Glimcher on the board of the surviving entity.

Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action additionally allege that the
Preliminary Registration Statement filed with the SEC on October
28, 2014, failed to disclose material information concerning,
among other things, (i) the process leading up to the consummation
of the Merger Agreement; (ii) the financial analyses performed by
Glimcher's financial advisors; and (iii) certain financial
projections prepared by Glimcher and WPG management allegedly
relied on by Glimcher's financial advisors. The Consolidated
Action also names as defendants Glimcher, WPG and certain of their
affiliates, and alleges that these defendants aided and abetted
the purported breaches of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs seek, among
other things, an order enjoining or rescinding the transaction,
damages, and an award of attorney's fees and costs.

On December 22, 2014, defendants, including the Company, in the
Consolidated Action, by and through counsel, entered into a
memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") with plaintiffs in the
Consolidated Action providing for the settlement of the
Consolidated Action. Under the terms of the MOU, and to avoid the
burden and expense of further litigation, the Company and Glimcher
agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the
then-proposed Merger, all of which were set forth in a Current
Report on Form 8-K filed by Glimcher with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on December 23, 2014. On January
12, 2015, at the Special Meeting of Glimcher shareholders, the
shareholders voted to approve the transaction, and on January 15,
2015 the transaction closed.

The MOU contemplated that the parties would enter into a
stipulation of settlement. The parties entered into such a
stipulation on March 30, 2015. The stipulation of settlement is
subject to customary conditions, including court approval
following notice to Glimcher's common shareholders. A hearing has
been scheduled for July 17, 2015 at which the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and
adequacy of the settlement.

If the settlement is approved by the court, it will resolve and
release all claims by shareholders of Glimcher challenging any
aspect of the Merger, the Merger agreement, and any disclosure
made in connection therewith, including in the Definitive Proxy
Statement/Prospectus on Schedule 14A filed with the SEC by
Glimcher on December 2, 2014. Additionally, in connection with the
settlement, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will
file a petition in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City for an
award of attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed $425,000 and
reasonable, documented expenses in an amount not to exceed $20, to
be paid by the Company. Accordingly, the Company has accrued
$445,000 related to this matter, which expense is included in
merger and transaction costs for the three months ended March 31,
2015 in the accompanying consolidated and combined statements of
operations and comprehensive (loss) income. There can be no
assurance that the Circuit Court for Baltimore City will approve
the settlement. In the event that the settlement is not approved
and the conditions are not satisfied, defendants will continue to
vigorously defend against the allegations in the Consolidated
Action.


WELLS FARGO: ILG Illegally Collected Legal Fees, Court Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that citing
"very troublesome" evidence that a law firm had tried to take for
itself $5 million from a $6 million settlement fund, a state judge
said she intends to distribute the money to claimants instead.

The $5 million, part of a 2011 deal that resolved wage-and-hour
claims against Wells Fargo & Co., had been claimed by Los Angeles
firm Initiative Legal Group (ILG) as fees for their representation
of roughly 600 clients.  It has been frozen per court order since
2012.

In a tentative ruling on June 24, San Francisco Superior Court
Judge Mary Wiss determined that money belongs to class members,
not the lawyers.  She found ILG improperly collected the out-sized
payment rather than asking the court for a fee award.

"Having concealed those funds from the court, and having tried to
appropriate those funds to itself without court approval," she
wrote, "this court's tentative ruling is to order ILG to disgorge
all of the monies it received which it claims to be fees."

Judge Wiss also intends to order ILG to reimburse the $967,640
that was left in the settlement fund after the lawyers took their
cut, saying the money was spent without court authorization.  She
said she won't force ILG's clients to return their settlement
payments of roughly $1,750 apiece. Instead, she concluded, the
funds should come out of ILG's pocket and be redistributed across
a larger class.

Judge Wiss didn't issue a final ruling on June 24, but remained
firm in her position throughout the hearing.  The parties are
expected back in court this month to discuss the logistics of
redistributing the funds.

Lawyers with ILG represented about 600 Wells Fargo home-mortgage
consultants in a series of wage-and-hour mass actions against the
bank.

Questions about the settlement arose after plaintiff David Maxon
refused his payment and hired new counsel to fight the settlement.
His lawyers, Mark Chavez -- mark@chavezgertler.com -- of Chavez &
Gertler, Richard Zitrin of Zitrin Law Office and David Anderson of
Anderson Law, persuaded San Francisco Superior Court Judge Harold
Kahn to freeze ILG's $5 million payout.  Last year, the First
District Court of Appeal found the award was "fraught with the
potential for conflicts of interest, fraud, collusion and
unfairness," and remanded it back to the lower court for
reconsideration.

Many of ILG's clients also were part of a larger class action
brought by attorneys Kevin McInerney and James Clapp, which
settled for $19 million.  The lower court expected ILG's clients
to opt out of the $19 million settlement and collect from the $6
million fund, First District Justice Peter Siggins wrote.
Instead, he wrote, the ILG lawyers encouraged their clients to
partake in the larger class settlement, leaving most of the $6
million fund intact.

ILG's lawyer, Klinedinst managing shareholder Natalie Vance --
NVance@KlinedinstLaw.com -- said on June 24 the initial $6 million
settlement with Wells Fargo was intended solely to cover ILG's
fees and costs.

"So is the $750 payment then an afterthought?" Judge Wiss asked,
referring to the first payout to ILG's clients.  The firm offered
an additional $1,000 per client after Maxon objected.  "How is it
credible that Wells Fargo would pay $6 million to settle $450,000
in claims?"

"Your honor," Ms. Vance replied, "it's credible from the
standpoint that that's exactly what occurred here."

Judge Wiss also pointed out "there's not a shred of evidence" that
ILG's clients were aware of the negotiations that led to the $6
million settlement.

Ms. Vance countered her clients can't present that evidence
because it falls under attorney-client privilege.  And she argued
Judge Wiss has no authority over the $5 million in fees because
they stemmed from individual, not class claims.  Retooling that
award would be "an unprecedented exercise of jurisdiction," she
said.

ILG lawyers Marc Primo Pulisci, G. Arthur Meneses, Monica
Balderrama and Joseph Liu, who watched the June 24 proceedings
from the front row, declined to speak up in their own defense when
Judge Wiss offered them the opportunity.

Wells Fargo is represented by Littler Mendelson shareholder
Lindbergh Porter -- lporter@littler.com

Mr. Chavez's team now represents Terri Maxon, who replaced her
husband in the litigation.  David Maxon was killed earlier this
year when he fell off a ladder while trying to save his home from
a chimney fire.

