CAR_Public/150727.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, July 27, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 148


                            Headlines


ACCOUNT CONTROL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
ACORN STAIRLIFTS: Recalls 34,500 Motorized Stair Lifts
ACTAVIS PLC: Anda and Forest to Defend TCPA Litigation
ACTAVIS PLC: Dismissal of Testosterone Class Action Sought
ACTAVIS PLC: Parties in Sales Representatives Suit in Discovery

ACTAVIS PLC: Warner Chilcott Facing 200 Actonel(R) Cases
ACTAVIS PLC: Update on Alendronate Product Liability Suits
ACTAVIS PLC: Defendant in 90 Actions Related to Benicar(R)
ACTAVIS PLC: 2 Trials This Year Over Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R)
ACTAVIS PLC: 180 Actions Pending v. Forest Over Birth Defects

ACTAVIS PLC: Defending Metoclopramide Litigation
ACTAVIS PLC: Defendants to File Bid to Dismiss Propoxyphene Suits
ACTAVIS PLC: Discovery in Testosterone Litigation in Early Stages
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Ieyoub" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Traut Wells Suit Over Airline Ticket

AMERICLEAN BUILDING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
AUSTRALIA: Councils Seek to Claw Back GST Charges
AVON PRODUCTS: Recalls Nut Choppers Due to Injury Risk
AVX CORPORATION: Class Action Appeal Still Pending
BASF: Cahill Accused of Conspiring to Destroy Asbestos Evidence

BEBE STORES: Settlement of Worker's Suit Has Preliminarily Okay
BEBE STORES: Discovery Ongoing in Class Action by Stylists
BEBE STORES: Discovery Ongoing in Class Action by Customer
BEBE STORES: Discovery Ongoing in Class Action by Customer
BEXCO ENTERPRISES: Recalls DaVinci Cribs Due to Laceration Risk

BG GROUP: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
BROOKFIELD DTLA: MOU Reached in Preferred Stock Actions
CAFEPRESS INC: Settlement in Shareholder Case Remains Pending
CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Responds to Securities Class Suits
CHINA COMMERCIAL: Yun Group Case Transferred to New York Court

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Sued Over Failure to Pay Cash to Cardholders
CITISTAFF SOLUTIONS: Sued Over Non-itemized Wages Statements
CITY NATIONAL: Stipulation of Settlement Reached in Merger Case
CLUB AT NORTH HALTON: Sued Over Inverse Pyramid Scheme Program
COOPER LIGHTING: Recalls Lighting Fixtures Due to Fire Hazard

COST PLUS: Recalls Bistro Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Recalls Trash Cans Due to Laceration Risk
COUPONS.COM INC: Faces "Nguyen" Stockholder Class Action
CRUNCH LLC: Sued Over Unauthorized Electronic Fund Transfers
CTPARTNERS EXECUTIVE: Faces Stockholder Class Action

CUSTOMER ENGINEERING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
DARA BIOSCIENCES: Faces "Edwards" Suit Over Midatech Merger
DEWAAY FINANCIAL: Iowa High Ct. Declines to Take Up Investor Suit
DOLLAR TREE: Suit by Assistant Store Manager Still Pending
DOLLAR TREE: 2012 Case by Assist. Store Manager in Discovery

DOLLAR TREE: March 2016 Trial Date in 2013 Class Action
DOLLAR TREE: Discovery Has Not Commenced in 2014 Class Action
DOLLAR TREE: Suit by Familary Dollar Sharheolders Ongoing
DOLLAR TREE: Distribution Center Employee Filed Class Action
DOLLAR TREE: California Manager Filed Class Action

DOUBLE INSIGHT: Recalls Pressure Cookers Due to Shock Risk
EAGLE MATERIALS: Summary Judgment Filed in Wallboard Litigation
EASTERN HEALTH: Sued Over Employees' Privacy Breach
EEE ENTERPRISES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Compensation
ELAVON PUERTO RICO: Sued for Not Accommodating Mental Disability

ELECTRONIC ARTS: To Seek Further Review of Ruling in "Davis" Case
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Court Dismissed Shareholder Lawsuit
ETSY INC: Faces "Altayyar" Securities Class Action
EZCORP INC: Filed Motion to Dismiss Class Action by Jason Close
FREDERICK J HANNA: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims

FTS INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Breedlove" Suit Says
GLADSTONE INVESTMENT: Noble Logistics Faces Employment Suit
GLATFELTER INC: Faces $5-Mil. Suit Over Paper Mill Emissions
GRAMERCY PROPERTY: Faces "Berliner" Suit Over Chambers Merger
GULF COAST: Faces "Duffau" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

HCSB FINANCIAL: Plaintiff in Class Action Lawsuit Files Appeal
HCSB FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Snyder Class Suit Pending
HELPING HANDS: Fails to Pay Aides' Travel Time, Suit Claims
HESKA CORPORATION: Faces Suit Over Alleged TCPA Violations
HOMEFRONT DELI: Faces "San Andres" Suit Over FLSA Violation

HONDA MOTOR: "Dang" Wrongful Death Suit Included in Airbag MDL
HOOPER HOLMES: Magistrate Judge Decision Pending
INSITE VISION: Faces "McKinley" Suit Over Proposed QLT Merger
JPMORGAN CHASE: Accused of Age Discrimination in N.D. Texas
JP MORGAN: $388-Mil. MBS Settlement One of Largest Recoveries

KEMET CORPORATION: Capacitors Antitrust Litigation Ongoing
KEMET CORPORATION: Defendants in Canadian Class Actions
KEMET CORPORATION: NEC TOKIN Defendants in US and Canadian Actions
KIA CANADA: Quebec Court of Appeal Certifies "Martel" Suit
KKR FINANCIAL: Delaware Supreme Court Appeal Remains Pending

KWICK RENTALS: Faces "Blankenship" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
KYTHERA BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Proposed Allergan Merger
LA CHIMENEA MEXICAN: "Lopez" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
LAKE PETROLEUM: Sued in Illinois Over Misleading Fuel Pump Labels
LIBERTY SILVER: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held

MACQUARIE LEASING: IMF Bentham to Seek Special Leave to Appeal
MACQUARIE LEASING: Class Action for Late Payment Fees On Hold
MARTHA STEWART: Faces "Dranove" Suit Over Sequential Merger
MARTHA STEWART: Faces "Moore" Suit Over Planned Sequential Merger
MARTHA STEWART: Faces "Terrell" Suit Over Sequential Merger

MARTHA STEWART: Faces "Nguyen" Suit Over Sequential Merger
MASTRO'S RESTAURANTS: "Murata" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
MIDLAND CREDIT: Sued in New York Over FDCPA Violation
MIZRAHI GRILL: "Salay-Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
MOTORS LIQUIDATION: 108 Class Actions Filed Against New GM

MURPHY OIL: 5th Circ. Rejects NLRB's En Banc Hearing Request
NATIONAL MILK: Limits Availability of Raw Farm Milk, Suit Says
NINETEEN TWENTY: Faces "Cano" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NORTH OLMSTED, OH: Sued Over Invasion of Class Members' Property
NVIDIA CORP: Sept. 18 Hearing in Graphics Chip Litigation

NVIDIA CORP: Filed Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari
NY PORT AUTHORITY: Suit Over Bridge Traffic Junked
NY RENAISSANCE: Faces "Romero" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
OLYMPUS AMERICA: Recalls VG 170 Digital Cameras Due to Shock Risk
PARAMOUNT GOLD: Defending Class Actions Related to Merger

PAUL TRAMANTANA: "Cruz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
PLASMATECH BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal of Schmidt Case Sought
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Falsely Marketed Tissue Products, Suit Claims
PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Reports $5.9MM Settlement Liability Reserve
RELIANCE WORLDWIDE: Recalls TAFR Devices Due to Injury Risk

REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Suit by Warren Police
SHENGDATECH LIQUIDATING: Discovery Stayed in Securities Case
SINCERE CARE: Faces "Kazansky" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SLF SERIES G: "Dorsten" Suit Removed to Florida District Court
SOLAZYME INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit

SPECIALIZED BICYCLE: Recalls Pedal Axle Extenders
STERICYCLE INC: Settled "Sawyer" Clas Action
SUNRISE GLOBAL: Recalls GreenWorks Blower/Vacs Due to Fire Risk
SYMANTEC CORP: Agreement in Principle Reached in Class Suit
TARGET CORP: Recalls Circo Night Lights Due to Fire Hazard

TEAVANA CORP: Recalls Glass Pitchers Due to Burn Hazards
TOTAL HOMECARE: Faces "Jim" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
TOWERS WATSON: Faces NJ Building Suit Over Proposed Willis Merger
TOWERS WATSON: Faces "Stein" Suit Over Proposed Willis Merger
TOWERS WATSON: Faces Atlanta Firefighters Suit Over Willis Merger

TRANSUNION CORP: Must Face Suit Over Terrorist List, Judge Says
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Texts Not Considered as Telemarketing
UNITED STATES: OPM Faces Class Suit Over Breach of Data
U.S. BANK: Wins in Two Missouri Mortgage Fees Class Suit
V & J NATIONAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum Wages Under FLSA

VECTREN UTILITY: SIGECO Claimants File Class Action
VERTEX REFINING: Unit Named as Defendant in Class Action
VIVINT SOLAR: Says Settlement Approval to Occur in Late 2015
VIVINT SOLAR: Filed Answer to Technicians' Class Action
VIVINT SOLAR: Filed Motion to Dismiss 2 Class Actions

VOLTARI CORPORATION: Dismissal of Complaint Under Appeal
VOXX INTERNATIONAL: Court Has Not Appointed Lead Plaintiff
WEIGHT WATCHERS: Still Facing Securities Litigation
WINDSOR CAFE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
WRIGHT MEDICAL: Second Restatement Bars Strict Liability Claims

XOOM CORPORATION: Faces Booth Suit Over Proposed PayPal Merger
YELP INC: Sued Over Failure to Distribute Delivery Drivers' Tips
YIGAL-AZROUEL: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
ZZIM USA: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Sanchez" Suit Claims



                            *********


ACCOUNT CONTROL: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nava Laniado, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Account Control Systems, Inc., Cypress Financial
Recoveries, LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:15-cv-03895-KSH-CLW
(D.N.J., June 10, 2015) accuses the Defendants of violating the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ACORN STAIRLIFTS: Recalls 34,500 Motorized Stair Lifts
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Acorn Stairlifts Inc., of Orlando, Fla., announced a voluntary
recall of about 34,500 Motorized stair lifts. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The stair lift's seat post can separate from the main seat
support, posing a fall hazard.

This recall involves Acorn brand motorized stair lifts with the
model name Acorn Superglide 120. The stair lifts are mechanical
chairs that are installed on residential staircases to transport
people with reduced mobility up and down stairs. The following
versions of the Acorn Superglide 120 are being recalled:  Acorn
120 Stairlift, Acorn 120 Outdoor Stairlift, Acorn 120 Superglide
Stairlift, Acorn Outdoor Stairlift, and Acorn Slimline Stairlift.
The recalled stair lifts were manufactured between March 2007 and
March 2011 and have serial numbers between 110101209781 and
110202352678.  For all of the recalled stair lifts, the name
"Acorn Superglide 120" and the serial numbers are located on a
silver label on the stair lift's carriage body cover and on the
underside of the steel footrest.

Acorn received two reports of incidents of the seat post
separating from the main seat support and resulted in deaths in
the United Kingdom. There have been no reports of incidents or
injuries in the United States.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/2ZsqkY

The recalled products were manufactured in United Kingdom and sold
at Acorn Stairlifts and Acorn Stairlifts' authorized dealers
nationwide from March 2007 to December 2011 for about $3,400.

Consumers should immediately contact Acorn for a free in-home
repair. Until the stair lift is repaired, consumers should
consider whether to continue using the stair lift based on their
ability to safely use the stairs unaided. If a consumer is able to
use the stairs safely, then he or she should not use the lift
until it is repaired.


ACTAVIS PLC: Anda and Forest to Defend TCPA 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 Anda
Inc. and Forest Laboratories intend to defend the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act Litigation vigorously.

A putative class action complaint against Anda, Inc. ("Anda"), a
subsidiary of the Company, in Missouri state court alleging
conversion and alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act. An amended complaint alleges that by
sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements, Anda misappropriated
the class members' paper, toner, ink and employee time when they
received the alleged unsolicited faxes, and that the alleged
unsolicited facsimile advertisements were sent to the plaintiff in
violation of the TCPA and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act. The complaint seeks to assert class action
claims on behalf of the plaintiff and other similarly situated
third parties.

On May 19, 2011, the plaintiff's filed a motion seeking
certification of a class of entities with Missouri telephone
numbers who were sent Anda faxes for the period January 2004
through January 2008 but the court vacated the class certification
hearing until the FCC Petition was addressed.

On May 1, 2012, a separate action was filed in federal court in
Florida, purportedly on behalf of the "end users of the fax
numbers in the United States but outside Missouri to which faxes
advertising pharmaceutical products for sale by Anda were sent."
On July 10, 2012, Anda filed its answer and affirmative defenses.
The parties filed a joint motion to stay the action pending the
resolution of the FCC Petition which the court granted.

In addition, in October 2012, Forest and certain of its affiliates
were named as defendants, in a putative class action in federal
court in Missouri. This suit alleges that Forest and another
defendant violated the TCPA and was filed on behalf of a proposed
class that includes all persons who, from four years prior to the
filing of the action, were sent telephone facsimile messages of
material advertising the commercial availability of any property,
goods, or services by or on behalf of defendants, which did not
display an opt-out notice compliant with a certain regulation
promulgated by the FCC. On July 17, 2013, the district court
granted Forest's motion to stay the action pending the
administrative proceeding initiated by the pending FCC Petition
and a separate petition Forest filed.

In a related matter, in November 2010 Anda filed a petition with
the FCC, asking the FCC to clarify the statutory basis for its
regulation requiring "opt-out" language on faxes sent with express
permission of the recipient (the "FCC Petition"). On May 2, 2012,
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau of the FCC dismissed
the FCC Petition. On May 14, 2012, Anda filed an application for
review of the Bureau's dismissal by the full Commission,
requesting the FCC to vacate the dismissal and grant the relief
sought in the FCC Petition. The FCC did not rule on the
application for review.

On June 27, 2013, Forest filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling
with the FCC requesting that the FCC find that (1) the faxes at
issue in the action complied, or substantially complied with the
FCC regulation, and thus did not violate it, or (2) the FCC
regulation was not properly promulgated under the TCPA.

On January 31, 2014, the FCC issued a Public Notice seeking
comment on several other recently-filed petitions, all similar to
the one Anda filed in 2010.

On October 30, 2014, the FCC issued a final order on the FCC
Petition granting Anda, Forest and several other petitioners a
retroactive waiver of the opt-out notice requirement for all faxes
sent with express consent. The litigation plaintiffs, who had
filed comments on the January 2014 Public Notice, have appealed
the final order to the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia. Anda, Forest and other petitioners have moved to
intervene in the appeal seeking review of that portion of the FCC
final order addressing the statutory basis for the opt out/express
consent portion of the regulation.

Anda and Forest believe they have substantial meritorious defenses
to the putative class actions brought under the TCPA, and intend
to defend the actions vigorously. However, these actions, if
successful, could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations, financial condition and cash
flows.


ACTAVIS PLC: Dismissal of Testosterone Class Action Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
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 have filed a joint motion to dismiss the Testosterone
Replacement Therapy Class Action.

On November 24, 2014, the Company was served with a putative class
action complaint filed on behalf a class of third party payers in
federal court in Illinois. The suit alleges that the Company and
other named pharmaceutical defendants violated various laws
including the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and state consumer protection laws in connection
with the sale and marketing of certain testosterone replacement
therapy pharmaceutical products ("TRT Products"), including the
Company's Androderm(R) product. This matter was filed in the TRT
Products Liability MDL, notwithstanding that it is not a product
liability matter.

Plaintiff alleges that it reimbursed third parties for dispensing
TRT Products to beneficiaries of its insurance policies. Plaintiff
seeks to obtain certain equitable relief, including injunctive
relief and an order requiring restitution and/or disgorgement, and
to recover damages and multiple damages in an unspecified amount.

Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaint. The
Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the
claims alleged and intends to vigorously defend the action.
However, an adverse determination in the case could have an
adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations,
financial condition and cash flows.


ACTAVIS PLC: Parties in Sales Representatives Suit in Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
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
parties in a class action brought by certain former company sales
representatives and specialty sales representatives are beginning
to work on discovery matters.

In July 2012, Forest Laboratories and certain of its affiliates
were named as defendants in an action brought by certain former
company sales representatives and specialty sales representatives
in the federal district court in New York. The action is a
putative class and collective action, and alleges class claims
under Title VII for gender discrimination with respect to pay and
promotions, as well as discrimination on the basis of pregnancy,
and a collective action claim under the Equal Pay Act. The
proposed Title VII gender class includes all current and former
female sales representatives employed by the Company throughout
the U.S. from 2008 to the date of judgment, and the proposed Title
VII pregnancy sub-class includes all current and former female
sales representatives who have been, are, or will become pregnant
while employed by the Company throughout the U.S. from 2008 to the
date of judgment. The proposed Equal Pay Act collective action
class includes current, former, and future female sales
representatives who were not compensated equally to similarly-
situated male employees during the applicable liability period.
The Second Amended Complaint also includes non-class claims on
behalf of certain of the named Plaintiffs for sexual harassment
and retaliation under Title VII, and for violations of the Family
and Medical Leave Act.

On August 14, 2014, the court issued a decision on the Company's
motion to dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part,
striking the plaintiffs' proposed class definition and instead
limiting the proposed class to a smaller set of potential class
members and dismissing certain of the individual plaintiffs'
claims. Plaintiffs had until May 15, 2015 to file a motion for
conditional certification of the Equal Pay Act class. The
litigation is still in its early stages and the parties are
beginning to work on discovery matters.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against this
action. 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: Warner Chilcott Facing 200 Actonel(R) Cases
--------------------------------------------------------
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
Warner Chilcott is a defendant in approximately 200 cases and a
potential defendant with respect to approximately 415 unfiled
claims involving a total of approximately 627 plaintiffs and
potential plaintiffs relating to Warner Chilcott's bisphosphonate
prescription drug Actonel(R).

The claimants allege, among other things, that Actonel(R) caused
them to suffer osteonecrosis of the jaw ("ONJ"), a rare but
serious condition that involves severe loss or destruction of the
jawbone, and/or atypical fractures of the femur ("AFF"). All of
the cases have been filed in either federal or state courts in the
United States. Warner Chilcott is in the initial stages of
discovery in these litigations. In addition, Warner Chilcott is
aware of four purported product liability class actions that were
brought against Warner Chilcott in provincial courts in Canada
alleging, among other things, that Actonel(R) caused the
plaintiffs and the proposed class members who ingested Actonel(R)
to suffer atypical fractures or other side effects.

It is expected that these plaintiffs will seek class
certification. Plaintiffs have typically asked for unspecified
monetary and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees. Warner
Chilcott is indemnified by Sanofi for certain Actonel claims
pursuant to a collaboration agreement relating to the two parties'
co-promotion of the product in the United States and other
countries.

In addition, Warner Chilcott is also partially indemnified by the
Proctor & Gamble Company ("P&G") for ONJ claims that were pending
at the time Warner Chilcott acquired P&G's global pharmaceutical
business in October 2009. In May and September 2013, Warner
Chilcott entered into two settlement agreements which will resolve
a majority of the then-existing ONJ-related claims which are
subject to the acceptance by the individual respective claimants.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to
these cases and intends to defend these claims vigorously. Warner
Chilcott maintains product liability insurance against such cases.
However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot
predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if
successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage
against such claims, 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: Update on Alendronate Product Liability Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Actavis plc and Warner Chilcott Limited provided updates on
product liability suits related to Alendronate 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 2010, approximately 130 product liability suits on
behalf of approximately 175 plaintiffs have been filed against the
Company and certain of its affiliates, including Cobalt
Laboratories, as well as other manufacturers and distributors of
alendronate for personal injuries including AFF and ONJ allegedly
arising out of the use of alendronate. The actions are pending in
various state and federal courts. Several of the cases were
consolidated in an MDL proceeding in federal court in New Jersey.

In 2012, the MDL court granted the Company's motion to dismiss all
of the cases then pending against the Company in the New Jersey
MDL. The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal. Any new cases
against the Company filed in the MDL are subject to dismissal
unless plaintiffs can establish that their claims should be
exempted from the 2012 dismissal order.

Other cases were consolidated in an MDL in federal court in New
York, where the Company filed a similar motion to dismiss. The
Court granted, in part, the motion to dismiss which has resulted
in the dismissal of several other cases.

The Company has also been served with nine cases that are part of
a consolidated litigation in the California state court. In 2012,
the California court partially granted a motion filed on behalf of
all generic defendants seeking dismissal. Appeals in the
California cases have been exhausted and the Company has not yet
been able to determine how that will affect the cases filed
against it.

All cases pending in state courts in Kentucky and Missouri have
been discontinued against the Company. The remaining active cases
are part of a mass tort coordinated proceeding in New Jersey state
court. In the New Jersey proceeding, the Court granted, in part, a
motion to dismiss.

The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses
to these cases and maintains product liability insurance against
such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the
Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These
actions, if successful, or if our indemnification arrangements or
insurance do not provide sufficient coverage against such claims,
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: Defendant in 90 Actions Related to Benicar(R)
----------------------------------------------------------
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 is named in approximately ninety actions involving
allegations that Benicar(R), a treatment for hypertension that
Forest Laboratories co-promoted with Daiichi Sankyo between 2002
and 2008, caused certain gastrointestinal injuries. Under Forest's
Co-Promotion Agreement, Daiichi Sankyo is defending the Company in
these lawsuits.


ACTAVIS PLC: 2 Trials This Year Over Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R)
---------------------------------------------------------
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 and its affiliates are defendants in
approximately ten actions pending in various federal district
courts involving allegations that Celexa(R) or Lexapro(R) caused
or contributed to individuals committing or attempting suicide, or
caused a violent event. The Company was granted summary judgment
in three cases, all of which are being appealed. Two other matters
have been stayed pending a decision by the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals. At present, two trials are scheduled in 2015 with the
possibility that additional cases could be set for trial in 2015
or 2016.


ACTAVIS PLC: 180 Actions Pending v. Forest Over Birth Defects
-------------------------------------------------------------
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
approximately 180 actions are pending against Forest Laboratories
and its affiliates involving allegations that Celexa(R) or
Lexapro(R) caused various birth defects. Several of the cases
involve multiple minor-plaintiffs. The majority of these actions
have been consolidated in state court in Missouri where one case
is set for trial in November 2015. In addition, several matters
are pending in federal district court in Missouri and three of
those matters are set for trial in August 2016. Multiple
additional actions were filed in New Jersey state court. None of
the New Jersey cases are set for trial. There are birth defect
cases pending in other jurisdictions but none currently are set
for trial.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to
the Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) cases and maintains product liability
insurance against such cases. However, litigation is inherently
uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this
litigation. These actions, if successful, or if insurance does not
provide sufficient coverage against such claims, 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: Defending Metoclopramide 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 is actively defending Metoclopramide Litigation.

Beginning in 2009, a number of product liability suits were filed
against certain Company affiliates, including legacy Actavis and
Watson companies, as well as other manufacturers and distributors
of metoclopramide, for personal injuries allegedly arising out of
the use of metoclopramide. Approximately 1,500 cases remain
pending against Actavis, Watson and/or its affiliates in state and
federal courts, representing claims by multiple plaintiffs.
Discovery in these cases is in the preliminary stages as the
Company is actively moving to dismiss the suits and either
initiating or defending appeals on such motions.

The Company believes that, with respect to the majority of the
cases against the legacy Watson companies, it will be defended in
and indemnified by Pliva, Inc., an affiliate of Teva, from whom
the Company purchased its metoclopramide product line in late
2008. With respect to the cases pending against the legacy Actavis
companies, the Company is actively defending them.

The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses
to these cases and maintains product liability insurance against
such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the
Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These
actions, if successful, or if our indemnification arrangements or
insurance do not provide sufficient coverage against such claims,
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: Defendants to File Bid to Dismiss Propoxyphene 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
defendants in the Propoxyphene Litigation will file demurrers and
motions to dismiss the remaining suits.

Beginning in 2011, a number of product liability suits were filed
against Watson and certain of its affiliates, as well as other
manufacturers and distributors of propoxyphene, for personal
injuries including adverse cardiovascular events or deaths
allegedly arising out of the use of propoxyphene. Cases are
pending against Watson and/or its affiliates in various state and
federal courts, representing claims by approximately 1,400
plaintiffs. A number of the cases were consolidated in an MDL in
federal district court in Kentucky.

On June 22, 2012, the MDL court granted the generic defendants'
joint motion to dismiss the remaining MDL cases. On June 27, 2014,
the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal.
Plaintiffs did not file a petition for a writ of certiorari with
the United States Supreme Court.

In addition, approximately 35 cases were filed in California state
court. These cases were removed to federal district courts and,
after disputes over whether the cases should be remanded to state
court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the
removals to federal court were proper. Once the procedural matters
are resolved, the defendants will file demurrers and motions to
dismiss the remaining suits.

