CAR_Public/150724.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, July 24, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 147


                            Headlines


ACTAVIS PLC: Defendants in Actos Antitrust Case Moved to Dismiss
ACTAVIS PLC: Still Facing AndroGel(R) Antitrust Litigation
ACTAVIS PLC: To Defend Against Botox(R) Antitrust Litigation
ACTAVIS PLC: Sanofi Controlling Defense of Cipro(R) Litigation
ACTAVIS PLC: Warner and Mayne's Summary Judgment Motion Okayed

ACTAVIS PLC: Five Retailers File Lidoderm(R) Antitrust Complaint
ACTAVIS PLC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Loestrin Litigation
ACTAVIS PLC: Appeal in Namenda(R) Antitrust Suit Remains Pending
ACTAVIS PLC: Dismissed as Defendants in Opana Antitrust Case
ACTAVIS PLC: To Defend Against Zymar(R)/Zymaxid(R) Antitrust Case

ACTAVIS PLC: To Defend Against Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) Class Suits
ACTAVIS PLC: No Bid for Certiorari Filed in Columbia Labs Case
ACTAVIS PLC: No Fairness Hearing Yet on Forest Case Settlement
ACTAVIS PLC: No Fairness Hearing Yet in Furiex Case Settlement
AEP ENERGY: Consumer to Gain $12,500 in Class Action Settlement

ALBEMARLE CORPORATION: Final Settlement Hearing Set for July 30
ALICO INC: Faces Shiva Y. Stein Lawsuit
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Carte" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Bangiyeva" Suit Over Airline Tickets
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Kelly" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Palmer" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Panzino" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Silver" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Raji" Suit Over Federal Antitrust Laws
ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Filed Reply Brief in Appeal

ARROWHEAD RESEARCH: Company, CEO and COO Face Securities Suits
ASPEN FOODS: Recalls Frozen Chicken Products Due to Salmonella
AUDIENCE INC: Parties Reschedule Trial Date to March 2016
AVALANCHE BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
BARRETT BUSINESS: To File Motion to Dismiss Class Action

BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Recalls IV Solutions Due to Particulates
BP: Lafayette to Tap Law Firm to Resolve Settlement Claim
C&J ENERGY: No Briefing Schedule Yet on Motion to Dismiss
CARMA CINCO: Faces "Constenla" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CELADON GROUP: Appealed Judgment in "Wilmoth" Case

CELLADON CORP: Faces "Jacobs" Suit Over Securities Laws Violation
CHIQUITA BRANDS: Appeals Court Tosses "Reverse FOIA Request"
CHRISTIE'S CABARET: Exotic Dancers File Labor Class Action
CITIGROUP INC: Accord Reached in NJ Carpenters Fund Action
CITIGROUP INC: Dismissal of ISDAFIX-Related Litigation Sought

COLE COUNTY: Detainees File Suit Over Jail Clothing Laundry Rules
CORAL MARINE: "Ariano" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
CVB FINANCIAL: Court of Appeals Has Not Scheduled Oral Argument
CY'S KING: Sued in N.D. Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
D&D FOODS: Recalls Macaroni Salad Due to Milk and Wheat

DIODES INC: No Schedule Yet for Argument in Class Suit Appeal
EBIX INC: To Defend Stockholder Litigation
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: AMS to Fund Mesh Case Settlements by 2017
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 640 MCP Cases Pending as of May 1
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 46 Propoxyphene Cases Pending as of May 1

ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 296 Testosterone Cases Pending as of April 29
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Lidoderm(R) Case Trial to Begin April 2017
ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Facing Litigation Over Opana(R) ER
EXCLUSIVE ENERGY: Faces "Lillis" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
FIFA: Judge Dismisses U.S. Soccer Concussion Class Action

FOOD CONCEPTS: "Epperly" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Still Defending Securities Class Action
GENERAL CABLE: Motion to Amend Judgment Fully Briefed and Pending
GERBER PRODUCTS: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action Over Puffs
GFI GROUP: Continues to Defend "Szarek" Class Action in N.Y.

GFI GROUP: Continues to Defend "Gross" Class Action in N.Y.
GODADDY.COM: Faces "Careaga" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GOLDFINGERS GENTLEMEN'S: Former Dancer Files Wage Class Action
GOOGLE INC: Sued for Refusing to Provide Gift Card Cash Refunds
HAIN CELESTIAL: "Brown" Action in Discovery Phase

HC2 HOLDINGS: No Responsive Pleading Filed in Schuff Litigation
HOMEJOY INC: Worker-Misclassification Litigation Prompts Closure
HOMEMADE OF LEAVENWORTH: Recalls Pickle & Sauce Products
HUXTABLE'S KITCHEN: Recalls Salad Products Due to Misbranding
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Bid to Dismiss Solodyn Suit Under Submission

IMPAX LABORATORIES: Consolidated Suits Filed Over Opana Drug
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Accord in Mulligan, Haverhill Cases Pending
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Will Pay $4.75 Million to Settle Aruliah Case
INNOVATIVE FOOD: Judge Referred 2 Lawsuits to Mediation Program
INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Parties Undergoing Discovery

INTERNATIONAL FOLLIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Compensations
IT TAKES: Recalls Kale Crisps Zen Nori Due to Undeclared Soy
J.G. WENTWORTH: Defendants to Appeal N.D. Illinois Court Ruling
J.G. WENTWORTH: To Defend Against Case Related to OAC Merger
J2 GLOBAL: Discovery Ongoing in Paldo Sign Class Action

J2 GLOBAL: Briefing on Appeal in Multi-District Litigation Stayed
J2 GLOBAL: Discovery Ongoing in Andre Free-Vychine Class Actions
JAKKS PACIFIC: Third Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Suit
LEVY ACQUISITION: Class Action Filed Related to Del Taco Merger
LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Filed Motion to Dismiss Securities Action

LONGTOP FINANCIAL: October 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
MCCORMICK & CO: Files Motion to Dismiss Slack-Fill Lawsuit
MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Court Dismissed Consolidated Class Suit
MEILIN HAIR: Faces "Liu" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MIAMI TERMINAL: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Macais" Suit Claims

MIDWEST PARTITIONS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MODEL N: Securities Class Actions Filed
MONSTER BEVERAGE: Says False Advertising Cases Have "No Merit"
MURRY'S INC: Recalls Gluten-Free Breaded Chicken Nuggets
NATURAL DOG: Recalls Tremenda Sticks Pet Chews Due to Salmonella

NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: Filed Motion to Dismiss Rand-Heart Action
OCWEN LOAN: Sued in Cal. for Non-Disclosure of Balloon Payment
ON THE LEVEL: "Larue" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
OSAMU CORPORATION: Recalls Frozen Tuna Products Due to Salmonella
P&S SELECT: "Torres" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

PACIFIC GAS: Does Not Properly Pay CSRs, "Greer" Suit Claims
PHOTOMEDEX INC: Court Dismissed Class Action Against Radiancy
PHOTOMEDEX INC: Cantley Class Action in Discovery Phase
POPULAR INC: "Valle" Case v. PCB Stayed Pending Ruling on Motions
POPULAR INC: Conditional Certification Granted in "Quiles" Case

POPULAR INC: "Fernandez" Remains Pending in New York Court
POPULAR INC: Court Approves Dismissal of "Alvarez" Case
POPULAR INC: Agreement in "Valle" Case v. BPNA Not Yet Final
POPULAR INC: BPNA Settles Claims by Ex-Assist. Branch Managers
POPULAR INC: BPPR Served with RadioShack ERISA Litigation

PURE CANVAS: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, "Espinoza" Suit Says
RCI HOSPITALITY: Settled New York Wage and Hour Class Action Case
SABINE OIL: Parties Negotiating Settlement of Forest Oil Suits
SAUSAGE FACTORY: Recalls Sausage Products Die to Misbranding
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Court Granted Motion to Dismiss Delaware Suits

SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Hearing Held on Settlement in Bally Class Suit
SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Class Action v. Oregon State Lottery Dropped
SMITHTOWN BANCORP: September 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
SOTHEBY'S: 9th Circuit Affirmed Lower Court Decision
SOTHEBY'S: No Stockholder Objections Filed to Settlement

SOUTH CAROLINA: Class Action Mulled Over Rent Overcharges
SUPERVALU INC: Recalls Danish Rolls Due to Milk Allergen
STEEL DYNAMICS: Class Cert. Matter Remains Under Advisement
SYMMETRY SURGICAL: Parties Settle Resolution Partners Complaint
SYNTHES USA: Judge Tosses Plaintiff's Strict Liability Claims

TD BANK: Settles Ponzi Scheme Class Action for $20 Million
TEMPUR SEALY: Todd and Thompson Cases in Discovery Phase
TESCO CORPORATION: Participating in Arbitration
TRICO BANCSHARES: Parties in Shareholder Suit Agree to Talks
TRICO BANCSHARES: To Fight Suit by Former Personal Banker

TRICO BANCSHARES: To Fight Suit by Current Personal Banker
UNI-PIXEL INC: Court Approved Settlement of Class Action
UNITED STATES: ADX Prisoners Sue Over Solitary Confinement
UNITED STATES: Faces Multiple Suits Over Indian Child Welfare Act
URANERZ ENERGY: Shareholder Class Actions Filed Related to Merger

VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Party Won't Oppose Lead Plaintiff Appointment
VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Mark Youngers Files Class Action
WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Sued in Fla. Over Blind Inaccessible POS Devices
WORLD WRESTLING: Seeks to Halt Retired Wrestlers' Concussion Suits
WSFS FINANCIAL: 3 Complaints Filed Over Alliance Bancorp Merger

XTO ENERGY: Faces Class Action For Gas Lease Royalty Deductions

* Lawsuits Over Alleged Arsenic-Tainted Wine Pending, No Recalls
* Regulators Target "Pay-for-Delay" Settlements Between Drug Cos.
* Washington Growers Urged to Adopt Piece-Rate Pay Practice


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Did Not Pay NARCO Trust as of June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Values Future NARCO Claims at $743MM
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has 9,343 Bendix Claims at June 30
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling in "Fletcher" Partially Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partial Summary Judgment Issued in "Carter"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Cos. Obtain Partial Dismissal in "Bridges"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partial Summary Judgment Issued in "Bazor"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Refuses to Remand "Boyd" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Law to Govern York Int'l. Insurance Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. Court Refuses to Review "Spychalla" Ruling

ASBESTOS UPDATE: April 15, 2014 NYCAL Order Modified
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Perfect Appeal in "Torbit" Enlarged
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Perfect Appeal in "Lucadamo" Enlarged
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Defeated in Bid to Junk "Bardone"



                            *********


ACTAVIS PLC: Defendants in Actos Antitrust Case Moved to Dismiss
----------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that
defendants in the Actos(R) Antitrust Litigation have moved to
dismiss the amended complaint.

On December 31, 2013 two putative class actions were filed in the
federal court for the Southern District of New York against
Actavis plc and certain of its affiliates alleging that Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s ("Watson" now known as Actavis, Inc.) 2010
patent lawsuit settlement with Takeda Pharmaceutical, Co. Ltd.
related to Actos(R) (pioglitazone hydrochloride and metformin
"Actos(R)") is unlawful. Several additional complaints have also
been filed. Plaintiffs then filed a consolidated, amended
complaint on May 20, 2014. The amended complaint, asserted on
behalf of a putative class of indirect purchaser plaintiffs,
generally alleges an overall scheme that included Watson
improperly delaying the launch of its generic version of Actos(R)
in exchange for substantial payments from Takeda in violation of
federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The
complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and unspecified
damages. Defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses
to the claims alleged. However, these actions, if successful,
could adversely affect the Company and could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations,
financial condition and cash flows.


ACTAVIS PLC: Still Facing AndroGel(R) Antitrust Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
The AndroGel(R) Antitrust Litigation remains pending, Actavis plc
and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

On January 29, 2009, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the
State of California filed a lawsuit in federal district court in
California alleging that the September 2006 patent lawsuit
settlement between Watson and Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
("Solvay"), related to AndroGel(R) 1% (testosterone gel) CIII is
unlawful. The complaint generally alleged that Watson improperly
delayed its launch of a generic version of AndroGel(R) in exchange
for Solvay's agreement to permit Watson to co-promote AndroGel(R)
for consideration in excess of the fair value of the services
provided by Watson, in violation of federal and state antitrust
and consumer protection laws. The complaint sought equitable
relief and civil penalties.

On February 2 and 3, 2009, three separate lawsuits alleging
similar claims were filed in federal district court in California
by various private plaintiffs purporting to represent certain
classes of similarly situated claimants. On April 8, 2009, the
Court transferred the government and private cases to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The FTC and the private plaintiffs filed amended complaints on May
28, 2009. The private plaintiffs amended their complaints to
include allegations concerning conduct before the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office (the "USPTO"), conduct in connection with the
listing of Solvay's patent in the FDA "Orange Book," and sham
litigation.

Additional actions alleging similar claims have been filed in
various courts by other private plaintiffs purporting to represent
certain classes of similarly situated direct or indirect
purchasers of AndroGel(R). The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ("JPML") transferred all federal court actions then
pending outside of Georgia to that district. The district court
then granted the Company's motion to dismiss all claims except the
private plaintiffs' sham litigation claims. After the dismissal
was upheld by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the FTC
petitioned the United States Supreme Court to hear the case.

On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court issued a decision, holding
that the settlements between brand and generic drug companies
which include a payment from the brand company to the generic
competitor must be evaluated under a "rule of reason" standard of
review and ordered the case remanded (the "Supreme Court AndroGel
Decision"). The case in now back in the district court in Georgia
August 5, 2014 the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint which the Company answered on September 15, 2014.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if
successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ACTAVIS PLC: To Defend Against Botox(R) Antitrust Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their 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 intends to defend itself vigorously in the Botox(R)
Antitrust Litigation.

On February 24, 2015, a class action complaint was filed in
federal court in California. The complaint alleges unlawful market
allocation in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
Sec.1, agreement in restraint of trade in violation of 15 U.S.C.
Sec.1 of the Sherman Act, unlawful maintenance of monopoly market
power in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
Sec.2 of the Sherman Act, violations of California's Cartwright
Act, Section 16700 et seq. of Calif. Bus. and Prof. Code., and
violations of California's unfair competition law, Section 17200
et seq. of Calif. Bus. and Prof. Code.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if
successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ACTAVIS PLC: Sanofi Controlling Defense of Cipro(R) Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi Aventis is currently controlling the defense of the
Cipro(R) Antitrust Litigation, Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott
Limited said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2015.

Beginning in July 2000, a number of suits were filed against
Watson and certain Company affiliates including The Rugby Group,
Inc. ("Rugby") in various state and federal courts alleging claims
under various federal and state competition and consumer
protection laws. The actions generally allege that the defendants
engaged in unlawful, anticompetitive conduct in connection with
alleged agreements, entered into prior to Watson's acquisition of
Rugby from Sanofi Aventis ("Sanofi"), related to the development,
manufacture and sale of the drug substance ciprofloxacin
hydrochloride, the generic version of Bayer's brand drug,
Cipro(R). The actions generally seek declaratory judgment,
damages, injunctive relief, restitution and other relief on behalf
of certain purported classes of individuals and other entities.

While many of these actions have been dismissed, actions remain
pending in various state courts, including California, Kansas,
Tennessee, and Florida.

There has been activity in Tennessee and Florida since 2003.

In the action pending in Kansas, plaintiffs' motion for class
certification has been fully briefed.

In the action pending in the California state court, following the
decision from the United States Supreme Court in the Federal Trade
Commission v. Actavis matter involving AndroGel(R), Plaintiffs and
Bayer announced that they reached an agreement to settle the
claims pending against Bayer and Bayer has now been dismissed from
the action. Plaintiffs are continuing to pursue claims against the
generic defendants, including Watson and Rugby. The remaining
parties submitted letter briefs to the court regarding the impact
of the Supreme Court AndroGel Decision and on May 7, 2015, the
California Supreme Court issued a ruling, consistent with the
Supreme Court AndroGel Decision, that the settlements between
brand and generic drug companies which include a payment from the
brand company to the generic competitor must be evaluated under a
"rule of reason" standard of review.

In addition to the pending actions, the Company understands that
various state and federal agencies are investigating the
allegations made in these actions. Sanofi has agreed to defend and
indemnify Watson and its affiliates in connection with the claims
and investigations arising from the conduct and agreements
allegedly undertaken by Rugby and its affiliates prior to Watson's
acquisition of Rugby, and is currently controlling the defense of
these actions.


ACTAVIS PLC: Warner and Mayne's Summary Judgment Motion Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their 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 granted Warner Chilcott and Mayne's motion for summary
judgment and denied Mylan's summary judgment motion in the
Doryx(R) Antitrust Litigation.

In July 2012, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Mylan") filed a
complaint against Warner Chilcott and Mayne Pharma International
Pty. Ltd. ("Mayne") in federal court in Pennsylvania alleging that
Warner Chilcott and Mayne prevented or delayed Mylan's generic
competition to Warner Chilcott's Doryx(R) products in violation of
U.S. federal antitrust laws and tortiously interfered with Mylan's
prospective economic relationships under Pennsylvania state law.
In the complaint, Mylan seeks unspecified treble and punitive
damages and attorneys' fees.

Following the filing of Mylan's complaint, three putative class
actions were filed against Warner Chilcott and Mayne by purported
direct purchasers, and one putative class action was filed against
by purported indirect purchasers. In addition, four retailers
filed in the same court a civil antitrust complaint in their
individual capacities against Warner Chilcott and Mayne regarding
Doryx(R).

In each of the class and individual cases the plaintiffs allege
that they paid higher prices for Warner Chilcott's Doryx(R)
products as a result of Warner Chilcott's and Mayne's alleged
actions preventing or delaying generic competition in violation of
U.S. federal antitrust laws and/or state laws. Plaintiffs seek
unspecified injunctive relief, treble damages and/or attorneys'
fees. All of the actions were consolidated in the federal district
court.

Warner Chilcott and Mayne's motion to dismiss was denied without
prejudice by the court in June 2013. Thereafter, Warner Chilcott
and Mayne reached agreements to settle the claims of the Direct
Purchaser Plaintiff class representatives, the Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiff class representatives and each of the individual
retailer plaintiffs. Warner Chilcott and Mylan filed motions for
summary judgment on March 10, 2014.

On April 16, 2015, the court issued an order granting Warner
Chilcott and Mayne's motion for summary judgment, denying Mylan's
summary judgment motion and entering judgment in favor of Warner
Chilcott and Mayne on all counts. Mylan has not yet indicated
whether they will be appealing the court's ruling.

The Company intends to vigorously defend its rights in the
litigations. However, it is impossible to predict with certainty
the outcome of any litigation and whether any additional similar
suits will be filed. The Company can offer no assurance as to
whether Mylan will appeal the district court's ruling and, if it
does, whether the Company will be successful on the appeal.


ACTAVIS PLC: Five Retailers File Lidoderm(R) Antitrust Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their 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
group of five retailers filed a civil antitrust complaint in their
individual capacities regarding Lidoderm(R).

On November 8, 2013, a putative class action was filed in the
federal district court against Actavis, Inc. and certain of its
affiliates alleging that Watson's 2012 patent lawsuit settlement
with Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. related to Lidoderm(R) (lidocaine
transdermal patches, "Lidoderm(R)") is unlawful. The complaint,
asserted on behalf of putative classes of direct purchaser
plaintiffs, generally alleges that Watson improperly delayed
launching generic versions of Lidoderm(R) in exchange for
substantial payments from Endo in violation of federal and state
antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaint seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief and damages.

Additional lawsuits containing similar allegations have followed
on behalf of other classes of putative direct purchasers and suits
have been filed on behalf of putative classes of end-payer
plaintiffs. The Company anticipates additional claims or lawsuits
based on the same or similar allegations may be filed.

On April 3, 2014 the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JPML") consolidated the cases in federal district court in
California. Defendants filed motions to dismiss each of the
plaintiff classes' claims.

On November 17, 2014, the court issued an order granting the
motion in part but denying it with respect to the claims under
Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs then filed an amended,
consolidated complaint on December 19, 2014. Defendants have
responded to the amended consolidated complaint.

On March 5, 2015, a group of five retailers filed a civil
antitrust complaint in their individual capacities regarding
Lidoderm(R) in the same court where it was consolidated with the
direct and indirect purchaser class complaints. The retailer
complaint recites similar facts and asserts similar legal claims
for relief to those asserted in the related cases.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if
successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ACTAVIS PLC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Loestrin Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their 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 Loestrin(R) 24 Antitrust Litigation are
appealing the district court's decision to dismiss to the First
Circuit Court of Appeals.

On April 5, 2013, two putative class actions were filed in the
federal district court against Actavis, Inc. and certain
affiliates alleging that Watson's 2009 patent lawsuit settlement
with Warner Chilcott related to Loestrin(R) 24 Fe (norethindrone
acetate/ethinyl estradiol tablets and ferrous fumarate tablets,
"Loestrin(R) 24") is unlawful. The complaints, both asserted on
behalf of putative classes of end-payors, generally allege that
Watson and another generic manufacturer improperly delayed
launching generic versions of Loestrin(R) 24 in exchange for
substantial payments from Warner Chilcott, which at the time was
an unrelated company, in violation of federal and state antitrust
and consumer protection laws. The complaints each seek declaratory
and injunctive relief and damages.

Additional complaints have been filed by different plaintiffs
seeking to represent the same putative class of end-payors. In
addition to the end-payor suits, two lawsuits have been filed on
behalf of a class of direct payors.

The Company anticipates additional claims or lawsuits based on the
same or similar allegations. After a hearing on September 26,
2013, the JPML issued an order transferring all related
Loestrin(R) 24 cases to the federal court for the District of
Rhode Island. On September 4, 2014, the court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs are
appealing the district court's decision to the First Circuit Court
of Appeals.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously including in the appeal of the
district court's decision granting the Company's motion to
dismiss. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely
affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows.


ACTAVIS PLC: Appeal in Namenda(R) Antitrust Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
11, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that
Forest Laboratories, Inc. ("Forest")'s appeal of the preliminary
injunction order in the Namenda(R) Antitrust Litigation remains
pending.

On September 15, 2014, the State of New York, through the Office
of the Attorney General of the State of New York, filed a lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York alleging that Forest is acting to prevent or delay
generic competition to Forest's immediate-release product
Namenda(R) in violation of federal and New York antitrust laws and
committed other fraudulent acts in connection with its commercial
plans for Namenda(R) XR. In the complaint, the state seeks
unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief.

On September 24, 2014, the state filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction prohibiting Forest from discontinuing or otherwise
limiting the availability of immediate-release Namenda(R) until
the conclusion of the litigation. A hearing was held in November
2014 on the state's preliminary injunction motion.

On December 11, 2014, the district court issued a ruling granting
the state's injunction motion and issued an injunction on December
15, 2014. Forest appealed the preliminary injunction order to the
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which heard oral argument
on April 13, 2015. Forest's appeal remains pending.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend both its brand and generic defendant entities
vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely
affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows.


ACTAVIS PLC: Dismissed as Defendants in Opana Antitrust Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their 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 Opana Antitrust Litigation have agreed to
voluntarily dismiss the Actavis defendants from the action without
prejudice.

On December 19, 2014, a putative class action was filed in
California state court against Actavis, Inc. and Actavis South
Atlantic LLC alleging, among other things, that Actavis' 2009
patent lawsuit settlement with Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. related
to Opana ER(R) (extended release oxymorphone hydrochloride
tablets) is unlawful. The complaint, asserted on behalf of a
putative class of end payer plaintiffs, generally alleges that
Actavis and Impax improperly delayed launching generic versions of
Opana ER(R) in exchange for substantial consideration from Endo in
violation of CA state antitrust, unfair competition and consumer
protection laws. The complaint seeks damages and other equitable
relief. On March 4, 2015, plaintiffs in this action agreed to
voluntarily dismiss the Actavis defendants from the action without
prejudice.

The Company anticipates additional claims or lawsuits based on the
same or similar allegations may be filed. However, this action and
any others like it, if successful, could adversely affect the
Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations, financial condition and cash
flows.


ACTAVIS PLC: To Defend Against Zymar(R)/Zymaxid(R) Antitrust Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their 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 intends to defend itself vigorously in the
Zymar(R)/Zymaxid(R) Antitrust Litigation.

On February 16, 2012, Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. filed a
complaint in the federal district court in Delaware Senju
Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. ("Senju"), Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co.,
Ltd. ("Kyorin"), and Allergan, Inc. ("Allergan") alleging
monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act,
conspiracy to monopolize, and unreasonable restraint of trade in
the market for gatifloxacin ophthalmic formulations, which
includes Allergan's ZYMAR(R) gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.3%
and ZYMAXID(R) gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5% products.

On May 24, 2012, Allergan filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
to the extent it seeks to impose liability for alleged injuries
occurring prior to August 19, 2011, which is the date Apotex
obtained final approval of its proposed generic product. Allergan
and the other defendants also moved to dismiss. Defendants also
filed a motion to stay the action pending resolution of related
patent actions in the federal court in Delaware and in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

On February 7, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to stay
the proceedings pending resolution of the appeal in the patent
dispute and denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to
renew. On September 18, 2014, defendants filed a new motion to
dismiss the Apotex plaintiffs' complaint.

On June 6, 2014, a separate antitrust class action complaint was
filed in the federal district court in Delaware against the same
defendants as in the Apotex case. The complaint alleges that
defendants unlawfully excluded or delayed generic competition in
the gatifloxacin ophthalmic formulations market (generic versions
of ZYMAR(R) and ZYMAXID(R)). On September 18, 2014, Allergan filed
a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and
joined in co-defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if
successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ACTAVIS PLC: To Defend Against Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their 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 intends to continue to vigorously defend against
Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) Class Actions.

Forest and certain of its affiliates are defendants in three
federal court actions filed on behalf of individuals who purchased
Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R) for pediatric use, all of which have
been consolidated for pretrial purposes in an MDL proceeding in
the federal district court Massachusetts (the
"Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) MDL"). These actions, two of which were
originally filed as putative nationwide class actions, and one of
which is a putative California-wide class action, allege that
Forest marketed Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R) for off-label
pediatric use and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce
prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R).

The complaints assert various similar claims, including claims
under the state consumer protection statutes and state common
laws. Plaintiffs in the various actions sought to have certified
California, Missouri, Illinois and New York state-wide classes.
However, only the Missouri state class was certified.

Forest subsequently reached an agreement with the MDL plaintiffs
to settle the Missouri class claims, including claims by both
individuals and third party payors that purchased Celexa(R) or
Lexapro(R) for use by a minor from 1998 to December 31, 2013, for
$7.65 million with a potential to increase the amount to $10.35
million if settling plaintiffs meet certain thresholds. On
September 8, 2014 the court granted final approval for the
settlement.

Additional actions relating to the promotion of Celexa(R) and/or
Lexapro(R) have been filed all of which have been consolidated in
the Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) MDL. On May 3, 2013, an action was filed
in federal court in California on behalf of individuals who
purchased Lexapro(R) for adolescent use, seeking to certify a
state-wide class action in California and alleging that the
Company's promotion of Lexapro(R) for adolescent depression has
been deceptive.

On March 5, 2014 the court granted Forest's motion to dismiss this
complaint. Plaintiff then appealed the district court's decision
to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and on February 20,
2015, the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint,
ruling that Plaintiffs' California state law claims were preempted
by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).

On November 13, 2013, an action was filed in federal court in
Minnesota seeking to certify a nationwide class of third-party
payor entities that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for
pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, alleging that
Forest engaged in an off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal
kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and
Lexapro(R).

Forest moved to dismiss the complaint and on December 12, 2014,
the court issued a ruling dismissing plaintiff's claims under
Minnesota's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, but denying the
remaining portions of the motion.

On March 13, 2014, an action was filed in the federal court in
Massachusetts by two third-party payors seeking to certify a
nationwide class of persons and entities that purchased Celexa(R)
and Lexapro(R) for use by pediatric use. The complaint asserts
claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, state consumer protection statutes, and state
common laws, alleging that Forest engaged in an off-label
marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to
induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). The court
granted Forest's motion to dismiss this complaint in its December
12, 2014 ruling.

On August 28, 2014, an action was filed in the federal district
court in Washington seeking to certify a nationwide class of
consumers and subclasses of Washington and Massachusetts consumers
that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for pediatric use. The
complaint asserts claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, alleging that Forest engaged in
off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to
physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R).
Forest's response to the complaint was filed on December 19, 2014.

Forest and certain of its affiliates are also named as defendants
in two actions filed on behalf of entities or individuals who
purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa(R) and
Lexapro(R) for pediatric use pending in the Missouri state court.
These claims arise from similar allegations as those contained in
the federal actions described in the preceding paragraphs.

One action, filed on November 6, 2009, was brought by two entities
that purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa(R) and/or
Lexapro(R). The complaint asserts claims under the Missouri
consumer protection statute and Missouri common law, and seeks
unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

The other action, filed on July 22, 2009, was filed as a putative
class action on behalf of a class of Missouri citizens who
purchased Celexa(R) for pediatric use.

The complaint asserts claims under the Missouri consumer
protection statute and Missouri common law, and seeks unspecified
damages and attorneys' fees.

In October 2010, the court certified a class of Missouri
domiciliary citizens who purchased Celexa(R) for pediatric use at
any time prior to the date of the class certification order, but
who do not have a claim for personal injury. The Company reached
agreements with both sets of plaintiffs in the Missouri actions to
resolve each matter for payments that are not material to our
financial condition or results of operations.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against these
actions. At this time, the Company does not believe losses, if
any, would have a material effect on the results of operations or
financial position taken as a whole.


ACTAVIS PLC: No Bid for Certiorari Filed in Columbia Labs Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their 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 Columbia Laboratories, Inc. Securities
Litigation did not file a petition for certiorari with the United
States Supreme Court.

On June 8, 2012, Watson and certain of its officers were named as
defendants in a consolidated amended class action complaint filed
in the federal district court in New Jersey by a putative class of
Columbia Laboratories' stock purchasers. The amended complaint
generally alleges that between December 6, 2010 and January 20,
2012, Watson and certain of its officers, as well as Columbia
Laboratories and certain of its officers, made false and
misleading statements regarding the likelihood of Columbia
Laboratories obtaining FDA approval of Prochieve(R) progesterone
gel, Columbia Laboratories' developmental drug for prevention of
preterm birth. Watson licensed the rights to Prochieve(R) from
Columbia Laboratories in July 2010.

The amended complaint further alleges that the defendants failed
to disclose material information concerning the statistical
analysis of the clinical studies performed by Columbia
Laboratories in connection with its pursuit of FDA approval of
Prochieve(R). The complaint seeks unspecified damages.

On October 21, 2013, the court granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint. Plaintiffs appealed this
decision. On March 10, 2015, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals
court issued its ruling affirming the district court's dismissal
of the plaintiffs' amended complaint. Plaintiffs did not file a
petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.


ACTAVIS PLC: No Fairness Hearing Yet on Forest Case Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their 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
fairness hearing has not yet been scheduled on the settlement in
the Forest Laboratories Securities Litigation.

In February and March 2014, several putative stockholder class
actions were brought against Forest, Forest's directors, Actavis
plc, and certain of Actavis's affiliates. Four actions were filed
in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in New York State Supreme
Court. The amended complaints in these actions seek, among other
remedies, to enjoin Actavis's proposed acquisition of Forest or
damages in the event the transaction closes.

The complaints generally allege, among other things, that the
members of the Forest Board of Directors breached their fiduciary
duties by agreeing to sell Forest for inadequate consideration and
pursuant to an inadequate process, and that the disclosure
document fails to disclose allegedly material information about
the transaction. The complaints also allege that Actavis, and
certain of its affiliates, aided and abetted these alleged
breaches.

On May 28, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in principle
with plaintiffs to settle both actions. The parties entered into a
definitive stipulation of settlement on February 6, 2015 that
remains subject to customary conditions, including court approval.
A fairness hearing has not yet been scheduled.

If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will
resolve and release all claims in all actions that were or could
have been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed
transaction, the merger agreement, and any disclosure made in
connection therewith, including in the Definitive Joint Proxy
Statement/Prospectus. There can be no assurance that the court
will approve the proposed settlement. If the proposed settlement
is not approved, the proposed settlement may be terminated. At
this time, the Company does not believe losses, if any, would have
a material effect on the results of operations or financial
position taken as a whole.


ACTAVIS PLC: No Fairness Hearing Yet in Furiex Case Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their 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
fairness hearing has not yet been scheduled on the settlement
reached in the Furiex Securities Litigation.

In May 2014, four putative stockholder class actions were brought
against Forest, Furiex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Furiex"), and
Furiex's board of directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery and
in North Carolina state court. These actions alleged, among other
things, that the members of the Furiex Board of Directors breached
their fiduciary duties by agreeing to sell Furiex for inadequate
consideration and pursuant to an inadequate process. These actions
also alleged that Forest aided and abetted these alleged breaches.
These actions sought class certification, to enjoin the proposed
acquisition of Furiex, and an award of unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees, experts' fees, and other costs. Two of the
actions also sought rescission of the acquisition and unspecified
rescissory damages if the acquisition was completed.

On June 23, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in principle
with plaintiffs regarding a settlement of all actions, and on
January 15, 2015, the parties entered into a stipulation of
settlement which is subject to court approval. A fairness hearing
has not yet been scheduled.

If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will
resolve and release all claims in all four actions that were or
could have been brought challenging any aspect of the proposed
transaction and any disclosure made in connection therewith. There
can be no assurance that the court will approve the settlement. In
such event, the proposed settlement may be terminated. At this
time, the Company does not believe losses, if any, would have a
material effect on the results of operations or financial position
taken as a whole.


AEP ENERGY: Consumer to Gain $12,500 in Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Gearino, writing for The Columbus Dispatch, reports that a
Westerville man with a long record of suing companies that make
unwanted phone calls is expected to gain $12,500 in a class-action
settlement with an American Electric Power subsidiary.

Other consumers are receiving postcards telling them that they may
be eligible for their own, albeit much smaller, share of the
proposed $6 million award.

Philip Charvat sued AEP Energy in April 2014, saying that he
received two phone calls asking him to sign up for home
electricity contracts, even though he is on the National Do-Not-
Call Registry.

Under a settlement, AEP agrees to pay $6 million, of which $2
million will go to Mr. Charvat's attorneys; the remaining $4
million will be split among other consumers, and cover the costs
of administering the agreement.

To be eligible, a consumer must be located in the United States,
have received more than one unwanted solicitation from AEP Energy
between April 29, 2010, and June 18, 2015, and have been listed on
the Do-Not-Call Registry at the time of the calls.

The money will be divided equally among all of the consumers who
respond, so the amount of each check depends on how many people
choose to participate.

AEP says the phone calls were made by a contractor, Infinity
Marketing, which called customers on the Do-Not-Call list in
violation of the contract with AEP.

"Once AEP Energy's investigation confirmed that the vendor was
acting in violation of the contract, we stopped doing business
with them.  AEP Energy no longer makes unsolicited, outbound calls
to residential customers," said AEP spokeswoman Tammy Ridout.

Last month, AEP sued Infinity in federal court, trying to recover
costs from the Charvat case.

Mr. Charvat, 66, answered the phone at his Westerville home on
July 17 but declined comment.  He is in line to receive $12,500
because of his status as lead plaintiff.

He has a long record of suing companies for making unwanted calls,
with dozens of cases in Franklin County Common Pleas Court, plus
cases in various federal courts.  The AEP Energy case is in
federal court in Illinois.

Among Mr. Charvat's adversaries has been this newspaper.  He sued
The Dispatch in 1998, a case that led to a 2002 Ohio Supreme Court
ruling in Mr. Charvat's favor.

In that case, Mr. Charvat said that The Dispatch should not be
allowed to solicit him for a weekday subscription, even though he
was a subscriber to the paper's Sunday edition.  The Dispatch's
then-parent company argued unsuccessfully that Mr. Charvat's
status as a subscriber meant that the company had an existing
relationship with him, which is often an exception to the
Do-Not-Call rules.

A 2011 Dispatch story about Mr. Charvat's various legal actions
said he had received $27,000 from one of the settlements, and
received $15,000 from several cases involving The Dispatch.


ALBEMARLE CORPORATION: Final Settlement Hearing Set for July 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albemarle 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 te Superior Court of
New Jersey has scheduled the final settlement hearing for July 30,
2015 at 2:00 p.m. in the class action lawsuit related to the
merger with Rockwood Holdings Inc.

On July 22, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Chancery Division of the Superior Court of New Jersey, Mercer
County ("Superior Court of New Jersey") relating to the Merger. On
July 24, 2014, an additional putative class action complaint was
filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey relating to the Merger.
Both suits named the same plaintiff but were filed by different
law firms.

On August 1, 2014 and August 12, 2014, three additional putative
class action complaints were filed in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware ("Delaware Chancery Court") relating to the
Merger. The lawsuits filed in New Jersey, Thwaites v. Rockwood
Holdings Inc., et al. ("Thwaites I"), Thwaites v. Rockwood
Holdings, Inc., et al. ("Thwaites II"), and the lawsuits filed in
Delaware, Rudman Partners, L.P. v. Rockwood Holdings, Inc., et
al., Riley v. Rockwood Holdings, Inc., et al., and North Miami
Beach Police Officers & Firefighters' Retirement Plan v. Rockwood
Holdings, Inc., et al., each named Rockwood, its former directors,
and Albemarle as defendants. Thwaites II and the cases filed in
Delaware also named Albemarle Holdings Corporation, a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Albemarle, as a defendant.

The lawsuits, which contained substantially similar allegations,
included allegations that Rockwood's former board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Merger by
failing to ensure that Rockwood shareholders would receive the
maximum value for their shares, failing to conduct an appropriate
sale process and putting their own interests ahead of those of
Rockwood shareholders. Rockwood and Albemarle are alleged to have
aided and abetted the alleged fiduciary breaches.

The lawsuits sought a variety of equitable relief, including
enjoining the former Rockwood board of directors from proceeding
with the proposed Merger unless they acted in accordance with
their fiduciary duties to maximize shareholder value and
rescission of the Merger to the extent implemented, in addition to
damages arising from the defendants' alleged breaches and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 12, 2014, the plaintiff in Thwaites I filed a Notice of
Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice as to all defendants. On
August 27, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery ordered the three
Delaware cases consolidated and appointed co-lead counsel. The
court also ordered that no response to the complaints would be due
until after plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint. On
September 19, 2014, the plaintiff in Thwaites II filed an amended
complaint which included allegations that the registration
statement failed to disclose material information.