After the June 24 hearing, Mr. Chavez said the ruling would help
protect integrity of the class action process.  "It was a good day
-- good for justice," he said.

The litigation took another interesting turn in May, when
Mark Yablonovich, who Mr. Chavez says co-founded ILG in 2002,
attempted to intervene to protect a class member client from
"potential collusion between class counsel and defendant."

Mr. Yablonovich, who has since started the Law Offices of
Mark Yablonovich, filed a motion to intervene on behalf of
plaintiff Linda Summers.

Mr. Chavez's team was vehemently opposed to allowing
Mr. Yablonovich, who previously represented plaintiffs in similar
claims against Wells Fargo, back into the litigation as an
intervenor.

"Mr. Yablonovich's personal and financial interests are
inextricably linked with and aligned with those of ILG," Chavez's
team wrote, "and are adverse to the interests of the class."
Mr. Yablonovich withdrew from the litigation on June 22 and did
not appear at the June 24 hearing.


WESBANCO INC: Memorandum of Settlement Reached in Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Wesbanco, 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 parties have entered
into a Memorandum of Settlement regarding the settlement of both
the Federal Lawsuit and the Lawrence County Lawsuit related to the
ESB Merger.

On October 29, 2014, ESB Financial, Inc. and WesBanco entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"),
providing for the merger of ESB with and into WesBanco, with
WesBanco as the surviving corporation (the "Merger"). Each of ESB
and WesBanco filed a definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus,
dated as of December 11, 2014 (the "Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus"), with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in connection with the Merger. The Merger was
consummated on February 10, 2015.

As reported by each of ESB and WesBanco on Current Reports on Form
8-K, each dated December 15, 2014 and filed on December 19, 2014,
two putative class action complaints were filed by purported
shareholders of ESB with respect to the Merger. One complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania (the "Federal District Court"), and is captioned
and numbered James Elliott vs. ESB Financial, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:14-cv-01689-MRH (the "Federal Lawsuit"). The other complaint
was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County,
Pennsylvania, and is captioned and numbered Randall Kress v. ESB
Bank, Case No. 11185/14 CA (the "Lawrence County Lawsuit"). Both
complaints alleged generally, among other things, that each member
of ESB's board of directors (the "Director Defendants") breached
their fiduciary duties in approving the Merger Agreement, that ESB
and WesBanco aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duty and
that the disclosure regarding the Merger contained in the Joint
Proxy Statement/Prospectus was materially deficient.

On January 15, 2015, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, ESB, ESB Bank, WesBanco and
the Director Defendants (ESB, ESB Bank, WesBanco and the Director
Defendants, collectively the "Defendants") entered into a
Memorandum of Settlement (the "MOS") with the respective
plaintiffs (collectively, the "Plaintiffs") regarding the
settlement of both the Federal Lawsuit and the Lawrence County
Lawsuit. Pursuant to the MOS, ESB and WesBanco agreed to file with
the SEC and make publicly available to shareholders of ESB and
WesBanco supplemental disclosures provided on Form 8-K and the
Plaintiffs agreed to release ESB, ESB Bank, WesBanco and the
Director Defendants from all claims related to the Merger
Agreement and the Merger, subject to approval of the Federal
District Court.

If the court approves the settlement contemplated in the MOS, both
the Federal Lawsuit and the Lawrence County Lawsuit will be
dismissed with prejudice, and all claims that were or could have
been brought challenging any aspect of the Merger, the Merger
Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith will be
released and barred. Under the terms of the MOS, counsel for the
Plaintiffs reserved the right to seek an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses. The Defendants have reserved the right to contest
the fee and expense petition. The amount of any fees and expense
awarded will ultimately be determined and approved by the court,
and will not affect the amount of merger consideration paid by
WesBanco. ESB or its successor or insurer will pay any fees and
expenses awarded by the court. In the MOS, the parties have agreed
to negotiate in good faith to prepare a stipulation of settlement
to be filed with the court and other documentation as may be
required to effectuate the settlement. There can be no assurance
that the parties ultimately will enter into a stipulation of
settlement or that the court will approve the settlement even if
the parties were to enter into such stipulation. The proposed
settlement contemplated by the MOS will become void in the event
that the parties do not enter into such stipulation or the court
does not approve the settlement.

The settlement did not affect the timing of the special meeting of
shareholders of ESB held January 22, 2015 in Ellwood City,
Pennsylvania to vote upon a proposal to adopt the Merger
Agreement. Similarly, the settlement did not affect the timing of
the special meeting of shareholders of WesBanco held January 22,
2015 in Wheeling, West Virginia to vote on a proposal to approve
the issuance of shares of WesBanco common stock in connection with
the Merger. The shareholders of both corporations approved the
Merger. ESB and the other Defendants deny all of the allegations
in the lawsuits and believe the disclosures previously included in
the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus were appropriate under the
law. Nevertheless, ESB and the other Defendants have agreed to
settle the putative class action lawsuits in order to avoid the
costs, disruptions and distraction of further litigation.

ESB and the other Defendants have vigorously denied, and continue
to vigorously deny, that they have committed or aided and abetted
in the commission of any violation of law or engaged in any of the
wrongful acts that were alleged in the lawsuits, and expressly
maintain that, to the extent applicable, they diligently and
scrupulously complied with their fiduciary and other legal burdens
and entered into the MOS solely to eliminate the burden and
expense of further litigation and to put the claims that were or
could have been asserted to rest. Nothing in the MOS or any
stipulation of settlement shall be deemed an admission of the
legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the
disclosures set forth therein. WesBanco does not believe that a
material loss related to these claims is reasonably possible.


WHOLE FOODS: Recalls Cherry, Blackberry and Peach Pies Due to Egg
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Whole Foods Market is recalling Cherry, Blackberry and Peach pies
produced and sold in four retail stores in the Southwest Region,
which includes TX, OK, LA, and due to undeclared egg. People who
have an allergy or severe sensitivity to egg run the risk of
serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
these products.

The product was sold in whole pies, half pies and slices, packaged
in boxes and clear plastic containers, with the following PLUs:
22203700000, 24919900000, 24901100000, 24912200000, 22197400000,
22202000000, 24189800000, 24189900000, 24190200000 with best by
dates of 6/26/15 to 7/3/15.

The pies, half pies and slices may contain egg as an ingredient,
which was not declared on the label.

