---

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

             Thursday, July 23, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 146


                            Headlines


AECOM: AECOM Australia Continues to Defend Investors Class Action
ALLIANCE BANCORP: 3 Class Actions Filed Related to Merger
ALP LIQUIDATING: "Rothal" Case Has Been Tendered Zurich
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Cumming" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Howard Suit Over Air Ticket-Price Fixing

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Jain" Suit Over Air Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "McEnerney" Suit Over Airline Ticket
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Golian" Suit Over Antitrust Laws
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Huey" Suit Over Federal Antitrust Laws
AMERICAN APPAREL: Faces "Rodriguez" Shareholder Class Action

AMERICAN APPAREL: Former Employees File Class Action
AMERICAN APPAREL: Consumer Files Class Action
AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Parties Have Not Commenced Discovery
APOLLO GLOBAL: Parties Want Fact Discovery Until January
APOLLO GLOBAL: Caesars Filed Answer to Meehancombs Action

APOLLO GLOBAL: Parties in CEC Stockholder Case in Discovery
APPLE INC: January Trial Scheduled for Bag-Search Class Action
ATOSSA GENETICS: Hearing on Appeal Not Been Set
AVIS BUDGET: Sued in N.J. for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
BANK OF NEW YORK: Asks Court to Toss Illegal Foreclosure Suit

BLUE EARTH: Defending Against Securities Litigation
BP: Loses Bid to Access Claimants' Confidential Information
BRE SELECT: Will Pay 20% of Litigation Cost in Apple REIT Case
BROOKDALE SENIOR: Court Approved Settlement in Stockholder Action
CABLE TELEVISION: Faces Lawsuit by Former Hourly-Paid Employees

CAESARS ACQUISITION: Has Open Ended Deadline to Respond to Suit
CASCABEL HOSPITALITY: Faces "Corona" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CASTLE SERVICES: Faces "Puentes" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CASTLIGHT HEALTH: Class Actions Filed Related to IPO
CATALYST PHARMACEUTICAL: Settles Securities Class Action

CBC STEEL: Faces Suit by Hourly-Paid or Non-exempt Employees
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Parties Executed Written Settlement Agreement
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Court Has Not Ruled on Conditional Cert. Bid
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Investigation Ongoing in "Sinohui" Lawsuit
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: To Defend Against Merger Class Action

CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Discovery Ongoing in Naylor Farms Case
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: No Discovery Yet in "Dodson" Case
CHAPARRAL ENERGY: No Discovery Yet in "Donelson" Case
CHINA XD: To Defend Against Securities Class Actions in S.D.N.Y.
CMRE FINANCIAL: Has Invaded Class Member's Privacy, Suit Claims

COLUMBUS RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Compensation
COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Faces Suit in N.J. for Violating FDCPA
CYAN INC: Defending Against Beaver County Action
DSW INC: Gave False Discounts, "Sperling" Action Says
EMIE MARKETING: Faces "Golden" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

EPIRUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Paid Agreed-to $400,000 Fee and Expense
EXELIS INC: Entered Into MOU to Settle Merger Litigation
FARMACIA ADELFA: "Espinosa" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
FLAGSHIP SHELL: Accused of Not Paying Wages, Violating Fla. Laws
FILTER PRO: "Mayer" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

FIRST ACCEPTANCE: "Lykins" Case in Discovery Stage
GOLDEN VALLEY: Accused of Violating Electronic Fund Transfer Act
GOOGLE INC: Averts Cass Action Over Privacy Policy Changes
HAMILTON COMPANY: "Zak" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
HANNA & ASSOCIATES: Loses Bid to Dismiss CFB Debt Collection Suit

HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Final Approval Hearing Held
HERITAGE FINANCIAL: TO Defend Against "Stein" Class Action
HIGHER ONE: Defendants Moved to Dismiss Securities Class Action
HOME LOAN: Lead Plaintiff, Lead Counsel and Liaison Counsel Named
HOUSTON AMERICAN: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on July 29

IMPERVA INC: Bid to Dismiss Fully Briefed and Pending
INOGEN INC: Holford Dismissed Second Class Action
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Parties File Notice of Settlement
IRADIMED CORPORATION: Lam Civil Action in Very Early Stages
JPMORGAN CHASE: "Erami" Suit Moved to N.D. California Court

KCG HOLDINGS: Final Settlement Hearing Held
LEAM DRILLING: Faces Claims for OT Wages Under Penn. Wage Act
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: To Defend Against Data Privacy Litigation
LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Appeal in Securities Class Action Remains Pending
LENDIO INC: Has Invaded Class Member's Privacy, Suit Claims

LIBERTY MUTUAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Johansen" Suit Says
LUMENIS INC: "Ballard" Suit Alleges Wage & Hour Laws Violations
LYFT INC: Faces "Frederic" Suit Over Driver Misclassification
M/A-COM: Ex-Mindspeed Technologies Employee Files Class Suit
MAGNUM HUNTER: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Actions

MANGIA FRESCA: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Morales" Suit Says
MARKIT LTD: Defendant in Dealers and ISDA Class Actions
MASTEC INC: "Wrigley" Class Action Filed in S.D. Florida
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeal Pending in Keife and Simon Cases
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Defending Against "Owens" Case

METROPOLITAN LIFE: Defending Against "Robainas" Case
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Defending Against "Intoccia" and Weilert Cases
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Objector Appeals Case Approval in C-Mart Case
METROPOLITAN LIFE: To Defend Against "Voshall" Case
MIAMI HERALD: "Rierra" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

MMA CAPITAL: Parties in Class Action Submit Settlement Agreement
MONSANTO CO: Removes "Mirzaie" Suit to California District Court
NEVADA PROPERTY: Deal Reached in Wage and Hour Cases
NEVADA PROPERTY: Settlement Reached in Taping/Recording Suit
NEW YORK: ACS Sued Over Failure to Keep Foster Children Safe

NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Court Has Not Yet Ruled on Dismissal Bid
ONEIDA FINANCIAL: Faces "Parshall" Class Action
ONEIDA FINANCIAL: Faces "Solak" Class Action
ONEIDA FINANCIAL: Faces "Colvin" Class Action
OVASCIENCE INC: Court Has Not Yet Ruled on Motion to Dismiss

PACIFIC BELL: Accused of Violating California Labor Code
PEOPLE'S UNITED: Parties in Marta Farb Case Executed Settlement
PHOENIX COS: Has $48.5MM Non-Recurring Charge Related to Deal
PL SLATON: "Morales Vega" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
PML CLUBS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Hoyt" Suit Claims

PUSH HEALTH: Faces Wilder Chiropractic Class Suit in Wisconsin
QUETZAL RESTAURANT: Faces "Demesio" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
RCS CAPITAL: Court Issues Order of Dismissal in Summit Litigation
RCS CAPITAL: Parties in ARCH Litigation Executed MOU
RCS CAPITAL: No Material Filings in RCAP Shareholder Class Action

RCS CAPITAL: Plaintiffs in ARCP Case Filed Amended Complaint
REXFORD INDUSTRIAL: Inks Settlement With Remaining Plaintiffs
RJ REYNOLDS: Judge Ejected From Perroto Tobacco Case for Bias
ROCK CREEK: Court Preliminary Approved Securities Case Settlement
ROCK CREEK: No Discovery Requests Served in Consumer Class Action

RSUI INDEMNITY: Accused of Violating Cal. Professions, Labor Law
SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Named as Defendant in Class Action
SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Class Action in Texas Voluntarily Dismissed
SCHIFF NUTRITION: October 30 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
SCOUT ANALYTICS: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports

SILVER WHEATON: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
SOUTH AFRICA: Families to Sue Over Marikana Massacre
SQUARE 1: Facing Two Stockholder Actions Over Merger With PacWest
STAAR SURGICAL: To Seek Dismissal of "Todd" Case
SWISHER HYGIENE: Court Approves Settlement of 2 Canadian Cases

TESLA MOTORS: Class Action Plaintiffs' Appeal Pending
THORATEC CORP: Wants 2nd Amended Complaint in "Cooper" Dismissed
TREMOR VIDEO: Balks at Motion to Vacate Judgment
TRIMBLE NAVIGATION: "Thompson" Class Action Complaint Filed
UNI-PIXEL INC: Issued 430,000 Shares in Class Action Settlement

UNITED AIRLINES: Fixed Fare Prices, "Hartley" Suit Claims
UNITED HEALTHCARE: "Carr" Suit Alleges ERISA Violation
VBI VACCINES: Defending Furlong Class Action
VENAXIS INC: Faces "Bealer" Class Action in Douglas County
VENAXIS INC: Faces "Boldt" Class Action in Colorado

WARNER MUSIC: Dispute Regarding Discovery Ongoing in Pricing Case
WARNER MUSIC: Implementing Terms of Accord in Music Download Case
WEIGHT WATCHERS: Made Settlement Payment in "Connolly" Case
WEIGHT WATCHERS: To Defend Against Securities Litigation
WESTPORT FUTURES: Final Approval Hearing Held in Ge Dandong Case

WICKHAM SECURITIES: To Face $27-Mil. Investors Class Suit
ZILLOW GROUP: Appeal in Securities Class Action Dismissed
ZILLOW GROUP: Parties in Trulia Deal Case Negotiating Settlement



                            *********


AECOM: AECOM Australia Continues to Defend Investors Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AECOM said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 13, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2015, that AECOM Australia continues to defend a
class action by investors who acquired approximately $155 million
Australian dollars of securities.

In 2005 and 2006, the Company's main Australian subsidiary, AECOM
Australia Pty Ltd (AECOM Australia), performed a traffic forecast
assignment for a client consortium as part of the client's project
to design, build, finance and operate a tolled motorway tunnel in
Australia. To fund the motorway's design and construction, the
client formed certain special purpose vehicles (SPVs) that raised
approximately $700 million Australian dollars through an initial
public offering (IPO) of equity units in 2006 and approximately an
additional $1.4 billion Australian dollars in long term bank
loans. The SPVs went into insolvency administrations in February
2011.

KordaMentha, the receivers for the SPVs (the RCM Applicants),
caused a lawsuit to be filed against AECOM Australia by the RCM
Applicants in the Federal Court of Australia on May 14, 2012.
Portigon AG (formerly WestLB AG), one of the lending banks to the
SPVs, filed a lawsuit in the Federal Court of Australia against
AECOM Australia on May 18, 2012.

Separately, a class action lawsuit, which has been amended to
include approximately 770 of the IPO investors, was filed against
AECOM Australia in the Federal Court of Australia on May 31, 2012.

All of the lawsuits claim damages that purportedly resulted from
AECOM Australia's role in connection with the above described
traffic forecast. The RCM Applicants have claimed damages of
approximately $1.68 billion Australian dollars (including
interest, as of March 31, 2014). The damages claimed by Portigon
as of June 17, 2014 were also recently quantified at approximately
$76 million Australian dollars (including interest). The Company
believes this claim is duplicative of damages already included in
the RCM Applicants' claim to the extent Portigon receives a
portion of the RCM Applicants' recovery. The class action
applicants claim that they represent investors who acquired
approximately $155 million Australian dollars of securities.

AECOM Australia disputes the claimed entitlements to damages
asserted by all applicants and continues to defend this matter
vigorously; AECOM Australia cannot provide assurance that it will
be successful in these efforts. The potential range of loss and
the resolution of this matter cannot be determined at this time
and could have a material adverse effect on AECOM Australia and
the results of its operations.


ALLIANCE BANCORP: 3 Class Actions Filed Related to Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Alliance Bancorp, Inc. of Pennsylvania on March 2, 2015, entered
into an Agreement and Plan of Reorganization (the "Merger
Agreement") with WSFS Financial Corporation ("WSFS") providing
for, among other things, the merger of the Company with and into
WSFS (the "Merger") and the merger of the Bank with and into
Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, a federal savings bank and
wholly owned subsidiary of WSFS.

Alliance Bancorp, Inc. of Pennsylvania said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that
three purported shareholder derivative and class action complaints
relating to the Merger have been filed. The actions were filed in
the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania. The
complaints name as defendants the Company, its directors and
certain of its officers, and WSFS.

The complaints in the Merger litigation allege that the members of
the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties
to the Company's shareholders by approving the Merger for
inadequate consideration, approving the transaction in order to
obtain benefits for Company's directors and officers that are not
equally shared by other Company's shareholders, entering into the
Merger agreement containing preclusive deal protection devices,
and failing to take steps to maximize the value to be paid to the
Company's shareholders. The complaints also allege claims against
WSFS for aiding and abetting these alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties. The plaintiffs in this action seeks, among other things,
preliminary and permanent injunctive relief prohibiting
consummation of the Merger, rescission or rescissory damages in
the event the Merger is consummated, damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, and other and further relief. Each of the defendants
believes the claims asserted are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend against this lawsuit. However, at this time, it
is not possible to predict the outcome of the proceedings or their
impact on the Company, WSFS or the merger.


ALP LIQUIDATING: "Rothal" Case Has Been Tendered Zurich
-------------------------------------------------------
ALP Liquidating Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the case, Rothal v.
Arvida/JMB Partners Ltd. et al., has been tendered to one of the
Partnership's insurance carriers, Zurich American Insurance
Company (together with its affiliates collectively, "Zurich"), for
defense and indemnity.

The Partnership, the General Partner and certain related parties
as well as other unrelated parties have been named defendants in
an action entitled Rothal v. Arvida/JMB Partners Ltd. et al., Case
No. 03-10709 CACE 12, filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida. In this suit
that was originally filed on or about June 20, 2003, plaintiffs
purport to bring a class action allegedly arising out of
construction defects occurring during the development of Camellia
Island in Weston, which has approximately 150 homes.

On May 9, 2005, plaintiffs filed a nine count second amended
complaint seeking unspecified general damages, special damages,
statutory damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs,
attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court may deem just
and proper. Plaintiffs complain, among other things, that the
homes were not adequately built, that the homes were not built in
conformity with the South Florida Building Code and plans on file
with Broward County, Florida, that the roofs were not properly
attached or were inadequate, that the truss systems and
installation thereof were improper, and that the homes suffer from
improper shutter storm protection systems. Plaintiffs have filed a
motion to expand the class to include other homes in Weston. The
motion to expand the class was withdrawn. The case went to
mediation on March 11, 2010. The case did not settle.

The Arvida defendants have filed their answer to the amended
complaint. The Arvida defendants believe that they have
meritorious defenses and intend to vigorously defend themselves.

The court concluded its hearings on the motion to certify the
class covering the homes in Camellia Island and certified the
class by order dated September 16, 2010. On October 15, 2010, the
Partnership filed its notice of appeal challenging the
certification order.

On June 1, 2011, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's
order certifying the class. The case has been returned to the
trial court for further proceedings including trial. The case was
set for mediation on or about June 16, 2015 and does not currently
have a trial date. The defense of the case is proceeding.

The Partnership intends to vigorously defend itself. The
Partnership is not able to determine what, if any, loss exposure
that it may have for this matter. This case has been tendered to
one of the Partnership's insurance carriers, Zurich American
Insurance Company (together with its affiliates collectively,
"Zurich"), for defense and indemnity. Zurich is providing a
defense of this matter under a purported reservation of rights.

The Partnership has also engaged other counsel in connection with
this lawsuit. The ultimate legal and financial liability of the
Partnership, if any, in this matter cannot be estimated with
certainty at this time. The Partnership is unable to determine the
ultimate portion of the expenses, fees and damages, if any, which
will be covered by its insurance.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Cumming" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth C. Cumming, Kenneth A. Nelson, Jonathan Shankle,
Bradford Tomlin, and Whitney Tomlin, both individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Airlines,
Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., Delta Air Lines, Inc., and United
Airlines, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02253-M (N.D. Tex., July 8,
2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful conspiracy to
fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of domestic airline
tickets, specifically by constraining the seating capacity on
flights within the United States, limiting the number of flights
offered within the United States, and limiting the transparency of
pricing information available to domestic airline ticket consumers
regarding flights within the United States.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Warren T. Burns, Esq.
      Daniel H. Charest, Esq.
      BURNS CHAREST LLP
      500 N Akard St, Suite 2810
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Telephone: (469) 504-4551
      Facsimile: (469) 444-5002
      E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com
              dcharest@burnscharest.com

         - and -

      Korey A. Nelson, Esq.
      Elizabeth A. Roche, Esq.
      BURNS CHAREST LLP
      365 Canal Street, Suite 1170
      New Orleans, LO 70130
      E-mail: knelson@burnscharest.com
              eroche@burnscharest.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Howard Suit Over Air Ticket-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Sloan Koller Group, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. American Airlines, Inc., Southwest Airlines
Co., Delta Air Lines, Inc., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-04002-BMC (E.D.N.Y., July 8, 2015), arises from the
Defendants' alleged unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain,
or stabilize the price of domestic airline tickets, specifically
by constraining the seating capacity on flights within the United
States, limiting the number of flights offered within the United
States, and limiting the transparency of pricing information
available to domestic airline ticket consumers regarding flights
within the United States.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
      Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
      Gregory K. Arenson, Esq.
      Richard J. Kilsheimer, Esq.
      Donald R. Hall, Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
      850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 687-1980
      E-mail: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
              ffox@kaplanfox.com
              garenson@kaplanfox.com
              dhall@kaplanfox.com
              rkilsheimer@kaplanfox.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Jain" Suit Over Air Ticket-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Jain, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. American Airlines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., Delta Air
Lines, Inc., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01072-CKK
(D.D.C., July 8, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged
unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize the
price of domestic airline tickets, specifically by constraining
the seating capacity on flights within the United States, limiting
the number of flights offered within the United States, and
limiting the transparency of pricing information available to
domestic airline ticket consumers regarding flights within the
United States.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary Edward Mason, Esq.
      Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
      WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
      1625 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 605
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 429-2290
      Facsimile: (202) 429-2294
      E-mail: gmason@wbmllp.com
              jrathod@wbmllp.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "McEnerney" Suit Over Airline Ticket
-------------------------------------------------------------
David McEnerney and Seth Lyons, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Delta Airlines, Inc., American
Airlines Group Inc., American Airlines, Inc., Southwest Airlines
Co., United Continental Holdings, Inc., and United Airlines, Inc.,
2:15-cv-03767-GAM (E.D. Pa., July 8, 2015), arises from the
Defendants' alleged unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain,
or stabilize the price of domestic airline tickets, specifically
by constraining the seating capacity on flights within the United
States, limiting the number of flights offered within the United
States, and limiting the transparency of pricing information
available to domestic airline ticket consumers regarding flights
within the United States.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      A. Luke Smith, Esq.
      RADICE LAW FIRM, PC
      143 W Walnut Ln Suite 102-R
      Philadelphia, PA 19144
      Telephone: (267) 570-3000
      Facsimile: (609) 385-0745
      E-mail: lsmith@radicelawfirm.com

         - and -

      John Radice, Esq.
      34 Sunset Blvd.
      Long Beach, NJ 08008
      Telephone: (646) 386-7688
      Facsimile: (609) 385-0745
      E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Golian" Suit Over Antitrust Laws
----------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Golian, and all others similarly-situated v. American
Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., and
United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01075 (D.D.C., July 9,
2015), seeks damages under the antitrust laws arising from the
Defendants' alleged conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or
stabilize the price of domestic airline tickets in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

This complaint is filed under Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton
Act, 15 U.S.C. sections 15 and 26, to recover treble damages,
equitable relief, costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees
for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
section 1.

American Airlines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation based in Forth
Worth, Texas that conducts air passenger transportation services
throughout the U.S. including flights to and from this district.
The Defendant is a subsidiary of American Airlines Group, Inc.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. Delta conducts air
passenger transportation services throughout the U.S., including
flights to and from this district.

Southwest Airlines Co. is a Delaware corporation domiciled in
Dallas, Texas. Southwest conducts air passenger transportation
services throughout the United States, including flights to and
from this district.

United Airlines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located Chicago, Illinois. United conducts air
passenger transportation services throughout the U.S., including
flights to and from this district.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jon David Corey, Esq.
      QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
      777 6th St. NW, 11th Floor
      Washington, DC 20001
      Tel: (202) 538-8101
      Fax: (202) 538-8100
      E-mail: joncorey@quinnemanuel.com

         - and -

      Ronald J. Aranoff, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD, LLP
      10 East 40th Street
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 779-1414
      Fax: (212) 779-3218
      E-mail: aranoff@bernlieb.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Huey" Suit Over Federal Antitrust Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heidi Huey, and all others similarly-situated v. American
Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., and
United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-04048 (E.D.N.Y., July 9,
2015), seeks damages and equitable relief against the Defendants
pursuant to the federal antitrust laws and Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.

The action seeks to challenge conduct of Defendants in violation
of the federal antitrust laws. Beginning July 1, 2011, and
continuing to the present, Defendants have allegedly colluded to
fix, raise, and maintain the price of domestic air passenger
transportation through various means including by eliminating or
restricting the supply of domestic air transportation.

American Airlines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Fort Worth, Texas. American sells
and provides domestic air transportation services throughout the
U.S.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. Delta sells and provides
domestic air transportation services throughout the U.S.

Southwest Airlines Co. is a Texas corporation with its principal
place of business in Dallas, Texas. Delta sells and provides
domestic air transportation services throughout the U.S.

United Airlines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Chicago, Illinois. United sells and provides
domestic air transportation services throughout the U.S.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven N. Williams, Esq.
      COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP.
      40 Worth Street, 10th Floor
      New York, NY 10013
      Tel: (212) 201-6820
      Fax: (646) 219-6678
      E-mail: swilliams@cpmlegal.com


AMERICAN APPAREL: Faces "Rodriguez" Shareholder Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
American Apparel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that former employee and
purported shareholder Eliana Gil Rodriguez filed on April 30,
2015, a putative class action lawsuit against Company directors, a
former Company officer, and Standard General L.P. in the Delaware
Chancery Court (Case No. 10944). The lawsuit alleges breach of
fiduciary duty claims in connection with the Company's 2014 annual
meeting, its secondary offering, the Standstill Agreement, the
2014 adoption of a rights plan, and certain amendments to the
bylaws against the former and current Company directors and the
named former Company officer. In addition, the lawsuit alleges
that Standard General aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief and requests
that the Court order a revote of the Class A directors.

The Company believes that all such claims are without merit and
intends to vigorously dispute the validity of these claims. The
Company is unable to predict the financial outcome of this matter
at this time, and any views formed as to the viability of these
claims or the financial exposure which could result may change
from time to time as the matter proceeds through its course.
Accordingly, adjustments, if any, that might result from the
resolution of this matter have not been reflected in the
consolidated financial statements. However, no assurance can be
made that this matter together with the potential for reputational
harm, will not result in a material financial exposure, which
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations, or cash flows.


AMERICAN APPAREL: Former Employees File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
American Apparel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that former employees
Carlos Hirschberg, Cesar Antonio Palma Cordero, and Dominga
Valencia filed on April 16, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit
against the Company in the Court (Case No. 2:15-CV-02827),
asserting: (i) violation of the WARN Act (29 U.S.C. Sec.  2101 et
seq.); (ii) violation of the California WARN Act (Labor Code Sec.
1400 et seq.), and (iii) unfair business practices under
California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200 et seq.).

The Company believes that all such claims are without merit and
intends to vigorously dispute the validity of these claims. The
Company is unable to predict the financial outcome of this matter
at this time, and any views formed as to the viability of these
claims or the financial exposure which could result may change
from time to time as the matter proceeds through its course.
Accordingly, adjustments, if any, that might result from the
resolution of this matter have not been reflected in the
consolidated financial statements. However, no assurance can be
made that this matter together with the potential for reputational
harm, will not result in a material financial exposure, which
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations, or cash flows.


AMERICAN APPAREL: Consumer Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------
American Apparel, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a purported customer
of the Company filed on April 2, 2015, a putative class action,
(in San Diego Superior Court (Case No. 37-2015-00011243), for
violations of California Civil Code Sec.  1747.08.

The Company intends to aggressively defend against this matter.
The Company is unable to predict the financial outcome of this
matter at this time, and any views formed as to the viability of
these claims or the financial exposure which could result may
change from time to time as the matter proceeds through its
course. Accordingly, adjustments, if any, that might result from
the resolution of this matter have not been reflected in the
consolidated financial statements. However, no assurance can be
made that this matter together with the potential for reputational
harm, will not result in a material financial exposure, which
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition, results of operations, or cash flows.


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Parties Have Not Commenced Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------
AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that parties have
not commenced discovery in putative securities class action
lawsuits.

The Company said, "We and certain of our officers are defendants
in related putative securities class action lawsuits filed in
February 2014 in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. Plaintiffs in the lawsuits purport to
represent a class of our stockholders who purchased shares between
February 15, 2011 and December 11, 2013. On April 24, 2014, the
court issued an order consolidating the related actions,
appointing lead plaintiffs and approving the selection of co-lead
counsel. On September 4, 2014, the lead plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint. The consolidated amended complaint
asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and under Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and seeks damages in an
unspecified amount, attorney's fees and other relief. The lead
plaintiffs assert the Section 11 claim on behalf of persons or
entities who purchased our Series A preferred stock in or
traceable to our public offering on June 5, 2013, and did not sell
those shares of Series A preferred stock prior to December 12,
2013."