Plaintiffs in Thwaites II and in the Delaware consolidated action
subsequently coordinated their litigation efforts, and the
Delaware consolidated action was stayed pending the outcome of the
Thwaites II litigation. In Thwaites II, the parties (including the
Delaware plaintiffs) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding on
November 6, 2014, provisionally settling all claims in the pending
actions and declaring the parties' intent to submit a settlement
agreement for the court's approval within 90 days.

On December 2, 2014, the parties submitted a joint stipulation to
extend the defendants' time to respond to the amended complaint in
Thwaites II until February 4, 2015. The parties executed a final
Stipulation of Settlement and Release ("Stipulation") on February
4, 2015. In addition to extinguishing the current claims, the
Stipulation contemplates broad releases of any and all actual and
potential claims, whether known or unknown, by any member of the
putative shareholder class against the defendants relating to or
arising out of the Merger, the Merger Agreement, or the
registration statement.

On February 26, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement, which was unopposed. The Superior
Court of New Jersey granted the motion on March 31, 2015, and
scheduled the final settlement hearing for July 30, 2015 at 2:00
p.m.  In accordance with the terms of the Stipulation and the
Court's Order preliminarily approving the settlement, notice of
the settlement and final hearing date was provided to former
Rockwood stockholders on April 14, 2015. On April 28, 2015,
plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval of the settlement.
Upon final approval of the settlement by the Superior Court of New
Jersey, plaintiffs in the Delaware actions will move to dismiss
the pending consolidated action with prejudice, thereby
terminating the litigation.


ALICO INC: Faces Shiva Y. Stein Lawsuit
---------------------------------------
Alico, 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 putative shareholder class action
lawsuit was filed on March 11, 2015, by Shiva Y. Stein in the
Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial District in and for Lee
County, Florida, against Alico, Inc. ("Alico"), its current and
certain former directors, 734 Citrus Holdings, LLC d/b/a Silver
Nip Citrus ("Silver Nip"), 734 Investors, LLC ("734 Investors"),
734 Agriculture, LLC ("734 Agriculture") and 734 Sub, LLC ("734
Sub") in connection with the acquisition of Silver Nip by Alico
(the "Acquisition"). The complaint alleges that Alico's directors
at the time of the Acquisition, 734 Investors and 734 Agriculture
breached fiduciary duties to Alico stockholders in connection with
the Acquisition and that Silver Nip and 734 Sub aided and abetted
such breaches. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, monetary and
equitable relief, costs, fees (including attorneys' fees) and
expenses.

"We believe that this lawsuit is without merit and intend to
contest it vigorously," the Company said.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Carte" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Carte, on behalf of himself and a class of all others
similarly situated v. American Airlines Group Inc., American
Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co.,
United Continental Holdings, Inc., and United Airlines, Inc., Case
No. 2:15-cv-05208-CBM-AS (C.D. Cal., July 10, 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:

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

         - and -

      Brian Murray, Esq.
      Lee Albert, Esq.
      Thomas J. Kennedy, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
      New York, NY 10168
      Telephone: (212) 682-5340
      E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com
              lalbert@glancylaw.com
              tkennedy@glancylaw.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Bangiyeva" Suit Over Airline Tickets
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stella Bangiyeva and Charles Curley, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Delta Airlines, Inc., American
Airlines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co. and United Airlines, Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-04062-BMC (E.D.N.Y., July 10, 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:

      Thomas G. Amon, Esq.
      Peter B. Patterson, Jr.
      LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS G. AMON
      250 West 57th Street, Suite 1316
      New York, NY 10107
      Telephone: (212) 810-2430
      Facsimile: (212) 810-2427
      E-mail: tamon@amonlaw.com
              ppatterson@amonlaw.com

         - and -

      Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
      Kevin A. Seely, Esq.
      Gregory E. Del Gaizo
      Leonid Kandinov, Esq.
      ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
      600 B Street, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 525-3990
      Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
      E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
              kseely@robbinsarroyo.com
              gdelgaizo@robbinsarroyo.com
              lkandinov@robbinsarroyo.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Kelly" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Kelly, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc.,
Southwest Airlines Co., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 3:15-
cv-03222-JSC (N.D. Cal., July 10, 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:

      Christopher T. Micheletti, Esq.
      Jiangxiao Athena Hou, Esq.
      Eric W. Buetzow, Esq.
      ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON LLP
      44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 693-0700
      Facsimile: (415) 693-0770
      E-mail: cmicheletti@zelle.com
              ahou@zelle.com
              ebuetzow@zelle.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Palmer" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Curtis Palmer, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., American Airlines, Inc.,
Southwest Airlines Co., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-04047-PKC-RML (E.D.N.Y., July 9, 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:

      Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
      Susan R. Schwaiger, Esq.
      NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, PC
      570 Lexington Avenue, 19th floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 702-7053
      Facsimile: (212) 681-0300
      E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
              sschwaiger@nussbaumpc.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Panzino" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Colleen Panzino and Frederick Isaacson, individually and on behalf
of all those similarly situated v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., American
Airlines, Inc.,  Southwest Airlines Co., and United Airlines,
Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01084-CKK (D.D.C., July 10, 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:

      W. Scott Simmer, Esq.
      SIMMER LAW GROUP PLLC
      600 New Hampshire Avenue, NW, Suite 10-A
      Washington, DC 20037
      Telephone: (202) 333-4562
      Facsimile: (202) 337-1039
      E-mail: scott.simmer@simmerlaw.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Silver" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eileen Silver, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. American Airlines Group, Inc., American Airlines,
Inc., Delta Airlines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., United
Continental Holdings, Inc., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-06099 (N.D. Ill., July 10, 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:

      Jayne Goldstein, Esq.
      POMERANTZ GROSSMAN HUFFORD DAHLSTROM & GROSS LLP
      1792 Bell Tower Lane, Suite 203
      Weston, FL 33326
      Telephone: (954) 315-3454
      Facsimile: (954) 315-3455
      E-mail: jagoldstein@pomlaw.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Raji" Suit Over Federal Antitrust Laws
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lilian M. Raji, 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-05384 (S.D. N.Y., July 10,
2015), seeks damages under the federal antitrust laws arising from
the Defendants' alleged conspiracy to restrict available flight
capacity and thereby to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize prices
of passenger airline tickets in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1, are brought pursuant to sections
4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.

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:

      Todd Seth Garber, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
      1311 Mamaroneck Ave, Ste. 220
      White Plains, NY 10605
      Tel: (914) 298-3281
      Fax: (914) 824-1561
      E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com


ARENA PHARMACEUTICALS: Lead Plaintiff Filed Reply Brief in Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arena Pharmaceuticals, 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 lead plaintiff
in a class action lawsuit has filed his reply brief in an appeal.

"Beginning on September 20, 2010, a number of complaints were
filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of
California against us and certain of our current and former
employees and directors on behalf of certain purchasers of our
common stock," the Company said. "The complaints were brought as
purported stockholder class actions, and, in general, include
allegations that we and certain of our current and former
employees and directors violated federal securities laws by making
materially false and misleading statements regarding our BELVIQ
program, thereby artificially inflating the price of our common
stock. The plaintiffs sought unspecified monetary damages and
other relief."

"On August 8, 2011, the Court consolidated the actions and
appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On November 1, 2011,
the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. On
March 28, 2013, the Court dismissed the consolidated amended
complaint without prejudice. On May 13, 2013, the lead plaintiff
filed a second consolidated amended complaint. On November 5,
2013, the Court dismissed the second consolidated amended
complaint without prejudice as to all parties except for Robert E.
Hoffman, who was dismissed from the action with prejudice.

"On November 27, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a motion for leave
to amend the second consolidated amended complaint. On March 20,
2014, the Court denied plaintiff's motion and dismissed the second
consolidated amended complaint with prejudice.

"On April 18, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal,
and on August 27, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed his appellate
brief in the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On October
24, 2014, we filed our answering brief in response to the lead
plaintiff's appeal. On December 5, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed
his reply brief. Due to the stage of these proceedings, we are not
able to predict or reasonably estimate the ultimate outcome or
possible losses relating to these claims."


ARROWHEAD RESEARCH: Company, CEO and COO Face Securities Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arrowhead Research 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 Company, its
Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Operating Officer have been
named as defendants in two securities class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California regarding certain public statements in connection with
the Company's hepatitis B drug research.  Both actions assert
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and seek damages in an unspecified amount.  Two
actions with similar claims under California State law are
currently pending in Los Angeles Superior Court.  Additionally,
three putative stockholder derivative actions have been filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, alleging breach of fiduciary duty by the Company's
Board of Directors in connection with the facts underlying the
Securities Claims.  Each of these seven suits seeks damages in
unspecified amounts and some seek various forms of injunctive
relief.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to
vigorously defend itself in each of the matters.


ASPEN FOODS: Recalls Frozen Chicken Products Due to Salmonella
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aspen Foods, A Division of Koch Poultry Company, a Chicago, Ill.
establishment, is recalling approximately 1,978,680 pounds of
frozen, raw, stuffed and breaded chicken product that may be
contaminated with Salmonella Enteritidis, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The frozen, raw, stuffed and breaded chicken items were produced
between April 15, 2015 and July 10, 2015 with "best if used by"
dates between July 14, 2016 and October 10, 2016.

  --- Acclaim
  --- Antioch Farms
  --- Buckley Farms
  --- Centrella Signature
  --- Chestnut Farms
  --- Family Favorites
  --- Kirkwood
  --- Koch Foods
  --- Market Day
  --- Oven Cravers
  --- Princess
  --- Rose
  --- Rosebud Farm
  --- Roundy's
  --- Safeway Kitchens
  --- Schwan's
  --- Shaner's
  --- Spartan
  --- Sysco

The product subject to recall bears the establishment number "P-
1358" inside the USDA mark of inspection. This product was shipped
to retail stores and food service locations nationwide.

FSIS was notified of a cluster of Salmonella Enteritidis illnesses
on June 23, 2015. Working in conjunction with Minnesota State
Departments of Health and Agriculture, FSIS determined that there
is a link between the frozen, raw, stuffed and breaded chicken
products from Aspen Foods and this illness cluster. Based on
epidemiological evidence and traceback investigations, three case-
patients have been identified in Minnesota with illness onset
dates ranging from May 9, 2015 to June 8, 2015. FSIS continues to
work with the Minnesota Departments of Health and Agriculture as
well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on this
investigation.

Consumption of food contaminated with Salmonella can cause
salmonellosis, one of the most common bacterial foodborne
illnesses. The most common symptoms of salmonellosis are diarrhea,
abdominal cramps, and fever within 12 to 72 hours after exposure
to the organism. The illness usually lasts 4 to 7 days. Most
people recover without treatment. In some persons, however, the
diarrhea may be so severe that the patient needs to be
hospitalized. Older adults, infants, and persons with weakened
immune systems are more likely to develop a severe illness.
Individuals concerned about an illness should contact their health
care provider.

FSIS and the company are concerned that some product may be in
consumers' freezers. Although the product subject to recall may
appear to be cooked, this product is in fact uncooked (raw) and
should be handled carefully to avoid cross-contamination in the
kitchen. Particular attention needs to be paid to safely prepare
and cook these raw poultry products to a temperature of 165ΓΈ F
checking at the center, the thickest part and the surface of the
product.

This frozen, raw, stuffed and breaded chicken product was labeled
with instructions identifying that the product was raw and
included cooking instructions for preparation. Some case-patients
reported following the cooking instructions on the label and using
a food thermometer to confirm that the recommended temperature was
achieved. Therefore, FSIS advises all consumers to treat this
product like a raw chicken product. Hands and any surfaces,
including surfaces that may have breading dislodged from the
product, should be cleaned after contact with this raw product.
Also, keep raw poultry away from other food that will not be
cooked. Use one cutting board for raw poultry and a separate one
for fresh produce and cooked foods.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls

Consumers and media with questions can contact the company
directly at (844) 277-6802.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.


AUDIENCE INC: Parties Reschedule Trial Date to March 2016
---------------------------------------------------------
Audience 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
approved a stipulation to reschedule the trial date in a class
action complaint to March 14, 2016.

On September 13, 2012, a purported shareholder filed a class
action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California
for Santa Clara County against the Company, the members of its
board of directors, two of its executive officers and the
underwriters of its IPO. An amended complaint was filed on
February 25, 2013, which purports to be brought on behalf of a
class of purchasers of the Company's common stock issued in or
traceable to the IPO.

On April 3, 2013, the outside members of the board of directors
and the underwriters were dismissed without prejudice. The amended
complaint added additional shareholder plaintiffs and contains
claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The
complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages,
rescission and attorney's fees and costs.

On March 1, 2013, defendants responded to the amended complaint by
filing a demurrer moving to dismiss the amended complaint on the
grounds that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The
court overruled that demurrer. On March 27, 2013, defendants filed
a demurrer moving to dismiss the amended complaint on other
grounds.

The Court denied the demurrer on September 4, 2013. On January 16,
2015, the court granted plaintiff's motion to certify a class. A
trial has been scheduled for September 15, 2015.

On May 1, 2015, the parties submitted a stipulation to reschedule
the trial date to March 14, 2016. The Court has not yet approved
the stipulation.

The Company believes that the allegations in the complaint are
without merit and intends to vigorously contest the action.
However, there can be no assurance that the Company will be
successful in its defense and it cannot currently estimate a range
of any possible losses the Company may experience in connection
with this case. Accordingly, the Company is unable at this time to
estimate the effects of this complaint on its financial condition,
results of operations or cash flows.


AVALANCHE BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Huang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc., Thomas W. Chalberg,
Jr., and Linda C. Bain, Case No. 3:15-cv-03185-SC (N.D. Cal., July
9, 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, issued in
connection with the Company's initial public offering

Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc. is a biotechnology company that
uses its proprietary Ocular BioFactory(TM) platform for
discovering and developing novel medicines with the potential to
offer therapeutic benefit.

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


BARRETT BUSINESS: To File Motion to Dismiss Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Barrett Business Services, Inc. intends to file a motion to
dismiss a consolidated class action 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.

On November 6, 2014, plaintiffs in Michael Arciaga, et al. v.
Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al., filed an action in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington against BBSI and Michael L. Elich and James D. Miller,
BBSI's Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer,
respectively. The action purports to be a class action brought on
behalf of all Company shareholders alleging violations of the
federal securities laws. The claims arise from the decline in the
market price for BBSI common stock following announcement of a
charge for increased workers compensation reserves expense. The
lawsuit seeks compensatory damages (in an amount to be determined
at trial), plus interest, and costs and expenses (including
attorney fees and expert fees).

On November 13, 2014, a second purported shareholder class action
was filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington, entitled Christopher P. Carnes, et al. v.
Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al. The Carnes complaint names
the same defendants as the Arciaga case and asserts similar claims
for relief.

Similarly, on November 17, 2014, a third purported shareholder
class action was filed in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington, entitled Shiva Stein, et al. v.
Barrett Business Services, Inc., et al. The Stein complaint names
the same defendants as the Arciaga and Carnes cases and asserts
similar claims for relief.

On February 25, 2015, the court ordered consolidation of the three
cases, and any new or other cases involving the same subject
matter, into a single action for pretrial purposes. The court also
appointed the Painters & Allied Trades District Council No. 35
Pension and Annuity Funds as the lead plaintiff.

On April 29, 2015, the plaintiffs in the class action filed a
consolidated amended complaint that asserts the same legal claims
as the original lawsuits. BBSI intended to file a motion to
dismiss the complaint no later than June 12, 2015. Discovery has
not been undertaken as it is automatically stayed under the
federal Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Recalls IV Solutions Due to Particulates
--------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. announced it is voluntarily recalling
two lots of intravenous (IV) solutions to the hospital/user level
due to the potential presence of particulate matter. The
particulate matter in each case was determined to be an insect and
was identified as a result of a customer complaint. The matter was
identified prior to patient administration and there have been no
adverse events associated with this issue reported to Baxter.

Injecting a product containing particulate matter, in the absence
of in-line filtration, may result in blockage of blood vessels,
which can result in stroke, heart attack or damage to other organs
such as the kidney or liver. There is also the possibility of
allergic reactions, local irritation and inflammation in tissues
and organs.

This recall affects the following lots:

  Product   Product       Lot Number   Expiration   NDC
  Code      Description   ----------   Date         ---
  ------    -----------                ----------
  2B1301    0.9 % Sodium  P319921      12/31/2015   0338-0049-11
            Chloride
            Injection,
            USP, 50 mL
            VIAFLEX
            Plastic
            Container
  2B0043    0.9% Sodium   P327635      12/30/2015   0338-0553-18
            Chloride
            Injection,
            USP, 100 mL
            MINI-BAG Plus
            Container

0.9 % Sodium Chloride Injection, USP, 50 mL VIAFLEX Plastic
Container is intended for intravenous use as a source of water and
electrolytes. 0.9% Sodium Chloride Injection, USP, 100 mL MINI-BAG
Plus Container is indicated as a source of water and electrolytes,
and may also be used as a diluent for reconstitution of a powdered
drug product packaged in a vial with a 20 mm closure.

The lots being recalled were distributed to customers and
distributors in the United States between October 7, 2014 and July
14, 2015. Baxter is directing customers not to use product from
the recalled lots. Recalled product should be returned to Baxter
for credit by contacting Baxter Healthcare Center for Service at
1-888-229-0001, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 7:00
a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Central Time. Unaffected lots of product are
available for replacement.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can call Baxter at
1-800-422-9837, Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Central Time, or e-mail Baxter at
onebaxter@baxter.com. Consumers should contact their physician or
healthcare provider if they have experienced any problems that may
be related to using these drug products.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
these products may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm

Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178.

This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.

Baxter International Inc. provides a broad portfolio of essential
renal and hospital products, including home, acute and in-center
dialysis; sterile IV solutions; infusion systems and devices;
parenteral nutrition; biosurgery products and anesthetics; and
pharmacy automation, software and services. The company's global
footprint and the critical nature of its products and services
play a key role in expanding access to healthcare in emerging and
developed countries. Baxter's 50,000 employees worldwide are
building upon the company's rich heritage of medical breakthroughs
to advance the next generation of healthcare innovations that
enable patient care.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm455377.htm


BP: Lafayette to Tap Law Firm to Resolve Settlement Claim
---------------------------------------------------------
Richard Burgess, writing for The Acadiana Advocate, reports that
the Lafayette Consolidated Government is reaching out to a New
Orleans law firm to help navigate a possible settlement payment
from BP in the massive class-action lawsuit for losses linked to
the 2010 Gulf oil spill.

BP agreed to a tentative settlement earlier this month to pay the
federal government, Louisiana and four other states a total $18.7
billion.  Louisiana is set to receive $6.8 billion, and local
governments across the Gulf Coast are in line to share up to $1
billion.

Several public entities in the state already have reached
settlement agreements, but Lafayette's claim for a share of the BP
pie has yet to be resolved.  The city-parish filed a claim in
2013.

City-parish officials argue the spill cooled the local economy and
pulled down the sales tax revenue that fuels the city-parish
budget.

East Baton Rouge Parish made similar claims and recently agreed to
a $2.1 million settlement with BP.

Lafayette officials have declined to talk about how much money
they are seeking or any aspect of the negotiations.

The council discussed the issue in a closed-door executive session
on July 7 but took no action.

The council on July 14 is set to review a proposed contract with
the New Orleans law firm of Lewis, Kullman, Sterbcow & Abramson to
handle settlement negotiations and to advise city-parish
government on whether it should "accept proposed payments, appeal
or opt out of the settlement," according to documents filed with
the council.

A final vote on the contract is set for Aug. 4. The law firm's fee
would be up to 15 percent of any payout.

Any money Lafayette receives in a settlement likely would have no
strings attached and could be used for whatever leaders decide.

City-Parish President Joey Durel said in an email that there are
no plans yet.

"Since we are uncertain of where this might go, we have not had
any discussion," he said.

City-Parish Council Chairman Kenneth Boudreaux said he is
reluctant to even consider how any extra cash might be spent,
considering the uncertainty of the settlement.

"We definitely don't want to jump the gun on anything," he said.

The city-parish is one of several public entities in Acadiana that
have made a claim in the BP case.

Others include the Acadia Parish School Board; Franklin; St. Mary
Parish government; the St. Mary Parish School Board; the Lafayette
Convention and Visitors Commission; and the Twin Parish Port
District in Delcambre.


C&J ENERGY: No Briefing Schedule Yet on Motion to Dismiss
---------------------------------------------------------
C&J Energy Services 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 a briefing schedule
has not yet been entered on the C&J Defendants' motion to dismiss
the lawsuit, City of Miami General Employees' and Sanitation
Employees' Retirement Trust, et al. ("Plaintiff") v. C&J Energy
Services, Inc., et al.

On March 24, 2015, C&J Energy Services, Inc. ("Legacy C&J") and
Nabors Industries Ltd. ("Nabors") completed the combination of
Legacy C&J with Nabors' completion and production services
business (the "C&P Business"), whereby Legacy C&J became a
subsidiary of C&J Energy Services Ltd (the "Merger").

In July 2014, following the announcement Legacy C&J, Nabors, and
New C&J had entered into the Merger Agreement, a putative class
action lawsuit was filed by a purported stockholder of Legacy C&J
challenging the Merger. The lawsuit is styled City of Miami
General Employees' and Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust, et
al. ("Plaintiff") v. C&J Energy Services, Inc., et al.; C.A. No.
9980-VCN, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, filed
on July 30, 2014 (the "Lawsuit"). Plaintiff in the Lawsuit
generally alleges that the board of directors for Legacy C&J
breached fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, good faith, candor
and independence by allegedly approving the Merger Agreement at an
unfair price and through an unfair process. Plaintiff specifically
alleges that the Legacy C&J board directors, or certain of them
(i) failed to fully inform themselves of the market value of
Legacy C&J, maximize its value and obtain the best price
reasonably available for Legacy C&J, (ii) acted in bad faith and
for improper motives, (iii) erected barriers to discourage other
strategic alternatives and (iv) put their personal interests ahead
of the interests of Legacy C&J stockholders. The Lawsuit further
alleges that C&J, Nabors and Red Lion aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Legacy C&J board of
directors.

On November 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction. On November 24, 2014, the Court of Chancery entered a
bench ruling, followed by a written order on November 25, 2014,
that (i) ordered certain members of the Legacy C&J board of
directors to solicit for a period of 30 days alternative proposals
to purchase Legacy C&J (or a controlling stake in Legacy C&J) that
was superior to the Merger, and (ii) preliminarily enjoined Legacy
C&J from holding its stockholder meeting until it had complied
with the foregoing. The order provided that the solicitation of
proposals consistent with the order, and any subsequent
negotiations of any alternative proposal that emerges, would not
constitute a breach of the Merger Agreement in any respect.

Legacy C&J complied with the Court of Chancery's order while it
simultaneously pursued an expedited appeal of the Court of
Chancery's order to the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. On
November 26, 2014, in response to, and in compliance with, the
Court of Chancery's order, the C&J board of directors established
a special committee, which retained separate legal and financial
advisors, to proceed with the ordered solicitation.

On December 19, 2014, following oral argument, the Delaware
Supreme Court overturned the decision of the Court of Chancery and
vacated the order. As such, Legacy C&J's special committee
immediately discontinued the solicitation required by the order.
On March 25, 2015, the C&J Defendants filed a motion to dismiss. A
briefing schedule on this motion has not yet been entered.

"We cannot predict the outcome of this or any other lawsuit that
might be filed, nor can we predict the amount of time and expense
that will be required to resolve the Lawsuit. We believe the
Lawsuit is without merit and we intend to defend against it
vigorously," the Company said.


CARMA CINCO: Faces "Constenla" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gustavo Alejandro Constenla and all others similarly situated v.
Carma Cinco, LLC d/b/a The Knife, Carma LLC d/b/a The Knife, Jose
Cejas, Guillermo Palmeiro, Case No. 1:15-cv-22584-JEM (S.D. Fla.,
July 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime and minimum wages for work performed in excess of 40
hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate The Knife restaurant in Dade
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CELADON GROUP: Appealed Judgment in "Wilmoth" Case
--------------------------------------------------
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, Celadon Group, Inc. said that, "Our subsidiary has been
named as the defendant in Wilmoth et al. v. Celadon Trucking
Services, Inc., a class action proceeding. A summary judgment was
recently granted in favor of the plaintiffs. We have appealed this
judgment. We believe that we will be successful on appeal, but
that it is also reasonably possible the judgment will be upheld.
We estimate the possible range of costs associated with this claim
to be between $0 and approximately $5 million. We currently do not
have a contingency reserved for this claim, but will continue to
monitor the progress of this claim to determine if a reserve is
necessary in the future."


CELLADON CORP: Faces "Jacobs" Suit Over Securities Laws Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Norman Jacobs, and all others similarly-situated v. Celladon
Corporation, Kristina M. Zsebo and Rebecque J. Laba, Case No.
3:15-cv-01529 (S.D. Cal., July 10, 2015), seeks to recover
compensable damages pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

This is a federal class action on behalf of persons who purchased
Celladon securities between July 7, 2014 and June 25, 2015,
inclusive.

Celladon is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San Diego,
California. It is a clinical-stage biotechnology company. Its
common stock trades on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "CLDN."

Ms. Zsebo was, at all relevant times, the Company's CEO and a
member of its Board until May 29, 2015, at which time she resigned
from the Company. During the Class Period, Zsebo sold 226,397
shares of Celladon stock for proceeds of over $4.1 million.

Ms. Laba was, at all relevant times, the Company's Vice President,
Core Operations. Laba sold 79,012 shares of Celladon stock for
proceeds of over $1.3 million.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrice L. Bishop, Esq.
      STULL, STULL & BRODY
      9430 West Olympic Blvd, Suite 400
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Tel: (310) 209-2468
      Fax: (310) 209-2087
      E-mail: service@ssbla.com


CHIQUITA BRANDS: Appeals Court Tosses "Reverse FOIA Request"
------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Beck, writing for Law.com, reports that Chiquita Brands
International Inc. and its lawyers at Covington & Burling have
failed to stop the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission from
releasing sensitive documents it obtained during its investigation
of a Chiquita subsidiary's payments to Colombian paramilitary
groups.  The SEC has agreed to release these documents to the
nonprofit National Security Archive, which had sought them through
a Freedom of Information Act request.

In a ruling on July 17, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit rejected the company's "reverse FOIA request," as it's
known.  Upholding a lower court, the appellate court held that
Chiquita could not block the release of these documents by
claiming that the information would jeopardize its right to a fair
trial.  Chiquita is a defendant in a pending human rights case in
Florida brought by Colombian citizens who were tortured by the
paramilitary and by family members of those who were murdered.

Last year, Covington convinced the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit to dismiss claims filed under the Alien Tort
Statute, because the alleged human rights abuses occurred outside
the U.S. But other claims under Columbian law remain.

Chiquita had turned over these documents to the SEC more than a
decade ago when the agency was investigating payments made to the
paramilitary group by the subsidiary, called Banadex.  At the time
the company asked the SEC to treat them as confidential.  In 2001
the company reached a cease-and-desist settlement with the SEC on
record-keeping charges.  In 2007 the company pled guilty to a
felony charge brought by the U.S. Department of Justice accusing
it of engaging in unauthorized transactions with a global
terrorist organization.  The company, which has admitted making
payments from 1997 to 2004, has maintained that it did this to
protect its Colombian employees from being kidnapped, injured or
murdered.

In 2008 the National Security Archive, which is located at George
Washington University, filed FOIA requests with the SEC, asking
for documents related to the Banadex investigation.  The SEC
agreed to turn over 23 boxes of documents, including forms
describing the payments to the paramilitary group, legal documents
and transcripts of depositions of Chiquita's employees. (The SEC
has agreed to redact certain names.)

Covington argued that because the archive supports the Florida
plaintiffs' counsel, the plaintiffs would surely get these
documents and Chiquita would be deprived of a fair trial.
Discovery in the Florida case is stayed, so this FOIA release
would give the plaintiffs access to these documents before they
would have gotten them in the litigation.  Covington pointed to an
exception in FOIA that allows the withholding of documents if
their release would deprive someone of a fair trial or an
impartial adjudication.

The D.C. Circuit, in an opinion authored by Judge Thomas Griffith,
stated that the company wouldn't be deprived of a fair trial
merely because the plaintiffs got a head start on discovery.  The
court also rejected the company's position that this FOIA release
was unfair because it wouldn't be able to get protective orders
for some documents, as it could in the litigation.  "[This
exemption] is not a tool to protect reputation and privacy
interests unless the damage disclosure might pose to such
interests is likely to impact the ultimate fairness of a trial,"
wrote the court in an opinion that was joined by Judges Brett
Kavanaugh and Robert Wilkins.

Mark Lynch of Covington, the lead appellate counsel for Chiquita,
referred Law.com to his client for comment.  Law.com reached out
to Chiquita but did not hear back.

Sarah Hancur was the lead lawyer for the SEC.

Adina Rosenbaum of Public Citizen Litigation Group argued for the
National Security Archive.  "The court of appeals' decision is an
important victory for FOIA requesters and the public," said
Rosenbaum in a press release.  "The decision confirms that the
government cannot withhold documents from the public just because
they might be of interest to someone involved in litigation.  A
ruling for Chiquita would have created a huge exemption to the
FOIA law, with far-reaching implications."


CHRISTIE'S CABARET: Exotic Dancers File Labor Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Sean Holstege, writing for The Arizona Republic, reports that
about 120 exotic dancers are suing a Phoenix-area strip club for
what the performers claim are unfair labor practices, in what has
become a growing and lucrative area of legal practice around the
country.

Days before the most recent hearing in the Christie's Cabaret case
this month, about 4,000 dancers in Florida won a $6 million
settlement in an almost identical case.

Houston-based law firm Kennedy Hodges brought both cases.  The
company also won a similar case in Dallas, has ongoing cases in
North Carolina and Texas, and its attorneys have sued the Alaska
Bush Co. and Bliss Show Club in Phoenix, said Beatriz Sosa-Morris,
the attorney representing the Christie's dancers.

Other firms have filed similar cases around the country in recent
months.

Christie's dancers have banded together in a class-action labor-
rights lawsuit in federal court, claiming that since 2011, clubs
in Phoenix and Tempe and their corporate owners have illegally
classified them as independent contractors, rather than employees.
The suit, filed in May 2014, seeks to recover overtime pay and
unpaid hourly minimum-wage earnings.

Lawyers for Christie's countered in U.S. District Court filings
that the clubs have no record of some of the women ever working
there.  Lawyers also argued that the women mistakenly sued some
wrong corporate entities and that they entered agreements to
dance, knowing they were not employees.

Records filed in court show that dancers are required to sign an
"Independent Contractor Agreement," which states, "Company and
contractor intend to create an independent relationship," and were
not entering a relationship as employer and employee.  In essence,
the dancers were paying fees to lease the stage, DJ, lighting and
venue in exchange for being allowed to keep their tips.

The dancers and their attorney Sosa-Morris describe a workplace
where the dancers are routinely exploited and strict rules govern
almost every aspect of their work shifts.

"These clubs will just take, take, take from the dancers,"
Ms. Sosa-Morris said.  "These dancers are a lot of times abused by
the system and just tossed into the sex industry."

La'Shaunta Cooper, in a written statement in court, said she
worked at the Tempe club for two years and that "the ultimate
factors which control how much money we can make at Christie's
Cabaret are largely out of our control."

Ms. Cooper said in addition to required tips to the DJ, "house
mom," bouncers and managers, she had to pay a set house fee as
well as any fines for arriving late, leaving early or violating
rules.

Those rules are set forth in a seven-page document filed in court.
Examples include: "no gum," "no negativity" and, "Don't talk about
your personal problems to a customer.  They are there to forget
theirs."

Christie's lawyers declined to comment for this story, but the
club maintains in court records that it has no control over the
dancers, whom it says simply lease space.

The case is still in its early stages.  Rulings are expected near
the end of the year with the case, if there is no settlement.


CITIGROUP INC: Accord Reached in NJ Carpenters Fund Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup 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 on February 2, 2015,
Citigroup Global Markets Inc. (CGMI) and its remaining co-
defendants filed a stipulation of agreement and settlement in the
class action NEW JERSEY CARPENTERS HEALTH FUND, ET AL. v.
RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL, LLC, ET AL.  This settlement is subject to
court approval.  Additional information relating to this action is
publicly available in court filings under the docket number 08
Civ. 8781 (S.D.N.Y.) (Failla, J.).

CITIGROUP INC: Dismissal of ISDAFIX-Related Litigation Sought
-------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup 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 beginning in September
2014, various plaintiffs filed putative class actions in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Citigroup and other USD ISDAFIX panel banks, which are
proceeding on a consolidated basis. On April 13, 2015, defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the claims in plaintiffs' amended
consolidated complaint. Additional information concerning these
actions is publicly available in court filings under the
consolidated lead docket number 1:14-cv-7126 (S.D.N.Y.) (Furman,
J.).


COLE COUNTY: Detainees File Suit Over Jail Clothing Laundry Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Garrett Bergquist, writing for Connectmidmissouri.com, reports
that court action began on July 17 on a lawsuit claiming Cole
County Jail inmates were forced to go naked while their clothes
were laundered.

According to a class action suit filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Missouri, detainees at the Cole County
Jail were given one set of clothing.  In the suit, the detainees
claimed if they wanted their clothes to be laundered, they would
have to remain naked in their cell until they get their clothes
back.  On July 17, a federal judge denied a request by the
plaintiffs for a temporary restraining order forcing the jail to
provide additional clothing.

Jason Ludwig, who is representing one current and two former jail
detainees in the case, said he has never seen a case such as this
before.  He said the practice of issuing a single set of clothing
represents a health risk to inmates who either choose not to
launder their clothes or try to hand-wash them.  Since jail rules
forbid covering vents or draping clothing on racks, he said
inmates would have to wear wet clothes after hand-washing them.

"I've heard of people who just go as long as possible without
washing their clothes, which of course creates a hygiene problem,"
he said.

Jail rules state inmates will receive one full set of clothing and
may not wear personal clothes.  Jail-issued clothing is exchanged
for clean items at pre-scheduled intervals.

Michael Berry is representing Sheriff Greg White in the lawsuit.
He said the jail alternates between laundering outer garments and
undergarments, and inmates are never asked to go without clothing.
Moreover, he said laundry is done at night, when inmates are
sleeping.

"Nobody has ever been punished for sleeping in their outerwear,"
he said, adding unavailability due to laundering would undoubtedly
be an exception to jail rules requiring inmates to be clothed at
all times.

A preliminary injunction hearing on the suit is scheduled for
Aug. 14.


CORAL MARINE: "Ariano" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Ariano, and all others similarly situated v. Coral
Marine Services, LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv-02035 (W.D. La., July 10,
2015), seeks to recover from Defendant unpaid wages, interest,
liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Coral Marine Services, LLC in the business of marine and
industrial tank cleaning, gas freeing and marine salvage. It is
headquartered in Amelia, Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Henry Beaumont, Esq.
      William H Beaumont Law
      3801 Canal St Ste 207
      New Orleans, LA 70119
      Tel: (504) 483-8008
      E-mail: whbeaumont@gmail.com


CVB FINANCIAL: Court of Appeals Has Not Scheduled Oral Argument
---------------------------------------------------------------
CVB Financial 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 court of appeals
has not scheduled oral argument in a class action appeal.

The Company said, "On July 26, 2010, we received a subpoena from
the Los Angeles office of the SEC regarding the Company's
allowance for loan loss methodology, loan underwriting guidelines,
methodology for grading loans, and the process for making
provisions for loan losses. In addition, the subpoena requested
information regarding certain presentations Company officers have
given or conferences Company officers have attended with analysts,
brokers, investors or prospective investors. We have fully
cooperated with the SEC in its investigation, and we will continue
to do so if and to the extent any further information is
requested, although we have not been contacted by the SEC in
connection with this matter since October 2011. We cannot predict
the timing or outcome of the SEC investigation or if it is still
continuing."

"In the wake of the Company's disclosure of the SEC investigation,
on August 23, 2010, a purported shareholder class action complaint
was filed against the Company, in an action captioned Lloyd v. CVB
Financial Corp., et al., Case No. CV 10-06256-MMM, in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.
Along with the Company, Christopher D. Myers (our President and
Chief Executive Officer) and Edward J. Biebrich, Jr. (our former
Chief Financial Officer) were also named as defendants.

"On September 14, 2010, a second purported shareholder class
action complaint was filed against the Company, in an action
originally captioned Englund v. CVB Financial Corp., et al., Case
No. CV 10-06815-RGK, in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California. The Englund complaint named the
same defendants as the Lloyd complaint and made allegations
substantially similar to those included in the Lloyd complaint."

On January 21, 2011, the District Court consolidated the two
actions for all purposes under the Lloyd action, now captioned as
Case No. CV 10-06256-MMM (PJWx). That same day, the District Court
also appointed the Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund (the
"Jacksonville Fund") as lead plaintiff in the consolidated action
and approved the Jacksonville Fund's selection of lead counsel for
the plaintiffs in the consolidated action.

On March 7, 2011, the Jacksonville Fund filed a consolidated
complaint naming the same defendants and alleging violations by
all defendants of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and violations by the
individual defendants of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented
and failed to disclose conditions adversely affecting the Company
throughout the purported class period, which is alleged to be
between October 21, 2009 and August 9, 2010. The consolidated
complaint sought compensatory damages and other relief in favor of
the purported class.

Following the filing by each side of various motions and briefs,
and a hearing on August 29, 2011, the District Court issued a
ruling on January 12, 2012, granting defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint, but the ruling provided the plaintiffs
with leave to file an amended complaint within 45 days of the date
of the order.

On February 27, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a first amended
complaint against the same defendants, and, following filings by
both sides and another hearing on June 4, 2012, the District Court
issued a ruling on August 21, 2012, granting defendants' motion to
dismiss the first amended complaint, but providing the plaintiffs
with leave to file another amended complaint within 30 days of the
ruling. On September 20, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint against the same defendants, the Company filed
its third motion to dismiss on October 25, 2012, and following
another hearing on February 25, 2013, the District Court issued an
order dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint for the third time on
May 9, 2013.

Although the District Court's May 2013 order of dismissal provided
the plaintiffs with leave to file a third amended and restated
complaint within 30 days of the issuance of the order, on June 3,
2013, counsel for the plaintiffs instead filed a Notice of Intent
Not to File an Amended Complaint, along with a request that the
District Court convert its order to a dismissal with prejudice, so
that plaintiffs could proceed straight to appeal at the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On September 30, 2013, the District Court entered its order
dismissing the plaintiffs' second amended complaint with
prejudice, and the plaintiffs filed their notice of appeal on
October 24, 2013.