No allergic reactions or illnesses have been reported to date.
Signage is posted to notify customers of this recall, and all
affected product has been removed from shelves.

The error was discovered during routine product review and found
to be incorrect in the following four stores only:

Oklahoma City - 6001 N Western Ave, Oklahoma City, OK 73118
Lamar - 525 N Lamar Blvd, Austin, TX 78703
Arabella Station - 5600 Magazine St, New Orleans, LA 70115
Champions - 10133 Louetta Rd, Houston, TX 77070

Consumers who have purchased this product from any Whole Foods
Market Southwest stores in TX and OK are encouraged to discard the
product and to bring their receipt to the store for a full refund.
Consumers with questions should contact their local store between
the hours of 9am and 5pm CST any day of the week.

Customers may find their nearest Whole Foods Market at
www.wholefoodsmarket.comdisclaimer icon

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm453663.htm


ZARA USA: Accused of Discrimination by Former General Counsel
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Jack Miller v. Zara USA, Inc., Dilip Patel, and Moises Costas
Rodriguez, Case No. 155512/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., June 3, 2015)
alleges that the Defendants discriminated against the Plaintiff
and subjected him to a hostile work environment based on his
religion, national origin, and sexual orientation.

Mr. Miller is Jewish, American, and gay.  He worked as the
Company's General Counsel from January 2008 until March 2015,
serving as the Company's first and only in-house attorney
throughout the United States and Canada.

Zara is the flagship clothing brand for Inditex Group, one of the
the largest fashion retailer in the world.  The Zara brand
operates approximately 2,000 stores in 88 countries, including
approximately 53 in the United States and seven stores in New York
City.  The Individual Defendants are managers, officers or
employees of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Sanford, Esq.
          Jeremy Heisler, Esq.
          Alexandra Harwin, Esq.
          David Tracey, Esq.
          SANFORD HEISLER KIMPEL, LLP
          1350 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 402-5650
          E-mail: dsanford@sanfordheisler.com
                  jheisler@sanfordheisler.com
                  aharwin@sanfordheisler.com
                  dtracey@sanfordheisler.com


* Consumer Watchdog Urges FCC to Toughen Do-Not-Track Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Miller, writing for The Recorder, reports that the Santa
Monica-based group Consumer Watchdog petitioned the Federal
Communications Commission for rules that would force companies
such as Google Inc. and Facebook Inc. to comply with do-not-track
requests sent by web surfers' browsers.

Such efforts haven't gone far in the past.  California dabbled
with legislation that tried to encourage websites to at least
disclose how they respond to do-not-track signals.  But it hasn't
changed sites' practices in any meaningful way.

Skeptics might say this effort will be about as successful as
do-not-call laws.  But Consumer Watchdog's privacy project
director, John Simpson, wants you to know his organization is as
serious as the grave about its FCC request.

"We don't put in petitions just to pass the time of day,"
Mr. Simpson told reporters.  "We wouldn't have put it in if we
didn't think we had some solid legal reasoning behind it and some
very good likelihood that it will get some positive attention."

Consumer Watchdog argues that new net-neutrality rules that extend
privacy protections to Internet service providers such as Comcast
Corp. and AT&T Inc. should be applied to so-called edge providers,
including Google, Yahoo Inc. and Facebook.  Mr. Simpson noted that
while Comcast has about 23 million subscribers, about 210 million
people in the United States and Canada use Facebook every month.

"While the privacy protection for the ISPs is tremendously
important, it's equally important, perhaps more important, that
privacy rights should be extended to reach out and touch . . .
the Googles and Facebooks."

Mr. Simpson conceded that although Consumer Watchdog lawyers
believe the FCC petition is strong, just raising the issue of
do-not-track publicly might encourage some sites to comply with
users' requests.

Messages left with Facebook and Google representatives were not
returned.


* Court Strikes Down Pennsylvania Law in Gun Ordinance Dispute
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lizzy McLellan, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a Pennsylvania law that allowed firearm owners and organizations
to sue municipalities over gun-related regulations, and provided
for a prevailing plaintiff's attorney fees, has been struck down
by the Commonwealth Court.

An en banc panel of the court ruled on June 25 that Act 192 of
2014 was enacted unconstitutionally because it was altered to
change its original purpose and did not relate to a single
subject.

"The original purpose of HB 80 pertained solely to the penalties
for the theft of secondary metal, while the final purpose was
altered so as to include, among other things, creation of a civil
action through which to challenge local firearms legislation,"
Judge Robert Simpson wrote for the majority.  "Clearly, these are
vastly different activities."

With reference to the single-subject rule, the court said the
objectives of Act 192 "are so disparate that they lack any clear
common nexus."  The legislative respondents' suggested single-
subject of "amending the crimes code," Judge Simpson said, was not
sufficient to establish compliance with Article III, Section 3 of
the state constitution.

In a concurring and dissenting opinion, Judge Patricia A.
McCullough said Act 192, while altered from its original purpose,
did not violate the single-subject rule.

"Under the majority's analysis, it is unclear how our legislature
can amend the crimes code to comport with both the single-subject
and original purpose rules," Judge McCullough said.  "Obviously,
the legislature needs a degree of flexibility to amend the crimes
code in an efficient and effective manner, especially considering
the daily stream of judicial opinions interpreting, applying, and
entertaining constitutional challenges to its provisions."

Act 192 passed after HB 80, which was originally intended to
define the criminal offense of theft of secondary metals, was
merged with language from HB 1243, the majority opinion said.  The
latter piece of legislation was intended to amend the crimes code
in relation to firearms regulation.  An amendment to HB 1243
included new rights for gun advocates to challenge municipal
legislation in the courts, Judge Simpson wrote.

Then-Gov. Tom Corbett signed the final bill into law in November
2014, and it went into effect Jan. 5.  Shortly after the bill-
signing, five members of the General Assembly, including Sen.
Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery, as well as the cities of Philadelphia,
Pittsburgh and Lancaster, filed a petition to prevent the
enforcement of Act 192. Respondents included state House of
Representatives Speaker Mike Turzai, R-Allegheny; Sen. Joe
Scarnati, R-Jefferson; and Rep. Samuel H. Smith, R-Jefferson.
Martin J. Black of Dechert, who represented the petitioners pro
bono with Robert L. Masterson of the same firm, said there was a
flood of litigation against municipalities when the law went into
effect in January. Some of those cases have proceeded throughout
the Commonwealth Court litigation, he said.