In November 2014, one additional action was filed in Oklahoma
state court.

The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses
to these cases and maintains product liability insurance against
such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the
Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These
actions, if successful, or if insurance does not provide
sufficient coverage against such claims, 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: Discovery in Testosterone Litigation in Early Stages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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
discovery is in the early stages in the Testosterone Litigation.

Beginning in 2014, a number of product liability suits were filed
against the Company and certain of its affiliates, as well as
other manufacturers and distributors of testosterone products, for
personal injuries including but not limited to cardiovascular
events allegedly arising out of the use of Androderm(R)
testosterone cypionate, AndroGel and/or testosterone enanthate.
Actavis, Inc. and/or one or more of its subsidiaries have been
served in approximately 130 currently pending actions, all of
which are pending in federal court. These actions have been
consolidated in an MDL in federal court in Illinois.

The defendants have responded to the plaintiffs' master complaint.
These cases are in the initial stages and discovery is in the
early stages.

The Company anticipates that additional suits will be filed. The
Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses to
these cases and maintains product liability insurance against such
cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company
cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if
successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage
against such claims, 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.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Ieyoub" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard P. Ieyoub, Sr., both individually and on behalf of all v.
Southwest Airlines Co., American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines,
Inc., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-02300 (N.D.
Tex., 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:

      Mazin A. Sbaiti, Esq.
      STECKLER LLP
      12720 Hillcrest Rd., Suite 1045
      Dallas, TX 75230
      Telephone: (972) 387-4040
      Facsimile: (972) 387-4041
      E-mail: Mazin@stecklerlaw.com

         - and -

      Arthur M. Murray, Esq.
      Stephen B. Murray Jr., Esq.
      Robin M. Primeau, Esq.
      MURRAY LAW FIRM
      650 Poydras Street, Suite 2150
      New Orleans, LO 70130
      Telephone: (504) 525-8100
      Facsimile: (504) 584-5249
      E-mail: amurray@murray-lawfirm.com
              smurrayjr@murray-lawfirm.com
              rmyers@murray-lawfirm.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Traut Wells Suit Over Airline Ticket
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steven M. Traut Wells, Inc. d/b/a/ Traut Wells, and Kent Busek,
individually, and on behalf 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. 0:15-cv-0306 -DWF-LIB
(D. Minn., 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:

      Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
      Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
      Michelle Looby, Esq.
      Joshua J. Rissman, Esq.
      GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
      Canadian Pacific Plaza
      120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 333-8844
      Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
      E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
              dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
              mlobby@gustafsongluek.com
              jrissman@gustafsongluek.com


AMERICLEAN BUILDING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Melba Moreira, Raul Moreira, Rafaela Leonor Ruiz, and all others
similarly situated v. AmeriClean Building Maintenance, Inc. and
James S. Johnson, Case No. 1:15-cv-22606-CMA (S.D. Fla., July 10,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages  in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a janitorial service company that
regularly transacts business within Palm Beach and Miami-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


AUSTRALIA: Councils Seek to Claw Back GST Charges
-------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Henson, writing for The Australian News, reported that
about 50 councils from across Australia, mostly from NSW, are
suing the government in the High Court of Australia in a bid to
recoup all GST paid on council property since the tax was
introduced 15 years ago.

Tea Tree Gully Council estimates it would receive about AUD7.5
million, the amount it claims it had paid in GST, if the action
was successful.

A win could also pave the way for other SA councils to claw back
hundreds of millions of dollars from the government for GST
charges for items such as land, buildings, cars, trucks, graders
and street sweepers.

Tea Tree Gully councillors discussed the matter at their meeting
and decided to commit to the class action, subject to a risk
assessment.

Audit Committee presiding member Brian Massey said the committee
had already looked into the proposal and was confident there was
little danger involved in suing the Federal Government.

"We don't believe that it will pose a risk to the council because
it's no win, no fee," Mr Massey said.

Tea Tree Gully Mayor Kevin Knight told the Leader Messenger he
understood the case could take 3-4 years to finalise and if the
council received a refund, it would consider putting rate rises on
hold in the future.

"We would use it to reduce debt," Mr. Knight said.

"It would be nice just to keep the status quo (in regards to
rates), or at least minimal rises."

Tea Tree Gully Council plans to increase its general rates by an
average 3.7 per cent next -- financial year, which would result in
the average rates bill increasing from AUD1,465 in 2014/15 to
AUD1,519 in 2015/16.

Adelaide City, Playford and Onkaparinga councils are also
considering joining the lawsuit.

These councils were approached directly by Sydney-based Genesis
Accounting Chartered Accountants, who are leading the class
action.

Genesis Accounting Chartered Accountants basing their case on a
2011 Federal Court case involving Melton Shire Council in Victoria
where the court declared the council was considered part of the
state for the purposes of the GST.

According to a report tabled at a Tea Tree Gully Council meeting,
Genesis Accounting said s. 5 of the Goods and Services Tax Act
1999 outlines the GST cannot be imposed on property owned by the
state.

"In short, the basis of the class action will be that councils
will claim that the Melton Shire Council case clearly provides a
basis that our council is part of the state and that is
unconstitutional to then impose (GST) on property," the report
reads.

The report also states Genesis Accounting have engaged lawyers to
act on its behalf and there would be no cost to councils involved
if the case was unsuccessful.

If the lawsuit is successful, the firm would take 25 per cent of
the revenue received from the claim as payment for its services.

In a letter to the council, Genesis Accounting director Pat
McCarthy said the firm was planning to lodge the case with the
court after July 1.

"Since GST started, councils have been paying GST on asset sales,
including real estate, taxable fees and charges and some
government grants," Mr McCarthy wrote.

"In our project, councils have the opportunity to take the Melton
decision to its next level (for example) to seek refunds of all
GST paid on all sales and assets."

A Local Government Association spokeswoman said the organisation
had not been asked to assist councils with the matter and would
not comment on individual council decisions.

A spokeswoman for the ATO also declined to comment on the case or
its potential implications.

Federal Treasurer Joe Hockey refused to comment because the matter
would soon be before the courts.


AVON PRODUCTS: Recalls Nut Choppers Due to Injury Risk
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Avon Products Inc., of New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary
recall of about 27,000 Nut chopper (in addition, 5,100 were sold
in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The tines of the grinding mechanism can break and these fragments
can fall into the food being chopped, posing a risk of injury to
consumers.

This recall involves a nut chopper sold by Avon. The recalled nut
chopper is 7 1/2 inches tall and has clear plastic upper and lower
chambers connected by an orange plastic grinding mechanism. The
grinding mechanism has metal tines and a metal crank arm with an
orange plastic grip handle. The lower chamber has a removable
orange base and markings that show it holds about 1 1/4 cup of
materials. The upper chamber has orange plastic lid. The product
identification number found on the outside of the Nut Chopper
individual, corrugated box packaging was F3730731 and the brochure
number was 978-044.

Avon received seven reports of the chopper bending or breaking,
including two instances in which the tine fragments were found in
the food prepared by the consumer but not swallowed. There have
been no reports of injury.

Pictures of the Recalled Products are available at:
http://is.gd/vPjcEG

The recalled products were sold at Independent Avon sales
representatives nationwide and online at Avon.com from June 2013
through December 2013 for between about $10 and $13.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled nut chopper
and return it to Avon for a refund.


AVX CORPORATION: Class Action Appeal Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------
An appeal of one aspect of a class action lawsuit against AVX
Corporation is still pending before the South Carolina Supreme
Court, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 20, 2015, for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2015.

On November 27, 2007, a suit was filed in South Carolina State
Court by individuals as a class action with respect to property
adjacent to the Company's Myrtle Beach, South Carolina factory
claiming property values were negatively impacted by alleged
migration of certain pollutants from the Company's property.  The
parties agreed to a $1.2 million settlement of the action, which
was approved by the Court on December 15, 2014 and paid in January
2015. An appeal of one aspect of that class action is still
pending before the South Carolina Supreme Court; if resolved
against AVX, it may result in additional litigation.


BASF: Cahill Accused of Conspiring to Destroy Asbestos Evidence
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that after winning a
high-profile appellate reversal last year, plaintiffs lawyers at
Cohen, Placitella & Roth and Fox Rothschild have filed revamped
allegations that Cahill Gordon & Reindel and BASF Catalysts
conspired to destroy evidence in sprawling asbestos litigation.

The plaintiffs lawyers, led by Christopher Placitella, lodged a
155-page amended complaint on July 16 in Newark, New Jersey,
federal court, accusing Cahill and BASF of fraud.

The filing marks the latest development in a proposed class action
brought in 2011 by the relatives of people who allegedly died from
exposure to asbestos-contaminated talc made by Engelhard Corp.,
which BASF acquired in 2006.  As The American Lawyer detailed in a
feature story last year, Cahill and BASF are accused of conspiring
to destroy and conceal evidence relevant to separate litigation
brought by alleged asbestos victims.

The plaintiffs' fraud allegations against Cahill and BASF are
sweeping, tracing back more than 25 years to a 1979 lawsuit over
the death of a former Engelhard employee.  After BASF, through
lawyers at Cahill, settled that lawsuit in 1984, the plaintiffs
allege that BASF began directing employees to discard documents
that related to asbestos in the company's talc.

"After first gathering up and concealing or destroying documents
and evidence establishing BASF's talc contained asbestos, BASF and
Cahill Gordon repeatedly lied to claimants and courts by denying
BASF's talc contained asbestos and that there ever existed any
proof to the contrary," the plaintiffs wrote in the July 16
amended complaint.  "This class action is essentially one based
upon fraud upon the court."

U.S. District Judge Stanley Chesler had initially dismissed the
case in its entirety in 2012.  Siding with Cahill's defense
lawyers at Williams & Connolly, Judge Chesler found that the
plaintiffs' fraud claims were barred by New Jersey's litigation
privilege.  But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
reversed that ruling last September, reviving the plaintiffs'
case.

In the appellate ruling, U.S. Circuit Judge Julio Fuentes wrote
that the New Jersey litigation privilege "often immunizes lawyers
and parties from recrimination based on their statements in
judicial proceedings, but the privilege has never applied to
shield systematic fraud directed at the integrity of the judicial
process.  Nor should it be."

John Villa -- jvilla@wc.com -- of Williams & Connolly, who
represents Cahill in the fraud case, declined to comment.
Kirkland & Ellis' Eugene Assaf -- eugene.assaf@kirkland.com --
represents BASF.  He wasn't immediately available to comment.


BEBE STORES: Settlement of Worker's Suit Has Preliminarily Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
bebe stores, inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 4, 2015, that a former employee filed
a class action complaint against the Company on July 26, 2006, in
San Mateo County Superior Court of California (Case No. CIV
456550). The complaint alleged violations of California wage and
hour laws among other various claims and sought damages,
penalties, declaratory and injunctive relief among other remedies.
The parties have entered into a class action settlement agreement
on behalf of California managerial employees consistent with
amounts previously accrued. The Court granted preliminarily
approval of the settlement in April 2015.


BEBE STORES: Discovery Ongoing in Class Action by Stylists
----------------------------------------------------------
bebe stores, inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 4, 2015, that a former employee filed
a class action complaint on behalf of California stylists and
sales employees against the Company on November 2, 2010 in San
Bernardino County Superior Court in California (Case No.
CIVRS1011823). The complaint alleged violations of California wage
and hour laws among other various claims and sought damages,
penalties, declaratory and injunctive relief among other remedies.
The Company filed its answer and is vigorously defending the
action. Discovery is ongoing.


BEBE STORES: Discovery Ongoing in Class Action by Customer
----------------------------------------------------------
bebe stores, inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 4, 2015, that a customer filed a
class action complaint against the Company on January 16, 2014 in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (Civil Action No. 3:14-CV 00267 DMR). The complaint
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47
U.S.C. Sections 227 et. seq.) arising from alleged unsolicited
text messages and sought statutory damages and injunctive relief
among other remedies. The Company filed its response and is
vigorously defending the action. Discovery is ongoing.


BEBE STORES: Discovery Ongoing in Class Action by Customer
----------------------------------------------------------
bebe stores, inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 4, 2015, that a customer filed a
class action complaint against the Company on April 29, 2014 in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-01968). The Complaint alleges
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (47 U.S.C.
Sections 227 et. seq.) arising from alleged unsolicited text
messages and sought statutory damages and injunctive relief among
other relief. The Company filed its response and is vigorously
defending the action. Discovery is ongoing.


BEXCO ENTERPRISES: Recalls DaVinci Cribs Due to Laceration Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Bexco Enterprises Inc., of Montebello, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 11,660 DaVinci Cribs (in addition, 40
cribs were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

A metal bracket that connects the mattress support to the crib can
break, creating an uneven sleeping surface or a gap. If this
occurs, a baby can become entrapped in the crib, fall or suffer
lacerations from the broken metal bracket.

The recall includes DaVinci brand full-size cribs including the
Reagan crib (model #M2801), the Emily crib, (model #M4791), the
Jamie crib (model #M7301), and the Jenny Lind crib (model #M7391)
manufactured from May 2012 through December 2012. The model
number, serial number and manufacture date are printed on a label
affixed to the bottom right hand side panel of the crib. Cribs
included in the recall have serial numbers that begin with "N00,"
followed by one of the following numbers:

  Model Number and Name     Serial Number (N00 + number below)
  ---------------------     ---------------------------------
  M2801 Reagan              4959/ 5035/ 5109
  M4791 Emily               4648/ 4669/ 4962
  M7301 Jamie               4954/ 5029
  M7391 Jenny Lind          4954/ 4620/ 4669/ 4758/ 4934/ 4994/
                            5041/ 4648

The firm has received 10 reports of the mattress support brackets
detaching. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products are available at:
http://is.gd/oEKztq

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Target and juvenile products stores nationwide and online at
Amazon.com from May 2012 to December 2013 for between $150 and
$250.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled cribs and
contact Bexco for a free replacement mattress support which
includes replacement brackets.  In the meantime, parents are urged
to find an alternate, safe sleeping environment for the child,
such as a bassinet, play yard or toddler bed depending on the
child's age.


BG GROUP: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------
Eli Daniels, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. The BG Group, LLC, Case No. CACE15011891
(Fla. Cir. Ct., July 8, 2015), seeks to recover overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and costs and reasonable
attorney's fees under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The BG Group, LLC owns and operates a construction company with a
principal place of business in Boca Raton, Palm Beach County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Camar R. Jones, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      1515 South Federal Highway, Suite 404
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
      E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com


BROOKFIELD DTLA: MOU Reached in Preferred Stock Actions
-------------------------------------------------------
Brookfield DTLA Fund Office Trust Investor Inc. said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
May 14, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that
the parties in a class action lawsuit haveentered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") on March 30, 2015
memorializing the agreement to settle the Preferred Stock Actions.

Following the announcement of the execution of the Agreement and
Plan of Merger dated as of April 24, 2013, as amended (the "Merger
Agreement"), seven putative class actions were filed against
Brookfield Office Properties Inc. ("BPO"), Brookfield DTLA,
Brookfield DTLA Holdings LLC, Brookfield DTLA Fund Office Trust
Inc., Brookfield DTLA Fund Properties (collectively, the
"Brookfield Parties"), MPG Office Trust, Inc., MPG Office, L.P.,
and the members of MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors.
Five of these lawsuits were filed on behalf of MPG Office Trust,
Inc.'s common stockholders: (i) two lawsuits, captioned Coyne v.
MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. BC507342 (the "Coyne Action"),
and Masih v. MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. BC507962 (the
"Masih Action"), were filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California in Los Angeles County (the "California State Court") on
April 29, 2013 and May 3, 2013, respectively; and (ii) three
lawsuits, captioned Kim v. MPG Office Trust, Inc. et al., No. 24-
C-13-002600 (the "Kim Action"), Perkins v. MPG Office Trust, Inc.,
et al., No. 24-C-13-002778 (the "Perkins Action") and Dell'Osso v.
MPG Office Trust, Inc., et al., No. 24-C-13-003283 (the "Dell'Osso
Action") were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland on May 1, 2013, May 8, 2013 and May 22, 2013,
respectively (collectively, the "Common Stock Actions"). Two
lawsuits, captioned Cohen v. MPG Office Trust, Inc. et al., No.
24-C-13-004097 (the "Cohen Action") and Donlan v. Weinstein, et
al., No. 24-C-13-004293 (the "Donlan Action"), were filed on
behalf of MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s preferred stockholders in the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland on June 20, 2013 and
July 2, 2013, respectively (collectively, the "Preferred Stock
Actions").

In each of the Common Stock Actions, the plaintiffs allege, among
other things, that MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the merger by
failing to maximize the value of MPG Office Trust, Inc. and
ignoring or failing to protect against conflicts of interest, and
that the relevant Brookfield Parties named as defendants aided and
abetted those breaches of fiduciary duty. The Kim Action further
alleges that MPG Office, L.P. also aided and abetted the breaches
of fiduciary duty by MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors,
and the Dell'Osso Action further alleges that MPG Office Trust,
Inc. and MPG Office, L.P. aided and abetted the breaches of
fiduciary duty by MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors. On
June 4, 2013, the Kim and Perkins plaintiffs filed identical,
amended complaints in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland. On June 5, 2013, the Masih plaintiffs also filed an
amended complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California
in Los Angeles County. The three amended complaints, as well as
the Dell'Osso Action complaint, allege that the preliminary proxy
statement filed by MPG Office Trust, Inc. with the SEC on May 21,
2013 is false and/or misleading because it fails to include
certain details of the process leading up to the merger and fails
to provide adequate information concerning MPG Office Trust,
Inc.'s financial advisors.

In each of the Preferred Stock Actions, which were brought on
behalf of MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s preferred stockholders, the
plaintiffs allege, among other things, that, by entering into the
Merger Agreement and tender offer, MPG Office Trust, Inc. breached
the Articles Supplementary, which governs the issuance of the MPG
preferred shares, that MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board of directors
breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to a merger agreement
that violated the preferred stockholders' contractual rights and
that the relevant Brookfield Parties named as defendants aided and
abetted those breaches of contract and fiduciary duty. On July 15,
2013, the plaintiffs in the Preferred Stock Actions filed a joint
amended complaint in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland that further alleged that MPG Office Trust, Inc.'s board
of directors failed to disclose material information regarding
BPO's extension of the tender offer.

The plaintiffs in the seven lawsuits sought an injunction against
the merger, rescission or rescissory damages in the event the
merger has been consummated, an award of fees and costs, including
attorneys' and experts' fees, and other relief.

On July 10, 2013, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, the Brookfield Parties and
the other named defendants in the Common Stock Actions signed a
memorandum of understanding (the "MOU"), regarding a proposed
settlement of all claims asserted therein. The parties
subsequently entered into a stipulation of settlement dated
November 21, 2013 providing for the release of all asserted
claims, additional disclosures by MPG concerning the merger made
prior to the merger's approval, and the payment, by defendants, of
an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount not to
exceed $475,000. After a hearing on June 4, 2014, the California
State Court granted plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the
settlement, and entered a Final Order and Judgment, awarding
plaintiffs' counsel's attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount
of $475,000, which was paid by MPG Office LLC on June 18, 2014.
BPO is seeking reimbursement for the settlement payment from MPG's
insurers.

In the Preferred Stock Actions, at a hearing on July 24, 2013, the
Maryland State Court denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
injunction seeking to enjoin the tender offer. The plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint on November 22, 2013 that added
additional arguments in support of their allegations that the new
preferred shares do not have the same rights as the MPG preferred
shares. The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint on December 20, 2013, and briefing on the motion
concluded on February 28, 2014. At a hearing on June 18, 2014, the
Maryland State Court heard oral arguments on the defendants'
motion to dismiss and reserved judgment on the decision. On
October 21, 2014, the parties sent a joint letter to the Maryland
State Court stating that since the June 18 meeting, the parties
have commenced discussions towards a possible resolution of the
lawsuit, requesting that the court temporarily refrain from
deciding the pending motion to dismiss to facilitate the
discussions, and stating that the parties will report to the court
within 45 days of the October 21 letter regarding the status of
their discussions.

Counsel for the parties have reached an agreement to settle the
Preferred Stock Actions on a class-wide basis and dismiss the case
with prejudice in exchange for the payment of $2.25 per share of
Series A preferred stock of accumulated and unpaid dividends to
holders of record on a record date to be set after final approval
of the settlement by the Maryland State Court, plus any attorneys'
fees awarded by the Maryland State Court to the plaintiffs'
counsel. The dividend will reduce the amount of accumulated and
unpaid dividends on the Series A preferred stock, and the terms of
the Series A preferred stock will otherwise remain unchanged. The
agreement is subject to a number of conditions precedent, further
documentation, and approval of the Maryland State Court, after
notice to the class.

The parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU")
on March 30, 2015 memorializing the agreement to settle the
Preferred Stock Actions, which has been filed with the Maryland
State Court.

While the final outcome with respect to the Preferred Stock
Actions cannot be predicted with certainty, in the opinion of
management after consultation with external legal counsel, any
liability that may arise from such contingencies would not have a
material adverse effect on the financial position, results of
operations or liquidity of Brookfield DTLA.


CAFEPRESS INC: Settlement in Shareholder Case Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
CafePress Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Settlement in the
Shareholder Litigation remains subject to court approval.

The Company said, "On July 10, 2013, a complaint captioned
Desmarais v. CafePress Inc., et al. CIV-522744 was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo naming the
Company as defendants, along with certain of its directors, its
chief executive officer, its chief financial officer and certain
underwriters of our IPO."

The lawsuit purports to be a class action on behalf of purchasers
of shares issued in the IPO and generally alleges that the
registration statement for the IPO contained materially false or
misleading statements. The complaint purports to assert claims
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and seeks
unspecified damages and other relief.

On July 14, 2013 a similar compliant making substantially
identical allegations and captioned Jinnah v. CafePress Inc., et
al. CIV-522976 was filed in the same court against the same
defendants.

On April 10, 2015, the Company entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement (the "Settlement"), reflecting the previously disclosed
terms of the settlement of the class action securities lawsuits
that were consolidated under the caption In re CafePress Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Master File No. CIV522744 (Cal. Super.
Ct., San Mateo Cty.). The proposed Settlement calls for a payment
of $8.0 million to the plaintiffs in resolution of all claims
against the Company and its officers and directors. The Company
will contribute $500,000 to the Settlement; the balance will be
paid by the Company's directors and officers liability insurance.
While the Company and the other defendants continue to deny each
of the plaintiffs' claims and deny any liability, the Company
agreed to the Settlement solely to resolve the disputes, to avoid
the costs and risks of further litigation and to avoid further
distractions to management. The Settlement remains subject to
court approval.


CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: Responds to Securities Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
Cellular Biomedicine Group Inc. a biomedicine firm engaged in the
development of new treatments for degenerative and cancerous
diseases, reminded its shareholders to read the Q&A posted in the
Company's website regarding the class action law suit filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against the Company, its CEO and CFO. The lawsuit was filed by a
shareholder who bought 100 shares of CBMG stock the day before an
anonymous blogger, who professes to have had a short position in
CBMG's stock, published a false and misleading article about the
company.

The Company states: "As often is the case, after the filing,
eighteen (18) law firms sent out thirty-nine (39) advertisements
in the last two months to recruit shareholders to serve as lead
plaintiffs in the lawsuit.  As of the June 22, 2015 deadline set
by the Court, no other lawsuits had been filed, and only one other
shareholder, who owned the stock for less than 2 weeks and sold
the day the article was published, had come forward seeking to
serve as lead plaintiff. We attribute the overall lack of response
to the lawyers' notices to the positive support of the majority of
our long-term shareholders.

Dr. William (Wei) Cao, Chief Executive Officer of CBMG, commented:
"We have received and reviewed the complaint.  We believe this
suit is without merit and filled with patently false information,
and we will vigorously defend the Company and ourselves in the
matter.   We are delighted to report that our employees are
remaining vigilantly focused on our fore running Knee
Osteoarthritis program and diligently working on launching the
cancer CAR-T clinical trials while absorbing the recently acquired
vaccine program."

                About Cellular Biomedicine Group

Cellular Biomedicine Group, Inc. develops proprietary cell
therapies for the treatment of certain degenerative diseases and
cancers.  Our developmental stem cell, progenitor cell, and immune
cell projects are the result of research and development by
scientists and doctors from China and the United States. Our
flagship GMP facility, consisting of six independent cell
production lines, is designed, certified and managed according to
U.S. standards.  To learn more about CBMG, please visit:
www.cellbiomedgroup.com


CHINA COMMERCIAL: Yun Group Case Transferred to New York Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
China Commercial Credit, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 20, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the class action
filed by the Yun Group has been transferred to the Southern
District of New York.

On August 6, 2014, a purported shareholder Andrew Dennison filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District
Court District of New Jersey (the "N.J. district court") relating
to a July 25, 2014 press release about the Company's progress in
recovering a significant portion of the $5.4 million the Company
paid in the first quarter of 2014 on behalf of loan guarantee
customers. The action is captioned Andrew Dennison v. China
Commercial Credit, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:2014-cv-04956. The
action alleges that the Company and its current and former
officers and directors Huichun Qin, Long Yi, Jianming Yin, Jinggen
Ling, Xiangdong Xiao, and John F. Levy violated the federal
securities laws by misrepresenting in prior public filings certain
material facts about the risks associated with its loan guarantee
business. On October 2, 2014, two purported shareholders Zhang Yun
and Sanjiv Mehrotra (the "Yun Group") asserted substantially
similar claims against the same defendants in a putative class
action captioned Zhang Yun v. China Commercial Credit, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:14-cv-06136 (D. N.J.). Neither complaint states
the amount of damages sought.