With respect to the appeal, the plaintiffs' opening brief was
filed on June 7, 2014, the Company's reply brief was filed on July
7, 2014, and the plaintiff's rebuttal brief was filed on August
20, 2014. It is expected that the Court of Appeals will schedule
oral argument at some point within the next nine to twelve months,
and would then issue its opinion at some point nine to twelve
months thereafter."

The Company intends to continue to vigorously contest the
plaintiff's allegations in this case.


CY'S KING: Sued in N.D. Ill. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Guillermo Quintero-Robles, individually and on behalf of other
employees similarly situated v. Cy's King Crab, Oyster Bar and
Grill, Inc. and Nooshin Sadeghu, Case No. 1:15-cv-06119 (N.D.
Ill., July 12, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant on Milwaukee Avenue in
Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Erik Stevens, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 219-6838
      E-mail: dstevens@yourclg.com


D&D FOODS: Recalls Macaroni Salad Due to Milk and Wheat
-------------------------------------------------------
D&D Foods, Inc., based in Omaha, Nebraska, is recalling 3-pound
containers of Hy-Vee American Macaroni Salad because they were
incorrectly labeled and may contain undeclared milk and wheat
(gluten). People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk
and wheat (gluten) run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The mislabeled 3-pound Hy-Vee American Macaroni Salad product was
distributed by D&D Foods, a wholly owned subsidiary of Hy-Vee,
Inc., to all of Hy-Vee's 236 grocery stores located in Iowa,
Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, South Dakota and
Wisconsin.

The affected product is typically sold in stores' ready-to-eat
refrigerated cases near the delicatessen. It is packaged in a
frosted clear plastic tub with a black plastic lid. The recalled
product is labeled as "Hy-Vee American Macaroni Salad" on the lid
but "Hy-Vee Dijon Mustard Potato Salad" on the tub. The product is
actually Hy-Vee American Macaroni Salad containing milk and wheat
(gluten) ingredients, which are not declared on the tub.

The recalled product has a best if used date of "7/31/2015" and a
production lot code of "15177D" located on the side of the frosted
clear tub. Only one product size and lot are affected by this
recall.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The recall was initiated after the incorrect packaging was
discovered during routine product review.

Consumers who have purchased Hy-Vee American Macaroni Salad in
these mismarked containers are urged to return it to any nearby
Hy-Vee store for a full refund. Consumers with questions may
contact Hy-Vee Customer Care representatives 24 hours a day, seven
days a week at 1-800-772-4098.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm455097.htm


DIODES INC: No Schedule Yet for Argument in Class Suit Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Diodes Incorporated 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
set a date for argument in a class action appeal.

On September 15, 2014, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas issued an order regarding the putative
securities class action entitled Local 731 I.B. of T. Excavators
and Pavers Pension Trust Fund v. Diodes, Inc., Civil Action No.
6:13- cv-00247 (E.D. Tex. filed Mar. 15, 2013) (the "Class
Action"), granting defendants' motion to dismiss the Class Action
with prejudice. On October 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal to the order dismissing the Class Action to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The appeal is fully
briefed.  The Court has not yet set a date for argument.


EBIX INC: To Defend Stockholder Litigation
------------------------------------------
Ebix, 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 Company intends to defend the Ebix,
Inc. Stockholder Litigation vigorously.

"Following our announcement on May 1, 2013 of the Company's
execution of a merger agreement with affiliates of
Goldman Sachs & Co., twelve putative class action complaints
challenging the proposed merger were filed in the Delaware Court
of Chancery," the Company said.

These complaints name as Defendants some combination of the
Company, its directors, Goldman Sachs & Co. and affiliated
entities. On June 10, 2013, the twelve complaints were
consolidated by the Delaware Court of Chancery, now captioned In
re Ebix, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, CA No. 8526-VCN.

On June 19, 2013, the Company announced that the merger agreement
had been terminated pursuant to a Termination and Settlement
Agreement. After Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
proceeding, Lead Plaintiffs amended their operative complaint to
drop their claims against Goldman Sachs & Co. and focus their
allegations on an Acquisition Bonus Agreement ("ABA") between the
Company and Robin Raina. On September 26, 2013, Defendants moved
to dismiss the Amended Consolidated Complaint.

On July 24, 2014, the Court issued its Memorandum Opinion. The
only surviving counts are as follows: (i) Counts II and IV, but
only to the extent the Plaintiffs seek non-monetary relief for
alleged material misstatements related to the ABA base price in
the 2010 Proxy Statement; (ii) Count II, but only to the extent it
challenges the continued existence of the ABA as an alleged
unreasonable anti-takeover device; and, (iii) Count V, but only to
the extent that it relates to the compensation the Board received
under the Company's 2010 Stock Incentive Plan.

On September 15, 2014, the Court entered an Order implementing its
Memorandum Opinion.

On January 16, 2015, the Court entered an Order permitting
Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended and Supplemented Complaint. On
February 10, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second
Amended and Supplemented Complaint, which is pending. The Company
denies any liability and intends to defend the action vigorously.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: AMS to Fund Mesh Case Settlements by 2017
-------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International Plc 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's AMS
business and certain plaintiffs' counsel representing mesh-related
product liability claimants, as of March 31, 2015, have entered
into various Master Settlement Agreements (MSAs) regarding
settling up to approximately 45,600 filed and unfiled mesh claims
handled or controlled by the participating counsel.  AMS expects
to fund the payments under all settlement agreements by December
31, 2017.

On October 20, 2008, the FDA issued a Public Health Notification
regarding potential complications associated with transvaginal
placement of surgical mesh to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP)
and stress urinary incontinence (SUI). The notification provides
recommendations and encourages physicians to seek specialized
training in mesh procedures, to advise their patients about the
risks associated with these procedures and to be diligent in
diagnosing and reporting complications.

In July 2011, the FDA issued an update to the October 2008 Public
Health Notification regarding mesh to further advise the public
and the medical community of the potential complications
associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh to treat
POP and SUI. In this July 2011 update, the FDA maintained that
adverse events are not rare, as previously reported, and
questioned the relative effectiveness of transvaginal mesh as a
treatment for POP as compared to non-mesh surgical repair. The
July 2011 notification continued to encourage physicians to seek
specialized training in mesh procedures, to consider and to advise
their patients about the risks associated with these procedures
and to be diligent in diagnosing and reporting complications. The
FDA also convened an advisory panel which met on September 8-9,
2011 to further address the safety and effectiveness of
transvaginal surgical mesh used to treat POP and SUI. At the
conclusion of the meetings, the advisory panel recommended
reclassifying transvaginal mesh products used to treat POP to
Class III devices (premarket approval) and recommended that
manufacturers of these products be required to conduct additional
post-market surveillance studies. The advisory panel recommended
that transvaginal surgical mesh products used to treat SUI remain
as Class II devices. Regarding retropubic and transobturator (TOT)
slings, the advisory panel recommended that no additional post-
market surveillance studies are necessary. Regarding mini-slings,
the advisory panel recommended premarket studies for new devices
and additional post-market surveillance studies.

On January 3, 2012, the FDA ordered manufacturers of transvaginal
surgical mesh used for POP and of single incision mini-slings for
urinary incontinence, such as our subsidiary AMS, to conduct post-
market safety studies and to monitor adverse event rates relating
to the use of these products. AMS received a total of nineteen
class-wide post-market study orders regarding its pelvic floor
repair and mini-sling products; however, the FDA agreed to place
sixteen of these study orders on hold for a variety of reasons.
Three of these post-market study orders remain active and AMS is
continuing the process of complying with these orders. In these
orders, the FDA also noted that it is still considering the
recommendation of the September 9, 2011 advisory committee that
urogynecological surgical mesh for transvaginal repair of POP be
reclassified from Class II to Class III.

On April 29, 2014, the FDA issued a statement proposing to
reclassify surgical mesh for transvaginal pelvic organ prolapse
repair from Class II to Class III. Further, the FDA proposed to
reclassify urogynecologic surgical mesh instrumentation from Class
I to Class II, and to establish special controls for surgical
instrumentation for use with urogynecologic surgical mesh. The FDA
stated that it was proposing these changes based on the tentative
determination that general controls by themselves are insufficient
to provide reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of
these devices. Although this proposal was subject to a 90-day
comment period, to date the FDA has not taken further action
regarding these proposals.

Since 2008, AMS, and more recently, in certain cases the Company
or certain of its subsidiaries, have been named as defendants in
multiple lawsuits in various state courts, a multidistrict
litigation (MDL) in the Southern District of West Virginia (MDL
No. 2325), as well as in Canada, where various class action and
individual complaints are pending, and other countries outside the
United States alleging personal injury resulting from the use of
transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat POP and SUI.
Plaintiffs in these suits allege various personal injuries
including chronic pain, incontinence and inability to control
bowel function and permanent deformities.

As of March 31, 2015, AMS and certain plaintiffs' counsel
representing mesh-related product liability claimants have entered
into various Master Settlement Agreements (MSAs) regarding
settling up to approximately 45,600 filed and unfiled mesh claims
handled or controlled by the participating counsel. These MSAs,
which were executed at various times from June 14, 2013 through
March 31, 2015, were entered into solely by way of compromise and
settlement and are not in any way an admission of liability or
fault by the Company or AMS. All MSAs are subject to a process
that includes guidelines and procedures for administering the
settlements and the release of funds. In certain cases, the MSAs
provide for the creation of Qualified Settlement Funds (QSFs) into
which funds may be deposited pursuant to certain schedules set
forth in those agreements. All MSAs have participation thresholds
requiring participation by the majority of claims represented by
each law firm. If certain participation thresholds are not met,
then AMS will have the right to terminate the settlement with that
law firm.

In addition, one agreement gives AMS a unilateral right of
approval regarding which claims may be eligible to participate
under that settlement. To the extent fewer claims than are
authorized under an agreement participate, the total settlement
payment under that agreement will be reduced by an agreed-upon
amount for each such non-participating claim. Funds deposited in
Qualified Settlement Funds are included in Restricted cash and
cash equivalents in the March 31, 2015 Condensed Consolidated
Balance Sheets.

Distribution of funds to any individual claimant is conditioned
upon the receipt of documentation substantiating the validity of
the claim, a full release and a dismissal of the entire action or
claim as to all AMS parties and affiliates. Prior to receiving
funds, an individual claimant shall represent and warrant that
liens, assignment rights, or other claims that are identified in
the claims administration process have been or will be satisfied
by the individual claimant. The amount of settlement awards to
participating claimants, the claims evaluation process and
procedures used in conjunction with award distributions, and the
negotiations leading to the settlement shall be kept confidential
by all parties and their counsel.

AMS expects to fund the payments under all settlement agreements
by December 31, 2017. As the funds are disbursed out of the
Qualified Settlement Funds from time to time, the product
liability accrual will be reduced accordingly with a corresponding
reduction to Restricted cash and cash equivalents. In addition,
the Company may pay cash distributions to settle disputes separate
from the Qualified Settlement Funds, which will also decrease the
product liability accrual but will not decrease Restricted cash
and cash equivalents.

AMS and the Company intend to contest vigorously all currently
remaining pending cases and any future cases that may be brought,
if any, and to continue to explore other options as appropriate in
the best interests of the Company and AMS.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 640 MCP Cases Pending as of May 1
-----------------------------------------------------
Endo International Plc 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 approximately 640 MCP
cases, some of which may have been filed on behalf of multiple
plaintiffs, are currently pending against Qualitest and/or the
Company or certain of its subsidiaries as of May 1, 2015.


Qualitest, and in certain cases the Company or certain of its
subsidiaries, along with several other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, have been named as defendants in numerous lawsuits
in various federal and state courts alleging personal injury
resulting from the use of the prescription medicine
metoclopramide. Plaintiffs in these suits allege various personal
injuries including tardive dyskinesia, other movement disorders
and death. Qualitest and the Company intend to contest all of
these cases vigorously and to explore other options as appropriate
in the best interests of the Company and Qualitest.

"Litigation similar to that described above may also be brought by
other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions. However, we cannot
predict the timing or outcome of any such litigation, or whether
any additional litigation will be brought against the Company or
its subsidiaries," the Company said.

As of May 1, 2015, approximately 640 MCP cases, some of which may
have been filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs, are currently
pending against Qualitest and/or the Company or certain of its
subsidiaries.

In 2014, the Company and its subsidiaries have reached an
agreement with certain plaintiffs' counsel in an effort to reach
resolution of substantially all of these pending MCP cases. The
agreement was entered into solely by way of compromise and
settlement and is not in any way an admission of liability or
fault by the Company or any of its subsidiaries. An essential
element of these settlements will be participation by the majority
of plaintiffs involved in pending litigation. If certain
participation thresholds are not met, the Company will have the
right to terminate the agreements.

Distribution of funds to any individual plaintiff will be
conditioned upon, among other things a full release and a
dismissal with prejudice of the entire action or claim as to the
Company and/or each of its subsidiaries. Prior to receiving an
award, an individual claimant shall represent and warrant that
liens, assignment rights, or other claims that are identified in
the claims administration process have been or will be satisfied
by the individual claimant. The amount of settlement awards to
participating plaintiffs, claimants, the claims evaluation process
and procedures used in conjunction with award distributions, and
the negotiations leading to the settlement shall be kept
confidential by all parties and their counsel.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 46 Propoxyphene Cases Pending as of May 1
-------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International Plc 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 as of May 1, 2015,
approximately 46 propoxyphene cases, some of which may have been
filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs, are currently pending
against Qualitest and/or the Company.

Qualitest and, in certain cases, the Company or certain of its
subsidiaries, along with several other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, have been named as defendants in numerous lawsuits
originally filed in various federal and state courts alleging
personal injury resulting from the use of prescription pain
medicines containing propoxyphene. Plaintiffs in these suits
allege various personal injuries including cardiac impairment,
damage and death.

In August 2011, a multidistrict litigation (MDL) was formed, and
certain transferable cases pending in federal court were
coordinated in the Eastern District of Kentucky as part of MDL No.
2226. On March 5, 2012 and June 22, 2012, pursuant to a standing
show cause order, the MDL Judge dismissed with prejudice certain
claims against generic manufacturers, including Qualitest and the
Company. Certain plaintiffs appealed those decisions to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

On June 27, 2014, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the
cases that had been pending as part of a consolidated appeal. In
November 2012, additional cases were filed in various California
state courts.

While many of these cases were initially remanded and pending in a
state court coordinated proceeding in Los Angeles, the Ninth
Circuit sitting en banc has reversed these remands, finding
federal subject matter jurisdiction. As a result, these actions
have been returned to the federal courts to which they were
initially removed.

On November 18, 2014, additional multi-plaintiff cases were filed
in state court in Oklahoma. Litigation similar to that described
above may also be brought by other plaintiffs in various
jurisdictions.

"However, we cannot predict the timing or outcome of any such
litigation, or whether any additional litigation will be brought
against the Company or its subsidiaries, but Qualitest and the
Company intend to contest the litigation vigorously and to explore
all options as appropriate in the best interests of Qualitest and
the Company," Endo said.

As of May 1, 2015, approximately 46 propoxyphene cases, some of
which may have been filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs, are
currently pending against Qualitest and/or the Company. The
Company and its subsidiaries are unable to predict the outcome of
this matter or the ultimate legal and financial liability, if any,
and at this time cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or
range of loss, if any, for this matter.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 296 Testosterone Cases Pending as of April 29
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International Plc 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 approximately 296
Testosterone Cases are currently pending against the Company
and/or its subsidiaries; some of which may have been filed on
behalf of multiple plaintiffs, and including a class action
complaint filed in Canada as of April 29, 2015.

EPI, and in certain cases the Company or certain of its
subsidiaries, including its new subsidiary Auxilium
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., along with other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, have been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging
personal injury resulting from the use of prescription medications
containing testosterone, including Fortesta(R) Gel,
Delatestryl(R), Testim(R), TESTOPEL(R) and Striant(R). Plaintiffs
in these suits allege various personal injuries including
pulmonary embolism, stroke, and other vascular and/or cardiac
injuries.

In June 2014, an MDL was formed to include claims involving all
testosterone replacement therapies filed against EPI, Auxilium,
and other manufacturers of such products, and certain transferable
cases pending in federal court were coordinated in the Northern
District of Illinois as part of MDL No. 2545. In addition to the
federal cases filed against EPI and Auxilium that have been
transferred to the Northern District of Illinois as tag-along
actions to MDL No. 2545, litigation has also been filed against
EPI in the Court of Common Pleas Philadelphia County and in
certain other state courts. Litigation similar to that described
above may also be brought by other plaintiffs in various
jurisdictions, and cases brought in federal court will be
transferred to the Northern District of Illinois as tag-along
actions to MDL No. 2545.

"However, we cannot predict the timing or outcome of any such
litigation, or whether any such additional litigation will be
brought against the Company and/or its subsidiaries. The Company
and its subsidiaries intend to contest the litigation vigorously
and to explore all options as appropriate in the best interests of
the Company," Endo said.

As of April 29, 2015, approximately 296 cases are currently
pending against the Company and/or its subsidiaries; some of which
may have been filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs, and
including a class action complaint filed in Canada.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Lidoderm(R) Case Trial to Begin April 2017
--------------------------------------------------------------
Endo International Plc 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 cases filed by
multiple direct and indirect purchasers of Lidoderm(R) are
proceeding to the discovery phase of the litigation in accordance
with the pre-trial schedule, and trial is currently scheduled
to begin in April 2017.

Multiple direct and indirect purchasers of Lidoderm(R) have filed
a number of cases against EPI and co-defendants Teikoku Seiyaku
Co., Ltd., Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc. (collectively, Teikoku) and
Actavis plc., f/k/a as Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and a number
of its subsidiaries (collectively, Actavis or Watson). Certain of
these actions have been asserted on behalf of classes of direct
and indirect purchasers, while others are individual cases brought
by one or more alleged direct or indirect purchasers. The
complaints in these cases generally allege that Endo, Teikoku and
Actavis entered into an anticompetitive conspiracy to restrain
trade through the settlement of patent infringement litigation
concerning U.S. Patent No. 5,827,529 (the '529 patent). Some of
the complaints also allege that Teikoku wrongfully listed the '529
patent in the Orange Book as related to Lidoderm(R), that Endo and
Teikoku commenced sham patent litigation against Actavis and that
Endo abused the FDA citizen petition process by filing a citizen
petition and amendments solely to interfere with generic
companies' efforts to obtain FDA approval of their versions of
Lidoderm(R).

The cases allege violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act
(15 U.S.C. Sec.Sec. 1, 2) and various state antitrust and consumer
protection statutes as well as common law remedies in some states.
These cases generally seek damages, treble damages, disgorgement
of profits, restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407, issued an order on April 3, 2014,
transferring these cases as In Re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation,
MDL No. 2521, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.

Litigation similar to that described above may also be brought by
other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions, and cases brought in
federal court will be transferred to the Northern District of
California as tag-along actions to In Re Lidoderm Antitrust
Litigation.

The cases are proceeding to the discovery phase of the litigation
in accordance with the pre-trial schedule. Trial is currently
scheduled to begin in April 2017.


ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Facing Litigation Over Opana(R) ER
------------------------------------------------------
Endo International Plc 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 multiple direct and
indirect purchasers of Opana(R) ER have filed cases against EHSI,
EPI, Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co., and Impax Laboratories Inc. in
multiple federal courts. These cases generally allege that the
agreement reached by EPI and Impax to settle patent infringement
litigation concerning multiple patents pertaining to Opana(R) ER
and EPI's introduction of the re-formulation of Opana(R) ER
violated antitrust laws. The complaints allege violations of
Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sec.Sec. 1, 2),
various state antitrust and consumer protection statutes, as well
as state common law. These cases generally seek damages, treble
damages, disgorgement of profits, restitution, injunctive relief
and attorneys' fees, and some allege that they will seek to
represent classes of direct and indirect purchasers of Opana(R)
ER.

"Litigation similar to that described above may also be brought by
other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions. However, we cannot
predict the timing or outcome of any such litigation, or whether
any such litigation will be brought against the Company or EPI,"
the Company said.

The Company and its subsidiaries are unable to predict the outcome
of these matters or the ultimate legal and financial liability, if
any, and at this time cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss
or range of loss for these matters, if any, but will explore all
options as appropriate in the best interests of EPI and the
Company.


EXCLUSIVE ENERGY: Faces "Lillis" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Eddy Lillis, Eric Estrada, and Randy Eslinger, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Exclusive Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00295 (S.D. Tex.,
July 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Exclusive Energy Services, LLC operates an oilfield based service
company that provides coil-tubing, work-over, water transfer and
filtration, and bulk frac fluid services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert R Debes Jr., Esq.
      SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
      11 Greenway Plaza, Ste 1515
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 621-2277
      Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
      E-mail: bdebes@eeoc.net


FIFA: Judge Dismisses U.S. Soccer Concussion Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a U.S. judge
has dismissed a lawsuit by soccer players and parents seeking to
force FIFA and other governing bodies to change the sport's rules
to limit the risk of concussions and other head injuries,
especially for children.

In a decision on July 16, Chief Judge Phyllis Hamilton of the
federal court in Oakland, California, said the plaintiffs could
not use the courts to change FIFA's "laws of the game," noting it
was their decision to play soccer.

"Plaintiffs have acknowledged that 'injuries' are a 'part of
soccer,'" Judge Hamilton wrote, citing the complaint.  "Those who
participate in a sporting activity that poses an inherent risk of
injury generally assume the risk that they may be injured while
doing so."

The judge also said FIFA was not a proper defendant because there
was "no connection" between the lawsuit and any activity that the
sport's international governing body, which is based in
Switzerland, undertook in California.

Claims against FIFA were dismissed with prejudice, meaning they
cannot be brought again.

Judge Hamilton said claims against bodies such as the United
States Soccer Federation and various youth and club soccer
organizations can be brought again if the plaintiffs show they
have standing to sue, including by demonstrating injury.

"We will amend the complaint to satisfy the court's order and
appeal the FIFA ruling," Steve Berman, a lawyer for the
plaintiffs, said in an e-mail.

FIFA said in a statement that it welcomed the decision, and
through its medical committee would continue monitoring issues
affecting players' health.  Lawyers for the other defendants did
not respond to requests for comment.

The lawsuit is not related to the ongoing corruption scandal at
FIFA, whose full name is Federation Internationale de Football
Association.

Judge Hamilton's 46-page decision is a setback for efforts to make
soccer, considered the world's most popular sport with roughly a
quarter billion participants, safer to play.

The proposed class-action lawsuit was brought on behalf of seven
players, including four under the age of 17.

They sought a variety of rule changes, including limiting headers
by players under 17, and making it easier to substitute during
games for players experiencing head trauma.

The plaintiffs also sought medical monitoring for people who have
played the sport since 2002.  Money damages were not sought.

                    Thousands of Concussions

According to the complaint, 46,200 U.S. high school soccer players
suffered concussions in 2010, more than from baseball, basketball,
softball and wrestling combined.

At least 30 percent of soccer concussions come from heading or
attempting to head balls, the complaint said.

But only one of the seven plaintiffs claimed she suffered a
concussion from playing soccer, and Judge Hamilton said this
appeared to be a one-time injury that ended with a full recovery.

She also called it "too speculative" to assume the other
plaintiffs might suffer concussions in the future, and thus they
did not deserve standing to seek rule and protocol changes.

Other lawsuits over concussions have been filed in recent years
against the National Football League, the National Hockey League
and the National Collegiate Athletic Association.

A recent settlement between the NFL and roughly 5,000 retired
players could reach $1 billion.

Though the soccer lawsuit was dismissed, "this is not the end of
the day for claims against the soccer federations," said
Michael Kaplen, a lawyer specializing in traumatic brain injuries
who teaches at George Washington University Law School.

"Groups are trying to market these sports as safe, when they are
not," he said in an interview.  "Unless and until officials and
medical professionals testify under oath, the truth will never
come out."

The case is Mehr et al. v. Federation Internationale de Football
Association et al, U.S. District Court, Northern District of
California, No. 14-03879.


FOOD CONCEPTS: "Epperly" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cassandra Epperly v. Food Concepts International, L.P., Abuelo's
International, L.P., and John Doe, Case No. 2:15-cv-02597-ALM-EPD
(S.D. Ohio, July 9, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant and catering business
in Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Wesley Trenton Fortune, Esq.
      FORTUNE LAW LIMITED
      701 Hill Road North
      Pickerington, OH 43147
      Telephone: (614) 452-4201
      Facsimile: (614) 569-0100
      E-mail: wfortune@wtflegal.com


GALECTIN THERAPEUTICS: Still Defending Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Galectin Therapeutics Inc. continues to defend a securities class
action lawsuit and the lead plaintiff was expected to file a
consolidated 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.

Between July 30, 2014, and August 6, 2014, three putative class
action complaints were filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada (the "Nevada District Court") against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's
stock between January 6, 2014 and July 28, 2014. The complaints
allege that the defendants made false or misleading statements in
certain press releases and other public statements in violation of
the federal securities laws and seek class certification,
unspecified monetary damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. The
Company disputes the allegations in the complaints and intends to
vigorously defend against the claims.

On August 22, 2014, the Nevada District Court entered an order
consolidating the three cases, relieving the defendants of any
obligation to respond to the complaints currently on file, and
providing that defendants may respond to a consolidated amended
complaint to be filed by the lead plaintiff appointed pursuant to
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. On January
5, 2015, the Nevada District Court granted Defendants' motion to
transfer the consolidated putative securities class action to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.
The lead plaintiff was expected to file a consolidated amended
complaint in May 2015.


GENERAL CABLE: Motion to Amend Judgment Fully Briefed and Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
General Cable Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 3, 2015, that a class action
Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend a January 27, 2015 judgment
and for leave to file a proposed amended complaint is fully
briefed and pending.

"Litigation was initiated against us and certain of our current
and former directors, executive officers and employees following
the restating of our financial statements principally as a result
of the matters described above under "Government and internal
investigations" relating to our Brazilian business," the Company
said.

"Two civil complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on October 21, 2013
and December 4, 2013 by named plaintiffs, on behalf of purported
classes of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired our
publicly traded securities, against us, Gregory Kenny, our
President and Chief Executive Officer, and Brian Robinson, our
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. On our
motion, the complaints were transferred to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, the actions
were consolidated, and a consolidated complaint was filed in that
Court on May 20, 2014 by City of Livonia Employees Retirement
System, as lead plaintiff on behalf of a purported class of all
persons or entities who purchased our securities between November
3, 2010 and October 14, 2013 (the "City of Livonia Complaint").

"The City of Livonia Complaint alleged claims under the antifraud
and controlling person liability provisions of the Exchange Act,
alleging generally, among other assertions, that we employed
inadequate internal financial reporting controls that resulted in,
among other things, improper revenue recognition, understated cost
of sales, overstated operating income, net income and earnings per
share, and the failure to detect inventory lost through theft;
that we issued materially false financial results that had to be
restated on two occasions; and that statements of Messrs. Kenny
and Robinson that they had tested and found effective our internal
controls over financial reporting and disclosure were false.

"The City of Livonia Complaint alleged that as a result of the
foregoing, our stock price was artificially inflated and the
plaintiffs suffered damages in connection with their purchase of
our stock. The City of Livonia Complaint sought damages in an
unspecified amount; reasonable costs and expenses, including
counsel and experts fees; and such equitable injunctive or other
relief as the Court deems just and proper.

"On July 18, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the City
of Livonia Complaint based on plaintiff's failure to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted.  After oral argument on
January 7, 2015, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with
prejudice on January 27, 2015.

"On February 24, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to alter or amend
the January 27, 2015 judgment and for leave to file the proposed
amended complaint, which we have opposed.  That motion is now
fully briefed and pending. "


GERBER PRODUCTS: Faces Consumer Fraud Class Action Over Puffs
-------------------------------------------------------------
LawyersandSettlements.com reports that Gerber, famous maker of
healthy baby foods and an instantly recognizable household brand,
got slapped with a consumer fraud class action lawsuit alleging
the company is misleading parents into buying a product that is
far from nutritious.  The product? Graduates Puffs food for
toddlers.

According to the Gerber Graduates lawsuit, the packaging for Puffs
is dominated by pictures of fruit or vegetables: juicy peaches,
slices of ripe banana, nutritious sweet potatoes.  But the
ingredients list belies these pictures.  Banana-flavored Puffs
contain no bananas, only a trace amount of banana flavoring.
Sweet potato-flavored Puffs don't contain actual sweet potatoes,
or any other vegetable, only miniscule amounts of sweet potato
"flavor."  The closest thing to a fruit or vegetable in Puffs is a
very tiny amount of dried apple puree, powder, in other words.

The suit alleges that parents trying to buy healthy and nutritious
snacks for their toddlers have trusted Gerber's reputation and
package presentations, paid Gerber's premium prices based on that
reputation, and, in exchange, unwittingly provided their toddlers
with empty calories.  Far from the healthy treat the labels and
Gerber's reputation suggest, Puffs are little more than flour and
sugar.

The lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California,
San Francisco County, and is titled Gyorke-Takatri, et al., v.
Nestle USA, Inc. and Gerber Products Company.


GFI GROUP: Continues to Defend "Szarek" Class Action in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
GFI Group Inc. continues to defend a stockholder class action
lawsuit filed in federal district court in New York, challenging
the merger with CME Group Inc., GFI 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.

Following the announcement of the CME Group Inc. Merger, nine
putative class action complaints challenging the CME Merger were
filed on behalf of purported stockholders of GFI (one of which
also purported to be brought derivatively on behalf of GFI), two
in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York,
six in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, and one in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. The complaints were captioned Coyne v. GFI Group Inc., et
al., Index No. 652704/2014 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., filed September 4,
2014), Suprina v. GFI Group, Inc., et al., Index No. 652668/2014
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., filed August 29, 2014), Brown v. GFI Group Inc.,
et al., Civil Action No. 10082-VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 3,
2014), Hughes v. CME Group, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 10103-
VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 8, 2014), Al Ammary v. Gooch, et
al., Civil Action No. 10125-VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 11,
2014), Giardalas v. GFI Group, Inc., Civil Action No. 10132-VCL
(Del. Ch., filed September 15, 2014), City of Lakeland Employees'
Pension Plan v. Gooch, et al., Civil Action No. 10136-VCL (Del.
Ch., filed September 16, 2014), Michocki v. Gooch., et al., Civil
Action No. 10166-VCL (Del. Ch., filed September 25, 2014) and
Szarek v. GFI Group Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-8228 (S.D.N.Y.,
filed October 14, 2014).

On September 26, 2014, the Court of Chancery granted voluntary
dismissal of the Giardalas action. On October 6, 2014, a
consolidation order was entered by Vice Chancellor Laster,
consolidating the Delaware cases into the Consolidated Delaware
Action.  The consolidation order designated the complaint filed in
City of Lakeland Employees' Pension Plan v. Gooch, et al., Civil
Action No. 10136-VCL (Del. Ch.) as the operative complaint in the
Consolidated Delaware Action.

The complaints named as Defendants various combinations of the
Company, GFI Holdco Ltd. ("IDB Buyer"), the members of the
Company's board of directors, GFI managing director Nick Brown,
CME, Commodore Acquisition Corp., Commodore Acquisition LLC,
Cheetah Acquisition Corp., Cheetah Acquisition LLC, JPI and New
JPI Inc. ("New JPI"). The complaints generally allege, among other
things, that the members of the Company's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's stockholders
during merger negotiations by entering into the CME Merger
Agreement and approving the CME Merger, and that the Company, CME,
Commodore Acquisition Corp., Commodore Acquisition LLC, IDB Buyer,
Cheetah Acquisition Corp., Cheetah Acquisition LLC, JPI, and New
JPI aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties.  The
complaints further allege, among other things, (i) that the merger
consideration provided for in the CME Merger Agreement undervalued
the Company, (ii) that the sales process leading up to the CME
Merger was flawed due to the members of the Company's board of
directors' and Jefferies' conflicts of interest, and (iii) that
certain provisions of the CME Merger Agreement inappropriately
favored CME and precluded or impeded third parties from submitting
potentially superior proposals.

In addition, the Hughes complaint asserted a derivative claim on
behalf of the Company against the members of the Company's board
of directors for breaching their fiduciary duties of loyalty and
care to the Company by negotiating and agreeing to the CME Merger
and against Defendants Gooch and Heffron for usurping a corporate
opportunity. The Michocki complaint alleged that the CME Merger is
not a solitary transaction but a series of related transactions
and further alleged that the IDB Transaction must be approved by
an affirmative two-thirds vote of the Shares pursuant to the terms
of the Charter.

The complaints seek, among other relief: (i) certification of the
class, (ii) injunctive relief enjoining the CME Merger, (iii) a
declaration that the members of the Company's board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties and that certain provisions of the
CME Merger Agreement are unlawful, (iv) a directive to the members
of the Company's board of directors to execute their fiduciary
duties to obtain a transaction in the best interest of the
Company's stockholders, (v) rescission of the CME Merger to the
extent already implemented, (vi) granting of rescissory damages
and an accounting of all of the damages suffered as a result of
the alleged wrongdoing, (vii) and reimbursement of fees and costs.
The Coyne and Suprina Plaintiffs also demanded a jury trial.

Certain Defendants moved to dismiss or, in the alternative, stay
the Coyne and Suprina actions in favor of the Consolidated
Delaware Action. A hearing was held on December 15, 2014 on (i)
the Defendants' motions to dismiss or stay the Coyne and Suprina
actions; (ii) the Plaintiffs' motion by order to show cause for
consolidation and appointment of a leadership structure; and (iii)
Plaintiff Suprina's motion by order to show cause to compel and
expedite discovery.

In an order filed on January 30, 2015, the Court ordered the
Suprina and Coyne cases consolidated as In re GFI Group Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Index No. 652668/2014. In another order
filed that same day, the Court denied Plaintiff Suprina's motion
to compel and expedite discovery.  On March 26, 2015, the Court
issued a decision and order granting the Defendants' motions to
dismiss the Coyne and Suprina actions on forum non conveniens
grounds and in favor of the Consolidated Delaware Action.  The
decision and order were entered in the office of the Clerk of the
County of New York on March 27, 2015.  The Court's judgment
dismissing the Coyne and Suprina complaints was entered in the
office of the Clerk of the County of New York on April 29, 2015.

On November 18, 2014, the Delaware court entered a Revised Order
Setting Expedited Discovery Schedule in the Consolidated Delaware
Action. On December 19, 2014, the court entered a Further Revised
Scheduling Order scheduling a preliminary injunction hearing for
January 16, 2015.  On December 29, 2014, Plaintiffs in the
Consolidated Delaware Action filed a Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction, and a brief in support thereof, seeking to enjoin
enforcement of Article V of the Support Agreement and
preliminarily enjoin the stockholder vote on the CME Merger until
(i) certain additional disclosures were made and (ii) the
Company's stockholders were provided the opportunity to vote on
the CME Merger, the JPI Merger and the IDB Transaction. On January
8, 2015, the parties agreed to move the preliminary injunction
hearing from January 16, 2015 to January 20, 2015. On January 15,
2015, the preliminary injunction hearing (scheduled for January
20) was taken off the court's calendar.

On January 15, 2015, Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Delaware
Action filed a Supplement to the Verified Class Action Complaint.
On January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Second Supplement to the
Verified Class Action Complaint. On February 4, 2015, Plaintiffs
filed a Motion for Expedited Proceedings and a brief in support
thereof. On February 6, 2015, the Court scheduled a merits hearing
for February 17 and 18, 2015. On February 7, 2015, Plaintiffs
filed a Third Supplement to the Verified Class Action Complaint,
seeking certain additional injunctive and declaratory relief.

On February 11, 2015, the Court, with the consent of the parties,
moved the merits hearing (scheduled for February 17 and 18, 2015)
to the first available dates on the Court's schedule after March
4, 2015. On February 20, 2015, Plaintiffs informed the Court that
an expedited merits hearing was no longer necessary.  On February
26, 2015, March 17, 2015, and March 18, 2015, the Court granted
stipulations and orders extending the time for certain Defendants
to answer, move, or otherwise respond to the operative complaint.
On April 16, 2015, the Court granted a stipulation and order
pursuant to which certain of the Defendants need not respond to
the operative complaint or the supplements thereto and will have
thirty days from the filing of an amended complaint to answer,
move, or otherwise respond to it.  To date, an amended complaint
has not been filed.

In the New York Szarek action, the Court scheduled an initial
pretrial conference for December 16, 2014, which the Court
adjourned upon application of the parties until March 12, 2015 and
adjourned again upon application of Plaintiff until May 21, 2015.


GFI GROUP: Continues to Defend "Gross" Class Action in N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
GFI Group Inc. continues to defend the Gross securities class
action lawsuit filed in federal district court in New York, 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 November 26, 2014, a putative class action complaint alleging
violations of the federal securities laws, captioned Gross v. GFI
Group, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York. The complaint names the
Company, Colin Heffron, Michael Gooch and Nick Brown as
Defendants.. The complaint seeks, among other relief: (i)
certification of the class, (ii) compensatory damages for
Defendants purported wrongdoing and (iii) reimbursement of costs
and expenses.

On February 20, 2015, the Court in Gross v. GFI Group, Inc.
granted Plaintiff's unopposed motion for appointment as lead
plaintiff and approved his selection of co-lead counsel on behalf
of the putative class. The Court also extended Defendants' time to
respond to the complaint from February 23, 2015 to March 25, 2015;
granted Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by March 16,
2015; and rescheduled the initial pre-trial conference to March
27, 2015.  On March 10, 2015, Plaintiff requested additional time
to file his amended complaint.  On March 13, 2015, the Court
extended Plaintiff's deadline to file an amended complaint from
March 16, 2015 to May 15, 2015; set a June 5, 2015 deadline for
Defendants to respond to the amended complaint; and rescheduled
the initial pre-trial conference for June 19, 2015.

Defendants believe that the claims asserted against them are
without merit and intend to defend the litigation vigorously.