"The real mystery is why the legislature thought they could pass
the law in this fashion," Mr. Black said.

Nicholas M. Orloff, Michael V. Puppio Jr. and James P. Hickey III
of Raffaele Puppio represented the respondents.  Drew Crompton, an
attorney for Scarnati, said an appeal is likely in the case.
"There's competing case law in this case, on this issue,"
Mr. Crompton said.  "We're always much more concerned with the
precedent and how it affects the legislative branch."

Mr. Crompton said the petitioners "should be careful what they
wish for," with regard to the lawmaking precedent set.

Mr. Black said the legislation has created a "chilling effect" as
municipalities fear legal action over their own lawmaking.

"Municipalities are spending money on unconstitutionally-brought
litigation when there are other things to do with their money," he
said.

But Mr. Crompton pointed out that Pennsylvania state law already
prohibited municipalities from enforcing firearms ordinances.

"It was already law but it was being disregarded by some
municipalities," Mr. Crompton said.  "Gun advocates have believed
that municipalities were creeping too far in light of the
underlying law."

In terms of the original-purpose requirement, the Commonwealth
Court majority compared the case to Marcavage v. Rendell.  In that
instance, the statute being challenged began as a bill amending
the crimes code to list agricultural crop destruction as an
offense, Judge Simpson said, but the amended bill dropped that
item and instead expanded the scope of protected individuals
within the definition of ethnic intimidation.

"Like the act at issue in Marcavage, the original and final
versions of HB 80 do not regulate the same discrete activity,"
Judge Simpson wrote.

The Commonwealth Court looked to several other single-subject
cases to assess whether "amending the crimes code" was a
sufficient subject to unify Act 192.  The Supreme Court, the
majority said, had previously ruled that "refining civil
remedies," "powers of county commissioners" and "municipalities"
were overly broad subjects.

The respondents relied on other cases in which a violation of
Article III, Section 3 was not found, Judge Simpson said, but
those cases were distinguishable.  In one of them, the measures
within the statute applied to public utility regulation, and in
the other, all measures were related to proscribed acts under the
Penal Code.

The respondents had also suggested that the act only dealt with
amending the crimes code with respect to firearms regulation, but
the court disagreed.

"In the absence of any further clear explanation, we fail to
discern how this posited theme supplies the necessary unifying
topic between the disparate subjects of criminal penalties for
theft of metal and civil suits through which an expansive class of
parties may seek to invalidate municipal firearms legislation and
potentially recover attorney fees," Judge Simpson wrote.


* Employment Lawyers Grapple with Implications of OT Proposals
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Miller, writing for The Recorder, reports that employment
lawyers on June 30 were still grappling with the potential
implications of proposed federal labor regulations that would
expand the number of salaried employees eligible for overtime.

The U.S. Department of Labor is proposing to more than double the
salary threshold under which employees must be paid for overtime
even if they've been classified exempt because they have
management responsibilities or meet other exceptions.  Moving the
ceiling from $23,660 to $50,440 would affect 420,000 workers in
California, according to the agency.  The change would take effect
next year.

"If you're a restaurant chain with a lot of $30,000 assistant
managers, you're taking a really hard look at this," said Cozen
O'Connor partner David Barron -- dbarron@cozen.com

Taking the exempt/nonexempt classification decision for up to 5
million workers nationwide out of the hands of companies would
seem like a recipe for defusing an active sector of wage-and-hour
litigation.  That may be the case, Mr. Barron said.  But some
employers may react by converting salaried jobs to nonexempt
hourly positions and then capping their hours.  Such a move could
actually cut workers' pay, giving them an incentive to consider
challenging their earlier classification.

"How you convert that person over to nonexempt is an inexact
science," Mr. Barron said.

Plaintiffs attorney Mark Thierman of Thierman Buck said employers
shouldn't have a difficult time complying with the new rules.

"Raising the threshold? The market will readjust," he said.

But Mr. Thierman also predicted that although misclassification
litigation may decrease, lawsuits alleging forced off-the-clock
work will increase as employers seek to avoid overtime costs.

The labor department proposal would also increase the annual
compensation level certain "highly compensated employees" need to
make to be exempt from overtime rules from $100,000 to $122,148.

"Given the size of the increase, even California and New York
employers will need to be more alert to federal wage and hour
compliance," Seyfarth Shaw partner Alexander Passantino wrote on
June 30 on the firm's Wage & Hour Litigation Blog.

All the proposed ceilings would be indexed to wage growth and
inflation to allow for automatic increases.

The Labor Department did not propose specific changes to the
so-called duties tests used to determine whether an employee
should be classified as exempt or nonexempt.  The agency did ask
for comments, however, on whether it should consider California
law, which requires that employees spend at least half their time
exclusively on work considered their primary duty to trigger a
qualifying exemption.

The proposals are still subject to amendments and, even if enacted
via rule-making, could be thwarted by a new presidential
administration with differing views.

But, said Mr. Barron, "Once you put something like this out there
it's hard to get it rolled back."


* Filings in Mass Tort Program Up by 29% in Philadelphia
--------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
first-quarter filings in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas'
mass tort program are up significantly from the previous year and
indicate that 2015 will be another active year.

According to the court's most recent quarterly statistics, as of
April, 406 new cases were filed.  That number is a more than 29
percent increase over first-quarter numbers last year, which saw
314 new filings by the end of April and ended up closing with a
total of 2,095 new cases being filed.

In the past few years, new filings for the mass tort program had
been trending downward.  But the closing total for 2014
represented a 158 percent increase over 2013, which saw only 813
new cases filed.

Filings in 2013 had dipped about 0.4 percent -- three cases --
from the 816 that were filed in 2012.  But the number of new cases
filed in 2012 dropped 70 percent from 2011, which was the peak
year for the mass tort program. In 2011, 2,690 new cases had been
filed.

The breakdown for the numbers so far for 2015 show that 61 of the
new cases, or 15 percent, are related to asbestos, and 345 new
filings, or 85 percent, are related to pharmaceutical litigation.

According to the court statistics, new pharmaceutical filings
consist almost entirely of cases related to Xarelto and Risperdal.
Since April, 197 new cases were filed over the antipsychotic drug
Risperdal, and 139 plaintiffs filed suit over Xarelto, which is a
blood thinner.

As of early May, there are currently 5,228 total cases in the
Complex Litigation Center's inventory.  That is a 22 percent
increase over 2014 first-quarter numbers.  Last year, The Legal
reported there were 4,269 filings pending by the end of April
2014.