"On October 24, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, which the lead plaintiffs opposed
on December 10, 2014. On January 14, 2015, we filed our reply in
support of the motion to dismiss. The motions to dismiss and the
opposition motion remain pending. The parties have not commenced
discovery."


APOLLO GLOBAL: Parties Want Fact Discovery Until January
--------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that plaintiffs and the
remaining defendants in the class action cases filed by consumers
alleging online fraud have filed a joint report under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 26(f) that, among other things, requested that
the Court extend the deadlines in its standing order for (i)
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint until May 29, 2015; (ii)
the close of fact discovery until January 15, 2016; and (iii) full
briefing of class certification until June 1, 2016.

In March 2012, plaintiffs filed two putative class actions,
captioned Kelm v. Chase Bank (No. 12-cv-332) and Miller v. 1-800-
Flowers.com, Inc. (No. 12-cv-396), in the District of Connecticut
on behalf of a class of consumers alleging online fraud. The
defendants included, among others, Trilegiant Corporation, Inc.
("Trilegiant"), its parent company, Affinion Group, LLC
("Affinion"), and Apollo Global Management, LLC ("AGM"), which is
affiliated with funds that are the beneficial owners of 68% of
Affinion's common stock.

In both cases, plaintiffs allege that Trilegiant, aided by its
business partners, who include e-merchants and credit card
companies, developed a set of business practices intended to
create consumer confusion and ultimately defraud consumers into
unknowingly paying fees to clubs for unwanted services. Plaintiffs
allege that AGM is a proper defendant because of its indirect
stock ownership and ability to appoint the majority of Affinion's
board. The complaints assert claims under the Racketeer Influenced
Corrupt Organizations Act; the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act; the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act; and the
California Business and Professional Code, and seek, among other
things, restitution or disgorgement, injunctive relief,
compensatory, treble and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

The allegations in Kelm and Miller are substantially similar to
those in Schnabel v. Trilegiant Corp. (No. 3:10-cv-957), a
putative class action filed in the District of Connecticut in 2010
that names only Trilegiant and Affinion as defendants. The court
has consolidated the Kelm, Miller, and Schnabel cases under the
caption In re: Trilegiant Corporation, Inc. and ordered that they
proceed on the same schedule.

On June 18, 2012, the court appointed lead plaintiffs' counsel,
and on September 7, 2012, plaintiffs filed their consolidated
amended complaint ("CAC"), which alleges the same causes of action
against AGM as did the complaints in the Kelm and Miller cases.
Defendants filed motions to dismiss on December 7, 2012,
plaintiffs filed opposition papers on February 7, 2013, and
defendants filed replies on April 5, 2013.

On December 5, 2012, plaintiffs filed another putative class
action, captioned Frank v. Trilegiant Corp. (No. 12- cv-1721), in
the District of Connecticut, naming the same defendants and
containing allegations substantially similar to those in the CAC.

On January 23, 2013, plaintiffs moved to transfer and consolidate
Frank into In re: Trilegiant. On July 24, 2013 the Frank court
transferred the case to Judge Bryant, who is presiding over In re:
Trilegiant, and on March 28, 2014, Judge Bryant granted the motion
to consolidate.

On September 25, 2013, the court held oral argument on defendants'
motions to dismiss. On March 28, 2014, the court granted in part
and denied in part motions to dismiss filed by Affinion and
Trilegiant on behalf of all defendants, and also granted separate
motions to dismiss filed by certain defendants, including AGM.

On that same day, the court directed the clerk to terminate AGM as
a defendant in the consolidated action.

On April 28, 2014, plaintiffs moved for interlocutory review of
certain of the court's motion-to-dismiss rulings, not including
its order granting AGM's separate dismissal motion. Defendants
filed a response on May 23, 2014, and plaintiffs replied on June
5, 2014.

On November 13, 2014, plaintiffs and the remaining defendants
filed a Joint Status Report Regarding Discovery stating that no
discovery had taken place since plaintiffs filed their
interlocutory-review motion. On March 26, 2015, the court denied
plaintiffs' motion for interlocutory review.

On April 30, 2015, plaintiffs and the remaining defendants filed a
joint report under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) that,
among other things, requested that the Court extend the deadlines
in its standing order for (i) plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint until May 29, 2015; (ii) the close of fact discovery
until January 15, 2016; and (iii) full briefing of class
certification until June 1, 2016.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Caesars Filed Answer to Meehancombs Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in the case,
Meehancombs Global Credit Opportunities Master Fund, L.P., et al.
v. Caesars Entertainment Corp., et al., No. 14-cv-7091 (S.D.N.Y.)
(the "Meehancombs Action"), plaintiffs have filed an amended
complaint, and Caesars Entertainment has filed its answer.

On September 3, 2014, institutional investors allegedly holding
approximately $137 million in CEOC unsecured senior notes sued
CEOC and Caesars Entertainment for breach of contract and the
implied covenant of good faith, Trust Indenture Act violations and
a declaratory judgment challenging the August 2014 private
financing transaction in which a portion of outstanding senior
unsecured notes were purchased by Caesars Entertainment, and a
majority of the noteholders agreed to amend the indenture to
terminate Caesars Entertainment's guarantee of the notes and
modify certain restrictions on CEOC's ability to sell assets.
Caesars Entertainment and CEOC filed a motion to dismiss on
November 12, 2014.

On January 15, 2015, the court granted the motion with respect to
a Trust Indenture Act claim by Meehancombs but otherwise denied
the motion. On January 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint seeking relief against Caesars Entertainment only, and
Caesars Entertainment answered on February 12, 2015. On October 2,
2014, a related putative class action complaint was filed on
behalf of the holders of these notes captioned Danner v. Caesars
Entertainment Corp., et al., No. 14-cv-7973 (S.D.N.Y.) (the
"Danner Action"), against Caesars Entertainment alleging similar
claims to the Meehancombs Action. On February 19, 2015, plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint, and Caesars Entertainment answered on
February 25, 2015.


APOLLO GLOBAL: Parties in CEC Stockholder Case in Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Global Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the parties in the
CEC Entertainment, Inc. Stockholder Litigation have engaged in
limited discovery.

Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that CEC
Entertainment, Inc. ("CEC") had entered into a merger agreement
with certain entities affiliated with Apollo (the "Merger
Agreement"), four putative shareholder class actions were filed in
the District Court of Shawnee County, Kansas on behalf of
purported stockholders of CEC against, among others, CEC, its
directors and Apollo and certain of its affiliates, which include
Queso Holdings Inc., Q Merger Sub Inc., Apollo Management VIII,
L.P., and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P.

The first purported class action, which is captioned Hilary Coyne
v. Richard M. Frank et al., Case No. 14C57, was filed on January
21, 2014 (the "Coyne Action"). The second purported class action,
which was captioned John Solak v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al.,
Civil Action No. 14C55, was filed on January 22, 2014 (the "Solak
Action"). The Solak Action was dismissed for lack of prosecution
on October 14, 2014.

The third purported class action, which is captioned Irene Dixon
v. CEC Entertainment, Inc. et al., Case No. 14C81, was filed on
January 24, 2014 and additionally names as defendants Apollo
Management VIII, L.P. and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. (the "Dixon
Action"). The fourth purported class action, which is captioned
Louisiana Municipal Public Employees' Retirement System v. Frank,
et al., Case No. 14C97, was filed on January 31, 2014 (the "LMPERS
Action") (together with the Coyne and Dixon Actions, the
"Shareholder Actions").

A fifth purported class action, which was captioned McCullough v.
Frank, et al., Case No. CC-14-00622-B, was filed in the County
Court of Dallas County, Texas on February 7, 2014. This action was
dismissed for want of prosecution on May 21, 2014.

Each of the Shareholder Actions alleges, among other things, that
CEC's directors breached their fiduciary duties to CEC's
stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval
of the Merger Agreement, including by agreeing to an inadequate
price, agreeing to impermissible deal protection devices, and
filing materially deficient disclosures regarding the transaction.

Each of the Shareholder Actions further alleges that Apollo and
certain of its affiliates aided and abetted those alleged
breaches. As filed, the Shareholder Actions seek, among other
things, rescission of the various transactions associated with the
merger, damages and attorneys' and experts' fees and costs.

On February 7, 2014 and February 11, 2014, the plaintiffs in the
Shareholder Actions pursued a consolidated action for damages
after the transaction closed. Thereafter, the Shareholder Actions
were consolidated under the caption In re CEC Entertainment, Inc.
Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 14C57, and the parties have
engaged in limited discovery.

No defendant has any obligation to answer or otherwise respond to
any of the complaints in the consolidated action until the
plaintiffs file or designate an operative complaint. Although
Apollo cannot predict the ultimate outcome of the action, it
believes that such action is without merit.


APPLE INC: January Trial Scheduled for Bag-Search Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that U.S. District
Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California on
July 16 certified a class of Apple Inc. retail employees in
California in a suit over the company's bag-search policy.

Plaintiffs lawyers at McLaughlin & Stern and The Kralowec Law
Group are seeking compensation for time employees spent in
security checks that Apple put in place to prevent theft of its
much-in-demand devices.

Apple's lawyer, Julie Dunne -- jdunne@littler.com -- of Littler
Mendelson, argued at a hearing in the case earlier this month that
there were too many issues that varied from employee to employee
and from store to store to try the case on a classwide basis.

But in a 15-page order, Judge Alsup found that the question of
whether Apple was required under California law to pay employees
for time spent on security checks was something that could be
answered with one trial.

Judge Alsup further found that some plaintiffs might wish to
pursue claims that they brought bags to work to carry necessities
such as prescription medicine rather than for personal
convenience.  But the judge said those plaintiffs are likely in
the minority and proposed that they either intervene in the class
action or opt out and pursue their own claims.

"We should not let the few exceptions prevent litigation of the
general rule," Judge Alsup wrote.  Judge Alsup scheduled an
initial trial over the policy for January.  If Apple is found
liable, Judge Alsup wrote, damages will need to be proven
individually via a claims process.

In the July 16 ruling, Judge Alsup also appointed Lee Shalov --
lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com -- of McLaughlin & Stern to serve as
lead counsel in the case.  Mr. Shalov on July 16 said that the
ruling was a "watershed event" in the litigation.  He said he was
grateful that the judge endorsed the plaintiffs' argument to
certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4),
which allows plaintiffs to seek class certification on certain
issues, while allowing other issues to proceed on an individual
basis.

Littler's Dunne didn't respond to a phone message.

Although plaintiffs initially filed claims under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, only the California law claims survived after the
U.S. Supreme Court's 2014 decision in Integrity Staffing Solutions
v. Busk.  The court held that employers do not have to pay workers
for time in postshift security checks under the federal labor law.
After the Supreme Court's ruling, Judge Alsup dismissed plaintiffs
claims under New York, Massachusetts and Ohio state laws, which
closely mirror the FLSA.


ATOSSA GENETICS: Hearing on Appeal Not Been Set
-----------------------------------------------
Atossa Genetics Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a hearing for the
appeal in a putative securities class action complaint has not
been set.

"On October 10, 2013, a putative securities class action
complaint, captioned Cook v. Atossa Genetics, Inc., et al., No.
2:13-cv-01836-RSM, was filed in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington against us, certain of the
Company's directors and officers and the underwriters of the
Company November 2012 initial public offering," the Company said.
"The complaint alleges that all defendants violated Sections 11
and 12(a)(2), and that the Company and certain of its directors
and officers violated Section 15, of the Securities Act by making
material false and misleading statements and omissions in the
offering's registration statement, and that we and certain of our
directors and officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of the
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making
false and misleading statements and omissions in the registration
statement and in certain of our subsequent press releases and SEC
filings with respect to our NAF specimen collection process, our
ForeCYTE Breast Health Test and our MASCT device. This action
seeks, on behalf of persons who purchased our common stock between
November 8, 2012 and October 4, 2013, inclusive, damages of an
unspecific amount."

On February 14, 2014, the Court appointed plaintiffs Miko Levi,
Bandar Almosa and Gregory Harrison (collectively, the "Levi
Group") as lead plaintiffs, and approved their selection of co-
lead counsel and liaison counsel.  The Court also amended the
caption of the case to read In re Atossa Genetics, Inc. Securities
Litigation. No. 2:13-cv-01836-RSM.  An amended complaint was filed
on April 15, 2014. The Company and other defendants filed motions
to dismiss the amended complaint on May 30, 2014. On October 6,
2014 the Court granted defendants' motion dismissing all claims
against Atossa and all other defendants. On October 30, 2014, the
Court entered a final order of dismissal. On November 3, 2014,
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Court and have
appealed the Court's dismissal order to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit. On February 11, 2015, plaintiffs filed
their opening appellate brief. Defendants filed an answer on April
13, 2015. If plaintiffs choose to file a reply brief in support of
their appeal, it was due May 18, 2015. A hearing for the appeal
has not been set.

The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and plans to
defend itself vigorously; however, failure by the Company to
obtain a favorable resolution of the claims set forth in the
complaint could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations and financial condition.


AVIS BUDGET: Sued in N.J. for Violating Fair Credit Reporting Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Fuller, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC and Avis Budget Group,
Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-03856-KM-MAH (D.N.J., June 9, 2015) alleges
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Soumilas, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
          Land Title Building, 19th Floor
          100 South Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 735-8600
          E-mail: jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com


BANK OF NEW YORK: Asks Court to Toss Illegal Foreclosure Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reported that lawyers for Bank of
New York Mellon have asked a court to dismiss a proposed class
action accusing it of illegally foreclosing on military members'
homes, saying the seizure of the lead plaintiff's residence did
not violate federal law.

In a filing, lawyers for the bank said a foreclosure against
Sergeant Amanda Wensel was lawful because it was ordered by a
Pennsylvania court before she left for active duty in Afghanistan.
The bank is represented by lawyers at McGuire Woods and Goodwin
Procter.


BLUE EARTH: Defending Against Securities Litigation
---------------------------------------------------
Blue Earth, Inc., is defending against the securities litigation,
the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2015.

On October 24, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company, two executive officers, and one non-executive
officer in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Case No:2:14-cv-08263). On January 21, 2015, the court
appointed a Lead Plaintiff and Lead Plaintiff's Counsel.  The
Court also re-captioned the case In re Blue Earth, Inc. Securities
Litigation, File No. CV 14-8263 DSF (JEMx).

On March 13, 2015, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint
("FAC").  The FAC alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, and a purported class of purchasers of the
Company's stock during the period from October 7, 2013 through
October 21, 2014.

Defendants responded to the FAC and filed a motion to dismiss the
FAC.  Plaintiff's opposition to the motion to dismiss will be due
on or before June 1, 2015.  Defendants' reply was due on or before
June 22, 2015.  The Company believes the claims contained in the
complaint are without merit and is vigorously defending this
matter.


BP: Loses Bid to Access Claimants' Confidential Information
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a federal appeals court has struck down BP's effort at
gaining access to confidential information about pending claims to
its $9.9 billion oil spill settlement in its ongoing attempt to
root out fraud.

In a 2-1 opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
on July 16 found it did not have jurisdiction to hear BP's appeal
and, as a result, declined to rule on the merits.  The panel
reached its conclusion despite having rendered decisions in three
previous appeals that challenged other aspects of the same
settlement.

"At issue in each of these cases was more than the right to an
accurate interpretation of a settlement agreement provision.  The
right in these cases is better characterized as the right to an
interpretation of the settlement agreement on an issue with a
serious impact on the effective and fair administration of the
settlement," wrote Chief Judge Carl Stewart.  "By that measure,
the disputed issue in this case does not stack up."

A BP spokeswoman declined to comment.

Class counsel Steve Herman -- jimmyd@wrightroy.com -- a partner at
New Orleans-based Herman Herman & Katz, and Jim Roy, a senior
partner at Domengeaux Wright Roy Edwards & Colomb in Lafayette,
Louisiana, said in an emailed statement: "Through its ruling, the
Fifth Circuit has protected the independence and integrity of the
claims process, yet still allowing full information to the parties
if an individual appeal is warranted."

The settlement, reached in 2012 to resolve claims for economic
damages by local businesses and individuals tied to the Deepwater
Horizon oil spill, is separate from the $18.7 billion deal BP
reached this month with the federal government over environmental
fines.

BP had appealed two 2014 rulings that blocked access to
information about individuals or businesses whose claims were
pending before a settlement administrator.  Class counsel had
moved to halt BP's access after information about claimants, such
as financial records, had appeared in major newspaper ads
attacking potential fraud in the settlement.  BP has access to the
information once the administrator decides whether a claim is
eligible for payment.  But in a Nov. 4 appeal, BP argued that U.S.
District Judge Carl Barbier's rulings denying access before an
award determination could hamstring the oil giant's ability to
identify potentially fraudulent claims.

BP claims it discovered $4 million in fraudulent claims already
using such information, but barring it from access going forward
could force it to "pay millions of dollars in fraudulent or
improper awards."

In a December 8 response, class counsel argued that the Fifth
Circuit had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

The Fifth Circuit agreed, noting that its previous rulings
addressed aspects of the settlement that could have affected
thousands of claimants.  "Here, by contrast, BP has shown a total
of five claims in which this data appeared to have made any
difference at all," Judge Stewart wrote.

In her dissent, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod noted that in one of
its previous decisions addressing the settlement, the Fifth
Circuit had issued a ruling involving $1.2 million in awards given
to just three nonprofit organization claimants.

"Despite the relatively small number of awards and amount in
controversy, we recognized that the order had implications for the
calculation of awards made to other nonprofits.  A similar
inference is appropriate here," she wrote.  "In this case, we deal
not with potentially miscalculated awards, but rather with
potentially fraudulent ones that should not have been awarded at
all."


BRE SELECT: Will Pay 20% of Litigation Cost in Apple REIT Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRE Select Hotels Corp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company, as
successor to Apple Six, will pay 20%, and the other parties to the
litigation cost sharing agreement will pay 80%, of the fees and
expenses of specified counsel or any other counsel, consultant or
service provider jointly retained in connection with the Apple
REIT class action litigation, incurred after November 29, 2012 in
connection with the Apple REIT class action litigation.

On December 13, 2011, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York (the "District Court") ordered that
three putative class actions, Kronberg, et al. v. David Lerner
Associates, Inc., et al., Kowalski v. Apple REIT Ten, Inc., et
al., and Leff v. Apple REIT Ten, Inc., et al., be consolidated and
amended the caption of the consolidated matter to be In re Apple
REITs Litigation. The District Court also appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel for the consolidated action and
ordered lead plaintiffs to file and serve a consolidated complaint
by February 17, 2012. Apple Six was previously named as a party in
the Kronberg, et al. v. David Lerner Associates, Inc. et al. class
action lawsuit, which was filed on June 20, 2011.

On February 17, 2012, lead plaintiffs and lead counsel in the In
re Apple REITs Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:11-cv-02919-KAM-JO,
filed an amended consolidated complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Apple
Six, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., Apple Eight Advisors, Inc.,
Apple Nine Advisors, Inc., Apple Ten Advisors, Inc., Apple Fund
Management, LLC, Apple REIT Seven, Inc., Apple REIT Eight, Inc.,
Apple REIT Nine, Inc. and Apple REIT Ten, Inc., their directors
and certain officers, and David Lerner Associates, Inc. ("David
Lerner Associates") and David Lerner. Apple REIT Seven, Inc.,
Apple REIT Eight, Inc., Apple REIT Nine, Inc. and Apple REIT Ten,
Inc. are collectively referred to as "other Apple REIT companies."
The consolidated complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all
purchasers of units in Apple Six and the other Apple REIT
companies, or those who otherwise acquired these units that were
offered and sold to them by David Lerner Associates or its
affiliates and on behalf of subclasses of shareholders in New
Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Florida, asserts claims under
Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. The
consolidated complaint also asserts claims for breach of fiduciary
duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, negligence,
and unjust enrichment, and claims for violation of the securities
laws of Connecticut and Florida. The complaint seeks, among other
things, certification of a putative nationwide class and the state
subclasses, damages, rescission of share purchases and other costs
and expenses.

On February 16, 2012, one shareholder of Apple Six and Apple REIT
Seven, Inc., filed a putative class action lawsuit captioned
Laurie Brody v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:12-cv-782-ERK-RER, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against Apple Six, Apple REIT Seven,
Inc., Glade M. Knight, Apple Suites Realty Group, Inc., David
Lerner Associates, and certain executives of David Lerner
Associates. The complaint, purportedly brought on behalf of all
purchasers of units of Apple Six and Apple REIT Seven, Inc., or
those who otherwise acquired these units, asserts claims for
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting breach of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, negligence, breach of written
or implied contract (against the David Lerner Associates
defendants only), and for violation of New Jersey's state
securities laws. On March 13, 2012, by order of the court, Laurie
Brody v. David Lerner Associates, Inc., et al. was consolidated
into the In re Apple REITs Litigation.

On April 18, 2012, Apple Six and the other Apple REIT companies
served a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in the In re
Apple REITs Litigation. Apple Six and the other Apple REIT
companies accompanied their motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint with a memorandum of law in support of their motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint.

On April 3, 2013, the motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
in the In re Apple REITs Litigation was granted in full with
prejudice. On April 12, 2013, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal
in the Apple REIT class action litigation, appealing the decision
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. On
July 26, 2013, plaintiffs filed a brief in support of their
appeal. On October 25, 2013, defendants filed a brief opposing
plaintiffs' appeal. On November 15, 2013, plaintiffs filed a reply
brief in further support of their appeal. Oral argument on
plaintiffs' appeal was held on March 31, 2014.

On April 23, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit") entered a summary order in
the In re Apple REITs Litigation. In the summary order, the Second
Circuit affirmed the dismissal by the District Court of the
federal securities claims and state securities law claims and
affirmed the dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim. However,
the Second Circuit vacated the District Court's dismissal of the
plaintiffs' state law breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and
abetting a breach of fiduciary duty, and negligence claims and
remanded for further proceedings.

After remand, on June 6, 2014, defendants filed a brief in support
of their motion to dismiss. On July 9, 2014, plaintiffs filed an
opposition brief. Defendants' reply brief was filed on August 8,
2014. On March 25, 2015, the District Court granted defendants'
motion to dismiss in full, with prejudice. The time to file a
notice of appeal of that decision has expired, and no such notice
has been filed.


BROOKDALE SENIOR: Court Approved Settlement in Stockholder Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brookdale Senior Living Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the court has
approved the settlement and dismissed the Washington stockholder
action with prejudice.

In connection with the acquisition of Emeritus, three purported
class action lawsuits relating to the Merger Agreement, by and
among the Company, Emeritus and Merger Sub, were filed on behalf
of Emeritus shareholders in the Superior Court of King County,
Washington against Emeritus, members of the Emeritus board of
directors, the Company and Merger Sub (the "Defendants"), which
lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into a single action
captioned In re Emeritus Corp. Shareholder Litigation, No. 14-2-
06385-7 SEA (the "Washington Action").

On June 26, 2014, the Defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding (the "Memorandum of Understanding") with respect to
a proposed settlement of the Washington Action, pursuant to which
the parties agreed, among other things, that the Company and
Emeritus would make certain supplemental disclosures related to
the proposed merger, which supplemental disclosures were made by
the Company in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 27, 2014 and
incorporated by reference into the Company's Registration
Statement on Form S-4 and the joint proxy statement/prospectus of
the Company and Emeritus included therein. The parties agreed to
use their collective best efforts to obtain final approval of the
settlement and the dismissal of the Washington Action with
prejudice.  Following the provision of notice of the settlement to
Emeritus' shareholders, on May 1, 2015, the court approved the
settlement and dismissed the Washington Action with prejudice.


CABLE TELEVISION: Faces Lawsuit by Former Hourly-Paid Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pablo Hernandez, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, v. Cable Television Installation & Service, LLC, Case
2:15-cv-00406-JES-MRM (M.D. Fla., July 6, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, minimum wages, an additional equal amount
as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable
attorney's fees and costs.

Cable Television Installation & Service, LLC installs residential
and commercial services for telecommunication companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Bill B. Berke, Esq.
     4423 Del Prado Blvd. S.
     Cape Coral, FL 33904
     E-mail: berkelaw@yahoo.com


CAESARS ACQUISITION: Has Open Ended Deadline to Respond to Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Caesars Acquisition Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the deadline to
respond to the Nevada Lawsuit related to the CAC-CEC Proposed
Merger has been indefinitely extended by agreement of the parties.

On December 30, 2014, Nicholas Koskie, on behalf of himself and,
he alleges, all others similarly situated, filed a lawsuit (the
"Nevada Lawsuit") in the Clark County District Court in the State
of Nevada against CAC, CEC and members of the CAC board of
directors Marc Beilinson, Philip Erlanger, Dhiren Fonseca, Don
Kornstein, Karl Peterson, Marc Rowan, and David Sambur (the
individual defendants collectively, the "CAC Directors"). The
Nevada Lawsuit alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty against
the CAC Directors and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty
against CAC and CEC. It seeks (1) a declaration that the claim for
breach of fiduciary duty is a proper class action claim; (2) to
order the CAC Directors to fulfill their fiduciary duties to CAC
in connection with the Proposed Merger, specifically by announcing
their intention to (a) cooperate with bona fide interested parties
proposing alternative transactions, (b) ensure that no conflicts
exist between the CAC Directors' personal interests and their
fiduciary duties to maximize shareholder value in the Proposed
Merger, or resolve all such conflicts in favor of the latter, and
(c) act independently to protect the interests of the
shareholders; (3) to order the CAC Directors to account for all
damages suffered or to be suffered by the plaintiff and the
putative class as a result of the Proposed Merger; and (4) to
award the plaintiff for his costs and attorneys' fees. It is
unclear whether the Nevada Lawsuit also seeks to enjoin the
Proposed Merger. CAC and the CAC Directors believe this lawsuit is
without merit and will defend themselves vigorously. The deadline
to respond to the Nevada Lawsuit has been indefinitely extended by
agreement of the parties.