On or about October 6, 2014, Dennison, the Yun Group and another
purported shareholder, Jason Stark, filed motions to consolidate
the cases, be appointed as lead plaintiff and to have their
respective counsel appointed as lead counsel. On October 31, 2014,
the N.J. district court entered an order consolidating the cases
under the caption "In re China Commercial Credit Inc. Securities
Litigation" and appointing the Yun Group as lead plaintiff and the
Yun Group's counsel as lead counsel.

On November 18, 2014, the Yun Group and the Company, which at that
point was the only defendant served, entered into a stipulation to
transfer of the case to the Southern District of New York. On
December 18, 2014, Mr. Levy, who had by then been served, joined
in the stipulation. On December 29, 2014, the N.J. district court
entered an order transferring the action. The transfer was
effected on January 22, 2015, and assigned docket number 1:15-cv-
00557-ALC (S.D.N.Y.).

Under the schedule stipulated by the parties, the Yun Group was to
file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date that the
transfer was effected, and the defendants' date to answer or move
was within 60 days of that filing. The Company and Mr. Levy
anticipated that they would file a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint. The Company believed that this lawsuit was without
merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. At the early
stage of the proceedings, the Company was not able to estimate the
probability of success or loss.

Two purported shareholders Zhang Yun and SanjivMehrotra (the "Yun
Group") filed on March 27, 2015, a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint (the "CACAC"). The CACAC adds three underwriters
as defendants, Burnham Securities, Axiom Capital Management and
ViewTrade Securities, Inc. The CACAC alleges that the Company
engaged in a fraudulent scheme by engaging in undisclosed and
improper lending practices and made misleading representations
regarding its underwriting policies, the loan portfolio quality,
the loan loss allowance, compliance with U.S. GAAP and its
internal control systems. The defendants' date to answer or move
was May 26, 2015, and the Company and Mr. Levy anticipated that
they will file a motion to dismiss the CACAC. The Company believes
that this lawsuit is without merit and intends to vigorously
defend against it. At this early stage of the proceedings, the
Company is not able to estimate the probability of success or
loss.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Sued Over Failure to Pay Cash to Cardholders
--------------------------------------------------------------
Betty Perez, on beha1fofhcrself, all others similarly situated,
and the general public v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and Does 1
through 500, inclusive, Case No. RG15777445 (Cal. Super. Ct., July
10, 2015), seeks to recover class and public-wide declaratory and
permanent injunctive relief as a result of Defendant's failures to
provide cash to gift cardholders wishing to redeem a gift card
with a cash value less than $10.

Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. operates more than 1700 company-owned
quick service restaurant 26 throughout the United States, with 325
restaurants in the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary D. Garcia, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF GARY D. GARCIA
      3333 Midway Drive, Suite 208
      San Diego, CA 92110
      Telephone: (619) 795-6580
      Facsimile: (619) 795-6582

         - and -

      Melvin B. Pearlston, Esq.
      Robert B. Hancock, Esq.
      PACIFIC JUSTICE CENTER
      50 California Street, Suite 1500
      San Francisco. CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 310-1940
      Facsimile: (415) 354-3508


CITISTAFF SOLUTIONS: Sued Over Non-itemized Wages Statements
------------------------------------------------------------
Teresa Nieto, an individual, on behalf of the State of California,
as a private attorney general v. CitiStaff Solutions Inc. and Does
1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2015-00797380 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
July 8, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements in compliance with the
California Labor Code.

CitiStaff Solutions Inc. operates a staffing company located at
1111 W Town & Country Road, Suite 27, Orange, CA 92868.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
      KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
      16133 Ventura Bl., Suite 1200
      Encino, CA 91436
      Telephone: (818) 990-8300
      Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
      E-mail: eric@kingsleykingsley.com


CITY NATIONAL: Stipulation of Settlement Reached in Merger Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
City National Corporation and the other defendants to the class
action lawsuit relating to a proposed merger have entered into a
stipulation of settlement with the plaintiff providing for the
settlement of the Action, City National said in its Form 8-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
19, 2015.

The Current Report on Form 8-K is being filed in connection with a
stipulation of settlement regarding certain litigation relating to
the proposed merger (the "merger") of City National Corporation
("City National" or the "Company") with and into RBC USA Holdco
Corporation ("Holdco"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Royal Bank of
Canada ("RBC"), pursuant to that certain agreement and plan of
merger (the "merger agreement"), dated as of January 22, 2015, by
and among City National, RBC and Holdco.

The litigation to which the stipulation of settlement relates is a
putative class action lawsuit, captioned Delman v. City National
Corp. et. al. (the "Action"), filed on April 29, 2015 in
California state court by a purported City National shareholder
against City National and the members of its board of directors.
The Action alleges that the directors of City National breached
their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the proposed merger at an
inadequate price and pursuant to an inadequate process that
involved self-dealing, and by failing to disclose purportedly
material information to stockholders in connection with the
merger.

On May 15, 2015, City National and the other defendants to the
Action entered into a stipulation of settlement with the plaintiff
providing for the settlement of the Action.  The stipulation of
settlement contemplates, among other things, that City National
will make certain supplemental disclosures relating to the merger.
Although the defendants deny the allegations made in the Action
and believe that no supplemental disclosure is required under
applicable laws, in order to avoid the burden and expense of
further litigation, City National agreed to make such supplemental
disclosures pursuant to the terms of the stipulation.

The stipulation of settlement is subject to confirmatory discovery
and customary conditions, including court approval following
notice to City National's stockholders. A hearing will be
scheduled at which the California state 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 by stockholders of City National challenging
any aspect of the proposed merger, the merger agreement and any
disclosure made in connection therewith, pursuant to terms that
will be disclosed to stockholders prior to final approval of the
settlement. There can be no assurance that the court will approve
the settlement contemplated by the stipulation of settlement. In
such event, the proposed settlement as contemplated by the
stipulation may be terminated and the defendants would continue to
vigorously defend against the allegations in the Action.


CLUB AT NORTH HALTON: Sued Over Inverse Pyramid Scheme Program
--------------------------------------------------------------
TheIFP.ca reported that a class-action statement of claim has been
filed in Ontario Superior Court against The Club at North Halton
by a group of its shareholders who are looking to divest their
ownership interests in the business.

The lawsuit was filed by Peter Noble, the representative for a
group of non-member shareholders, with the plaintiffs claiming
that the legal action is based on a number of issues, including
that the The Club at North Halton's current share exchange program
is an "inverse pyramid scheme," resulting in economic loss and
damage to the shareholders.

The class action also asks the court that the ownership structure
of The Club at North Halton, which operates a golf course, curling
and dining facilities, be dissolved and its net assets distributed
among all shareholders.

The Club at North Halton general manager Kyle Stewart did not
respond to a request for comment.


COOPER LIGHTING: Recalls Lighting Fixtures Due to Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Cooper Lighting LLC, of Peachtree City, Ga., announced a voluntary
recall of about 1.62 million Cooper Lighting, Portfolio and
Utilitech fluorescent lighting fixtures (in addition, 27,000 units
were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The socket can overheat, arc and melt, posing a fire hazard.

This recall involves indoor 2-light fluorescent light fixtures
that range in size from 18 inches to 4 feet long. The fixtures
were sold in white and can be mounted from heights between 8 and
12 feet. A date code between 182 11 (July 1, 2011) and 090 15
(March 31, 2015) is affixed to the fixture near the ballast in a
DDD YY format. Catalogue and model numbers are located on the
second line of a label affixed to the inside of the fixture.
Catalogue and model numbers included in the recall: DLE217RLP,
DLE217RLPB, DLE 232RLP, DLE232RLPB, SL232R, SL232R/1, SL232RPC,
SL232RTP, SLNR232R, SLNR232R/1, SLNR232RCHR, SLW232R, SLW232R/1,
SNF115R, SNF117R, SNF125R, SNF217R, SSF217R, WP217R, WP217RNKLLU,
WP232R, WP232RLU, WP232RNKL, WP232RNKLLU and WP232RNKLRL.

The firm received seven reports of sockets overheating, melting or
arcing. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/8wDpS4

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Ace
Hardware, Lowe's, Menards, Mills Fleet Farm, True Value and other
retail stores nationwide from July 2011 through April 2015 for
between $13 and $67.

Consumers should immediately stop using the light fixture and
contact Cooper Lighting for a free replacement.


COST PLUS: Recalls Bistro Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Cost Plus Management Services Inc., of Oakland, Calif., announced
a voluntary recall of about 9,200 Ronan Bistro Chairs. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The rear metal legs can bend unexpectedly and cause the chair to
become unbalanced, posing a fall hazard to the user.

This recall involves metal Ronan Bistro chairs intended for
outdoor use. The chairs measure 35 inches tall, have a slatted
seat, a two horizontal slat back and were sold in antique white,
lagoon blue and Poinciana (red). SKU number 502281, 502282 or
502283 is printed on the UPC sticker attached to the sales tag at
the time of purchase.

The firm has received three reports of bent or fractured or torn
rear chair legs. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products are available at:
http://is.gd/mUmbgJ

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Cost
Plus World Market and World Market stores nationwide and online at
www.worldmarket.com from February 2015 through May 2015 for about
$60.

Consumers should immediately stop using the Ronan Bistro chairs
and return them to any Cost Plus World Market or World Market
store for a full refund.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Recalls Trash Cans Due to Laceration Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Costco Wholesale Corporation, of Issaquah, Wash., announced a
voluntary recall of about 367,000 Trash cans. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The black plastic protective collar in the opening on the back of
the trash receptacle can become dislodged and expose a sharp edge,
posing a risk of laceration to the user.

This recall involves EKO Sensible Eco Living motion sensor trash
cans. The trash cans open when they detect motion nearby. The
recalled trash cans are stainless steel, about 31 inches tall and
about 14 inches square. They have the capacity to hold 21 gallons
(80 liters) of trash and the lid operates with eight AA batteries.
Model number EK9288BMT-80L is on a product identification label on
the underside of the trash can lid.
Incidents/Injuries

EKO has received 13 reports of incidents in which the black
plastic protective collar dislodged and exposed a sharp edge,
resulting in laceration injuries.

Pictures of the Recalled Products are available at:
http://is.gd/ONrHHj

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Costco Wholesale stores nationwide and Costco.com between December
2013 and June 2015 for about $50.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled trash cans
and return them to Costco for a full refund or contact EKO for a
free repair kit with a redesigned black plastic protective collar
and installation instructions. Costco is notifying consumers who
purchased the trash cans directly.


COUPONS.COM INC: Faces "Nguyen" Stockholder Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Coupons.com Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a putative stockholder
class action lawsuit was filed on March 11, 2015, against the
Company, the members of its board of directors, certain of its
executive officers and the underwriters of its initial public
offering ("IPO"): Nguyen v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No.
CGC-15-544654 (California Superior Court, San Francisco County).

The Company said, "The complaint asserts claims under the
Securities Act and seeks unspecified damages and other relief on
behalf of a putative class of persons and entities who purchased
stock pursuant or traceable to the registration statement and
prospectus for our IPO. Plaintiff Nguyen requested and obtained a
dismissal without prejudice of his San Francisco action and filed
another complaint with substantially the same allegations in the
Santa Clara County Superior Court, Nguyen v. Coupons.com
Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-CV-278777 (California Superior Court,
Santa Clara County) (Mar. 30, 2015). Three other complaints with
substantially the same allegations have also been filed: O'Donnell
v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-CV-278399 (California
Superior Court, Santa Clara County) (Mar. 20, 2015); So v.
Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-CV-278774 (California
Superior Court, Santa Clara County) (Mar. 30, 2015); and
Silverberg v. Coupons.com Incorporated, Case No. 1-15-CV-278891
(California Superior Court, Santa Clara County) (Apr. 2, 2015)."

On May 7, 2015, the Santa Clara court consolidated the Nguyen, So
and Silverberg actions with the O'Donnell action.

"We intend to defend this litigation vigorously. Based on
information currently available, we believe that the potential for
liability for the above claims is remote," the Company said.


CRUNCH LLC: Sued Over Unauthorized Electronic Fund Transfers
------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Mihelich and Mark Moskowitz, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Crunch, LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-
01098 (C.D. Cal., July 10, 2015), is an action for damages,
injunctive relief, and any other available legal or equitable
remedies as a result of the Defendant's illegal actions of
debiting the Plaintiffs' and also the putative Class members' bank
accounts on a recurring basis without obtaining a written
authorization signed or similarly authenticated for preauthorized
electronic fund transfers.

Crunch, LLC owns and operates a gym with locations all around the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CTPARTNERS EXECUTIVE: Faces Stockholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Several law firms have announced investigations into whether
CTPartners Executive Search Inc. violated securities laws, and a
purported class action on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock during the period between February 26, 2014 and
January 28, 2015 was filed against the Company on February 27,
2015 on the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

The Company said, "Commencing in December 2014, we began receiving
unfavorable publicity regarding a complaint submitted to the EEOC
by a former employee.  We also withdrew an announced public equity
offering in December 2014.  In January 2015, we announced
preliminary fourth quarter results that fell short of our
expectations and then subsequently revised those preliminary
results downward.  We also withdrew our first quarter and full
year 2015 earnings guidance at that time.  In light of that
revision and withdrawal of guidance, we suspended marketing
efforts for another announced public equity offering before
completing a significantly downsized offering at the end of
January 2015 for $4.2 million in net proceeds after underwriting
discounts and expenses.  Our stock price declined significantly in
December 2014 and January 2015, and several research analysts
covering our Company ceased coverage."

"We believe these allegations have no merit," the Company said.


CUSTOMER ENGINEERING: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Robert Ostrander, and all others similarly situated v. Customer
Engineering Services, LLC, James N. Fox and Mary Fox, Case No.
1:15-cv-01476 (D. Colo., July 13, 2015), seeks to recover all
unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
interests, costs and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Customer Engineering Services, LLC ("CES") is a provider of
technology services and support, including the installation and
maintenance of technology-based equipment and products, and
operates businesses within the state of Colorado and elsewhere
across the nation. CES is headquartered in Colorado.

James N. Fox is the chief operating officer and Mary Fox is a
corporate officer of CES.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian David Gonzales, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF
      BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
      123 North College Ave. #200
      Fort Collins, CO 80524
      Tel: (970) 212-4665
      Fax: (303) 539-9812
      E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com

         - and -

      Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
      STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
      205 N. Michigan Ave, Suite 2560
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 233-1550
      Fax: (312) 233-1560
      E-mail: RStephan@stephanzouras.com


DARA BIOSCIENCES: Faces "Edwards" Suit Over Midatech Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eric Edwards, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DARA BioSciences, Inc., et al., Case No. 11262-VCG
(Del. Ch., July 8, 2015), is brought on behalf of the public
stockholders of DARA BioSciences, Inc., to enjoin the proposed
agreement to sell the Company to Midatech Pharma PLC for
inadequate consideration.

DARA BioSciences, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company
primarily focused on the commercialization of oncology treatment
and supportive care pharmaceutical products.

Midatech Pharma PLC is a nanomedicine company focused on the
development and commercialization of multiple, high-value,
targeted therapies for major diseases with unmet medical need,
including diabetes, rare cancers including brain (glioblastoma),
ovarian, liver and pancreatic cancer and neurological and
ophthalmologic conditions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
      Julia J. Sun, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500


DEWAAY FINANCIAL: Iowa High Ct. Declines to Take Up Investor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Patane, writing for The Des Moines Register, reported that
the Iowa Supreme Court has declined to take up a case involving
disgruntled investors and the financial services firm previously
run by Donald DeWaay.

The court's decision leaves in place an Iowa Court of Appeals
ruling that rejects a $3 million class-action lawsuit and
settlement request. The request would have helped to resolve a
case against DeWaay Financial Network, a now-defunct Clive
company.

It's the latest step in a long fight between DeWaay and investors
that goes back to before 2012.

Lawsuits filed against DeWaay Financial argue that company
officials misrepresented risks and allowed investors to put money
in unsuitable investments.

DeWaay's attorneys have argued the class-action status would have
ensured that investors with complaints received some level of
payment.

Individual investors would not have been allowed to opt out and
file their own lawsuits. Some investors intervened in the case and
their attorney has said the class-action payments would have
amounted to pennies on the dollar.

The Supreme Court decision puts the next step of the dispute in
question again. The Court of Appeals had sent the case back to
district court for further proceedings.

Steve Wandro, an attorney representing DeWaay, said his side is
evaluating options.


DOLLAR TREE: Suit by Assistant Store Manager Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that in 2011, an assistant
store manager and an hourly associate filed a collective action
against the Company alleging they were forced to work off the
clock in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
state law. A federal judge in Virginia ruled that all claims made
on behalf of assistant store managers under both the FLSA and
state law should be dismissed. The court, however, certified an
opt-in collective action under the FLSA on behalf of hourly sales
associates. Approximately 4,300 plaintiffs remain in the case. In
March 2014, the court denied the Company's motion to decertify the
collective action and the case is now continuing.


DOLLAR TREE: 2012 Case by Assist. Store Manager in Discovery
------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that in 2012, a former
assistant store manager, on behalf of himself and those alleged to
be similarly situated, filed a putative class action in a
California state court, alleging the Company failed to provide
rest breaks to assistant store managers. The alleged time period
is July 13, 2008 to the present. Discovery is ongoing. The class
has been certified and the case is proceeding to the liability
phase.


DOLLAR TREE: March 2016 Trial Date in 2013 Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that in 2013, a former
assistant store manager on behalf of himself and others alleged to
be similarly aggrieved filed a representative Private Attorney
General Act ("PAGA") claim under California law currently pending
in federal court in California. The suit alleges that the Company
failed to provide uninterrupted meal periods and rest breaks;
failed to pay minimum, regular and overtime wages; failed to
maintain accurate time records and wage statements; and failed to
pay wages due upon termination of employment. Discovery has not
commenced. A trial date has been set for March 21, 2016.


DOLLAR TREE: Discovery Has Not Commenced in 2014 Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that in May 2014, a former
assistant store manager filed a putative class action in a
California state court for alleged failure to provide meal
periods, overtime, timely payment of wages during employment and
upon termination, failure to provide accurate wage statements, as
well as for alleged failure to indemnify employees for business
expenses in violation of California labor laws. This matter is in
early stages of litigation. Discovery has not commenced and no
trial date has been set.


DOLLAR TREE: Suit by Familary Dollar Sharheolders Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that July and August 2014,
several shareholders of Family Dollar Stores, Inc. ("Family
Dollar") filed class actions, now consolidated into one class
action, in Delaware chancery court against Family Dollar's CEO and
board members alleging breach of fiduciary duty. Dollar Tree and
Family Dollar were also named as defendants for allegedly aiding
and abetting the other defendants. The claimed breach derives from
the execution of the merger agreement dated July 27, 2014, between
Dollar Tree and Family Dollar, which is alleged to offer unfair
and inadequate consideration for Family Dollar stock. The class
action, among other things, seek to prevent the merger, obtain
higher merger consideration or seek monetary damages. The Delaware
Chancery Court and appellate court refused to issue an injunction
against the Family Dollar shareholder vote in favor of the merger.


DOLLAR TREE: Distribution Center Employee Filed Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that in April 2015, a
distribution center employee filed a class action in California
state court with allegations concerning wages, meal and rest
breaks, recovery periods, wage statements and timely termination
pay. Additionally, the employee seeks to certify a nation-wide
class of non-exempt distribution employees for overtime
compensation. The Company recently removed this lawsuit to Federal
Court.


DOLLAR TREE: California Manager Filed Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 21, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that in April 2015, a former
store manager filed a class action in California state court
alleging store managers were improperly classified as exempt
employees and, among other things, did not receive overtime
compensation and meal and rest periods.


DOUBLE INSIGHT: Recalls Pressure Cookers Due to Shock Risk
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Double Insight Inc., of Canada, announced a voluntary recall of
about 1,000 Instant Pot "Smart" model pressure cooker (in
addition, 140 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The thermal probe in the base can conduct electricity throughout
the cooker, posing a risk of electric shock.

This recall involves Instant Pot "Smart" and "Smart-60" electric
pressure cookers. They are stainless steel with black molded
plastic attachments, have a control panel/keypad on the front and
measure about 12 inches in diameter and 12 inches tall. They are
Bluetooth(R) enabled and can be controlled by an app. "Instant
Pot" and "Smart" are printed on the front of the control panel.
Serial numbers between 1410 and 1503 and manufacture dates between
12/1/2014 and 6/1/2015 are included in the recall. The serial
numbers and dates are printed on a label on the bottom of the
pressure cooker's base.

The firm has received reports from three consumers of being
shocked while using the pressure cooker.

Pictures of the Recalled Products are available at:
http://is.gd/IK0iUr

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Online at Instantpot.com and Amazon.com from November 2014 through
May 2015 for about $250.

Consumers should stop using the recalled product immediately and
contact Instant Pot for instructions to receive a free replacement
base, which consists of the entire bottom of the pressure cooker
including the control panel. The firm is contacting all purchasers
directly.


EAGLE MATERIALS: Summary Judgment Filed in Wallboard Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eagle Materials Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 22, 2015, for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2015, that Defendants' motions for summary
judgement were filed in the first quarter of fiscal 2016 in the
Domestic Wallboard Antitrust Litigation.

Since late December 2012, several purported class action lawsuits
were filed in various United States District Courts, including the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Western District of North
Carolina and the Northern District of Illinois, against the
Company's subsidiary, American Gypsum Company LLC ("American
Gypsum"), alleging that American Gypsum conspired with other
wallboard manufacturers to fix the price for drywall sold in the
United States in violation of federal antitrust laws and, in some
cases related provisions of state law. The complaints allege that
the defendant wallboard manufacturers conspired to increase prices
through the announcement and implementation of coordinated price
increases, output restrictions, and other restraints of trade,
including the elimination of individual "job quote" pricing. In
addition to American Gypsum, the defendants in these lawsuits
include CertainTeed Corp., USG Corporation and United States
Gypsum (together "USG"), New NGC, Inc., Lafarge North America,
Temple Inland Inc. ("TIN") and PABCO Building Products LLC. On
April 8, 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
("JTML") transferred and consolidated all related cases to the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania for coordinated pretrial
proceedings.

On June 24, 2013, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs
filed consolidated amended class action complaints. The direct
purchasers' complaint added the Company as a defendant. The
plaintiffs in the consolidated class action lawsuits bring claims
on behalf of purported classes of direct or indirect purchasers of
wallboard from January 1, 2012 to the present for unspecified
monetary damages (including treble damages) and in some cases
injunctive relief. On July 29, 2013, the Company and American
Gypsum answered the complaints, denying all allegations that they
conspired to increase the price of drywall and asserting
affirmative defenses to the plaintiffs' claims.

On March 17, 2015, a group of homebuilders filed a complaint
against the defendants, including American Gypsum, based upon the
same conduct alleged in the consolidated class action complaints.
On March 24, 2015, the JPML transferred this action to the
multidistrict litigation already pending in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.

In 2014, USG and TIN entered into agreements with counsel
representing the direct and indirect purchaser classes pursuant to
which they agreed to settle all claims against them.  On March 16,
2014, the court entered orders preliminarily approving USG and
TIN's settlements with the direct and indirect purchaser
plaintiffs.  Initial discovery in this litigation is complete.

"At this stage we are unable to estimate the amount of any
reasonably possible loss or range of reasonably possible losses.
American Gypsum denies the allegations in these lawsuits and will
vigorously defend itself against these claims. Defendants' motions
for summary judgement were filed in the first quarter of fiscal
2016," the Company said.


EASTERN HEALTH: Sued Over Employees' Privacy Breach
---------------------------------------------------
VOCM Local News Now reported that lawyer Bob Buckingham is
spearheading a class action lawsuit for Eastern Health employees
affected by the health authority's recent privacy breach.

A USB went missing, containing personal information, including the
social insurance numbers of 3300 employees, and the names and
employee numbers of an additional 5,700 individuals. Eastern
Health has offered to provide credit reports for affected
individuals, but Buckingham says that's not enough.

"I know that Eastern Health says they would pay for reports for
people who get credit checks through TransUnion. Well, that's not
the only credit checking facility out there, so I think they have
to pay for any credit checking facility," says Buckingham.
"Because of the breach, we'll be looking for some remuneration for
people because of the breach itself. And thirdly, we'll be looking
for a fund set up for people to be able to access when, and if
there are breaches, so that they can receive financial assistance
with respect to that."

Buckingham says he's also looking for a long term plan to be put
in place.

"Credit checks are not the only thing here," says Buckingham.
"It's the other uses to which this information can be used, such
as setting up false identities. You're driving down the road one
day, stopped for a legitimate reason, say a road check, and find
out there's a warrant for your arrest in say, Northern B.C. We
have to look at that type of circumstance and make sure that
what's in place is a mechanism so that people can quickly address
things if they happen."