Most of the filings, 43.8 percent of the inventory, or 2,292
cases, were from litigation involving Reglan.  In those cases,
plaintiffs alleged that Reglan, or metoclopramide, caused them to
develop an incurable neurological disorder called tardive
dyskinesia.  Although the percentage of Reglan-related cases has
dropped from 54 percent of the new filings as of April 2014, the
number of Reglan cases has remained steady at 2,292 since last
year.

Risperdal filings are the second most prominent, with 1,329
filings, or 25.4 percent of the inventory.  The 628 asbestos
filings make up 12 percent of the inventory, while Yaz, Yasmin and
Ocella birth control filings account for about 7 percent of the
cases.  The 221 Xarelto cases make up about 4.2 percent of the
filings.

Making up less than 1 percent of the total inventory are 18 cases
related to Topamax litigation, 11 cases related to Fen-Phen, eight
cases related to Paxil, and one case each related to hormone
therapy, Hydroxycut and denture adhesive cream litigation.

Over the past year, filings related to Xarelto have been steadily
increasing, according to court officials.

The plaintiffs in these cases are claiming that Xarelto causes
uncontrollable and sometimes fatal bleeding in patients.  Johnson
& Johnson subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceuticals and Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals are the defendants in the litigation.

The mass tort was established early this year, on Jan. 21, by
order of the center's coordinating judge, Arnold L. New.
Complex Litigation Center director Stanley Thompson told The Legal
earlier in the year that these cases have been on the rise since
the city's first Xarelto case was filed in the Philadelphia Court
of Common Pleas in February 2014.

Between March and October 2014, only a handful of cases were filed
each month, with the most being five in September.  But in
November 2014, the number spiked with 19 new cases filed.  In
December, 26 cases were filed, followed by 17 in January 2015, 37
in February and 50 in March.

So far this year, courts have also been actively litigating claims
related to Risperdal.

Plaintiffs in these cases have alleged the antipsychotic
medication caused enlarged breast growth in males, a condition
called gynecomastia, and the drugmaker failed to properly warn of
the risks.

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

In the second trial, the jury found Risperdal was not the cause of
the plaintiff's breast growth.  However, the jury did find Janssen
was negligent in failing to warn about the potential risk of the
drug.

In late May, the third Risperdal case settled for a confidential
amount.

In the wake of the settlement, an attorney who is trying Risperdal
cases said he doesn't anticipate that Janssen will settle the
remainder of the cases in the immediate future.


* New York's Local Law 15 Not in Conflict with Judiciary Law
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a
New York City law protecting debtors from harassing collection
activities does not conflict with New York's power to regulate
attorneys, the New York Court of Appeals held on June 30.

The state's highest court, answering certified questions sent to
it by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, said Local
Law 15 does not encroach upon the state's oversight of attorneys
and is not preempted by the state's Judiciary Law.  The vote was
4-2, with Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman writing for the majority.

Local Law 15 was passed in 2007 to, in the words of the
legislative declaration accompanying it, confront "unscrupulous
collection agencies" and "abusive tactics such as threatening
delinquent debtors or calling people at outrageous times of the
night."  Part of the aim of the law was to curb the abusive
practices of "debt bundlers" who buy debt and then pursue debtors,
third parties who have no connection to the original creditor.
The law specifically excludes from the definition of a debt
collection agency "any attorney-at-law or law firm [1] collecting
a debt in such capacity [2] on behalf of and in the name of a
client [3] through activities that may only be performed by an
attorney."

But the exemption does not cover an attorney or a firm that
"regularly engages in activities traditionally performed by debt
collectors, including, but not limited to, contacting a debtor
through the mail or via telephone with the purpose of collecting a
debt or other activities" as determined by the City Commissioner
of the Department of Consumer Affairs.

The law requires that debt collectors provide documentation for
the debt, call-back numbers answered by live persons when the
debtor/consumer calls, the name of the original creditor and the
amount of the debt.  It also prohibits contacting a debtor after
the debtor requests written confirmation of the debt and gets that
confirmation.

The law was challenged in 2009 by Eric Berman of the 21-member
Lacy Katzen LLP in Rochester.

Mr. Berman passed away in 2010, but the challenge continued and,
in 2013, Eastern District Judge Eric Vitaliano held the law does
not apply to plaintiff law firms that attempt to collect debts and
violates the New York City Charter because it purports to grant
the city the authority, through the Department of Consumer
Affairs, to grant or withhold a license to practice law.

At the Second Circuit, Judges Rosemary Pooler, Barrington Parker
and Denny Chin asked the New York Court of Appeals to clarify the
law on whether Local Law 15 is an encroachment on the State's
Judiciary Law Sec. 53, which gives the New York Court of Appeals
the power to make rules on attorney admissions, and Sec. 90, which
gives New York courts the power to regulate attorney conduct
(NYLJ, Oct. 31, 2014).

On June 30, they got the answer needed to decide Berman v. City of
New York, 13-598.

"There is no express conflict between the broad authority accorded
the courts to regulate attorneys under the Judiciary Law and the
licensing of individuals as attorneys who are engaged in debt
collection activity falling outside of the practice of law and
thus, the Local Law does not impose an additional requirement for
attorneys to practice law," wrote Judge Lippman, who was joined by
Judges Susan Phillips Read, Eugene Pigott and Sheila Abdus-Salaam.
"Rather, the regulatory schemes can be seen as complementary to,
and compatible with, one another," he said.

A "somewhat closer question" he said, was that the law, in
distinguishing between the practice of law and debt collection,
may encompass some activities a lawyer may do while representing
clients, such as contacting a debtor through the mail or telephone
to collect a debt.

"However, an attorney who is retained by a client who is a
creditor may make phone calls or send letters in the course of
that representation in an attempt to recover specific amounts due
to that client without being subject to Local Law 15," he said.
"There is a significant and meaningful distinction between such
conduct and conduct that is typical of a debt collection agency --
making high volume collection calls at off-hours and sending
boilerplate 'dunning' letters demanding payment without details of
the source of the debt or the actual amount due."

Judge Lippman said there would be certain cases where it would be
harder "to draw the line between debt collection and the practice
of law," but the existing debt statutes as well as the existing
structure for the regulation of attorneys can govern those
situations.