CASCABEL HOSPITALITY: Faces "Corona" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alberto Corona and Edgardo Villegas, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Cascabel Hospitality Group LLC, d/b/a
Cascabel Taqueria, David Chiong and Elizabeth Gaudreau, Case No.
1:15-cv-05275 (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Mexican restaurant located at
1556 Second Avenue, New York, NY 10075.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CASTLE SERVICES: Faces "Puentes" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Puentes, and all others similarly-situated v. Castle
Services Inc. and Francisco Castillo, Case No. 1:15-cv-22557-CMA
(S.D. Fla., July 8, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Castle Services Inc. is a Florida corporation which regularly
conducted business in Miami-Dade County, Florida by performing
janitorial cleaning and moving services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
      DANIEL T FELD P.A.
      20801 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 403
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (786) 923-5899
      E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@Gmail.com

         - and -

      Isaac Jackie Mamane, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ISAAC MAMANE
      1150 Kane Concourse, Floor 2
      Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
      Telephone: (305) 448-9292
      Facsimile: (305) 448-9477
      E-mail: Mamane@gmail.com


CASTLIGHT HEALTH: Class Actions Filed Related to IPO
----------------------------------------------------
Castlight Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on April 2, April 16,
April 29, and May 4, 2015, purported securities class action
lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Mateo, against the Company, certain of
its current and former directors, executive officers, significant
stockholders and underwriters associated with its IPO.

"The lawsuits were brought by purported stockholders of our
company seeking to represent a class consisting of all those who
purchased our stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with our IPO. The
lawsuits assert claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and seek unspecified damages and other
relief," the Company said.

"We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend
the lawsuits vigorously.


CATALYST PHARMACEUTICAL: Settles Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Catalyst Pharmaceutical Partners, Inc. has settled its previously
disclosed securities class action lawsuit, the Company said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

In connection with the settlement, which became effective on April
16, 2015, the Company paid $3.5 million to settle this matter, all
of which was paid by the Company's insurance carrier. Under the
settlement, the defendants, and various of their related persons
and entities, received a full release of all claims that were or
could have been brought in the action, as well as all claims that
arise out of, are based upon, or relate to the allegations,
transactions, facts, representations, omissions or other matters
involved in the action related in any way to the purchase or
acquisition of the Company's securities by class members during
the class period.

The settlement contains no admission of any liability or
wrongdoing on the part of the defendants, each of whom continue to
deny all of the allegations against each of them and believe that
the claims were without merit. Because the full amount of the
settlement payment was paid by the Company's insurance carrier,
the settlement did not have a material adverse effect on the
Company's financial position or results of operations. There were
no opt outs from the settlement.


CBC STEEL: Faces Suit by Hourly-Paid or Non-exempt Employees
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Gonzalez, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated v. CBC Steel Buildings LLC,
an unknown business entity; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive,
(Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., July 7, 2015), was filed on behalf of
all current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt individuals
employed by any of the Defendants within the State of California
at any time during the period from four years preceding the filing
of this Complaint to final judgment.

CBC Steel Buildings LLC is in the Prefabricated Metal Buildings
business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
     410 West Arden A venue, Suite 203
     Glendale, CA 91203 ú
     Tel: (818) 265-1020
     Fax: (818) 265-1021


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Parties Executed Written Settlement Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the parties executed a
written settlement agreement in the Employment-Related Litigation
filed by former store employee Franchesca Ford.

On January 27, 2014, former store employee Franchesca Ford filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company in San
Francisco County Superior Court, California (the "Ford
Litigation"). The plaintiff claims to represent other similarly-
situated hourly non-exempt employees and former employees of the
Company in California who were employed during the period January
27, 2010 to the present. She alleges violations of California
state wage and hour laws governing vacation pay, meal and rest
period pay, wages due upon termination, and waiting time
penalties, and seeks an unspecified amount in damages. In March
2014, the Company removed the Ford Litigation to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco
Division, and subsequently defeated the plaintiff's motion to
remand the case to California state court. The parties have
exchanged formal discovery. The Company's investigation is
ongoing.

"We believe the Company has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit
and we intend to vigorously defend it. While no assurance can be
given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we currently
believe that the final resolution of this action will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
position, liquidity or capital resources," the Company said.

On March 24, 2014, Franchesca Ford and Isabel Rodriguez filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of California, San Diego
Division. The plaintiffs claim to represent other similarly-
situated applicants who were subject to pre-employment background
checks with the Company in California and across the United States
from March 24, 2012 to the present. The lawsuit alleges violations
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the California Consumer
Credit Reporting and Investigative Reporting Agencies Act.

On September 23, 2014, the Company reached an agreement to settle
the lawsuit on a class-wide basis. The settlement would result in
the plaintiffs' dismissal of all claims asserted in the action, as
well as certain related but unasserted claims, and grant of
complete releases, in exchange for the Company's settlement
payment of up to $1,750,000 (a substantial portion of which would
be covered by the Company's insurance carrier). On January 16,
2015, the parties executed a written settlement agreement, which
will be submitted to the Court for approval. The Company has
accrued for all probable and reasonably estimable losses
associated with this claim.

"We currently believe that the final resolution of this action
will not have a material adverse effect on our results of
operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources,"
the Company said.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Court Has Not Ruled on Conditional Cert. Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has not
ruled on plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of the
putative class of employees in the case filed by former store
employee Wiley Wright.

On October 17, 2014, former store employee Wiley Wright filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the United
States District Court, Eastern District of New York, claiming to
represent other similarly-situated salaried exempt current and
former employees of the Company in the state of New York during
the period October 17, 2008, as well as similarly-situated
salaried exempt current and former employees throughout the
remainder of the United States during the period October 17, 2011
to the present. The lawsuit alleges that current and former
Assistant Managers and Senior Assistant Managers were unlawfully
classified as exempt from overtime protections and worked more
than 40 hours a week without overtime premium pay in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The plaintiff
seeks an unspecified amount in damages.

On December 12, 2014, plaintiff moved for conditional
certification of the putative class of employees; the Company
filed its response to this motion on January 19, 2015.

"As of the date of this filing, the Court has not ruled on
plaintiff's motion," the Company said.  "We believe the Company
has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit and we intend to
vigorously defend it. While no assurance can be given as to the
ultimate outcome of this matter, we currently believe that the
final resolution of this action will not have a material adverse
effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity
or capital resources."


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Investigation Ongoing in "Sinohui" Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company's
investigation is ongoing related to the class action lawsuit filed
by former store General Manager Richard Sinohui.

On October 10, 2014, former store General Manager Richard Sinohui
filed a purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the
Superior Court of California, Riverside County (the "Sinohui
Litigation"), claiming to represent other similarly-situated
current and former General Managers of the Company in California
during the period October 10, 2010 to the present. The lawsuit
alleges current and former California General Managers were
unlawfully classified as exempt from overtime protections and
worked more than 40 hours a week without overtime premium pay,
paid rest periods and paid meal periods, in violation of the
California Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code,
and the applicable Wage Order issued by the California Industrial
Welfare Commission. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount in
damages.

On December 5, 2012, the Company removed the Sinohui Litigation to
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California,
Southern Division. On December 30, 2014, the plaintiff petitioned
the court to remand the Sinohui Litigation to California state
court. On February 26, 2015, the Court overruled the plaintiff's
motion to remand. The Company's investigation is ongoing.

"We believe the Company has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit
and we intend to vigorously defend it. While no assurance can be
given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we currently
believe that the final resolution of this action will not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
position, liquidity or capital resources," the Company said.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: To Defend Against Merger Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company intends to
defend a consolidated class action lawsuit related to a merger
agreement.

Following the January 16, 2014 announcement that the Company had
entered into the Merger Agreement, four putative shareholder class
actions were filed in the District Court of Shawnee County,
Kansas, on behalf of purported stockholders of the Company against
the Company, its directors, Apollo, Parent and Merger Sub, in
connection with the Merger Agreement and the transactions
contemplated thereby. The first purported class action, styled
Hilary Coyne v. Richard M. Frank et al. (the "Coyne Action"), was
filed on January 21, 2014. The second, styled John Solak v. CEC
Entertainment, Inc. et al. (the "Solak Action"), was filed on
January 22, 2014. The third, styled Irene Dixon v. CEC
Entertainment, Inc. et al. (the "Dixon Action"), was filed on
January 24, 2014, and additionally names as defendants Apollo
Management VIII, L.P. and the AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. The
fourth, styled Louisiana Municipal Public Employees' Retirement
System v. Frank, et al. (the "LMPERS Action"), was filed on
January 31, 2014, and additionally names as defendants, Apollo
Management VIII, L.P. and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P.
(collectively, Coyne, Solak, and Dixon Actions shall be referred
to as the "Shareholder Actions").

Each of the Shareholder Actions alleges that the Company's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
stockholders in connection with their consideration and approval
of the Merger Agreement by, among other things, agreeing to an
inadequate tender price, the adoption on January 15, 2014 of the
Rights Agreement, and certain provisions in the Merger Agreement
that allegedly made it less likely that the Board would be able to
consider alternative acquisition proposals. The Coyne, Dixon and
LMPERS Actions further allege that the Board was advised by a
conflicted financial advisor. The Solak, Dixon and LMPERS Actions
further allege that the Board was subject to material conflicts of
interest in approving the Merger Agreement and that the Board
breached its fiduciary duties in allowing allegedly conflicted
members of management to negotiate the transaction. The Dixon and
LMPERS Actions further allege that the Board breached its
fiduciary duties in approving the Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement on Schedule 14D-9 (together with the exhibits and
annexes thereto, as it may be amended or supplemented, the
"Statement") filed with the SEC on January 22, 2014, which
allegedly contained material misrepresentations and omissions.
Each of the Shareholder Actions allege that Apollo aided and
abetted the Board's breaches of fiduciary duties. The Solak and
Dixon Actions allege that CEC also aided and abetted such
breaches, and the Solak and LMPERS Actions further allege that
Parent and the Merger Sub aided and abetted such actions. The
LMPERS Action further alleges that Apollo Management VIII, L.P.
and AP VIII Queso Holdings, L.P. aided and abetted such actions.
The Shareholder Actions seek, among other things, rescission of
the transactions, damages, attorneys' and experts' fees and costs,
and other unspecified relief.

On January 24, 2014, the plaintiff in the Coyne Action filed an
amended complaint (the "Coyne Amended Complaint"), and on January
30, 2014, the plaintiff in the Solak Action filed an amended
complaint (the "Solak Amended Complaint") (together, the "Amended
Complaints"). The Amended Complaints incorporated all of the
allegations in the original complaints, added allegations that the
Board-approved Statement omitted certain material information, in
further violation of the Board's fiduciary duties, and requested
an order directing the Board to disclose such allegedly-omitted
material information. The Solak Amended Complaint also added
allegations that the Board breached its fiduciary duties in
allowing an allegedly conflicted financial advisor and management
to lead the sales process.

On March 7, 2014, the Coyne, Solak, Dixon and LMPERS Actions were
consolidated into one action. The Company has accrued for all
probable and reasonably estimable losses associated with this
claim. The Company believes the consolidated lawsuit is without
merit and intends to defend it vigorously.

"While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of the
consolidated matter, we currently believe that the final
resolution of the action will not have a material adverse effect
on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or
capital resources," the Company said.


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: Discovery Ongoing in Naylor Farms Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that discovery is ongoing
and information and documents continue to be exchanged in the
case, Naylor Farms, Inc., individually and as class representative
on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Chaparral Energy,
L.L.C.

"On June 7, 2011, an alleged class action was filed against us in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma ("Naylor Farms Case") alleging that we improperly
deducted post-production costs from royalties paid to plaintiffs
and other royalty interest owners as categorized in the petition
from crude oil and natural gas wells located in Oklahoma," the
Company said.

"The purported class includes non-governmental royalty interest
owners in oil and natural gas wells we operate in Oklahoma. The
plaintiffs have alleged a number of claims, including breach of
contract, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and
other claims and seek termination of leases, recovery of
compensatory damages, interest, punitive damages and attorney fees
on behalf of the alleged class.

"We have responded to the Naylor Farms petition, denied the
allegations and raised arguments and defenses. Discovery is
ongoing and information and documents continue to be exchanged.

"The class has not been certified, but the motion for class
certification is due in the fourth quarter of 2015.

"We are not currently able to estimate a reasonably possible loss
or range of loss or what impact, if any, the Naylor Farms Case
will have on our financial condition, results of operations or
cash flows due to the preliminary status of the matters, the
complexity and number of legal and factual issues presented by the
matter and uncertainties with respect to, among other things, the
nature of the claims and defenses, the potential size of the
class, the scope and types of the properties and agreements
involved, and the ultimate potential outcome of the matter.

"Plaintiffs in the Naylor Farms Case have indicated that, if the
class is certified, they seek damages in excess of $5,000,000
which may increase with the passage of time, a majority of which
would be comprised of interest. We dispute plaintiffs' claims,
dispute that the case meets the requirements for a class action
and are vigorously defending the case."


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: No Discovery Yet in "Dodson" Case
---------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a class has not been
certified and discovery has not yet commenced in the case, Amanda
Dodson, individually and as class representative on behalf of all
similarly situated persons v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C.

"On May 10, 2013, Amanda Dodson (the "Plaintiff"), filed a
complaint against us in the District Court of Mayes County,
Oklahoma, ("Dodson Case") with allegation similar to those
asserted in the Naylor Farms case related to post-production
deductions, and include clams for breach of contract, fraud,
breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and other claims and
seek termination of leases, recovery of compensatory damages,
interest, punitive damages and attorney fees on behalf of the
alleged class," the Company said. "The alleged class includes non-
governmental royalty interest owners in oil and natural gas wells
we operate in Oklahoma."

"We have responded to the Dodson petition, denied the allegations
and raised a number of affirmative defenses. At this time, a class
has not been certified and discovery has not yet commenced.

"We are not currently able to estimate a reasonable possible loss
or range of loss or what impact, if any, the Dodson Case will have
on its financial condition, results of operations or cash flows
due to the preliminary status of the matter, the complexity and
number of legal and factual issues presented by the matter and
uncertainties with respect to, among other things, the nature of
the claims and defenses, the potential size of the class, the
scope and types of the properties and agreements involved, and the
ultimate potential outcome of the matter. We dispute plaintiffs'
claims, dispute that the case meets the requirements for a class
action and are vigorously defending the case."


CHAPARRAL ENERGY: No Discovery Yet in "Donelson" Case
-----------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a class has not been
certified and discovery has not yet commenced in the case, Martha
Donelson and John Friend, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of
all similarly situated persons v. Chaparral Energy, L.L.C.

"On August 11, 2014, an alleged class action was filed against us,
as well as several other operators in Osage County, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
("Donelson Case"), alleging claims on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and all similarly situated Osage County land owners and
surface lessees," the Company said. "The plaintiffs assert claims
seeking recovery for trespass, nuisance, negligence and unjust
enrichment. Relief sought includes declaring oil and natural gas
leases and drilling permits obtained in Osage County without a
prior NEPA study void ab initio, removing us from all properties
owned by the class members, disgorgement of profits, and
compensatory and punitive damages."

"We have joined in Motions to Dismiss filed by the other
defendants. At this time, a class has not been certified and
discovery has yet to begin. As such, we are not yet able to
estimate a possible loss, or range of possible loss, if any. We
dispute plaintiffs' claims, dispute that the case meets the
requirements for a class action and are vigorously defending the
case."


CHINA XD: To Defend Against Securities Class Actions in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
China XD Plastics Company Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company
and certain of its officers were named as defendants in two
putative securities class action lawsuits filed on July 15, 2014
and July 16, 2014 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The Company, after consultation
with its legal counsel, believes that the lawsuits are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against them.


CMRE FINANCIAL: Has Invaded Class Member's Privacy, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Zuniga, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CMRE Financial Services, Inc., Case No.
8:15-cv-01083 (C.D. Cal., July 8, 2015), is brought on behalf of
all others similarly situated seeking damages and any other
available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the illegal
actions of the Defendant in negligently, knowingly, and willfully
contacting the Plaintiff on the cellular telephone in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, thereby invading
Plaintiff's privacy.

CMRE Financial Services, Inc. is a consumer debt buying and
recovery or collection company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
              sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com
              abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


COLUMBUS RESTAURANT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Omar Ceron, and all others similarly-situated v. Columbus
Restaurant Fund IV, LLC dba Porter House New York and Michael
Lomonaco, Case No. 1:15-cv-05335 (S.D.N.Y., July 9, 2015), seeks
to recover all unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act and New York Labor Law.

Columbus Restaurant Fund IV, LLC is a New York corporation that
operates Porterhouse New York Restaurant in Manhattan.

The Defendant Michael Lomonaco is an owner and executive chef of
Porter House New York Restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
      JOSEPH, HERZFELD, HESTER, & KIRSCHENBAUM
      233 Broadway, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (212) 688-5640
      Fax: (212) 688-5639
      E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com


COMMONWEALTH FINANCIAL: Faces Suit in N.J. for Violating FDCPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Spagnola, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Commonwealth Financial Systems, Inc., CP Medical, LLC,
and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:15-cv-03844-FLW-DEA (D.N.J.,
June 9, 2015) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
          375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
          Fairfield, NJ 07004
          Telephone: (973) 227-5900
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


CYAN INC: Defending Against Beaver County Action
------------------------------------------------
Cyan, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2015, that the Company intends to defend the
litigation Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, et al. v.
Cyan, Inc. et al., vigorously.

On April 1, 2014 a purported stockholder class action lawsuit was
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco, against the Company, the members of the Company's Board
of Directors, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer and the
underwriters of the Company's IPO.  On April 30, 2014 a
substantially similar lawsuit was filed in the same court against
the same defendants. The two cases have been consolidated under
the caption Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, et al. v.
Cyan, Inc. et al., Case No. CGC-14-539008. The consolidated
complaint alleges violations of 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 Company's IPO, and seek unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief.

In July 2014, the defendants filed a demurrer to (motion to
dismiss) the consolidated complaint. On October 22, 2014, the
court overruled the demurrer and allowed the case to proceed. 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.


DSW INC: Gave False Discounts, "Sperling" Action Says
-----------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Sperling, an individual, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. DSW Inc., an Ohio corporation; DSW
Shoe Warehouse, Inc. a Missouri corporation; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case 5:15-cv-01366 (C.D. Cal., July 8, 2015),
alleges that the Defendant advertise, and/or have advertised false
and/or misleading comparative prices and corresponding false
discounts and/or savings for their shoes and other merchandise.

The Defendants own and operate a chain of shoe stores in
California known as Designer Shoe Warehouse or DSW stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas Caiafa, Esq.
     DOUGLAS CAIAFA
     11845 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1245
     Los Angeles, CA 90064
     Tel: (310) 444-5240
     Fax: (310) 312-8260
     E-mail: dcaiafa@caiafalaw.com

        - and -

     Christopher J. Morosoff, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. MOROSOFF
     77-760 Country Club Drive, Suite G
     Palm Desert, CA 92211
     Tel: (760) 469-5986
     Phone: (760) 345-1581


EMIE MARKETING: Faces "Golden" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sierra Golden, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. Emie Marketing, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-01105-PGB-KRS (M.D.
Fla., July 8, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Emie Marketing, Inc. operates a marketing agency with a principal
place of business in Orange County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard Bernard Celler, Esq.
      RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
      Suite 230, 7450 Griffin Road
      Davie, FL 33314
      Telephone: (866) 344-9243
      Facsimile: (954) 337-2771
      E-mail: richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com


EPIRUS BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Paid Agreed-to $400,000 Fee and Expense
------------------------------------------------------------------
EPIRUS Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Delaware Court
has closed and dismissed the consolidated Zalicus shareholder
litigation and the Company paid the agreed-to $400,000 fee and
expense amount on April 22, 2015, which is within ten days of the
final dismissal and closure of the Consolidated Action.

Between April 28, 2014 and May 2, 2014, three putative class
action lawsuits were filed by purported stockholders of Zalicus in
the Business Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior
Court, Suffolk County (the "Massachusetts Court"), against
Zalicus, EB Sub, Inc. the members of Zalicus' board of directors
and Private Epirus. Plaintiff has since voluntarily dismissed one
of these actions, Civil A. No. 14-1380. The remaining two actions,
Civ. A. No. 14-1381 and Civ. A. No. 14-1455, were consolidated
into a single action, In re Zalicus Shareholder Litigation, Lead
Civ. A. No. 14-1381 (the "Massachusetts Action"). The
Massachusetts Action alleged that the Zalicus board of directors
breached its fiduciary duties, and that Private Epirus and EB Sub,
Inc. aided and abetted the purported breaches, in connection with
the proposed Merger.

The Massachusetts Action sought relief including, among other
things, a declaration that the Merger Agreement was entered into
in breach of fiduciary duties and is unlawful and unenforceable,
an order enjoining defendants from proceeding with the Merger, an
order enjoining defendants from consummating the Merger unless and
until additional procedures are implemented and all material
information in connection with the proposed Merger is disclosed,
rescission of the Merger or any terms thereof to the extent
implemented (or an award of rescissory damages), compensatory
damages and interest, and an award of all costs of the
Massachusetts Action, including reasonable attorneys' fees and
experts' fees.

Between May 1, and May 16, 2014, three putative class action
lawsuits were filed by purported stockholders of Zalicus in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware Court")
against Zalicus, Zalicus' directors, Private Epirus and/or EB Sub,
Inc., Stein v. Zalicus Inc., et al., No. 9602; Do v. Zalicus,
Inc., et al., No. 9636; and Mendlowitz, et al. v. Zalicus Inc., et
al., No. 9664 (the "Consolidated Action"). On May 23, 2014,
plaintiff Harvey Stein filed a verified amended complaint, and on
May 27, 2014, plaintiff Tuan Do filed a verified amended
complaint.

The Consolidated Action alleged that the Zalicus board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties, and Private Epirus
and/or EB Sub, Inc. aided and abetted the purported breaches, in
connection with the proposed Merger. The Consolidated Action
sought relief including, among other things, to preliminarily and
permanently enjoin the proposed Merger, to enjoin consummation of
the proposed Merger and rescind the Merger if consummated (or to
award rescissory damages), an award of compensatory damages, and
an award of all costs of the Consolidated Action, including
reasonable attorneys' fees and experts' fees.

On June 6, 2014, plaintiffs' counsel in the Consolidated Action
filed a motion seeking to schedule a preliminary injunction
hearing in advance of the stockholder vote on the proposed Merger,
and seeking expedited discovery in advance of that hearing.
Zalicus, Private Epirus, and the individual defendants opposed the
motion. After a hearing, on June 13, 2014, the Delaware Court
denied plaintiffs' motion.

On October 27, 2014, plaintiffs' counsel in the Massachusetts
Action served the Company with a motion for voluntary dismissal
and an award of attorney's fees. The motion alleged, as set forth
in the consolidated amended complaint filed in the Massachusetts
Action on May 21, 2014, that the Form S-4 Registration Statement
filed with the SEC on May 8, 2014 contained numerous material
misstatements and/or omissions that prevented the Company's
shareholders from being able to evaluate the reasonableness of the
Merger. The motion further alleged that in the Amended
Registration Statement filed on June 4, 2014, the Company
supplemented the disclosures and addressed the allegedly material
misstatements and omissions contained in the initial Registration
Statement, and that the Company did so in response to the claims
made in the Massachusetts Action.

On November 6, 2014, with the Massachusetts Court's entry of a
judgment of dismissal, the Massachusetts Action was closed.

On November 10, 2014, the parties in the Consolidated Action
submitted a stipulation and proposed order to dismiss the
Consolidated Action and to set a schedule for plaintiffs'
counsel's anticipated application for an award of attorney's fees
and expenses. On November 12, 2014, the Delaware Court entered an
order dismissing the Consolidated Action without prejudice. The
Delaware Court retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of
determining plaintiffs' anticipated application for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.

After the Consolidated Action was dismissed, the parties commenced
and engaged in discussions to resolve the amount of plaintiffs'
counsel's application for fees and expenses.

After negotiations, the parties agreed that the Company would make
a combined, global fee and expense payment to counsel in both the
Consolidated Action and the Massachusetts Action in the amount of
$400,000, of which $50,000 would be paid by the Company's insurer,
in full satisfaction of plaintiffs' counsel's claim for attorneys'
fees and expenses in the Consolidated Action and the Massachusetts
Action, which the parties memorialized in a stipulation dated
January 13, 2015. As a result of the order, the Company recorded
$350 in general and administrative expense in its Consolidated
Statement of Operations for the year ended December 31, 2014. The
parties requested that the Delaware Court close the Consolidated
Action as a result of the stipulation. The Delaware Court directed
that notice of the resolution of plaintiffs' counsel's request for
attorneys' fees and expenses be provided to shareholders. The
parties have since issued notice to shareholders (including via
the Company's filing on its Current Report on March 13, 2015).
After expiration of the requisite notice waiting period, the
parties submitted to the Delaware Court a proposed order verifying
that notice has been provided and providing for the final
dismissal and closure of the case.