EEE ENTERPRISES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Woods, and all others similarly situated v. EEE
Enterprises, Ltd. dba Friendswood Kwik Kar, EEE Alvin Ltd. dba
Alvin Kwik Kar, Triple E-GP, Inc. and James Edwards, No. 3:15-cv-
00174 (S.D. Tex., July 13, 2015), seeks to recover all unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants provide self and full service solutions for
vehicles in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Melissa Moore, Esq.
      MOORE & ASSOCIATES
      Lyric Center
      440 Louisiana Street, Ste 675
      Houston, TX 77002
      Tel: (713) 222-6775
      Fax: (713) 222-6739


ELAVON PUERTO RICO: Sued for Not Accommodating Mental Disability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio A. Rivera-Matos v. US Bank a/k/a US Bancorp, Elavon, Inc.,
Elavon Puerto Rico, Inc. and Bernardo Olmeda Morales, Case No.
3:15-cv-01783 (D.P.R., June 10, 2015) challenges the alleged
unlawful failure of the Defendants to accommodate the Plaintiff's
mental disability.

Mr. Rivera-Matos was 43 year of age, and worked as a sales
executive for the Defendants.  According to the complaint, he is a
seasoned sales professional that suffers from mental illness.

Elavon Puerto Rico, Inc. is a domestic for-profit corporation
registered with the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Department of
State.  The Company provides merchants with transaction processing
support for credit, charge and debit purchases.  The Company was
acquired and became a subsidiary of USB Americas Holdings Company,
a subsidiary of U.S. Bank National Association.  Elavon, Inc. is
subsidiary of U.S. Bank and parent company and/or affiliate of
Elavon Puerto Rico, Inc.  Bernardo Olmeda Morales was the
Plaintiff's immediate supervisor at all relevant times, and
managed Elavon's sales initiatives.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Humberto Cobo-Estrella, Esq.
          COBO-ESTRELLA H. Law, LLC
          PO Box 366451 San Juan, PR 00936-6451
          Telephone: (787) 200-2715
          Facsimile: (787) 529-7140
          E-mail: hcobo@hcounsel.com


ELECTRONIC ARTS: To Seek Further Review of Ruling in "Davis" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts Inc. intends to seek further court review of the
ruling in a class action filed by Michael Davis, the Company said
in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 21, 2015, for the fiscal year ended March 31,
2015.

On July 29, 2010, Michael Davis, a former NFL running back, filed
a putative class action in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California against the Company, alleging
that certain past versions of Madden NFL included the images of
certain retired NFL players without their permission. In March
2012, the trial court denied the Company's request to dismiss the
complaint on First Amendment grounds. In January 2015, that trial
court decision was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
and the case was remanded back to the district court. The Company
intends to seek further court review.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Court Dismissed Shareholder Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
The court has granted the motion of Electronic Arts Inc. to
dismiss a shareholder class action lawsuit, the Company said in
its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 21, 2015, for the fiscal year ended March 31,
2015.

On December 17, 2013, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and certain of its
officers by an individual purporting to represent a class of
purchasers of EA common stock. A second purported shareholder
class action lawsuit alleging substantially similar claims was
subsequently filed in the same court. These lawsuits have been
consolidated into one action. The lawsuits, which assert claims
under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, allege, among other things, that the Company and certain of
its officers issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the rollout of the Company's Battlefield 4 game.

"We filed a motion seeking dismissal of all claims on January 15,
2015 and on April 30, 2015, the court granted our motion to
dismiss with prejudice," the Company said.


ETSY INC: Faces "Altayyar" Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Etsy, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 22, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2015, that on May 13, 2015, a purported securities
class action complaint (Altayyar v. Etsy, Inc., et al., Docket No.
1:15-cv-02785) was filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York against the Company and certain
officers.

The complaint is brought on behalf of a purported class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of the Company's common stock from April 16, 2015 through
and including May 10, 2015. The complaint asserts violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions
with respect to, among other things, merchandise for sale on the
Company's website that may be counterfeit or constitute trademark
or copyright infringement and actions taken by third-party brands
against Etsy sellers for trademark or copyright infringement. The
complaint seeks certification as a class action and unspecified
compensatory damages plus interest and attorneys' fees.

The Company and the named officers intend to defend themselves
vigorously against this action.


EZCORP INC: Filed Motion to Dismiss Class Action by Jason Close
---------------------------------------------------------------
EZCORP, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 20, 2015, the the defendants filed
motions to dismiss and supporting briefs a class action lawsuit
filed by Jason Close.

On August 22, 2014, Jason Close, a purported holder of Class A
Non-voting Common Stock, for himself and on behalf of other
similarly situated holders of Class A Non-voting Common Stock,
filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York styled Close v. EZCORP, Inc., et al.
(Case No. 1:14-cv-06834-ALC).

"The complaint names as defendants EZCORP, Inc., Paul E. Rothamel
(our former chief executive officer) and Mark Kuchenrither (our
current chief financial officer and our chief operating officer)
and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934," the Company said.

In general, the complaint alleges that the implementation of
certain strategic and growth initiatives were less successful than
represented by the defendants, that certain of the Company's
business units and investments were not performing as well as
represented by the defendants and that, as a result, the
defendants' disclosures and statements about the Company's
business and operations were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On October 17, 2014, the Automotive Machinists Pension Plan, also
purporting to be the holder of Class A Non-voting Common Stock and
acting for itself and on behalf of other similarly situated
holders of Class A Non-voting Common Stock, filed a lawsuit in the
United Stated District Court for the Southern District of New York
styled Automotive Machinists Pension Plan v. EZCORP, Inc., et al
(Case No. 1:14-cv-8349-ALC). The complaint names EZCORP, Inc., Mr.
Rothamel and Mr. Kuchenrither as defendants, but also names Mr.
Cohen and MS Pawn Limited Partnership. The complaint likewise
asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, alleging generally that (1) EZCORP and the officer
defendants (Mr. Rothamel and Mr. Kuchenrither) issued false and
misleading statements and omissions concerning the business and
prospects, and compliance history, of the Company's online lending
operations in the U.K. and the nature of the Company's consulting
relationship with entities owned by Mr. Cohen and the process the
Board of Directors used in agreeing to it, and (2) Mr. Cohen and
MS Pawn Limited Partnership, as controlling persons of EZCORP,
participated in the preparation and dissemination of the Company's
disclosures and controlled the Company's business strategy and
activities.

On October 21, 2014, the plaintiff in the Automotive Machinists
Pension Plan action filed a motion to consolidate the Close action
and the Automotive Machinists Pension Plan action and to appoint
the Automotive Machinists Pension Plan as the lead plaintiff. On
November 18, 2014, the court consolidated the two lawsuits under
the caption In Re EZCORP, Inc. Securities Litigation (Case No.
1:14-cv-06834-ALC), and on January 16, 2015, appointed the lead
plaintiff and lead counsel.

On March 13, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"). The Amended
Complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, alleging generally that:

* EZCORP and the officer defendants (Mr. Rothamel and Mr.
Kuchenrither) issued false and misleading statements and omissions
regarding the Company's online lending operations in the U.K.
(Cash Genie) and Cash Genie's compliance history;

* EZCORP and the officer defendants issued false and misleading
statements and omissions regarding the nature of the Company's
consulting relationship with Madison Park LLC (an entity owned by
Mr. Cohen) and the process the Board of Directors used in agreeing
to it;

* EZCORP's financial statements were false and misleading, and
violated GAAP and SEC rules and regulations, by failing to
properly recognize impairment charges with respect to the
Company's investment in Albemarle & Bond; and

* Mr. Cohen and MS Pawn Limited Partnership, as controlling
persons of EZCORP, were aware of and controlled the Company's
alleged false and misleading statements and omissions.

On April 27, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss and
supporting briefs.

"We cannot predict the outcome of the litigation, but we intend to
continue to defend vigorously against all allegations and claims,"
the Company said.


FREDERICK J HANNA: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Holly, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Frederick J. Hanna & Associates, P.C., Case No. 1:15-
cv-02086-AT-AJB (N.D. Ga., June 10, 2015) alleges violations of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marques J. Carter, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARQUES J. CARTER
          3400 Chapel Hill Road, Suite 100
          Douglasville, GA 30135
          Telephone: (888) 595-9111
          Facsimile: (866) 842-3303
          E-mail: mjclawllc@comcast.net


FTS INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Breedlove" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Weston Breedlove, individually and for others similarly situated
v. FTS International Services, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-01984 (S.D.
Tex., July 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages for work far more than 40 hours a week.

FTS International Services, LLC owns and operate an oil field
service company in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David I. Moulton, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Ste 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      E-mail: dmoulton@brucknerburch.com


GLADSTONE INVESTMENT: Noble Logistics Faces Employment Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gladstone Investment Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 20, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015, that a former portfolio
company, Noble Logistics, Inc. ("Noble") is a defendant in
employment law wage and hour and independent contractor
misclassification claims in a purported class action seeking
monetary damages, Maximo v. Aspen Contracting California LLC
d/b/a/ Noble Logistics, et al., or Maximo. Noble is a debtor in a
bankruptcy case under Chapter 11 of the federal bankruptcy code,
pending in federal bankruptcy court in Delaware. The claims
against Noble asserted in the Maximo case have been stayed by the
filing of Noble's bankruptcy case.

The Company also said a lawsuit brought by plaintiffs Clarence and
Sheila Walder against a customer of Noble is also pending in
California based on similar facts relating to Noble and claims
under California law. The Maximo and Walder plaintiffs have
attempted to bring claims against the Company and other former
investors in Noble based primarily on allegations that the Company
and other investors controlled Noble and were responsible for the
misclassification of Noble's workforce.

To date, claims against the Company have been struck by a court or
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs in connection with the
automatic stay arising in connection with the Noble bankruptcy.
While neither the Company nor any of its portfolio companies
(other than Noble) are currently defendants in these cases, they
may in the future be subject to claims by these plaintiffs or
other persons alleging similar claims, or may expend funds on
behalf of Noble to defend claims.


GLATFELTER INC: Faces $5-Mil. Suit Over Paper Mill Emissions
------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Balusik, writing for Chillicothe Gazette, reported that a
Columbus law firm has filed a $5 million class action lawsuit
against Glatfelter Inc. over claims from plaintiffs that emissions
from the Chillicothe paper mill have damaged property and created
a nuisance.

The lawsuit, brought by South Hickory Street resident Teresa Ford,
Ervin Avenue resident Jack Leach and Patton Hill Road resident
Rhonda Leeson, claims the paper mill releases "noxious odors and
air particulates onto Plaintiffs' property, causing property
damage through trespass, negligence, gross negligence and
nuisance," according to the complaint.

As a class action suit, the lawsuit might end up representing as
many as "hundreds, if not thousands" of potential plaintiffs,
according to the suit, as it identifies the class as "all
owner/occupants and renters of residential property residing
within one and one-half miles of the facility's property
boundary."

In March, attorneys sent letters to area residents offering a free
consultation and the opportunity to join a class action suit
against the company.

The lawsuit, filed with the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio's Eastern Division, states that the plaintiffs do
not wish to close the paper mill but rather seek to stop practices
that result in the release of odors.

Glatfelter was mentioned as a possible source in four instances
last fall and winter in which foul odors raised concerns among
residents.

The first, which took place Sept. 9, was looked into by the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency, but no connection between the
smell and the plant was confirmed, and both Glatfelter and the EPA
stated the plant was functioning normally at the time the smell
was being reported.

The second involved a Halloween discharge that took place when a
mechanism designed to capture sulfur malfunctioned and a backup
unit failed, requiring a temporary shutdown of an air handling
unit to correct the problem.

The Ohio EPA found in that incident that hydrogen sulfide and
methyl mercaptan had been released into the air at levels that
required reporting to the EPA. One of the chemicals is a byproduct
of the pulping process, whereas the other is mainly an odorant
that functions similarly to what is added to odorless natural gas
in order to help detect leaks.

In that instance, the EPA determined the amount of the discharge
had the potential to cause minor health problems such as sore
throats, watery eyes and nausea as far away as a mile. The odor,
however, was the focus of several social media posts and some 911
calls from as far away as Columbus and Newark.

The third was noted by the Ohio EPA on Dec. 16 and a fourth was
noted on Jan. 7 and 8, according to a notice of violation sent to
the company on Feb. 4.

In that letter, the EPA was critical of the amount of time it took
the company to report equipment malfunctions from the October and
December incidents and stated that both the October and January
situations involved emissions above acceptable levels that, under
terms of the Ohio Administrative Code, qualify as a public
nuisance.

Following that letter, the company was given 30 days to submit a
plan and schedule to get the mill back into compliance.

"The plan should specify the corrective actions that will be
taken, addressing in particular the timely reporting of
malfunctions and prevention of odor-causing events, and the
schedule should include a timeline for completing those corrective
actions," the letter reads.

In the lawsuit filed, the Columbus firm of Kitrick, Lewis & Harris
Co., Columbus attorney Robert J. Wagoner, and Detroit firm Liddle
& Dubin P.C. are listed as attorneys of record.

The plaintiffs claim Glatfelter "intentionally, recklessly,
willfully, wantonly, maliciously, grossly and negligently failed
to construct, maintain and operate the facility" and, as a result,
created a nuisance that caused a damage to the plaintiffs'
properties as the odors and air particulates settled on their
homes and properties.

They also claim that the odors interfere with the enjoyment of
their properties and have created "an unreasonable risk of harm"
to residents.


GRAMERCY PROPERTY: Faces "Berliner" Suit Over Chambers Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ralph Berliner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Gramercy Property Trust Inc., et al., Case No.
652424/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., July 9, 2015), is brought on behalf of
all the public shareholders of Gramercy Property Trust Inc., to
enjoin the proposed agreement to sell GPT to Chambers Street
Properties, for an unfair price and inadequate consideration.

Gramercy Property Trust Inc. is a Maryland corporation that
maintains its principal executive offices at 521 5th Avenue, 30th
Floor, New York, New York. GPT specializes in acquiring and
managing single-tenant, net leased industrial and office
properties.

Chambers Street Properties is a Maryland corporation that
maintains its principal executive offices at 47 Hulfish Street,
Suite 210, Princeton, New Jersey. Chambers is a self-administered
REIT focused on acquiring, owning, and managing net leased
industrial and office properties leased to creditworthy tenants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert I. Harwood, Esq.
      Matthew M. Houston, Esq.
      Benjamin I. Sachs-Michaels, Esq.
      HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
      488 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 935-7400
      Facsimile: (212) 753-3630
      E-mail: rharwood@hfesq.com
              mhouston@hfesq.com
              bsachsmichaels@hfesq.com


GULF COAST: Faces "Duffau" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Cyndi Duffau, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Gulf Coast Medical Center, P.A. et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-01625-
CEH-TBM (M.D. Fla., July 10, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Gulf Coast Medical Center, P.A. operates a healthcare facility
located at 11528 US Highway 19 Port Richey, FL 34668.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason M. Melton, Esq.
      Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
      WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
      11020 Northcliffe Blvd
      Spring Hill, FL 34608
      Telephone: (352) 683-2016
      Facsimile: (352) 556-4839
      E-mail: jason@thefllawfirm.com
              lechnerj@thefllawfirm.com


HCSB FINANCIAL: Plaintiff in Class Action Lawsuit Files Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
HCSB Financial Corporation is defending against an appeal lodged
before the South Carolina Court of Appeals by the plaintiff in a
class action lawsuit, according to the Company's Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

On July 19, 2012, Robert Shelley, in his individual capacity and
on behalf of a proposed class of other similarly situated persons,
filed a lawsuit against the Company and the Bank in the Court of
Common Pleas for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, State of South
Carolina, County of Horry, Case No. 2012-CP-26-5546. The complaint
alleges that the plaintiff and other similarly situated persons
were contacted by employees of the Bank, that those employees
solicited a sale of Bank stock, and that the Bank employees did
not disclose material information about the Bank's financial
condition prior to their respective purchases of stock. The
complaint seeks the certification of a class action to include all
purchasers of Bank stock solicited between July 1, 2009 and
December 31, 2011. The plaintiff has asserted violations of the
South Carolina Uniform Securities Act, negligence and civil
conspiracy, and seeks actual, punitive and treble damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Company and the Bank made a motion for summary judgment in
March 2014, which the court granted on April 8, 2014. Robert
Shelley subsequently filed a motion to reconsider, which was
denied. Mr. Shelly subsequently filed a notice of appeal with the
South Carolina Court of Appeals. Mr. Shelley's initial appeal
brief was due to be filed on or before May 13, 2015.


HCSB FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss Snyder Class Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
HCSB Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that defendants' motions to
dismiss a class action lawsuit by Jan W. Snyder are still pending.

Plaintiff Jan W. Snyder purchased $25,000 in subordinated debt
notes in or around March 2010. After making three semi-annual
interest payments, the Company was precluded from making further
payments by the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. On January 14,
2014, Mr. Snyder, on his behalf and as a representative of a class
of similarly situated purchasers of subordinated debt notes, sued
the Company, the Bank, and several current and former officers,
directors and employees in the Court of Common Pleas for the
Fifteenth Judicial District, State of South Carolina, County of
Horry (Case No. 2014-CP-26-0204). An amended complaint was then
filed by Mr. Snyder and two other subordinated debt purchasers,
Acey Livingston and Mark Mark Josephs. The plaintiffs are seeking
an unspecified amount of damages resulting from wrongful conduct
associated with purchases of the subordinated debt notes,
including fraud, violation of state securities statutes, and
negligence. Separate counsel was retained for the former Board
members and all defendants filed timely motions to dismiss, which
are still pending.


HELPING HANDS: Fails to Pay Aides' Travel Time, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sonia Escorbor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Helping Hands Co., Inc., et al., Case No. SUCV2015-
02053 (Mass. Super. Ct., July 8, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to fully compensate home health care aides
for intra-day travel time in violation of the Massachusetts Wage
Act.

Helping Hands Co., Inc. operates a home health care agency with a
principal place of business in Boston Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, PC
      99 High Street, Suite 304
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617)338-9400


HESKA CORPORATION: Faces Suit Over Alleged TCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Heska Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on March 12, 2015, a
complaint was filed against the Company in the United States
District Court Northern District of Illinois alleging its
violation of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005, as a
class action.

"Even if meritless, these disputes may require significant
expenditures on our part and could entail a significant
distraction to members of our management team or other key
employees. We may have to use legal means to collect payment for
goods shipped to third parties. A legal dispute leading to an
unfavorable ruling or settlement could have significant material
adverse consequences on our business," the Company said.


HOMEFRONT DELI: Faces "San Andres" Suit Over FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kleber San Andres, on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Homefront Deli Inc. Sun Hwa, Inc., d/b/a Homefront Deli, William
Oh, Jeff Doe, and Kevin Doe, Case No. 1:15-cv-05376 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kleber San Andres
      PRO SE


HONDA MOTOR: "Dang" Wrongful Death Suit Included in Airbag MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Dang v. Honda Motor Company, Ltd., et al., Case
No. 6:14-cv-02071, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Middle District of Florida to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida (Miami).  The Southern District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-22197-FAM to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Takata Airbag Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 15-md-
2599-Moreno.

The actions in the litigation, most of which are putative
nationwide class actions, share factual questions arising from
allegations that certain Takata-manufactured airbags are defective
in that they can violently explode and eject metal debris
resulting in injury or even death.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Henry Nicholas Didier, Jr., Esq.
          DIDIER LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1203 N. Orange Avenue
          Orlando, FL 32804
          Telephone: (407) 895-3401
          Facsimile: (407) 895-3408
          E-mail: hank@didierlaw.com

               - and -

          Kevin R. Dean, Esq.
          MOTLEY RICE LLC
          28 Bridgeside Boulevard
          Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
          Telephone: (843) 216-9161
          Facsimile: (843) 216-9430
          E-mail: kdean@motleyrice.com

Defendants American Honda Motor Co. Inc. and Honda of America
Mfg., Inc., are represented by:

          Frank David Hosley, Esq.
          Nhan T. Lee, Esq.
          SEIPP, FLICK & HOSLEY LLP
          1064 Greenwood Blvd., Suite 212
          Lake Mary, FL 32746
          Telephone: (407) 804-6213
          Facsimile: (407) 872-1227
          E-mail: fhosley@seippflick.com
                  nlee@seippflick.com

               - and -

          Mary T. Novacheck, Esq.
          BOWMAN & BROOKE
          150 South 5th Street, Suite 3000
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-4244
          Telephone: (612) 339-8682
          E-mail: mary.novacheck@bowmanandbrooke.com

Defendant TK Holdings Inc. is represented by:

          Benjamin R. Barnett, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          2929 Arch Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19104
          Telephone: (215) 994-2887
          E-mail: ben.barnett@dechert.com

               - and -

          Frank David Hosley, Esq.
          Nhan T. Lee, Esq.
          SEIPP, FLICK & HOSLEY LLP
          1064 Greenwood Blvd., Suite 212
          Lake Mary, FL 32746
          Telephone: (407) 804-6213
          Facsimile: (407) 872-1227
          E-mail: fhosley@seippflick.com
                  nlee@seippflick.com


          Lena Marguerite Mirilovic, Esq.
          Michael Daniel Begey, Esq.
          William L. Kirk, Jr., Esq.
          RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL, P.A.
          300 South Orange Ave., Suite 1400
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 872-7300
          Facsimile: (407) 841-2133
          E-mail: lmirilovic@rumberger.com
                  mbegey@rumberger.com
                  bkirk@rumberger.com


HOOPER HOLMES: Magistrate Judge Decision Pending
------------------------------------------------
On May 24, 2012, a complaint was filed against Hooper Holmes, Inc.
in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
alleging, among other things, that the Company failed to pay
overtime compensation to a purported class of certain independent
contractor examiners who, the complaint alleges, should be treated
as employees for purposes of federal law. The complaints seek
award of an unspecified amount of allegedly unpaid overtime wages
to certain examiners. The Company filed an answer denying the
substantive allegations therein.

On August 1, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation to conditionally certify the class of all contract
examiners from August 16, 2010 to the present. On August 29, 2014,
the Company submitted its objections to the Report and
Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

If the Magistrate's decision stands, notice will be sent to
contractors who performed work for the Company within this time
period, Hooper Holmes, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.  The claim is not
covered by insurance, and the Company is incurring legal costs to
defend the litigation which are recorded in continuing operations.
This matter relates to the former Portamedic service line for
which the Company retained liability.


INSITE VISION: Faces "McKinley" Suit Over Proposed QLT Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas McKinley, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Timothy Ruane, Timothy Mcinerney, Brian Levy, Robert
O'Holla, Craig Tooman, Anthony J. Yost, QLT Inc., Isotope
Acquisition Corp., and Insite Vision Incorporated, Case No.
RG15777471 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 10, 2015), is brought on behalf
of the public stockholders of InSite Vision Incorporated, to
enjoin the Defendants' attempt to sell the Company to QLT Inc. by
means of an unfair process and for inadequate consideration.

Insite Vision Incorporated is an ophthalmic product development
company advancing ophthalmic pharmaceutical products.

QLT Inc. operates an ophthalmic medicine company with its
headquarters located at 887 Great Northern Way, Suite 250,
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan R. Plutzik, Esq.
      MichaelS. Strimling, Esq.
      BRAMSON, PLUTZIK, MAHLER & BIRKHAEUSER, LLP
      2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120
      Walnut Creek, CA 94598
      Telephone: (925) 945-0200
      Facsimile: (925) 945-8792
      E-mail: aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com
              mstrimling@bramsonplutzik.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Accused of Age Discrimination in N.D. Texas
-----------------------------------------------------------
Katherine J. Montellano v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Case No.
3:15-cv-01982-L (N.D. Tex., June 10, 2015) alleges violations of
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, as amended by the Older
Workers Benefit Protection Act, the Texas Commission on Human
Rights Act, and the Texas Labor Code.

Ms. Montellano is 52-year-old, Caucasian and female with over
three and a half years of service with JPMorgan.

Chase is a national bank headquartered in New York City, and is a
wholly owned subsidiary of JPMorgan Chase & Company, a publicly
held corporation also headquartered in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hiram McBeth, Esq.
          MCBETH LAW OFFICE
          6060 N. Central Expressway, Suite #560
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (972) 498-8702
          Facsimile: (972) 680-4411
          E-mail: hirammcbeth@hotmail.com


JP MORGAN: $388-Mil. MBS Settlement One of Largest Recoveries
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for Law.com, reports that when Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd announced a $388 million class action
settlement with JPMorgan Chase & Co. on July 17, the plaintiffs
firm described it as one of the largest recoveries for purchasers
of allegedly shoddy residential mortgage-backed securities.  For
the Robbins Geller lawyers, who could earn close to $100 million
in fees for their work, the deal must be all the sweeter since
they first had to defeat JPMorgan's efforts to disqualify the firm
from spearheading the case.

The agreement, which is subject to approval by U.S. District Judge
Paul Oetken in Manhattan, would resolve a 6-year old case brought
by investors who claimed they suffered losses on mortgage-backed
securities that JPMorgan sold prior to the 2008 financial crisis.
In a statement on July 17, Robbins Geller hailed the settlement as
the biggest yet in an MBS purchaser class action when compared
with investor losses.