GODADDY.COM: Faces "Careaga" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sal Careaga, Joshua Berry, and Amanda Collins, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Godaddy.com, L.L.C.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-01282-GMS (D. Ariz., July 9, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Godaddy.com, L.L.C. is a foreign limited liability company that
provides numerous Internet related products and services including
domain name registration and website hosting.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Rhodes Pruitt, Esq.
      Nathaniel James Hill, Esq.
      JACKSON WHITE PC
      40 N Center St., Ste. 200
      Mesa, AZ 85201
      Telephone: (480) 464-1111
      Facsimile: (480) 464-5692
      E-mail: mpruitt@jacksonwhitelaw.com
              nhill@jacksonwhitelaw.com


GOLDFINGERS GENTLEMEN'S: Former Dancer Files Wage Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dorian Hargrove, writing for San Diego Reader, reports that a
former dancer at Goldfingers Gentlemen's Club on Miramar Road has
filed a class-action lawsuit faulting her ex-employer of failing
to pay a living wage.  It is the second class-action lawsuit filed
against strip clubs this year: last month a former dancer at
Cheetahs made similar accusations.

The lawsuit, originally filed in state court in April of this
year, was recently moved to federal court.  Attorneys for
Goldfingers estimate that if all dancers join the class-action
lawsuit and if a judge rules in their favor, the lawsuit could
mean a $5,000,000 payout by the club.

The woman, known as Jane Doe, says that dancers and other
employees were not given breaks during long shifts, nor were they
paid an hourly wage.  Instead, dancers relied on tips from patrons
for onstage and private dances.

"[Dancers were] forced to pay fees or tip out the DJ and/or
bouncer, and/or 'house' for each dance performed . . . failure to
comply with Goldfingers' request would prevent her or her
colleagues from procuring or retaining employment with
Goldfingers," reads the suit.

The club's policy of hiring dancers as independent contractors
instead of employees is an industry-wide standard, one that some
general managers say benefits both the club and the dancer.

"When we hire an entertainer, they are given the choice of being
an employee or a space lessee, much like a hairdresser," said
Cheetahs general manager Rich Buonantony in a June 22 email.  "As
an independent contractor, the girl comes and goes as she pleases,
basically does what she wants whereas, an employee comes in set
hours, dances who we tell them to dance for, and so forth.  The
women I have here prefer to be independent contractors."

During the course of the past couple of years, strippers across
the country have filed similar lawsuits.  As a result, some strip
clubs were ordered to pay out hefty sums to the women.  In 2012,
according to media reports, Santa Barbara strip joint Spearmint
Rhino paid $12.9 million to dancers in their lawsuit.

Both San Diego cases will work their way through the courts.


GOOGLE INC: Sued for Refusing to Provide Gift Card Cash Refunds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fortune reports that a California woman filed a class action
lawsuit against Google, claiming the company violates state laws
by refusing to provide cash refunds when a gift card balance falls
below $10.

According to Lorena Hernandez, her daughter used a $25 Google Play
gift card to buy Lego Movie for $9.99, and rent As Above, So Below
for $4.99 and Bridesmaids for $2.99 -- leaving a balance of $7.03.
Google then refused to issue Hernandez a cash refund for the
amount, or allow her to combine it with another form of payment.

Instead of forfeiting the $7.03, Ms. Hernandez purchased another
$10 Google Play Card so her daughter could use the combined
balance to buy Toy Story 2, and an app and a song (99 cents each)
she did not really want.

The legal complaint, which seeks to represent all other Google
Play customers in the same position, says Google is engaging in
the very practice that lawmakers intended to stop.

Because Google refuses to refund the balance in cash, holders are
left with the choice of forfeiting the balance or expending
additional money by purchasing additional Google Play Gift Cards
or Google Play Credits to purchase other items.  There will
virtually always be a balance that cannot be spent and that
Defendants will not refund.

California amended its consumer protections in 2007, requiring
retailers to let customers get cash refunds for balances below
$10, after concluding that about 10% of all gift card balances are
never spent.

The lawsuit also points out that Google Play's practices are
different from competitors Apple and Amazon, which allow users to
combine gift cards with other payment methods so as to zero out
the value of the cards.

Google did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

If the allegations against Google are true, the company will
hardly be the first to trip over gift card rules.  Groupon
recently agreed to pay $8.5 million to settle a class action case
over illegal expiration dates, while Starbucks paid $225,000 to
settle with California over failing to refund balances below $10.
McDonalds and the defunct bookseller Borders have also ran into
trouble with the state law.

Ms. Hernandez is asking a court to order Google to return the
unpaid balances and to force it to change the Google Play
policies.


HAIN CELESTIAL: "Brown" Action in Discovery Phase
-------------------------------------------------
The Hain Celestial Group, 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 class action
filed by Rosminah Brown is currently at the discovery phase.

On May 11, 2011, Rosminah Brown, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated individuals, as well as a non-profit
organization, filed a putative class action in the Superior Court
of California, Alameda County against the Company. The complaint
alleged that the labels of certain Avalon Organics(R) brand and
JASON(R) brand personal care products used prior to the Company's
implementation of ANSI/NSF-305 certification in mid-2011 violated
certain California statutes.

Defendants removed the case to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California. The action was
consolidated with a subsequently-filed putative class action
containing substantially identical allegations concerning only the
JASON(R) brand personal care products. The consolidated actions
seek an award for damages, injunctive relief, costs, expenses and
attorney's fees, and are currently at the discovery phase.

The Company will continue to defend this action vigorously and
continues to believe that the plaintiffs' claims are without
merit.


HC2 HOLDINGS: No Responsive Pleading Filed in Schuff Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
HC2 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 no responsive pleading
has been filed yet by the defendants in the case, Schuff
International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation.

On November 6, 2014, a putative stockholder class action complaint
challenging the buyout by HC2 Holdings, Inc. of the noncontrolling
interest in Schuff International, Inc. ("Schuff International")
was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
captioned Mark Jacobs v. Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul
Voigt, Michael R. Hill, Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O.
Elbert, HC2 Holdings, Inc., and Schuff International, Inc., Civil
Action No. 10323 (the "Complaint"). On November 17, 2014, a second
lawsuit was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, captioned Arlen Diercks v. Schuff International, Inc.
Philip A. Falcone, Keith M. Hladek, Paul Voigt, Michael R. Hill,
Rustin Roach, D. Ronald Yagoda, Phillip O. Elbert, HC2 Holdings,
Inc., Civil Action No. 10359.

The Complaints allege, among other things, that in connection with
the buyout, the individual members of the Schuff International
board of directors and HC2 Holdings, the controlling stockholder
of Schuff, breached their fiduciary duties to members of the
plaintiff class. The Complaints seek a rescission of the buyout
and/or compensatory damages, as well as attorney's fees and other
relief.

On February 19, 2015, the court consolidated the actions (now
designated as Schuff International, Inc. Stockholders Litigation)
and appointed lead plaintiff and counsel. No responsive pleading
has been filed yet by the defendants.

"We believe that the allegations and claims set forth in the
Complaint are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously,"
the Company said.


HOMEJOY INC: Worker-Misclassification Litigation Prompts Closure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Miller, writing for The Recorder, reports that Homejoy
Inc., the San Francisco-based house-cleaning platform, will cease
operations on July 31.  Homejoy's co-founder, Adora Cheung, cited
pending worker-misclassification litigation targeting the three-
year-old company as one of the reasons.

"Although we succeeded in many ways, we also faced obstacles,"
Ms. Cheung wrote on July 17 on the company's blog.  "There are
still many unresolved challenges in the home services space."

Ms. Cheung did not respond to an email seeking comment on the
announcement.  But in an interview with Re/code, she blamed four
lawsuits alleging that Homejoy's cleaners should be classified as
employees, not independent contractors, as the "deciding factor"
to close.

Homejoy is facing two worker-classification suits in San Francisco
Superior Court, one a proposed class action and the other filed
under the Private Attorneys General Act.  Byron Goldstein --
brgoldstein@gbdhlegal.com -- and Laura Ho --
lho@gbdhlegal.com -- of Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho and
Browne Labor Law filed the suits in March.

Mr. Goldstein said on July 17 that the suits have not progressed
because "pretty much from the get-go of the litigation we had
discussed resolution."  A mediation session was scheduled on
July 14, but Homejoy representatives canceled the meeting a few
days before, he said.

"Any excuse that Homejoy gives that it's closing because of the
lawsuits is just using them as a scapegoat," Mr. Goldstein said,
noting that there has been no judgment and little action
generating much legal work.  "It's too bad.  Hopefully these
workers will still be able to recover what's owed to them."

Classifying workers is a hot-button issue in the so-called sharing
economy, where companies including Lyft Inc., Uber Technologies
Inc., Postmates Inc. and Homejoy competitor Handy are facing legal
challenges to their practice of designating workers as independent
contractors.  Last month, the Office of the California Labor
Commissioner held that an Uber driver, who had filed a claim for
work-related expenses, was indeed an employee eligible for certain
reimbursements and workplace protections.  Ms. Cheung told Re/code
the significance of the commissioner's finding, now being appealed
by Uber, had been "blown out of proportion."


HOMEMADE OF LEAVENWORTH: Recalls Pickle & Sauce Products
--------------------------------------------------------
Homemade of Leavenworth, Washington is recalling pickle and sauce
products because they may have been improperly produced.
Washington State Department of Agriculture routine sampling
discovered that a bottle of Homemade Bread and Butter Pickles had
a pH level high enough to allow the growth of Clostridium
botulinum. Required records were not available to support that
safe processing guidelines were followed on all sauce and pickle
products produced at Homemade.

Foodborne botulism is a severe type of food poisoning caused by
the ingestion of foods containing the potent neurotoxin formed
during growth of the organism. Foodborne botulism can cause the
following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double-vision and
trouble with speaking or swallowing. Difficulty in breathing,
weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and constipation
may also be common symptoms. People experiencing these problems
should seek immediate medical attention. Consumers are warned not
to use the product even if it does not look or smell spoiled.

Recalled products are packaged in clear glass bottles with metal
caps. There are no lot codes or expiration dates on recalled
products. The following products have been recalled:

  --- Bread and Butter Pickles (16 oz./454 g)
  --- Icicle Pickles (16 oz./454 g)
  --- Pickled Beets (16 oz./454 g)
  --- Chili Sauce (12 oz./340 g)
  --- Lite BBQ Sauce (12 oz./ 340 g)
  --- Medium BBQ Sauce (12 oz./340 g)
  --- Hot BBQ Sauce (12 oz./340 g)
  --- Horseradish BBQ Sauce (12 oz./340 g)

The recalled products were sold from small retailers and fruit
stands in Chelan and Douglas counties in Washington State.
Homemade has made the decision to recall all pickle and sauce
products to ensure the safety of their customers. To date the
company has not been notified of illness associated with their
products. Robert Eadie, owner of Homemade, believes that "the
health of customers is a priority for my company, which is why I
am working with the Washington State Department of Agriculture and
a recognized process authority to take steps necessary to ensure
the safety of my products."

Consumers who have purchased recalled pickles and sauces are urged
to return it to the place of purchase for a refund. Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 509-548-5301 Monday through
Friday during the hours of 9AM to 5PM PST.


HUXTABLE'S KITCHEN: Recalls Salad Products Due to Misbranding
-------------------------------------------------------------
Huxtable's Kitchen, Inc., a Fife, Wash. establishment, is
recalling approximately 778 pounds of salad products due to
misbranding, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. The products may contain
nitrites in the bacon that were not declared on the product label.

The salad items were produced on July 14 and 16, 2015. The
following products are subject to recall:

  --- 9.5 oz. tray containers containing "Trader Joe's Cobb
      Salad" with the sell by date 7-20-15, 7-21-15 and 7-22-15.
  --- 11 oz. tray containers containing "Trader Joe's Uncured
      Bacon & Spinach Salad" with the sell by date 7-20-15 and 7-
      21-15.

The products subject to recall bear the establishment number "P-
11079A" or "EST. 11079" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These
items were shipped to retail locations in Idaho, Oregon and
Washington.

The problem was discovered during FSIS in-plant verification
activities.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an
injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
Andy Foster, Vice President of Quality and Food Safety, at (323)
923-2905.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Bid to Dismiss Solodyn Suit Under Submission
----------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, 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 motion to dismiss
the Solodyn(R) Antitrust Class Actions remains under submission.

From July 2013 to April 2015, 15 class action complaints were
filed against manufacturers of the brand drug Solodyn(R) and its
generic equivalents, including the Company.

On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff United Food and Commercial Workers
Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On July 23, 2013, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a
direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated. On August 29, 2013, this
Plaintiff withdrew its complaint from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, and on August 30,
2013, re-filed the same complaint in the United States Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On August 9, 2013, Plaintiff Local 274 Health & Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 12, 2013, Plaintiff Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 25
Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On August 27, 2013, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Fort
Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On August 29, 2013, Plaintiff Heather Morgan, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 30, 2013, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178
Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a direct
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated.

On September 24, 2013, Plaintiff City of Providence, Rhode Island,
an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 2, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health & Welfare Trust
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 7, 2013, Painters District Council No. 30 Health and
Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 25, 2013, Plaintiff Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund,
an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 13, 2014, Plaintiff Allied Services Division Welfare
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On February 25, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred
to the District of Massachusetts for coordinated pretrial
proceedings, as In Re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride)
Antitrust Litigation.

On March 26, 2015, Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB
Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, direct purchasers, filed a
separate complaint in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania. On April 8, 2015, the Judicial
Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the action be
transferred to the District of Massachusetts, to be coordinated or
consolidated with the coordinated proceedings.

On April 16, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp,
direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

The consolidated amended complaints allege that Medicis engaged in
anticompetitive schemes by, among other things, filing frivolous
patent litigation lawsuits, submitting frivolous Citizen
Petitions, and entering into anticompetitive settlement agreements
with several generic manufacturers, including the Company, to
delay generic competition of Solodyn(R) and in violation of state
and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including
disgorgement and restitution. Oral argument on defendants' motion
to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints took place on March
12, 2015, and the motion remains under submission.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Consolidated Suits Filed Over Opana Drug
------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, 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 consolidated amended
complaints have been filed in the Opana ER(R) Antitrust Class
Actions.

From June 2014 to April 2015, 14 class action complaints were
filed against the manufacturer of the brand drug Opana ER(R) and
the Company.

On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge
20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a
direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On June 6, 2014, Plaintiff Value Drug Company, a direct purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated. On June 26, 2014, this Plaintiff
withdrew its complaint from the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, and on July 16, 2014, re-
filed the same complaint in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On June 19, 2014, Plaintiff Wisconsin Masons' Health Care Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On July 17, 2014, Plaintiff Massachusetts Bricklayers, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On September 19, 2014, Plaintiff Meijer Inc., a direct purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On October 3, 2014, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers, Local 138 Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On November 17, 2014, Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company
d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United Stated
District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated.

On December 19, 2014, Plaintiff Kim Mahaffay, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of
the State of California, Alameda County, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated. On January 27, 2015, the Defendants
removed the action to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

On January 12, 2015, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178
Health & Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On December 12, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred
to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial
proceedings, as In Re Opana ER Antitrust Litigation.

On March 26, 2015 Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB
Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, direct purchasers, filed a
separate complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

On April 23, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp,
direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an
anticompetitive settlement agreement with the Company to delay
generic competition of Opana ER(R) and in violation of state and
federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including
disgorgement and restitution. Consolidated amended complaints were
filed on May 4, 2015.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Accord in Mulligan, Haverhill Cases Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, 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 settlement in the
cases filed by Denis Mulligan, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, and Haverhill Retirement System,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
respectively, remains subject to final court approval.

On March 7, 2013 and April 8, 2013, two class action complaints
were filed against the Company and certain current and former
officers and directors of the Company in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California by Denis
Mulligan, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
and Haverhill Retirement System, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, respectively ("Securities Class
Actions"), alleging that the Company and those named officers and
directors violated the federal securities law by making materially
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material
adverse facts to the public in connection with manufacturing
deficiencies at the Hayward, California manufacturing facility,
including but not limited to the impact the deficiencies would
have on the Company's ability to gain approval from the FDA for
the Company's branded product candidate, RYTARY(R) and its generic
version of Concerta(R). These two Securities Class Actions were
subsequently consolidated, assigned to the same judge, and lead
plaintiff has been chosen.

The plaintiff's consolidated amended complaint was filed on
September 13, 2013. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint on November 14, 2013. On April 18,
2014, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss.

On September 22, 2014, the Company, together with certain current
and former officers and directors of the Company, agreed to settle
this consolidated securities class action, without any admission
or concession of wrongdoing or liability by the Company or the
other defendants. Pursuant to the settlement, the Company will pay
$8.0 million for a full and complete release of all claims that
were or could have been asserted against the Company or other
defendants in this action.

On January 16, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement. The Company said it will not be taking any charges for
the settlement as the settlement amount will be paid for and
covered by the Company's insurance policies. The settlement
remains subject to final court approval and certain other
conditions and does not resolve related shareholder derivative
litigations.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Will Pay $4.75 Million to Settle Aruliah Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. will pay $4.75 million for a full and
complete release of all claims in the class action filed by Linus
Aruliah, 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 August 13, 2014, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company and certain current and former officers and directors of
the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California by Linus Aruliah, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated. The complaint alleged
that the Company and those named officers and directors violated
the federal securities laws by making materially false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse
facts to the public in connection with manufacturing deficiencies
at the Company's Taiwan manufacturing facility, including but not
limited to the impact the deficiencies would have on the Company's
ability to gain approval from the FDA for the Company's then
branded product candidate, RYTARY(R) (which was subsequently
approved by the FDA on January 7, 2015).

On January 13, 2015, the Company, together with certain current
and former officers and directors of the Company, agreed to settle
this securities class action, without any admission or concession
of wrongdoing or liability by the Company or the other defendants.
Pursuant to the settlement, the Company will pay $4.75 million for
a full and complete release of all claims that were or could have
been asserted against the Company or other defendants in this
action. The Company will not be taking any charges for the
settlement as the settlement amount will be paid for and covered
by the Company's insurance policies. The settlement remains
subject to preliminary and final court approval and certain other
conditions and does not resolve the related shareholder derivative
litigations.


INNOVATIVE FOOD: Judge Referred 2 Lawsuits to Mediation Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
Innovative Food 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 a federal judge
has stayed two class action lawsuits, and referred both of them to
the Court's mediation program for further mediation.

On June 1, 2012, nine persons, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, filed a Collective and Class Action Complaint
in the New York Federal District Court, Southern District, against
Late Night Express Courier Services, Inc. (FL) ("LNE") and The
Fresh Diet Inc. ("The Fresh Diet") and certain individuals
entitled Hernandez, et al. v. The Fresh Diet Inc., et al., Case
No. 12 CV 4339.  On or about October 26, 2012, Plaintiffs filed an
Amended Complaint ("Complaint") adding additional individual
Defendants.  The Complaint seeks to recover alleged unpaid
overtime wages on behalf of drivers for LNE who delivered meals to
The Fresh Diet customers in the tri-state area.

In an opinion dated September 29, 2014 ("Opinion"), the District
Court Judge denied the Plaintiffs' motion for Summary Judgment
which sought a holding that all the Plaintiffs were employees of
Defendants, as was Defendants' cross-motion for Summary Judgment
seeking a holding that Plaintiffs were independent contractors,
the Court finding that there were questions of fact that could not
be resolved on motions.  In addition, the Plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class of 109 drivers was denied.

In the same Opinion, Defendants' motion to decertify the case from
29 potential opt-in Plaintiffs down to the 9 named Plaintiffs was
granted, and the possible claims of the remaining 20 were
dismissed without prejudice.

On or about February 24, 2015, a second action was filed in the
New York Federal District Court, Southern District, on behalf of 6
(of the 20) additional driver-Plaintiffs entitled Hernandez, et
al. v. The Fresh Diet Inc., et al. 15 CV 1338, containing
essentially the same allegations, and adding the Company as a
party defendant because of its acquisition of LNE.  In addition,
two of the Plaintiffs from the Complaint also joined the second
lawsuit asserting claims for retaliation.

The two cases were assigned to the same Federal Judge (since they
are related), but were not consolidated for discovery or trial.
Prior to the second action and on January 21, 2015, the parties
appeared before Federal Magistrate Judge Cott for mediation.  The
Magistrate Judge did not succeed in settling the case.

On March 17, 2015, the Federal Judge stayed both cases, and
referred both of them to the Court's mediation program for further
mediation within 60 days.

The Company believes that mediation may lead to a global
settlement with all existing Plaintiffs.  With respect to the
second instituted litigation, inasmuch as the litigation is in its
early phase and discovery has not commenced it is too speculative
to predict an outcome.

"However, we believe we will have available to us many of the same
defenses as in the first litigation and therefore do not believe
that our exposure, if any at all, will likely exceed the amount of
the first litigation, even if additional persons file claims.
Accordingly, given the uncertainty of both of these cases and
given the additional Plaintiffs in the second action, the Company
has recorded a contingent liability of $400,000 representing the
estimated potential amounts payable in the litigations, even
though it is possible that the amount of liability or settlement
may actually be less than the reserved amount," the Company said.


INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Parties Undergoing Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, 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 are
currently undergoing discovery in relation to the class actions,
Scot H. Atwood v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. and
George Burton v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.,
respectively.

On February 21, 2014 and February 28, 2014, purported shareholder
class actions, styled Scot H. Atwood v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. et al. and George Burton v. Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
et al., respectively, were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, naming the Company
and certain of its officers as defendants. These lawsuits were
filed by stockholders who claim to be suing on behalf of anyone
who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities
between January 9, 2014 and January 10, 2014.

The lawsuits allege that the Company made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in its public
disclosures during the period from January 9, 2014 to January 10,
2014, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The alleged improper disclosures relate to the
Company's January 9, 2014 announcement that the FLINT trial had
been stopped early based on a pre-defined interim efficacy
analysis. Specifically, the lawsuits claim that the January 9,
2014 announcement was misleading because it did not contain
information regarding certain lipid abnormalities seen in the
FLINT trial in OCA-treated patients compared to placebo.

On April 22, 2014, two individuals each moved to consolidate the
cases and a lead plaintiff was subsequently appointed by the
Court. On June 27, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on behalf of the putative class as contemplated by the
order of the Court. On August 14, 2014, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint.

Oral arguments on the motion to dismiss were held on February 24,
2015. On March 4, 2015, the defendants' motion to dismiss was
denied by the Court. The defendants answered the amended complaint
on April 13, 2015. The parties are currently undergoing discovery
in relation to this matter.

The lead plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of
the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees.

The Company believes that it has valid defenses to the claims in
the lawsuit and intends to deny liability and defend itself
vigorously.


INTERNATIONAL FOLLIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Compensations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Valente, and all others similarly situated v. International
Follies, Inc. dba The Cheetah and William Hagood, Case No. 1:15-
cv-02477 (N.D. Ga., July 10, 2015), seeks to recover minimum and
overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate a strip club in Fulton County commonly
known as The Cheetah.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James F. McDonough, III, Esq.
      HENINGER GARRISON & DAVIS, LLC
      Suite 4320, 3621 Vinings Slope
      Atlanta, GA 30339
      Tel: (404) 996-0869
      Fax: (205) 380-8076
      E-mail: jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com


IT TAKES: Recalls Kale Crisps Zen Nori Due to Undeclared Soy
------------------------------------------------------------
It Takes a Village Foods LLC of Hailey, ID is recalling "Veggie
Evolution Kale Crisps Zen Nori" because it contains undeclared
soy. People who have allergy or severe sensitivity to soy run the
risk of serious or life threatening allergic reaction if they
consume this product.

Veggie Evolution Kale Crisps Zen Nori was distributed to retail
stores in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Michigan,
New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Wyoming and also sold
on line at "VeggieEvolution.com"  The firm distributed this
product between 09/18/2014 and 07/15/2015.

The Kale Crisps Zen Nori product is seaweed flavored dehydrated
kale chips, available in a 1.5 oz. package, sold under the brand
name of "Veggie Evolution". Product with the Best if Used By date
stamp on or before 022116 is being recalled. The Best if Used By
date is found at the lower left corner on the back side of a
package.

No illnesses have been reported to date from the consumption of
this product.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that this product
that contains soybeans, was distributed in packaging that did not
reveal the presence of soybeans in the product.

This recall is being made with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration.

If you have purchased this product you should contact Veggie
Evolution at 208 721-0765 from 9am-5pm MST Monday thru Friday or
at ittakesavillagefoods@gmail.com for information on how to get a
full refund or properly labeled replacement.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm455319.htm


J.G. WENTWORTH: Defendants to Appeal N.D. Illinois Court Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
The J.G. Wentworth Company said in its Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Defendants
intend to appeal the order entered by the Northern District of
Illinois court finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over
a class action lawsuit and remanded it to St. Clair County.

In February 2014, a purported class action filing was made against
the Company and various subsidiaries. The original class action
complaint in this matter contained a single count alleging that
the defendants violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act by, among other things, marketing,
soliciting, and engaging in transfers of structured settlement
payment rights despite knowledge of anti-assignment clauses in the
underlying structured settlement agreements.

The plaintiff then filed an amended complaint reciting the same
facts and the same claim under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, but adding causes of action for
common law fraud, breach of the implied duty of good faith and
fair dealing, and two counts for violations of the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The first such
claim alleges defendants violated law that proscribes conduct
amounting to a pattern of racketeering activity conducted through
an enterprise. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants' use of
mail in connection with the transfers constituted mail fraud. The
second such claim alleged that the defendants conspired to commit
other related violations.

The defendants removed the case to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois. One defendant,
Settlement Funding, LLC, filed a motion to defer responding to the
plaintiff's complaint pending a ruling on the other defendants'
motion to dismiss, and also filed a motion to compel arbitration
and to stay or dismiss the claims against it in federal court.

The plaintiff filed a motion for extension of time to respond to
the motions to dismiss and motion to compel arbitration based on
intent to file a second amended complaint. The plaintiff did file
a second amended complaint asserting substantially similar
allegations to those set forth in the initial amended complaint,
and added four new named plaintiffs.

Settlement Funding, LLC filed a petition to compel individual
arbitrations in the Northern District of Illinois against those
four new named plaintiffs in the second amended complaint who had
previously entered into arbitration agreements with Settlement
Funding, LLC. Defendants filed various motions challenging the
second amended complaint in the Southern District of Illinois,
seeking dismissal and/or transfer to the Northern District of
Illinois.

The Southern District of Illinois court granted transfer of the
whole case to the Northern District of Illinois and deferred
ruling on defendants' arguments for dismissal to the Northern
District court. On March 5, 2015, the Northern District court
entered an order finding it lacked subject matter jurisdiction
over the case and remanded it to St. Clair County.

Defendants believe this ruling on jurisdiction is incorrect and
intend to appeal. Defendants also believe that the plaintiffs'
claims in the second amended complaint are time-barred and/or
without merit and defendants intend to vigorously defend these
claims on a number of factual and legal grounds in arbitration
and/or litigation.


J.G. WENTWORTH: To Defend Against Case Related to OAC Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
The J.G. Wentworth Company said in its Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the Company
intends to vigorously defend against a lawsuit related to its
merger with Orchard Acquisition Company, LLC.

On February 10, 2015, a competitor filed, in the United States
District Court, Central District of California, Western Division,
a complaint alleging that the Company and certain of its
affiliates have violated antitrust laws as a result of the OAC
Merger and their post-merger activities, and has requested that
the court find that there has been a Section 7 violation of the
Clayton Act, that assets are to be divested, that an injunction
should be issued and monetary damages should be awarded. The
Company believes that the allegations made in these claims are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend these allegations.


J2 GLOBAL: Discovery Ongoing in Paldo Sign Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
j2 Global, 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 discovery is ongoing
in the class action lawsuit filed by Paldo Sign and Display Co.

On January 18, 2013, Paldo Sign and Display Co. ("Paldo") filed an
amended complaint adding two j2 Global affiliates and a former
employee as additional defendants in an existing purported class
action pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois ("Northern District of Illinois") (No. 1:13-
cv-01896).

The amended complaint alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), and common law conversion,
arising from an indirect customer's alleged use of the j2 Global
affiliates' systems to send unsolicited facsimile transmissions.

On August 23, 2013, a second plaintiff, Sabon, Inc., was added.

The j2 Global affiliates filed a motion to dismiss the ICFA and
conversion claims, which was granted. The Northern District of
Illinois also dismissed the former employee for lack of personal
jurisdiction. Discovery is ongoing.


J2 GLOBAL: Briefing on Appeal in Multi-District Litigation Stayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
j2 Global, 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 briefing on the appeal
in a multi-district litigation has been stayed.

On October 16, 2013, a j2 Global affiliate entered an appearance
as a plaintiff in a multi-district litigation pending in the
Northern District of Illinois (No. 1:12-cv-06286). In this
litigation, Unified Messaging Solutions, LLC ("UMS"), a company
with rights to assert certain patents owned by the j2 Global
affiliate, has asserted five j2 Global patents against a number of
defendants. While claims against some defendants have been
settled, other defendants have filed counterclaims for, among
other things, non-infringement, unenforceability, and invalidity
of the patents-in-suit.

On December 20, 2013, the Northern District of Illinois issued a
claim construction opinion and, on June 13, 2014, entered a final
judgment of non-infringement for the remaining defendants based on
that claim construction. UMS and the j2 Global affiliate filed a
notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit on June 27, 2014 (No. 14-1611). Briefing on the appeal has
been stayed, pending the Northern District of Illinois's
resolution of the defendants' motion to declare the case
exceptional.


J2 GLOBAL: Discovery Ongoing in Andre Free-Vychine Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
j2 Global, 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 discovery is ongoing
in the class actions filed by Andre Free-Vychine and Law
Enforcement Officers, Inc. and IV Pit Stop, Inc.

On June 23, 2014, Andre Free-Vychine ("Free-Vychine") filed a
purported class action against a j2 Global affiliate in the
Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles
("Los Angeles Superior Court"). The complaint alleges two
California statutory violations relating to late fees levied in
certain eVoice(R) accounts. Free-Vychine is seeking, among other
things, damages and injunctive relief on behalf of himself and a
purported nationwide class of similarly situated persons.

On August 26, 2014, Law Enforcement Officers, Inc. and IV Pit
Stop, Inc. ("IV Pit Stop") filed a separate purported class action
against the same j2 Global affiliate in Los Angeles Superior
Court. The complaint alleges three California statutory
violations, negligence, breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, and various other common law claims
relating to late fees levied on any of the j2 Global affiliate's
customers, including those with eVoice(R) and Onebox(R) accounts.
The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, damages and
injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and a purported
nationwide class of similarly situated persons.

On September 29, 2014, the Los Angeles Superior Court ordered both
cases related and consolidated for discovery purposes. On March
13, 2015, a third amended complaint was filed in this action,
which no longer included IV Pit Stop as a plaintiff but added
Christopher Dancel as a plaintiff. Discovery is ongoing.


JAKKS PACIFIC: Third Amended Complaint Filed in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAKKS Pacific, 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 Third Amended
Complaint ("TAC") has been filed in the class action lawsuit.

On July 25, 2013, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California captioned Melot v. JAKKS Pacific, Inc. et al., Case No.
CV13-05388 (JAK) against Stephen G. Berman, Joel M. Bennett
(collectively the "Individual Defendants"), and the Company
(collectively, "Defendants").  On July 30, 2013, a second
purported class action lawsuit was filed containing similar
allegations against Defendants captioned Dylewicz v. JAKKS
Pacific, Inc. et al., Case No. CV13-5487 (OON). The two cases
(collectively, the "Class Action") were consolidated on December
2, 2013 under Case No. CV13-05388 JAK (SSx) and lead plaintiff and
lead counsel appointed.

On January 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed a consolidated class action
complaint (the "First Amended Complaint") against Defendants which
alleged that the Company violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making false
and/or misleading statements concerning Company financial
projections and performance as part of its public filings and
earnings calls from July 17, 2012 through July 17, 2013.
Specifically, the First Amended Complaint alleged that the
Company's forward looking statements, guidance and other public
statements were false and misleading for allegedly failing to
disclose (i) certain alleged internal forecasts, (ii) the
Company's alleged quarterly practice of laying off and rehiring
workers, (iii) the Company's alleged entry into license agreements
with guaranteed minimums the Company allegedly knew it was unable
to meet; and (iv) allegedly poor performance of the Monsuno and
Winx lines of products after their launch. The First Amended
Complaint also alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act by Messrs. Berman and Bennett. The First Amended Complaint
sought compensatory and other damages in an undisclosed amount as
well as attorneys' fees and pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint
on February 17, 2014, and the motion was granted, with leave to
replead. A Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") was filed on July 8,
2014 and it set forth similar allegations to those in the First
Amended Complaint about discrepancies between internal projections
and public forecasts and the other allegations except that the
claim with respect to guaranteed minimums that the Company
allegedly knew it was unable to meet was eliminated. The Company
filed a motion to dismiss the SAC and that motion was granted with
leave to replead.  A Third Amended Complaint ("TAC") was filed on
March 23, 2015 with similar allegations.

"We believe that the claims in the Class Action are without merit,
and we intend to defend vigorously against them. However, because
the Class Action is in a preliminary stage, we cannot assure you
as to its outcome, or that an adverse decision in such action
would not have a material adverse effect on our business,
financial condition or results of operations," the Company said.


LEVY ACQUISITION: Class Action Filed Related to Del Taco Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Levy Acquisition 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 a purported class
action and derivative complaint, Jeffery Tomasulo, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Levy Acquisition
Sponsor, LLC, Lawrence F. Levy, Howard B. Bernick, Marc S. Simon,
Craig J. Duchossois, Ari B. Levy, Steven C. Florsheim, Gregory G.
Flynn, Del Taco Holdings, Inc., and Levy Acquisition Corp.
("Complaint"), was filed on April 23, 2015, in the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois, relating to the proposed Merger pursuant
to the Merger Agreement.

The Complaint, which purports to be brought as a class action on
behalf of all of the holders of the Company's common stock,
generally alleges that the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duties to stockholders by facilitating the proposed
Merger and in negotiating and approving the Merger Agreement. The
Complaint also alleges that the Company's preliminary Proxy
Statement that was filed with the SEC on April 2, 2015 is
materially misleading and/or incomplete.

The Complaint further alleges that Del Taco and the Sponsor aided
and abetted the alleged breaches by the Company's directors. The
Complaint seeks (a) a declaration that the Company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties; (b) injunctive relief enjoining
the Merger until corrective disclosures are made; (c) compensatory
and/or rescissory damages; and (d) an award of costs and
attorney's fees. The defendants believe that the Complaint is
without merit and intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit.


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Filed Motion to Dismiss Securities Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ligand Pharmaceuticals Incorporated has filed a motion to dismiss
a 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 June 8, 2012, a federal securities class action and
shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania against the Genaera Defendants for allegedly
breaching their fiduciary duties to Genaera shareholders," the
Company said.  "The lawsuit also names us and our CEO, as
additional defendants for allegedly aiding and abetting the
Genaera Defendants' various breaches of fiduciary duties based on
our purchase of a licensing interest in a development-stage
pharmaceutical drug program from the Genaera Liquidating Trust in
May 2010 and our subsequent sale of half of its interest in the
transaction to Biotechnology Value Fund, Inc."

Following an amendment to the complaint and a round of motions to
dismiss, the court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice
on August 12, 2013.  Plaintiff appealed that dismissal on
September 10, 2013, and the Third Circuit reversed on October 17,
2014.  Plaintiff then filed a second amended complaint with the
district court, which the Company moved to dismiss on March 20,
2015.  Plaintiff's opposition was due May 11, 2015.

"We intend to continue to vigorously defend the claim against us
and our CEO.  Due to the complex nature of the legal and factual
issues involved, however, the outcome of this matter is not
presently determinable," the Company added.


LONGTOP FINANCIAL: October 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP regarding the In re Longtop Financial Technologies
Limited Securities Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE LONGTOP FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED SECURITIES LITIGATION
Civil Action No. 11-cv-3658-SAS

SUMMARY NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS OF PROPOSED $2.3 MILLION
SETTLEMENT WITH DEFENDANT DEREK PALASCHUK, SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS
HEARING, AND MOTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

To: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Longtop Financial Technologies, Ltd. American Depositary Shares
("ADSs") during the period from February 21, 2008 through May 17,
2011, inclusive, and were damaged thereby.  Certain Persons are
excluded from the definition of the Class as set forth in detail
in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated June 18,
2015.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.  YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED
BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that a settlement of the
above-captioned litigation has been proposed with defendant
Derek Palaschuk for $2.3 million in cash.  A hearing will be held
before the Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, at the
Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl
Street, Courtroom 15C, New York, NY 10007-1312 at 2:30 p.m., on
October 13, 2015 to determine whether:  (1) the proposed
Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and
adequate; (2) the Action should be dismissed with prejudice
against Palaschuk, and the releases specified and described in the
Stipulation should be granted; (3) the proposed Plan of Allocation
should be approved; (4) Lead Counsel's application for
reimbursement of expenses should be approved; and (5) Lead
Plaintiffs' application for reimbursement of costs and expenses
(including lost wages) in connection with their representation of
the Class should be approved.

The proposed Settlement follows the November 2014 trial against
Palaschuk, whereby a jury found Palaschuk liable for violating
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 between
February 10, 2010 and May 17, 2011.  Further, as required under
the Exchange Act, the jury apportioned liability for total damages
determined at trial amongst the three named defendants in the
Action as follows:  Longtop (49%), Wai Chau Lin a/k/a Lian Weizhou
(50%) and Palaschuk (1%).  In addition to the jury verdict against
Palaschuk, the Court previously entered a default judgment against
Longtop and Lin, for violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act between February 21, 2008 and May 17, 2011.  Pursuant
to the default judgment, Longtop and Lin are jointly and severally
liable to Lead Plaintiffs and the Class for damages totaling
$882,300,000 plus 9% interest on such amount from February 21,
2008, through the date of payment.  This amount is the maximum
amount of damages available to the Class.  Lead Plaintiffs'
efforts to collect this judgment remain ongoing; however, given
the complexities of the international laws implicated, Longtop's
corporate structure and its potential lack of financial resources,
the likelihood of Lead Plaintiffs collecting this judgment or any
portion thereof is uncertain.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTION AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE
IN THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT.  A detailed Notice to Class Members of
Proposed $2.3 Million Settlement with Defendant Derek Palaschuk,
Settlement Fairness Hearing, and Motion for Reimbursement of
Litigation Expense and Proof of Claim and Release Form are
currently being mailed to Class Members explaining Class Members'
rights in connection with the Settlement and the process for
submitting a claim.  If you have not received a Notice and Claim
Form, you may obtain copies of these documents, and other
information about the Settlement and the Action, at
www.longtopclassaction.com or by calling (855) 382-6454.