On April 15, 2015, the Delaware Court accepted the order and
closed and dismissed the Consolidated Action.

The Company paid the agreed-to $400,000 fee and expense amount on
April 22, 2015, which is within ten days of the final dismissal
and closure of the Consolidated Action.


EXELIS INC: Entered Into MOU to Settle Merger Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
Exelis Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2015, that counsel for the
parties in the lawsuit related to the merger with Harris
Corporation entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU")
regarding the settlement of litigation.

On February 5, 2015, Exelis Inc. entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (as it may be amended from time to time, the
"Merger Agreement") with Harris Corporation ("Harris") and Harris
Communication Solutions (Indiana), Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary
of Harris ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which Exelis will be merged
with and into Merger Sub (the "merger"), with Exelis continuing as
the surviving corporation in the merger and a wholly owned
subsidiary of Harris.

Two putative class action lawsuits, captioned McGill v. Hake et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00217, and The George Leon Family Trust, et
al. v. Exelis Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00466, which are
referred to collectively as the shareholder litigation, have been
filed by purported Exelis shareholders in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana (the "Court")
against Exelis, the members of Exelis' board of directors, Harris
and Merger Sub in connection with the announcement of the merger.
The two actions were consolidated by order of the Court dated
April 20, 2015. The operative complaint alleges, among other
things, that the directors of Exelis have breached their fiduciary
duties owed to shareholders by approving the proposed acquisition
of Exelis by Harris, that Exelis, Harris and Merger Sub have aided
and abetted the directors of Exelis in breaching their fiduciary
duties, and that Exelis and its directors have made untrue
statements of material fact and omitted material facts in the
Registration Statement filed in connection with the merger, in
violation of federal securities laws. Among other things, the
shareholder litigation seeks to enjoin the merger.

Exelis, Harris, Merger Sub, and their respective directors believe
that the shareholder litigation and the underlying claims are
without merit.

On May 11, 2015, counsel for the parties in the lawsuit (as
consolidated) entered into the MOU, in which they agreed on the
terms of a settlement of the consolidated action, including the
dismissal with prejudice of the action and a release of all claims
made therein against all of the defendants. The proposed
settlement is conditioned upon, among other things, the execution
of an appropriate stipulation of settlement, consummation of the
merger, and final approval of the proposed settlement by the
Court. In addition, in connection with the settlement and as
provided in the MOU, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs'
counsel will seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses as part
of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the merger will
be consummated, that the parties ultimately will enter into a
stipulation of settlement, or that the Court will approve the
settlement even if the parties enter into such stipulation. If the
settlement conditions are not met, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the MOU would become void. The settlement will not
affect the amount of the merger consideration that Exelis
stockholders are entitled to receive in the merger.

The defendants deny all fault or liability and deny that they have
committed any unlawful or wrongful act alleged in the consolidated
action described above or otherwise in relation to the merger, and
believe that no further disclosure is required to supplement the
proxy statement/prospectus under any applicable laws. The
defendants have agreed to the terms of the proposed settlement
described above solely to avoid the substantial burden, expense,
risk, inconvenience and distraction of continued litigation,
including the risk of delaying or adversely affecting the merger.


FARMACIA ADELFA: "Espinosa" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yuliemni Espinosa, and others similarly-situated v. Farmacia
Adelfa & Paty, Inc., and Ruben Murillo, Case No. 1:15-cv-22556-KMW
(S.D. Fla., July 8, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a pharmacy within Miami-Dade
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
      DANIEL T FELD P.A.
      20801 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 403
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (786) 923-5899
      E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@Gmail.com

         - and -

      Isaac Jackie Mamane, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ISAAC MAMANE
      1150 Kane Concourse, Floor 2
      Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
      Telephone: (305) 448-9292
      Facsimile: (305) 448-9477
      E-mail: Mamane@gmail.com


FLAGSHIP SHELL: Accused of Not Paying Wages, Violating Fla. Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Armenteros, individually, and Shaw Anna Johnson,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Flagship Shell, LLC, Filing # 29353620 (Fla. Cir., 13th Judicial,
Miami-Dade Cty., July 7, 2015), alleges that Defendants violated
Florida Statute and thus seeks payment for unpaid wages.

Flagship Shell operates a fueling service station.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Edward Rosenberg, Esq.
     MORGADO, PA
     382 NE 191st Street #84164
     Miami, FL 33179
     Tel: 855-899-9121
     Fax: 855-499-9191
     E-mail: rer@morgado.us


FILTER PRO: "Mayer" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Mayer, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
Filter Pro USA, LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv-01099-GAP-DAB (M.D. Fla.,
July 7, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
declaratory relief, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Filter Pro USA, LLC is a Florida Limited Liability Company that
manufactures electronic coils and transformers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      Ste 1600, 20 N Orange Ave
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
      E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com


FIRST ACCEPTANCE: "Lykins" Case in Discovery Stage
--------------------------------------------------
First Acceptance Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the case, Lykins,
et al. v. First Acceptance Corporation, et al., is in discovery,
but has not progressed to a stage where an estimate of the
ultimate impact of this litigation on the Company, if any, can be
made.

In January 2014, one current and three former employees filed a
class action lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. The case is styled
Lykins, et al. v. First Acceptance Corporation, et al. The suit
alleges the Company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by
misclassifying its insurance agents as exempt employees.
Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, overtime, attorneys' fees and costs.
The Company answered the plaintiffs' Complaint and denied all of
the allegations contained therein.

In April 2014, the case was conditionally certified as a class
action, and a notice regarding the case was sent to all potential
class members. Approximately 200 individuals chose to participate
in the case during the opt-in period which closed on July 15,
2014.

The Company strongly disagrees with the allegations and will put
forth a vigorous defense. This litigation will likely have a
lengthy duration. The case is in discovery, but has not progressed
to a stage where an estimate of the ultimate impact of this
litigation on the Company, if any, can be made.


GOLDEN VALLEY: Accused of Violating Electronic Fund Transfer Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Ferrell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Golden Valley Property Management LLC, Case No. 2:15-
cv-01057-ROS (D. Ariz., June 9, 2015) is brought over alleged
violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Michael Panvini, Esq.
          Russell Snow Thompson, IV, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP PLLC
          5235 E Southern Ave., Ste. D106-618
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone: (602) 388-8898
          Facsimile: (866) 317-2674


GOOGLE INC: Averts Cass Action Over Privacy Policy Changes
----------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that after three
years of litigation, Google Inc. on July 15 finally defeated a
class action related to changes it made to its user policy in
2012.

In a 14-page order, U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal of the
Northern District of California found that plaintiffs failed to
allege that users' Android devices shared any personal information
with third parties in their latest amended complaint.

Plaintiffs lawyers at Gardy & Notis and Grant & Eisenhofer sued
Google in 2012 after the company tossed privacy policies for all
of its separate services in favor of one overarching policy.  The
unified policy notified users that Google could harvest personal
information from across services, including YouTube, Gmail, Maps
and Docs. Plaintiffs argued in In re Google Privacy Policy
Litigation, 12-1382, that the changes violated both Google's
existing individual product policies and users' privacy rights.

Judge Grewal has dismissed the suit three prior times with leave
to amend, most recently last July. That ruling left the plaintiffs
with two claims standing: a breach-of-contract claim and a
fraudulent unfair-competition claim on behalf of Android users who
paid for apps between February 2009 and May 2014.  The plaintiffs
accused Google of knowingly disclosing the names, email addresses
and locations of Android users who bought an app through the
Google Play Store, even though the company expressly promised it
wouldn't.

But Judge Grewal wrote that the plaintiffs effectively "pled
themselves out of a case" by failing to link the only alleged
injury left in the case -- that third-party disclosures depleted
devices' battery life and bandwidth -- to any actual disclosures.
The plaintiffs, he found, failed to allege any economic injury
from any dissemination of personal information "or any
dissemination at all."  Additionally, he found that the battery-
and bandwidth-using transmissions that occur during an app
purchase only involve sending personal information to and from
Google.

"Even if tomorrow this court ordered Google to cease making any
transaction data whatsoever available to the developers from whom
users purchase apps, it would not change the battery and bandwidth
use of the purchase process at all," Judge Grewal wrote.

Google's lawyer, Michael Page -- mpage@durietangri.com -- at Durie
Tangri, referred a request for comment to the company.  A Google
spokesperson didn't immediately respond to messages.

Grant & Eisenhofer's James Sabella -- jsabella@gelaw.com -- also
didn't immediately respond.


HAMILTON COMPANY: "Zak" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Zako v. Hamilton Company, Case No. 5:15-cv-03162-HRL (N.D.
Cal., July 8, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Hamilton Company designs, manufactures and sells a wide range of
robotic laboratory products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan H. Siegel, Esq.
      Heather Michelle Conger, Esq.
      SIEGEL LEWITTER MALKANI
      1939 Harrison Street, Suite 307
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 452-5000
      Facsimile: (510) 452-5004
      E-mail: jsiegel@sl-employmentlaw.com
              hconger@sl-employmentlaw.com


HANNA & ASSOCIATES: Loses Bid to Dismiss CFB Debt Collection Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
R. Robin McDonald, writing for Daily Report, reports that a
federal judge in Atlanta has rejected a Marietta lawyer's efforts
to dismiss a federal agency's suit contending that his firm is
little more than a litigation mill to collect millions of dollars
a year from consumers who either don't owe the debts in question
or may not owe the amounts claimed.

Bolstered by a recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit, U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg on July 15
held that lawyers and law firms who regularly attempt to collect
defaulted debts must comply with the federal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.  The consumer protection law bars debt collectors
from engaging in false, misleading or deceptive litigation
practices in order to collect debts.

Moreover, Judge Totenberg said that Marietta lawyer Fred Hanna and
Frederick J. Hanna & Associates also are required by law to comply
with the Consumer Financial Protection Act, which also regulates
the manner and means employed by debt collectors seeking redress
for defaulted debts.

Mr. Hanna had claimed that lawyers were specifically exempt from
the federal statutes, but Judge Totenberg held that the Consumer
Financial Protection Act "expressly provides" the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau "a narrow scope of authority over
lawyers engaged in activity that is otherwise part of the practice
of law."

"The exception to that practice of law exclusion unambiguously
covers the alleged conduct here," the judge concluded.

Last year, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau sued
Mr. Hanna, his firm and two firm attorneys, claiming that Hanna's
firm is a "lawsuit mill" that uses illegal tactics to intimidate
consumers into paying debts they do not owe.

According to the CFPB, Mr. Hanna's firm ran afoul of consumer
protection laws as it sued hundreds of thousands of Georgia
consumers to collect on defaulted credit card, mortgage and other
debt.

The firm collects debts not only on behalf of credit card issuers
but also third-party debt buyers that buy portfolios of defaulted,
unsecured credit debt for pennies on the dollar and then launch
their own collection efforts, CFPB lawyers said in the complaint.
Mr. Hanna also is the CEO of his own debt-buying company, Georgia
Receivables Inc., that shares quarters with his law office.
The bureau seeks to claw back millions of dollars in debts
collected by the firm via civil penalties for what it says are
abusive collection practices.  It also seeks the disgorgement of
an undetermined amount of "ill-gotten revenues" and restitution
for consumers harmed by what the agency claims is illegal conduct
by Mr. Hanna and his law firm employees.

Mr. Hanna's lead counsel, former Georgia Attorney General Mike
Bowers, referred the Daily Report to the Hanna firm's managing
partner, Joseph Cooling, who is also named as a defendant in the
suit.

When the suit was filed last year, Mr. Cooling denied the
allegations as well as what he described as "the overall
mischaracterization" of the law firm as a litigation mill.  Mr.
Hanna's lawyers have contended that the CFPB suit is "an
unprecedented overreach" of federal authority that illegally seeks
to usurp states' authority to regulate the practice of law and
could have "a profound chilling effect" on access to the court
system.

On July 16, Mr. Cooling said his side was disappointed in the
ruling but noted, "This is just one step in what will be a very
long process."

Mr. Cooling found some solace in what he said was Judge
Totenberg's agreement with defense arguments that a statute of
limitations applied to this case.  Defense lawyers had advocated
for a one-year statute of limitations on any claims on behalf of
aggrieved debtors.  CFPB lawyers countered that there was no
statute of limitations at all governing the agency's enforcement
of compliance with federal consumer protection laws.

Judge Totenberg rejected the CFPB's argument, but suggested a
third possibility -- that a three-year statute of limitations
might apply.  But she delayed making any definitive decision on a
statute of limitations because her survey of case law "has
revealed little that is helpful to resolving the statute of
limitations question here. . . And, as a practical matter, it
makes little difference at this stage of litigation whether a
one-year or three-year statute of limitations applies."

The CFPB suits refer to conduct as far back as July 21, 2011 --
one week shy of three years from the date the case was filed last
year.

In ruling against the defense motion to dismiss, Judge Totenberg
cited the Eleventh Circuit's June 30 opinion in a Florida debt
collection case, which she said "re-emphasized its recognition of
the [Fair Debt Collection Practices Act's] protection of consumers
from the full sweep of debt collectors' attorneys' false,
misleading or deceptive litigation activities."

In that opinion, a three-judge panel ruled that lawyers can be
liable for violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act for
any misrepresentations they may make in court filings associated
with debt collection litigation.

Although Mr. Hanna's attorneys have claimed that the lawsuit seeks
to restrict the firm's creditor clients' access to the courts,
Judge Totenberg concluded, "It does not."

Mr. Hanna and his lawyers also failed to shoot down CFPB claims
that his firm has filed more than 350,000 suits in Georgia with
little or no meaningful involvement by staff attorneys -- while
implying to the alleged debtors that lawyers had reviewed and
signed off on the claims.  Mr. Hanna's lawyers have argued that
the filing of a complaint against a debtor -- regardless of how
much, or little, time was spent investigating whether the debt was
legitimate beforehand -- constituted sufficient involvement by a
lawyer.

Again, Judge Totenberg disagreed, holding that the allegations of
"litigation mill conduct," including dunning letters or the filing
of civil complaints on a mass basis, violate a federal prohibition
against the use of false representation or deceptive means to
collect a debt.

"The least sophisticated consumer is likely to believe when served
with a debt collection complaint that a lawyer has reviewed his
account and determined that the creditor has a valid claim," she
said.

The judge also held that if a debt collection complaint "has had
no meaningful attorney oversight, then there is a real possibility
that it is legally or factually untenable" but that a defendant
debtor would "effectively be coerced into paying a debt that they
may or may not actually owe or doing the same through default."

Judge Totenberg allowed that Hanna's counsel could still prove
that the firm's attorneys provided sufficient oversight.  "But at
this stage of litigation, it is plausible, especially given the
Bureau's pre-suit investigation, that the least sophisticated
consumer would be misled by the firm's complaints -- which
allegedly utilized no more than one minute of a lawyer's time,
spent skimming the pleading for grammar and spelling errors," she
said.

"Here," she concluded, "lawyers certainly have a common
understanding that only skimming a complaint for typographical
errors -- as alleged in the complaint -- is not the same as being
meaningfully involved in the review of the client's claims and
drafting of the complaint."

Judge Totenberg also said that allegations in the complaint
"support the plausible inference" that on numerous occasions,
affidavits filed by Hanna firm attorneys "were themselves false or
misleading," in violation of federal consumer financial protection
laws.

"Given the huge volume of lawsuits filed by the firm, and the
firm's alleged lack of verification for the huge volume of
affidavits it served along with its pleadings, it is plausible
that some of these affidavits falsely conveyed that the affiants
had personal knowledge of the debt," she said.

Judge Totenberg added that CFPB lawyers' allegations that the
Hanna firm "filed thousands of lawsuits without bothering to check
whether the affidavits were based on the affiant's actual
knowledge" leads to "the plausible inference that the firm should
have known some of its debt buyer clients (as opposed to creditor
clients) did not have personal knowledge of the debts. . . . This
possibility is obviously more pronounced when, as here, the debt
collector is attempting to collect a debt for a debt buyer rather
than an original creditor."


HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Final Approval Hearing Held
-------------------------------------------------
Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court scheduled
the final approval hearing for July 22, 2015, of the settlement in
the Federal Securities Class Action.

On December 21, 2012, a putative Federal Securities Class Action
Complaint was filed against the Company and three of its Officers
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. This action, Stephanie A. Frater v. Hemispherx
Biopharma, Inc., et al., was purportedly brought on behalf of a
putative class of Hemispherx investors who purchased the Company's
publicly traded securities between March 14, 2012 and December 17,
2012. The Complaint generally asserted that Defendants made
material misrepresentations and omissions regarding the status of
the Company's New Drug Application for Ampligen(R), which had been
filed with the United States Food and Drug Administration, in
alleged violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On March 14, 2013, the Court
appointed Hemispherx Investor Group as Lead Plaintiff pursuant to
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), 15
U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4.

Pursuant to the Court's March 29, 2013 scheduling order, Lead
Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
("Amended Complaint") on May 20, 2013, and in its Amended
Complaint, dropped Thomas K. Equels and Charles T. Bernhardt as
Defendants and added David R. Strayer, M.D. and Wayne Pambianchi
as Defendants. The Amended Complaint alleges an expanded Class
Period of March 14, 2012 to December 20, 2012, which period
encompasses statements made in the Company's 2011 Form 10-K filed
on March 14, 2012, and at the FDA Advisory Committee Meeting on
December 20, 2012. On July 19, 2013, Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint. Lead Plaintiff filed its brief in
opposition to Defendants' motion to dismiss is September 17, 2013,
and Defendants filed their reply brief on October 17, 2013.

On January 24, 2014, the court entered an order denying
defendents' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, and on
February 20, 2014, entered a scheduling order imposing, inter
alia, a March 31, 2015 deadline for completion of all fact
discovery. On February 25, 2014, defendents filed an answer and
affirmative defenses to the Amended Compliant.

Also on February 25, 2014, the Court entered a Stipulated
Protective Order, which will govern all confidential documents
produced in discovery. After conducting significant fact
discovery, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle
all claims on December 31, 2014. However, the settlement is
subject to the Court's issuance of an order finally approving the
terms of the parties' settlement agreement in all material
respects.

On March 11, 2015, the parties filed a joint motion with the Court
seeking an order, inter alia, granting preliminary approval of
their settlement agreement, preliminarily certifying a class for
settlement purposes, and setting a date for a final settlement
hearing. On April 8, 2015, the Court granted the parties' joint
motion, and entered an Order preliminarily approving the parties'
settlement, preliminarily certifying a class for settlement
purposes, directing issuance of notice, and scheduling the final
approval hearing for July 22, 2015.


HERITAGE FINANCIAL: TO Defend Against "Stein" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Heritage Financial Group, Inc. intends to defend against the case,
Stein v. Heritage Financial Group, Inc. et al., the Company said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2015.

On December 31, 2014, a putative stockholder class action lawsuit,
Stein v. Heritage Financial Group, Inc. et al., was filed in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, Civil Division,
against Heritage, the members of its board of directors,
HeritageBank of the South, Renasant Corporation and Renasant Bank.
The complaint, which was amended on February 18, 2015, alleges
that the Heritage directors breached their fiduciary duties and/or
violated Maryland law in connection with the negotiation and
approval of the merger agreement by failing to maximize
shareholder value and failing to disclose material information in
the February 9, 2015 preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus,
and that Heritage, HeritageBank of the South, Renasant Corporation
and Renasant Bank aided and abetted those alleged breaches of
fiduciary duties.

In addition to monetary damages in an unspecified amount and other
remedies, the lawsuit seeks to enjoin Heritage stockholders from
voting on the Heritage merger proposal at the Heritage special
meeting and Renasant Corporation stockholders from voting on the
Renasant merger proposal at the Renasant Corporation special
meeting and to otherwise enjoin the directors from consummating
the merger. The Company believes the claims asserted are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against the lawsuit.


HIGHER ONE: Defendants Moved to Dismiss Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Higher One Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that all defendants have
moved to dismiss the Securities Class Action filed by Brian Perez.

On May 27, 2014, a putative class action captioned Brian Perez v.
Higher One Holdings, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-755-AWT, was filed by HOH
shareholder Brian Perez in the United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut. On December 17, 2014, Mr. Perez was
appointed lead plaintiff.

On January 20, 2015, Mr. Perez filed an amended complaint. HOH
former shareholder Robert Lee was added as a named plaintiff in
the amended complaint. HOH and certain employees and board members
have been named as defendants.

Mr. Perez and Mr. Lee generally allege that HOH and the other
named defendants made certain misrepresentations in public filings
and other public statements in violation of the federal securities
laws and seek an unspecified amount of damages. Mr. Perez and Mr.
Lee seek to represent a class of any person who purchased HOH
securities between August 7, 2012 and August 6, 2014.

All defendants have moved to dismiss the Complaint. HOH intends to
vigorously defend itself against these allegations. HOH is
currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and
therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss nor estimate a
range of possible loss.


HOME LOAN: Lead Plaintiff, Lead Counsel and Liaison Counsel Named
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that three putative
class action lawsuits have been filed against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
entitled: (i) Oliveira v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et
al., No. 15-CV-652 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on January 29, 2015; (ii)
Berglan v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-
947 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on February 9, 2015; and (iii) W. Palm Beach
Police Pension Fund v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et
al., No. 15-CV-1063 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on February 13, 2015. On
April 2, 2015, these lawsuits were consolidated into a single
action, which is referred to as the "New York Action." On April
28, 2015, lead plaintiff, lead counsel and liaison counsel were
appointed in the New York Action.

The New York Action names as defendants HLSS, former HLSS Chairman
William C. Erbey, HLSS Director, President, and Chief Executive
Officer John P. Van Vlack, and HLSS Chief Financial Officer James
E. Lauter. The New York Action asserts causes of action under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
based on certain public disclosures made by the Company relating
to our relationship with Ocwen. This action alleges that HLSS
misled investors by failing to disclose, among other things, the
extent of HLSS's dependence on Ocwen, information regarding
governmental investigations of Ocwen's business practices, and the
Company's own purportedly inadequate internal controls. The
Company intends to vigorously defend the New York Action.


HOUSTON AMERICAN: Final Settlement Approval Hearing on July 29
--------------------------------------------------------------
Houston American Energy Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the court has
scheduled a final approval hearing on July 29, 2015, in the
Silverman Shareholder Class Action Suit.

On April 27, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against
the Company and certain of its executive officers: Steve Silverman
v. Houston American Energy Corp. et al., Case No. 4:12-CV-1332.
The complaint generally alleged that, between March 29, 2010 and
April 18, 2012, all of the defendants violated Sections 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 and the
individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
in making materially false and misleading statements including
certain statements related to the status and viability of the
Tamandua #1 well on the Company's CPO 4 prospect. Two additional
class action lawsuits were filed against the Company in May 2012.
The complaints sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys'
fees, and other costs.

On September 20, 2012, the court consolidated the class action
lawsuits and appointed a lead plaintiff and, on November 15, 2012,
the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  The amended
complaint, among other things, expanded the putative class period
to November 9, 2009 to April 18, 2012 and added allegations
challenging a November 2009 estimate concerning the CPO 4
prospect.

On January 14, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss and, on
August 22, 2013, the court granted the motion and dismissed the
complaint. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a Notice of Appeal of
the dismissal of the complaint.

On July 15, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
reversed the dismissal of the case. The appellate court ruling
focused on the sufficiency of the pleadings in the case, made no
determination regarding the merits of the factual allegations, and
remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings.

In October 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the consolidated lawsuit. The settlement, which provides
for a $7,000,000 payment, is expected to be fully funded by the
Company's insurance and was subject to preliminary and final
approval of the court. The parties submitted the settlement to the
court for approval on December 31, 2014.  The court signed an
order on April 16, 2015 preliminarily approving the settlement and
scheduled a final approval hearing on July 29, 2015.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, the Company, through its
insurer, is required to escrow settlement funds in the amount of
$7,000,000 by approximately May 15, 2015. In May 2015, the
Company's insurer deposited the required funds into an escrow
account to fund the settlement.

"If, for any reason, the settlement is not approved and
consummated, we may be exposed to damages and costs in excess of
our insurance which would have a material adverse effect on our
financial position, results of operations or cash flows," the
Company said.


IMPERVA INC: Bid to Dismiss Fully Briefed and Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Imperva, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the defendants' motion
to dismiss the amended complaint in a shareholder class action
lawsuit is now fully briefed and pending before the court.

On April 11, 2014, a purported shareholder 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. On August 7, 2014, the Court entered an order appointing
lead plaintiff and counsel for the purported class. The lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on October 10, 2014. The
lawsuit again names the Company and certain of its officers and
purports to bring suit on behalf of those investors who purchased
the Company's publicly traded securities between May 2, 2013 and
April 9, 2014. The plaintiff alleges that defendants made false
and misleading statements about the Company's operations and
business and financial results and purports to assert claims for
violations of the federal securities laws. The amended complaint
seeks unspecified compensatory damages, interest thereon, costs
incurred in the action and equitable/injunctive or other relief.
On January 6, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. That motion is now fully briefed and pending
before the court.