At issue in the lawsuit were nine MBS offerings that JPMorgan
issued in 2007, with a combined face value of around $10 billion.
Investors first sued in New York state court in March 2009, but
the case was removed to federal court the following month.  After
a shake-up among the named plaintiffs, Robbins Geller was approved
as lead counsel in July 2012, and the case moved toward class
certification.

The plaintiffs' bid for class status set off a bitter fight over
Robbins Geller's role. In a January 2014 brief, lawyers for
JPMorgan at Sidley Austin contested the class certification
motion, arguing in part that Robbins Geller was unfit to serve as
class counsel.

The bank's legal team accused the plaintiffs firm of
misrepresenting testimony from a mortgage originator who served as
a confidential witness.  The defense also took aim at Robbins
Geller's past representations, claiming that the firm had pursued
securities claims against entities that would likely be part of
the MBS purchaser class.

Robbins Geller has been sanctioned before over its use of
confidential witness testimony that didn't stand up to scrutiny.
But in the JPMorgan case, Judge Oetken indicated last September
that he didn't share the bank's concerns.  The judge certified a
class for liability purposes and appointed Robbins Geller class
counsel, largely refusing to wade into the allegations about the
confidential witness testimony and purported conflicts of
interest.

That ruling helped pave the way for talks that led to the $388
million settlement.  In Robbins Geller's statement, partner
Luke Brooks applauded two named plaintiffs -- pension funds for
California-based labor unions -- for sticking with the case.
"They committed themselves to the trial of this action, which
allowed us to maximize the recovery for the class," said Brooks.

Robbins Geller said in court papers on July 17 that it plans to
ask the court for $97 million in attorney fees and nearly $5
million in expenses.

One of JPMorgan's lead lawyers, Sidley Austin's Dorothy Spenner --
dspenner@sidley.com -- didn't immediately respond to a request for
comment on July 20.  Robert Sacks of Sullivan & Cromwell --
sacksr@sullcrom.com -- also represented JPMorgan in the lead-up to
the July 17 deal, according to the July 17 settlement agreement.


KEMET CORPORATION: Capacitors Antitrust Litigation Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------
KEMET Corporation and KEC, along with more than 20 other capacitor
manufacturers and subsidiaries, are defendants in a purported
antitrust class action complaint, In re: Capacitors Antitrust
Litigation, No. 3:14-cv-03264-JD, filed on December 4, 2014 with
the United States District Court, Northern District of California
(the "U.S. Complaint"), KEMET said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 22, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015.  The complaint alleges a
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, for which it seeks
injunctive and equitable relief and money damages.


KEMET CORPORATION: Defendants in Canadian Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------
KEMET Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 22, 2015, for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2015, that KEMET Corporation and KEC, along
with certain other capacitor manufacturers and subsidiaries, were
named as defendants in several additional suits that were filed in
Canada (collectively, the "Canadian Complaints"): Badashmin v.
Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed August 6, 2014 in the
Superior Court, Province of Quebec, District of Montreal; Herard
v. Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed August 6, 2014 in the
Superior Court, Province of Quebec, District of Montreal; Cygnus
Electronics Corporation v. Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed
August 6, 2014 in the Superior Court of Justice, Province of
Ontario; LeClaire v. Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed August
6, 2014 in the Superior Court, Province of Quebec, District of
Montreal; Taylor v Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed August 11,
2014 in the Superior Court of Justice, Province of Ontario; Ramsay
v. Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed August 14, 2014 in the
Supreme Court, Province of British Columbia; Martin v. Panasonic
Corporation, et al., filed September 25, 2014 in the Superior
Court, Province of Quebec, District of Montreal; Parikh v.
Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed October 3, 2014 in the
Superior Court of Justice, Province of Ontario; Fraser v.
Panasonic Corporation, et al., filed October 3, 2014 in the Court
of Queen's Bench, Province of Saskatchewan; Pickering v. Panasonic
Corporation, et al., filed October 6, 2014 in the Supreme Court,
Province of British Columbia; and McPherson v Panasonic
Corporation et al., filed on November 6, 2014 in the Court of
Queen's Bench, Province of Manitoba. The Canadian Complaints
generally allege the same unlawful acts as in the U.S. Complaint,
assert claims under Canada's Competition Act as well as various
civil and common law causes of action, and seek injunctive and
equitable relief and money damages.


KEMET CORPORATION: NEC TOKIN Defendants in US and Canadian Actions
------------------------------------------------------------------
KEMET Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 22, 2015, for the fiscal
year ended March 31, 2015, that NEC TOKIN and its subsidiary, NEC
TOKIN America, Inc., are defendants in the U.S. Complaint and the
Canadian Complaints as well as other purported class actions. In
connection with such investigation, the European Commission
regulators are evaluating any potential liability to which
shareholders of NEC TOKIN, including KEC, may be subject.

Beginning in March 2014, NEC TOKIN and certain of its subsidiaries
have received inquiries, requests for information and other
communications from government authorities in China, the United
States, the European Commission, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan,
Singapore and Brazil concerning alleged anti-competitive
activities within the capacitor industry. The investigations are
continuing at various stages. In addition, beginning in July 2014,
NEC TOKIN and its subsidiary, NEC TOKIN America, Inc., have been
named, along with more than 20 other capacitor manufacturers and
subsidiaries, as defendants in purported antitrust class action
suits by direct and indirect purchasers in the United States and
Canada. As of March 31, 2015, NEC TOKIN has recorded an accrual
for approximately $30.0 million based on its estimation of losses
likely to result from certain of the investigations and civil
litigation. KEMET, under equity method accounting, has established
an indemnity asset for the $25.0 million indemnity under the Stock
Purchase Agreement to be paid by NEC to NEC TOKIN (KEMET's portion
is $8.5 million). NEC TOKIN could not estimate the total losses
likely to result from all of the investigations and civil
litigation because NEC TOKIN does not have sufficient information
to be able to estimate the amount of all such losses.


KIA CANADA: Quebec Court of Appeal Certifies "Martel" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Emira Tufo of McCarthy Tetrault LLP, in an article for
Lexology.com, said that on June 12th, in Martel c. KIA Canada inc.
(2015 QCCA 1033), the Quebec Court of Appeal reversed a ruling of
the Superior Court which had refused to authorize a class action
against a vehicle manufacturer, KIA, for allegedly misrepresenting
the frequency of servicing necessary for the proper maintenance of
its vehicles. Looking for an economical vehicle, the Petitioner,
Therese Martel, had purchased a KIA based on representations made
in its official manual that servicing would be required only every
12,000 km. Having brought her vehicle in for its first inspection,
however, Ms. Martel was informed by the dealer that more frequent
servicing was required by Quebec's harsh climate. At her second
inspection, she was informed that an oil change was required more
frequently still. The Petitioner instituted a motion for the
authorization of a class action on behalf of all purchasers of KIA
vehicles who had been victims of false representations contained
in the manufacturer's manual.

While it did find that the facts alleged appeared to justify the
conclusions sought, the Superior Court nevertheless refused to
authorize the action, primarily due to the fact that the
Petitioner had failed to carry out the necessary inquiry in order
to ascertain whether other class members actually existed. In
particular, the Superior Court found that the Petitioner had
failed to prove that other buyers of KIA had, in fact, been misled
by the manufacturer's manual.

The Court of Appeal reversed the decision, basing itself on the
Supreme Court of Canada's rulings in Infineon Technologies (2013
SCC 59) and Vivendi ([2014] 1 S.C.R. 3 , pursuant to which a
petitioner is absolved of the need for any such proof, requiring
instead a simple demonstration of a defensible cause. The Court's
role is simply to eliminate evidently frivolous actions.
Recalling Vivendi, the Court of Appeal stressed that even where
circumstances varied from one class member to another, a class
action could be authorized as long as all shared at least one not
insignificant question. The Court also stressed that the extent of
inquiry necessary regarding other class members depended on the
circumstances of a given case, and that it was not particularly
useful to identify other class members in cases where it was
evident that they existed. Finally, the Court emphasized that in
the context of a prohibited practice under the Consumer Protection
Act, the prejudice in question was to be evaluated objectively,
and not subjectively in terms of the experience of each affected
consumer. The question was essentially that of whether a false
representation had been made and whether this constituted a
prohibited practice. In the case at hand, the Court ruled that
those who considered themselves to have been injured by the
alleged false representation could bring forward a claim. The
Respondent Kia was presumed to possess sufficient data to estimate
the number of consumers concerned and was also better placed than
anyone to identify them.

The decision confirms the unfortunate ongoing trend toward
leniency at the class action authorization stage in Quebec. Moving
beyond (or, rather, beneath) the "one not insignificant question"
threshold, the Court of Appeal has absolved the petitioner of the
usual duty to identify a few others who share her woes. These woes
can now seemingly be presumed from a given set of circumstances,
just as the respondent can be presumed to possess sufficient data
to estimate the number of consumers affected. Despite the fact
that the authorization stage obeys to its own set of rules, the
question that begs to be asked is whether these presumptions would
constitute serious, precise and concordant presumptions as per the
requirements of article 2849 of the Civil Code of Quebec. Without
something a little more precise, it seems, woe is to the target of
a prospective class action.


KKR FINANCIAL: Delaware Supreme Court Appeal Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
KKR Financial Holdings LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that plaintiffs have filed
a notice of appeal in the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware
and the appeal is currently pending.

From December 19, 2013 to January 31, 2014, multiple putative
class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Francisco, the United States District
Court of the District of Northern California, and the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware by KFN shareholders against KFN,
individual members of KFN's board of directors, KKR & Co., and
certain of KKR & Co.'s affiliates in connection with KFN's entry
into a merger agreement pursuant to which it would become a
subsidiary of KKR & Co. The Merger Transaction was completed on
April 30, 2014.

The actions filed in California state court were consolidated, and
prior to the filing or designation of an operative complaint for
the consolidated action, the consolidated action was voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice on December 1, 2014. The complaint
filed in the California federal court action, which was never
served on the defendants, was voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice on May 6, 2014.

Of the Delaware actions, two were voluntarily dismissed without
prejudice, and the remaining Delaware actions were consolidated.
On February 21, 2014, a consolidated complaint was filed in the
consolidated Delaware action which all defendants moved to dismiss
on March 7, 2014. On October 14, 2014, the Delaware Court of
Chancery granted defendants' motions to dismiss with prejudice. On
November 13, 2014, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the
Supreme Court of the State of Delaware and the appeal is currently
pending.

The consolidated complaint in the Delaware action alleges that the
members of the KFN board of directors breached fiduciary duties
owed to KFN shareholders by approving the proposed transaction for
inadequate consideration; approving the proposed transaction in
order to obtain benefits not equally shared by other KFN
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 KFN shareholders. The
Delaware action also alleges variously that KKR & Co., and certain
of KKR & Co.'s affiliates aided and abetted the alleged breaches
of fiduciary duties and that KKR & Co. is a controlling
shareholder of KFN by means of a management agreement between KFN
and KKR Financial Advisors LLC, and KKR & Co. breached a fiduciary
duty it allegedly owed to KFN shareholders by causing KFN to enter
into the merger agreement. The relief sought in the Delaware
action includes, among other things, declaratory relief concerning
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties, compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees and costs and other relief.


KWICK RENTALS: Faces "Blankenship" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dylan Blankenship, Marco Gonzalez and Armando Vega, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Kwick Rentals, LLC
and K&L Rentals, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00221-J (N.D. Tex., July
10, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of supplying and delivering
rental equipment to oilfield production areas, including but not
limited to, portable toilets, portable lighting and utility
trailers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Channy F. Wood, Esq.
      WOOD LAW FIRM, LLP
      1222 S. Fillmore St.
      Amarillo, TX 79101
      Telephone: (806) 372-9663
      Facsimile: (806) 372-9664
      E-mail: cwood@woodlandfirm-tx.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Richard J. Rex Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

         - and -

      Philip Bohrer, Esq.
      Scott E. Brady, Esq.
      BOHRER LAW FIRM, LLC
      8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
      Baton Rouge, LO 70809
      Telephone: (225) 925-5297
      Facsimile: (225) 231-7000
      E-mail: phil@bohrerlaw.com
              scott@bohrerlaw.com


KYTHERA BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Sued Over Proposed Allergan Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Furr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No.
11266-CB (Del. Ch., July 8, 2015), is brought on behalf of the
public stockholders of Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, Inc., to enjoin
the Kythera's Board of Directors' attempt to sell the Company to
Allergan PLC for inadequate consideration and unfair price.

Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. is a clinical-stage
biopharmaceutical company, focused on the discovery, development,
and commercialization of prescription products for the aesthetic
medicine market in the United States and internationally.

Allergan PLC is based in Dublin with U.S. headquarters in
Parsippany, N.J.  Allergan is a pharmaceutical company that
provides treatments in dermatology, aesthetics, eye care and for
cardiovascular disease.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Peter Safirstein, Esq.
      Domenico Minerva, Esq.
      Elizabeth Metcalf, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      28 West 44th Street, Suite 2001
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 564-1637
      E-mail: psafirstein@forthepeople.com
              DMinerva@ForThePeople.com
              EMetcalf@MorganSecLaw.com

         - and -

      Robert L. Pratter, Esq.
      Alessandra C. Phillips, Esq.
      COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C.
      2001 Market St Suite 2900
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (866) 291-7088


LA CHIMENEA MEXICAN: "Lopez" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Lopez, and all others similarly-situated v. La Chimenea
Mexican Restaurante, LLC and Christopher L. Greene, Case No. 2:15-
cv-00842 (E.D. Wis., July 13, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages, unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
costs, attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Defendants own and operate La Chimenea Mexican Restaurante
located in Germantown Wisconsin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

    Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
    HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
    222 East Erie, Suite 210
    P.O. Box 442
    Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
    Tel: (414) 271-8650
    Fax: (414) 271-8442
    E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com


LAKE PETROLEUM: Sued in Illinois Over Misleading Fuel Pump Labels
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kim Smith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Lake Petroleum Inc., Case No. 2015-CH-10517 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., July 8, 2015), is an action for damages as a proximate result
of the Defendant's false, misleading, deceptive, and unfair
marketing and labeling of the types of fuel available at
particular pumps at the BP Station.

Lake Petroleum Inc. owns and operates a BP gas station and is
located at 31667 N. Highway 12, Volo, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Karl Leinberger, Esq.
      Paul Markoff, Esq.
      MARKOFF LEINBERGER LLC
      134 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1050
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 726-4162
      E-mail: karl@markleinlaw.com
              paul@markleinlaw.com


LIBERTY SILVER: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held
------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Silver Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the settlement in a
class action lawsuit is subject to approval by the Court, and the
final settlement approval hearing was scheduled for July 17, 2015.

On September 12, 2013, the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors (the "Liberty Silver Parties") were
named as defendants in a proposed securities class action lawsuit
filed against Robert Genovese, certain individuals alleged to have
collaborated with Mr. Genovese, and an offshore investment firm
allegedly controlled by Mr. Genovese (the "Action," Case No. 9:13-
cv-80923-KLR, Stanaford v. Genovese et al.).  The action contains
various claims alleging violations of the United States Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and rules thereunder relating to anomalous
trading activity and fluctuations in the Company's share price
from August through October 2012.  The plaintiff purports to bring
suit on behalf of all who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's common shares from April 1, 2008, through and including
October 5, 2012.  An amended complaint was filed on September 27,
2013.

On January 22, 2014, the Court appointed Jerald Todd Stanaford and
Philip Hobel lead plaintiffs and approved Federman & Sherwood as
Lead Counsel and Menzer & Hill, PA as Liaison Counsel.  On March
24, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint.  On May 8, 2014, the Liberty Silver Parties
moved to dismiss the Complaint.

On December 8, 2014, the Company had reached a settlement in
principle regarding the consolidated securities class action filed
in September 2013 in U.S. federal court in the Southern District
of Florida pertaining to anomalous trading activity and
fluctuations in the Company's share price from August through
October 2012.  The settlement, which is subject to final
documentation as well as review by the court, provides for a
payment of $1 million cash, to be paid by the Company's D&O
insurance coverage.  This settlement, without in any way
acknowledging any fault or liability, would lead to a full and
final dismissal with prejudice of all claims against Liberty
Silver, Geoffrey Browne, and William Tafuri in the litigation.
Although defendants continue to deny plaintiffs' allegations, the
Company believes it is in the best interests of its stockholders
to focus its attention on its business and put the matter behind
it.  The settlement is subject to approval by the Court, and the
final settlement approval hearing was scheduled for July 17, 2015.


MACQUARIE LEASING: IMF Bentham to Seek Special Leave to Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Macquarie Leasing Pty Limited said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
14, 2015, that IMF Bentham Limited has indicated that it intends
to seek special leave to appeal the decision to the High Court of
Australia in the bank fees litigation.

Litigation funder IMF Bentham Limited commenced a class action
against ANZ in 2010, followed by a second similar class action in
March 2013. Together the class actions are claimed to be on behalf
of more than 40,000 ANZ customers. The customers currently
involved in these class actions are only part of ANZ's customer
base for credit cards and transaction accounts.

The applicants contended that the relevant exception fees (honour,
dishonour and non-payment fees on transaction accounts and late
payment and overlimit fees on credit cards) were unenforceable
penalties (at law and in equity) and that various of the fees were
also unenforceable under statutory provisions governing
unconscionable conduct, unfair contract terms and unjust
transactions.

On 8 April 2015, the Full Federal Court delivered judgment in
respect of appeals by both parties in the second class action. The
Full Federal Court found in ANZ's favour in respect of all fees
subject to appeal (in relation to both the penalty and statutory
claims). IMF Bentham Limited has indicated that it intends to seek
special leave to appeal the decision to the High Court of
Australia. In the meantime, the first class action is in abeyance.


MACQUARIE LEASING: Class Action for Late Payment Fees On Hold
-------------------------------------------------------------
Macquarie Leasing Pty Limited said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
14, 2015, that in August 2014, IMF Bentham Limited commenced a
separate class action against ANZ for late payment fees charged to
ANZ customers in respect of commercial credit cards and other ANZ
products (at this stage not specified). The action is expressed to
apply to all relevant customers, rather than being limited to
those who have signed up with IMF Bentham Limited. The action is
at an early stage and has been put on hold.


MARTHA STEWART: Faces "Dranove" Suit Over Sequential Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Dranove, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc., et al., Case No.
11261 (Del. Ch., July 8, 2015), is brought on behalf of the public
stockholders of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., to enjoin
the MSLO's Board of Directors' attempt to sell the Company to
Sequential Brands Group, Inc. by means of a flawed process and for
an inadequate price.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Evan J. Smith, Esq.
      Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
      BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
      Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
      Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
      Telephone: (610) 667-6200
      E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com
              mackerman@brodsky-smith.com


MARTHA STEWART: Faces "Moore" Suit Over Planned Sequential Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dorothy Moore, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc., et al., Case No.
11260-VCN (Del. Ch., July 8, 2015), is brought on behalf of the
public stockholders of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., to
enjoin the MSLO's Board of Directors' attempt to sell the Company
to Sequential Brands Group, Inc. by means of a flawed process and
for an inadequate price.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Peter Safirstein, Esq.
      Domenico Minerva, Esq.
      Elizabeth Metcalf, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      28 West 44th Street, Suite 2001
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 564-1637
      E-mail: psafirstein@forthepeople.com
              DMinerva@ForThePeople.com
              EMetcalf@MorganSecLaw.com


MARTHA STEWART: Faces "Terrell" Suit Over Sequential Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cedric Terrell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., et
al., Case No. 11260-CB (Del. Ch., July 8, 2015), is brought on
behalf of the public stockholders of Martha Stewart Living
Omnimedia, Inc., to enjoin the MSLO's Board of Directors' attempt
to sell the Company to Sequential Brands Group, Inc. by means of a
flawed process and for an inadequate price.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MARTHA STEWART: Faces "Nguyen" Suit Over Sequential Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Phuc Nguyen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., et al., Case
No. 11279 (Del. Ch., July 10, 2015), is brought on behalf of the
public stockholders of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., to
enjoin the MSLO's Board of Directors' attempt to sell the Company
to Sequential Brands Group, Inc. by means of a flawed process and
for an inadequate price.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MASTRO'S RESTAURANTS: "Murata" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Murata, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Mastro's Restaurants, LLC, Case No. 2015-CH-10553
(Ill. Cir. Ct., July 9, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
compensation, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Mastro's Restaurants, LLC owns and operates a steakhouse
restaurant and is located at 520 North Dearborn Street, Chicago,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
      35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 726-3400
      E-mail: tom@tomryanlaw.com

         - and -

      James X. Bormes, Esq.
      Catherine Sons, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.
      8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 201-0575
      E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com
              cpsons@bormeslaw.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Sued in New York Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Lisa M. Goedtel, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 604448/2015
(N.Y. Sup Ct., July 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. is in the business of buying
unpaid debts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
      775 Park Avenue, Suite 255
      Huntington, NY 11743
      Telephone: (631) 355-1107
      Facsimile: (631) 824-9328
       E-mail: mpash@verizon.net


MIZRAHI GRILL: "Salay-Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Salay-Martinez and Elmer Augusto Martinez, and all
others similarly situated v. Mizrahi Grill, LLC, and Eliyahu
Mizrahi, Case No. 1:15-cv-06137 (N.D. Ill., July 13, 2015), seeks
to recover all unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
interests, costs and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

The Defendants operate a restaurant called "Mizrahi Grill",
located at Highland Park, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raisa Alicea, Esq.
      Consumer Law Group, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Tel: (312) 800-1017
      E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


MOTORS LIQUIDATION: 108 Class Actions Filed Against New GM
----------------------------------------------------------
Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 22, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015, that as of April 20,
2015, 108 putative class actions have been filed against New GM.

New GM disclosed that, since the beginning of 2014, New GM had
recalled approximately 2.6 million vehicles to repair ignition
switches or to fix ignition lock cylinders, or the Ignition Switch
Recall, and had recalled an additional 33.4 million vehicles to
address certain electrical and other safety concerns, including
approximately 12.1 million vehicles to rework or replace ignition
keys. New GM does not consider any of these 12.1 million vehicles
to be a part of the Ignition Switch Recall.

Many of the vehicles affected by the foregoing recalls were
manufactured or sold prior to July 10, 2009, or the Closing Date,
the date on which the sale of substantially all of the assets of
Old GM pursuant to the MSPA was completed.

In its quarterly report on Form 10-Q filed April 23, 2015, New GM
also disclosed that, as of April 20, 2015, 108 putative class
actions have been filed against New GM in various federal and
state courts seeking compensatory and other damages for economic
losses allegedly resulting from one or more of the recalls
announced in 2014 and/or the underlying condition of vehicles
covered by those recalls. Certain of these 108 cases, or the
Ignition Switch Economic Loss Actions, concern the Ignition Switch
Recall; certain other cases, or the Other Economic Loss Actions,
concern recalls other than the Ignition Switch Recall; and yet
others concern both the Ignition Switch Recall and one or more
other recalls.

In addition, New GM disclosed that, as of April 20, 2015, 144
putative class actions have been filed against New GM in various
federal and state courts seeking compensatory and other damages
for personal injury and other claims allegedly arising from
accidents that occurred as a result of the underlying condition of
the vehicles subject to the recalls initiated by New GM, or the
Personal Injury Actions. Certain of these 144 cases are Ignition
Switch Personal Injury Actions.

Since June 2014, 156 Recall-Related Actions have been transferred
to the United States District Court of the Southern District of
New York, or the MDL Court, and have been consolidated into a
single case, case number 14-MD-2543 (JMF), or the MDL Proceeding.
On October 14, 2014, the plaintiffs in certain Recall-Related
Actions filed two amended and consolidated complaints in the MDL
Proceeding that concern vehicles designed, manufactured or sold
prior to the Closing Date.

Concurrently with the proceedings before the MDL Court, New GM has
taken steps in the Bankruptcy Court to enjoin claims in the
Recall-Related Actions that concern vehicles designed,
manufactured or sold prior to the Closing Date, except for
Personal Injury Actions related to accidents that occurred after
the Closing Date (or collectively, the Subject Recall-Related
Actions). In that respect, beginning on April 21, 2014, New GM
filed a series of motions with the Bankruptcy Court seeking to
enjoin the Subject Recall-Related Actions and to enforce the Sale
Order and Injunction entered on July 5, 2009, or the Sale Order
(under which all product liability and property damage claims
arising from accidents or incidents prior to the Closing Date were
to remain with Old GM as general unsecured claims), or the Motions
to Enforce.

Beginning on May 16, 2014, the Bankruptcy Court entered a series
of scheduling orders which identified a number of "threshold
issues" to be resolved by the Bankruptcy Court, including (i)
whether plaintiffs' procedural due process rights were violated in
connection with the 363 Transaction, (ii) if such due process
rights were violated, what is the appropriate remedy, (iii)
whether any or all of the claims asserted in the Subject Recall-
Related Actions are claims against Old GM and/or the GUC Trust,
and (iv) whether any such claims against Old GM and/or the GUC
Trust should be dismissed as equitably moot. The GUC Trust
appeared as a party in interest with respect to New GM's Motions
to Enforce and filed briefs in opposition thereto, asserting that
none of the claims of the plaintiffs in the Subject Recall-Related
Actions may be properly asserted against Old GM or the GUC Trust.