"The invalidation of Local Law 15 as applied to attorneys would
not give attorneys carte blanche to threaten and intimidate New
York City debtors," Judge Lippman said.  "[A]ttorneys are subject
to the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the New York
General Business Law, and, to the extent they apply to attorneys,
the recent DFS [Department of Financial Services] regulations."

"Moreover, the New York Rules of Professional Conduct contain the
ethical standards and practices to which attorneys licensed to
practice in this state must adhere."

Judge Eugene Fahey dissented, and was joined by Judge Leslie
Stein.  Judge Jenny Rivera took no part in the case.

Judge Fahey said the "distinction between the activities of an
attorney collecting a debt on behalf of a client and an attorney
engaging in the 'activities traditionally performed by debt
collectors' is, from a regulatory point of view, a distinction
without a difference."

"The state has demonstrated its intent to exclusively occupy the
field of licensing attorneys and the regulation of the practice of
law," Judge Fahey said.  "Unlike the majority, I conclude that
Local Law 15 regulates in that field and thus is preempted by
state law pursuant to the doctrine of field preemption."

Law Department spokeswoman Kate O'Brien Ahlers said: "The Court
correctly recognized that debt collectors cannot insulate
themselves from consumer protection regulations just by putting a
lawyer at the organization's helm."

Assistant Corporation Counsel Janet Zaleon represented the city.
Max Gershenoff, partner at Rivkin Radler in Uniondale represented
the plaintiffs.


* Pa. Supreme Court Approves Use of Tobacco Settlement Fund
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lizzy McLellan, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the former beneficiaries of a state health care program were not
entitled to the money from a 2001 tobacco settlement that funded
the insurance, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided.

But the court chose not to rule on a challenge to the Fiscal Code
amendments that redirected the funds, although it did warn that
the amendments in question may push the boundaries on
constitutionally acceptable lawmaking.

The justices on June 19 reversed a Commonwealth Court ruling that
would have restrained the legislature from carrying out the
dictates of Act 46 and 26, amendments that, in part, affected the
allocation of funds from a 1998 settlement between several tobacco
companies and states including Pennsylvania.  They said the
plaintiffs, former beneficiaries of a health care program funded
by the settlement, were not entitled to the settlement funds.

The split en banc panel of the Commonwealth Court had said the
acts were inconsistent with a provision in the state Constitution
that says legislation should be limited to a single subject.  The
Supreme Court, however, decided judicial intervention on the
constitutionality of the acts was not appropriate in this
particular case.  But it did not entirely pass on the opportunity
to opine on that issue with regard to omnibus-style amendments to
the Fiscal Code.

"Given the impact on many and varied interests . . . the omnibus
approach facially appears to test the limits of the practical
germaneness litmus which this court conventionally applies to
assess single-subject challenges," Chief Justice Thomas G. Saylor
wrote.  "Moreover, without any limitations whatsoever, the
practice would seem to be susceptible to the 'logrolling' concern
underlying Article III, Section 3's single-subject requirement.
Accordingly, in an appropriate case, we may be required to
determine whether judicial intervention is possible and/or
appropriate and, if so, what may be the appropriate standards."

Non-entitlement Language

The 2001 Tobacco Settlement Act said the settlement funds should
be used for certain programs to address health problems of
Pennsylvanians, including adultBasic, a health care program for
low-income workers.  Act 46 of 2010 and Act 26 of 2011 redirected
some of that money to the state's general fund.

Sheryl Sears and Eric Weisblatt, each along with a group of other
former adultBasic beneficiaries, filed separate suits against the
state government.  The plaintiffs argued that the legislation
violated the Tobacco Settlement Act and the Pennsylvania
Constitution.  They sought an order directing all future tobacco
settlement funds to be deposited in accordance with the TSA and
redirected funds to be repaid to the tobacco settlement fund.
The Supreme Court didn't have to rule on the constitutionality of
the acts, since it found reasoning in the TSA to reverse the
Commonwealth Court.

"In terms of adultBasic, from the outset, the legislature
expressed the manifest intention that subscribers should have no
claim against commonwealth funds," Justice Saylor said.  "The
Commonwealth Court majority's dilutions of the operative
non-entitlement language . . . are unpersuasive."

Karl S. Myers -- kmyers@stradley.com -- of Stradley Ronon Stevens
& Young, who argued for the General Assembly, said the court was
right to base its decision on the language within the TSA.  On the
single-subject argument, he said, "They saved that question for
another day."
The Office of the Attorney General said, "We're glad that the
court agreed with our position and that they accurately applied
the law as written."

A group of attorneys from Caroselli Beachler McTiernan & Conboy
represented the Sears plaintiffs, and a group from Weinstein
Kitchenoff & Asher represented the Weisblatt plaintiffs.
David S. Senoff and William R. Caroselli of Caroselli Beachler and
David H. Weinstein -- weinstein@wka-law.com -- of Weinstein
Kitchenoff did not respond to calls seeking comment.

Question for Another Day

The single-subject rule, contained in Article III, Section 3 of
the Pennsylvania Constitution, has come up in a number of other
cases dealing with constitutionality of legislation.

The Commonwealth Court in Leach v. Commonwealth recently struck
down a law that created a civil standing to challenge municipal
gun ordinances, because the law encompassed several other measures
that the judges said lacked a common nexus.

In a case before the Supreme Court, Sernovitz v. Dershaw, the
Superior Court ruled that a 1988 law which had previously
precluded the plaintiffs' wrongful-birth lawsuit was
unconstitutionally passed based on the single-subject rule.  The
Supreme Court heard arguments in that case in May.

In a 2013 decision in Commonwealth v. Neiman, the justices struck
Pennsylvania's "Megan's Law" after deciding the statute violated
Article III, Section 3.

In Robinson Township v. Commonwealth, plaintiffs mentioned the
rule in arguments over the constitutionality of Act 13, which
governed oil and gas operations.  But the rule did not factor into
the December 2013 decision from the Supreme Court, which struck
down a provision of Act 13.

"Generally, courts like to avoid constitutional issues if there's
a way to avoid them," said Theodore Caldwell of Young Ricchiuti
Caldwell & Heller, who is representing the plaintiffs in
Sernovitz.  "If there's a way to rule on a case without sort of
addressing a constitutional issue, they will do it. That seems
like what they did here."

The lack of a distinct ruling on the single-subject issue leaves
room for interpretation of the court's short discussion of the
topic.

"It's almost like they're warning the legislature that we're not
going to permit this if we get the right kind of case," said
Caldwell.  "This is at least close to the edge of what is
permissible under the single-subject rule."