INOGEN INC: Holford Dismissed Second Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Inogen, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that plaintiff Roger D.
Holford filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice in
the second-filed class action lawsuit.

On March 13 and March 19, 2015, plaintiffs Brad Christi and Roger
D. Holford each filed, respectively, a lawsuit against Inogen,
Raymond Huggenberger, Inogen's President and Chief Executive
Officer, and Alison Bauerlein, Inogen's Executive Vice President
and Chief Financial Officer, in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the Company's securities between November
12, 2014 and March 11, 2015.

The complaints allege that Inogen, Mr. Huggenberger and Ms.
Bauerlein violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that
Mr. Huggenberger and Ms. Bauerlein violated Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Specifically, the complaints
allege that during the purported class period our financial
statements and disclosures concerning internal controls over
financial reporting were materially false and misleading.  The
complaints seek compensatory damages in an unspecified amount,
costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other relief as
the court deems proper.  The deadline for motions for appointment
as lead plaintiff was May 12, 2015.  On May 7, 2015, plaintiff
Roger D. Holford filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without
prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule
41(a)(1)(A) in the second filed action.

"We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these
allegations.  We are currently unable to predict the outcome of
the first filed lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the
likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss," the
Company said.


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Parties File Notice of Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------
Insys Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the parties in the
Federal Securities Litigation have filed a Notice of Settlement
with the Court.

The Company said, "Between May 15 and May 19, 2014, two complaints
(captioned Larson v. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-
01043-GMS) and (Li vs. Insys Therapeutics, Inc., Case No 14-cv-
01077-DGC) were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Arizona, or Arizona District Court, against us and certain of
our current officers. The complaints were brought as purported
class actions, on behalf of purchasers of our common stock. In
general, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by making intentionally false and
misleading statements regarding our business and operations,
therefore artificially inflating the price of our common stock.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other
relief."

On July 14, 2014, several purported shareholders filed motions to
consolidate the two cases, appoint a lead plaintiff, and appoint
lead counsel. On August 29, 2014, the Arizona District Court
issued an order consolidating the action, appointing Hongwei Li as
lead plaintiff, and appointing the lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs
complaint was filed on October 27, 2014.

On December 11, 2014, the Company moved to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint. On March 19, 2015, the parties
participated in a mediation and the parties subsequently agreed in
principle, on April 14, 2015, to settle the action. On April 20,
2015, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement with the Court.

"If the Court preliminarily approves the settlement, then
potential class members will be notified of the proposed
settlement and the procedure by which they can object to the
settlement or request to be excluded from the class. The
settlement will then be subject to final approval by the Court,"
the Company said.

"Because we have met our retainage amount under our applicable
directors and officers insurance policy, the currently
contemplated obligations that may arise as result of the proposed
settlement in this matter will be fully covered under our
directors and officers insurance policy. Accordingly, we have not
accrued any loss contingency for this matter into our operating
results."


IRADIMED CORPORATION: Lam Civil Action in Very Early Stages
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Lam Civil Action against Iradimed Corporation is presently in
the very early stages of litigation, the Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

On September 10, 2014, a Civil Action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida ("Lam Civil
Action"). The Lam Civil Action is a putative class action lawsuit
brought against the Company and certain individuals who are
officers and / or directors of the Company. The plaintiff is an
alleged shareholder of the Company, and seeks relief on behalf of
a class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock during
the period from July 15, 2014 through September 2, 2014. The
complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose material
information concerning the Company's compliance with FDA
regulations in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and that the
putative class members suffered damages as a result. The complaint
additionally alleges "control person" liability against the
individual defendants under Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The Lam Civil Action is presently in the
very early stages of litigation.  The Company disputes the
plaintiff's allegations and theories of liability, and intends to
defend the case vigorously.

"We have not accrued for any loss related to this matter as we
believe that any such loss is not probable or estimable," the
Company said.


JPMORGAN CHASE: "Erami" Suit Moved to N.D. California Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Erami v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, Case
No. 2:15-cv-00727, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California (San Francisco).  The
Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-02547-LB
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought of a class, which is comprised of all
current and former California based employees of JPMorgan Chase
Bank, National Association, with the title "Assistant Branch
Manager," who worked at any time from February 25, 2011, up to the
time of trial.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward J. Wynne, Esq.
          J.E.B. Pickett, Esq.
          WYNNE LAW FIRM
          100 Drakes Landing Road, Suite 275
          Greenbrae, CA 94904
          Telephone: (415) 461-6400
          Facsimile: (415) 461-3900
          E-mail: ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com
                  Jebpickett@wynnelawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Carrie Anne Gonell, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          5 Park Plaza, Suite 1750
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 399-7000
          Facsimile: (949) 399-7001
          E-mail: cgonell@morganlewis.com


KCG HOLDINGS: Final Settlement Hearing Held
-------------------------------------------
A U.S. court was slated to consider final approval of the
settlement reached in the litigation related to the August 1, 2012
Technology Issue, KCG Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

On October 26, 2012, Knight, its then-Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, Thomas M. Joyce, and its then-Executive Vice President,
Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer, Steven
Bisgay, were named as defendants in an action entitled Fernandez
v. Knight Capital Group, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey, Case No. 2:12-cv-06760 (the "Fernandez
Action"). Generally, this putative class action complaint alleged
that the defendants made material misstatements and/or failed to
disclose matters related to the events of August 1, 2012. The
plaintiff asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 and Rule
10b-5 of the federal securities laws, claiming that he and a
purported class of Knight's stockholders who purchased Knight's
Class A Common Stock between January 19, 2012 and August 1, 2012
paid an inflated price.

Following the appointment of a lead plaintiff and counsel, the
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on March 14, 2013, alleging
generally that the defendants made material misstatements and/or
failed to disclose matters related to the events of August 1,
2012. The plaintiff asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20
and Rule 10b-5 of the federal securities laws, claiming that it
and a purported class of Knight's stockholders who purchased
Knight's securities between November 30, 2011 and August 1, 2012
paid an inflated price.

On May 13, 2013, Knight filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, which was fully briefed as of August 2013. Before the
court rendered a decision on the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff
filed a second amended complaint on December 20, 2013, alleging
generally that the defendants made material misstatements and/or
failed to disclose matters related to the events of August 1,
2012. More specifically, the plaintiff referred to KCA's October
2013 settlement with the SEC and alleged that the defendants made
false and misleading statements concerning Knight's risk
management procedures and protocols, available cash and liquidity,
Value at Risk and internal controls over financial reporting. The
plaintiff asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and 20 and Rule
10b-5 of the federal securities laws, claiming that it and a
purported class of Knight's stockholders who purchased Knight's
securities between May 10, 2011 and August 1, 2012 (the "Class
Period") paid an inflated price. The defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint on February 18, 2014 which
was fully briefed as of June 5, 2014.

In November 2014, prior to the court's decision on defendants'
motion to dismiss, the parties participated in a court-ordered
mediation. Following the mediation, in December 2014 the parties
reached an agreement in principle to settle the Fernandez Action.

On February 9, 2015, the parties entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement that, if approved by the District Court, will resolve
the litigation and result in the Fernandez Action being dismissed
with prejudice. Pursuant to an Order filed on March 2, 2015, the
District Court preliminarily approved the settlement of the
Fernandez Action and set July 1, 2015 for the final settlement
hearing.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Knight has agreed that
certain of its insurance carriers would pay $13.0 million to
stockholders in the class. The settlement requires no direct
payment by any of the defendants. Under the proposed settlement,
defendants and various of their related persons and entities will
receive a full release of all claims that were or could have been
brought in the action as well as all claims that arise out of, are
based upon or relate to the allegations, transactions, facts,
representations, omissions or other matters involved in the
complaints filed in the action or any statement communicated to
the public during the Class Period, and the purchase, acquisition
or sale of the Company's stock during the Class Period.

The proposed settlement contains no admission of any liability or
wrongdoing on the part of the defendants, each of whom continues
to deny all of the allegations against them and believes that the
claims are without merit. The settlement will not have an effect
on the Company's results of operations because the full amount of
the proposed settlement will be paid by the Company's insurance
carriers.

As of April 1, 2015, the full amount of the proposed settlement
was deposited by the insurance carriers into an escrow account.
Though the Company believes the likelihood of approval of the
settlement is probable, the Company cannot predict with certainty
whether the settlement will be finally approved, and, if the
settlement is not finally approved by the Court, the Company
believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims in the
operative complaint.


LEAM DRILLING: Faces Claims for OT Wages Under Penn. Wage Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Samuel Bartz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Leam Drilling Systems, L.L.C. and Reme, L.L.C., Case
No. 2:15-cv-00878-CB (W.D. Pa., July 8, 2015) seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages under the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act.

Leam Drilling and Reme operate as a singular oilfield services
company providing directional and horizontal drilling services to
the oil and gas industry. Defendants operate throughout the United
States, including in Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
     GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
     3634 California Ave.
     Pittsburgh, PA 15212
     Tel: (412) 766-1455
     Fax: (412)766-0300
     E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

          - and -

     Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
     Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
     Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
     Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
     FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
     1150 Bissonnet St.
     Houston, TX 77005
     Tel: (713) 751-0025
     Fax: (713) 751-0030
     E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
             litkin@fibichlaw.com
             adunlap@fibichlaw.com
             jbresler@fibichlaw.com

        - and -

     Richard J. (Rex), Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Tel: (713) 877-8788
     Fax: (713) 877-8065
     E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


LEIDOS HOLDINGS: To Defend Against Data Privacy Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Leidos Holdings, Inc. and Leidos, Inc. intend to defend against
Data Privacy Litigation, the Companies said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

On September 20, 2014, the Company was named as a defendant in a
putative class action, Martin Fernandez, on Behalf Of Himself And
All Other Similarly Situated v. Leidos, Inc. in the Eastern
District Court of California, related to the theft of computer
backup tapes. The recent complaint includes allegations of
violations of the California Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, and other
claims. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these
claims.


LEIDOS HOLDINGS: Appeal in Securities Class Action Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs' appeal in a securities class action lawsuit remains
pending, Leidos Holdings, Inc. and Leidos, Inc. said in their Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 12, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

Between February and April 2012, alleged stockholders filed three
putative securities class actions. One case was withdrawn and two
cases were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York in In re SAIC, Inc. Securities
Litigation. The consolidated securities complaint names as
defendants the Company, its chief financial officer, two former
chief executive officers, a former group president and the former
program manager on the CityTime program, and was filed purportedly
on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock from
April 11, 2007 through September 1, 2011. The consolidated
securities complaint asserted claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations
that the Company and individual defendants made misleading
statements or omissions about the Company's revenues, operating
income and internal controls in connection with disclosures
relating to the CityTime project. The plaintiffs sought to recover
from the Company and the individual defendants an unspecified
amount of damages class members allegedly incurred by buying
Leidos' stock at an inflated price.

On October 1, 2013, the District Court dismissed many claims in
the complaint with prejudice and on January 30, 2014, the District
Court entered an order dismissing all remaining claims with
prejudice and without leave to replead. The plaintiffs moved to
vacate the District Court's judgment or obtain relief from the
judgment and for leave to file an amended complaint.

On September 30, 2014, the District Court denied plantiffs'
motions. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on October 30,
2014 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
where the appeal remains pending.


LENDIO INC: Has Invaded Class Member's Privacy, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Casey Blotzer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lendio, Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-01077-JVS-DFM (C.D.
Cal., July 8, 2015), is an action for damages resulting from the
illegal actions of the Defendant, in negligently, knowingly,
and/or willfully contacting the Plaintiff and class members on
their cellular telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

Lendio, Inc. is in the business of offering consumers and business
owners' business loans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
              sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com
              abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


LIBERTY MUTUAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Johansen" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Johansen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Liberty Mutual Group Inc., Spanish Quotes, Inc. d/b/a
WeSpeakInsurance, Case No. 1:15-cv-12920-ADB (D. Mass., July 8,
2015), seeks to put an end to the Defendants' practice of making
unsolicited calls to Class member's residential telephone.

Liberty Mutual Group Inc. is an American diversified global
insurer and the second-largest property and casualty insurer in
the United States.

Spanish Quotes, Inc. is an insurance shopping network designed to
provide Spanish speaking American with quotes on auto and home
insurance.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
      Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
      BRODERICK LAW, P.C.
      208 Ridge Street
      Winchester, MA 01890
      Telephone: (508) 221-1510
      E-mail: anthony@broderick-law.com
              ted@broderick-law.com

         - and -

      Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
      One South Avenue, Third Floor
      Natick, MA 01760
      Telephone: (508) 655-1415
      E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net


LUMENIS INC: "Ballard" Suit Alleges Wage & Hour Laws Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Ballard, individually, on behalf of others similarly situated
v. Lumenis Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-03164-HRL (N.D. Cal., July 8,
2015), alleges that Plaintiffs were denied proper compensation as
required by federal wage and hour laws.

Lumenis Inc. provides clinical solutions for the surgical,
ophthalmology and aesthetic markets, and develops and
commercializes energy-based technologies, including Laser, Intense
Pulsed Light and Radio-Frequency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew C. Helland, Esq.
     Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
     NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
     One Embarcadero Center, Suite 720
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Tel: (415) 277-7235
     Fax: (415) 277-7238
     E-mail: helland@nka.com
             dbrome@nka.com


LYFT INC: Faces "Frederic" Suit Over Driver Misclassification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fequiere Frederic, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. Lyft, Inc. d/b/a Lyft Florida, Inc.,
Case No. 8:15-cv-01608-CEH-MAP (M.D. Fla., July 8, 2015), alleges
that the Defendant unlawfully misclassified drivers as independent
contractors in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Lyft is a taxi business that operates by connecting local
travelers who seek transportation via automobile with local
drivers, through a mobile phone software application.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
     WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
     1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Tel: 813-224-0431
     Fax: 813-229-8712
     E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
             jriley@wfclaw.com


M/A-COM: Ex-Mindspeed Technologies Employee Files Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
M/A-COM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
13, 2015, for the quarterly period ended April 3, 2015, that
Philip Alvarez, a former employee of Mindspeed filed on March 10,
2015, a putative class action lawsuit against Mindspeed in the
Superior Court of California for the County of Orange. The lawsuit
alleges, among other things, that Mr. Alvarez and certain other
employees who designed and manufactured hardware systems for
Mindspeed between March 11, 2011 and the present were
misclassified as exempt employees under California law. The
lawsuit seeks recovery of alleged unpaid overtime wages, meal and
rest period premiums, penalties and attorneys' fees. The Company
disputes the allegations of the lawsuit. The lawsuit is currently
in the early stages of litigation. The Company intends to defend
the lawsuit vigorously.


MAGNUM HUNTER: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Securities Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that plaintiffs in
the securities class action cases have appealed the decision
dismissing the cases to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

On April 23, 2013, Anthony Rosian, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York, against the Company and certain of its officers, two
of whom, at that time, also served as directors, and one of whom
continues to serve as a director. On April 24, 2013, Horace
Carvalho, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, filed a similar class action complaint in the
United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, against
the Company and certain of its officers. Several substantially
similar putative class actions were filed in the Southern District
of New York and in the Southern District of Texas. All such cases
are collectively referred to as the Securities Cases. The cases
filed in the Southern District of Texas have since been dismissed.
The cases filed in the Southern District of New York were
consolidated and have since been dismissed.

The plaintiffs in the Securities Cases had filed a consolidated
amended complaint alleging that the Company made certain false or
misleading statements in its filings with the SEC, including
statements related to the Company's internal and financial
controls, the calculation of non-cash share-based compensation
expense, the late filing of the Company's 2012 Form 10-K, the
dismissal of Magnum Hunter's previous independent registered
accounting firm, the Company's characterization of the auditors'
position with respect to the dismissal, and other matters
identified in the Company's April 16, 2013 Form 8-K, as amended.
The consolidated amended complaint asserted claims under Sections
10(b) and 20 of the Exchange Act based on alleged false statements
made regarding these issues throughout the alleged class period,
as well as claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities
Act based on alleged false statements and omissions regarding the
Company's internal controls made in connection with a public
offering that Magnum Hunter completed on May 14, 2012. The
consolidated amended complaint demanded that the defendants pay
unspecified damages to the class action plaintiffs, including
damages allegedly caused by the decline in the Company's stock
price between February 22, 2013 and April 22, 2013.

In January 2014, the Company and the individual defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Securities Cases. On June 23, 2014, the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted the Company's and the individual defendants' motion to
dismiss the Securities Cases and, accordingly, the Securities
Cases have now been dismissed. The plaintiffs have appealed the
decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The
Company intends to continue vigorously defending the Securities
Cases. It is possible that additional investor lawsuits could be
filed over these events.


MANGIA FRESCA: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Morales" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Morales, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown v. Mangia Fresca, Inc. and
Paul Impallaria, Case No. 1:15-cv-05989 (N.D. Ill., July 8, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages to the Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons for
all time worked in excess of 40 hours in individual work weeks.

The Defendants own and operate an Italian restaurant in Chicago,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maureen Ann Salas, Esq.
      Sarah Jean Arendt, Esq.
      Zachary Cole Flowerree, Esq.
      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 W. Washington, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 419-1008
      Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
      E-mail: msalas@flsalaw.com
              sarendt@flsalaw.com
              zflowerree@flsalaw.com
              dwerman@flsalaw.com


MARKIT LTD: Defendant in Dealers and ISDA Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------
Markit Ltd. said in its Form F-1 Registration Statement filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2015, that since
May 2013, Markit has been named as a defendant with the Dealers
and ISDA in a number of putative class action lawsuits filed in
U.S. courts and arising out of allegations of violations of
federal and state antitrust laws in connection with credit default
swaps. The named plaintiffs in each case include pension funds,
investment management funds and other buy-side firms who conduct
business activities involving credit default swaps. All cases were
filed either in the U.S. District Courts for the Northern District
of Illinois or the Southern District of New York. On October 16,
2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred
all cases to the Southern District of New York and on December 13,
2013, the court consolidated all such cases for pre-trial
purposes.

The primary allegations by plaintiffs are that the defendants
conspired to prevent competitors from offering execution and
clearing services for exchange-traded credit default swaps and
that the defendants conspired to fix and maintain credit default
swap bid/ask spreads in the OTC market above the spreads that
would have been realised with the development of exchange trading
of credit default swaps. The substance of plaintiffs' request for
relief seeks a permanent injunction foreclosing defendants from
continuing their alleged anticompetitive actions and trebled
damages in an unspecified amount, plus interest, attorneys' fees
and costs of suit.

There can be no assurance as to the outcome of the EC
investigation, the DOJ investigation, or the class action
lawsuits, but they could have a material adverse effect on
Markit's business, financial condition and results of operations.


MASTEC INC: "Wrigley" Class Action Filed in S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
MasTec, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a putative class
action lawsuit (the "Lawsuit"), Wrigley v. MasTec, Inc., et. al.
(Case No. 1:15-cv-21740) was filed on May 7, 2015, in the United
States District Court, Southern District of Florida, naming the
Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, Jose R. Mas, and
the Company's Chief Financial Officer, George L. Pita, as
defendants. The Lawsuit has been purportedly brought by a
shareholder, both individually and on behalf of a putative class
of shareholders, alleging violations of the federal securities
laws arising from alleged false or misleading statements contained
in, or alleged material omissions from, certain of the Company's
filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and other
statements, in each case with respect to accounting matters that
are the subject of the Company's previously disclosed independent
internal investigation being conducted by the Audit Committee of
the Company's Board of Directors. The Lawsuit seeks damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, as well as reasonable
attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs.

The Company believes that the Lawsuit is without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against it; however, there can be no
assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeal Pending in Keife and Simon Cases
----------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
MetLife, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that an appeal remains
pending in the cases, Keife, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company (D. Nev., filed in state court on July 30, 2010 and
removed to federal court on September 7, 2010); and Simon v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (D. Nev., filed November 3,
2011)

These putative class action lawsuits, which have been
consolidated, raise breach of contract claims arising from
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's use of Total Control
Accounts to pay life insurance benefits under the Federal
Employees' Group Life Insurance program. On March 8, 2013, the
court granted Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's motion for
summary judgment. Plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Defending Against "Owens" Case
-------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
MetLife, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company intends to
defend against the case, Owens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company (N.D. Ga., filed April 17, 2014)

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


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Defending Against "Robainas" Case
----------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of
MetLife, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company intends to
defend against the reinsurance litigation, Robainas, et al. v.
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014)

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all persons and entities who, directly or
indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums on life insurance
policies issued by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company from 2009
through 2014 (the "Policies"). Two similar actions were
subsequently filed, Yale v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y.,
January 12, 2015) and International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers District Lodge 15 v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
(E.D.N.Y., February 2, 2015).

Both of these actions have been consolidated with the Robainas
action. The consolidated complaint alleges that Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company inadequately disclosed in its statutory annual
statements that certain reinsurance transactions with affiliated
reinsurance companies were collateralized using "contractual
parental guarantees," and thereby allegedly misrepresented its
financial condition and the adequacy of its reserves. The lawsuit
seeks recovery under Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law of
a statutory penalty in the amount of the premiums paid for the
Policies. MetLife intends to defend this action vigorously.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Defending Against "Intoccia" and Weilert Cases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of
MetLife, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company intends to
defend against the case, Intoccia v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
(S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2015); and Weilert v. Metropolitan Life Ins.
Co. (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2015)

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


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Objector Appeals Case Approval in C-Mart Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
MetLife, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that an objector has filed
a notice to appeal the approval order of the settlement in the
case, C-Mart, Inc. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., et al. (S.D.
Fla., January 10, 2013); Cadenasso v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Co., et al. (N.D. Cal., November 26, 2013, subsequently
transferred to S.D. Fla.); and Fauley v. Metropolitan Life
Insurance Co., et al. (Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit,
Lake County, Ill., July 3, 2014)

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


METROPOLITAN LIFE: To Defend Against "Voshall" Case
---------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of
MetLife, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company intends to
defend the case, Voshall v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, April 8,
2015)

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


MIAMI HERALD: "Rierra" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Odin Rierra, and all others similarly-situated v. Miami Herald
Media Company, Case No. 1:15-cv-22558-DPG (S.D. Fla., July 8,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
interests, costs and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Miami Herald Media Company is a Florida corporation which
regularly conducted business in Miami-Dade County, Florida by
printing newspaper.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
      DANIEL T FELD P.A.
      20801 Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 403
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (786) 923-5899
      E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@Gmail.com

         - and -

      Isaac Jackie Mamane, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ISAAC MAMANE
      1150 Kane Concourse, Floor 2
      Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
      Telephone: (305) 448-9292
      Facsimile: (305) 448-9477
      E-mail: Mamane@gmail.com


MMA CAPITAL: Parties in Class Action Submit Settlement Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
MMA Capital Management, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that parties in a class
action lawsuit have submitted an agreement and related documents
to the United States District Court for the Districted of Maryland
for approval. The agreement provides for payments to the class of
up to $676,820 and attorneys' fees of up to $150,000 for the
plaintiffs' counsel.

The Company is a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit and
two derivative suits originally filed in 2008.  The plaintiffs in
the class action lawsuit claim to represent a class of investors
in the Company's shares who allegedly were injured by
misstatements in press releases and SEC filings between May 3,
2004 and January 28, 2008.  The plaintiffs sought unspecified
damages for themselves and the shareholders of the class they
purported to represent.  In the derivative suits, the plaintiffs
claimed, among other things, that the Company was injured because
its directors and certain named officers did not fulfill duties
regarding the accuracy of its financial disclosures.  Both the
class action and the derivative cases were brought in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland. The Company
filed a motion to dismiss the class action, and in June 2012, the
Court issued a ruling dismissing all of the counts alleging any
knowing or intentional wrongdoing by the Company or its
affiliates, directors and officers. The plaintiffs appealed the
Court's ruling and on March 7, 2014, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit unanimously affirmed the lower
Court's ruling. As a result of these rulings, the only counts
remaining in the class action relate to the Company's dividend
reinvestment plan and the plaintiffs in the derivative cases have
voluntarily dismissed their case outright.

The parties have engaged in settlement discussions leading to a
settlement agreement. On April 20, 2015, the parties submitted the
agreement and related documents to the United States District
Court for the Districted of Maryland for approval. The agreement
provides for payments to the class of up to $676,820 and
attorneys' fees of up to $150,000 for the plaintiffs' counsel. The
settlement is a claims-made settlement, in which payments will be
made only to those plaintiffs who submit a claim and whose claim
is approved, thus the final settlement amount to the class could
be less than the amount stated. Similarly, the court must approve
the plaintiffs' counsel's attorneys' fees, thus the final amount
could be less than stated.

The Company does not expect to directly incur any settlement
costs, as all costs, including both class payments and plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees, will be paid directly by the insurance company.
As a result, the Company released the litigation reserve of $0.5
million during the first quarter of 2015.


MONSANTO CO: Removes "Mirzaie" Suit to California District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Mirzaie, et al. v. Monsanto
Company, Case No. BC578942, 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-04361 to the proceeding.