On April 15, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court rendered a decision on the
threshold issues and indicated that its holdings would be
memorialized in a judgment to be entered by such court. As ordered
by the Bankruptcy Court, the parties to the Motion to Enforce
litigation met and conferred and ultimately submitted competing
proposed forms of judgment on May 12, 2015.

Following the meet-and-confer process, the GUC Trust understands
the Bankruptcy Court's April 15 decision to have provided at least
the following:

(i) The plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch Economic Loss Actions
suffered a due process violation with respect to the Sale Order,
whereas the plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch Personal Injury
Actions did not suffer a due process violation with respect to the
Sale Order;

(ii) As a result of the due process violation, the provisions of
the Sale Order which purport to shield New GM from any liability
associated with its independent post-Sale conduct can be modified,
and the plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch Economic Loss Actions
may proceed against New GM with respect to its independent post-
Sale conduct;

(iii) Any claims asserted in the Ignition Switch Economic Loss
Actions and the Ignition Switch Personal Injury Actions that
relate to the conduct of Old GM are enjoined from being pursued
against New GM on successor liability grounds;

(iv) While the plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch Economic Loss
Actions and the Ignition Switch Personal Injury Actions may seek
authorization to file late claims in the bankruptcy cases of Old
GM, any such claims as against the GUC Trust are "equitably moot"
(that is, fashioning relief for the plaintiffs against the GUC
Trust would be "impractical, imprudent and therefore
inequitable"), and thus the assets of the GUC Trust cannot be used
to satisfy such claims; and

(v) The resolution of New GM's Motion to Enforce the Other
Economic Loss Actions is deferred.

Certain parties have also asserted that the decision defers
judgment on New GM's Motion to Enforce those Personal Injury
Actions that concern vehicles subject to recalls other than the
Ignition Switch Recall, or the Non-Ignition Switch Personal Injury
Actions.

The Bankruptcy Court has not yet entered its judgment. The
judgment, when and as issued by the Bankruptcy Court, could
address part or all of the issues deferred or potentially
deferred, and could otherwise modify or qualify the decision.

Further, the Bankruptcy Court's decision may be appealed by any of
the parties in interest, and New GM disclosed in its quarterly
report on Form 10-Q filed April 23, 2015 that the plaintiffs
intend to appeal the decision. If the Bankruptcy Court's decision
is not overturned on appeal (or the equitable mootness holding is
not appealed), the claims of the plaintiffs in the Ignition Switch
Economic Loss Actions and the Ignition Switch Personal Injury
Actions have been determined to be equitably moot and, as a
result, such claims (even if allowed by the Bankruptcy Court) may
not dilute the recoveries of holders of Units in the GUC Trust.
However, in the event that the decision is overturned with respect
to the equitable mootness holding, it is possible that those
plaintiffs could seek to assert claims against the GUC Trust,
which claims (if allowed) could dilute the recoveries of holders
of Units in the GUC Trust. Moreover, as discussed above, the
Bankruptcy Court's April 15 decision defers judgment on New GM's
Motion to Enforce the Other Economic Loss Actions (and potentially
New GM's Motion to Enforce the Non-Ignition Switch Personal Injury
Actions), and thus, the impact of the decision on claims asserted
in those actions is uncertain.

In addition, the GUC Trust has been named a defendant in two
actions by individual plaintiffs with separate personal claims
against Old GM (including one claimant who, in light of the
recalls by New GM, is seeking (in the Bankruptcy Court where New
GM has filed motions seeking to enjoin the Subject Recall-Related
Actions, and in other jurisdictions) to overturn the terms of a
previous settlement with Old GM for personal injuries/wrongful
deaths that occurred prior to the Closing Date). Neither plaintiff
has asserted a claim for specified monetary damages, but the GUC
Trust intends to vigorously defend its position against such
claimants.

Accordingly, no assurance may be given that personal injury,
property damage and other claims relating to New GM's recalls
involving General Motors vehicles manufactured or sold prior to
the Closing Date and/or settlements previously reached with
certain plaintiffs who asserted personal injury, property damage
or other claims due to incidents or accidents that occurred prior
to the Closing Date, will not adversely affect the GUC Trust, its
assets or the Plan.


MURPHY OIL: 5th Circ. Rejects NLRB's En Banc Hearing Request
------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel B. Pasternak, writing for The Nationqal Law Review,
reported that in its 2012 decision in D.R. Horton, Inc., the
National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) held that employers that
require employees to agree to arbitrate employment-related claims,
and to do so only on an individual basis, waiving the right to
participate in class and collective action proceedings (in court
or in arbitration), violate the guarantee in Section 7 of the
National Labor Relations Act of employees' right to engage in
protected concerted activity for mutual aid or protection.  At
bottom, the NLRB's positon is that the right to engage in
concerted activity, such as class action litigation, embedded the
NLRA trumps the federal policy expressed in the Federal
Arbitration Act favoring arbitration as a means to resolve
disputes and requiring that arbitration agreements be enforced.

The NLRB's position on class and collective waivers, however, has
been soundly and repeatedly rejected by the federal and state
courts.  Indeed, on appeal, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
denied enforcement of the Board's decision in D.R. Horton.

Most expected that the NLRB would appeal its defeat in D.R. Horton
to the United States Supreme Court, which has over the past
several terms addressed a number of arbitration-related cases
(i.e., AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion; Oxford Health v. Sutter;
Stolt-Nielsen v. Animalfeeds Int'l).  However, rather than seeking
a the final word from the Supreme Court on the issue, the NLRB
declined to seek review and instead issued a second decision,
Murphy Oil USA, Inc., in which the NLRB attempted to rehabilitate
D.R. Horton and address the shortcomings therein identified by
many courts, including the Fifth Circuit.

Predictably, after the NLRB found that it violated the law by
implementing an arbitration agreement with a class and collective
action waiver -- which the Fifth Circuit (and other circuits) had
held was lawful -- Murphy Oil appealed the NLRB's decision to, not
surprisingly, the Fifth Circuit.

Under the principal of horizontal stare decisis, one panel of a
circuit court of appeals may not overrule a prior panel's
decision.  Rather, any change to precedent from a prior panel
decision must come as a result of a decision issued by all of the
judges in the circuit through what is referred to as an en banc
proceeding.  As the NLRB recognized that it could not win in
Murphy Oil unless the Fifth Circuit decided to hear the matter en
banc (that is, a panel in Murphy Oil could not find the class and
collective action waiver in that case unlawful, as to do so would
require that the panel effectively overrule the prior panel's
decision in D.R. Horton), it petitioned for the full court to hear
the case.

On June 24, the Fifth Circuit denied the NLRB's petition for
hearing en banc.  In fact, it emphatically did so -- no judge on
the court even asked that the court be polled on whether to hear
the case en banc.

What does this mean?  Practically speaking, it means that it
should be a mere formality for the Fifth Circuit to grant review
and deny enforcement of the Board's Order in Murphy Oil, meaning
that the NLRB will once again lose before that court.  Then it
will be up to the NLRB -- for the second time -- to decide whether
to seek Supreme Court review.  Hopefully, for the sake of everyone
involved -- employers and employees alike -- it will do so this
time, and thereby seek to resolve this issue, rather than continue
to blindly charge employers with unfair labor practices based on a
theory that has been rejected by every judge and court to have
considered it.


NATIONAL MILK: Limits Availability of Raw Farm Milk, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Piggly Wiggly Midwest, LLC and KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. a/k/a
Kinney Drugs, Inc., on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. National Milk Producers Federation,
Cooperatives Working Together, Dairy Farmers Of America, Inc.,
Land O'Lakes, Inc., Dairylea Cooperative Inc., and Agri-Mark,
Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00750 (S.D. Ill., July 10, 2015), arises
from the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and
conspiracy to limit the production of raw farm milk through
premature "herd retirements" that require participating dairy
farmers to destroy all of the dairy cows in all of their herds and
to reenter the dairy farming business for at least a year.

The Defendants are the largest producers of raw milk, fluid milk
and other manufactured dairy products in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles Barrett, Esq.
      CHARLES BARRETT, P.C.
      6518 Highway 100, Suite 210
      Nashville, TN 37205
      Telephone: (615) 515-3393
      Facsimile: (615) 515-3395
      E-mail: charles@cfbfirm.com

         - and -

      Don Barrett, Esq.
      BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
      404 Court Square North
      Lexington, MS 39095-0927
      Telephone: (662) 834-9168
      Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
      E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com

         - and -

      Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
      Erin C. Burns, Esq.
      NASTLAW LLC
      1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 923-9300
      Facsimile: (215) 923-9302
      E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com
              dgallucci@nastlaw.com
              eburns@nastlaw.com

         - and -

      Michael Roberts, Esq.
      Debra Gaw Josephson, Esq.
      Stephanie E. Smith, Esq.
      Jana K. Law, Esq.
      ROBERTS LAW FIRM, P.A.
      20 Rahling Circle
      Mailing Address: P.O. Box 241790
      Little Rock, AR 72223
      Telephone: (501) 821-5575
      Facsimile: (501) 821-4474
      E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us
              debrajosephson@robertslawfirm.us
              stephanieegner@robertslawfirm.us
              janalaw@robertslawfirm.us

         - and -

      Joseph Kohn, Esq.
      Robert J. LaRocca, Esq.
      William E. Hoese, Esq.
      KOHN, SWIFT & GRAF, P.C.
      One South Broad Street, Suite 2100
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 238-1700
      Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
      E-mail: jkohn@kohnswift.com
              rlarocca@kohnswift.com
              whose@kohnswift.com

         - and -

      Arnold Levin, Esq.
      Michael D. Fishbein, Esq.
      Frederick S. Longer, Esq.
      LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
      510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Telephone: (215) 592-1500
      Facsimile: (215) 592-4663
      E-mail: alevin@lfsblaw.com
              mfishbein@lfsblaw.com
              flonger@lfsblaw.com

         - and -

      Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
      NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
      570 Lexington Avenue, 19th Floor,
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 702-7054
      Facsimile: (212) 681-0300
      E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com

         - and -

      Joseph Vanek, Esq.
      VANEK, VICKERS & MASINI P.C.
      55 W. Monroe, Suite 3500
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 224-1500
      Facsimile: (312) 22-1510
      E-mail: jvanek@vaneklaw.com


NINETEEN TWENTY: Faces "Cano" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rufino Cano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Nineteen Twenty Four, Inc. d/b/a Roberta's Pizzeria,
Brandon Hoy, Carlo Mirarchi, Christopher Parachini, and John Doe
Corps. #1-10, Jointly and Severally, Case No. 1:15-cv-04082
(E.D.N.Y., July 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an Italian restaurant and pizzeria
in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
      PELTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 385-9700
      Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
      E-mail: pelton@peltonlaw.com


NORTH OLMSTED, OH: Sued Over Invasion of Class Members' Property
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Connell, Rose Connell, Jeffery Liskay, Rebecca Liskay,
Jeffrey Campbell and Elizabeth Campbell, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. City of North Olmsted, et
al., Case No. CV-15-848055 (Ohio Comm. Pleas, July 8, 2015),
arises out of flooding and invasion of the class members' property
by sewage, pollutants, water, feces, dirt, debris and noxious
odors which caused, and continue to cause, material injury to
class members' property through trespass, gross negligence,
unconstitutional taking and nuisance.

City of North Olmsted is a municipality located in the County of
Cuyahoga, State of Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David M. Paris, Esq.
      NURENBERG, PARIS, HELLER & MCCARTHY CO., L.P.A.
      1370 Ontario Street, Suite 100
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 621-2300
      Facsimile: (216) 771-2242
      E-mail: dparis@nphm.com


NVIDIA CORP: Sept. 18 Hearing in Graphics Chip Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the NVIDIA GTX 970 Graphics Chip Litigation, Case No.
3:15-cv-00760-CRB (N.D. Cal.), have agreed to extend the time:

     -- by which Defendants must respond to the first amended
        consolidated class action complaint to July 15, 2015;

     -- for Plaintiffs to file oppositions to any Rule 12 motions
        by August 14, 2015; and

     -- for Defendants to file any reply by September 4, 2015.

The defendants are NVIDIA Corporation, Asus Computer
International, Gigabyte Global Business Corporation d/b/a GigaByte
Technology Co. Ltd. and TigerDirect, Inc.  They are represented by
Robert P. Varian, James N. Kramer, Stephen M. Knaster, Alexander
K. Talarides, and Judy Kwan, Orrick, at Herrington & Sutcliffe
LLP.

District Judge Charles R. Breyer approved the agreement on July 1,
and said the hearing on the matter is set for September 18, 2015
at 10 a.m., or at the Court's earliest convenience.

A copy of the Court's approval order is available at
http://is.gd/CinaNpfrom Leagle.com.


NVIDIA CORP: Filed Opposition to Petition for Writ of Certiorari
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nvidia Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 20, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 26, 2015, that, that the Company has
filed an opposition to the petition for writ of certiorari to the
United States Supreme Court filed by the Plaintiffs in securities
class action lawsuits.

"In September 2008, three putative securities class actions were
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California arising out of our announcements on July 2,
2008, that we would take a charge against cost of revenue to cover
anticipated costs and expenses arising from a weak die/packaging
material set in certain versions of our previous generation MCP
and GPU products and that we were revising financial guidance for
our second quarter of fiscal year 2009," the Company said.

The actions purport to be brought on behalf of purchasers of
NVIDIA stock and assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or
the Securities Exchange Act.

On January 22, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint, asserting claims for violations of Section
10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act and seeking unspecified compensatory damages.

"We moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint and on October 19,
2010, Judge Seeborg granted our motion with leave to amend," the
Company said. "On December 2, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Second
Consolidated Amended Complaint. We again moved to dismiss and on
October 12, 2011, Judge Seeborg again granted our motion to
dismiss, this time denying Plaintiffs leave to amend. On November
8, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
Oral argument was held on January 14, 2014. On October 2, 2014,
the Ninth Circuit issued an order affirming the dismissal. On
October 16, 2014, Plaintiffs requested a rehearing or en banc
review of the Ninth Circuit's opinion affirming the dismissal.
Plaintiffs' request was denied on November 10, 2014. On February
9, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of certiorari to the
United States Supreme Court. On April 15, 2015, we filed an
opposition to Plaintiffs' petition."


NY PORT AUTHORITY: Suit Over Bridge Traffic Junked
--------------------------------------------------
David Porter, writing for NBC New York, reported that a federal
judge has dismissed a class-action lawsuit filed by people who
were stuck in traffic when lanes leading to the George Washington
Bridge were closed without warning in 2013.

The judge's ruling posted faulted the plaintiffs for not
describing what each defendant's role was in the scheme, but it
gave the plaintiffs leeway to refile eight of the 11 claims
contained in the complaint.

Attorney Barry Epstein said that he planned to file an amended
complaint on the eight counts.  The consolidated class-action
complaint is a combination of two lawsuits filed in early 2014,
several months after the lane closings at the bridge caused
massive gridlock in Fort Lee.

An investigation into the lane closures led to the indictments of
Bridget Kelly, former deputy chief of staff to Republican Gov.
Chris Christie, and Bill Baroni, the former Christie-appointed
deputy executive director of the Port Authority of New York and
New Jersey, which operates the bridge.

The indictment alleges the lane closures were orchestrated for
political retribution against the Democratic mayor of Fort Lee for
not endorsing Christie. David Wildstein, another former Port
Authority official, has pleaded guilty and is expected to testify
against Baroni and Kelly.

Kelly, Baroni, Wildstein and former Christie campaign manager Bill
Stepien are among the defendants in the lawsuit. Christie is not a
defendant and has said he had no knowledge of the planning or
execution of the lane closings until well afterward. A taxpayer-
funded report by lawyers hired by Christie arrived at the same
conclusions.

A Democrat-controlled state legislative panel in an interim report
on its inquiry didn't find any proof of a direct connection
between the governor and the lane closures.

The scandal has led to several resignations and firings and has
dogged Christie, who announced he was running for president.

The consolidated lawsuit charges the defendants with depriving
them of constitutional rights to equal protection, racketeering,
breach of contract and other violations. One lawsuit was filed by
several people who said they were late for work because of the
traffic jams; the other was filed by several limousine and taxi
companies.

"Despite the multitude of media coverage and governmental scrutiny
about the facts and circumstances related to the incident giving
rise to this action," U.S. District Judge Jose Linares wrote in
his opinion, "Plaintiffs provide only conclusory allegations
against Defendants as a group, failing to allege the personal
involvement of any Defendant as is required."


NY RENAISSANCE: Faces "Romero" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Romero and Rory Munoz, individually and on behalf of other
persons similarly situated v. NY Renaissance Corp., Monique
Delacroix and Dan Pirvulescu, Case No. 604495/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct.,
July 10, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime compensation in violation of the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company, with a
headquarters and principal place of business located at 2079
Wantagh Ave, Suite 10, Wantagh, NY 11793.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Tompkins, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Telephone: (516) 873-9550


OLYMPUS AMERICA: Recalls VG 170 Digital Cameras Due to Shock Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Olympus America Inc., of Center Valley, Pa., announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,200 Olympus VG 170 Digital Cameras. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

An improperly installed part can touch the camera's circuit board,
posing an electric shock risk to the user.

The recall involves the Olympus VG-170 Digital Point-and-Shoot
Cameras. The VG-170 measures about 4 x 2.5 x 1 inches, weighs 5.1
ounces and comes in white, black or red. "VG 170" is printed on
the top of the camera, on the side opposite the shutter button.
"Olympus" is printed on the upper right hand corner of the front
of the camera,"5 X Wide" is printed on lower left hand corner of
the front of the camera. The camera has a 3 inch digital LCD
screen on the back.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products are available at:
http://is.gd/r0he8I

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
HHGregg Appliance Inc. stores and online at www.hhgregg.com from
September 2013 to December 2014 for about $120.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled digital
camera and contact Olympus for a free inspection and repair.


PARAMOUNT GOLD: Defending Class Actions Related to Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Paramount Gold Nevada Corp. is defending class action lawsuits
filed related to the merger of Paramount Gold and Silver Corp.
("PGSC") and Coeur Mining, Inc. ("Coeur"), the Company said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 22, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

Since the announcement of the merger of PGSC and Coeur on December
17, 2014, the Company, PGSC, members of PGSC's board, Coeur, and
Hollywood Merger Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub") have been named as
defendants in six putative stockholder class action suits brought
by purported stockholders of PGSC, challenging the proposed Merger
(the "Complaints"). The Complaints were filed in the Court of
Chancery in the State of Delaware (Fernando Gamboa v. Paramount
Gold and Silver Corp., et al., No.: 10499; Jerry Panning v.
Paramount Gold and Silver Corp., et al., No.: 10507; Jonah Weiss
v. Christopher Crupi, et al., No.: 10517; Justin Beaston v.
Paramount Gold and Silver Corporation, et al., No.: 10538; Rob
Byers v. Christopher Crupi, et al., No.: 10551; James H. Alston v.
Paramount Gold and Silver Corp., et al., No.: 10531.

The plaintiffs generally claim that the PGSC board members
breached their fiduciary duties to PGSC stockholders by: (i)
authorizing the merger with Coeur for what the plaintiffs assert
is inadequate consideration and pursuant to an allegedly
inadequate process, and (ii) failing to disclose sufficient
information in its Form S-4 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission to allow the shareholders to make an informed vote. The
plaintiffs also claim that the Company, PGSC, Coeur, and Merger
Sub aided and abetted the other defendants' alleged breach of
duties. In the Complaints, the plaintiffs seek, among other
things, to enjoin the merger, rescind the transaction or obtain
rescissory damages if the merger is consummated, obtain other
unspecified damages and recover attorneys' fees and costs. The
merger was consummated on April 17, 2015.

"We, PGSC, members of PGSC board, Coeur, and Merger Sub deny any
wrongdoing and are vigorously defending all of the actions," the
Company said.


PAUL TRAMANTANA: "Cruz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julio C. Cruz, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Paul Tramantana Landscaping, Paul Tramantana and John
Does 1-2, Case No. 3517/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., July 8, 2015), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the New
York Labor Law.

The Defendants are engaged in landscaping business and maintain a
principal place of business at 15 Clayton Avenue Moral Park, NY
11001.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marcus Monteiro, Esq.
      MONTEIRO & FISHMAN, LLP
      91 N. Franklin Street
      Hempstead, NY 11550
      Telephone: (516) 280-4600
      Facsimile: (516) 280.4530
      E-mail: mmonteiro@mflawny.com


PLASMATECH BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Dismissal of Schmidt Case Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plasmatech Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the PlasmaTech
Defendants has filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint in the class action lawsuit filed by Alan Schmidt.

Alan Schmidt ("Schmidt"), a former shareholder of Genaera
Corporation ("Genaera"), and a former unitholder of the Genaera
Liquidating Trust (the ''Trust''), filed a purported class action
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania in June 2012.

"The lawsuit named thirty defendants, including PlasmaTech,
MacroChem Corporation, which was acquired by us in February 2009,
Jeffrey Davis, the then-CEO and currently a director of
PlasmaTech, and Steven H. Rouhandeh and Mark Alvino, both of whom
are our directors (the ''PlasmaTech Defendants'')," the Company
said. With respect to the PlasmaTech Defendants, the complaint
alleged direct and derivative claims asserting that directors of
Genaera and the Trustee of the Trust breached their fiduciary
duties to Genaera, Genaera's shareholders and the Trust's
unitholders in connection with the licensing and disposition of
certain assets, aided and abetted by numerous defendants including
the PlasmaTech Defendants. Schmidt seeks monetary damages,
disgorgement of any distributions received from the Trust,
rescission of sales made by the Trust, attorneys' and expert fees,
and costs.

On December 19, 2012, Schmidt filed an amended complaint (the
"Amended Complaint") which asserted substantially the same
allegations with respect to the PlasmaTech Defendants. On February
4, 2013, the PlasmaTech Defendants moved to dismiss all claims
asserted against them.

On August 12, 2013 the court granted the PlasmaTech Defendants'
motions to dismiss and entered judgment in favor of the PlasmaTech
Defendants on all claims. On August 26, 2013, Schmidt filed a
motion for reconsideration. On September 10, 2013 Schmidt filed a
Notice of Appeal with the District Court. On September 17, 2013,
Schmidt filed his appeal with the U.S. Third Circuit Court of
Appeals (the "Third Circuit").

On September 25, 2013, the District Court denied Schmidt's motion
for reconsideration. On October 17, 2013, Schmidt amended his
appeal to include the District Court's denial of his motion for
reconsideration.

On March 20, 2014, Schmidt filed his Brief and Joint Appendix. On
May 22, 2014, the PlasmaTech Defendants filed their Oppositions to
Schmidt's Brief. On May 29, 2014, Schmidt was granted an extension
of time until June 23, 2014 to file his Reply Brief and filed his
Reply Brief on that date.

The Third Circuit held oral argument on September 12, 2014. On
October 17, 2014, in a split decision, the Third Circuit reversed
the District Court's decision holding, among other things, that
the District Court's determination that the Amended Complaint was
time-barred on statute of limitations grounds was premature. The
Third Circuit did not rule upon any of the other grounds for
dismissal advanced in the District Court and on appeal. The Third
Circuit remanded the case to the District Court for further
proceedings.

On January 6, 2015, the District Court ordered the parties to file
supplemental briefs on all remaining arguments for dismissal, and
further ordered that a hearing on the motions to dismiss would be
held on February 3, 2015.

On January 23, 2015, the PlasmaTech Defendants filed their
Supplemental Brief. At the February 3, 2015 hearing, Schmidt
sought and was granted leave to amend his complaint for a second
time.

Schmidt filed his Second Amended Complaint on February 3, 2015.
The Second Amended Complaint asserts substantially the same
factual allegations with respect to the PlasmaTech Defendants, but
eliminates all causes of action against the PlasmaTech Defendants
except for aiding and abetting the Genaera directors' and
officers' purported breaches of fiduciary duties, a claim for
"punitive damages" and a claim for rescission of a settlement
agreement between the Trust and the PlasmaTech Defendants.

On March 20, 2015, the PlasmaTech Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

"We intend to continue contesting the claims vigorously," the
Company said.


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Falsely Marketed Tissue Products, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Karla Ramcharitar, individually on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Procter & Gamble Company, Case No.
1:15-cv-00457-MRB (S.D. Ohio, July 10, 2015), is brought on behalf
of all the consumers who purchased Charmin Freshmates(R) brand
moist toilet tissue, that were falsely marketed by the Defendant
as "flushable" and "safe for sewer and septic systems".

The complaint says the products at issue are not sewer and septic
safe. The wipes accumulate in the consumer's plumbing and end up
clogging their sewer and septic systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stuart E. Scott, Esq.
      Daniel Frech, Esq.
      SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP
      1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700
      Cleveland, OH 44114
      Telephone: (216) 696-3232
      Facsimile: (216) 696-3924
      E-mail: sscott@spanglaw.com
              dfrech@spanglaw.com

         - and -

      Lorenzo B. Cellini, Esq.
      TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
      2000 L Street, NW, Suite 808
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 973-0900
      Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
      E-mail: lcellini@tzlegal.com


PROSPER MARKETPLACE: Reports $5.9MM Settlement Liability Reserve
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prosper Marketplace, Inc. and Prosper Funding LLC said in their
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on May 20, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015,
that the reserve for class action settlement liability is $5.9
million in the condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March
31, 2015.