C.J. Hafner, chief counsel for Pennsylvania Senate Minority Leader
Jay Costa, said the chief justice recognized limits to what a
fiscal code can contain.  He represented amici curiae, including
Costa, in the Commonwealth Court case, and said his client was
disappointed that the Commonwealth Court decision was not upheld.

"We're satisfied that the chief justice and the majority opinion
recognized that there could be constitutional issues in the Fiscal
Code," he said.

But Mr. Myers said the Supreme Court in its discussion seemed to
be understanding of the reasoning behind the construction of Acts
46 and 26.  Mr. Myers also represented the General Assembly in
Sernovitz and Neiman.

"I think the court rightly recognized the necessity of having a
fiscal code that, while broad, would be tied to the budget,"
Mr. Myers said.  "I think the court struggled in the Neiman case
to identify the single subject.  I think there's no such
difficulty in this case."

Matthew H. Haverstick of Conrad O'Brien, who worked on Robinson
Township, said he got a similar impression from the opinion that
Mr. Myers did.

"I think the court suggested the main good reason and that is just
the enormous headache it would be to run however many bills you
would need to run to capture all the things you capture in the
Fiscal Code," he said.

This type of budget-related legislation, Mr. Haverstick said,
doesn't raise the same "logrolling issues" that other broad pieces
of legislation might.

But Caldwell said the adultBasic decision, while not reaching the
issue directly, is a "wake-up call" to the legislature on Article
III, Section 3.

"It's part of the Constitution.  It has a salutary purpose. It's
there for a reason," Mr. Haverstick said.  "But if the organizing
principle of a law gets too tightly defined it gets ridiculous."


* Panel Hears Debate on Punitive Damages in NYCAL Asbestos Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Bedell, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that leaders
of the asbestos litigation bar were peppered with questions on
June 17 by an Appellate Division, First Department, panel in a
case testing whether punitive damages can be argued before New
York City's special asbestos court.

Such claims were effectively outlawed by a 1996 amendment to the
case management order created to expedite cases in the New York
City Asbestos Litigation court, known as "NYCAL."

The "no punitives" order was issued by Justice Helen Freedman, who
led NYCAL from 1987 to 2008 before being appointed to the First
Department.

Justice Freedman, who retired in October, attended the June 17
hearing and occasionally interjected as her former colleagues
debated the wisdom of amending her order.

Justice Freedman's replacement as head of the NYCAL court, Justice
Shirley Klein Heitler, granted a motion by the plaintiffs' bar to
allow punitive damages claims in April 2014.  Justice Heitler said
she could not ignore "the fact that victims of asbestos exposure
are permitted to apply for punitive damages in every New York
state court except this one.  I, for one, cannot justify a
situation in which an asbestos plaintiff is permitted to apply for
punitive damages in Buffalo but not in this court" (NYLJ, March
2).

The defense bar has appealed her ruling, asserting that "the
reasons for the agreement struck by plaintiffs' and defense
counsel and approved by Justice Freedman to defer punitive damages
claims are even stronger today than they were 18 years ago."

Leo Milonas -- eleo.milonas@pillsburylaw.com -- a partner at
Pillsbury Madison, argued for the abestos defense bar, that the
case management order could not be changed without the consent of
the parties.

"It was a product of negotiation and it cannot be changed without
negotiation," he told the panel, which consisted of Presiding
Justice Luis Gonzalez and Associate Justices David Friedman, Karla
Moskowitz and Darcel Clark.  Justice Dianne Renwick recused
herself.

Mr. Milonas served for 16 years on the First Department bench,
leaving in 1998 for a partnership at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw
Pittman, before any of the panel's members joined the court.

Michael Ross, a partner at K&L Gates, followed Mr. Milonas on
behalf of the defense bar.  "The way this new punitive damages
procedure is crafted, the defendants won't even know a punitive
damages claim exists until the trial is over," he told the panel.

When Justice Gonzalez inquired from the bench whether Justice
Freedman's initial order was a "judicial fiat," as the plaintiffs
claimed or "whether everything was negotiated," Mr. Ross replied
that everything had been negotiated, to which Justice Freedman
said aloud from the gallery, "That's right."

Alani Golanski, whose firm, Weitz & Luxenberg, represents about 70
percent of the NYCAL plaintiffs, told the panel the ban on
punitive damages "allows a small group of recalcitrant defendants
who refuse to settle to go to trial without fear of punitives."
"They are clogging up the system, and that's not fair to
plaintiffs who are likely to die before they can get to court," he
said.

Justice Gonzalez asked Mr. Golanski, "This has been in place for
18 years.  Why change it now?" to which Justice Freedman could be
heard to respond, "Good question."

Mr. Golanski answered: "Because the defendants have changed their
behavior, that's why."

Mr. Ross argued on rebuttal that it was a violation of defendants'
equal protection and due process rights to "have the sword of
Damocles hanging over you in every case, and you don't know it's
there until the very end."

The plaintiffs bar has argued that defendants have an advantage
when the threat of punitive damages is absent, because virtually
all insurance policies cover them for compensatory but not
punitive damages.

The ban on punitive damages "had the unfortunate effect of
frustrating efforts at engaging in reasonable settlement
discussions," they said in their briefs.

Justice Freedman wrote a 2008 law review article explaining the
reasoning for her order, which became a point of contention in the
arguments.

Punitive damages served no "corrective" purpose for wrongs
committed 20 or 30 years ago, often by companies that have since
gone bankrupt, Freedman wrote.

Punitives "deplete resources better used to compensate injured
parties" she said, and they were not permitted in all
jurisdictions for asbestos cases, leading to inconsistent results
across jurisdictions.

Justice Heitler disagreed, but said "it is appropriate for the
court to caution the plaintiffs' bar not to overstep this
permission by attempting to seek punitive damages
indiscriminately."

Justice Heitler was elevated to a state-wide supervisory role in
March 2015, and her replacement, Justice Peter Moulton, has vowed
to "take a hard look" at NYCAL procedures.

The defense bar brought a motion before him on March 31, only a
few days after he assumed the administrative judge role, seeking
to stay all proceedings in the more than 2,000 cases pending in
NYCAL for 60 days to give the two sides an opportunity to
negotiate a new case management order.  The stay would not apply
to plaintiffs whose cancers or other ailments allegedly caused by
asbestos exposure place them at imminent risk of death.

Oral arguments on that motion were heard by Justice Moulton
June 12.