The Complaint seeks to certify a statewide class consisting of
"all persons who purchased Roundup, or Roundup-related products,
in California, at any time during the last four years," and seeks
preliminary and permanent injunctions, money damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.  Monsanto denies that it engaged in any
unlawful conduct or is liable to the Plaintiffs.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Stephen R. Smerek, Esq.
          WINSTON AND STRAWN LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue, 38th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
          Telephone: (213) 615-1735
          Facsimile: (213) 615-1750
          E-mail: ssmerek@winston.com


NEVADA PROPERTY: Deal Reached in Wage and Hour Cases
----------------------------------------------------
Nevada Property 1 LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company has
reached an agreement in principle to resolve wage and hour
lawsuits pending before the Nevada state and district courts.

During late 2012, the Company was put on notice and/or served with
two separate purported class action lawsuits related to alleged
unpaid compensation for time incurred by CoStars while on Property
for donning and doffing of the CoStars' required uniform, alleged
improper rounding of time for hours worked and various other
claims related to alleged unpaid compensation. One of the
purported wage and hour class action lawsuits is pending in the
Eighth Judicial District Court for Clark County, Nevada ("Nevada
State Court"), and one is pending in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Nevada.

In early April 2015, the Company commenced arms-length settlement
negotiations leading to an agreement in principle to resolve both
the Nevada State Court and the U.S. District Court lawsuits. The
proposed resolution includes a total payment of approximately $7.0
million inclusive of the opposing counsel fees and all costs of
administering the settlement. After such expenses are paid, the
remaining amount will comprise a settlement fund. Of this amount
the Company will pay out only that portion actually claimed by
putative class members.

The proposed settlement is subject to approval by the courts. The
Company recorded the $7.0 million proposed settlement agreement in
accrued and other liabilities in the condensed consolidated
balance sheet as of March 31, 2015 and in corporate expense in the
condensed consolidated statement of operations for the three
months ended March 31, 2015.


NEVADA PROPERTY: Settlement Reached in Taping/Recording Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada Property 1 LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company, the
plaintiff and the putative class counsel have reached a settlement
agreement in the lawsuit related to alleged unlawful
taping/recording.

During the quarterly period that ended September 30, 2012, a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company was filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, claiming violation
of the California Penal Code regarding the alleged unlawful taping
or recording of telephone calls to and from the Company. On August
31, 2012, the Company removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.
Subsequently, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, or in the
alternative, to strike the class allegations. On July 15, 2013,
the U.S. District Court issued an order denying these motions.

The Company continues to deny all liability to the putative class
members but, at a mediation held on February 20, 2015, the Company
agreed to settle all of the claims against it in this matter for a
total payment of $14.5 million, inclusive of all attorneys' fees
to the putative class counsel and all costs of administering the
settlement. The Company, the plaintiff and the putative class
counsel have reached a settlement agreement and presented their
settlement agreement for preliminary approval by the U.S. District
Court on May 8, 2015. The matter is presently under consideration
by the Court. If the settlement agreement is preliminarily
approved, the Court will schedule a final fairness hearing, at
which it will determine whether the settlement is fair, reasonable
and adequate and whether judgment should be entered.


NEW YORK: ACS Sued Over Failure to Keep Foster Children Safe
------------------------------------------------------------
Elisa W., et al. v. The City of New York, et al., Case No. 1:15-
cv-05273-LTS (S.D.N.Y., July 8, 2015), arises out of the
Defendants' failure to keep all children who are now or will be in
the foster care custody of the Commissioner of New York City's
Administration for Children's Services safe. And, instead of
ensuring that New York City's foster children grow up in safe,
permanent families, the Defendants' policies and customs cause far
too many children to grow up in the custody of the state, without
a home or family to call their own.

The City of New York was, and is, a municipal entity created and
authorized under the laws of the State of New York. It is
authorized by law to maintain and ultimately is responsible for
the New York City Administration for Children's Services, which
acts as its agent in the area of protecting the safety and welfare
of children in the City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Julie A. North, Esq.
      CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
      825 Eighth Avenue
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 474-1000
      Facsimile: (212) 474-3700
      E-mail: jnorth@cravath.com


NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Court Has Not Yet Ruled on Dismissal Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nuverra Environmental Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Court has
not yet ruled on the Company's motion to dismiss a 2013 class
action.

In September 2013, two separate but substantially-similar putative
class action lawsuits were commenced in Federal court against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors alleging that the Company and the individual defendants
made certain material misstatements and/or omissions relating to
the Company's operations and financial condition which caused the
price of its shares to fall. By order dated October 29, 2013, the
two putative class actions were consolidated and a consolidated
complaint was filed.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss these claims in May 2014, and
such motion was granted by the Court on November 17, 2014, whereby
the forgoing class action was dismissed without prejudice.

Plaintiffs were permitted by the Court to file a motion to amend
the complaint and did so on December 8, 2014. Defendants filed
their opposition to plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint on
December 22, 2014.

On March 12, 2015, the Court issued an order denying plaintiffs'
motion to amend the complaint as to certain claims, but granting
plaintiffs' motion as to other claims.

Plantiffs filed an amended complaint on March 19, 2015, and on
March 23, 2015 the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to comply with the court's March 12, 2015
order. Both parties have filed subsequent pleadings, and the Court
has not yet ruled on the Company's motion to dismiss.

The Company believes these claims are without merit and the
Company will continue to vigorously defend itself and the
individual defendants in this action.


ONEIDA FINANCIAL: Faces "Parshall" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Oneida Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Paul Parshall (the
"Plaintiff") filed on March 3, 2015, a stockholder class action
lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
Oneida, against the Company, the directors of the Company and
Community Bank System, Inc. The lawsuit purports to be brought on
behalf of all of the Company's public stockholders, excluding the
directors of the Company. The complaint alleges that the directors
of the Company breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders
by failing to take adequate steps to ensure that the Company's
stockholders receive adequate, fair and maximum consideration
under the circumstances and by engineering the merger to the
benefit of themselves and/or Community Bank System, Inc. without
regard to the Company's stockholders. The complaint further
alleges that Community Bank System, Inc. aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the Company's directors. The
lawsuit seeks to enjoin the proposed merger from proceeding and
seeks unspecified compensatory damages on behalf of the Company's
stockholders and/or rescission of the proposed merger transaction.


ONEIDA FINANCIAL: Faces "Solak" Class Action
--------------------------------------------
Oneida Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that John Solak filed on
March 12, 2015, a stockholder class action lawsuit in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of Oneida, against the
Company, the directors of the Company and Community Bank System,
Inc.  The lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of all of the
Company's public stockholders, excluding the directors of the
Company. The complaint alleges that the directors of the Company
breached their fiduciary duties to the stockholders by failing to
take adequate steps to ensure that the Company's stockholders
receive adequate, fair and maximum consideration under the
circumstances and by engineering the merger to the benefit of
themselves and/or Community Bank System, Inc. without regard to
the Company's stockholders. The complaint further alleges that
Community Bank System, Inc. aided and abetted the alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty by the Company's directors. The lawsuit seeks to
enjoin the proposed merger from proceeding and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages on behalf of the Company's stockholders
and/or rescission of the proposed merger transaction.


ONEIDA FINANCIAL: Faces "Colvin" Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Oneida Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that Linda Colvin filed on
April 24, 2015, a stockholder class action lawsuit in the Circuit
Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, against the Company, the
directors of the Company and Community Bank System, Inc.  The
lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of all of the Company's
public stockholders, excluding the directors of the Company. The
complaint alleges that the directors of the Company breached their
fiduciary duties to the stockholders by agreeing to a merger
transaction that fails to maximize shareholder value and by
putting their personal interests ahead of the interests of the
Company's stockholders. The complaint further alleges that
Community Bank System, Inc. aided and abetted the alleged breaches
of fiduciary duty by the Company's directors. The lawsuit seeks to
enjoin the proposed merger from proceeding and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages on behalf of the Company's stockholders
and/or rescission of the proposed merger transaction.


OVASCIENCE INC: Court Has Not Yet Ruled on Motion to Dismiss
------------------------------------------------------------
Ovascience, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the court has not yet
ruled on the Company's motion to dismiss a shareholder class
action.

"On September 16, 2013, a purported shareholder class action,
styled Meriam Ratner v. OvaScience, Inc., et al., was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
naming us and certain of our officers as defendants," the Company
said.  "The lawsuit alleges that we made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact relating to
the qualification of AUGMENT as a 361 HCT/P in our public
disclosures during the period from February 25, 2013 through
September 10, 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 February 2, 2014, we and certain of our
officers, as defendants, filed a motion to dismiss with the
District Court. On February 3, 2014, plaintiff Meriam Ratner
voluntarily dismissed the suit without prejudice."

"On June 6, 2014, this purported shareholder class action was re-
filed by the plaintiff in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, naming us and certain of our officers
as defendants. The lawsuit includes the same allegations as were
included in the action filed on September 16, 2013. The plaintiff
filed an amended complaint on October 31, 2014. As amended, the
complaint seeks certification of a class of purchasers of our
stock during the period February 25, 2013 through September 10,
2013. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf
of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses,
including attorney's fees. On December 16, 2014, we moved to
dismiss the complaint. The court has not yet ruled on that motion.
We believe that this action is without merit and intend to defend
it vigorously. At this time, no assessment can be made as to the
likely outcome of this lawsuit or whether the outcome will be
material to us.|


PACIFIC BELL: Accused of Violating California Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------
Steven Leggins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. Pacific Bell Telephone Company, a California
Corporation, and DOES 1 to 50 inclusive, Case No. BC 587 252 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 7, 2015), seeks penalties for
Defendant's alleged violation of the Private Attorneys General Act
of 2004, and California Labor Code.

Pacific Bell provides residential and commercial telephone service
throughout the state of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Craig Clark, Esq.
     James M. Treglio, Esq.
     CLARK & TREGLIO
     205 W. Date Street
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: (619) 239-1321
     Fax: (888) 273-4554


PEOPLE'S UNITED: Parties in Marta Farb Case Executed Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the case, Marta Farb, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. People's United Bank, have executed a
settlement agreement that resolves all claims, counterclaims and
appeals in the case, People's United Financial, Inc. said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

The Bank has been named as a defendant in a lawsuit (Marta Farb,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. People's
United Bank) arising from its assessment and collection of
overdraft fees on its checking account customers. The Complaint
was filed in the Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District
of Waterbury, on April 22, 2011 and alleges that the Bank engaged
in certain unfair practices in the posting of electronic debit
card transactions from highest to lowest dollar amount. The
Complaint also alleges that such practices were inadequately
disclosed to customers and were unfairly used by the Bank for the
purpose of generating revenue by maximizing the number of
overdrafts a customer is assessed. The Complaint seeks
certification of a class of checking account holders residing in
Connecticut and who have incurred at least one overdraft fee,
injunctive relief, compensatory, punitive and treble damages,
disgorgement and restitution of overdraft fees paid, and
attorneys' fees.

On June 16, 2011, the Bank filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint, and on December 7, 2011, that motion was denied by the
Court. On April 11, 2012, the plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint, and on May 15, 2012, the Bank filed a Motion to Strike
the Amended Complaint. On April 10, 2013, the Bank renewed its
Motion to Dismiss the Complaint.

On June 6, 2013, the Court denied the Bank's Motion to Strike and
its renewed Motion to Dismiss. On September 23, 2013, the Bank
filed its Revised Answer, Special Defenses and Counterclaim to
Plaintiff's Amended Class Action Complaint.

A Court hearing on plaintiff's Motion to Strike certain of the
Bank's Defenses and a Counterclaim was held on January 30, 2014.
The Court postponed consideration of that Motion and, on April 28,
2014, held a hearing to consider whether it has jurisdiction to
hear the case.

On July 28, 2014, the Court dismissed the case in its entirety for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction because all of the claims are
preempted by federal law. On August 15, 2014, the plaintiff filed
a Notice of Appeal.

On April 30, 2015, the parties executed a settlement agreement
that resolves all claims, counterclaims and appeals in the case,
thus concluding this matter. The amount of the agreed-upon
settlement has been adequately reserved.


PHOENIX COS: Has $48.5MM Non-Recurring Charge Related to Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Phoenix Companies, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
12, 2015, that the net loss attributable to The Phoenix Companies,
Inc. was $74.0 million for the first quarter of 2015, compared
with a net loss attributable to The Phoenix Companies, Inc. of
$28.1 million for the first quarter of 2014.  Primary drivers of
the first quarter 2015 loss, include a $48.5 million non-recurring
charge in connection with a previously disclosed agreement to
settle class actions relating to certain cost of insurance ("COI")
rate adjustments. The April 30, 2015 agreement is subject to
certain conditions and court approval.


PL SLATON: "Morales Vega" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin German Morales Vega, and all others similarly situated v. PL
Slaton, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00718 (W.D. Mich., July 9, 2015),
seeks to recover all unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendant is a logistics and staffing service provider in
Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew L. Turner, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ PC
      One Towne Sq., Ste. 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Tel: (248) 355-0300
      Fax: (248) 936-1973
      E-mail: mturner@sommerspc.com

         - and -

      Robert A. Alvarez, Esq.
      AVANTI LAW GROUP, P.L.L.C.
      600 28th Street S.W.
      Wyoming, MI 49509
      E-mail: ralvarez@avantilaw.com


PML CLUBS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Hoyt" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Hoyt and Lisa Sodekson, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. PML Clubs, Inc., East Coast Restaurant
& Nightclubs, LLC, d/b/a The Gold Club, and Michael Rose, Case No.
4:15-cv-02711-RBH (D.S.C., July 8, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay the full federal minimum wage as
required by the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a chain of strip clubs located
throughout the country, including Myrtle Beach and Hilton Head,
South Carolina; Bedford, New Hampshire; Las Vegas, Nevada;
Greensboro, North Carolina; San Francisco and San Jose,
California; and Wilmington, Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David E. Rothstein, Esq.
      ROTHSTEIN LAW FIRM
      1312 Augusta Street
      Greenville, SC 29605
      Telephone: (864) 232-5870
      Facsimile: (864) 241-1386
      E-mail: derothstein@mindspring.com


PUSH HEALTH: Faces Wilder Chiropractic Class Suit in Wisconsin
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wilder Chiropractic, Inc., A Wisconsin Corporation, Individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons
v. Push Health, Inc., Accesa Health, LLC, and Accesa Medical,
Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00350 (W.D. Wis., June 9, 2015) arises from
alleged restrictions on use of telephone equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
          ANDERSON + WANCA
          3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
          Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
          Telephone: (847) 368-1500
          Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
          E-mail: BWanca@andersonwanca.com


QUETZAL RESTAURANT: Faces "Demesio" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Montiel Bonilla Demesio, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Quetzal Restaurant & Bakery Inc., d/b/a
Quetzal Restaurant and Pedro Jimenez, Case No. 1:15-cv-03987-ILG-
RML (E.D.N.Y., July 8, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Quetzal Restaurant, a Dominican
restaurant located at 6420 17th Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11204.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RCS CAPITAL: Court Issues Order of Dismissal in Summit Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RCS Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a Final Judgment and
Order of Dismissal has been issued by the Court in the Summit
Financial Services Group, Inc. ("Summit"), Litigation.

"Summit, its board of directors, the Company and a wholly owned
subsidiary formed by our company in connection with the Summit
acquisition are named as defendants in two purported class action
lawsuits (now consolidated and amended) filed by alleged Summit
shareholders on November 27, 2013 and December 12, 2013 in Palm
Beach County, Florida challenging the Summit acquisition," the
Company said.

"These lawsuits alleged, among other things, that: (i) each member
of Summit's board of directors breached his fiduciary duties to
Summit and its shareholders in authorizing the Summit acquisition;
(ii) the Summit acquisition did not maximize value to Summit
shareholders; and (iii) we and our acquisition subsidiary aided
and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty allegedly committed by
the members of Summit's board of directors. On May 9, 2014, the
plaintiff shareholders moved for leave to file an amended
complaint under seal. The amended complaint asserted claims
similar to those in the original complaint, added allegations
relating to the amendment of the Summit merger agreement on March
17, 2014, and also challenged the adequacy of the disclosures in
the registration statement related to the issuance of shares of
our Class A common stock as consideration in the Summit
acquisition, the background of the transaction, the fairness
opinion issued to the Summit special committee, and Summit's
financial projections. The consolidated lawsuits sought class-
action certification, equitable relief, including an injunction
against consummation of the Summit acquisition on the agreed-upon
terms, and damages.

"On May 27, 2014, the parties to the consolidated action entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding setting forth their agreement
in principle to settle the consolidated action and, on September
15, 2014, the parties signed a stipulation of settlement and the
Company recorded a provision, for its portion of the negotiated
attorney's fees payment. The same day, plaintiffs filed a motion
seeking preliminary approval of the settlement and, on October 6,
2014, the Court entered the preliminary approval order. The Final
Judgment and Order of Dismissal were issued by the Court on
January 9, 2015."


RCS CAPITAL: Parties in ARCH Litigation Executed MOU
----------------------------------------------------
RCS Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the parties to the
consolidated state court action and the Rosenzweig action related
to the American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust Litigation
executed separate memoranda of understanding regarding settlement
of all claims asserted on behalf of each alleged class of ARCH
stockholders.

In connection with the proposed acquisition by Ventas, Inc.
("Ventas") of all the outstanding stock of American Realty Capital
Healthcare Trust, Inc. ("ARCH"), purported shareholders of ARCH
have filed multiple class action lawsuits in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City, Maryland and other jurisdictions. Two of these
actions named Realty Capital Securities among others, as a
defendant. The actions are: Shine v. American Realty Capital
Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al filed June 13, 2014 and Abbassi, et
al. v. American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al. filed
July 9, 2014. The actions also assert derivative claims on behalf
of ARCH against Realty Capital Securities.

On October 10, 2014, lead plaintiffs in the Maryland state court
action filed a "Consolidated Amended Derivative and Direct Class
Action Complaint," asserting direct and derivative claims of
aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty against multiple
defendants, including Realty Capital Securities, arising from
their roles providing services to ARCH in connection with the
proposed acquisition of ARCH by Ventas and seek (i) to enjoin the
proposed acquisition and (ii) recover damages if the proposed
acquisition is completed. A similar shareholder action, Rosenzweig
v. American Realty Capital Healthcare Trust, Inc. et al, 1:14-cv-
02019-GLR, was filed in federal court for the District of
Maryland.

On January 2, 2015 and January 5, 2015, the parties to the
consolidated state court action and the Rosenzweig action executed
separate memoranda of understanding regarding settlement of all
claims asserted on behalf of each alleged class of ARCH
stockholders in each case. In connection with the settlement
contemplated by that memoranda of understanding, each action and
all claims asserted therein will be dismissed, subject to approval
by each applicable court. Pursuant to the executed memoranda of
understanding, ARCH made certain additional disclosures related to
the Ventas transaction. The memoranda of understanding further
contemplate that the parties will enter into a stipulation of
settlement, which will be subject to customary conditions, upon
the conclusion of confirmatory discovery and court approval
following notice to ARCH's stockholders.

If the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing
will be scheduled at which the court will consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. There can be no
assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement, that the applicable court will approve
any proposed settlement, or that any eventual settlement will be
under the same terms as those contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding.

The Company believes that such lawsuits are without merit, but the
ultimate outcome of the matter cannot be predicted with certainty.
Neither the outcome of the lawsuits nor an estimate of a probable
loss or any reasonable possible losses is determinable at this
time. No provisions for any losses related to the lawsuits have
been recorded in the accompanying consolidated financial
statements for the year ended December 31, 2014. An adverse
judgment for monetary damages could have a material adverse effect
on the operations and liquidity of the Company. All defendants
have stated in court filings that they believe that the claims are
without merit and are defending against them vigorously.


RCS CAPITAL: No Material Filings in RCAP Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RCS Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that there have not been
any other material court filings involving the Company in the RCAP
Shareholder Class Action Litigation.

On or about December 29, 2014, a securities law class action
lawsuit was filed in federal court in the Southern District of New
York (Weston v. RCS Capital Corporation et al, 14 CV 10136)
against the Company and certain former or current officers and
directors of the Company. The lawsuit asserts the Company and the
individual defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and
misleading public statements pertaining to the Company's financial
position and future business and acquisition prospects.

Specifically, plaintiffs allege that defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) the
financial statements of ARCP were material false and misleading as
a result of accounting errors that were disclosed by ARCP on
October 29, 2014; (ii) the Company's announced acquisition of Cole
Capital Partners LLC and Cole Capital Advisors was at serious risk
due to the accounting issues at ARCP; and (iii) the Company's
revenue stream from its relationship with ARCP was in jeopardy as
a result of the accounting issues at ARCP announced on October 1,
2014. There have not been any other material court filings
involving the Company.

The Company believes the Weston complaint is without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself against its allegations.


RCS CAPITAL: Plaintiffs in ARCP Case Filed Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
RCS Capital Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the plaintiffs in the
ARCP Shareholder Class Action Litigation has filed an amended
complaint, which, like the original complaint, alleges that the
Company is a "control person" of ARCP under the securities laws.

The Company was named as a defendant in a consolidated federal
securities law class action (Teachers Insurance and Annuity
Association of America, et al. v. American Realty Capital
Properties, Inc. et al, Civ. A. 15-cv-00421) filed in federal
court in New York on January 21, 2015 brought on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of ARCP
between May 6, 2013 and October 29, 2014, including ARCP common
stock, preferred stock and debt securities. The lawsuit's claims,
premised on Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
and Sections 14(a), 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, allege generally that defendants issued or assisted in
the issuance of false and misleading statements to the investing
public, including in registration statements, prospectuses,
proxies and other public statements and press releases, concerning
ARCP's financial results as part of a scheme to artificially
inflate the value of ARCP's securities.

More specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company is a
"control person" of ARCP under the securities laws and thus
plaintiffs seek to hold the Company responsible for the alleged
misstatements of ARCP and its officers and directors. The Company
is also alleged to be a "structuring advisor" to ARCP. Realty
Capital Securities, LLC, a subsidiary of the Company is named as a
defendant based on its role as a co-manager of ARCP's July 2013
convertible notes offering.

On April 17, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which,
like the original complaint, alleges that the Company is a
"control person" of ARCP under the securities laws. The amended
complaint also names Realty Capital Securities as a defendant
based on its role as a co-manager of ARCP's July 2013 convertible
notes offering.

The Company believes the amended complaint is without merit and
intends to vigorously defend itself against the allegations
contained in the complaint.


REXFORD INDUSTRIAL: Inks Settlement With Remaining Plaintiffs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rexford Industrial Realty, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that during the second
quarter of 2015, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with the remaining plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit.

On October 3, 2013, two pre-IPO investors filed a putative class
action purportedly brought on behalf of the investors in RIF III
in the Los Angeles County Superior Court. On February 14, 2014, a
First Amended Complaint was filed adding an additional individual
pre-IPO investor and putative class claims on behalf of investors
in RIF IV.  This complaint also alleged that the communication of
the proposed accommodation (in which Messrs. Schwimmer, Frankel
and Ziman, together with certain other pre-IPO owners of the pre-
IPO management companies agreed to return up to $32.1 million that
they received in connection with our IPO and formation
transactions) was materially misleading by not including
disclosures regarding the lawsuit and claims asserted by
plaintiffs.

On July 15, 2014, a Second Amended Complaint was filed withdrawing
the class action allegations and the allegations concerning
communication of the accommodation, and adding four additional
plaintiff investors.

During the third quarter of 2014, the Company entered into
settlement agreements with three of these four additional
plaintiffs.  The aggregate amounts paid by the Company in these
settlements were not material.

Plaintiffs asserted claims against the Company, RIF III, RIF IV,
RILLC and Messrs. Schwimmer, Frankel and Ziman for breach of
fiduciary duty, violation of certain California securities laws,
negligent misrepresentation, and fraud. Plaintiffs alleged, among
other things, that the terms of the Company's formation
transactions were unfair to investors in RIF III and RIF IV, that
the consideration received by investors in RIF III and RIF IV in
the formation transactions was inadequate, that the pre-IPO
management companies were allocated unfair value in the formation
transactions and that the disclosure documents related to the
formation transactions were materially misleading.

Plaintiffs also requested to inspect the books and records of RIF
III and RIF IV, which entities no longer exist, and further sought
declaratory relief, unspecified recessionary damages,
disgorgement, compensatory, punitive and exemplary damages, an
accounting for unjust enrichment, and an award of costs including
pre-judgment interest, attorneys' and experts' fees, and other
unspecified relief.

Defendants answered the Second Amended Complaint denying all
allegations and asserting affirmative defenses.  During the second
quarter of 2015, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with the remaining plaintiffs.  The aggregate amount paid by the
Company in this settlement was not material.


RJ REYNOLDS: Judge Ejected From Perroto Tobacco Case for Bias
-------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Joseph, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a
grudge allegedly held by Palm Beach Circuit Judge Meenu Sasser
against a plaintiffs attorney who opposed her bid for a seat on
the federal bench translated to her removal from a multimillion-
dollar tobacco case.

Posttrial comments attributed to Judge Sasser in smoker litigation
raised a warranted fear of partiality, disqualifying her from
Debra Perrotto's case against cigarette manufacturers, the Fourth
District Court of Appeal ruled on July 15.