In 2008, plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Prosper
and certain of its executive officers and directors in the
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, California.
The suit was brought on behalf of all promissory note purchasers
on the platform from January 1, 2006 through October 14, 2008. The
lawsuit alleged that Prosper offered and sold unqualified and
unregistered securities in violation of the California and federal
securities laws.

On July 19, 2013 solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, the parties to the class action
litigation agreed to enter into a settlement to resolve all claims
related thereto (the "Settlement"). In connection with the
Settlement, Prosper agreed to pay an aggregate amount of $10
million into a settlement fund, split into four annual
installments of $2 million in 2014, $2 million in 2015, $3 million
in 2016 and $3 million in 2017. The Settlement received final
approval in a final order and judgment entered by the Superior
Court on April 16, 2014.  Pursuant to the final order and
judgment, the claims in the class action were dismissed, and the
defendants were released by the plaintiffs from all claims that
were or could have been asserted concerning the issues alleged in
the class action lawsuit.


RELIANCE WORLDWIDE: Recalls TAFR Devices Due to Injury Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Reliance Worldwide Corp. of Atlanta, Ga., announced a voluntary
recall of about 26,000 Cash Acme Heatguard Temperature Actuated
Flow Reducing (TAFR) Device. Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The thermal element in the TAFR can fail to operate, causing users
to come in contact with water that is hotter than expected. This
poses a risk of scalding injury.

This recall involves Cash Acme Heatguard(R) brand Temperature
Actuated Flow Reducing (TAFR) devices. The Heatguard(R) TAFR is a
metal, cylindrical-shaped thermostatic device used on lavatory
faucets and showers.  TAFR flow reducers sense high temperature
water and reduce water flow if the temperature achieves 120 F
(49 C). These devices may be used in private and public housing,
child care centers, hospitals, hotels and motels. The following
three TAFR models sold from December 2014 to May 2015 are included
in the recall.

  TAFR Name               Model Number
  ---------               ------------
  Shower Safe Assembly    SD-LF #24718
  Tap Safe Assembly       TD-LF #24719
  Shower Safe Assembly    SD-01 #24110-0000

Pictures of the Recalled Products are available at:
http://is.gd/JsGaxB

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Plumbing retailers and wholesalers including: Antiscald, Inc.,
Best Plumbing Specialties, Coley Electrical and Plumbing Supply,
Dutton Lainson Company, FEI, Grainger, HD Supply, M-One
Specialties, Security Supply, The Alzheimer's Store, TM O'Donnell,
and Westco Pipe and Supply from December 2014 through May 2015 for
about $30.

Consumers should use caution when turning on faucets and showers
with the recalled TAFR device installed and immediately contact
Reliance Worldwide to receive a free replacement TAFR. Consumers
will be mailed a replacement TAFR device with step-by-step
installation instructions, and a postage pre-paid envelope to
return the recalled TAFR to Reliance Worldwide.


REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Faces Suit by Warren Police
-------------------------------------------------
Revance Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that as of May 2015, the
Company became subject to a legal compliant, captioned City of
Warren Police and Fire Retirement System v. Revance Therapeutics
Inc., et al, CIV 533635, which was filed on behalf of City of
Warren Police and Fire Retirement System in the Superior Court for
San Mateo County, California against the Company and certain of
its directors and executive officers at the time of the follow-on
public offering, and the investment banking firms that acted as
the underwriters in the follow-on public offering. In general, the
complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented the then-
present status of the RT001 clinical program and made false and
misleading statements regarding the formulation, manufacturing and
efficacy of its drug candidate, RT001, for the treatment of
lateral canthal lines at the time of the follow-on public
offering. The complaint has been brought as a purported class
action on behalf of those who purchased common stock in the
follow-on public offering and seeks unspecified monetary damages
and other relief.

The Company accrues a liability for such matters when it is
probable that future expenditures will be made and such
expenditures can be reasonably estimated. At this time, neither
the outcome of this matter, nor an estimate of the maximum
potential exposure or the range of possible loss can be
determined. The Company believes that the class action lawsuit is
without merit and intends to vigorously defend the action.
Nevertheless, this litigation, as any other litigation, is subject
to uncertainty and there can be no assurance that this litigation
will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
results of operations, financial position or cash flows.


SHENGDATECH LIQUIDATING: Discovery Stayed in Securities Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Shengdatech Liquidating Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that discovery is
stayed in the In re ShengdaTech, Inc. Securities Litigation
pending a decision on Plaintiffs' Rule 60(b) Motion.  No trial
date has been set.

On October 28, 2013, Plaintiffs Schaul and Yaw, through lead
counsel Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd L.L.P., filed their third
amended putative class action complaint (the "Third Amended
Complaint") in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the common
stock of ShengdaTech between May 6, 2008 and March 15, 2010,
against (i) the Company, (ii) certain of the Company's former
officers and directors including Messrs. Mudd and Saidman (the
"Independent Directors"), and (iii) the Company's former auditor,
KPMG HK. The Third Amended Complaint arises out of alleged
misrepresentations in the Company's SEC filings and other public
statements made during the class period and asserts a claim
against the Company for the alleged violation of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereon.
While Plaintiffs claim damages against the defendants in an amount
to be determined at trial, Plaintiffs' concede that any recovery
against the Company under the Plan is limited to available
insurance coverage and proceeds.

On November 25, 2013, the Independent Directors and KPMG HK moved
to dismiss ("Motions to Dismiss") the Third Amended Complaint on
the grounds, among others, that it failed to state cognizable
claims against them. The Motions to Dismiss the Third Amended
Complaint were fully briefed as of January 13, 2014. On July 1,
2014, the Court denied KPMG HK's Motion to Dismiss without
prejudice to renewal. On August 12, 2014, the Court granted the
Independent Directors' motion to dismiss the Third Amended and
Consolidated Complaint.  On October 24, 2014, Plaintiffs moved
("Plaintiffs' Rule 60(b) Motion") for relief from judgment under
Rule 60(b)(1) and (2) and for leave to amend their complaint under
Rule 15(a) and (d) against the Independent Directors.  Defendants
responded to Plaintiffs' Rule 60(b) Motion on January 9, 2015.
Plaintiffs' replied in support of their Rule 60(b) Motion on
January 16, 2015. The Court has not yet ruled on the Plaintiffs'
Rule 60(b) Motion.

On January 8, 2014, the Company filed its Answer to the
allegations raised against it in the Third Amended Complaint. In
its Answer, the Company denied all material allegations of
wrongdoing against it and raised certain affirmative defenses.

On March 27, 2015, Plaintiffs and KPMG HK executed a Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement (the "Stipulation") to resolve all
claims between them that were or could have been raised in the
litigation. On April 22, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Partial Class Action Settlement (the
"Motion for Preliminary Approval of Partial Settlement") and
related papers including a memorandum in support, a form of notice
and the Stipulation. On April 24, 2015, the Court entered an order
setting the hearing on the Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Partial Settlement for May 14, 2015. The Stipulation does not
resolve Plaintiffs' complaint against the Company or its former
officers or directors.

Discovery is stayed pending a decision on Plaintiffs' Rule 60(b)
Motion.  No trial date has been set.


SINCERE CARE: Faces "Kazansky" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roman Kazansky, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Sincere Care Agency, Inc., Case No. 508506/2015 (N.Y.
Sup Ct., July 9, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the New York Labor
Law.

Sincere Care Agency, Inc. provides home health care to frail
elderly individuals who live in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
      NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, PC
      2747 Coney Island Avenue
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Telephone: (718) 808-2224
      Facsimile: (800) 789-9396
      E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


SLF SERIES G: "Dorsten" Suit Removed to Florida District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Bo Brower removes the lawsuit titled Dorsten, et al. v.
SLF Series G, LLC, et al., Case No. CACE 13018807, from the
Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward
County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (Ft. Lauderdale).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 0:15-cv-61235-BB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are seeking in excess of $22 million in damages --
not including the demand for treble damages.  The action seeks
equitable and monetary relief for, among other things, non-payment
on mortgage notes and rescission of sale based upon the alleged
fraudulent conveyance, and violation of State and Federal
Securities Laws.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ernest J. Myers, Esq.
          MARCUS & MYERS, P.A.
          1515 Park Center Drive, Suite 2G
          Orlando, FL 32835
          Telephone: (407) 447-2550
          Facsimile: (407) 447-2551
          E-mail: emyers@marcusmyerslaw.com

Defendant SLF Series G, LLC, is represented by:

          Francis Xavier Sexton, Jr., Esq.
          LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER GROSSMAN
          201 South Biscayne Blvd., 22nd Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 403-8788
          Facsimile: (305) 403-8789
          E-mail: fxs@lklsg.com

               - and -

          Marian Grace Kennady, Esq.
          VAN NEXX LAW FIRM
          1239 E. Newport Center Drive, Suite 110
          Deerfield Beach, FL 33442
          Telephone: (954) 571-2031
          Facsimile: (954) 571-2033
          E-mail: mkennady@cfclaw.com

Defendant Bo Brower is represented by:

          Jordan Scott Cohen, Esq.
          WICKER, SMITH, O'HARA, MCCOY & FORD, P.A.
          515 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 467-6405
          E-mail: jcohen@wickersmith.com

               - and -

          Brandon Jay Hechtman, Esq.
          WICKER, SMITH, O'HARA, MCCOY & FORD, P.A.
          Regions Bank Building, Suite 800
          2800 Ponce de Leon Boulevard
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 448-3939
          Facsimile: (305) 441-1745
          E-mail: bhechtman@wickersmith.com


SOLAZYME INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announced that a class action has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers (the "Class") of
Solazyme, Inc. ("Solazyme" or the "Company") securities during the
period of February 27, 2014 and November 5, 2014 (the "Class
Period"), including those traceable to either of Solazyme's two
registered public offerings on March 27, 2014 (the "Offerings"),
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and/or
the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company and certain of its
officers (the "Complaint").

Solazyme is a San Francisco-based bio-products company that
produces sustainable oils from microalgae. The Company uses an
industrial fermentation process to transform plant-based sugars
into triglyceride oils, which are used in a wide range of products

On March 25, 2014, Solazyme filed a Registration Statement with
the SEC for the Offerings.  On March 27, 2014, Solazyme filed a
Prospectus in connection with the offering of $149.5 million in
convertible notes paying 5% interest and scheduled to mature in
2019 (the "Notes").  On the same day, Solazyme filed a Prospectus
for the offering of 5.75 million shares of stock at $11 per share
for aggregate gross proceeds of approximately $63.25 million.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, and in the
Registration Statements and Prospectuses for the Offerings,
defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose adverse information about Solazyme's
construction progress, development and production capacity at its
renewable oils production facility located in Moema, Brazil (the
"Moema Facility").

Specifically, the Complaint alleges defendants' statements were
false and misleading because they failed to disclose that the
Moema Facility was experiencing construction delays due to
insufficient access to electricity and steam utility services, and
that these challenges would prohibit the Moema Facility from
scaling its capacity production as projected.  As a result of
these false and misleading statements and/or omissions, Solazyme
securities traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class
Period.

On November 5, 2014, Solazyme acknowledged significant
construction delays at the Moema Facility and revealed for the
first time that it would "narrow [its] production focus to smaller
volumes of higher value products at . . . Moema" and would be
"prioritizing cash management and product margin over a rapid
capacity ramp."

On this news, the price of the Company's stock declined $4.35 per
share, over 58%, on November 6, 2014, and the market price of
Solazyme's Notes declined by $235.00 per Note, over 30%, on
November 7, 2014, the next session in which the Notes traded.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members
who purchased Solazyme notes or shares during the Class Period.
If you purchased Solazyme securities as described above, and
either lost money on the transaction or still hold the security,
you may wish to join in this action to serve as lead plaintiff.
In order to do so, you must meet certain requirements set forth in
the applicable law and file appropriate papers no later than
August 24, 2015.

A "lead plaintiff" is a representative party that acts on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation.  In order to
be appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Bernstein Liebhard
LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.


SPECIALIZED BICYCLE: Recalls Pedal Axle Extenders
-------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Specialized Bicycle Components Inc., of Morgan Hill, Calif.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 6,500 Pedal Axle Extenders
(in addition about 380 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The Pedal Axle Extenders can break, and the rider can lose
control, posing a fall hazard.

This recall involves Specialized Body Geometry Pedal Axle
Extenders that are used to extend the outward reach of the pedals.
They are sold in pairs and mount directly into the bicycle crank
arms. Pedal extenders are made of stainless steel and fit a 9/16
inch pedal thread. They are labeled with an "L" and an "R".

There have been 10 reports of the pedal extenders breaking,
including two reports of minor injuries, involving scrapes and
bruises.

Pictures of the Recalled Products are available at:
http://is.gd/U1dGBt

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
Authorized Specialized retailers and online at www.specialized.com
from January 2009 to June 2015 for about $40.

Consumers should stop using the recalled pedal extenders
immediately and return them to an authorized Specialized retailer
for a full refund.


STERICYCLE INC: Settled "Sawyer" Clas Action
--------------------------------------------
Stericycle, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 21, 2015, that on May
20, 2015, the Company entered into a settlement agreement to
resolve all claims made against the Company and certain of its
subsidiaries in Sawyer v. Stericycle, et al., Case No. 2015 CH
07190 (the "TCPA Action"), a class action complaint pending in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois (the "Court").

The Company said, "The TCPA Action is the successor lawsuit to the
class action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Case 1:14-cv-02070) that we have
previously disclosed and that was dismissed pursuant to the
parties' joint stipulation of dismissal. The TCPA Action alleges
that from 2010 to 2014 we violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act
of 2005, by sending facsimile advertisements to plaintiffs or
putative class members that either were unsolicited and/or did not
contain a valid opt-out notice. We have denied all liability for
the claims made in the TCPA Action but have agreed to settle to
avoid the expense, burden and inherent risk and uncertainty of
litigation."

"Under the terms of the settlement agreement entered into with the
two class representatives, we agreed to make available a fund of
$45.0 million (the "Settlement Fund") to pay class members who
submit a valid claim form within a 90-day period, to pay an
incentive award to each of the class representatives, to pay
attorneys' fees and expenses to plaintiffs' attorneys, and to pay
fees and costs of a third-party settlement administrator (the
"Settlement"). The plaintiffs' attorneys are seeking attorneys'
fees of one-third of the Settlement Fund, plus out-of-pocket
expenses, to be paid from the Settlement Fund. As part of the
Settlement, we do not admit to any of the allegations in the TCPA
Action and will be completely released from any claims related to
faxes sent by us or on our behalf from March 25, 2010 through
April 30, 2015.

"The Settlement is subject to preliminary and final approval by
the Court. We anticipate that preliminary approval will be granted
sometime in June 2015, at which time notice of the Settlement and
the accompanying claim form will be sent to members of the
settlement class. Final approval of the Settlement is expected to
occur approximately 120 days after the notice and claim forms are
distributed to class members. In view of the Settlement, we have
recorded a pre-tax accrual of $45.0 million in accrued liabilities
on our consolidated balance sheet and a pre-tax charge of $45.0
million in selling, general and administrative expenses on our
consolidated statement of income for the quarter ending June 30,
2015. We anticipate making payments from the Settlement Fund as
described above sometime in the fourth quarter of 2015."


SUNRISE GLOBAL: Recalls GreenWorks Blower/Vacs Due to Fire Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Sunrise Global Marketing LLC, of Mooresville, N.C., owns the
GreenWorks brand, announced a voluntary recall of about 14,000
GreenWorks blower/vacs. Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The blower/vac's motor can catch fire, posing fire and burn
hazards.

This recall involves GreenWorks 12 amp electric blower/vacs. The
blower/vacs have a green motor housing and a black blower tube and
restrictor nozzle. They measure 12 inches high and 34 inches long.
Recalled blower/vacs have model number 24022 with a serial number
between GWS0350001 through GWS2280500 or model number 24072 with a
serial number between GWR1310001 through GWS2281100. The model
number, serial number, "greenworks" and "ELECTRIC BLOWER/MULCHER
WITH BAG" are printed on the side of the motor housing.  Model
24022 has a two-speed switch. Model 24072 has a variable speed
switch.

Sunrise Global Marketing has received three reports of the
blower/vacs catching fire. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products are available at:
http://is.gd/BIJHFO

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Menards, Magic Mart and Mowtown stores nationwide and online at
Amazon.com, atgstores.com, blishmize.com, build.com, chp.com,
cpooutlets.com, globalindustrial.com,  Greenworktools.com,
hayneedle.com, homedepot.com, johnelandis.com, Kmart.com,
Lowes.com, magicmartstores.com, maxtools.com, Menards.com,
mowtownusa.com, overstock.com, powerequipmentdirect.com,
reisshardware.com, samsclub.com, scotsco.com, Sears.com,
seventhavenue.com, smithssc.com, Target.com, thehardwarecity.com,
unbeatablesale.com,Walmart.com, wayfair.com and 123greetings.com
from February 2012 through June 2015 for between $30 and $70.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled blower/vacs
and contact Sunrise Global Marketing for a full refund.


SYMANTEC CORP: Agreement in Principle Reached in Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Symantec Corporation said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company
reached agreement in principle with the plaintiffs in a class
action lawsuit under which the Company will pay the plaintiffs $30
million.

On January 24, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and its previous e-commerce vendor Digital River, Inc.
The lawsuit alleged violations of California's Unfair Competition
Law, the California Legal Remedies Act and unjust enrichment
related to prior sales of Extended Download Service (EDS) and
Norton Download Insurance (NDI).  On March 31, 2014, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota certified a class of
all people who purchased these products between January 24, 2005,
and March 10, 2011.

"In April 2015, we reached agreement in principle with the
plaintiffs under which the Company will pay the plaintiffs $30
million. As we consider this settlement amount now estimable and
probable, we have recorded it as an offset to revenue during the
year ended April 3, 2015. The Company's management excluded this
item when evaluating its ongoing operating performance, and
therefore excluded this loss when presenting non-GAAP financial
measures," the Company said.


TARGET CORP: Recalls Circo Night Lights Due to Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Target Corp., of Minneapolis, Minn., announced a voluntary recall
of about 143,000 Circo Night Lights. Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The battery can overheat and cause the night light to melt, posing
a fire hazard.

This recall involves battery-operated night lights with an AC
adapter included.  The night light collection includes a pink
hedgehog, a blue bird, a yellow rocket, an orange dino egg, a
white soccer ball and a green shark.  The model numbers are
printed on the bottom side of the night lights.

  Name          Model Number   Color      Size
  ----          ------------   -----      -----
  Hedgehog      060-02-1397    Pink       3.5"(h)x 5.5"(w)
  Bird          060-02-1398    Blue       4.0"(h)x6.5"(w)
  Rocket        060-02-1399    Yellow     6.0"(h)x4.75"(w)
  Dino Egg      060-02-1400    Orange     6.0"(h)x4.75"(w)
  Soccer Ball   060-02-1401    White      5.0"(h)x5.25"(w)
  Shark         060-02-1402    Green      3.5"(h)x6.9"(w)

Target has received two reports of the night lights overheating,
including one report of a fire that damaged a consumer's dresser,
wall and plug-in. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products are available at:
http://is.gd/QOT2b0

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Target stores nationwide and Target.com from October 2014 through
May 2015 for about $15.

Consumers should immediately stop using, unplug and return the
recalled night lights to any Target store for a full refund.


TEAVANA CORP: Recalls Glass Pitchers Due to Burn Hazards
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Teavana Corp., of Seattle, Wash., announced a voluntary recall of
about 52,400 Tristan glass pitchers (in addition, 4,400 were sold
in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The glass pitchers can break or leak, posing laceration and/or
burn hazards to consumers if filled with hot tea.

This recall involves 64 oz. Tristan glass pitchers for hot or cold
tea. They have a glass handle, stainless steel infuser and a lid
and base that are made of flexible black silicone. The pitchers
measure about 12 inches tall and 4 inches in diameter.  The
Teavana logo is printed on the bottom. Style #30593000064 and
SKU#11034874 are printed on the pitchers' box.

Teavana has received 50 reports of the glass pitchers breaking or
leaking, including three reports of lacerations and two minor
burns.

Pictures of the Recalled Products are available at:
http://is.gd/3Nqneh

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Teavana stores nationwide and online at www.Teavana.com from May
2012 through June 2015 for about $50.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled glass
pitchers and return them to a Teavana store location (except for
two stores: Columbia Mall, Columbia, Maryland, and Dallas-Fort
Worth Airport, Texas) or contact Teavana for a free replacement 66
oz. infusion tea pitcher plus a $25 Teavana gift card or for a
Teavana gift card for the purchase price plus tax.


TOTAL HOMECARE: Faces "Jim" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fredericka Jim v. Total Homecare Solutions, LLC and THS Healthcare
Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00456-MRB (S.D. Ohio, July 10,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of providing supportive
homecare at private homes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
      Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
      SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
      815 Superior Ave., E. Ste. 1325
      Cleveland, OH 44114
      Telephone: (440) 498-9100
      Facsimile: (216) 621-1094
      E-mail: rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
              jfscld@yahoo.com


TOWERS WATSON: Faces NJ Building Suit Over Proposed Willis Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey Building Laborers' Statewide Annuity Fund and New
Jersey Building Laborers' Statewide Pension Fund, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Towers Watson & Co.,
et al., Case No. 11270-CB (Del. Ch., July 9, 2015), is brought on
behalf of all stockholders of Towers Watson & Co., to enjoin the
proposed acquisition of Towers by Willis Group Holdings plc, for
an fair price and inadequate consideration.

Towers Watson & Co. is a leading global professional services
company that helps organizations improve performance through
effective people, risk, and financial management.

Willis Group Holdings plc provides a broad range of insurance
brokerage, reinsurance, and risk management consulting services to
clients worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Gregory Mark Nespole, Esq.
      Anita B. Kartalopoulous, Esq.
      Gloria Kui Melwani, Esq.
      Correy A. Kamin, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      E-mail: nespole@whafh.com
              Kartalopoulous@whafh.com
              melwani@whafh.com
              Kamin@whafh.com


TOWERS WATSON: Faces "Stein" Suit Over Proposed Willis Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shiva Stein, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., Case No. 11271-CB (Del.
Ch., July 9, 2015), is brought on behalf of all stockholders of
Towers Watson & Co., to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Towers
by Willis Group Holdings plc, for an fair price and inadequate
consideration.

Towers Watson & Co. is a leading global professional services
company that helps organizations improve performance through
effective people, risk, and financial management.

Willis Group Holdings plc provides a broad range of insurance
brokerage, reinsurance, and risk management consulting services to
clients worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TOWERS WATSON: Faces Atlanta Firefighters Suit Over Willis Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The City Of Atlanta Firefighters' Pension Fund, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Towers
Watson & Co., et al., Case No. 11275-CB (Del. Ch., July 10, 2015),
is brought on behalf of all stockholders of Towers Watson & Co.,
to enjoin the proposed acquisition of Towers by Willis Group
Holdings plc, for an fair price and inadequate consideration.

Towers Watson & Co. is a leading global professional services
company that helps organizations improve performance through
effective people, risk, and financial management.

Willis Group Holdings plc provides a broad range of insurance
brokerage, reinsurance, and risk management consulting services to
clients worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
      Craig J. Springer, Esq.
      ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC
      3801 Kennett Pike
      Building C, Suite 305
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Telephone: (302) 504-4967
      Facsimile: (302) 397-2681
      E-mail: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com
              cspringer@andrewsspringer.com

         - and -

      Joseph E. White, III, Esq.
      Jonathan M. Stein, Esq.
      Adam Warden, Esq.
      SAXENA WHITE, P.A.
      5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601
      Boca Raton, FL 33486
      Telephone: (561) 206-6713
      Facsimile: (888) 458-9055
      E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
              jstein@saxenawhite.com
              awarden@saxenawhite.com


TRANSUNION CORP: Must Face Suit Over Terrorist List, Judge Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reported that TransUnion, a
leading U.S. consumer reporting agency, must face a class action
accusing it of violating federal law by mistakenly reporting that
thousands of individuals were on a government list of potential
terrorists, a federal judge ruled.

In an order, U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler said the sheer
number of consumers reported as potential terrorists makes it
likely that a significant number were inaccurately tagged. The
consumers are represented by lawyers at Francis & Mailman and the
Evans Law Firm.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Texts Not Considered as Telemarketing
--------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that for the second
time this year, a federal judge in San Francisco has determined
that Uber Technologies Inc. is a transportation company, not a
pure technology company in the software business.

Lawyers for Uber have staunchly maintained that its primary
business is a software platform linking customers and drivers, as
they've sought to fend off employment litigation and new
regulations.

But in a decision allowing a text-spamming suit to move forward
against Uber, U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar of the Northern
District of California on July 17 found that Uber sells
"transportation services" rather than software.

In the 17-page order, Judge Tigar adopted the reasoning previously
laid out by his Northern District colleague Edward Chen, who found
that Uber's use of an app and software made it no more of a
technology company than Yellow Cab's use of CB radios made it one.