In order to be eligible to share in the Settlement, you must
submit a valid Claim Form postmarked no later than November 10,
2015, to Longtop Financial Technologies Securities Litigation, c/o
GCG, P.O. Box 10149, Dublin, OH  43017-3149.  Please Note:  As
discussed in the previously disseminated Notice of Pendency of
Class Action dated July 29, 2014, at trial, Lead Plaintiffs
pursued claims based on Palaschuk's alleged misrepresentations
during the period February 10, 2010 through May 17, 2011.
Accordingly, only those Class Members who purchased or otherwise
acquired Longtop ADS during the Trial Class Period and submit
valid Claim Forms will be potentially eligible to share in the
Settlement.  If you are a Class Member and do not submit a valid
Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution
of the net proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be
bound by any judgment or orders entered by the Court in this
Action.

If you previously submitted a request for exclusion from the Class
in connection with the Class Notice and you wish to remain
excluded from the Class, no further action is required.  If you
previously submitted a request for exclusion from the Class in
connection with the Class Notice and you want to opt-back into the
Class and be potentially eligible to receive a payment from the
Settlement, you must submit a request to opt-back into the Class
in writing such that it is received no later than September 22,
2015, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.
If you previously submitted a request for exclusion from the Class
in connection with the Class Notice and do not opt-back into the
Class in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice,
you will not be bound by any judgment or orders entered by the
Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the
net proceeds of the Settlement.

If you are a Class Member, you have the right to object to the
Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or the requests by Lead
Counsel and Lead Plaintiffs for reimbursement of expenses.  Any
objections must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead
Counsel and counsel for the Settling Defendant such that they are
received no later than September 22, 2015, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, may
be made to Lead Counsel: Gregory M. Castaldo and Kimberly A.
Justice of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, 280 King of Prussia
Road, Radnor, PA  19087, (610) 667-7706, info@ktmc.com

Further information may also be obtained by directing your inquiry
in writing to the Claims Administrator, GCG, at the address and
phone number listed above.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

Dated: July 20, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:
United States District Court
For the Southern District of New York


MCCORMICK & CO: Files Motion to Dismiss Slack-Fill Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Ziobro, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
McCormick & Co. filed a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a
smaller rival that alleged the spice maker deceived shoppers by
putting less pepper in its tins while leaving the price unchanged.

In a filing in the U.S. District Court in Minnesota, McCormick
said that privately held Watkins Inc. didn't show that it suffered
any harm from McCormick's actions or that any consumers were
deceived.

"Without alleging such injury, plaintiff has no standing to bring
this suit," McCormick said on July 17 in the filing.

The Watkins lawsuit, filed last month, leaned on regulations
governing how much air manufacturers are allowed to include in
their packaging.  So-called slack-fill laws allow empty space for
reasons like protecting the contents from damage and limitations
of the machines that pack them, but too much extra space can run
afoul of the law.

Watkins, which sells spices as well as other household products,
argued that McCormick went too far when it cut the volume of
pepper in its tins without changing the size of the packaging,
creating what is known as nonfunctional slack fill.  It said the
change put it at a competitive disadvantage in the spice aisle and
confused consumers too.

McCormick's change essentially amounted to a stealth price
increase. McCormick said last month it did so because of a sharp
increase in pepper costs in recent years, including a 60% rise in
the year before the change was made.

A hearing has been scheduled for late September on the motion to
dismiss.  A McCormick spokeswoman said the company wouldn't
comment beyond the filing.

In a statement, Watkins reiterated that it believes McCormick
"acted in an illegal and deceitful manner."

Slack-fill violations have been fertile grounds for litigation in
recent years, with district attorneys and plaintiffs alleging that
consumers have been deceived by the size of the packaging on
everything from snacks to deodorants.  McCormick is facing a
separate class-action suit, filed days after Watkins made its
allegations, over the changes to its pepper packages.

Earlier this month, Procter & Gamble Co. paid $850,000 in civil
penalties and costs and agreed to change the packaging of some
Olay skin-care products as part of a settlement with California
prosecutors.


MCDERMOTT INTERNATIONAL: Court Dismissed Consolidated Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A court has granted McDermott International, Inc.'s' motion to
dismiss a consolidated amended class action complaint, with
prejudice, McDermott 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 Company said, "On August 15, 2013 and August 20, 2013, two
separate alleged purchasers of our common stock filed purported
class action complaints against us, Stephen M. Johnson and Perry
L. Elders in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas. Both of the complaints sought to represent a
class of purchasers of our stock between November 6, 2012 and
August 5, 2013, and alleged, among other things, that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by disseminating
materially false and misleading information and failing to
disclose material information relating to weaknesses in project
bidding and execution, poor risk evaluation, poor project
management and losses in each of our reporting segments. Each
complaint sought relief, including unspecified compensatory
damages and an award for attorneys' fees and other costs."

"By order dated December 5, 2013, the District Court consolidated
the two cases and appointed a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's
counsel. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint
on February 6, 2014. The consolidated amended complaint asserts
substantially the same claims as were made in the two original
complaints, with some additional factual allegations, and purports
to extend the class period to August 6, 2013. It also seeks
relief, including unspecified compensatory damages and an award
for attorneys' fees and other costs."

On April 7, 2014, MII and the other defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the case. On May 22, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed an
opposition to the motion to dismiss, and MII and the other
defendants filed a reply in support of the defendants' motion to
dismiss on June 23, 2014.

"On March 13, 2015, the Court granted our motion to dismiss and
dismissed the consolidated amended complaint, with prejudice.  The
period for filing an appeal of the Court's decision has since
expired, without an appeal," the Company said.


MEILIN HAIR: Faces "Liu" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yu Hao Liu and Si Qing Li, on behalf of themselves and all other
persons similarly situated v. Meilin Hair Salon Inc., Mei Lin Liu
and Jian Qing Jiang, Case No. 1:15-cv-04085 (E.D.N.Y., July 10,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a hair salon with a principal place
of business at 7001 Amboy Road, Staten Island, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Stein, Esq.
      SAMUEL & STEIN
      38 West 32nd Street
      Suite 1110
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (212) 563-9884
      E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com

         - and -

      Vincent S. Wong, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT S. WONG
      39 East Broadway, Suite 306
      New York, NY 10002
      Telephone: 212) 349-6099
      E-mail: vswlaw@gmail.com


MIAMI TERMINAL: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Macais" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Silvio Cayetano Barreto Macias and all others similarly situated
v. Miami Terminal Cold Storage, LLC, Lee E. Sigler, Case No. 1:15-
cv-22587-RNS (S.D. Fla., July 9, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed in
excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants operate a refrigerated warehousing and storage in
Miami Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MIDWEST PARTITIONS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Adan Rios, Jamie Banuelos, Jose Angel Gutierrez, Milton Rangel,
Lazaro Hernandez, Huascar Polanco, and Wilmer Polanco, on their
own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Midwest Partitions, Inc., D & F Partitions, LLC, Yolkins Res/Com
Drywall, Inc., Allen Hall, Cesar Quintana, and Marcos Gutierrez,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01456-PAB (D. Colo., July 9, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the construction business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard Rosenblatt, Esq.
      ROSENBLATT & GOSCH, PLLC
      8085 East Prentice Avenue
      Greenwood Village, CO 80111-2745
      Telephone: (303) 721-7399
      Facsimile: (720) 528-1220
      E-mail: rrosenblatt@cwa-union.org


MODEL N: Securities Class Actions Filed
---------------------------------------
Model N, 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 purported securities
class action lawsuits were filed on September 5, 2014 and January
22, 2015, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of San Mateo, against the Company, certain of the Company's
current and former directors and executive officers and
underwriters of the IPO. The lawsuits were brought by purported
stockholders of the Company seeking to represent a class
consisting of all those who purchased the Company's stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the Registration Statement and Prospectus
issued in connection with the 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 believes that the outcome of litigation is inherently
uncertain and an adverse result could have a material effect on
its financial statements. However, based on currently available
information, the Company does not expect that the ultimate outcome
of these unresolved matters will have a material adverse effect on
its results of operations, cash flows or financial position.


MONSTER BEVERAGE: Says False Advertising Cases Have "No Merit"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monster Beverage 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 Company has
been named as a defendant in various false advertising putative
class actions and in a private attorney general action. In these
actions, plaintiffs allege that defendants misleadingly labeled
and advertised Monster Energy(R) brand products that allegedly
were ineffective for the advertised benefits (including, but not
limited to, an allegation that the products do not hydrate as
advertised because they contain caffeine). The plaintiffs further
allege that the Monster Energy(R) brand products at issue are
unsafe because they contain one or more ingredients that allegedly
could result in illness, injury or death.

In connection with these product safety allegations, the
plaintiffs claim that the product labels did not provide adequate
warnings and/or that the Company did not include sufficiently
specific statements with respect to contra-indications and/or
adverse reactions associated with the consumption of its energy
drink products (including, but not limited to, claims that certain
ingredients, when consumed individually or in combination with
other ingredients, could result in high blood pressure,
palpitations, liver damage or other negative health effects and/or
that the products themselves are unsafe). Based on these
allegations, the plaintiffs assert claims for violation of state
consumer protection statutes, including unfair competition and
false advertising statutes, and for breach of warranty and unjust
enrichment. In their prayers for relief, the plaintiffs seek,
inter alia, compensatory and punitive damages, restitution,
attorneys' fees, and, in some cases, injunctive relief.

The Company regards these cases and allegations as having no
merit. Furthermore, the Company is subject to litigation from time
to time in the normal course of business, including intellectual
property litigation and claims from terminated distributors.


MURRY'S INC: Recalls Gluten-Free Breaded Chicken Nuggets
--------------------------------------------------------
Murry's, Inc., a Lebanon, Pa. establishment, is recalling
approximately 20,232 pounds of gluten-free breaded chicken nugget
product that tested positive for Staphylococcal enterotoxin, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced.

The following product is subject to recall:

  --- 12-oz. boxes of "Bell & Evans Gluten Free Breaded Chicken
      Breast Nuggets" with a "Best By" date of March 25, 2016.

The product, bearing establishment number "P-516" inside the USDA
mark of inspection, was shipped to an establishment for
distribution nationwide.

The problem was discovered by the Colorado Department of
Agriculture during a routine retail surveillance and sampling
program, which is funded by the USDA at a Food Emergency Response
Network (FERN) lab. After being notified of the positive test
result, FSIS conducted traceback activities.

Staphylococcal food poisoning is a gastrointestinal illness. It is
caused by eating foods contaminated with toxin-producing
Staphylococcus aureus.

Staphylococcus aureus is a common bacterium found on the skin and
in the noses of healthy people and animals. Staphylococcus aureus
can produce seven different toxins that are frequently responsible
for food poisoning.

Staphylococcal enterotoxins are fast acting, sometimes causing
illness in as little as 30 minutes. Thoroughly cooking product
does not prevent illness, and symptoms usually develop within one
to six hours after eating contaminated food. Patients typically
experience several of the following: nausea, vomiting, stomach
cramps, and diarrhea. The illness is usually mild and most
patients recover after one to three days.

To prevent Staphylococcal contamination, keep kitchens and food-
serving areas clean and sanitized. Keep hot foods hot (over 140 F)
and cold foods cold (40 F or under). Make sure to wash hands and
under fingernails vigorously with soap and water before handling
and preparing food. Do not prepare food if you have an open sore
or wound on your hands or if you have a nose or eye infection.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a
reaction should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls

Consumers and media with questions about the recall can contact
Murry's Customer Service, at (800) 638-0215.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem


NATURAL DOG: Recalls Tremenda Sticks Pet Chews Due to Salmonella
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Natural Dog Company, Inc. of Windsor, CO, is recalling its
12oz bags of 12" Tremenda Sticks pet chews because they have the
potential to be contaminated with Salmonella. Salmonella can
affect animals eating the product and there is risk to humans from
handling contaminated products, especially if they have not
thoroughly washed their hands after having contact with the
products or any surfaces exposed to these products.

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

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

The recalled 12" Tremenda Sticks were distributed to retail stores
in CA, CO, FL, IL, MO MT, NC, OH UT and WA.

The recalled product comes in a 12oz bag without a lot number or
expiration date with UPC number: 851265004957. Products with new
packaging, which includes both a lot number and expiration date
but the same UPC are not affected by this recall.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The potential for contamination was noted after a Colorado
Department of Agriculture inspection of the product revealed the
presence of Salmonella in a sample taken from a 12oz package of
12" Tremenda Sticks.

Production of the product has been suspended while FDA and the
company continue their investigation as to the source of the
problem.

Consumers who have purchased 12oz packages of 12" Tremenda Sticks
should discontinue use of the product and may return the unused
portion to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 1-888-424-4602 - Monday to
Friday 9am to 5pm MST.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm455542.htm


NETSOL TECHNOLOGIES: Filed Motion to Dismiss Rand-Heart Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Netsol Technologies, Inc. has filed a motion to dismiss the class
action lawsuit filed by Rand-Heart of New York, Inc., 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 July 25, 2014, purported class action lawsuits were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
against the Company and three of its current or former officers
and/or directors, which have been consolidated under the caption
Rand-Heart of New York, Inc. v. NetSol Technologies, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:14-cv-05787 PA (SHx). Plaintiffs subsequently filed a
consolidated complaint, which asserted claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 premised on
allegedly false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
next generation product, NFS AscentTM, and business prospects
during the proposed class period of November 12, 2009 to November
8, 2013. On March 19, 2015, the Court granted the Company's motion
to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On March 31, 2015,
plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint that contains similar
but more narrow allegations than the predecessor complaint. The
Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint was scheduled to
be heard on June 8, 2015.

The Company continues to believe the amended allegations are
meritless and intends to vigorously defend all claims asserted.
The Company has engaged counsel and has liability insurance. Given
the early stage of the litigation, however, at this time the
Company is unable to form a professional judgment that an
unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote, and it is not
possible to assess whether or not the outcome of these proceedings
will or will not have a material adverse effect on the Company.


OCWEN LOAN: Sued in Cal. for Non-Disclosure of Balloon Payment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dana D. Moody, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-05186
(C.D. Cal., July 9, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the
California borrowers who have entered into an in-house loan
modification agreement with the Defendant that contains a
purported "Balloon Disclosure" provision which does not disclose
the amount of the balloon payment that the borrower will owe at
the end of the term of the loan.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC is a mortgage bank and home mortgage
loan servicer, servicing mortgages on behalf of lenders and
investors, including pooled mortgage-backed securities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      Meredith S. Lierz, Esq.
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
      1016 Palm Avenue
      West Hollywood, CA 90069
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      E-mail: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
              twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
              mlierz@ahdootwolfson.com

         - and -

      Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
      Todd S. Collins, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: 215-875-3000
      Facsimile: 215-875-4613
      E-mail: tcollins@bm.net
              elechtzin@bm.net


ON THE LEVEL: "Larue" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
William Larue, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. On The Level Construction Services, Inc. and Kirk L.
McAlister, Case No. 5:15-cv-00339-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla., July 10,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

On The Level Construction Services, Inc. provides construction
service in the states of Florida, Illinois, Alabama, and Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
      WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
      200 Central Ave Ste 400
      St. Petersburg, FL 33701
      Telephone: (727) 823-0000
      Facsimile: (352) 556-4839
      E-mail: lechnerj@thefllawfirm.com

         - and -

      Jason T. Brown, Esq.
      Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Telephone: (210) 630-0000
      Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
      E-mail: Jbt@jbtlawgroup.com
              Nicholasconlon@jbtlawgroup.com


OSAMU CORPORATION: Recalls Frozen Tuna Products Due to Salmonella
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Osamu Corporation of Gardena, CA is recalling all of its frozen
tuna (loin, saku, chunk, slice, and ground market forms) sourced
from one processing plant in Indonesia because the Minnesota
Department of Health Investigators found samples of this product
from one retail location in Minnesota to be contaminated with
Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody),
nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances,
infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into
the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as
arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.  Persons developing these symptoms should seek medical
attention. There have been two reports of illness associated with
a single distributor in Minnesota.

The frozen tuna was sold in bulk packaging to distributors who
further sold it to sushi restaurants, and grocery stores who
packaged sushi rolls made available for consumers to purchase and
take home, throughout the U.S. from 05/09/14 to 07/09/15
containing all sequential four digit Purchase Order Numbers (PO#)
of 8563 through 8599.

The bulk frozen tuna products can be identified from the Purchase
Order Number (PO#) printed on each product carton box end panel.

Consumers concerned about whether the sushi they purchased may
contain the recalled tuna product should check with the restaurant
or store where they purchased the sushi. That store will be able
to determine if it used the recalled product to prepare the sushi.
At this time Osamu does not believe that the recalled product or
sushi made with the recalled product is available for purchase by
consumers.

Customers who have purchased the frozen tuna products from their
distributors are urged to return it to the distributor for a full
refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-310-
849-8881, Mondays through Fridays, 8 A.M. to 5 P.M. (PDT).

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm455627.htm


P&S SELECT: "Torres" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Leoncio Torres, and others similarly-situated v. P&S Select Foods
Inc., P&S Select Meats Inc., Ray Doe Sr., Gary Doe, Anthony Doe,
and Ray Doe Jr., LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-05386 (S.D.N.Y., July 10,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages,
liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants owned, operated and controlled a meat supply
company in Bronx, New York under the name "P&S Select Foods".

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Antonio Faillace
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200
      Fax: (212) 317-1620
      E-mail: faillace@employmentcompliance.com


PACIFIC GAS: Does Not Properly Pay CSRs, "Greer" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Becky Greer, Timothy C. Budnik, Rosario Saenz, and Ian Carty,
individually and as class representatives v. Pacific Gas and
Electric Company, and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 1:15-cv-01066-
GSA (E.D. Cal., July 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay all wages owed to all Customer Service
Representative I personnel for all work performed at the proper
rate of compensation.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company is one of the largest combination
natural gas and electric utilities in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dylan J. Crosby, Esq.
      Michael S. Helsley, Esq.
      Patrick D. Toole, Esq.
      WANGER JONES HELSLEY PC
      265 E. River Park Circle, Suite 310
      P.O. Box 28340
      Fresno, CA 93729
      Telephone: (559) 233-4800
      Facsimile: (559) 233-9330
      E-mail: dcrosby@wjhattorneys.com
              mhelsley@wjhattorneys.com
              ptoole@wjhattorneys.com


PHOTOMEDEX INC: Court Dismissed Class Action Against Radiancy
-------------------------------------------------------------
PhotoMedex, 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
dismissed a class action lawsuit filed against the Company's
subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc. and Dolev Rafaeli, Radiancy's
President, in its entirety for failure to state a claim.

On April 25, 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
against the Company's subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc. and Dolev
Rafaeli, Radiancy's President. The suit was filed by Jan Mouzon
and twelve other customers residing in ten different states who
purchased Radiancy's no!no! Hair products. It alleges various
violations of state business and consumer protection codes
including false and misleading advertising, unfair trade
practices, and breach of express and implied warranties. The
complaint seeks certification of the putative class, or,
alternatively, certification as subclasses of plaintiffs residing
in those specific states. The complaint also seeks an unspecified
amount of monetary damages, pre-and post-judgment interest and
attorneys' fees, expert witness fees and other costs.

Dr. Rafaeli was served with the Complaint on May 5, 2014; to date,
Radiancy, has not been served. A mediation was scheduled in this
matter for November 24, 2014, but no settlement was reached.

On March 30, 2015, the Court dismissed this action in its entirety
for failure to state a claim. The Court specifically dismissed
with prejudice the claims pursuant to New York General Business
Law Sections 349-50 and the implied warranty of fitness for a
particular purpose; the other counts against Radiancy were
dismissed without prejudice. The Court also granted Dr. Rafaeli's
motion to dismiss the actions against him for lack of personal
jurisdiction over him by the Court. The Court denied the
plaintiffs request for jurisdictional discovery with respect to
Dr. Rafaeli and plaintiffs request to amend the complaint.

Radiancy and its officers intend to continue to vigorously defend
themselves against any attempts to continue this lawsuit. At this
time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be
reasonably estimated as the case has only been initiated and no
discovery has been conducted to determine the validity of any
claim or claims made by plaintiffs. Therefore, the Company has not
recorded any reserve or contingent liability related to these
particular legal matters. However, in the future, as the cases
progress, the Company may be required to record a contingent
liability or reserve for these matters.


PHOTOMEDEX INC: Cantley Class Action in Discovery Phase
-------------------------------------------------------
PhotoMedex, 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 class action filed
by April Cantley, who purchased Radiancy's no!no! Hair products,
is now in the discovery phase.

On June 30, 2014, the Company's subsidiary, Radiancy, Inc., was
served with a class action lawsuit filed in the Superior Court in
the State of California, County of Kern. The suit was filed by
April Cantley, who purchased Radiancy's no!no! Hair products. It
alleges various violations of state business and consumer
protection codes including false and misleading advertising,
breach of express and implied warranties and breach of the
California Legal Remedies Act. The complaint seeks certification
of the class, which consists of customers in the State of
California who purchased the no!no! Hair devices. The complaint
also seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, pre-and
post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees, expert witness fees
and other costs.

Radiancy has filed an Answer to this Complaint; the case is now in
the discovery phase. Radiancy and its officers intend to
vigorously defend themselves against this lawsuit. Discovery has
now commenced in this action.

At this time, the amount of any loss, or range of loss, cannot be
reasonably estimated as the case has only been initiated and no
discovery has been conducted to determine the validity of any
claim or claims made by plaintiffs. Therefore, the Company has not
recorded any reserve or contingent liability related to these
particular legal matters. However, in the future, as the cases
progress, the Company may be required to record a contingent
liability or reserve for these matters.


POPULAR INC: "Valle" Case v. PCB Stayed Pending Ruling on Motions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, 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 case, Josefina
Valle, et al. v. Popular Community Bank, has been stayed pending a
ruling on motions.

On November 21, 2012, Banco Popular North America ("BPNA") was
served with a putative class action complaint captioned Josefina
Valle, et al. v. Popular Community Bank, filed in the New York
State Supreme Court (New York County). Plaintiffs, existing BPNA
customers, allege among other things that BPNA has engaged in
unfair and deceptive acts and trade practices in connection with
the assessment of overdraft fees and payment processing on
consumer deposit accounts. The complaint further alleges that BPNA
improperly disclosed its consumer overdraft policies and,
additionally, that the overdraft rates and fees assessed by BPNA
violate New York's usury laws. The complaint seeks unspecified
damages, including punitive damages, interest, disbursements, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

BPNA removed the case to federal court (S.D.N.Y.) and plaintiffs
subsequently filed a motion to remand the action to state court,
which the Court granted on August 6, 2013. A motion to dismiss was
filed on September 9, 2013. On October 25, 2013, plaintiffs filed
an amended complaint seeking to limit the putative class to New
York account holders.

A motion to dismiss the amended complaint was filed in February
2014. In August 2014, the Court entered an order granting in part
BPNA's motion to dismiss. The sole surviving claim relates to
BPNA's item processing policy. On September 10, 2014, plaintiffs
filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint to
correct certain deficiencies noted in the court's decision and
order. BPNA subsequently filed a motion in opposition to
plaintiff's motion for leave to amend and further sought to compel
arbitration. The matter has been stayed pending a ruling on such
motions.


POPULAR INC: Conditional Certification Granted in "Quiles" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, 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 Court has granted
plaintiffs' request for conditional certification of the class
action filed by Neysha Quiles.

Between December 2013 and January 2014, Banco Popular de Puerto
Rico ("BPPR"), Banco Popular North America ("BPNA") and Popular,
Inc., along with two executive officers, were served with a
putative class action complaint captioned Neysha Quiles et al. v.
Banco Popular de Puerto Rico et al. Plaintiffs essentially alleged
that they and others, who have been employed by the Defendants as
"bank tellers" and other similarly titled positions, were
generally paid only for scheduled work time, rather than time
actually worked.

The Complaint sought to maintain a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") on behalf of all individuals who
were employed or were currently employed by the Defendants in
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, New York, New Jersey, Florida,
California, and Illinois as hourly paid, non-exempt, bank tellers
or other similarly titled positions at any time during the past
three years and alleged the following claims under the FLSA
against all Defendants: (i) failure to pay overtime premiums; and
(ii) that the failure to pay was willful. Similar claims were
brought under Puerto Rico law on behalf of all individuals who
were employed or are currently employed by BPPR in Puerto Rico as
hourly paid, non-exempt, bank tellers or other similarly titled
positions at any time during the past three years.

On January 31, 2014, the Popular defendants filed an answer to the
complaint. On February 24, 2014, the parties reached an agreement
to dismiss the complaint against BPNA and the named BPNA executive
officer without prejudice. On January 9, 2015, plaintiffs
submitted a motion for conditional class certification, which BPPR
opposed. On February 18, 2015, the Court entered an order whereby
it granted plaintiffs' request for conditional certification of
the FLSA action.


POPULAR INC: "Fernandez" Remains Pending in New York Court
----------------------------------------------------------
Popular, 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 class action case,
Nora Fernandez, et al. v. UBS, et al., currently remains pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

On May 5, 2014, a putative class action captioned Nora Fernandez,
et al. v. UBS, et al. was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors
in 23 Puerto Rico closed-end investment companies against various
UBS entities, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico ("BPPR") and Popular
Securities. UBS Financial Services Incorporated of Puerto Rico is
the sponsor and co-sponsor of all 23 funds, while BPPR was co-
sponsor, together with UBS, of nine (9) of those funds.

The plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duties, aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract against
all defendants. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, including
disgorgement of fees and attorneys' fees.

On May 30, 2014, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their class
action in the SDNY and on that same date, they filed a virtually
identical complaint in the US District Court for the District of
Puerto Rico (USDC-PR) and requested that the case be consolidated
with the matter of In re: UBS Financial Services Securities
Litigation, a class action currently pending before the USDC-PR in
which neither BPPR nor Popular Securities are parties.

The UBS defendants filed an opposition to the consolidation
request and moved to transfer the case back to the SDNY on the
ground that the relevant agreements between the parties contain a
choice of forum clause, with New York as the selected forum. The
Popular defendants joined this motion.

By order dated January 30, 2015, the court denied the plaintiffs'
motion to consolidate. By order dated March 30, 2015, the court
granted defendants' motion to transfer. The case currently remains
pending in the SDNY.


POPULAR INC: Court Approves Dismissal of "Alvarez" Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Popular, 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 court has approved
the dismissal of the case, David Alvarez, et al. v. Banco Popular
North America.

On May 6, 2014, a putative class action captioned David Alvarez,
et al. v. Banco Popular North America was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.
Plaintiffs generally assert that BPNA has engaged in purported
violations of Sec.2954.8(a) of the California Civil Code and
Sec.17200 et seq. of the California Business Professions Code,
which allegedly require financial institutions that make loans
secured by certain types of real property located within the state
of California to pay interest to borrowers on impound account
deposits at a statutory rate of not less than two percent (2%).
Plaintiffs maintain that BPNA has not paid interest on such
deposits and demand that BPNA be enjoined from engaging in further
violations of these provisions and pay an unspecified amount of
damages sufficient to repay the unpaid interest on these deposits.

PHH Corporation, which acquired the loans at issue in this
complaint, has agreed to indemnify and tender a defense on behalf
of BPNA. On March 11, 2015, the parties executed a settlement
agreement and release to fully and finally resolve the litigation
and dismiss the case in its entirety and on March 24, 2015, the
court approved the dismissal of the case. The terms of the
settlement do not require that BPNA make any payment in connection
thereof.


POPULAR INC: Agreement in "Valle" Case v. BPNA Not Yet Final
------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, 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 agreement in
principle reached in the case, Josefina Valle, et al. v. BPNA, is
not yet final.

On October 7, 2014, Banco Popular North America ("BPNA") was
served with a putative class action complaint captioned Josefina
Valle, et al. v. BPNA, filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York. The complaint names the
same plaintiffs who filed the overdraft fee class action suit.
Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that BPNA engages in unfair
and deceptive acts and trade practices relative to the assessment
of ATM fees on ATM transactions initialed at Allpoint branded
ATMs. The complaint further alleges that BPNA is in violation of
the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E with respect to
ATM fees.

On December 2, 2014, BPNA filed a motion to compel arbitration,
which plaintiffs opposed. On February 2, 2015, the court entered
an opinion and order granting defendant's motion to compel
arbitration. On February 23, 2015, plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit demanding that the court reverse the district court's
ruling. On April 17, 2015, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to settle this matter for approximately $25,000. This
settlement is not yet final.


POPULAR INC: BPNA Settles Claims by Ex-Assist. Branch Managers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Popular, 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 as a result of the
mediation, the parties in a potential class action submitted by
two former assistant branch managers have entered into an
agreement in principle to settle this claim.

On October 3, 2014, Banco Popular North America ("BPNA") received
notice of a potential class action submitted by two former
assistant branch managers. The purported action alleges various
wage and hour violations arising from what they contend is an
improper job classification under the FLSA and applicable state
law equivalents.

In December 2014, BPNA accepted plaintiffs' offer to mediate this
dispute, and mediation took place on February 19, 2015. As a
result of the mediation, the parties entered into an agreement in
principle to settle this claim. Under the terms of the agreement
in principle, subject to certain customary conditions including
court approval of a final settlement agreement in consideration
for the full settlement and release of all defendants, defendant
will pay the amount of $800,000.


POPULAR INC: BPPR Served with RadioShack ERISA Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
Popular, 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 Banco Popular de
Puerto Rico ("BPPR") was served on March 20, 2015, with a class
action complaint titled In re 2014 RadioShack ERISA Litigation,
filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
The complaint alleges that certain employees of RadioShack
incurred losses in their 401(k) plans because various fiduciaries
elected to retain RadioShack's company stock in the portfolio of
potential investment options. The complaint further asserts that
once RadioShack's financial situation began to deteriorate in
2011, the fiduciaries of the RadioShack 401(k) Plan and the
RadioShack Puerto Rico 1165(e) Plan (collectively, "the Plans")
should have removed RadioShack company stock from the portfolio of
potential investment options.

Popular was a directed trustee, and therefore a fiduciary, of the
RadioShack Puerto Rico 1165(e) Plan ("P.R. Plan"). Even though the
P.R. Plan directed Popular to retain RadioShack company stock
within the portfolio of investment options, the complaint alleges
that a trustee's duty of prudence requires it to disregard plan
documents or directives that it knows or reasonably should know
would lead to an imprudent result or would otherwise harm plan
participants or beneficiaries. It further alleges that Popular
breached its fiduciary duties by (i) failing to take any
meaningful steps to protect plan participants from losses that it
knew would occur; (ii) failing to divest the P.R. Plan of Company
Stock; and (iii) participating in the decisions of another trustee
(Wells Fargo) to protect the Plans from inevitable losses.


PURE CANVAS: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, "Espinoza" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Espinoza, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Pure Canvas, Inc. and David Abellard, Case
No. 9:15-cv-80950-DMM (S.D. Fla., July 10, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay their employees at least
the federal minimum wage rate and overtime pay for all hours
worked.

The Defendants own and operate a digital printing company located
at 4849 Lake Worth Road, Suite 202, Greenacres, Florida 33463.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Odato, Esq.
      Dennis A. Creed III, Esq.
      FELDMAN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      1715 N. Westshore Blvd., Suite 400
      Tampa, FL 33607
      Telephone: (813) 639-9366
      Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
      E-mail: jodato@ffmlawgroup.com
              dcreed@ffmlawgroup.com


RCI HOSPITALITY: Settled New York Wage and Hour Class Action Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RCI Hospitality Holdings, Inc., and its subsidiaries, RCI
Entertainment (New York), Inc. and Peregrine Enterprises, Inc.,
have entered into an agreement to settle in full a New York based
federal wage and hour class action case, RCI 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 April 1, 2015, we and our subsidiaries, RCI Entertainment (New
York), Inc. and Peregrine Enterprises, Inc., entered into an
agreement to settle in full a New York based federal wage and hour
class action case filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York," the Company said. The
settlement has been filed with the court for preliminary approval.
Trial was scheduled to begin April 27, 2015.

Under terms of the agreement, RCI Entertainment (New York), Inc.
and Peregrine Enterprises, Inc. will make up to $15 million
available to class members and their attorneys. The actual amount
paid will be determined based on the number of class members
responding by the end of a three-month notice period, with final
court approval expected sometime after that.

"Any unclaimed checks or payments will revert back to our
subsidiaries," the Company said.

Based on the current schedule, an initial payment of $1,833,333
will be made in approximately five months, with two subsequent
payments of $1,833,333 each being made in equal annual
installments.

"As part of the settlement, we were required to guarantee the
obligations of RCI Entertainment (New York), Inc. and Peregrine
Enterprises, Inc. under the settlement," the Company said.

Filed in 2009, the case claimed Rick's Cabaret New York
misclassified entertainers as independent contractors. Plaintiffs
sought minimum wage for the hours they danced and return of
certain fees. RCI Entertainment (New York), Inc. and Peregrine
Enterprises, Inc. maintained the dancers were properly classified,
and alternatively, amounts earned were well in excess of the
minimum wage and should satisfy any obligations.

In accordance with GAAP, the Company has accrued $10.3 million as
of March 31, 2015 as the estimated liability for its obligations
under the settlement.


SABINE OIL: Parties Negotiating Settlement of Forest Oil Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the cases, Stourbridge Investments, LLC v. Forest Oil
Corporation, et al., Raul v. Carroll, et al., Rothenberg v. Forest
Oil Corporation, et al., Gawlikowski v. Forest Oil Corporation, et
al., Edwards v. Carroll, et al., Jabri v. Forest Oil Corporation,
et al., Olinatz v. Forest Oil Corporation, et al., are negotiating
a stipulation of settlement, Sabine Oil & Gas 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.

Following the May 6, 2014 announcement of the proposed
Combination, six putative class action lawsuits were filed by
Forest Oil shareholder in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, County of New York, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty by
the directors of Forest Oil and aiding and abetting of those
breaches of fiduciary duty by Sabine entities in connection with
the proposed Combination. By order dated July 8, 2014, the six New
York cases were consolidated for all purposes under the caption In
re Forest Oil Corporation Shareholder Litigation, Index No.
651418/2014.

On July 17, 2014, plaintiffs in the consolidated New York action
filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Consolidated
Complaint"). The Consolidated Complaint seeks to certify a
plaintiff class consisting of all holders of Forest Oil common
stock other than the defendants and their affiliates. The
defendants named in these actions include the directors of Forest
Oil (Patrick R. McDonald, James H. Lee, Dod A. Fraser, James D.
Lightner, Loren K. Carroll, Richard J. Carty, and Raymond I.
Wilcox), as well as Sabine and certain of its affiliates
(specifically, Sabine Oil & Gas LLC, Sabine Investor Holdings LLC,
Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings LLC, and Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings II
LLC).  The Consolidated Complaint also purports to identify FR XI
Onshore AIV, L.L.C. as a defendant, but no causes of action are
alleged against that entity.

The Consolidated Complaint alleges that the proposed Combination
arises out of a series of unlawful actions by the board of
directors of Forest Oil seeking to ensure that Sabine and
affiliates of First Reserve Corporation ("First Reserve") acquire
the assets of, and take control over, Forest Oil through an
alleged "three-step merger transaction" that allegedly does not
represent a value-maximizing transaction for the shareholders of
Forest Oil. The Consolidated Complaint also complains that the
proposed Combination has been improperly restructured to require
only a majority vote of current Forest Oil shareholders to approve
the Combination with Sabine, rather than a two-thirds majority as
would have been required under the original transaction structure.
The Consolidated Complaint additionally alleges that members of
Forest Oil's board, as well as Forest Oil's financial adviser for
the proposed Combination, are subject to conflicts of interest
that compromise their loyalty to Forest Oil's shareholders, that
the defendants have improperly sought to "lock up" the proposed
Combination with certain inappropriate "deal protection devices"
that impede Forest Oil from pursuing superior potential
transactions with other bidders.

The Consolidated Complaint asserts causes of action against the
directors of Forest Oil for breaches of fiduciary duty and
violations of the New York Business Corporation Law, as well as a
cause of action against the Sabine defendants for aiding and
abetting the directors' breaches of duty and violations of law,
and it seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to enjoin
consummation of the proposed Combination or, in the alternative,
rescission and/or rescissory and other damages in the event that
the proposed Combination is consummated before the lawsuit is
resolved.

In addition to these New York proceedings, one putative class
action lawsuit has been filed by Forest Oil shareholders in the
United States District Court for the District of Colorado. That
action, captioned Olinatz v. Forest Oil Corp., No. 1:14-cv-01409-
MSK-CBS, was commenced on May 19, 2014, and plaintiffs filed an
Amended Complaint (the "Olinatz Complaint") on June 13, 2014.

The Olinatz Complaint also alleges breaches of fiduciary duty by
the directors of Forest Oil and aiding and abetting of those
breaches of fiduciary duty by the Sabine defendants in connection
with the proposed Combination, as well as related claims alleging
violations of Section 14 (a) and 20 (a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder, in connection with alleged misstatements
in a Form S-4 Registration Statement filed by Forest Oil on May
29, 2014, which recommends that Forest Oil shareholders approve
the proposed Combination.

The Olinatz Complaint names as defendants Forest Oil and certain
of its affiliates (specifically, Forest Oil Corporation, New
Forest Oil Inc., and Forest Oil Merger Sub Inc.), the directors of
Forest Oil (Patrick R. McDonald, James H. Lee, Dod A. Fraser,
James D. Lightner, Loren K. Carroll, Richard J. Carty, and Raymond
I. Wilcox), and Sabine and certain of its affiliates
(specifically, Sabine Oil & Gas LLC, Sabine Investor Holdings LLC,
Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings LLC, and Sabine Oil & Gas Holdings II
LLC), and seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief to
enjoin consummation of the proposed Combination or, in the
alternative, rescission in the event the proposed Combination is
consummated before the lawsuit is resolved, as well as imposition
of a constructive trust on any alleged benefits improperly
received by defendants.

On October 14, 2014, on motion by the Colorado plaintiffs, the
Court in the Colorado action entered an order directing the Clerk
of the Court to administratively close the action, subject to
reopening on good cause shown.