Judge Sasser reportedly said she would "never forgive" Fort
Lauderdale lawyer Scott Schlesinger -- scott@schlesingerlaw.com --
one of Ms. Perrotto's attorneys, for sabotaging her nomination to
the federal bench.

A member of the judiciary since 2009, Judge Sasser is Florida's
first Indian-American judge, a former president of the Palm Beach
County Bar Association and associate dean of the Florida Judicial
College.

The appellate panel found the allegations of personal prejudice
and "hostility" toward Mr. Schlesinger threatened Ms. Perrotto's
chances of a fair trial.

"The judge's alleged inability to restrain either her utterances
or her emotions in front of the petitioner would, if true, show
that the experience profoundly affected her and made her future
impartiality reasonably suspect," the Fourth District Court of
Appeal wrote in an unsigned opinion.

"Though we previously concluded that any hostility arising from
the events of the judicial nominating process did not warrant
disqualification, the judge allegedly opened the door and
displayed the depth of such hostility by failing to remain silent
despite the passage of time," the unanimous panel wrote.

Ms. Perrotto faced off in court in 2013 against R.J. Reynolds
Tobacco Co., Philip Morris USA Inc., Lorillard Tobacco Co.,
Liggett Group LLC and Vector Group Ltd. Inc. in a wrongful death
suit brought on her husband's behalf.

The jury awarded $4 million to Ms. Perrotto, but Judge Sasser
threw out the award and granted a new trial.

In a writ of prohibition to disqualify Judge Sasser, Ms. Perrotto
claimed the judge's "bias against Schlesinger was of such a
character and rose to such a degree that it was evident she could
not be impartial."  Ms. Perrotto pointed to Judge Sasser's
"repeated demonstrations of hostility to Mr. Schlesinger, both
verbally and in her demeanor, her expressions of belief that Mr.
Schlesinger was not honest" and the dissemination of an order in
an unrelated case "disparaging Schlesinger."

That order was written when Mr. Schlesinger, of the Schlesinger
Law Offices, represented David Cohen in another smoker case
against R.J. Reynolds.  At the end, Judge Sasser issued a 15-page
order accusing Mr. Schlesinger of dishonesty, witness coaching,
raising improper closing arguments, making unsubstantiated claims
and disparaging opposing counsel.

The judge said Mr. Schlesinger's behavior was so outlandish she
had no choice but to throw out the jury's $1.2 million award to
Mr. Cohen.

"This court does not recall any trial as a judge or as a
practicing attorney with as many objections with admonishments to
counsel and curative instructions," Judge Sasser wrote.

She later submitted that order as a writing sample to the Florida
Federal Judicial Nominating Commission when she interviewed last
year for an opening left by U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenbaum's
elevation to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

On the defensive, Mr. Schlesinger fired off a letter to the
commission, claiming Judge Sasser was biased against him and unfit
for the federal bench.


In court documents, he said the judge raised her voice, used an
acerbic tone and displayed a "loss of emotional control and
absence of judicial temperament" in the Cohen case.

                     Prejudicial Comments

Looking ahead to Ms. Perrotto's case, Mr. Schlesinger's solution
was to have law firm colleague Jonathan Gdanski --
jgdanski@schlesingerlaw.com -- handle the trial, and Mr.
Schelsinger made an appearance only after the verdict was in.

"According to petitioner, she and her trial counsel approached the
bench to thank the judge," according to the opinion from Judges
Matthew Stevenson, Carole Taylor and Burton Conner.  "Petitioner
alleges that as the two were walking away from the bench, the
judge commented that she had seen the attorney in the courtroom
and that she would 'never forgive him for what he did to me.'
Petitioner alleged that it appeared to her that the judge was
'highly emotional and on the verge of tears as she said this.' "
Judge Sasser did not respond to requests for comment by deadline,
and Palm Beach Circuit Court spokeswoman Debra Oats declined to
comment citing the ongoing litigation.

"Generally, a trial judge's expression of dissatisfaction with
counsel or a party's behavior does not warrant disqualification.
Also, it is assumed that a judge will not be biased as a result of
an attorney's opposition to the judge's application for office,"
the Fourth DCA panel wrote.  "The judge's comments, as alleged by
petitioner and her trial attorney in their sworn affidavits, rebut
any assumption of nonprejudice."

Joseph Lang Jr. -- jlang@cfjblaw.com -- of Carlton Fields Jorden
Burt in Tampa represented Philip Morris and responded on behalf of
Reynolds and Lorillard.  Karen Curtis -- kcurtis@cspalaw.com -- of
Clarke Silverglate in Miami represented Liggett Group.

On appeal, Ms. Perrotto was represented by Mr. Schlesinger,
Mr. Gdanski and Bard Rockenbach -- bdr@FLAppellateLaw.com -- of
Burlington & Rockenbach in West Palm Beach.


ROCK CREEK: Court Preliminary Approved Securities Case Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on March 2,
2015, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, preliminary approved the Company's securities class
action settlement in the amount of $5.9 million. The settlement
stipulates that the amount of $5.9 million, which includes
litigation costs, will be paid from certain Rock Creek
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (f/k/a Star Scientific, Inc.) D&O insurance
policies. The funding of the settlement by insurers occurred in
March, 2015. In addition notice is to be furnished to the class,
and a final approval hearing will be held on or before June 11,
2015

On May 4, 2015, the court entered an order setting a meeting with
the court's mediator, Magistrate Judge Novak, regarding an
indemnification issue related to the settlement.


ROCK CREEK: No Discovery Requests Served in Consumer Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that no discovery
requests have been served by any party as of May 7, 2015, in the
Consumer Class Action.

On January 27, 2014, Howard T. Baldwin filed a purported class
action naming the Company, Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
GNC Holding, Inc., or "GNC," as defendants.  The case was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.  Generally, the complaint alleged that claims made for
the Company's Anatabloc(R) product have not been proven and that
individuals purchased the product based on alleged misstatements
regarding characteristics, uses, benefits, quality and intended
purposes of the product.  The complaint purported to allege claims
for violation of state consumer protection laws, breach of express
and implied warranties and unjust enrichment.  The Company has
agreed to indemnify and defend GNC pursuant to the terms of the
purchasing agreement between RCP Development and GNC. Consistent
with that commitment, the Company has agreed to assume the defense
of this matter on its own behalf as well as on behalf of GNC. The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on March 24,
2014. On January 13, 2015, the Court entered an order dismissing
the complaint in its entirety without prejudice.

On February 10, 2015, Mr. Baldwin filed an Amended Complaint
against Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc. f/k/a Star Scientific,
Inc., RCP Development, Inc. f/k/a Rock Creek Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and GNC Holdings, Inc. (collectively "Defendants"). The Amended
Complaint also includes an additional named plaintiff, Jerry Van
Norman, who alleges that he is a citizen of Parkville, Missouri.
The Amended Complaint requests certification of an "Illinois
Class" consisting of "[a]ll persons who paid, in whole or in part,
for Anatabloc(R) dietary supplement in Illinois between August 1,
2011 and the present for personal, family or household uses," and
a "Missouri Class" consisting of "[a]ll persons who paid, in whole
or in part, for Anatabloc(R) dietary supplement in Missouri
between August 1, 2011 and the present for personal, family or
household uses." The Amended Complaint is pleaded in seven counts:
(1) violation of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act of Illinois; (2) violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practice Act; (3) breach of express warranty under
Illinois law; (4) breach of express warranty under Missouri law;
(5) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under Illinois
law; (6) breach of implied warranty of merchantability under
Missouri law; and (7) unjust enrichment.

Like the original Complaint, the Amended Complaint alleges that
Defendants manufactured, marketed and/or sold Anatabloc(R), a
dietary supplement purportedly derived from an anatabine alkaloid
and promoted Anatabloc(R) as a "wonder drug" with a number of
medical benefits and uses, from treating excessive inflammation
(associated with arthritis) to Alzheimer's disease, traumatic
brain injury (or concussions), diabetes and multiple sclerosis.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have never proven any of these
claims in clinical trials or received U.S. Food and Drug
Administration approval for Anatabloc(R), and that Anatabloc(R)
"was never the 'wonder drug' it claimed to be." Plaintiffs allege
that they purchased Anatabloc(R) based upon claims that it
provides "anti-inflammatory support." Mr. Baldwin alleges that he
purchased Anatabloc(R) to "reduce inflammation and pain in his
joints," and Mr. Van Norman alleges that he "suffers back and knee
problems, as well as arthritis, and expected Anatabloc(R) to be
effective in treating these symptoms and purchased Anatabloc(R) to
help alleviate his symptoms." Both plaintiffs allege that
Anatabloc(R) did not provide the relief promised by the
Defendants.

Although the Amended Complaint does not include claims based on
the consumer protection laws and breach of warranty laws of
several additional states like the original Complaint, on February
10, 2015, counsel for plaintiffs also served a "Notice pursuant
to: Alabama Code Sec. 8-19-10(e); Alaska Statutes Sec.45.50.535;
California Civil Code Sec. 1782; Georgia Code Sec. 10-1-399;
Indiana Code Sec. 24-5-0.5-5(a); Maine Revised Statutes, Title 5,
Sec. 50-634(g); Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, Sec. 9(3);
Texas Business & Commercial Code Sec. 17.505; West Virginia Code
Sec. 46A-6-106(b); and, Wyoming Statutes Sec. 40-12-109 as well as
state warranty statutes," which purports to give notice to
Defendants on behalf of the named plaintiffs and a "class of
similarly situated individuals" that Defendants have "violated
state warranty statutes and engaged in consumer fraud and
deceptive practices in connection with its sale of Anatabloc(R),"
and demanding that "Defendants correct or otherwise rectify the
damage caused by such unfair trade practices and warranty breaches
and return all monies paid by putative class members."

The Defendants timely moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint on
March 10, 2015. Plaintiffs filed a memorandum in response to the
motion to dismiss on April 9, 2015, and Defendants filed their
reply memorandum on April 22, 2015.  On April 28, 2015, the Court
entered an order lifting the stay of discovery that had been in
place in the case and scheduled a status hearing on June 25, 2015.
No discovery requests have been served by any party as of May 7,
2015.


RSUI INDEMNITY: Accused of Violating Cal. Professions, Labor Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
Antares Vice-Clemente, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated v. RSUI Indemnity
Company, an unknown business entity, and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., July 7, 2015), alleges
violation of the California Business and Professions Code, and the
California Labor Code.

RSUI is an underwriter of wholesale specialty insurance.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
     410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
     Glendale, CA 91203
     Tel: (818) 265-1020
     Fax: (818) 265-1021


SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Named as Defendant in Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sandridge Mississippian Trust I said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Trust has been
named as an additional defendant in a putative class action
against SandRidge and others.

On December 5, 2012, James Glitz and Rodger A. Thornberry, on
behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
stockholders, filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against
SandRidge and certain current and former executive officers of
SandRidge. On January 4, 2013, Louis Carbone, on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated stockholders, filed a
substantially similar putative class action complaint in the same
court and against the same defendants. On March 6, 2013, the court
consolidated these two actions under the caption "In re SandRidge
Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation" (the "Securities Litigation")
and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel.

On July 23, 2013 the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint, in which the Trust was named as an additional
defendant.  The Consolidated Amended Complaint asserts a variety
of federal securities claims against the Trust and SandRidge and
certain of its current and former officers and directors, among
other defendants, on behalf of a putative class of (a) purchasers
of SandRidge common stock during the period from February 24, 2011
to November 8, 2012, (b) purchasers of common units of the Trust
in or traceable to its initial public offering on or about April
12, 2011, and (c) purchasers of common units of SandRidge
Mississippian Trust II in or traceable to its initial public
offering on or about April 23, 2012.  The claims are based on
allegations that SandRidge and certain of its current and former
officers and directors, among other defendants, including the
Trust with respect to certain of the allegations, are responsible
for making false and misleading statements, and omitting material
information, concerning a variety of subjects, including oil and
gas reserves, SandRidge's capital expenditures, and certain
transactions entered into by companies allegedly affiliated with
SandRidge's former CEO Tom Ward. The plaintiffs seek class
certification, an order rescinding the Trust's initial public
offering and an unspecified amount of damages, plus interest,
attorneys' fees and costs. The complaint was corrected by way of a
Corrected Consolidated Amended Complaint filed on July 30, 2013.

The Trust and SandRidge each filed a Motion to Dismiss the claims
asserted against the Trust in the Corrected Consolidated Amended
Complaint.

Regardless of the outcome of the litigation, the Trust may incur
expenses in defending the litigation, and any such expenses may
increase the Trust's administrative expenses significantly. 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 final
liabilities of the Trust may ultimately be materially different
than any 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 Securities Litigation, and
has not established any reserves relating to the Securities
Litigation.  The Trust may withhold estimated amounts from future
distributions to cover future costs associated with the litigation
if determined necessary. The Trust has not yet fully analyzed any
rights it may have to indemnities that may be applicable or any
claims it may make in connection with the Securities Litigation.


SANTANDER HOLDINGS: Class Action in Texas Voluntarily Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Santander Holdings USA, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a purported class
action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court,
Northern District of Texas, has been voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice.

On August 26, 2014, a purported securities class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York. On October 6, 2014, another purported securities
class action lawsuit was filed in the District Court of Dallas
County, Texas and was subsequently removed to the United States
District Court, Northern District of Texas. Both lawsuits were
filed against SCUSA, certain current and former directors and
executive officers of SCUSA and certain institutions that served
as underwriters in the IPO. Each lawsuit was brought by a
purported stockholder of SCUSA seeking to represent a class
consisting of all those who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities pursuant and/or traceable to SCUSA's Registration
Statement and Prospectus issued in connection with the IPO. Each
complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus
contained misleading statements concerning SCUSA's auto lending
business and underwriting practices. Each lawsuit asserts claims
under Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act and seeks
damages and other relief. On February 17, 2015, the purported
class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court,
Northern District of Texas, was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice.


SCHIFF NUTRITION: October 30 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------------
If you bought certain joint health products containing
glucosamine, you could get money from a class action settlement.

Includes Move Free, Move Free Advanced, Pain Free, Lubriflex,
Great American Nutrition, Metaform, Muscle Tribe, Victory, Schiff,
Kirkland, Member's Mark and Spring Valley brand products

A Settlement has been reached in class action lawsuits against
Schiff Nutrition International, Inc., Schiff Nutrition Group,
Inc., Reckitt Benckiser LLC and their affiliates (Schiff)
regarding their joint health products.  The lawsuits claim that
the labeling and packaging of these joint health products contain
false, deceptive and misleading statements and do not warn
consumers about the potentially harmful side effects.  Schiff
denies all of the claims in the lawsuits and any wrongdoing.  The
Court has not decided who is right.

WHO IS INCLUDED? You are included in the Settlement Class if you
are a resident of the United States who purchased for personal
use, and not for resale or distribution, a Move Free, Move Free
Advanced, Pain Free, Lubriflex, Great American Nutrition,
Metaform, Muscle Tribe, Victory, Schiff, Kirkland, Member's
Mark or Spring Valley brand joint health product between
January 1, 2005 and May 27, 2015.  A complete list of all joint
health products included in the Settlement ("Covered Products") is
available at www.SchiffGlucosamineSettlement.com or by writing to
Schiff Nutrition International Consumer Settlement Administration,
P.O. Box 43352, Providence, RI 02940-3352.

WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE? Schiff has agreed to a
Settlement Fund of $6,510,000 to pay all costs associated with
this Settlement.  Settlement Class Members who submit a timely and
valid Claim Form with proof of purchase, such as a cash register
receipt, the box or bottles of a Covered Product containing a
readable UPC code and lot number, or documentation showing
purchase of the Covered Product and the date and location of that
purchase, may claim $10 per bottle of Covered Product for up to
five bottles (up to $50 total).  Settlement Class Members who
submit a timely and valid Claim Form without proof of purchase may
claim $3 per bottle of a Covered Product for up to four bottles
(up to $12 total).  If the total dollar value of valid Claim Forms
plus Notice and Administrative Costs, Attorneys' Fees Award and
Incentive Awards exceeds $6,510,000, the payment to each
Settlement Class Member who submitted a valid Claim Form will be
proportionately reduced until the total amount paid under the
Settlement equals $6,510,000.  If the total dollar value of valid
Claim Forms plus Notice and Administrative Costs, Attorneys' Fees
Award and Incentive Awards is less than $6,510,000, the payment to
each Settlement Class Member who submitted a valid Claim Form with
proof of purchase will increase (up to triple the amount of the
original claim).  If, after increasing these payments, the total
payment amount is still less than $6,510,000, the payment to each
Settlement Class Member who submitted a valid Claim Form without
proof of purchase will increase (up to double the amount of the
original claim).  If, after increasing the payment for all valid
claims, the total payment amount is still less than $6,510,000,
the balance will be distributed on a pro rata basis (divided
proportionately among the number of Claim Forms submitted and the
dollar amount of those claims) to all Settlement Class Members who
submitted a timely and valid Claim Form.  In addition to payments,
Schiff has agreed to certain changes to the marketing and
packaging for the Covered Products.

HOW DO YOU GET A PAYMENT? You must submit a timely and valid Claim
Form by September 24, 2015.  Complete and submit your Claim Form
online at www.SchiffGlucosamineSettlement.com download a Claim
Form from the website or get one by calling 1-877-219-9780, or by
writing to Schiff Nutrition International Consumer Settlement
Administration, P.O. Box 43352, Providence, RI 02940-3352.

YOUR OTHER OPTIONS? If you do nothing, your rights will be
affected and you will not get a settlement payment.  If you do not
want to be legally bound by the Settlement, you must exclude
yourself from it.  The deadline to exclude yourself is
September 24, 2015.  Unless you exclude yourself, you will not be
able to sue or continue to sue Schiff for any claim resolved by
this Settlement or released in the Second Amended Settlement
Agreement and General Release.  If you exclude yourself, you
cannot get a payment from the Settlement.  If you stay in the
Settlement (i.e., don't exclude yourself), you may object to it by
September 24, 2015.  More information is in the detailed notice
and Second Amended Settlement Agreement available at
www.SchiffGlucosamineSettlement.com or by writing to Schiff
Nutrition International Consumer Settlement Administration, P.O.
Box 43352, Providence, RI 02940-3352.

THE COURT'S FAIRNESS HEARING. The U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California, located the Edward J. Schwartz
Federal Courthouse, 221 W. Broadway, San Diego, California 92101
will hold a hearing in this case ( Lerma v. Schiff Nutrition
International, Inc., et al., No. 3:11-cv01056-CAB-MDD), on
October 30, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. to consider whether to approve: (1)
the proposed Settlement; (2) Settlement Class Counsel's request
for attorneys' fees of up to 33% of the $6,510,000 Settlement Fund
as well as costs; and (3) a payment of up to $10,000 from the
Settlement Fund for the Named Plaintiffs (Luis Lerma,
Nick Pearson and Muriel Jayson).  You may appear at the hearing or
hire an attorney, at your expense, to appear or speak for you at
the hearing, but you do not have to.

WANT MORE INFORMATION? Go to the website, call or write to Schiff
Nutrition International Consumer Settlement Administration, P.O.
Box 43352, Providence, RI 02940-3352.


SCOUT ANALYTICS: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Weller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Scout Analytics, Inc., ServiceSource International,
Inc., and Mike Smerklo, Case No. 5:15-cv-03170-EJD (N.D. Cal.,
July 8, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

Scout Analytics, Inc. is a cloud-based customer lifecycle
management solution designed to maximize customer value and
accelerate sustainable growth in revenue and profits.

ServiceSource International, Inc. provides cloud-based recurring
revenue management solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Du Wors, Esq.
      NEWMAN DU WORS LLP
      2101 Fourth Avenue, Suite 1500
      Seattle, WA 98121
      Telephone: (206) 274-2800
      Facsimile: (206) 274-2801
      E-mail: john@newmanlaw.com

         - and -

      Leeor Neta, Esq.
      NEWMAN DU WORS LLP
      1900 Powell Street, Sixth Floor
      Emeryville, CA 94608
      Telephone: (415) 944-5422
      Facsimile: (415) 944-5423
      E-mail: leeor@newmanlaw.com


SILVER WHEATON: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Masilionis, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Silver Wheaton Corp., Randy V. J. Smallwood,
Peter Barnes, and Gary Brown, Case No. 2:15-cv-05146-CAS-JEM (C.D.
Cal., July 8, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

Headquartered in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, Silver
Wheaton Corp. provides precious metal streaming services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Telephone: (213) 785-2610
      Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


SOUTH AFRICA: Families to Sue Over Marikana Massacre
----------------------------------------------------
Times Live reported that at a meeting held with relatives and
survivors of the Marikana massacre, the families expressed their
anger over the findings of the Farlam Commission of Inquiry.

The inquiry, whose report was made public by President Jacob Zuma,
cleared senior cabinet ministers of any wrongdoing.

Advocate Dali Mpofu said the lawyers were exploring all possible
legal avenues.

"We will check what alternatives we have. What is clear is that we
will prepare for civil claims."

Andile Yawa, whose son Cebisile was among those killed, said he
was still waiting for justice.

"Nothing will heal the family other than justice. No amount of
compensation will bring back my son.

"We are waiting for action to be taken against those who issued
instructions and those who killed," Yawa said.

Andries Nkome, a lawyer for some of the victims, said action would
be taken against those fingered in the report.

"We will call for the review of the commission's report because we
think there are those whose involvement has not been thoroughly
looked at," Nkome said.

He said the lawsuit was winnable "since workers were arrested,
injured and killed for no justifiable reason".

The Legal Resources Centre, which represented mineworker John
Ledingoane, said the inquiry found that his killing could not be
justified as self-defence.


SQUARE 1: Facing Two Stockholder Actions Over Merger With PacWest
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Square 1 Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that two putative
stockholder class action lawsuits have been filed in connection
with the previously disclosed proposed merger between the Company
and PacWest.  These actions, Lakowitz v. Bowers et. al, Case No.
1:15-CV-371, and Li v. Bowers et. al, Case No. 1:15-CV-373, were
filed on May 6, 2015 and May 7, 2015, respectively, in federal
court in the middle district of North Carolina (the "North
Carolina Complaints").  Another putative stockholder class action
that was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
was voluntary dismissed without prejudice.

The North Carolina Complaints allege that the members of the
Square 1 board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to
Square 1 stockholders and failed to take steps to maximize the
value to be paid to the Square 1 stockholders. In addition, the
North Carolina Complaints allege that PacWest aided and abetted
these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The North Carolina
Complaints also allege violations of federal securities laws with
respect to allegedly misleading statements contained in the
registration statement filed with the SEC in connection with the
merger. The plaintiffs in these actions seek, among other things,
declaratory and injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs, and
other and further relief. At this stage, it is not possible to
predict the outcome of the proceedings or their impact on Square
1, PacWest or the merger.


STAAR SURGICAL: To Seek Dismissal of "Todd" Case
------------------------------------------------
Staar Surgical Company intends to file a motion to dismiss the
complaint, when appropriate, in the lawsuit was filed by Edward
Todd, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 3, 2015.

On July 8, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed by Edward Todd against STAAR and three officers in the
federal court located in Los Angeles, California. The plaintiff
claims that STAAR made misleading statements to and omitted
material information from our investors between February 27, 2013
and June 30, 2014 about alleged regulatory violations at STAAR's
Monrovia manufacturing facility. On July 21, 2014, the Company was
served with the Complaint. On October 20, 2014, plaintiff amended
its complaint, dismissed two Company officers, added one other
officer, and reduced the alleged Class Period to November 1, 2013
to June 30, 2014.

Although the ultimate outcome of this action cannot be determined
with certainty, the Company believes that the allegations in the
Complaint are without merit. The Company intends to vigorously
defend against this lawsuit. The Company intends to file a motion
to dismiss the complaint, when appropriate, in the ongoing
proceeding.


SWISHER HYGIENE: Court Approves Settlement of 2 Canadian Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Swisher Hygiene, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice has approved a settlement agreement resolving all
claims in two securities class actions pending in Canada.

On December 17, 2013, a purported stockholder commenced a putative
securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock on the Toronto Stock Exchange or any other Canadian
trading platforms in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice,
captioned Edwards v. Swisher Hygiene, Inc., et al., CV 13-20282
CP, against the Company, the former CEO and former CFO.  The
action alleges claims under Canadian law for alleged
misrepresentations of the Company's financial position relating to
its business acquisitions.

On February 13, 2014, a Fresh Statement of Claim and Fresh Notice
of Action were filed, adding an additional named plaintiff.

On March 28, 2014, another purported stockholder commenced a
putative securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock on the Toronto Stock Exchange or any other
Canadian trading platforms in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, captioned Phillips v. Swisher Hygiene, Inc., et al., CV
14-00501096-0000, against the Company, the former CEO, the former
CFO and the Company's former Senior Vice President and Treasurer.
The action alleges claims under Canadian law stemming from the
Company's restatement.

Although the Company believed it had meritorious defenses to the
asserted claims in the two securities class actions pending in
Canada, the defendants agreed to terms of settlement and executed
a settlement agreement resolving all claims in both securities
class actions pending there, which was approved by the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice by Order dated February 13, 2015 (the
"Canadian Settlement").  The Canadian Settlement provides that
defendants will make a set cash payment totaling $0.7 million,
including legal fees, all from insurance proceeds, to settle all
of the Canadian securities class actions, with full and complete
releases provided to the defendants.  Notice has been given of the
Canadian Settlement.