* Plaintiffs Can Challenge Housing Firms' Discriminatory Practice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that big law firms
nationwide have seized a marketing opportunity created when the
U.S. Supreme Court issued its June 25 ruling in Texas Department
of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project.

With that 5-4 ruling in the civil rights case, the nation's
highest court's majority decided that statistical evidence of
discrimination, paired with practices or policies of housing
providers that cause the disparate impact, may suffice to trigger
a violation under the nation's fair housing laws.  Notably, the
housing provider, developer, or lender does not have to have
intended to discriminate in order for a violation to have
occurred, the court ruled.

For government housing authorities, and private providers,
developers, and lenders, the ruling has broad implications:
Plaintiffs may now challenge practices and policies that have a
discriminatory effect without having to show evidence of
intentional discrimination.

"It is now the law of the land," said Arthur Anthony, a partner in
Locke Lord's Dallas office, who dispatched an alert prior to the
ruling telling clients to pay attention to it, and now plans to
assemble another missive explaining the court's decision.  The
high court's ruling, reinforcing precedents already set by all
nine circuit courts, underscores how important it is for companies
operating in the housing space -- including developers, providers
and lenders -- to analyze their policies and practices to
determine if they have a discriminatory impact, but if they may
still be justified, Mr. Anthony said.

The U.S. Department of Justice already signaled its plans to beef
up enforcement under the Fair Housing Act as a result of the high
court's ruling.  In a statement issued after the court issued its
decision, which favored a Dallas-based nonprofit, Inclusive
Communities Project, U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said:
"Bolstered by this important ruling, the Department of Justice
will continue to vigorously enforce the Fair Housing Act with
every tool at its disposal -- including challenges based on unfair
and unacceptable discriminatory effects."

Jeff Ross, a partner in the Chicago office of Seyfarth Shaw,
agreed that the ruling underscores the need for clients to take
pre-emptive steps to thwart potential plaintiffs.

"The key here will be reviewing all housing policies practices and
procedures to see if any have an adverse impact on a protected
group.  But clients will have to evaluate if there is a solid
justification for them and if the same goals cannot be obtained
with a different policy or practice that has a less disparate
impact," Mr. Ross said.

Prior to the ruling, Mr. Ross made several presentations to
clients and industry groups on the questions that the case raised.
The firm has a webinar scheduled tentatively on July 28 to explain
the significance of the ruling.

Sullivan & Cromwell already issued its post-ruling alert. In its
write-up, the firm's lawyers, whose contacts were listed at the
end of the advisory, stressed that the high court allowed "housing
authorities and private developers to show that their challenged
policies serve valid interests."  Courts may not reject a business
justification unless plaintiffs show that an available alternative
policy that has a less disparate impact serve the same goals, the
Sullivan & Cromwell advisory noted.

The big law firms that defend housing providers, developers and
lenders spotted dollar signs in the ruling.  But Texas Attorney
General Ken Paxton lost out with this one.  His office represented
the state agency that lost its appeal with the ruling.

For Mr. Paxton, though, the ruling at least offered another kind
of opportunity he seems to welcome: to criticize the Obama
administration.

"The administration's interpretation of federal housing law is
overreaching and misguided, and I am disappointed with the Supreme
Court's ruling," Mr. Paxton said in a statement.

Mr. Paxton noted that the high court had remanded the case to the
district court for further review and did not bar the housing
agency's practices and policies that may lead to a disparate
impact but serve legitimate objectives.

"The Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs acted with
the legitimate objective of revitalizing neighborhoods and
providing affordable, fair housing when it distributed federal tax
credits," Mr. Paxton said.


* SEC Fines 36 Underwriting Firms Over Bond Market Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Reisinger, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that banking
in-house counsel have been waiting for another shoe to drop, and
Thursday it landed -- but softly.  The U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission said it took action against 36 underwriting
firms for violating rules in the $3.7 trillion municipal bond
market.

The firms will pay civil penalties ranging from $40,000 to
$500,000, based on the number and size of the fraudulent
offerings, and on the size of the firm.

Ten companies agreed to pay the maximum $500,000 penalty.  That is
a relatively small amount compared with other recent bank fines
that have reached more than $1 billion, but those fines were for
more serious infractions.

In addition, the firms agreed to cease and desist from any similar
violations in the future, and to retain an independent consultant
to conduct a compliance review and take reasonable steps to
implement the consultant's recommendations.  The 36 companies did
not admit or deny the findings against them.

Among the names were some familiar ones to anyone following recent
SEC and U.S. Department of Justice actions against major banks,
along with some less-familiar ones.

Agreeing to pay the maximum penalty were:

Citigroup Global Markets Inc.
Goldman, Sachs & Co.
J.P. Morgan Securities
Bank of America/Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.
Morgan Stanley & Co.
Minneapolis-based Piper Jaffray & Co.
St. Petersburg, Florida-based Raymond James & Associates Inc.
RBC Capital Markets, part of the Royal Bank of Canada
Milwaukee-based Robert W. Baird & Co. Inc.
St. Louis-based Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. Inc.

Coincidentally Stifel had announced June 8 that it was acquiring
Barclays' wealth and investment management in the Americas.
Contacted by CorpCounsel.com, Scott Helfman at Citigroup said, "We
are pleased to have the matter resolved." Goldman Sachs, J.P.
Morgan, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and Raymond James all
declined to comment.  The four other firms didn't immediately
respond to messages.

A list of all 36 firms and their penalty amounts is available on
the SEC website.

The SEC alleged that between 2010 and 2014 those firms violated
federal securities laws by selling municipal bonds using documents
that contained materially false statements or omissions about the
bond issuers' compliance with disclosure rules.  The companies
also allegedly failed to conduct adequate due diligence to
identify the misstatements and omissions.

The cases are the first brought against underwriters under the
Municipalities Continuing Disclosure Cooperation (MCDC)
Initiative, a voluntary self-reporting program targeting material
misstatements and omissions in municipal bond offerings.

The initiative, announced in March 2014, offers favorable
settlement terms to municipal bond underwriters and issuers that
self-report securities law violations, as these companies did --
hence the "soft" landing of the shoe.

"The MCDC initiative has already resulted in significant
improvements to the municipal securities market, including
heightened awareness of issuers' disclosure obligations and
enhanced disclosure policies and procedures," said SEC Chairwoman
Mary Jo White in a statement.  "This ongoing enforcement
initiative will continue to bring lasting changes to the municipal
securities markets for the benefit of investors."


                            *********

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.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, 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  * * *