On November 11, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in
principle with plaintiffs in the New York action regarding a
settlement of that action, and that agreement is reflected in a
memorandum of understanding executed by the parties on that date.
The settlement, if consummated, will also resolve the Colorado
action. In connection with the settlement contemplated by the
memorandum of understanding, Forest Oil agreed to make certain
additional disclosures related to the proposed transaction with
Sabine, which are contained in Forest Oil's November 12, 2014 Form
8-K, and Sabine agreed that, within 120 days after the closing of
the proposed combination transaction, Sabine Investor Holdings LLC
will designate for a period of no less than three (3) years at
least one additional independent director, as defined in Section
303A.02 of the New York Stock Exchange Listed Company Manual, as a
Sabine Nominee (as defined in Section 1.4 of the Amended and
Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger). The total number of Sabine
Nominees will remain unchanged, but at least one of the remaining
two Sabine Nominees that had not yet been determined was required
to be independent. In connection with the closing of the
Combination, Thomas Chewning, an independent director as defined
in Section 303A.02 of the New York Exchange Listed Company Manual,
was appointed as a Sabine Nominee. The memorandum of understanding
contemplates that the parties will enter into a stipulation of
settlement.

On March 13, 2015, plaintiffs informed Sabine that they believed
Sabine had materially violated the terms of the memorandum of
understanding by (i) failing to replace or create a mechanism to
replace an independent director who resigned from the board of
directors in January of 2015, and (ii) making changes to the terms
of the merger agreement that were not necessary or required to
facilitate the consummation of the proposed transaction without
first disclosing and permitting shareholders to vote on the
changes. Sabine disagrees with plaintiffs' position and believes
it has fully complied with the memorandum of understanding.

In an attempt to facilitate a resolution, however, Sabine offered
to: (i) appoint an independent director if an additional director
was added to the Board of Directors (bringing the total number of
directors eight) in the next twelve months, and (ii) remove or
waive the "Reincorporation Penalty" provision.  Plaintiffs
accepted the offer on April 22, 2015, contingent upon the Parties'
reaching agreement on a stipulation of settlement, which they are
presently negotiating.

The stipulation of settlement will be subject to customary
conditions, including court approval.  In the event the parties
enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be
scheduled at which the New York Court will consider the fairness,
reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement.  If the settlement
is finally approved by the court, it will resolve and release all
claims or actions that were or could have been brought challenging
any aspect of the proposed combination transaction, the Amended
and Restated Agreement and Plan of Merger, the merger agreement
originally entered into by Sabine Investor Holdings LLC, Forest
Oil, New Forest Oil Inc. and certain of their affiliated entities
on May 5, 2014, any disclosure made in connection therewith,
including the Definitive Proxy Statement, and all other matters
that were the subject of the complaint in the New York action,
pursuant to terms that will be disclosed to stockholders prior to
final approval of the settlement.

In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that the parties will negotiate in good faith
regarding the amount of attorney's fees and expenses that shall be
paid to plaintiffs' counsel in connection with the Actions.  There
can be no assurances that the parties will ultimately enter into a
stipulation of settlement or that the New York Court will approve
the settlement even if the parties were to enter into such
stipulation.  In such event, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may be terminated.
The parties are presently negotiating the stipulation of
settlement.  At this time, the Company is unable to guarantee the
potential outcome of this litigation or the ultimate exposure.


SAUSAGE FACTORY: Recalls Sausage Products Die to Misbranding
------------------------------------------------------------
The Sausage Factory Inc., a Carson City, Nev. establishment, is
recalling approximately 5,960 pounds of sausage products due to
misbranding, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) announced. Although produced under USDA
inspection, some packages may not bear the USDA mark of
inspection.

The sausage items were produced on various dates between March 30
and June 12, 2015. The following products are subject to recall:

  --- 10-lb. packages containing "The Sausage Factory Banger 5
      oz" and bearing case code 10025, batch #22318.
  --- 10-lb. packages containing "The Sausage Factory Bockwurst 2
      oz" and bearing case code 10049, batch #22286.
  --- 10-lb. packages containing "The Sausage Factory Bockwurst
      4-1" and bearing case code 10048, batch #22286.
  --- 10-lb. packages containing "The Sausage Factory Knockwurst
      4-1" and bearing case code 10062, batch #22308.
  --- 10-lb. packages containing "The Sausage Factory Andouille
      4-1" and bearing case code 10044, batch #22224.
  --- 10-lb. packages containing "The Sausage Factory Pulled
      Pork" and bearing case code 12152, batch #22164.
  --- 50-lb. packages containing "The Sausage Factory Pulled
      Pork" and bearing case code 12153, batch #22164.
  --- 10-lb. packages containing "The Sausage Factory Sweet
      Italian Rope" and bearing case code 12156LV, batch #22216.
  --- 10-lb. packages containing "The Sausage Factory Banger 13-
      1" and bearing case code 12235, batch #22238.
  --- 10-lb. packages containing "The Sausage Factory Della's
      Pork Sausage" and bearing case code 12581, batch #22130.
  --- 10-lb. packages containing "The Sausage Factory 8" Old
      Fashioned Frank" and bearing case code 11254, batch #22337
      and #22388.
  --- 10-lb. packages containing "The Sausage Factory 7" Old
      Fashioned Frank" and bearing case code 10080, batch #22337
      and #22388.
  --- 10-lb. packages containing "The Sausage Factory 6" 8-1 Hot
      Dog" and bearing case code 10085, batch #22388.

The products subject to recall should bear the establishment
number "EST. 6236" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items
were shipped to distribution locations in California and Nevada.

The problem was discovered during routine FSIS verification
activities.

FSIS and the company have received no reports of adverse reactions
due to consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an
injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Karla Bell,
Office Manager, at (775) 882-8110. Media with questions about the
recall can contact Steve Church, General Manager, at (775) 882-
8110.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://tinyurl.com/psfy7un


SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Court Granted Motion to Dismiss Delaware Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Games 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 court has
granted the motion of plaintiffs in the Delaware class action
related to the acquisition of WMS Industries Inc., for voluntary
dismissal of the consolidated Delaware actions.

Complaints challenging the WMS acquisition were filed in early
2013 in the Delaware Court of Chancery, the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois and the Circuit Court of Lake County, Illinois.
The actions are putative class actions filed on behalf of WMS
stockholders. The complaints generally allege that the WMS
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with their
consideration and approval of the acquisition and in connection
with their public disclosures concerning the acquisition.

The complaints allege that other defendants, including WMS,
Scientific Games Corporation and certain affiliates of Scientific
Games Corporation, aided and abetted those alleged breaches. The
plaintiffs sought equitable relief, including to enjoin the
acquisition, to rescind the acquisition if not enjoined, damages,
attorneys' fees and other costs.

The Delaware actions have been consolidated under the caption In
re WMS Stockholders Litigation (C.A. No. 8279-VCP). The plaintiffs
in the consolidated Delaware actions submitted to the Delaware
Court of Chancery a letter advising that they had conferred with
the plaintiffs in the Illinois actions and agreed to stay the
consolidated Delaware action.

The Lake County, Illinois actions were transferred to Cook County.
All of the Illinois actions were consolidated in Cook County with
Gardner v. WMS Industries Inc., et al. (No. 2013 CH 3540).

In April 2013, the plaintiffs in the Gardner action filed a motion
for preliminary injunction to enjoin the WMS stockholder vote on
the acquisition. Following that, in April 2013, lead counsel in
the Gardner action, on behalf of counsel for plaintiffs in all
actions in Delaware and Illinois, agreed to withdraw the motion
for preliminary injunction and not to seek to enjoin the WMS
stockholder vote in return for WMS' agreement to make certain
supplemental disclosures related to the acquisition.

In January 2014, the plaintiffs in the Illinois action filed an
amended complaint seeking damages for the alleged breach of
fiduciary duties by the individual defendants and the alleged
aiding and abetting of those breaches by WMS and Scientific Games
Corporation. In February 2014, WMS and Scientific Games
Corporation filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. In
September 2014, the plaintiffs' claims in the Illinois action were
dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiffs in the Illinois action
have filed a claim for attorneys' fees of $0.9 million, which we
have opposed.

In February 2015, the plaintiffs in the Delaware action moved to
intervene in the Gardner action for the purpose of participating
in the motion for attorneys' fees and in March 2015, the Illinois
Court granted the motion.  In March 2015, the plaintiffs in the
Delaware action submitted a motion for voluntary dismissal of the
consolidated Delaware actions. The Court granted the motion and
the matter was dismissed.


SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Hearing Held on Settlement in Bally Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Games 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 Nevada court
was slated to hold a hearing on June 2, 2015, to consider approval
of the settlement in the class action related to the acquisition
of Bally Technologies, Inc.

Complaints challenging the Bally acquisition were filed in August
2014 in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada. The actions
are putative class actions filed on behalf of the public
stockholders of Bally and name as defendants Bally, its directors,
Scientific Games Corporation and certain of its affiliates. The
complaints generally allege that the Bally directors breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with their consideration and
approval of the acquisition and that we aided and abetted those
alleged breaches. The plaintiffs seek equitable relief, including
to enjoin the acquisition, to rescind the acquisition if not
enjoined, damages, attorneys' fees and other costs.

All of the actions have been consolidated under the caption In re
Bally Technologies, Inc. Shareholders Litigation (C.A. No. A-14-
705012-B) (the "Nevada Action").

In October 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion for limited expedited
discovery in connection with an anticipated motion to enjoin the
proposed transaction. Following that, in October 2014, Bally and
its directors filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint
and Scientific Games Corporation and its affiliates filed a motion
to dismiss the count of the consolidated complaint alleging
wrongdoing by Scientific Games Corporation and its affiliates.
Following that, the plaintiffs withdrew their motion for expedited
discovery and the parties entered into preliminary settlement
discussions.

On October 17, 2014, following arm's-length negotiations, the
parties to the Nevada Action entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding ("MOU") under which they agreed in principle to
settle all of the claims asserted in the Nevada Action on a class-
wide basis, subject to certain conditions, including confirmatory
discovery by the plaintiffs in the Nevada Action and preliminary
and final approval of the Nevada court, which will consider the
fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement. Bally,
Scientific Games and the other named defendants entered into the
MOU solely to avoid the costs, risks and uncertainties inherent in
litigation and without admitting any liability or wrongdoing, and
vigorously denied, and continue to vigorously deny, the claims
alleged in the Nevada Action.  The MOU provided that Bally would
make certain supplemental disclosures about the transaction in a
definitive proxy statement, which it did on October 20, 2014.

On November 18, 2014, Bally's stockholders approved the Bally
acquisition and the Bally acquisition was consummated on November
21, 2014.  After entering into the MOU, the plaintiffs completed
confirmatory discovery and concluded that the settlement
contemplated by the MOU is fair, reasonable and adequate and is in
the best interests of the Bally public stockholders.

On April 23, 2015, all parties to the Nevada Action entered into a
definitive stipulation and agreement of compromise, settlement and
release, providing for all claims that were or could be asserted
in the Nevada Action to be dismissed with prejudice on a classwide
basis in accordance with the terms of the MOU, subject to court
approval.  On April 28, 2015, plaintiffs moved for preliminary
approval of the settlement, class certification and notice to
class members.  The Nevada court had scheduled a hearing on June
2, 2015, to consider that motion.  If plaintiffs' motion is
granted, defendants will provide notice of the proposed settlement
to persons who held shares of Bally stock between August 1, 2014
and November 21, 2014, inclusive, and the court will schedule a
hearing at a future date where objections, if any, to the proposed
settlement will be heard.

There can be no assurance that the Nevada court will approve the
settlement. In such event, the proposed settlement will be null
and void and of no force and effect. Payments made in connection
with the settlement, which are subject to court approval, are not
expected to be material.


SCIENTIFIC GAMES: Class Action v. Oregon State Lottery Dropped
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific Games 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 court has
granted the Oregon State Lottery's motion to dismiss a class
action lawsuit stating the plaintiff had not satisfied the Oregon
Tort Claims Act.

On December 31, 2014, a representative of a purported class of
persons alleged to have been financially harmed by relying on the
"auto hold" feature of various manufacturers' video lottery
terminals played in Oregon, filed suit in the Circuit Court of
Multnomah County, Oregon, against the Oregon State Lottery and
various manufacturers, including WMS Gaming Inc.  The suit alleges
that the auto hold feature of video poker games is perceived by
players as providing the best possible playing strategy that will
maximize the odds of the player winning, when such auto hold
feature does not maximize the players' odds of winning.  The
plaintiffs are seeking in excess of $134.0 million in monetary
damages.

In February 2015, WMS Gaming Inc. and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss. On April 21, 2015, the court granted the
Oregon State Lottery's motion to dismiss stating the plaintiff had
not satisfied the Oregon Tort Claims Act. As a result of the
dismissal, the court indicated that all claims against WMS Gaming
Inc. are moot. The plaintiffs have 30 days after entry of judgment
to file a notice of appeal.


SMITHTOWN BANCORP: September 28 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on July 17 issued the following
statement regarding the Smithtown Bancorp, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

WATERFORD TOWNSHIP POLICE & FIRE
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and On
Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiff,

vs.
SMITHTOWN BANCORP, INC., et al.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00864-SLT-RER
CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE
TO:     ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED SMITHTOWN BANCORP, INC. ("SBI")
COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM MARCH 13, 2008, THROUGH AND
INCLUDING FEBRUARY 1, 2010

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, that a
hearing will be held on September 28, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., before
the Honorable Ramon E. Reyes, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge,
at the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, United States Courthouse, 225 Cadman Plaza East,
Courtroom 2E North, Brooklyn, New York 11201, for the purpose of
determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in
the Action for the amount of $1,950,000.00 should be approved by
the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether a Final
Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice ("Judgment") should
be entered by the Court dismissing the Action with prejudice and
releasing the Released Claims; (3) whether the Plan of
Distribution for the Net Settlement Fund is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and should be approved; and (4) whether the application
of Lead Counsel for the payment of attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses should be approved.

IF YOU PURCHASED SBI COMMON STOCK DURING THE TIME PERIOD FROM
MARCH 13, 2008, THROUGH AND INCLUDING FEBRUARY 1, 2010 ("CLASS
PERIOD"), YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS
ACTION, INCLUDING THE RELEASE AND EXTINGUISHMENT OF CLAIMS YOU MAY
POSSESS RELATING TO YOUR PURCHASE OF SBI COMMON STOCK DURING THE
CLASS PERIOD.  If you have not received a detailed Notice of
Pendency of Class Action and Proposed Settlement, Motion for
Attorneys' Fees and Settlement Fairness Hearing ("Notice") and a
copy of the Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies
by writing to Smithtown Bancorp Securities Litigation, Claims
Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 990, Corte Madera,
CA 94976-0990 or on the Internet at
www.smithtownbancorpsecuritieslitigation.com
If you are a Class Member, in order to share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and
Release by mail or online no later than October 5, 2015
establishing that you are entitled to recovery.

If you purchased SBI common stock during the Class Period and you
desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a request
for exclusion so that it is received no later than September 8,
2015 in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice
referred to above.  All members of the Class who do not timely and
validly request exclusion from the Class will be bound by any
judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement.

Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Distribution, or Lead
Counsel's request for attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, must
be received by each of the following recipients no later than
September 8, 2015:

CLERK OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
United States Courthouse
225 Cadman Plaza East
Brooklyn, NY  11201

Lead Counsel:

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
ELLEN GUSIKOFF STEWART
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA  92101

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
SAMUEL H. RUDMAN
EVAN J. KAUFMAN
58 South Service Road, Suite 200
Melville, NY  11747

Counsel for Defendants:

KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
BRUCE G. VANYO
WILLIAM M. REGAN
575 Madison Avenue
New York, NY  10022

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.  If you have any questions about the Settlement, you
may contact Lead Counsel at the addresses listed above.

DATED: June 16, 2015
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


SOTHEBY'S: 9th Circuit Affirmed Lower Court Decision
----------------------------------------------------
Sotheby's 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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit has issued a decision affirming the lower court decision
that the Resale Royalties Act was unconstitutional insofar as it
sought to apply to sales outside of the state of California.

Estate of Robert Graham, et al. v. Sotheby's, Inc. is a purported
class action commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California in October 2011 on behalf of U.S. artists
(and their estates) whose artworks were sold by Sotheby's in the
State of California or at auction by California sellers and for
which a royalty was allegedly due under the California Resale
Royalties Act (the "Resale Royalties Act"). Plaintiffs seek
unspecified damages, punitive damages and injunctive relief for
alleged violations of the Resale Royalties Act and the California
Unfair Competition Law.

In January 2012, Sotheby's filed a motion to dismiss the action on
the grounds, among others, that the Resale Royalties Act violates
the U.S. Constitution and is preempted by the U.S. Copyright Act
of 1976. In February 2012, the plaintiffs filed their response to
Sotheby's motion to dismiss.

The court heard oral arguments on the motion to dismiss on March
12, 2012. On May 17, 2012, the court issued an order dismissing
the action on the ground that the Resale Royalties Act violated
the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiffs have
appealed this ruling.

On May 5, 2015, an en banc panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit issued a decision affirming the lower court
decision that the Resale Royalties Act was unconstitutional
insofar as it sought to apply to sales outside of the state of
California.


SOTHEBY'S: No Stockholder Objections Filed to Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Sotheby's 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 no stockholder objections were
submitted within the applicable 30 day notice period related to
the settlement in the case, The Employees Retirement System of the
City of St. Louis v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. 9497-VCP
(Del. Ch. 2014).

On April 1, 2014, the Employees Retirement System of the City of
St. Louis, the plaintiff, on behalf of a putative class of
Sotheby's stockholders, filed a verified class action complaint
against the Directors and nominal defendant Sotheby's. The
plaintiff alleged in two counts that the Directors breached their
fiduciary duties in adopting the Rights Plan and by including so-
called "proxy puts" in certain Sotheby's credit agreements. The
plaintiff alleged that the Rights Plan was discriminatory, was
designed to entrench current board members, and undermined the
proxy contest that was being conducted by Third Point.

In addition, the plaintiff alleged that the Directors endorsed
credit agreements containing "proxy put" provisions that were
unnecessary, preemptive defensive measures designed to insulate
Directors from proxy contests. The plaintiff sought judgment
preliminarily and permanently enjoining the Rights Plan, judgment
preliminarily enjoining the Directors from using any proxies
solicited before they "approve" the Third Point nominees for
directorships, and a declaration that the Rights Plan was
unenforceable and that the Directors breached their fiduciary
duties to the putative class.

On April 10, 2014, the Court ordered partial coordination of this
action and Louisiana Municipal Employees Retirement System v.
Ruprecht, et al., Civil Action No. --9508-VCP with the prior
pending action in Third Point LLC v. Ruprecht, et al., Civil
Action No. 9469-VCP. On May 2, 2014, following briefing and
argument on plaintiffs' motions for preliminary injunctions in the
coordinated actions, the Court issued a Memorandum Opinion denying
the motion. Specifically, the Court found that plaintiffs failed
to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims.

On June 4, 2014, the plaintiffs in this action and in the
Louisiana Municipal Employees Retirement System action discussed
below jointly filed a motion for an order dismissing the
Stockholder Actions as moot and for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses in the amount of $3.5 million. On July 25, 2014,
Sotheby's filed a brief in opposition to the plaintiffs' motion. A
hearing on the motion was held on August 14, 2014.

Prior to the Court's resolution of the motion, the parties agreed
to a settlement. On January 15, 2015, the Court entered a
stipulation agreed to by the parties and an order regarding
dismissal of the Stockholder Actions and an award of attorneys'
fees and expenses (the "Order"). As required by the Order,
Sotheby's is notifying stockholders that the Stockholder Actions
are moot and that defendants, through their insurer, have paid to
plaintiffs' counsel $1.6 million in full satisfaction of their
application for attorneys' fees and expenses in the Stockholder
Actions. As Sotheby's directors and officers insurance carrier
funded the full $1.6 million payment, the resolution of the
Stockholder Actions did not result in any cost to Sotheby's. The
Order further provided that the Stockholder Actions would be
dismissed as moot without further action of the Court unless
another stockholder of Sotheby's submitted a written objection to
the Court within 30 days of the March 2, 2015 notice date. No
stockholder objections were submitted within the applicable 30 day
notice period.


SOUTH CAROLINA: Class Action Mulled Over Rent Overcharges
---------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Sausser, writing for The Post and Courier, reports that
more than 300 adults with disabilities and special needs in South
Carolina have been overcharged almost $2 million for rent since
2013 and it may take years to pay them back, a new report shows.

State officials say some of these adults may be owed $10,000.
Advocates for the disabled believe this new report only scratches
the surface and that many disabled adults were probably cheated
out of much more money.

An investigation by the state Inspector General's Office revealed
that 329 people, many of them diagnosed with autism or an
intellectual disability, paid $1.2 million more than they should
have in 2013 and 2014 for rent in county-level group homes run by
local Department of Disabilities and Special Needs boards.
Residents in some of these homes likely overpaid another $600,000
this fiscal year, the report said.

The investigation blames 10 local boards, including the Charleston
board, for mismanaging federal funds meant to offset housing costs
for disabled adults.  Mostly, the local boards made accounting
errors, the report explained. They overcharged some residents for
rent, and undercharged others.

"In no instance did the (Department of Disabilities and Special
Needs) audit or the (State Inspector General) review find any
malicious or criminal intent," said Lois Park-Mole, a spokeswoman
for the statewide Department of Disabilities and Special Needs.

Bill Danielson of Lexington was the only member of the Department
of Disabilities and Special Needs commission who answered
questions about the report on July 17.  The remaining six
commissioners, all appointed by the governor, did not return
messages or referred questions about the investigation to the
state office.

Mr. Danielson said commissioners have been asking questions about
the report "behind closed doors."  He said he couldn't discuss
concerns that some adults may have been overcharged for rent in
group homes before 2013.

Deborah McPherson, a former member of the Department of
Disabilities and Special Needs commission, said this problem
definitely pre-dates 2013 and the new report doesn't acknowledge
that.

"It's just incredible the amount of money," Ms. McPherson said.
"They haven't really delved into this.  They didn't want to. I
hate to say it but people with disabilities, nobody pays attention
to this stuff."

Lexington resident Brenda Bryant said her daughter Stephanie lived
in a Department of Disabilities and Special Needs group home in
Greenville County between 2003 and 2009.  All that time, she said,
the local Greenville board collected $650 a month in rent from
Stephanie and failed to apply a $650 federal credit to her
account.

The board pocketed both the rent payment and the federal money
every month for six years, Ms Bryant said.  She estimates
Stephanie should be paid back between $25,000 and $30,000.

"They knew what they were doing," Ms. Bryant said.  "They
intentionally charged their consumers double bills.  If you
intentionally do something that is wrong, it's intentional.  It's
not a mistake."

The Greenville County Disabilities and Special Needs board
overcharged its residents a combined $327,498 between July 1,
2012, and June 30, 2014, according to the new report, and
technically undercharged residents $244 during the same window.
The extra money -- more than $320,000 -- was absorbed into the
board's bottom line.

The report shows the Charleston board overcharged residents
$53,547 during those two years and undercharged some adults
$8,609.

This isn't the first time the Department of Disabilities and
Special Needs has drawn scrutiny for mismanaged rent payments.

In May, the state office acknowledged that it broke federal rules
for several years by charging Medicaid millions of dollars for
these adults' room and board. The state owes the federal
government $1.6 million for mistakes made during the 2010 fiscal
year alone.

This, too, was just an accounting error, Park-Mole said at the
time.

Now, the state office is pressing local Disabilities and Special
Needs boards to pay back rent money that they owe residents.  It
won't happen overnight, partly because an influx of money for some
of these adults might make them ineligible for the low-income
Medicaid program.

Beverly Buscemi, director of the statewide Department of
Disabilities and Special Needs, said the money will be paid back
over the course of three years, or "as quickly as possible in such
a matter that it does not jeopardize their other benefits."

Ms. Bryant isn't satisfied.  She has considered filing a class
action lawsuit on behalf of her daughter Stephanie and other
adults who, she said, are owed thousands of dollars.

"I think there are some serious problems here," she said.

Ms. McPherson agreed that investigators need to dig deeper.

"You can have a dog -- and I'm a true, true animal lover -- you
can have a dog hurt and it's all over the papers, all over the
news, but you let something happen to a person with a disability
and it's like, 'So what?'" Ms. McPherson said.  "It upsets me."


SUPERVALU INC: Recalls Danish Rolls Due to Milk Allergen
--------------------------------------------------------
Supervalu Inc. of Eden Prairie, Minn. is recalling 4ct. 13oz
packages of Cub Foods and Rainbow Foods Danish Rolls because it
may contain undeclared milk allergen. People who have an allergy
or severe sensitivity to milk run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The Danish Rolls were produced in Cub Foods and Rainbow Foods
locations in Minnesota and Illinois.

The Danish rolls are packaged as a 4ct (13oz) in a clear plastic
clam shell. The product is produced in-store at Cub and Rainbow
locations in three varieties; Danish, Caramel Danish, and Caramel
Nut Danish. The affected product would have been for sale on or
before Monday, July 13, 2015 and have a three-day expiration date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that Danish Rolls
containing milk were produced and packaged with a label that did
not indicate the presence of milk. Subsequent investigation
indicates the problem was caused by a switch in frozen Danish roll
dough base that did not get updated onto the final product label.

Consumers who have purchased the affected product can return it to
the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions
may contact SUPERVALU's customer service line at 1-855-282-3663.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm455191.htm


STEEL DYNAMICS: Class Cert. Matter Remains Under Advisement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steel Dynamics, 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 hearing on class
certification was held on March 5 to 7 and April 11, 2014, and the
matter remains under advisement.

The company is involved, along with other steel manufacturing
companies, in several class action antitrust complaints filed in
federal court in Chicago, Illinois, which allege a conspiracy to
fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price at which steel
products were sold in the United States during a period between
2005 and 2007, by artificially restricting the supply of such
steel products.

One of the complaints were brought on behalf of a purported class
consisting of all direct purchasers of steel products.  A second
complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class consisting of
all indirect purchasers of steel products within the same time
period.  An additional complaint was brought in December 2010, on
behalf of indirect purchasers of steel products in Tennessee and
has been consolidated with the original complaints.

All complaints seek treble damages and costs, including reasonable
attorney fees, pre- and post-judgment interest and injunctive
relief.  Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification in May
2012, and on February 28, 2013, Defendants filed their Joint
Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification. A hearing on class certification was held on March
5 to 7 and April 11, 2014, and the matter remains under
advisement. It's unclear when the court will issue its ruling.


SYMMETRY SURGICAL: Parties Settle Resolution Partners Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Symmetry Surgical Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 11, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 4, 2015, that parties in a class
action complaint filed by Resolution Partners have settled the
suit for no additional consideration, but left the issue of a
claim for fees and costs for resolution at a later time, either
through agreement or via a court hearing.

On September 29, 2014, a purported class action complaint
challenging the company's former parent's merger and the Company's
spin-out as a stand-alone public company was filed by Resolution
Partners, an alleged stockholder of SMI, and all others similarly
situated, in the Kosciusko Circuit Court in the state of Indiana.
The complaint named as defendants Symmetry Medical Inc. ("SMI"),
the members of the board of directors of SMI, Genstar Capital LLC,
Tecomet's sponsor (''Genstar''), Tecomet, Holdings and TecoSym
Inc. The complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the
members of the SMI board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Resolution Partners and SMI stockholders during merger
negotiations and by entering into the Merger Agreement and
approving the Merger, and that Genstar and Tecomet allegedly aided
and abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The
complaint further alleges that the joint proxy
statement/prospectus filed by Symmetry Surgical with the SEC on
September 5, 2014, which contained the preliminary proxy statement
of SMI, was misleading or omitted certain allegedly material
information. The complaint sought, among other relief, injunctive
relief enjoining consummation of the Merger, compensatory and/or
rescissory damages in an unspecified amount and costs and fees.

The parties settled the suit prior to the consummation of the
transaction, for no additional consideration and a few additional
disclosures filed in a Form 8-k, although left the issue of a
claim for fees and costs for resolution at a later time, either
through agreement or via a court hearing. The Company has agreed
with SMI to share equally in any fee award, up to 50% of the
remaining insurance deductible. The Company does not believe this
will have a significant impact on its financial position, results
of operations or cash flows.


SYNTHES USA: Judge Tosses Plaintiff's Strict Liability Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that a
federal judge has rejected a plaintiff's strict liability claims
against the manufacturer of an allegedly defective spinal implant
that failed and led to a broken back.

U.S. District Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania ruled July 15 that an exclusion from strict liability
claims that applies to prescription drugs should be applied to
prescription medical devices as well.  The judge also allowed the
plaintiffs' manufacturing defect, negligent design, failure-to-
warn and negligence per se claims to go forward against the
implant manufacturer, Synthes USA Products.

The ruling largely relied on a July 2014 ruling from the Eastern
District, but said the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not yet
addressed whether the exemption for "unavoidably unsafe" products
should be applied to prescription medical devices.

"The Pennsylvania Superior Court has held that there is 'no reason
why the same rational[e] applicable to prescription drugs may not
be applied to medical devices," Judge Schmehl said.  "Further,
numerous federal courts have applied the [reasoning in the state
Supreme Court's 1996 decision in Hahn v. Richter] to medical
device cases, finding that plaintiffs may not assert strict
liability claims against manufacturers of medical devices."

According to Judge Schmehl, plaintiff James P. Wilson had two
N-Hance spinal fixation rods, which were manufactured by Synthes
USA, implanted into his spine to help repair back injuries. About
two years after the rods were implanted, the rods failed and
Wilson's back had broken, Judge Schmehl said.

Mr. Wilson alleged that a properly designed and manufactured
spinal implant should not bend, fracture or break once implanted,
and that the implants broke because of problems at the
manufacturing plant and because of an inherent design defect.

Synthes filed a motion to dismiss, contending that Pennsylvania
law does not recognize a strict liability cause of action against
manufacturers of medical devices like the N-Hance rods.  Products
liability claims against medical device companies, Synthes argued,
can only be brought under a theory of negligence.

Synthes noted that, in the Hahn case, the court ruled that
prescription drugs are "unavoidably unsafe," and are therefore
excluded from strict liability claims under Comment k to the
Restatement (Second) of Torts.  Synthes further contended the
reasoning in that case has been consistently applied by state and
federal courts to cases that involve medical devices.

Synthes also pointed out that U.S. District Judge Joel H. Slomsky
predicted in the 2014 case Terrell v. Davol that the state Supreme
Court would conclude all strict liability claims are barred in
medical device cases.  According to Judge Schmehl, Judge Slomsky
had noted the state Supreme Court's 2014 decision in Lance v.
Wyeth did not exempt manufacturing defects when it ruled that all
strict liability claims are barred in prescription drug cases.
Mr. Wilson argued Terrell was wrongly decided, and that
Judge Schmehl should rely on the 2013 Western District of
Pennsylvania decision in Kline v. Zimmer Holdings.  That case
allowed a strict-liability manufacturing defect claim to proceed
against a medical device manufacturer.

However, Mr. Wilson failed to show why Kline would apply over the
Terrell decision.

"Plaintiffs' only argument seems to be that medical devices can be
'altered or manufactured in different ways to render them more fit
for their purposes,' and therefore should be 'subjected to equal
or greater liability than most products,'" Judge Schmehl said.

Judge Schmehl noted the Kline holding predates the Lance decision,
and agreed with Synthes that Comment k of the Restatement (Second)
imposed a ban on all strict liability claims against medical
device manufacturers.

The judge also disagreed with Mr. Wilson's arguments to
distinguish devices from prescription drugs.

"I find this attempt to distinguish medical devices from
prescription drugs to be unpersuasive, as both medical devices and
prescription drugs could be manufactured in different ways to make
them more fit for the purpose," Judge Schmehl said.  "Like
prescription drugs, medical devices are known to cause possible
harm, but the risks are outweighed by the benefits they provide
for patients who need them."

Synthes also argued the plaintiffs' claims were not specific
enough to go forward, but Judge Schmehl denied all those
challenges except for the challenge to Wilson's negligent
marketing claims.

"Although these allegations of plaintiffs' complaint are not
extremely specific, I find that when the complaint is read as a
whole, there is sufficient specificity," Judge Schmehl said.

Wilson's attorney, Maxwell S. Kennerly of the Beasley Firm, did
not return a call for comment, and Blank Rome attorney
Terry Henry, who represented Synthes USA, also did not return a
message seeking comment.


TD BANK: Settles Ponzi Scheme Class Action for $20 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reports that TD Bank has agreed
to pay $20 million to settle a class action lawsuit accusing it of
aiding a Ponzi scheme that allegedly bilked over a thousand
European investors of more than $223 million, a lawyer for the
investors said on July 17.

The preliminary settlement, subject to court approval, resolves
accusations that TD Bank, part of Canada's Toronto-Dominion Bank,
failed to properly monitor trust accounts that held investors'
money and ignored its duty to investigate suspicious activities
under U.S. anti-money laundering rules.

"This is a terrific result for the class," said David Buckner, a
lawyer for the investors.

A TD Bank spokeswoman said it is pleased the matter is close to a
resolution.

In court filings, lawyers for TD Bank said investors failed to
show the bank had actual knowledge of misconduct.  The bank
provided routine banking services, which did not constitute
substantial assistance to the alleged scheme, the lawyers said.

Filed in 2014, the lawsuit sought damages for investors in
Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain who bought so-called life
settlements marketed through Quality Investments, a Dutch company
with offices at the World Trade Center Amsterdam.

Life settlements are life insurance policies sold to investors who
receive proceeds from death benefits when the insured person dies.

Dutch authorities in 2011 arrested four people suspected of
running a Ponzi scheme through Quality Investments involving the
sale of U.S. life insurance policies.

The settlement is the second in less than two years involving
allegations that TD Bank failed to report suspicious activity in
accounts allegedly used for a Ponzi scheme.

In September 2013, it agreed to pay $52.5 million to settle U.S.
civil regulatory charges that it failed to uncover and report
suspicious activities by Florida lawyer Scott Rothstein, who was
sentenced to a 50-year prison term for a $1.2 billion fraud.

The latest lawsuit, filed in a South Florida federal court, said
investors were assured their money and the insurance policies they
invested in would be held in attorney trust accounts at TD Bank.
Instead of being safeguarded, new investor funds were diverted to
pay premiums on policies held for earlier investors, the lawsuit
said.

The lawsuit added that TD Bank failed to report suspicious
activity in the accounts, including wire transfers of tens of
millions of dollars to Cyprus, Turkey and other known money-
laundering destinations.

The case is Gevaerts et al v TD Bank et al, U.S. District Court,
Southern District of Florida, No 14-cv-20744.


TEMPUR SEALY: Todd and Thompson Cases in Discovery Phase
--------------------------------------------------------
Alvin Todd, and Henry and Mary Thompson, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Tempur
Sealy International, Inc., formerly known as Tempur-Pedic
International, Inc. and Tempur-Pedic North America, LLC,
Defendants; filed October 25, 2013, is in the discovery phase, 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 25, 2013, a suit was filed against Tempur Sealy
International and one of its domestic subsidiaries in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
purportedly on behalf of a proposed class of "consumers" as
defined by Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1761(d) who purchased, not for
resale, a Tempur-Pedic mattress or pillow in the State of
California. On November 19, 2013, the Company was served for the
first time in the case but with an amended petition adding
additional class representatives for additional states. The
purported classes seek certification of claims under applicable
state laws.

The complaint alleges that the Company engaged in unfair business
practices, false advertising, and misrepresentations or omissions
related to the sale of certain products. The plaintiffs seek
restitution, injunctive relief and all other relief allowed under
applicable state laws, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The
purported classes do not seek damages for physical injuries. The
Company believes the case lacks merit and intends to defend
against the claims vigorously. This matter is in the discovery
phase, and the outcome is uncertain. As a result, the Company is
unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of
losses, if any, arising from this litigation, or whether the
Company's applicable insurance policies will provide sufficient
coverage for these claims. Accordingly, the Company can give no
assurance that this matter will not have a material adverse effect
on the Company's financial position or results of operations.


TESCO CORPORATION: Participating in Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------
Tesco Corporation is participating in an arbitration, based on the
Company's dispute resolution process, with 28 current and former
employees who had worked or are working in various states, 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.

The Employees claim that they are owed unpaid overtime wages
including liquidated damages under the Federal Labor Standards Act
and the applicable state laws of various states, including New
Mexico and Colorado. The case is assigned to a three judge panel
of arbitrators. The parties are litigating the issue of whether or
not a Rule 23 style opt-out class action is appropriate in this
case. That issue is fully briefed but has not been decided by the
arbitrators. Once that issue is resolved, the parties will begin
discovery on the merits and set a final hearing date. At March 31,
2015, the Company reserved an estimate for potential exposure in
this matter.


TRICO BANCSHARES: Parties in Shareholder Suit Agree to Talks
------------------------------------------------------------
TriCo Bancshares 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 memorandum of
understanding entered into by parties in a shareholder class
action lawsuit contemplates that they will negotiate in good faith
and use their reasonable best efforts to enter into a stipulation
of settlement.

On January 24, 2014, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed against TriCo, North Valley Bancorp and certain other
defendants in connection with TriCo entering into the merger
agreement with North Valley Bancorp. The lawsuit, which was filed
in the Shasta County, California Superior Court, alleges that the
members of the North Valley Bancorp board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties to North Valley Bancorp shareholders by
approving the proposed merger for inadequate consideration;
approving the transaction in order receive benefits not equally
shared by other North Valley Bancorp 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 North Valley Bancorp shareholders. The lawsuit alleges
claims against TriCo for aiding and abetting these alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties. The plaintiff seeks, among other
things, declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties injunctive relief prohibiting
consummation of the merger, rescission, attorneys' of the merger
agreement, fees and costs, and other and further relief.

On July 31, 2014, the defendants entered into a memorandum of
understanding with the plaintiffs regarding the settlement of this
lawsuit. In connection with the settlement contemplated by the
memorandum of understanding and in consideration for the full
settlement and release of all claims, TriCo and North Valley
Bancorp agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to
the proposed merger, which are contained in a Current Report on
Form 8-K filed by each of the companies. The memorandum of
understanding contemplates that the parties will negotiate in good
faith and use their reasonable best efforts to enter into a
stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be
subject to customary conditions, including court approval
following notice to North Valley Bancorp's shareholders.

In the event that the parties enter into a stipulation of
settlement, a hearing will be scheduled at which the court will
consider the settlement. There can be no assurance that the
parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or
that the court will approve the settlement even if the parties
were to enter into such stipulation. In such event, the proposed
settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of understanding may
be terminated.