TESLA MOTORS: Class Action Plaintiffs' Appeal Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Tesla Motors, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the plaintiffs in a
securities class action lawsuit have appealed from the trial
court's order, and that appeal is pending.

In November 2013, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed against Tesla in U.S. District Court, Northern District of
California, alleging violations of, and seeking remedies pursuant
to, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5. The complaint, made claims against Tesla and
its CEO, Elon Musk, sought damages and attorney's fees on the
basis of allegations that, among other things, Tesla and Mr. Musk
made false and/or misleading representations and omissions,
including with respect to the safety of Model S. This case was
brought on behalf of a putative class consisting of certain
persons who purchased Tesla's securities between August 19, 2013
and November 17, 2013. On September 26, 2014, the trial court,
upon the motion of Tesla and Mr. Musk, dismissed the complaint
with prejudice, and thereafter issued a formal written order to
that effect. The plaintiffs have appealed from the trial court's
order, and that appeal is pending.


THORATEC CORP: Wants 2nd Amended Complaint in "Cooper" Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thoratec Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 4, 2015, that Defendants have filed a
motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in the case Cooper
v. Thoratec Corp., for failure to state a claim.

"On January 24, 2014, we and three of our present and former
officers were named as defendants in a putative shareholder class
action entitled Cooper v. Thoratec Corp., Case No. 4:14-cv-00360,
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California," the Company said. The action asserts
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as
well as Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On April 21, 2014, the
Court appointed Bradley Cooper as Lead Plaintiff.

On June 20, 2014, Mr. Cooper filed an amended class action
complaint ("Amended Complaint"), adding a former officer of the
Company as a defendant. The Amended Complaint alleged that during
proposed class period (April 29, 2010 to November 27, 2013,
inclusive), Defendants made false or misleading statements in
various SEC filings, press releases, earnings calls, and
healthcare conferences regarding the Company's business and
outlook, focusing primarily on Defendants' alleged failure to
disclose that there was a purported, known increase in the rate of
pump  thrombosis for patients using the HeartMate II Left
Ventricular Assist Device during the proposed class period.
Plaintiff sought unspecified damages, among other relief.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint for
failure to state a claim on August 19, 2014, which the Court
granted in its entirety with leave to amend on November 26, 2014.

Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on January 20, 2015
(the "Second Amended Complaint"). In the Second Amended Complaint,
Plaintiff amended the class period from May 11, 2011 to August 6,
2014, inclusive, dropped a former officer of the Company as a
defendant, and added Plaintiff Todd Labak, who is intended to
replace Mr. Cooper as the Lead Plaintiff because Mr. Cooper no
longer has Thoratec stock purchases within the proposed class
period, among other changes.

"On March 23, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim.  Although
the results of litigation are inherently uncertain, based on the
information currently available, we do not believe the ultimate
resolution of this action will have a material effect on our
financial position, liquidity or results of operations," the
Company said.


TREMOR VIDEO: Balks at Motion to Vacate Judgment
------------------------------------------------
Tremor Video, Inc. has filed an opposition to the plaintiffs'
motion to vacate court judgment and for leave to file an amended
complaint, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

"In November 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against us, our directors, and certain of our executive
officers," the Company said. "The lawsuit alleges certain
misrepresentations by us in connection with our IPO concerning our
business and prospects.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages."

On February 7, 2014, the Court entered an order appointing lead
plaintiff and lead counsel.  On April 22, 2014, lead plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint.

On July 14, 2014, Tremor Video filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  On August 28, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed
their opposition to the motion to dismiss.

On September 18, 2014, Tremor Video filed a reply in support of
the motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  On March 5, 2015,
the Court granted Tremor Video's motion to dismiss and entered
judgment in Tremor Video's favor.

On April 7, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the judgment
and for leave to file an amended complaint ("Motion to Vacate").
On April 24, 2015, Tremor Video filed an opposition to the Motion
to Vacate.


TRIMBLE NAVIGATION: "Thompson" Class Action Complaint Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trimble Navigation Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 3, 2015, that Rachel Thompson filed
on March 12, 2015, a putative class action complaint in California
Superior Court against the Company, the members of its Board of
Directors, and JP Morgan Chase Bank.  The suit alleges that the
Company's Board of Directors breached their fiduciary obligations
to the Company's shareholders by entering into a credit agreement
with JP Morgan Chase Bank that contains certain change of control
provisions that plaintiff contends are disadvantageous to
shareholders.  The complaint seeks declaratory relief, injunctive
relief and costs of the action, including attorney's fees, but
does not seek monetary damages. The Company intends to vigorously
contest these claims.


UNI-PIXEL INC: Issued 430,000 Shares in Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Uni-Pixel, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2015, that the
Company issued 430,000 shares of its common stock, $0.001 par
value, in settlement of the class action litigation titled
"Charles J. Fitzpatrick, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Uni-Pixel, Inc., Reed Killion and Jeffrey W.
Tomz", Case No. 4:13-cv-01649 in the United States District Court,
Southern District of Texas (Houston Division) (the "Court")
pursuant to the terms of a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
approved by the Court on April 30, 2015.  The Company relied on
Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933 to issue the common
stock, inasmuch as the issuance of the common stock is in exchange
for the settlement of alleged claims and has been approved by the
Court after a hearing upon the fairness of the settlement at which
all parties had a right to appear.


UNITED AIRLINES: Fixed Fare Prices, "Hartley" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Barbara E. Hartley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. United Airlines, Inc.; American Airlines, Inc.; Delta
Air Lines, Inc.; and Southwest Airlines Co., Case No. 3:15-cv-
03176 (N.D. Cal., July 8, 2015), alleges a conspiracy by the four
largest commercial airlines in the United States to fix, raise,
maintain, and/or stabilize prices for air passenger transportation
services within the United States in violation of the Sherman
Antitrust Act.

The Defendants conduct air passenger transportation services
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Francis O. Scarpulla, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF FRANCIS O. SCARPULLA
     44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Tel: 415-788-7210
     Fax: 415-788-0707 fos@scarpullalaw.com


UNITED HEALTHCARE: "Carr" Suit Alleges ERISA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Alexandra Carr, The Kaiser Aluminum Fabricated Products LLC
Medical Choice Plus Hourly Active Union Plan, and others
similarly-situated v. United Healthcare Services, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-01105 (W.D. Wash., July 9, 2015), seeks remedies under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") stemming from
the Defendant's claims and plan administration of self-funded
plans governed by the Parity Act that contain the same or similar
quantitative visit limitations on mental health services that are
in the Kaiser Plan.

Headquartered in Minnesota, United Healthcare administers health
care plans in multiple states. The Defendant is the claims
administrator for the Kaiser Plan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Foster Johnson, Esq.
      BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND PLLC
      1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670
      Seattle, WA 98104
      Tel: (206) 652-8660
      Fax: (206) 652-8290
      E-mail: djohnson@bjtlegal.com

         - and -

      Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
      SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE
      999 Third Avenue, Ste 3650
      Seattle, WA 98104
      Tel: (206) 223-0303
      Fax: (206) 223-0246
      E-mail: ehamburger@sylaw.com


VBI VACCINES: Defending Furlong Class Action
--------------------------------------------
VBI Vaccines Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company is
vigorously contesting the class action, Furlong et al. v. VBI
Vaccines, Inc. et al.

On November 26, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court, Southern District of New
York, Case No. 14-cv-9435, as amended on February 11, 2015 and
March 25, 2015, on behalf of pre-Merger shareholders of Paulson
Capital (Delaware) Corp. who held shares on October 11, 2013 and
were entitled to vote at the 2013 Shareholder Meeting, against the
Company and certain individuals who were directors as of the date
of the vote, in a matter captioned Furlong et al. v. VBI Vaccines,
Inc. et al., making claims arising under Section 20(a) and Section
14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.14a-
9, promulgated thereunder by the SEC. The claims allege false and
misleading information provided to investors in the Definitive
Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A filed by the Company with the SEC
on October 18, 2013 related to the solicitation of votes from
shareholders to authorize the Board to pursue potential
restructuring transactions. If the plaintiffs were able to prove
their allegations in this matter and to establish the damages they
assert, then an adverse ruling could have a material impact on the
Company. However, the Company disputes the claims asserted in this
putative class action case and is vigorously contesting the
matter.


VENAXIS INC: Faces "Bealer" Class Action in Douglas County
----------------------------------------------------------
Venaxis, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company received
on January 7, 2015, a complaint, captioned Dr. John F. Bealer, a
resident of Arapahoe County, individually v. Venaxis, Inc., a
Colorado corporation, Case No. 2015CV30022.  This action was filed
in the Arapahoe County District Court and subsequently transferred
to Douglas County District Court.  The complaint includes
allegations of breach of contract pertaining to the Assignment and
Consulting Agreement between the Company and Dr. Bealer.   The
Company believes that the allegations in the complaint are without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against these claims.


VENAXIS INC: Faces "Boldt" Class Action in Colorado
---------------------------------------------------
Venaxis, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a putative class
action complaint was filed on February 2, 2015, against Venaxis
and two of its current officers in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado.  The action is captioned Boldt
v. Venaxis, Inc., et al., District of Colorado Case No.: 1:15-cv-
00-222 ("Boldt Action").  The plaintiff in the Boldt Action
alleges violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5.  The Boldt Action
plaintiff purports to represent a class of persons who purchased
the Company's publicly traded securities between March 13, 2014,
and January 28, 2015.  The Boldt Action plaintiff alleges that the
Company made false and/or misleading statements regarding APPY1.

Based on a review of the complaint, the Company believes that the
allegations are without merit, and intends to vigorously defend
against the claims.


WARNER MUSIC: Dispute Regarding Discovery Ongoing in Pricing Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Music Group Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that in the class action
lawsuits related to the pricing of digital music downloads,
disputes regarding the scope of discovery are ongoing.

The Company said, "On December 20, 2005 and February 3, 2006, the
Attorney General of the State of New York served the Company with
requests for information in connection with an industry-wide
investigation as to the pricing of digital music downloads. On
February 28, 2006, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department
of Justice served us with a Civil Investigative Demand, also
seeking information relating to the pricing of digitally
downloaded music. Both investigations were ultimately closed, but
subsequent to the announcements of the investigations, more than
thirty putative class action lawsuits were filed concerning the
pricing of digital music downloads. The lawsuits were consolidated
in the Southern District of New York. The consolidated amended
complaint, filed on April 13, 2007, alleges conspiracy among
record companies to delay the release of their content for digital
distribution, inflate their pricing of CDs and fix prices for
digital downloads. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory,
statutory and treble damages. On October 9, 2008, the District
Court issued an order dismissing the case as to all defendants,
including us. However, on January 12, 2010, the Second Circuit
vacated the judgment of the District Court and remanded the case
for further proceedings and on January 10, 2011, the Supreme Court
denied the defendants' petition for Certiorari."

"Upon remand to the District Court, all defendants, including the
Company, filed a renewed motion to dismiss challenging, among
other things, plaintiffs' state law claims and standing to bring
certain claims. The renewed motion was based mainly on arguments
made in defendants' original motion to dismiss, but not addressed
by the District Court. On July 18, 2011, the District Court
granted defendants' motion in part, and denied it in part.
Notably, all claims on behalf of the CD-purchaser class were
dismissed with prejudice. However, a wide variety of state and
federal claims remain for the class of internet download
purchasers.

"Plaintiffs filed an operative consolidated amended complaint on
August 31, 2011. Pursuant to the terms of an August 15, 2011
stipulation and order, the case is currently in discovery.
Disputes regarding the scope of discovery are ongoing.

"Plaintiffs filed a Class Certification brief on March 14, 2014.
The Company's reply date has not yet been set. The Company intends
to defend against these lawsuits vigorously, but is unable to
predict the outcome of these suits. Regardless of the merits of
the claims, this and any related litigation could continue to be
costly, and divert the time and resources of management. The
potential outcomes of these claims that are reasonably possible
cannot be determined at this time and an estimate of the
reasonably possible loss or range of loss cannot presently be
made."


WARNER MUSIC: Implementing Terms of Accord in Music Download Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Warner Music Group Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company is
currently implementing the terms of the settlement in the music
download putative class action suits.

Five putative class action lawsuits have been filed against the
Company in Federal Court in the Northern District of California
between February 2, 2012 and March 10, 2012. The lawsuits, which
were brought by various recording artists, all allege that the
Company has improperly calculated the royalties due to them for
certain digital music sales under the terms of their recording
contracts. The named plaintiffs purport to raise these claims on
their own behalf and, as a putative class action, on behalf of
other similarly situated artists. Plaintiffs base their claims on
a previous ruling that held another recorded music company had
breached the specific recording contracts at issue in that case
through its payment of royalties for music downloads and
ringtones. In the wake of that ruling, a number of recording
artists have initiated suits seeking similar relief against all of
the major record companies, including us. Plaintiffs seek to have
the interpretation of the contracts in that prior case applied to
their different and separate contracts.

On April 10, 2012, the Company filed a motion to dismiss various
claims in one of the lawsuits, with the intention of filing
similar motions in the remaining suits, on the various applicable
response dates. Meanwhile, certain plaintiffs' counsel moved to be
appointed as interim lead counsel, and other plaintiffs' counsel
moved to consolidate the various actions. In a June 1, 2012 order,
the court consolidated the cases and appointed interim co-lead
class counsel. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated, master complaint
on August 21, 2012.

On December 31, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement. On January 23, 2014, the
Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. As part of
the settlement, the Company will make available $11.5 million
(less attorneys' fees, costs, and costs of claims administration
and class notice) to compensate class members for past sales of
downloads and ringtones. Class members had until May 31, 2014 to
file claims, opt-out or object to the Class Action Settlement. No
class members made perfected objections to the settlement.
Plaintiffs filed their motion for final approval of the Settlement
Agreement on November 26, 2014.  On January 12, 2015, the Judge
granted final approval of the settlement.  The settlement became
effective on February 25, 2015, after a 30-day appeals period. The
Company is currently implementing the terms of the settlement. The
Company has recorded what it believes is an appropriate reserve
related to these cases, which amount is not material.


WEIGHT WATCHERS: Made Settlement Payment in "Connolly" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Weight Watchers International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A
Amendment No. 1 Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended January 3,
2015, that the Company has made the corresponding settlement
payment in the case, Jeri Connolly et al. v. Weight Watchers North
America, Inc.

In August 2013, the Company was contacted by plaintiffs' counsel
in the previously filed and settled Sabatino v. Weight Watchers
North America, Inc. case, or Sabatino, threatening to file a new
class action on behalf of the Company's current and former service
providers in California asserting various wage and hour claims,
including but not limited to claims for unpaid overtime and
minimum wage violations, which allegedly accrued after the
effective date of the Sabatino settlement.

On March 17, 2014, the parties came to an agreement in principle
to settle the matter on a class-wide basis for $1.7 million. On
April 29, 2014, the parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding
to document the terms and conditions of settlement and, the
following day, plaintiffs filed a complaint regarding the claims
at issue in the Northern District of California. On June 11, 2014,
the parties filed a formal settlement agreement and other required
documents for the Court's preliminary approval. On July 21, 2014,
the parties received the Court's preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement. On August 11, 2014, notices of settlement
were sent out to the class members advising them of the settlement
and their right to object or opt-out of the settlement; no class
members did so by the deadline of September 22, 2014. At a
December 2014 hearing the Court provided final approval of the
settlement and the Company made the corresponding settlement
payment in January 2015.


WEIGHT WATCHERS: To Defend Against Securities Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------
Weight Watchers International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A
Amendment No. 1 Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 13, 2015, for the fiscal year ended January 3,
2015, that the Company intends to defend against In re Weight
Watchers International, Inc. Securities Litigation.

In March 2014, two substantially identical putative class action
complaints alleging violation of the federal securities laws were
filed by individual shareholders against the Company, certain of
the Company's current and former officers and directors, and the
Company's controlling shareholder, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints were
purportedly filed on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's
common stock, no par value per share, between February 14, 2012
and October 30, 2013, inclusive (referred to herein as the Class
Period). The complaints allege that, during the Class Period, the
defendants disseminated materially false and misleading statements
and/or concealed material adverse facts. The complaints allege
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5. The plaintiffs seek to
recover unspecified damages on behalf of the class members.

In June 2014, the Court consolidated the cases and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel. On August 12, 2014, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint that, among other things, reduced the
Class Period to between February 14, 2012 and February 13, 2013
and dropped all current officers and certain directors previously
named as defendants. On October 14, 2014, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
defendants' motion to dismiss on November 24, 2014 and the
defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss on
December 23, 2014. The Company continues to believe that the suits
are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously.


WESTPORT FUTURES: Final Approval Hearing Held in Ge Dandong Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Westport Futures Fund L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a final hearing was
scheduled for July 2, 2015, to approve a settlement reached in the
case, Ge Dandong, et al. v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., et al.

On October 25, 2010, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC ("MS&Co."), certain
affiliates and Pinnacle Performance Limited, a special purpose
vehicle, were named as defendants in a purported class action
related to securities issued by the special purpose vehicle in
Singapore, commonly referred to as "Pinnacle Notes." The case is
styled Ge Dandong, et al. v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., et al. and
is pending in the Southern District of New York. An amended
complaint was filed on October 22, 2012. The court denied the
defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint on August 22,
2013, and granted class certification on October 17, 2013.

On October 30, 2013, the defendants filed a petition for
permission to appeal the court's decision granting class
certification.

On January 31, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint. The second amended complaint alleges that the
defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to defraud investors by
structuring the Pinnacle Notes to fail and benefited subsequently
from the securities' failure. In addition, the second amended
complaint alleges that the securities' offering materials
contained material misstatements or omissions regarding the
securities' underlying assets and the alleged conflicts of
interest between the defendants and the investors. The second
amended complaint asserts common law claims of fraud, aiding and
abetting fraud, fraudulent inducement, aiding and abetting
fraudulent inducement, and breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing.

On July 17, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle the litigation, which received preliminary court approval
December 2, 2014. The final approval hearing was scheduled for
July 2, 2015.


WICKHAM SECURITIES: To Face $27-Mil. Investors Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Kristian Silva, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reported
that a long-awaited class action is weeks away from being lodged
against the trustee of a failed fund that left investors AUD27
million out of pocket.

Shine Lawyers is set to file a statement of claim in the Federal
Court on behalf of more than 150 investors who lost out when
Wickham Securities went bust.

Shine will allege that Wickham's trustee company Sandhurst
Trustees breached the corporations act by not determining if
Wickham could repay its investors.

While the initial claim will not include a proposed compensation
figure, it is understood the group will be seeking the return of
more than AUD20 million plus interest and legal costs.

It comes as Wickham's former director Brad Sherwin faced court in
Brisbane charged with 33 counts of fraud after an investigation by
the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. He is due to
return to the Brisbane Magistrates Court on July 19.

Former chief executive Garth Robertson is also facing fraud
charges.

"If that's the outcome of an ASIC investigation then we would say
someone standing in the shoes of a trustee such as Sandhurst
should have also identified those issues," Shine Laywers head of
professional negligence Jan Saddler said.

"I think that it certainly doesn't diminish our clients' prospects
of success, and certainly we'll continue to monitor the progress
ASIC makes in relation to those charges."

None of the investors have had any money returned and Ms Saddler
said the group felt "totally bereft".

"I'm not sure any sort of compensation will ever put them back
into the spirits they were in before these events occurred," she
said.

The group, largely made up of Queensland-based seniors, hoped to
start a class action but needed a court order to access financial
documents held by Sandhurst Trustees.

Wickham Securities was put into liquidation in 2013, with ASIC
issuing a ban on Mr Sherwin and seizing some of his assets.

Extraordinary revelations about how Wickham was being managed were
revealed in Federal Court documents.

There were allegations that Wickham used forged documents to
inflate its bank balance by AUD10.5 million and claims the two
company directors knew nothing about how the chief executive
officer was running the business' day-to-day activities.

                     About Wickham Securities

Wickham Securities collapsed owing more than AUD27 million to
approximately 300 debenture holders. It was placed into
administration in December 2012 and liquidation in February 2013,
with Messrs Grant Sparks and David Leigh of PPB Advisory as
liquidators.

Sherwin Financial Planners was placed into administration in
January 2013 and liquidation in February 2013, along with other
companies of which Mr Sherwin was a director, including Reacroft
Pty Ltd, Astor Funds Pty Ltd and Blue Diamond Investments Pty Ltd.
Messrs Stefan Dopking, Quentin Olde and Michael Ryan of FTI
Consulting (previously Taylor Woodings) were appointed as
liquidators of those companies, which collapsed owing more than
AUD30 million to clients of Sherwin Financial Planners.

The liquidator of Sherwin Financial Planners received funding from
ASIC via the Assetless Administration Fund to prepare a detailed
report on their investigation into the company.

In September 2013, ASIC banned Mr Sherwin from providing financial
services for two years and seven months as a result of his
bankruptcy.

In April 2015 the former chief executive of Wickham Securities,
Garth Peter Robertson, was charged with fraud.

In June 2013, ASIC cancelled the registration of the auditor of
Wickham Securities, Brian Kingston, after forming the view he
failed to carry out or perform adequately and properly the duties
of an auditor.


ZILLOW GROUP: Appeal in Securities Class Action Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------
Zillow Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that an appeal in a
securities class action lawsuit has been dismissed with prejudice
pursuant to stipulation of the parties.

"In November 2012, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at
Seattle against us and certain of our executive officers seeking
unspecified damages," the Company said. A consolidated amended
complaint was filed in June 2013.

"The complaint purports to state claims for violations of federal
securities laws on behalf of a class of those who purchased our
common stock between February 15, 2012 and November 6, 2012. The
complaint generally alleges, among other things, that during the
period between February 15, 2012 and November 6, 2012, we issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding our business
practices and financial results.

"In August 2013, we moved to dismiss the lawsuit. On October 20,
2014, the Court issued an order granting our motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint with prejudice. Also on October 20,
2014, the Court entered a judgment dismissing the complaint with
prejudice.

"On November 19, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
October 20, 2014 judgment of dismissal with prejudice. Pursuant to
stipulation of the parties, the appeal was dismissed with
prejudice on March 24, 2015.

"We have not recorded an accrual related to this lawsuit as of
March 31, 2015 or December 31, 2014, as we do not believe a loss
is probable or reasonably estimable."


ZILLOW GROUP: Parties in Trulia Deal Case Negotiating Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zillow Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 12, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the parties in the
class action lawsuits related to Zillow's proposed acquisition of
Trulia have concluded confirmatory discovery and are negotiating a
stipulation of settlement.

In August 2014, four purported class action lawsuits were filed by
plaintiffs against Trulia and its directors, Zillow, and Zebra
Holdco, Inc. in connection with Zillow's proposed acquisition of
Trulia. One of those purported class actions, captioned Collier et
al. v. Trulia, Inc., et al., was brought in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of San Francisco, however
on October 7, 2014, plaintiff in the Collier action filed a new
complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery alleging substantially
the same claims and seeking substantially the same relief as the
original complaint filed in California.

On October 8, 2014, plaintiff in the Collier action filed a
request for dismissal of the California case without prejudice.
The other three of the purported class action lawsuits, captioned
Shue et al. v. Trulia, Inc., et al., Sciabacucci et al. v. Trulia,
Inc., et al., and Steinberg et al. v. Trulia, Inc. et al., were
brought in the Delaware Court of Chancery.

All four lawsuits allege that Trulia's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Trulia stockholders, and that the other
defendants aided and abetted such breaches, by seeking to sell
Trulia through an allegedly unfair process and for an unfair price
and on unfair terms. All lawsuits seek, among other things,
equitable relief that would enjoin the consummation of Zillow's
proposed acquisition of Trulia and attorneys' fees and costs. The
Delaware actions also seek rescission of the Merger Agreement (to
the extent it has already been implemented) or rescissory damages
and orders directing the defendants to account for alleged damages
suffered by the plaintiffs and the purported class as a result of
the defendants' alleged wrongdoing.

On September 24, 2014, plaintiff in the Sciabacucci action filed
(1) a motion for expedited proceedings, (2) a motion for a
preliminary injunction, (3) a request for production of documents
from defendants, and (4) notice of depositions.

On October 13, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an
order consolidating all of the Delaware actions into one matter
captioned In re Trulia, Inc. Stockholder Litigation. On October 13
and 14, 2014, the motions were refiled under the consolidated case
number.

On November 14, 2014, plaintiffs again refiled their motion for a
preliminary injunction challenging the proposed acquisition. On
November 19, 2014, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding, documenting the agreement-in-principle for the
settlement of the consolidated litigation, pursuant to which
Trulia agreed to make certain supplemental disclosures in a Form
8-K. The Memorandum of Understanding was filed with the Chancery
Court that same day. The parties have concluded confirmatory
discovery and are negotiating a stipulation of settlement.

"We have not recorded an accrual related to these lawsuits as of
March 31, 2015 or December 31, 2014, as we do not believe a loss
is probable or reasonably estimable," the Company said.


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  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  * * *