Judge Tigar wrote that he agreed "with Judge Chen's reasoning"
that Uber "is not a technology company that primarily sells
software."

In this case, the determination could help Uber, which claims the
text messages at issue in the suit should be considered recruiting
materials, not telemarketing, and therefore don't require written
consent by the recipient.

Judge Tigar's ruling is not a complete win for Uber and its legal
team at Locke Lord as it allows claims to move forward on behalf
of four plaintiffs who started but didn't complete online
applications to become Uber drivers.  They claim that Uber
bombarded them with unsolicited texts with messages such as "Get
on the road ASAP."  Judge Tigar dismissed claims brought by lead
plaintiff Kerry Reardon, who completed her application.

Plaintiffs attorney Hassan Zavareei had tried to capitalize on
litigation positions taken by Uber in response to a proposed class
action challenging the company's decision to treat drivers as
independent contractors rather than employees.  That case is
pending before Judge Chen.  Mr. Zavareei argued in a filing
earlier this year that Uber shouldn't be allowed to argue its
drivers are software "customers" in one courtroom while claiming
in another that they are recruits.  Mr. Zavareei maintained that
Uber had admitted in the employment suit that its text messages
weren't employment offers but instead were "marketing to [drivers]
to entice them to license its lead-generation service."

But Judge Tigar wrote that his agreement with Chen's take on
Uber's business model only reinforces Uber's argument that the
text messages weren't telemarketing under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA).

"The texts from Uber seeking to recruit drivers were not attempts
to promote 'a good' (its application) to those drivers, but
instead was an attempt to recruit drivers so that those potential
drivers could provide services to riders," Judge Tigar wrote.

Under the law, telemarketing texts require "prior express written
consent" from recipients while employment solicitations don't
require consent to be in writing.

Mr. Zavareei didn't immediately respond to messages on July 20.
Locke Lord's Susan Welde -- swelde@lockelord.com -- who represents
Uber in the suit, didn't respond to a voicemail message.

A company spokesperson said in an email that the company was
pleased that "an entire category of plaintiffs" was dismissed from
the suit.

"We believe that individualized inquiries into the status of each
of the remaining plaintiffs will demonstrate that this case has no
merit as a class-action suit," she said.

Also on July 17, Judge Tigar allowed a separate false-advertising
suit brought by a group of California taxi companies to move
forward against Uber.  The cab companies sued Uber in March over
the company's claims that it offered the "safest rides on the
road."

Judge Tigar knocked out claims related to certain statements Uber
officials made about safety in the media finding they were
protected speech under the First Amendment.  He also found that
the cab companies lacked standing to sue under California's Unfair
Competition Law, since they didn't allege that they personally
relied on the statements.

But the judge allowed the cab companies' core Lanham Act claim to
move forward.  A reasonable consumer, he wrote, could falsely
conclude from Uber's statements "that an Uber ride is objectively
and measurably safer than a ride provided by a taxi or other
competitor service."

Benjamin Shiftan of Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, who represents the
cab companies in the false-advertising case, said on July 20:
"We're definitely pleased that the Lanham claim is still alive and
we're going to get a chance to litigate the case and conduct
discovery."

An Uber spokesperson said the company was pleased that Judge Tigar
dismissed "a substantial portion of the claims" in the false-
advertising suit.

Uber's innovative technology allows it to focus on safety for
riders and driver-partners before, during and after a ride in a
way most alternatives cannot," the spokesperson said.  Lawyers
from Irell & Manella represent Uber in the false-advertising case.


UNITED STATES: OPM Faces Class Suit Over Breach of Data
-------------------------------------------------------
John Robeiro, writing for Computerworld.com, reported that a
federal employees' union has filed a lawsuit against the U.S.
Office of Personnel Management, its leadership and a contractor,
alleging that their negligence led to a data breach that
compromised the personal information of millions of current,
former and prospective government employees and contractors.

Since at least 2007, the OPM has been warned by its Office of
Inspector General of significant deficiencies in its cyber
security protocol, according to the proposed class-action suit
filed by the American Federation of Government Employees in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

However, OPM failed to take measures to correct these issues,
despite handling massive amounts of federal applicants' private,
sensitive and confidential information, it added. The data handled
by the OPM included a 127-page form, called Standard Form 86,
which requires applicants for security clearances to answer
questions on their financial histories and investment records,
children's and relatives' names, foreign trips and contacts with
foreign nationals, past residences and names of neighbors and
close friends, according to the filing.

The lawsuit names the OPM, its director, Katherine Archuleta, and
its chief information officer, Donna Seymour. Also charged is
KeyPoint Government Solutions, a provider of investigative and
risk mitigation services to the OPM.

The federal personnel agency announced on June 4 that it had been
the victim of a massive cyberattack that could have compromised
the personally identifiable information of up to 4 million
persons. It said that as the investigation was ongoing, other
exposures of personal information could come to light. Some
accounts have put the figure of people that could be affected as
high as 18 million.

When KeyPoint, which handled the majority of federal background
checks, announced in December that it had faced a computer network
breach, a spokeswoman of the OPM said there was "no conclusive
evidence to confirm sensitive information was removed from the
system" but that the OPM would notify 48,439 federal workers that
their information may have been exposed, according to the
complaint.

But after the OPM hack became public, Archuleta and the OPM
identified the misuse of a KeyPoint user credential as the source
of the breach, it added.

Despite knowing about the KeyPoint breach and explicit warnings
about shortcomings in its cybersecurity protocol and the dangers
associated with those deficiencies, the OPM leaders chose not to
shut down the agency's software systems, according to the
employees.

"The combination of KeyPoint's cybersecurity weaknesses and the
OPM's cybersecurity failures caused the massive scope of the OPM
Breach," according to the filing by the AFGE jointly with one
current and another former employee of the federal government, who
had both received notifications that their personal identifiable
information may have been exposed in the OPM data breach.

The petition asks the court for certification of the case as a
class action and appropriate relief to the plaintiffs and class
members, including actual and statutory damages. It also wants a
ruling that KeyPoint "breached its duty to implement reasonable
security measures to safeguard and protect" the personally
identifiable information of the plaintiffs and the class members
that was compromised in the OPM breach. The employees have asked
for a jury trial.

KeyPoint and OPM could not be immediately reached for comment.

The woes of the OPM continue to mount after it was reported that a
second breach compromised a database containing copies of Standard
Form 86 questionnaires that's used by people seeking a national
security clearance. The agency has come under scathing criticism
from lawmakers and experts over its handling of the crisis.

On, OPM said it was temporarily suspending its E-QIP system, a
Web-based platform used to complete and submit background
investigation forms, as a proactive security measure after a
vulnerability was found in the system. The OPM said there was no
evidence that the vulnerability had been exploited.


U.S. BANK: Wins in Two Missouri Mortgage Fees Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
James Dornbrook, writing for Kansas City Business Journal,
reported that two rulings by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
will make life more difficult for certain class-action suits under
Missouri law.

The two cases upheld a successful defense by Leslie Greathouse, a
partner at Spencer Fane Britt & Browne LLP in Kansas City, for
some of the nation's largest banks and mortgage companies.

In Thomas v. U.S. Bank and Wong v. U.S. Bank, the plaintiffs
argued that they were charged improper mortgage fees. Both cases
obtained class-action status, bringing in hundreds of other
plaintiffs and creating several more defendants. Overall, the
defendants could have faced damages exceeding $100 million in each
case. However, the district court dismissed both, a ruling the 8th
Circuit affirmed.

Greathouse said the cases could have been exceptionally damaging
to her clients. She was pleased that the appeals court upheld the
decision and said the two cases created important precedents.

In the Wong case, the appeals court said plaintiffs couldn't bring
a class action against the banks in question because they didn't
directly cause the injury and there was no proof of conspiracy or
a concerted scheme to cause harm.

In the Thomas case, the appeals court ruled that the statute of
limitations had expired, based on how the 8th Circuit interpreted
"tolling," which is a pause in the statute of limitations while a
case is underway. The appeals court ruled that tolling applies
only as outlined by a state legislature, and Missouri has no rules
governing tolling for class actions.

"So you can see how that's a big deal for the purposes of class
actions in Missouri," Greathouse said. "It's a very discrete issue
of law but a really important one for parties in litigation and
lawyers involved in these cases."

Ms. Greathouse may be reached at:

         Leslie Greathouse, Esq.
         SPENCER FANE BRITT & BROWNE LLP
         1000 Walnut Street, Suite 1400
         Kansas City, MO 64106-2140
         Tel: (816) 474-8100
         Fax: (816) 474-3216
         Email: lgreathouse@spencerfane.com


V & J NATIONAL: Suit Seeks to Recover Minimum Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Perry, on behalf of herself and all other employees
similarly situated v. V & J National Enterprises, LLC; V & J
United Enterprises, LLC; V & J Holding Companies, Inc.; V & J
Employment Service, Inc.; Valerie Daniels Carter, and John
Daniels, Jr., Case No. 6:15-cv-06353-MAT (W.D.N.Y., June 10, 2015)
seeks to recover minimum wages, injunctive relief and declaratory
relief to redress the alleged deprivation of rights secured to the
Plaintiff and the class under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate restaurants in the state of New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Mullin, Esq.
          FERR & MULLIN, P.C.
          7635 Main Street Fishers
          Po Box 440
          Fishers, NY 14453-0440
          Telephone: (585) 869-0210
          E-mail: rlmullin@FerrMullinLaw.com


VECTREN UTILITY: SIGECO Claimants File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
During the third quarter of 2014, Vectren Utility Holdings, Inc.
was notified of claims by a group of current and former SIGECO
employees ("claimants") who participated in the Pension Plan for
Salaried Employees of SIGECO ("SIGECO Salaried Plan").  That plan
was merged into the Vectren Corporation Combined Non-Bargaining
Retirement Plan ("Vectren Combined Plan") effective July 1, 2000.
The claims relate to the claimants' election for benefits to be
calculated under the Vectren Combined Plan's cash-balance formula
rather than the SIGECO Salaried Plan formula in effect prior to
the formation of Vectren.

Vectren Utility Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that on March 12, 2015,
certain claimants filed a Class Action Complaint against the
Vectren Combined Plan and the Company in federal district court
requesting that a class be certified and for various relief
including that the Combined Plan be reformed and benefits
thereunder be recalculated. The Company denied the allegations set
forth in the Complaint.

The Company is unable to quantify any potential impact of the
claims. The Company does not expect, however, the outcome would
have a material adverse effect on the Company's liquidity, results
of operations or financial condition.


VERTEX REFINING: Unit Named as Defendant in Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Vertex Refining LA, LLC, the wholly-owned subsidiary of Vertex
Operating, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Vertex Energy, Inc., was
named as defendant in a lawsuit filed in the Twenty-Fourth
Judicial District For the Parish of Jefferson Louisiana on
January 6, 2015, Vertex Energy said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 19, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

Pursuant to the lawsuit, Stacy Davis, Becky Vallee and James A.
Block (the "Plaintiffs") made certain allegations against Vertex
Refining LA, LLC, Omega Refining and the manager of the Marrero,
Louisiana facility (the "Defendants"). The claims are structured
as class actions relating to certain operations performed at our
newly acquired re-refinery located in Marrero, Louisiana,
including the alleged emission of noxious and harmful substances.
The Plaintiffs allege they are part of a valid class due to the
fact that they live and work near the facility. The lawsuit
relates to alleged actions and inactions related to the facility
between 2012 to present and includes allegations relating to
violations of various Louisiana statutes, allegations relating to
the misrepresentation of information to the Louisiana Department
of Environmental Quality, allegations relating to violations of
hourly permitted emission limits, and alleged failure to report an
un-permitted point-source. The suit seeks damages for physical and
emotional injuries, pain and suffering, medical expenses and
deprivation of the use and enjoyment of Plaintiffs' homes. The
Plaintiffs further allege that there are estimated to be over
1,000 class members to the suit, provided that the proposed class
is yet to be certified.

"We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the allegations
made in the complaint, provided that at this stage of the
litigation, the Company has no basis of determining whether there
is any likelihood of material loss associated with the claims
and/or the potential outcome of the litigation," the Company said.


VIVINT SOLAR: Says Settlement Approval to Occur in Late 2015
------------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company
anticipates that approval of the settlement agreement in a class
action lawsuit to occur sometime in late 2015.

In December 2013, one of the Company's former sales
representatives, on behalf of himself and a purported class, filed
a complaint for unspecified damages, injunctive relief and
restitution in the Superior Court of the State of California in
and for the County of San Diego against Vivint Solar Developer,
LLC, one of the Company's subsidiaries, and unnamed John Doe
defendants alleging violations of the California Labor Code and
the California Business and Professions Code and seeking penalties
of an unspecified amount, interest on all economic damages and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

In January 2014, the Company filed an answer denying the
allegations in the complaint and asserting various affirmative
defenses. In late 2014, the parties agreed to terms of settlement
to resolve this case, depending on class participation.

Based on the Court's initial review of the settlement agreement,
the parties are discussing modifications relative to class
participation and other terms. Any final settlement agreement is
subject to court approval, which the Company anticipates to occur
sometime in late 2015.

The Company has recorded a $0.4 million reserve related to this
proceeding in its consolidated financial statements.


VIVINT SOLAR: Filed Answer to Technicians' Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company has filed
an answer to the amended complaint, denying liability and
asserting a number of defenses, in the class action filed by two
former installation technicians.

In September 2014, two former installation technicians of the
Company, on behalf of themselves and a purported class, filed a
complaint for damages, injunctive relief and restitution in the
Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of
San Diego against the Company and unnamed John Doe defendants. The
complaint alleges certain violations of the California Labor Code
and the California Business and Professions Code based on, among
other things, alleged improper classification of installer
technicians, installer helpers, electrician technicians and
electrician helpers, failure to pay minimum and overtime wages,
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, and failure
to provide wages on termination.

In December 2014, the original plaintiffs and three additional
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint with essentially the same
allegations.

On February 5, 2015, the Company filed an answer to the amended
complaint, denying liability and asserting a number of defenses.
The Company believes that it has strong defenses to the claims
asserted in this matter, and the Company intends to defend the
case vigorously. Although the Company cannot predict with
certainty the ultimate resolution of this suit, it does not
believe this matter will have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, cash flows or financial
condition.


VIVINT SOLAR: Filed Motion to Dismiss 2 Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------
Vivint Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Company has filed
a motion to dismiss two putative class action lawsuits.

In November and December 2014, two putative class action lawsuits
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York against the Company, its directors, certain of its
officers and the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering of common stock alleging violation of securities laws and
seeking unspecified damages. In January 2015, the Court ordered
these cases to be consolidated into the earlier filed case, Hyatt
v. Vivint Solar, Inc. et al., 14-cv-9283 (KBF). The plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint in February 2015.

On May 6, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint. The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and
intends to defend the case vigorously. The Company is unable to
estimate a range of loss, if any, that could result were there to
be an adverse final decision. If an unfavorable outcome were to
occur in this case, it is possible that the impact could be
material to the Company's results of operations in the period(s)
in which any such outcome becomes probable and estimable.


VOLTARI CORPORATION: Dismissal of Complaint Under Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
Voltari Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that an appeal on the
dismissal of a third amended complaint in a securities class
action is pending.

"We previously announced that Joe Callan filed a putative
securities class action complaint in the U.S. District Court,
Western District of Washington at Seattle on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of Motricity
between June 18, 2010 and August 9, 2011 or in Motricity's initial
public offering," the Company said.

"Motricity, which was our predecessor registrant, is now our
wholly-owned subsidiary and has changed its name to Voltari
Operating Corp. The defendants in the case were Motricity, certain
of our current and former directors and officers, including Ryan
K. Wuerch, James R. Smith, Jr., Allyn P. Hebner, James N. Ryan,
Jeffrey A. Bowden, Hunter C. Gary, Brett Icahn, Lady Barbara Judge
CBE, Suzanne H. King, Brian V. Turner; and the underwriters in
Motricity's initial public offering, including J.P. Morgan
Securities, Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., Deutsche Bank Securities
Inc., RBC Capital Markets Corporation, Robert W. Baird & Co
Incorporated, Needham & Company, LLC and Pacific Crest Securities
LLC.

"The complaint alleged violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, (the "Securities Act") and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act"), by all defendants and under Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act by Motricity and those of our former and current
officers who are named as defendants. The complaint sought, inter
alia, damages, including interest and plaintiff's costs and
rescission.

"A second putative securities class action complaint was filed by
Mark Couch in October 2011 in the same court, also related to
alleged violations under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act,
and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On November 7,
2011, the class actions were consolidated, and lead plaintiffs
were appointed pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act.

"On December 16, 2011, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
which added a claim under Section 12 of the Securities Act to its
allegations of violations of the securities laws and extended the
putative class period from August 9, 2011 to November 14, 2011.
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 11, 2012 and a
second amended complaint on July 11, 2012.

"On August 1, 2012, we filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint, which was granted on January 17, 2013.

A third amended complaint was filed on April 17, 2013.

"On May 30, 2013, we filed a motion to dismiss the third amended
complaint, which was granted by the Court on October 1, 2013. On
October 31, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the
dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. On April 25, 2014, the plaintiffs filed their opening
appellate brief and on July 24, 2014 we filed our answering
brief."


VOXX INTERNATIONAL: Court Has Not Appointed Lead Plaintiff
----------------------------------------------------------
Voxx International Corporation said in its Form 10-K Annual for
the fiscal year ended February 28, 2015, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015, that the Court has not
entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff in a securities class
action suit filed by Brian Ford.

On July 8, 2014, a purported class action suit, styled Brian Ford
vs. VOXX International Corporation, et al., was filed against us
and two of our present executive officers in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York. The suit alleges that
defendants violated the federal securities laws by making false or
misleading statements between May 15, 2013 and May 14, 2014
regarding our earnings guidance for Fiscal 2014 and the
anticipated future performance of our business. The plaintiff
claims that these statements artificially inflated the price of
our stock and that purchasers of our stock during the relevant
period were damaged when the stock price later declined. The
plaintiff seeks the award of unspecified amount of damages on
behalf of the alleged class, counsel fees and costs. We believe we
have meritorious legal positions and defenses and will continue to
represent our interests vigorously in this matter.  On September
8, 2014, three members of the alleged class moved to be appointed
the lead plaintiff in the action.  To date, the Court has not
entered an order appointing a lead plaintiff.


WEIGHT WATCHERS: Still Facing Securities Litigation
---------------------------------------------------
Weight Watchers International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 14, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended April 4, 2015, that the Company
intends to defend the case, In re Weight Watchers International,
Inc. Securities Litigation.

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

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


WINDSOR CAFE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Martin Romero Luna, and all others similarly situated v. Windsor
Cafe Inc. dba Windsor Cafe, George Politis and Heaculis
Kontoyiannis, Case No. 1:15-cv-04098 (E.D.N.Y., July 13, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and for violations of the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own, operate and control a diner in Brooklyn, New
York, under the name of Windsor Cafe.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



WRIGHT MEDICAL: Second Restatement Bars Strict Liability Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a federal judge has ruled the Restatement (Second) of Torts bars
strict liability claims for medical devices, even though the
treatise does not specifically say so.

U.S. District Judge Cathy Bissoon of the Western District of
Pennsylvania dismissed most of plaintiff Roy R. Cogswell's claims
in his suit against Wright Medical Technology Inc., the maker of
Mr. Cogswell's hip implant.  Mr. Cogswell alleged a Wright Hip
System installed during his hip replacement was defective and
caused him to suffer serious medical complications.

Wright argued Mr. Cogswell's strict liability claims were barred
under the Second Restatement.  Mr. Cogswell retorted the Second
Restatement -- specifically Comment k, which states that some
products are "unavoidably unsafe" -- only bars strict liability
claims relating to prescription drugs, not medical devices.

While the Pennsylvania court system has been silent on whether
medical devices are considered unavoidably unsafe products,
Judge Bissoon said it was safe to assume that because there was no
exception to the Second Restatement to cover devices, the state
Supreme Court did not intend for devices to be exempt.

"Had the Pennsylvania Supreme Court intended an exception to the
strict liability rule, it presumably would have articulated one,"
Judge Bissoon said.  "Although the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has
not spoken directly to the issue of whether a strict-liability
manufacturing defect claim encompassed by Comment k is barred by
Pennsylvania law, precedent indicates that it would reach the
conclusion that such a claim is barred.  And, because medical
devices fall within the bounds of Comment k, just as prescription
drugs do, plaintiff's manufacturing defect claim will be dismissed
for failure to state a claim."

Judge Bissoon also pointed to the state Superior Court case of
Creazzo v. Medtronic, in which the court ruled there was no reason
that the same rationale in Comment k relating to prescription
drugs could not be applied to medical devices.  Judge Bissoon said
federal district courts have also applied the same standard to
medical devices.

Mr. Cogswell also argued that even if Comment k applies, it does
not bar him from making a manufacturing defect claim.

"There is currently a split among federal district courts applying
Pennsylvania law on the application of strict liability to
manufacturing defect claims," Judge Bissoon said.

Some have ruled that strict liability for manufacturing defects
would incentivize manufacturers to ensure quality control, Judge
Bissoon said, while others have dismissed such claims.

But pointing to the lack of precedent from the state Supreme
Court, Judge Bissoon said manufacturing defect claims fell within
the bounds of Comment k.

Judge Bissoon said the federal courts are also split on express
warranty claims for medical devices, one of Mr. Cogswell's
additional claims.

Mr. Cogswell cited Doughtery v. C.R. Bard, in which the Eastern
District court held that breach of express warranty claims against
manufacturers of prescription drugs and medical devices are not
barred under Pennsylvania law because of their contractual nature,
Judge Bissoon said.

"Numerous other courts, however, have barred express warranty
claims, relying on the statement in Hahn [v. Richter] that 'where
the adequacy of warnings associated with prescription drugs is at
issue . . . the manufacturer's negligence is the only recognized
basis of liability,'" Judge Bissoon said.

She added, "This court will follow the majority of Pennsylvania
federal courts and dismiss plaintiff's claim for breach of express
warranty for failure to state a claim as a matter of law."

Despite the dismissal of the majority of the plaintiff's claims,
the case was allowed to proceed with claims of loss of consortium,
negligent misrepresentation, and negligence.

Mr. Cogswell's attorney, Doug J. Olcott of Dallas W. Hartman P.C.
in New Castle, Pennsylvania, did not return a call seeking
comment.  Kenneth M. Argentieri -- kmargentieri@duanemorris.com --
of Duane Morris in Pittsburgh represented Wright and did not
return a call seeking comment.


XOOM CORPORATION: Faces Booth Suit Over Proposed PayPal Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Booth Family Trust on Behalf of Itself and All Others
Similarly Situated v. Xoom Corporation, et al., Case No. 11263-VCG
(Del. Ch., July 8, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public
stockholders of Xoom Corporation, to enjoin the proposed
acquisition of Xoom by PayPal Inc., through an inadequate
consideration and unfair price.

Xoom Corporation is a Delaware corporation that is engaged in the
digital consumer-to-consumer international money transfer
business.

PayPal Inc. is a Delaware corporation that provides digital money
transfer services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Cullin A. O'Brien, Esq.
      CULLIN O'BRIEN LAW, P.A.
      6541 N.E. 21st Way
      Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33308
      Telephone: (561) 676-6370
      E-mail: cullin@cullinobrien.com


YELP INC: Sued Over Failure to Distribute Delivery Drivers' Tips
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Kay and Esteban Polonski, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Yelp Inc. and Eat24, LLC, Case No.
3:15-cv-03228-JSC (N.D. Cal., July 10, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for unlawfully collecting, taking, or receiving
tips for the delivery of food and other items and failing to
distribute these tips to delivery drivers.

The Defendants operate a food ordering website and mobile platform
that covers about 20,000 restaurants throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael L. Schrag, Esq.
      Andre M. Mura, Esq.
      Steve A. Lopez, Esq.
      GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
      One Kaiser Plaza, Ste. 1125
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 350-9700
      Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
      E-mail: mls@classlawgroup.com
              amm@classlawgroup.com
              sal@classlawgroup.com


YIGAL-AZROUEL: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Daskas and Natasha Garner, individually and on behalf of
other persons similarly situated v. Yigal-Azrouel Inc., Case No.
652450/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., July 10, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages pursuant to the New York Labor Law.

Yigal-Azrouel Inc. owns and operates a women's clothing store with
a headquarters and principal place of business located at 225 West
39th Street, New York, New York 10018.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com

         - and -

      Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
      Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Telephone: (516) 873-9550
      E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com
              bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com


ZZIM USA: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Sanchez" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeronimo Pablo Sanchez and Manuela Gonzalez Ramirez, individually
and on behalf of other persons similarly situated v. ZZIM USA,
Inc., d/b/a Spa World or Long Life Spa World, and Sang K. Lee,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00893 (E.D. Va., July 10, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the minimum wage and
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Korean Style spa with its place
of business in Virginia at 13830-A10 Braddock Road, Centreville,
VA 20121.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hyunkweon Ryu, Esq.
      RYU & RYU PLC
      301 Maple Ave West, Suite 620
      Vienna, VA 22180
      Telephone: (703) 319-0001
      Facsimile: (703) 562-0787
      E-mail: michaelryu@ryulawgroup.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  * * *