TRICO BANCSHARES: To Fight Suit by Former Personal Banker
---------------------------------------------------------
TriCo Bancshares intends to defend against the class action filed
by a former Personal Banker, 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 15, 2014, a former Personal Banker at one of the
Bank's in-store branches filed a Class Action Complaint against
the Bank in Butte County Superior Court, alleging causes of action
related to the observance of meal periods. Plaintiff seeks to
represent a class of "current and former hourly-paid or non-exempt
'personal bankers', or employees with the same or similar job
duties, employed by Defendants within the State of California
during the preceding four years." The Bank filed an Answer to the
Complaint on November 6, 2014, denies the charges, and the Bank
intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit against class
certification and liability.


TRICO BANCSHARES: To Fight Suit by Current Personal Banker
----------------------------------------------------------
TriCo Bancshares intends to defend against the class action filed
by a current Personal Banker, 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 January 20, 2015, a current Personal Banker at one of the
Bank's in-store branches filed a First Amended Complaint against
Tri Counties Bank and TriCo Bancshares, dba Tri Counties Bank, in
Sacramento County Superior Court, alleging causes of action
related to wage statement violations. Plaintiff seeks to represent
a class of current and former exempt and non-exempt employees who
worked for the Bank "during the time period beginning October 18,
2013 through the date of the filing of this action". The Company
and the Bank have not yet responded to the First Amended
Complaint, deny the charges, and intend to vigorously defend the
lawsuit against class certification and liability.


UNI-PIXEL INC: Court Approved Settlement of Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Uni-Pixel, 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 of the Class Action Litigation.

"In June 2013, two purported class action complaints were filed in
the United States District Court, Southern District of New York
and the United States District Court, Southern District of Texas
against the Company and our CEO, CFO, and Chairman," the Company
said. "The Southern District of New York complaint was voluntarily
dismissed by plaintiff on July 2, 2013.  The surviving complaint,
with the caption Fitzpatrick, Charles J. v. Uni-Pixel, Inc., et.
al. (Cause No. 4:13-cv-01649), alleges that we and our officers
and directors violated the federal securities laws, specifically
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
by making purportedly false and misleading statements concerning
our licensing agreements and product development  (the "Class
Action Litigation").  The complaint seeks unspecified damages on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock
during the period from December 7, 2012 to May 31, 2013."

"On July 25, 2014, the judge granted in part and denied in part
our motion to dismiss the case, significantly limiting the claims
remaining in the Class Action Litigation.  On August 25, 2014, we
filed an answer to the complaint.

"In November 2014, we entered into a memorandum of understanding
to settle the Class Action Litigation.  The proposed settlement
would result in a payment of $2.35 million in cash to the
settlement class, inclusive of fees and expenses. In addition,
Uni-Pixel would issue $2.15 million in common stock to the
settlement class with a range of shares of common stock between
358,333 shares and 430,000 shares, calculated by using the
trailing 5 day average stock price from the date of Court approval
of settlement.

"On April 30, 2015, the Court approved the settlement of the Class
Action Litigation on the terms set forth above. As a result, the
Company will issue 430,000 shares of common stock. The cash
payment portion will be paid from insurance proceeds. The common
stock portion of this settlement, totaling $2,150,000, is included
in Other Expense and in current liabilities (Settlement of Class
Action and Derivative Lawsuits) on the accompanying consolidated
financial statements. Following issuance of the common stock in
May 2015, this amount will be reclassified to Additional Paid In
Capital and Common Stock."


UNITED STATES: ADX Prisoners Sue Over Solitary Confinement
----------------------------------------------------------
The Week reports that eleven ADX prisoners have filed a class-
action lawsuit against the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) arguing
that prolonged solitary confinement violates the Constitution's
Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.  One
inmate, Jack Powers, said he was driven so mad by the lack of
human interaction that he bit off his own finger and amputated his
own testicle.  "There are instances of people who literally go
insane in solitary confinement," said psychology professor Craig
Haney.  "I've seen it happen."


UNITED STATES: Faces Multiple Suits Over Indian Child Welfare Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Tolan, writing for Fusion, reports that one of the bedrock
laws governing Native American family rights is being challenged
by multiple lawsuits filed around the country in the last two
months, setting up a case that experts say is likely to eventually
end up at the Supreme Court.

The Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), passed in 1978, prevents
states from removing Native American children from their families
and placing them in non-Native foster families.  The plaintiffs in
these cases argue that ICWA and similar laws are harmful to Native
American children by blocking their removal from unsafe family
situations, while tribal leaders and advocates say it prevents
families from being torn apart.

For decades, thousands of Native American children were removed
from their families and placed into Christian boarding schools or,
later, adopted into white families.  The children were forced to
assimilate into American culture and leave their heritage behind
-- one piece of the country's long history of violating Native
American rights.  According to some estimates, 25 to 35 percent of
Native American children have been taken from their families.

ICWA was passed to end that. According to the law, state agencies
must first try to place Native American kids with a family member,
a foster family from the same tribe, or a Native American foster
family before they are placed in a non-Native foster family.  They
can only avoid this process if there's good cause not to put the
kids with someone from their extended family or tribe.

But in many states, the law is not fully enforced.  An NPR
investigation in 2011 found that more than half of the kids in the
South Dakota foster care system were Native American and almost 90
percent of the Native American children in foster care were placed
in non-Native homes.  Often, social workers revoked a parent's
custody of their child with very little supporting evidence.

"It's gotten to the point where the exception now swallows the
rule," Matthew Newman, an attorney at the Native American Rights
Fund, told Fusion.  "We're often finding states inventing any
reason under the sun . . . not to place child with their family."

Responding to cases like these, the federal Bureau of Indian
Affairs published guidelines and proposed new regulations in
February that would reinterpret ICWA to limit that exception,
narrowing what can be considered "good cause" to put Native
American kids in non-Native foster families.

These proposed regulations have angered opponents of the bill,
including the lucrative adoption industry.  Since the regulations
were proposed, multiple lawsuits have been filed around the
country challenging ICWA: A lawsuit filed in Virginia in May
challenges the new federal guidelines; another class action
lawsuit recently filed in Arizona by the conservative Goldwater
Institute alleges the entire law violates the 14th Amendment
because it discriminates against Native American children.  A
third lawsuit in Minnesota challenges a state law similar to ICWA.

"What if a child is in a truly harmful situation and the law,
which is designed to eradicate bias, poses such a high bar to
removal that it makes a child disproportionately subject to harm?"
asked Mark Fiddler, a lawyer who's challenging the Minnesota law.
Citing higher rates of rape and alcohol abuse in Native American
communities, he argued that ICWA and similar state laws are being
"misused to keep children in Indian homes in circumstances where
they shouldn't be."

The days when Native kids were snatched from their homes by the
hundreds are over, opponents say, and ICWA now puts the tribe's
interest above the child's.  "It's an issue of why should Indian
children be treated differently than everybody else in the
country," Laurie Goldheim, a former president of the American
Academy of Adoption Attorneys, a plaintiff in the Virginia case,
told Fusion.

Tribal officials and advocates say that doesn't make sense.  They
point out that the law protects Native American kids from being
removed from their families, a practice that is still common, as
the South Dakota cases show.

"The best interests of the child is to be left with their Indian
relatives, from which they've been taken by the state,"
Daniel Sheehan, the chief counsel for the Lakota People's Law
Project, told Fusion.   "It's the systematic removal of children
from a minority group . . . The government has treaty obligations
to protect the culture of the native people."

The majority of cases where children were taken from their Native
American parents were not because of abuse: In South Dakota, for
example, where a majority of foster kids are Native American, only
11.6 percent of kids were removed from their homes because of
physical abuse -- lower than the national average of 16.1 percent,
as NPR's investigation noted.  Social workers often cite
"neglect," a label, tribes say, that is usually just poverty and
can be tinged with cultural bias.

Some Native Americans who were adopted and removed from their
families are speaking out, such as Roger St. John, who was taken
from his family in South Dakota to a white family in New York City
with no paperwork in 1966.  "We were brought up without our
culture, which took a terrible toll on our lives," St. John told
the news website Indian Country Today.  "I grew up angry and
miserable . . . It wounded me to my soul, because I felt no one
was there for me."

Both sides say there's a good chance that these lawsuits could
eventually make their way to the Supreme Court.  The Court has
heard cases involving ICWA in the past, including a 2013 case in
which the justices limited how the law applied to unwed fathers
without custody when mothers voluntarily put their child up for
adoption.  But the Court did not make a decision about the
constitutionality of the law itself.

For now, the recent lawsuits have politicized debate over what is,
for most of the country, an obscure and technical law.  "There's a
new kind of venom to what a lot of these folks are saying, that
ICWA is a racist, unconstitutional law that violates the rights of
children," Newman said.  "It's really transformed the debate in
child welfare circles."

The Goldwater Institute's backing of the Arizona lawsuit was
especially surprising for Native American advocates.  The
institute typically focuses on small government and states' rights
issues -- according to a search of its website, this seems to be
the first time it has ever gotten involved in a Native American
law case. (A Goldwater spokesperson did not respond to a request
for comment.)

Ironically, Barry Goldwater, the institute's namesake and a former
Arizona senator and presidential candidate, voted in favor of
ICWA.  "I knew Barry Goldwater -- he was my friend and often came
to me for advice on most tribal matters," the bill's sponsor,
former South Dakota Senator James Abourezk, told Indian Country
Today.  "I wish he were alive to see this travesty because he
would never approve of it, and you can quote me on that, and make
sure you emphasize the word 'never.'"


URANERZ ENERGY: Shareholder Class Actions Filed Related to Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Uranerz Energy 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 shareholder class
action complaints have been filed related the Agreement and Plan
of Merger with Energy Fuels Inc. ("Energy Fuels"), an Ontario
corporation, and EFR Nevada Corp., a Nevada corporation and
indirectly wholly-owned subsidiary of Energy Fuels.

"Since the announcement of our Merger on January 5, 2015, a number
of putative shareholder class action complaints have been filed
against the Company, the Company's Board of Directors, Energy
Fuels, Inc. and EFR Nevada Corp. in the District Court, Clark
County, Nevada and one in the District Court, Washoe County,
Nevada, by purported Uranerz shareholders challenging the Merger.
All of the cases in Clark County have been consolidated. The
plaintiffs seek, among other things, damages, attorneys' and
experts' fees and injunctive relief concerning the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty and to prohibit the defendants from
consummating the Merger. The Company believes the claims asserted
in the complaints have no merit, and it and all of the members of
the Board of Directors intend to defend vigorously against them.
The future impact on the Company's consolidated financial
statements is not determinable at this time."


VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Party Won't Oppose Lead Plaintiff Appointment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Virtus Investment Partners, 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 one applicant
has filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion of Arkansas
Teachers Retirement System to be appointed lead plaintiff in the
case, Tom Cummins v. Virtus Investment Partners Inc. et al.

On February 20, 2015, a putative class action complaint alleging
violation of the federal securities laws was filed by an
individual shareholder against the Company and certain of the
Company's current officers (the "the defendants") in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of all purchasers of the
Company's common stock between May 28, 2013 and December 22, 2014,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint alleges that, during
the Class Period, the defendants disseminated materially false and
misleading statements and concealed material adverse facts
relating to certain funds subadvised by F-Squared Investments. The
complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5. The
plaintiff seeks to recover unspecified damages on behalf of the
class members.

The Company believes that the suit is without merit and intends to
defend it vigorously. On April 21, 2015, three plaintiffs,
including the original plaintiff, filed motions to be appointed
lead plaintiff. One of the motions has been withdrawn and on May
7, 2015 the other applicant filed a statement of non-opposition to
the motion of Arkansas Teachers Retirement System to be appointed
lead plaintiff. The Company believes that there is not a material
loss that is probable and reasonably estimable related to this
claim.


VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Mark Youngers Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. is facing a class action lawsuit
filed by Mark Youngers, 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 May 8, 2015, a putative class action complaint alleging
violations of certain provisions of the federal securities laws
was filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California by an individual who alleges he is a former
shareholder of one of the Virtus mutual funds formerly subadvised
by F-Squared Investments and formerly known as the AlphaSector
Funds. The complaint purports to allege claims against the
Company, certain of the Company's officers and affiliates, and
certain other parties (the "defendants"). The complaint was
purportedly filed on behalf of purchasers of the AlphaSector Funds
between May 8, 2010 and December 22, 2014, inclusive (the "Class
Period'). The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the
defendants disseminated materially false and misleading statements
and concealed or omitted material facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading. The Company has not been served
with the complaint. The Company believes the plaintiff's claims
asserted in the complaint are without merit and intends to defend
it vigorously.


WILLIAMS-SONOMA: Sued in Fla. Over Blind Inaccessible POS Devices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Gomez, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other
individuals similarly situated v. Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-22607-UU (S.D. Fla., July 11, 2015), is brought
on behalf of all the individuals with disabilities who are
visually impaired and who cannot access and comprehend, and safely
and securely utilize the POS Devices located within the
Defendant's chain of home goods and furniture stores for purchase
of goods with debit cards.

Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc. is a California corporation that owns
and operates a chain of home goods and furniture stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott Richard Dinin, Esq.
      SCOTT R. DININ, P.A.
      4200 NW 7th Avenue
      Miami, FL 33127
      Telephone: (786) 431-1333
      Facsimile: (786) 513-7700
      E-mail: srd@dininlaw.com


WORLD WRESTLING: Seeks to Halt Retired Wrestlers' Concussion Suits
------------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Tuccitto Sullo, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune,
reports that in their years in the ring, pro wrestlers such as
"Blackjack Mulligan" and the "Dynamite Kid" battled opponents,
using such signature moves as the diving shoulder block.  It's no
secret that the match outcomes are scripted, but retired wrestlers
say the physical contact is real and often painful.

Several retired performers have filed lawsuits in the last nine
months, claiming their jobs caused them to suffer numerous
concussions and other long-term physical injuries.

Now Stamford-based World Wrestling Entertainment is pursuing a
different type of block -- a civil action to prevent the claims
from moving forward.

In late June, the WWE sued four named former performers, including
Robert "Blackjack Mulligan" Windham, Thomas "Dynamite Kid"
Billington, James Ware, Oreal "Ivan Koloff" Perras, and "various
John Does" in U.S. District Court in Connecticut.  The litigation
seeks a court declaration that any claims relating to traumatic
brain injuries, and other tort claims which the men have
threatened against WWE, are time-barred by the three-year statute
of repose under Connecticut law. (The "John Doe" defendants are
any former wrestlers who have not performed for WWE within three
years and who have signed retainer agreements with Massachusetts-
based plaintiffs attorney Konstantine Kyros.)

According to the lawsuit, Messrs. Windham and Billington last
performed for WWE in the 1980s, Mr. Ware last did so around 1999,
and Perras last performed for an entity known as Capitol Wrestling
Corp.  "The specifically named defendants did not complain to WWE
regarding any alleged injuries supposedly caused by WWE in the
decades since they last performed," the lawsuit states.

In June, the ex-wrestlers sent the WWE letters through Mr. Kyros
claiming for the first time that they were injured as a result of
WWE's "negligent and fraudulent conduct," the lawsuit states.  The
lawsuit claims Mr. Kyros has been engaged in an improper "Internet
solicitation scheme" attempting to recruit plaintiffs against WWE,
patterned after cases lodged against the National Football League
for alleged traumatic brain injuries.

Earlier this year, a federal judge in Pennsylvania approved a plan
to settle lawsuits by football players who claim to have been
injured playing the game through a $1 billion payout, though some
players are appealing.

Attorney Jerry McDevitt of K&L Gates in Pittsburgh, who represents
WWE, said he thinks the NFL litigation has been the genesis for
the claims involving the wrestling community.  "This is not a
situation where people are hurt and go looking for a lawyer; it is
the other way around," Mr. McDevitt said.  "The WWE is not going
to just settle to get rid of these cases."

The company, in a statement, said: "It is unfortunate that some
former performers have been improperly recruited under the guise
of a big 'payday,' and we feel badly that these individuals are
being misled and exploited."

Since October 2014, Mr. Kyros' clients have filed five lawsuits in
federal courts across the country against the WWE, claiming that
blows to the head caused concussions and, eventually, a neuro-
degenerative disease called chronic traumatic encephalopathy.

The WWE disputes the injury claims and accuses Mr. Kyros of filing
initial lawsuits so he can garner publicity and recruit new
clients.  It alleges he purposely has been pursuing actions in
other forums in California, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and
Texas to avoid Connecticut's three-year time limit.  As of mid-
July, three of the five cases have been transferred to federal
court in Connecticut and WWE is attempting to get the other two
transferred here.

"These lawsuits are part of an ongoing scheme by Kyros to troll
for and recruit new plaintiffs to file additional strike lawsuits
against WWE in multiple jurisdictions to vexatiously increase the
cost of defending stale and meritless lawsuits and to avoid the
jurisdiction of this court and the application of Connecticut law
to stale and meritless claims," the lawsuit states.

None of the wrestlers who have filed suit so far lives in
Connecticut.  The WWE is claiming Connecticut has jurisdiction
because it is based in Stamford and the contracts previously
signed by some of the wrestlers were governed by Connecticut laws
applicable to contracts.

"We believe the cases will all be tossed out because of fraudulent
claims and the statute of repose against stale claims," said
Mr. McDevitt, who asserted that the WWE does take steps to ensure
the health and safety of the wrestlers.  "These people are
professional wrestlers and stuntmen, and there is risk of injury
involved. They are highly paid professionals, and they train to
try to eliminate the risk of injury."

When there is an injury, wrestlers are given on-the-spot care to
diagnose any concussion or injury and treat it, he said.
Mr. Kyros, of Hingham, Massachusetts, said the WWE is "trying to
distract from the issues of the case" by focusing on him.
"Attorneys routinely do outreach, and there is nothing unique
about advertising on websites," Mr. Kyros said.  "It is an attempt
to get away from the issue, which is the health-care crisis in the
wrestling community."

As for any statutes of repose or limitations, Mr. Kyros said there
is precedent for cases involving injured workers in which the
symptoms appear years later.  "People who have diseases that
manifest later, like in asbestos claims, are not time-barred
against making claims," Mr. Kyros said.

Mr. Kyros asserted the WWE hasn't taken care of former wrestlers
once their careers are over.  He said many former wrestlers wind
up in very poor health generally, with neurological issues.  As
wrestlers, "they are dropped frequently on their heads.
Repetitive head injuries will impact people as they age.  They are
at an increased risk for developing serious neurological
problems," he said.

Mr. Kyros declined to provide a total number of former wrestlers
who may ultimately be involved in the litigation.  He did say he
has clients whose cases haven't been filed in court yet.  And he
did agree with the WWE on one point: the wrestlers have been
encouraged by the successful NFL concussion litigation.

"If football players are eligible for help and wrestlers are not,
and the NFL is doing assessments and studies, what is the WWE
doing by way of contrast for its retired wrestlers?" he said.

William Bloss of Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder in Bridgeport, is among
those representing plaintiffs Evan Singleton and Vito LoGrasso,
both Pennsylvania residents whose case was recently transferred
from federal court in Pennsylvania to Connecticut.  The WWE has
filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, in part based on
Connecticut statutes of limitations and repose.

Mr. Bloss said attorneys are preparing a brief, due Aug. 10, in
response to the WWE's motion to dismiss.  He declined to comment
further.

According to Mr. Kyros, Mr. Singleton, who performed as Adam
Mercer to 2013, is disabled because of brain trauma, and
Mr. LoGrasso suffers from migraines, deafness, memory loss and
depression after nearly a decade with the WWE.   Mr. LoGrasso
wrestled until 2007.  The two wrestlers filed their lawsuit in
January 2015, seeking class action status.  "WWE has, for decades,
subjected its wrestlers to extreme physical brutality that it
knew, or should have known, caused latent conditions and long-term
irreversible bodily damage, including brain damage," the lawsuit
stated.


WSFS FINANCIAL: 3 Complaints Filed Over Alliance Bancorp Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
WSFS Financial 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 three purported
shareholder derivative and class action complaints relating to the
pending merger with Alliance Bancorp, Inc. of Pennsylvania have
been filed. These actions, Parshall v. Stonier et al. (filed on
April 20, 2015), Sloss v. Cirucci et al. (filed on May 4, 2015),
and Hewes v. Cirucci et al. (filed on May 4, 2015) were all filed
in the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania.

The complaints name as defendants Alliance Bancorp, Inc. of
Pennsylvania, its directors and certain of its officers, and the
Company. The complaints in the merger litigation allege that the
members of the board of directors of Alliance Bancorp, Inc. of
Pennsylvania breached their fiduciary duties to Alliance
shareholders by approving the merger for inadequate consideration,
approving the transaction in order to obtain benefits for Alliance
directors and officers that are not equally shared by other
Alliance 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 Alliance
shareholders.

The complaints also allege claims against the Company for aiding
and abetting these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. Two of
the complaints challenge the adequacy of the disclosures
concerning the transaction in the registration statement on Form
S-4 relating to the merger. The plaintiffs in these actions seek,
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 in these
actions 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.


XTO ENERGY: Faces Class Action For Gas Lease Royalty Deductions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jodi Weigand, writing for TribLive, reports that two Butler County
families have filed a federal lawsuit claiming that XTO Energy
violated their gas leases by inappropriately deducting expenses
from royalty checks.

Richard Marburger, trustee of the Olive M. Marburger Living Trust,
and Edward and Lorraine Thiele, of the Thiele Family Partnership
and Thiele Farm, filed the lawsuit on July 14.

The families say they signed gas leases in 2007 with Phillips
Production Co., which was acquired in 2011 by Exxon Mobile Corp.
and operates locally under subsidiary XTO Energy.

The lawsuit seeks class action status for others who signed leases
with Phillips and are now having expenses deducted from royalties.

"This has been something of a problem in the gas industry, and
we'll wait and see how the court handles this," said Pittsburgh
attorney David Borkovic, who represents the families.

Suann Guthrie, XTO spokeswoman, said the company is reviewing the
lawsuit.

"Our relationship with companies and individuals who share
ownership in oil and gas royalties is extremely important to us,"
she said via e-mail.  "We are committed to properly paying our
royalty owners under the terms of their leases and applicable
state law and regulations."

The Marburger Trust signed a gas lease on two parcels totaling 55
acres, from which it was to receive one-eighth of the total
proceeds of gas sales.

Well production began in 2009, during which time the trust was
paid from the gross proceeds as per the lease agreement.
Production ceased until after Phillips was sold.

"Unlike (Phillips), XTO began to deduct expenses when it
calculated plaintiff's royalty payments," according to the suit.
The Thiele family had a similar experience with their lease on 148
acres in Jefferson Township, the lawsuit states.

Mr. Borkovic said when the lease was assigned to XTO, no changes
were permitted to be made.

"It was the same paper, the same contract," he said.  "XTO is now
responsible for fulfilling the obligations that Phillips was
responsible for before."

The lawsuit asks the court to determine whether XTO breached the
Phillips leases, acted in good faith when calculating royalties
and if the company is liable for whatever expenses it deducted
from royalty payments.


* Lawsuits Over Alleged Arsenic-Tainted Wine Pending, No Recalls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bea Karnes, writing for Napa Valley Patch, reports that more than
three months after a class-action lawsuit was filed alleging that
dozens of wines contain unsafe levels of arsenic, not a single
bottle has been recalled.  No wineries recalled their products,
and no retailers pulled wine from store shelves.

Nancy Light of the Wine Institute of California told Patch on
July 15 that a recall wasn't necessary because the wine is safe.

Furthermore, Light says that wine sales have not dropped as a
result of the litigation.

"This lawsuit is patently false and has been largely ignored by
consumers once they learned the facts," she said.  "Wines from
around the world contain trace amounts of arsenic -- as do fruits,
vegetables, grains, water, juice and other beverages -- and do not
pose a risk to consumers.  The FDA has been testing the arsenic
content in foods and beverages for more than 20 years and has not
set a limit for wine because there is no evidence to suggest that
the trace amounts put consumers at risk."

The No. 1 goal of the lawsuit, according to the attorneys who
filed it, was to get the wines off store shelves.  Rob Feldman, a
spokesman for the attorneys, told Patch that they were
disappointed the wine was not recalled, but legal action is moving
forward.

The three law firms involved are actively recruiting consumers to
take part in the litigation.

So if you sign on, what can you expect? Mr. Feldman told Patch
they want to force wineries to "reimburse people who have used the
wine," although he doesn't promise full reimbursement.

The majority of wines listed in the lawsuit cost less than $10 a
bottle.

Arsenic is all around us.  It's found naturally in the air, soil,
and water, which explains how it ends up in wine.  In Canada, the
Liquor Control Board of Ontario tested more than 17,500 wines from
around the world, including more than 2,200 from California.
Globally, 99.6-percent of wines contain 25 ppb or less of arsenic.
For California, the number is 99.2-percent.


* Regulators Target "Pay-for-Delay" Settlements Between Drug Cos.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Qualters, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
two years after the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in
Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis erected a roadblock against
pharmaceutical companies paying competitors to delay bringing
generics to market, appeals courts are extending the ruling beyond
cash deals.

"What we're seeing is an explosion of litigation in the aftermath
of Actavis," said Scott Hemphill, a New York University School of
Law professor who studies competition in the pharmaceutical
industry.  "Actavis set the table for lower courts, and lower
courts are now scrambling to fill in all the details."

The high court held that government agencies and private parties
could challenge "pay-for-delay" settlements between generic and
brand-name drug companies.  These agreements, also known as
reverse-payment settlements, involve inducements by brand-name
drug companies to generic manufacturers to keep out of the market.
They generally come in the form of settlements of brand companies'
patent lawsuits against generic drug makers seeking market entry.

Since straight cash payments are more likely to face antitrust
scrutiny, brand drug companies are coming up with increasingly
creative ways to compensate generic drug companies.  Challenges to
those deals are making their way to state and federal appellate
courts.  The trend reflects the length to which brand companies
will go to protect market dominance, said Michael Carrier, a
Rutgers School of Law - Camden professor who participated as
amicus in several post-Actavis appellate cases.  "There's a lot of
money at stake with these blockbuster drugs, and the brand
companies are doing everything possible to delay generic entry as
long as possible."

In June, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in King
Drug Co. of Florence v. Smithkline Beecham, analyzed an antitrust
lawsuit involving Glaxo-Smith-Kline PLC's epilepsy and bipolar
drug Lamictal.  After the district court judge found Glaxo's main
patent claim for the drug invalid, the parties reached a
settlement whereby Glaxo allowed Teva Pharmaceutical Industries
Ltd. to roll out a generic of its chewable version, which has a
$50 million annual market size.

Glaxo agreed not to launch its own unbranded version of the tablet
form of the drug, which has an annual market size of $2 billion,
during Teva's 180 days of market exclusivity as the first generic
authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The Third
Circuit said that deal was subject to antitrust scrutiny.  "[It]
may represent an unusual, unexplained transfer of value from the
patent holder to the alleged infringer that cannot be adequately
justified," Judge Anthony Scirica wrote.  The panel judges, he
wrote, "do not believe that Actavis's holding can be limited to
reverse payments of cash."  The court vacated the District of
New Jersey's dismissal of direct purchasers' case against the two
and remanded to the trial court.

It was the first court of appeals ruling applying Actavis, and
also the first to frown on this sort of agreement by a brand drug
company, said Markus Meier, who heads the health care division of
the Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Competition. "The
decision makes clear that it does and can give rise to antitrust
liability," Mr. Meier said.  His agency filed an amicus in support
of the plaintiffs and participated in the oral arguments.
Glaxo continues to defend such agreements.  "Settlements like this
one are pro-competitive because they allow parties to resolve
expensive, business-disrupting litigation and permit competition,"
spokeswoman Jenni Brewer Ligday said in an email.  Teva declined
to comment.

Two consolidated First Circuit cases confront the same issue.
Direct purchasers and end-payers of the Loestrin 24 Fe
contraceptive are suing Warner Chilcott PLC and generic makers
including Lupin Ltd. and two units of Actavis Inc. over side deals
that delayed generic entry.  Actavis acquired Allergan and Warner
Chilcott and later changed the corporate name to Allergan PLC.

In May, the California Supreme Court in In re Cipro Cases I & II
offered the first state appellate guidance on a pay-for-delay
settlement post-Actavis.  The court found that Barr Laboratories
Inc.'s $398.1 million agreement with Bayer A.G. to postpone its
generic version of the antibiotic Cipro violated state antitrust
laws.  The deal stemmed from Barr's challenge to Bayer's patent.
The court held that a payment "purchasing freedom from the
possibility of competition" is illegal.

"The decision is a big win for consumers, because it means that
the vast majority of pay-for-delay settlements will be illegal in
California, and companies will be less likely to enter into those
agreements if they are banned in the country's largest market,"
said Mark Lemley, a Stanford Law School professor and Durie Tangri
partner who argued for the plaintiffs.

Kirkland & Ellis partner Edwin U, who argued for Barr's parent
company, Teva, did not respond to a request for comment.

Courts are also grappling with disputes involving more intricate
deals.  The Second Circuit held in May that Actavis' withdrawal of
Alzheimer's drug Namenda IR near the end of its patent monopoly
term was anti-competitive.  The move forced patients to switch to
a different formulation, Namenda XR, which relied on different
patents. The court found that Actavis hoped through this so-called
"product hopping" to maintain its monopoly in the face of expected
generic drug entrants.

                     Injunction Affirmed

Judge John Walker Jr.'s opinion affirmed a December preliminary
injunction in the Southern District of New York requiring Actavis
to continue offering the first formulation.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's office brought the
case, People of the State of New York v. Actavis, but declined to
comment on the outcome.  The company intends "to continue our
strong efforts to convey the significant benefits" of the new
formulation, said then-Actavis chief executive Brent Saunders, now
Allegan's chief executive, in a press release.  Meanwhile, a
District of Massachusetts case filed in late June against Novartis
A.G. and two subsidiaries alleged the corporation filed a sham
patent case against generic company Sun Pharmaceutical Industries
Inc. so it could broker a settlement that delayed a generic
version of Novartis' myeloid leukemia drug Gleevec for seven
months.  Two end-payer plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction to
stop the companies from enforcing their agreement.

According to a press release from Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro of
Seattle, one of five plaintiffs firms that filed the purported
class action, this is the first time drug buyers have tried to
stop antitrust overcharges or damages tied to a delayed generic
launch before it happened.

In an email, Novartis spokesman Eric Althoff wrote, "We will
vigorously defend our patent rights and litigate these improper
allegations."

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical worlds are watching the case,
said Troy Groetken, a partner at Chicago intellectual property
firm McAndrews, Held & Malloy whose practice includes litigation
and transactional work.  If Novartis' patent case was in fact
frivolous, it would represent a new delay tactic, he said.  "The
outcome of this case will definitely set the tone for whether or
not the court would allow such litigation tactics by brand against
generics," he said.


* Washington Growers Urged to Adopt Piece-Rate Pay Practice
-----------------------------------------------------------
Don Jenkins, writing for Capital Press, reports that Washington
growers should immediately start paying piece-rate workers
separately for rest breaks, a lawyer who represents several farm
groups said on July 17.

Yakima attorney Sarah Wixson advised a speedy acceptance of the
state Supreme Court's 9-0 ruling on July 16 that struck down the
agricultural industry's practice of paying pickers by the pound,
without extra pay for 10-minute breaks.

The justices left open the possibility that workers can
retroactively seek pay.  The ruling makes farms, especially large
ones, vulnerable to further lawsuits, Ms. Wixson said.

The statute of limitations on wage claims is three years.  The
sooner a farm starts paying separately for rest breaks, the sooner
time will run out on filing claims, she said.

"Everybody has to hold their breaths for the next three years,"
Ms. Wixson said.

The ruling stemmed from a 2013 federal class-action lawsuit filed
against Skagit County berry company Sakuma Bros. Farms.  The
workers alleged wage violations, which were settled out of court
last year.  Workers asked the state Supreme Court whether going
forward Sakuma had to pay piece-rate pickers separately for rest
breaks.

Company spokesman Roger van Oosten said on July 17 that Sakuma
revised its wage structure for the 2015 harvest to pay separately
for rest breaks.  Workers are paid at least $10 an hour, with
bonuses for the amount of berries picked. Pickers can earn up to
$40 an hour, he said.

"We've been doing it the whole picking season," he said.

Ms. Wixson said the ruling invites lawsuits because workers'
attorneys won't have to prove anything.

"It's going to be low-hanging fruit," she said.  "It's not going
to be hard to prove that workers weren't paid for rest breaks
because industry-wide, they weren't."

Seattle lawyer Marc Cote, who represented Sakuma workers in the
class-action lawsuit, said the ruling will affect thousands of
workers, but questioned whether it will inspire a wave of back-pay
claims.

The Sakuma lawsuit grew from unusual circumstances related to a
campaign to organize workers, he said.  Most farmworkers won't be
able to find advocates, he said.

"I think migrant farmworkers face a lot of barriers to getting
access to justice," Mr. Cote said.

Washington State Labor & Industries spokesman Matthew Erlich said
the department will send out notices to employees about the
ruling.

In an amicus curiae brief filed with the court before the ruling,
Ms. Wixson and Wenatchee lawyer Kristin Ferrera asked that
justices bar retroactive claims.  They argued that farmers were
following guidance from government agencies and that paying back
wages could devastate growers.

Ms. Wixson and Ms. Ferrera filed the brief on behalf of the
Washington State Tree Fruit Association, Washington Growers League
and Washington Farm Labor Association.

Mr. Cote argued that the court was merely interpreting, not
changing, what the law had been all along and that retroactive
claims should be allowed.

The court further ruled that rest break pay must be calculated
based on how much the worker would have earned in 10 minutes of
picking.

Sakuma through a public relations firm issued a statement lauding
its current pay system.

"The ruling acknowledges that we are doing things right," CEO
Danny Weeden said in a written statement.

The Washington Farm Bureau e-mailed an alert about the decision.
"The ruling will likely have drastic repercussions throughout all
of labor-intensive agriculture in Washington," according to the
organization.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Did Not Pay NARCO Trust as of June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc., has not made any payments to the
NARCO Trust for Annual Contribution Claims as of June 30, 2015,
according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
June 30, 2015.

In connection with NARCO's emergence from bankruptcy on April 30,
2013, a federally authorized 524(g) trust (NARCO Trust) was
established for the evaluation and resolution of all existing and
future NARCO asbestos claims. Both Honeywell and NARCO are
protected by a permanent channeling injunction barring all present
and future individual actions in state or federal courts and
requiring all asbestos related claims based on exposure to NARCO
products to be made against the NARCO Trust. The NARCO Trust
reviews submitted claims and determines award amounts in
accordance with established Trust Distribution Procedures approved
by the Bankruptcy Court which set forth the criteria claimants
must meet to qualify for compensation including, among other
things, exposure and medical criteria that determine the award
amount. In addition, Honeywell provided, and continues to provide,
input to the design of control procedures for processing NARCO
claims, and has on-going audit rights to review and monitor the
claims processors' adherence to the established requirements of
the Trust Distribution Procedures.

Honeywell is obligated to fund NARCO asbestos claims submitted to
the NARCO Trust which qualify for payment under the Trust
Distribution Procedures (Annual Contribution Claims), subject to
annual caps of $140 million in the years 2015 through 2018 and
$145 million for each year thereafter. However, the initial $100
million of claims processed through the NARCO Trust (the Initial
Claims Amount) will not count against the annual cap and any
unused portion of the Initial Claims Amount will roll over to
subsequent years until fully utilized. As of June 30, 2015,
Honeywell has not made any payments to the NARCO Trust for Annual
Contribution Claims.

Honeywell International Inc. is a diversified technology and
manufacturing company. It manages its business operations through
four businesses that are reported as operating segments:
Aerospace, Automation and Control Solutions, Performance Materials
and Technologies, and Transportation Systems.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Values Future NARCO Claims at $743MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc., estimates the value of future NARCO
asbestos claims at $743 million, according to the Company's Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

Honeywell is responsible for payments due to claimants pursuant to
settlement agreements reached during the pendency of the NARCO
bankruptcy proceedings that provide for the right to submit claims
to the NARCO Trust subject to qualification under the terms of the
settlement agreements and Trust Distribution Procedures criteria
(Pre-established Unliquidated Claims), which amounts are expected
to be paid during the initial years of trust operations.

The Company states: "Our consolidated financial statements reflect
an estimated liability for Pre-established Unliquidated Claims
($147 million), unsettled claims pending as of the time NARCO
filed for bankruptcy protection ($34 million) and for the
estimated value of future NARCO asbestos claims expected to be
asserted against the NARCO Trust through 2018 ($743 million). In
the absence of actual trust experience on which to base the
estimate, Honeywell projected the probable value of asbestos
related future liabilities, including trust claim handling costs,
based on a commonly accepted methodology used by numerous
bankruptcy courts addressing 524(g) trusts. Some critical
assumptions underlying this methodology include claims filing
rates, disease criteria and payment values contained in the Trust
Distribution Procedures, estimated approval rates of claims
submitted to the NARCO Trust and epidemiological studies
estimating disease instances. This projection resulted in a range
of estimated liability of $743 million to $961 million. We believe
that no amount within this range is a better estimate than any
other amount and accordingly, we have recorded the minimum amount
in the range. In light of the uncertainties inherent in making
long-term projections and in connection with the recent
implementation of the Trust Distribution Procedures by the NARCO
Trust, as well as the stay of all NARCO asbestos claims which
remained in place throughout NARCO's Chapter 11 case, we do not
believe that we have a reasonable basis for estimating NARCO
asbestos claims beyond 2018.

"Our insurance receivable corresponding to the estimated liability
for pending and future NARCO asbestos claims reflects coverage
which reimburses Honeywell for portions of NARCO-related indemnity
and defense costs and is provided by a large number of insurance
policies written by dozens of insurance companies in both the
domestic insurance market and the London excess market. We conduct
analyses to estimate the probable amount of insurance that is
recoverable for asbestos claims. While the substantial majority of
our insurance carriers are solvent, some of our individual
carriers are insolvent, which has been considered in our analysis
of probable recoveries. We made judgments concerning insurance
coverage that we believe are reasonable and consistent with our
historical dealings and our knowledge of any pertinent solvency
issues surrounding insurers.

"Projecting future events is subject to many uncertainties that
could cause the NARCO-related asbestos liabilities or assets to be
higher or lower than those projected and recorded. Given the
uncertainties, we review our estimates periodically, and update
them based on our experience and other relevant factors.
Similarly, we will reevaluate our projections concerning our
probable insurance recoveries in light of any changes to the
projected liability or other developments that may impact
insurance recoveries."

Honeywell International Inc. is a diversified technology and
manufacturing company. It manages its business operations through
four businesses that are reported as operating segments:
Aerospace, Automation and Control Solutions, Performance Materials
and Technologies, and Transportation Systems.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Has 9,343 Bendix Claims at June 30
-------------------------------------------------------------
There were 9,343 unresolved asbestos-related claims against
Honeywell International Inc.'s Bendix division, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

It is not possible to predict whether resolution values for
Bendix-related asbestos claims will increase, decrease or
stabilize in the future.

The Company states: "Our consolidated financial statements reflect
an estimated liability for resolution of pending (claims actually
filed as of the financial statement date) and future Bendix-
related asbestos claims. We have valued Bendix pending and future
claims using average resolution values for the previous five
years. We update the resolution values used to estimate the cost
of Bendix pending and future claims during the fourth quarter each
year.

The liability for future claims represents the estimated value of
future asbestos related bodily injury claims expected to be
asserted against Bendix over the next five years. Such estimated
cost of future Bendix-related asbestos claims is based on historic
claims filing experience and dismissal rates, disease
classifications, and resolution values in the tort system for the
previous five years. In light of the uncertainties inherent in
making long-term projections, as well as certain factors unique to
friction product asbestos claims, we do not believe that we have a
reasonable basis for estimating asbestos claims beyond the next
five years. The methodology used to estimate the liability for
future claims is similar to that used to estimate the liability
for future NARCO-related asbestos claims.

Our insurance receivable corresponding to the liability for
settlement of pending and future Bendix asbestos claims reflects
coverage which is provided by a large number of insurance policies
written by dozens of insurance companies in both the domestic
insurance market and the London excess market. Based on our
ongoing analysis of the probable insurance recovery, insurance
receivables are recorded in the financial statements simultaneous
with the recording of the estimated liability for the underlying
asbestos claims. This determination is based on our analysis of
the underlying insurance policies, our historical experience with
our insurers, our ongoing review of the solvency of our insurers,
judicial determinations relevant to our insurance programs, and
our consideration of the impacts of any settlements reached with
our insurers.

Honeywell believes it has sufficient insurance coverage and
reserves to cover all pending Bendix-related asbestos claims and
Bendix-related asbestos claims estimated to be filed within the
next five years. Although it is impossible to predict the outcome
of either pending or future Bendix-related asbestos claims, we do
not believe that such claims would have a material adverse effect
on our consolidated financial position in light of our insurance
coverage and our prior experience in resolving such claims. If the
rate and types of claims filed, the average resolution value of
such claims and the period of time over which claim settlements
are paid (collectively, the Variable Claims Factors) do not
substantially change, Honeywell would not expect future Bendix-
related asbestos claims to have a material adverse effect on our
results of operations or operating cash flows in any fiscal year.
No assurances can be given, however, that the Variable Claims
Factors will not change."

Honeywell International Inc. is a diversified technology and
manufacturing company. It manages its business operations through
four businesses that are reported as operating segments:
Aerospace, Automation and Control Solutions, Performance Materials
and Technologies, and Transportation Systems.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ruling in "Fletcher" Partially Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------
Marcella Fletcher appeals from the order of the State Court of
Thomas County granting summary judgment to Water Applications
Distribution Group, Inc., and CertainTeed Corporation in a suit
for personal injury arising out of the alleged negligence of the
appellees, a vendor and manufacturer, respectively, of asbestos-
containing cement water pipe.  Fletcher averred that she was
exposed to her father's asbestos dust-contaminated work clothing
between 1960 and 1977 when she was responsible for washing her
family's laundry at home and that, as a result of that exposure,
she developed malignant pleural mesothelioma.  The trial court
granted summary judgment to the appellees, concluding that they
owed no duty of care to Fletcher under these circumstances.

In an opinion dated July 16, 2015, the Court of Appeals of
Georgia, affirmed in part and reversed in part.  Among other
things, the Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court did not
err in granting summary judgment to CertainTeed on the
manufacturing defect claim but erred in granting summary judgment
to CertainTeed on Fletcher's design defect claim and in granting
summary judgment to CertainTeed on Fletcher's negligent failure to
warn claim.

The case is FLETCHER, v. WATER APPLICATIONS DISTRIBUTION GROUP,
INC. et al., A15A0527 (Ga. App.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision is available at http://is.gd/3Q3jIdfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partial Summary Judgment Issued in "Carter"
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, in an order dated July 15, 2015,
granted in part and denied in part a defense motion for summary
judgment in a pro se prisoner's civil rights action.

Specifically, Judge Chen ordered that the motion for summary
judgment will be granted in all respects except that it will
denied as to the claim that defendant Joe Dobie was deliberately
indifferent to a risk to plaintiff Markee Carter's health posed by
asbestos and will be denied on the qualified immunity defense for
Mr. Dobie regarding the asbestos exposure.

The case is MARKEE D. CARTER, Plaintiff, v. BRAD SMITH; et al.,
Defendants, NO. C-13-4373 EMC (PR)(N.D. Calif.).  A full-text copy
of Judge Chen's Decision is available at http://is.gd/YJu64ofrom
Leagle.com.

Markee D. Carter, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Philip Earley, Defendant, represented by Carol B. Ho, Law Offices
of Nancy E. Hudgins, Matthew M. Grigg, Law Offices of Nancy E.
Hudgins & Nancy Eaton Hudgins, Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins.

Gary Loredo, Defendant, represented by Carol B. Ho, Law Offices of
Nancy E. Hudgins, Matthew M. Grigg, Law Offices of Nancy E.
Hudgins & Nancy Eaton Hudgins, Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins.

Joe Dobie, Defendant, represented by Carol B. Ho, Law Offices of
Nancy E. Hudgins, Matthew M. Grigg, Law Offices of Nancy E.
Hudgins & Nancy Eaton Hudgins, Law Offices of Nancy E. Hudgins.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: 3 Cos. Obtain Partial Dismissal in "Bridges"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In 2013, David Bridges and 10 other plaintiffs filed a Seaman's
Petition for Damages in Louisiana state court, and the defendants
subsequently removed the case to the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana.  The suit named 13
defendants, including multiple "Jones Act Defendants."  The
plaintiffs allege they were injured as a result of exposure to
asbestos-containing drilling mud that was manufactured by one or
more of the "Asbestos Defendants" while working for Jones Act
Defendants.  One of those defendants, Shell Oil Company,
successfully filed a motion to dismiss or for more definite
statement, and after the Court ordered the plaintiffs amend their
petition, the plaintiffs opted to dismiss Shell.

Noble Drilling Corp., ENSCO Offshore Company, Murphy Exploration &
Product Co., and Murphy Exploration & Product Company-USA, then
filed motions similar to Shell, and Judge Riedlinger held that the
plaintiffs' original petition failed to state sufficient facts to
determine whether any of the plaintiffs were Jones Act seamen to
the moving parties.  The plaintiffs timely filed an amended
complaint, as Judge Riedlinger ordered, and it included the work
history of seven of the eleven plaintiffs.  Noble, ENSCO, and
Murphy moved to dismiss again, this time focusing on claims
asserted by the plaintiffs who did not work for the respective
company and the general maritime law punitive damages claims, even
for those plaintiffs who had worked for them.  Later, Randy
Newsome, Sr., filed a joint motion with ENSCO to dismiss, without
prejudice, all of his claims against ENSCO while reserving all
other claims; the Court granted that motion.

Noble, ENSCO, and Murphy filed motions to dismiss all claims
asserted against them by the plaintiffs with no work history for
their respective company and all general maritime law punitive
damages claims.

U.S. District Judge James J. Brady, in a July 14, 2015, ruling,
granted Noble's Motion to Dismiss in part with respect to all
claims by David Bridges, John Courtney, Jerry Freeman, Sr., James
Hardy, Terry Keith, Jerry Kitchens, Sr., Randy Newsome, Sr.,
Thomas Sullivan, Willie Thompson, and Percy Hall and with respect
to the claims for punitive damages by Wyman Fuller and denied in
part with respect to Wyman Fuller's claims for maintenance and
care.

Judge Brady also granted ENSCO's Motion to Dismiss in part with
respect to all claims by John Courtney, Jerry Freeman, Sr., Wyman
Fuller, Terry Keith, Jerry Kitchens, Sr., Thomas Sullivan, Willie
Thompson, and Percy Hall and with respect to claims for punitive
damages by David Bridges and James Hardy and denied in part with
respect to claims for maintenance and care by David Bridges and
James Hardy.

Moreover, Judge Brady granted Mobile's Motion to Dismiss in part
with respect to all claims by David Bridges, Jerry Freeman, Sr.,
Wyman Fuller, James Hardy, Terry Keith, Jerry Kitchens, Sr., Randy
Newsome, Sr., and Thomas Sullivan and with respect to claims for
punitive damages by John Courtney, Percy Hall, and Willie Thompson
and denied part with respect to claims for maintenance and care by
John Courtney, Percy Hall, and Willie Thompson.

The case is BRIDGES, ET AL v. CHEVRON PHILLIPS CHEMICAL COMPANY,
KP ET AL., CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-477-JJB (M.D. La.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Brady's Decision is available at http://is.gd/yt8na1
from Leagle.com.

David Bridges, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Justin Young, The
Young Firm, Daniel J. Poolson, Jr., The Young Firm & Tammy Dianne
Harris, The Young Firm.

John Courtney, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Justin Young, The
Young Firm, Daniel J. Poolson, Jr., The Young Firm & Tammy Dianne
Harris, The Young Firm.

Jerry Freeman, Sr., Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Justin
Young, The Young Firm, Daniel J. Poolson, Jr., The Young Firm &
Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm.

Wyman Fuller, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Justin Young, The
Young Firm, Daniel J. Poolson, Jr., The Young Firm & Tammy Dianne
Harris, The Young Firm.

James Hardy, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Justin Young, The
Young Firm, Daniel J. Poolson, Jr., The Young Firm & Tammy Dianne
Harris, The Young Firm.

Terry Keith, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Justin Young, The
Young Firm, Daniel J. Poolson, Jr., The Young Firm & Tammy Dianne
Harris, The Young Firm.

Jerry Kitchens, Sr., Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Justin
Young, The Young Firm, Daniel J. Poolson, Jr., The Young Firm &
Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm.

Randy Newsome, Sr., Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Justin
Young, The Young Firm, Daniel J. Poolson, Jr., The Young Firm &
Tammy Dianne Harris, The Young Firm.

Thomas Sullivan, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Justin Young,
The Young Firm, Daniel J. Poolson, Jr., The Young Firm & Tammy
Dianne Harris, The Young Firm.

Willie Thompson, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Justin Young,
The Young Firm, Daniel J. Poolson, Jr., The Young Firm & Tammy
Dianne Harris, The Young Firm.

Percy Hall, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Justin Young, The
Young Firm, Daniel J. Poolson, Jr., The Young Firm & Tammy Dianne
Harris, The Young Firm.

Union Carbide Corporation, Defendant, represented by McGready
Lewis Richeson, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC,
Deborah Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC,
Ernest G. Foundas, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC &
Michael H. Abraham, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC.

Chevron Phillips Chemical Company, LP, Defendant, represented by
Kathleen F. Drew, Adams & Reese & Gerard Joseph Gaudet, Adams and
Reese LLP.

Coastal Chemical Co., L.L.C., Defendant, represented by Campbell
Edington Wallace, Frilot, LLC & Allen J. Krouse, III, Frilot,
Partridge, Kohnke & Clements, LC.

ENSCO Offshore Company, Defendant, represented by Delos E. Flint,
Jr., Fowler, Rodriguez, Caitlin Byars, Mouledoux Bland Legrand &
Brackett, E. Stuart Ponder, Fowler, Rodriguez & Lawrence Raymond
DeMarcay, III, Fowler, Rodriguez.

Noble Drilling Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ben Louis
Mayeaux, Laborde & Neuner, Francis X. Neuner, Jr., Laborde &
Neuner, Jed M. Mestayer, NeunerPate & Jeffrey K. Coreil,
NeunerPate.

Murphy Exploration & Production Company, Defendant, represented by
Robert S. Emmett, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz,
Christopher M. Hannan, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell &
Berkowitz & James H. Daigle, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell &
Berkowitz.

Murphy Exploration & Production Company - USA, Defendant,
represented by Robert S. Emmett, Baker, Donelson, Bearman,
Caldwell & Berkowitz, Christopher M. Hannan, Baker, Donelson,
Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz & James H. Daigle, Baker, Donelson,
Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz.

Montello Inc, Defendant, represented by David Cartan Loker
Gibbons, Jr., Thompson, Gibbons & Westholz, LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Partial Summary Judgment Issued in "Bazor"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Bazor and Kay Bazor have brought suit against Dana
Companies for injuries arising out of exposure to asbestos, which
were allegedly caused by Dana Companies' asbestos-containing
products.

On November 11, 2014, Dana Companies filed a Super. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction.
Subsequently, the Plaintiffs served a Notice of a 30(b)(6)
Deposition directed to the Defendant for purposes of discovering
facts that would allow the Plaintiffs to establish that the
Superior Court of Rhode Island, Providence, SC, may exercise
personal jurisdiction over the Defendant.

In a decision dated July 16, 2015, the Superior Court granted the
Plaintiffs' motion in part, and denies it in part.  The Superior
Court finds that limited jurisdictional discovery is appropriate
as to any "substantial" or "continuous and systematic" business
contacts Dana Corporation may have had with Rhode Island.
However, no additional discovery is necessary regarding Dana
Holding or Dana Companies, the Superior Court said.

The case is ROBERT BAZOR and KAY BAZOR, Plaintiffs, v. ABEX CORP.,
et al., Defendants, and MARTHANNE STEFANKO, Individually and as
Personal Representative of the Estate of KENNETH STEFANKO,
Plaintiffs, v. ADIENCE CO., L.P., et al. Defendants, and RONALD
BURDICK, as Executor of the Estate of WALTER BURDICK and Estate of
EVELYN BURDICK, Plaintiffs, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORP., et al.
Defendants, and DENNIS R. BAUMGARTNER and GAIL L. BAUMGARTNER,
Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN STANDARD, INC., et al., Defendants, and
BEVERLY TAYLOR, as Administrator of the Estate of ROBERT P.
TAYLOR, and Individually Recognized as Surviving Spouse,
Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN STANDARD, INC., et al., Defendants, and
MARK COSTELLO and THERESA COSTELLO, Plaintiffs, v. AGCO
CORPORATION, Individually and a Successor in interest to MASSEY
FERGUSON and ALLIS CHALMERS, et al., Defendants, and CAROL
WINCHESTER and DANIEL WINCHESTER, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN
BILTRITE, INC., et al., Defendants, C.A. NOS. PC10-3965, PC11-
2352, PC11-3431, PC13-4151, PC14-1464, PC14-3741, PC14-4697 (R.I.
Super.).

A full-text copy of the Superior Court's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/pFpYVhfrom Leagle.com.

Donnie E. Young, Esq.; Robert J. Sweeney, Esq.; Jeffrey S. Kanca,
Esq., for Plaintiff.

Lawrence G. Cetrulo, Esq.; Stephen T. Armato, Esq. for Defendant.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Refuses to Remand "Boyd" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jay C. Zainey of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana denied a motion to remand the
asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit styled PATSY S. BOYD, ET
AL. v. BOEING CO., ET AL., SECTION: "A" (4), CIVIL ACTION NO. 15-
0025 (E.D. La.).  A full-text copy of Judge Zainey's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/0urZR8from Leagle.com.

Patsy S. Boyd, Plaintiff, represented by Mickey P. Landry, Landry
& Swarr, LLC, Amanda Jones Ballay, Landry & Swarr, LLC, Frank J.
Swarr, Landry & Swarr, LLC, Matthew C. Clark, Landry & Swarr, LLC
& Philip C Hoffman, Landry & Swarr, LLC.

Wheldon J. Boyd, Plaintiff, represented by Mickey P. Landry,
Landry & Swarr, LLC, Amanda Jones Ballay, Landry & Swarr, LLC,
Frank J. Swarr, Landry & Swarr, LLC, Matthew C. Clark, Landry &
Swarr, LLC & Philip C Hoffman, Landry & Swarr, LLC.

Wayne P. Boyd, Plaintiff, represented by Mickey P. Landry, Landry
& Swarr, LLC, Amanda Jones Ballay, Landry & Swarr, LLC, Frank J.
Swarr, Landry & Swarr, LLC, Matthew C. Clark, Landry & Swarr, LLC
& Philip C Hoffman, Landry & Swarr, LLC.

Elizabeth Lagasse, Plaintiff, represented by Mickey P. Landry,
Landry & Swarr, LLC, Amanda Jones Ballay, Landry & Swarr, LLC,
Frank J. Swarr, Landry & Swarr, LLC, Matthew C. Clark, Landry &
Swarr, LLC & Philip C Hoffman, Landry & Swarr, LLC.

Boeing Company, Defendant, represented by Glenn L.M. Swetman,
Manion Gaynor & Manning, LLP, Brandie Mendoza Thibodeaux, Manion
Gaynor & Manning, LLP & Christopher O. Massenburg, Manion Gaynor &
Manning, LLP.

United Technologies Corporation, formerly known as Pratt &
Whitney, Defendant, represented by Joseph M. Guillot, Esq. --
jmguillot@christovich.com -- Christovich & Kearney, LLP.

Parker-Hanifin Corporation, Defendant, represented by Forrest Ren
Wilkes, Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP.

Eaton Aeroquip, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by Jane H. Barney,
J. H. Barney Law Firm, LLC.

IMO Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by Leigh Ann Tschirn
Schell, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Joseph Henry
Hart, IV, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Lori Allen
Waters, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Magali Ann
Puente-Martin, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Thomas
A. Porteous, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC.

CFM International, Inc., Defendant, represented by John Joseph
Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C.,
James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Kelsey A. Eagan, Frilot
L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot L.L.C., Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot
L.L.C. & Rebecca Abbott Zotti, Frilot L.L.C..

Chromalloy American, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by Stephen
Porter Hall, Esq. -- stephen.hall@phelps.com -- Phelps Dunbar,
LLP.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric
Shuman, Esq. -- eshuman@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford,
PLLC & Sarah Elizabeth McMillan, Esq. -- semcmillan@mcglinchey.com
-- McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. Law to Govern York Int'l. Insurance Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In an insurance action for defense and indemnification of
asbestos-related claims, York International Corporation seeks
declarations regarding the rights and obligations of the parties
under general liability insurance policies that it purchased from
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, as well as damages to remedy
Defendant's alleged breach of contract.  Cross-motions for partial
summary judgment with regard to choice of law were filed wherein
the parties dispute whether Pennsylvania or New York law should
control the outcome of the case.  The Plaintiff also filed a
motion to strike, which attacks portions of an affidavit filed by
the Defendant in support of its motion for partial summary
judgment.

In a memorandum dated July 9, 2015, Judge Sylvia H. Rambo of the
United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania granted the Plaintiff's motion for partial summary
judgment, granted in part and denied in part the Plaintiff's
motion to strike, and denied the Defendant's motion for partial
summary judgment.

Specifically, Judge Rambo finds that portions of the affidavit by
Jerry McCullough submitted by Defendant contain inadmissible
evidence and the court will therefore grant, in part, the
Plaintiff's motion to strike.  In response to the parties' cross-
motions for summary judgment as to choice of law, the court finds
that Pennsylvania has the most significant relationship to the
insurance contracts and that Pennsylvania law will apply to the
remainder of the dispute between the parties.  Therefore, the
court will grant the Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and
deny the Defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment.

The case is YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, CIVIL NO. 1:10-CV-0692 (M.D.
Pa.).  A full-text copy of Judge Rambo's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/iDrxZQfrom Leagle.com.

York International Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Lee M.
Epstein, Esq. -- lee.epstein@flastergreenberg.com --
Flaster/Greenbeg P.C..

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by John
C. Sullivan, Esq. -- jsullivan@christiesullivanyoung.com --
Christie Sullivan & Young, P.C. & Kathleen K. Kerns, Esq. --
kkerns@christiesullivanyoung.com -- Christie Sullivan & Young,
P.C..


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Wis. Court Refuses to Review "Spychalla" Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Boeing Company and Cessna Aircraft Company have filed motions
for reconsideration of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin's June 3, 2015 decision and order
denying their motions for summary judgment and disposing of a
number of other pre-trial motions.  Boeing also requests
certification of an interlocutory appeal on the issue of whether
the "bare metal defense" is consistent with Wisconsin law.  The
Plaintiff responded to these motions late.  The motions were filed
under Civil L.R. 7(h), but rather than respond in the required 10
days, the Plaintiffs merely filed an "objection" stating that the
defendants failed to show good cause to expedite the motions.  No
such showing is required.

Chief Judge William C. Griesbach, in an order dated July 8, 2015,
denied the defendants' motions.  Judge Griesbach held that, as
stated in the July 3 Order, the defendants failed to establish
that they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law even if
their findings of fact were deemed true, and even if the
defendants were provided an opportunity to respond, all that would
result is that Doss's opinions would be "disputed" for purposes of
summary judgment.  Moreover, Judge Griesbach held that as
explained in the summary judgment decision, even if the Wisconsin
Supreme Court would recognize the defense, the defendants failed
to establish the defense -- as described by the leading courts
that have recognized it -- applies in this case.

The case is SHIRLEY D SPYCHALLA, Plaintiff, v. BOEING AEROSPACE
OPERATIONS INC. et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 11-CV-497 (E.D.
Wis.).  A full-text copy of Judge Griesbach's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/MPKsbSfrom Leagle.com.

Shirley D Spychalla, Plaintiff, represented by Robert G McCoy,
Cascino Vaughan Law Offices Ltd & Michael P Cascino, Cascino
Vaughan Law Offices Ltd.

Boeing Aerospace Operations Inc, Defendant, represented by Brian D
Gross, Manion Gaynor & Manning, Howard P Goldberg, Manion Gaynor &
Manning, Steven W Celba, Celba LLC, Timothy D Pagel, Celba LLC &
Lance E Mueller, Mueller SC.

Cessna Aircraft Company, Defendant, represented by Brett B Larsen,
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & Russell A Klingaman, Hinshaw &
Culbertson LLP.

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by David M
Setter, Esq. -- David.Setter@formanwatkins.com -- Forman Perry
Watkins Krutz & Tardy LLP, Michael L Lisak, Esq. --
mlisak@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, Timothy E Kapshandy, Esq.
-- tkapshandy@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP & Nora E Gierke,
Esq. -- ngierke@gierkefrank.com -- Gierke Frank LLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: April 15, 2014 NYCAL Order Modified
----------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, in a decision dated July 9, 2015, unanimously modified
the order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered April 15,
2014, which modified Section XVII of the New York City Asbestos
Litigation Case Management Order, as amended May 26, 2011, to
allow punitive damages claims to proceed, and denied Crane Co., et
al.'s motion to vacate and declare inapplicable the Case
Management Order.

The April 15, 2014 Order is modified, on the law, to the extent of
deleting the second sentence from the first decretal paragraph,
remanding the matter to the Coordinating Justice for a
determination of procedural protocols on the issue of punitive
damages, staying implementation of the modified order until such a
determination is made, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The case is IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. ALL NYCAL
CASES, Plaintiff-Respondents, A.O SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., ET
AL., Defendants, CRANE CO., ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS,
40000/88, 190215/11, 190262/11, 15678, 190293/11, 190294/11,
190299/11, 190311/11, 15677, 15676, 15675 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A
full-text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/Toqa9n
from Leagle.com.

K & L Gates LLP, Pittsburg, PA, ( Michael J. Ross, Esq. --
michael.ross@klgates.com -- of the bar of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, admitted pro hac vice, of counsel), for Crane Co.,
appellant.

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP, New York ( E. Leo Milonas,
Esq. -- eleo.milonas@pillsburylaw.com -- of counsel), and Brennan
Law Firm PLLC, New York ( Kerry A. Brennan of counsel) for
Cleaver-Brooks, Inc., appellant.

Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York ( Erik C.
DiMarco, Esq. -- erik.dimarco@wilsonelser.com -- of counsel), for
Andal Corp., AT & T Corp, Carrier Corporation, Carver Pump
Company, Chevron USA Inc., Clyde Union Inc., Control Components,
Inc., Conwed Corporation, Electric Boat Corporation, Ericsson,
Inc., Federal-Mogul Abestos, Personal Injury Trust, General
Dynamics Corporation, Gulf Oil Corporation, Hess Corporation, Hyde
Marine, Inc., International Comfort Products LLC, Ira S. Bushey &
Sons, Inc., New Yorker Boiler Company, Inc., Otis Elevator
Company, Puget Sound Commerce Center, Inc., RSCC Wire & Cable LLC,
S.W. Anderson Sales Corp., Scapa Group, Spencer Heater, TRIM-H
LLC, Vanderbilt Minerals, LLC, Warner Communications, Inc., and
Warner-Elektra-Atlantic Corporation, appellants.

Nixon Peabody LLP, Buffalo ( Samuel Goldblatt, Esq. --
sgoldblatt@nixonpeabody.com -- of counsel), for Patterson-Kelly
Company, appellant.

McGivney & Kluger, P.C., New York ( Kerryann Cook, Esq. --
kcook@mklaw.us.com -- of counsel), for Bradco Supply Corporation,
Spencer Turbine Company, Stockham Valves & Fittings, Sid Harvey
Industries, Madsen & Howell, Inc., Triangle PWC, Inc., Homasote
Company, Red Devil, Inc., Safeguard Industrial, Gerosa
Incorporated, Patterson Pump Co, Fairbanks Company, Nash
Engineering, Fay Spofford, Zurn Industries, Pecora Corporation,
CCX, Inc., Gorman-Rupp, DAP, Inc., American Gilsonite, Falk
Corporation, Flowserve Corp, Atwood & Morrill Co., Barnes and
Jones, Algoma Hardwoods, Courter & Company, George A. Fuller Co,
Water Applications & Systems Corporation, Rain Bird Sprinkler,
Croll-Reynolds, Treadwell Corp., RCH Newco, Electric Switchboard
Co., Levy Tishman Liquidating Corp., Columbia Boiler (NY), Lincoln
Electric Products, Elixir Industries, Eckel Industries, AII,
Acquisition (Holland Furnace), Serge Elevators, Approval Oil of
Brooklyn, Simplex Wire, Bergen Industrial, J. Heller, New York
Protective, ADSCO, Sunbeam, Siemens Water Technologies Corp, Henry
Company, W.W. Henry Company, Costal Plumbing Supply, Andal
Corporation, Alcoa, Inc., Zenith Radio, Seco/Warwick Corporation,
J.A. Sexauer, Inc., American Wire & Cable and Twin City,
appellants.

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP, New York ( Philip J. O'Rourke
of counsel), for Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc., Peerless Industries,
Inc., Graybar Electric Company, Inc., Henkel Corporation and NASCO
Holdings, Inc., appellants.

Darger Errante Yavitz & Blau LLP, New York ( Jonathan Kromberg of
counsel), for Amchem Products, Inc., Beazer East, Inc.,
Certainteed Corporation, Dana Companies, LLC, Gould Electronics
Inc., Hobart Brothers Company, Lennox Industries Inc., The Lincoln
electric Company, Linde, LLC, Union Carbide Corporation,
appellants.

McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP, New York ( Joseph
LaSala of counsel), for A.O. Smith Water Products Company, Tuthill
Corp., Stewart Warner Corporation, Invensys Systems, Inc.,
Robertshaw Controls Company, Benjamin Moore & Company, Baker
Perkins, Inc., Lipe Automation Corporation, Eaton Corporation,
Rockwell Automation, Inc., Flowserve U.S. Inc., Edward Valves,
Nordstrom Valves, Edward Vogt Valves, Burnham LLC, and Exxon Mobil
Corporation, appellants.

Timothy M. McCann, New York, for Consolidated Edison Company of
New York, Inc., and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc.,
appellants.

Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP, New York ( Matther S. Tamasco
of counsel), for Fort Kent Holdings, Inc., appellant.

Steptoe & Johnson LLP, New York ( Shehzad Hasan of counsel), for
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, appellant.

Lynch Daskal Emery LLP, New York ( Scott R. Emery of counsel), for
Georgia-Pacific LLC, appellant.

Cullen and Dykman LLP, New York ( John J. Fanning of counsel), for
Ajax Electric Company, Allied Building Products Corp., AWC 1997
Corporation, Burnham LLC, David Fabricators Of N.Y., Inc., Elof
Hansson, Inc., Fordham Supply Co., Inc., Friedrich Metal Products
Co., Inc., Goulds Pumps, Inc., Grandview Block & Supply Co.,
Howden North American, Inc., Long Island Lighting Company, Mario &
DiBono Plastering Co., Inc., National Grid Generation LLC, New
York Power Authority, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation, Sleepy
Hollow Chimney Supply, Ltd., Spence Engineering Co., Inc., The
Brooklyn Union Gas Company, Thermo Products LLC, and Webb & Sons,
Inc., appellants.

Ahmuty, Demers & Mcmanus, Albertson ( Frank A Cecere, Jr. of
counsel), for EX-FM, Inc, Thomas & Betts Corporation, Tishman
realty & Construction Co., Webster Plumbing Supply, Inc. and Yuba
Heat Transfer, appellants.

Thompson Hine LLP, New York ( Joseph Koczko of counsel), for
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, Alcoa Steamship
Company, Inc., Aluminum Company of America (ALCOA), American
President Lines, Ltd., American Trading and Production
Corporation, Central Gulf Lines, Inc., Chiquita Brands
International, Inc., Farrell Lines Incorporated, Maersk B.V. and
Waterman Steamship Corporation, appellants.

Aaronson Rappaport Feinstein & Deutsch, LLP, New York ( Nancy L.
Pennie of counsel), for Ford Motor Company, appellant.

Troutman Sanders LLP, New York ( Richard P. O'Leary of counsel),
for Standard Motor Products, Inc., Parker-Hannifin Corporation,
Cleveland Wheel and Brakes, Fisher Scientific Company, L.L.C.,
Fisher Scientific International, Inc., Hercules, Inc., Champlain
Cable Corporation, Ametek, Inc., Ashland, Inc., Mestek, Inc.,
Advanced Thermal Hydronics, Inc., Champlain Cable Corporation,
Ametek Inc., Ashland Inc., Corporation, Mestek, Inc., Sulzer Pumps
(US) Inc., and Sulzer Bingham Pumps, Inc., appellants.

Barry, McTiernan & Moore LLC, New York ( Suzanne M. Halbardier of
counsel), for 84 Lumber Company, Asbestos Corporation Ltd., Atlas
Turner, Inc., Bell Asbestos Mines, Ltd., Blackman Plumbing Supply,
Davis & Warshaw, Domco Products Texas, Inc., ECR International,
Inc., Fulton Boiler Works, Inc., The Olympic Glove & Safety
Company, Inc., R.W. Beckett Corporation, Security Supply
Corporation, SPX Cooling Technologies, Inc. and Whip Mix
Corporation, appellants.

Waters, McPherson, McNeil, P.C., New York ( Giovanni Regina of
counsel), for Riley Power Inc. and Turner Construction Company,
Inc., appellants.

Freehill Hogan & Mahar LLP, New York ( Thomas M. Canevari of
counsel), for Universe Tankships, Inc., National Bulk Carriers,
Inc., and Crowley Marine Services, Inc., appellants.

The Sultzer Law Group, P.C., New York ( Joseph Lipari and Jason
Pisultzer of counsel), for Leviton Manufacturing Company, Inc.,
AIW-2010 Wind Down Corp., Long Island Tinsmiths Supply Corp., H.G.
Page & Sons, Inc., and Elementis Chemicals Inc., appellants.

Law Offices Of David L. Ferstendig, LLC, New York ( David L.
Ferstendig of counsel), for Amsted Rail Company, Inc., appellant.

McGuireWoods LLP, New York ( Genevieve Macsteel of counsel), for
ITT Corporation, appellant.

Pascarella DiVita, PLLC, New York ( Lisa M. Pascarella of
counsel), for Bird Incorporated, Rheem Manufacturing Company,
Trane US, Inc., and Ingersoll Rand Company, appellants.

Landman Corsi Ballaine & Ford, P.C., New York ( Christopher S.
Kozak of counsel), for American Biltrite Inc., appellant.

Lavin, O'Neil, Cedrone & DiSipio, New York ( Timothy J. McHugh of
counsel), for 3M Company, appellant.

Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP, New York ( Paul J.
Zoeller of counsel), for ArvinMeritor, Inc. and Maremont
Corporation, appellants.

O'Toole Fernandez Weiner Van Lieu, LLC, New York ( Steven A.
Weiner of counsel), for Acme Heat & Power, Inc., Avocet
Enterprises, Inc., Clark-Reliance Corporation, IMI Cash Valve/A.W.
Cash Valve Manufacturing Company and Pennco Inc., appellants.

Eckert Seamans, Cherin & Mellott, LLC, White Plains ( David
Katzenstein of counsel), for Cargill, Inc., Superior Lidgerwood
Mundy Corporation, Taco, Inc. and Navistar, and ( Thomas M. Smith
of counsel), for Residual Enterprises Corporation, appellants.

Damon Morey LLP, New York ( Heidi B. Ruchala of counsel), for
Genuine Parts Company and National Automotive Parts Association.
appellants.

Garrity, Graham, Murphy, Garofalo & Flinn, New York ( Anthony J.
Marino of counsel), for United Conveyor Corporation, appellant.

McDermott Will & Emery LLP, New York ( Donald R. Pugliese of
counsel), for Honeywell International Inc., appellant.

Hawkins Parnell Thackston & Young LLP, New York ( Edward P. Abbot
of counsel), for Pneumo Abex LLC, appellant.

Harris Beach PLLC, New York ( Cynthia Weiss Antonucci of counsel),
for Albany International Corp., Auto Zone, Inc., Armstrong
International, Inc., Barker Aggregates, Barker Marine, Ltd.,
Barker Boys Towing Corp., Cooper Industries, LLC., H.C. Oswald
Supply Company Inc., Honeywell International Inc., Allied Chemical
Corporation, Hubbell Incorporated, Hubbell Incorporated
(Delaware), Hubbell Lighting, Inc., Prescolite Division, LeFrak
Organization, Inc., Plastics Engineering Company, Progress
Lighting Inc., Saint-Gobain Abrasives, Inc. and Xerox Corporation,
appellants.

Littleton Joyce Ughetta Park & Kelly LLP, Purchase ( Diane H.
Miller of counsel), for Kerr Corporation, Zy-Tech Global
Industries, Inc., VWR International, LLC and Ballantyne Strong,
Inc., appellants.

Goldberg Corwin LLP, New York ( Zachary S. Goldberg of counsel),
for Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, and Bridgestone
Americas, Inc., appellants.

Hoagland, Longo, Moran, Dunst & Doukas LLP, New York ( Monica R.
Kostrzewa of counsel), for York International Corporation, Johnson
Controls, Inc. and Kohler Co., appellants.

Malaby & Bradley, LLC, New York ( Robert C. Malaby of counsel),
for Alcoa, Inc., Bakers Pride Oven Co., Inc., Crown Boiler
Company, Donald Durham Company, J.A. Sexauer, Inc., Met-Pro
Technologies LLC, Morse Diesel, Inc., NACCO Materials Handling
Group, Inc., Qualitex Company, Reynolds Metals Company, Roper Pump
Company, Sears, Roebuck and Co., Superior Boiler Works, Inc. and
Terex Corporation, appellants.

Reed Smith LLP, New York ( Christopher W. Healy of counsel), for
BASF Catalysts LLC, appellant.

Hodges Walsh & Messemer, LLP, White Plains ( George S. Hodges of
counsel), for Electrolux Home Products Inc., Spirax Sarco, Inc.
and Clark-Reliance Corporation, appellants.

Harwood Lloyd, LLC, New York ( Russell A. Pepe of counsel), for
Carlisle Industrial Brake & Friction, Inc. and Graham Corp.,
appellants.

McMahon, Martine & Gallagher, LLP, Brooklyn ( Heidi C. Baker of
counsel), for Eastern Refractories Co., Inc., and Tiswhman Realty
& Construction Co., Inc., appellants.

Weitz & Luxenberg, P.C., New York ( Alani Golanski of counsel),
for respondents.

Levy Komitor, New York ( Robert Komitor of counsel), for
respondents


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Perfect Appeal in "Torbit" Enlarged
------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, in a decision dated July 9, 2015, enlarged the time to
perfect appeal enlarged to the December 2015 Term in the case
captioned IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. TORBIT, v.
A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS - CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-1835 (N.Y.
App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/HmaN9ufrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Perfect Appeal in "Lucadamo" Enlarged
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, in a decision dated July 9, 2015, enlagrged to the
December 2015 Term the to perfect appeal in the case IN RE: NEW
YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. LUCADAMO, v. A.O. SMITH WATER
PRODUCTS - CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-1833 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-
text copy of the Decision is available at http://is.gd/Y8BoiLfrom
Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Defeated in Bid to Junk "Bardone"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bruce J. Bardone worked personally, and in the presence of others,
as an electrician at various job sites throughout New York City
from the early 1960s through the 1970  . While working at those
job sites, the plaintiff alleges that he was exposed to asbestos-
containing floor tiles manufactured, sold, and distributed by
Defendant Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company.  On March 25, 2014, the
plaintiff was diagnosed with lung cancer that he attributes, in
part, to his alleged asbestos-exposure to Goodyear floor tiles.

Goodyear moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as
well as all cross-claims asserted against it in the action on the
grounds that there is no evidence that the plaintiff was actually
exposed to asbestos fibers released from a product manufactured,
sold, distributed, and/or installed by Goodyear.

Judge Peter H. Moulton of the Supreme Court, New York County, in a
decision and order dated July 8, 2015, denied Goodyear's motion,
holding that in this case, the plaintiff was able to assert the
specific range of dates during which he would have been exposed to
the defendant's tiles.  Additionally, the defendant does not
dispute the presence of its tiles at the job sites that the
plaintiff worked at, Judge Moulton said.  Most notably, here the
plaintiff has not only submitted testimony with respect to
unopened tile boxes, but affirmatively describes his recollection
with respect to the contents of those boxes, Judge Moulton pointed
out.  Accordingly, the court finds that sufficient evidence has
been proffered to defeat the defendant's motion.

The case is BRUCE J. BARDONE and KATHERINE BARDONE, Plaintiffs, v.
A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants, DOCKET NO.
190134/14, MOTION SEQ. NO. 005 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Moulton's Decision is available at http://is.gd/i6B27Qfrom
Leagle.com.


                            *********

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  * * *