CAR_Public/150731.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, July 31, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 152


                            Headlines


5514 KM: Recalls Bumper Bars for Strollers Due to Choking Hazard
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Court Certifies "Look Policy" Class Action
ALCON LABORATORIES: "Gray" Suit Consolidated With Contact Lens MDL
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "King" Suit Alleges Airfare Price-Fixing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Kraft" Suit Alleges Airfare Price-Fixing

AMADEUS GDS: "Kolman" Suit Alleges Antitrust Violation
ATLANTIC BLUE: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
ATLANTIC POWER: Canadian Judge Tosses Securities Class Action
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Suit Over Treasury Auction Manipulation
BELMONT MEAT: Recalls Beef Burger Products Due to Soy and Wheat

BP WEST COAST: Deadline to File Debit Card Fee Claims Extended
BP WEST COAST: Sept. 21 Unclaimed Money Allocation Hearing Set
BROADCOM CORP: Faces "Davies" Suit Alleging Gender Discrimination
C.M. & MCKAY: "Sheah" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
CASTLE ENTERPRISE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

CHOICE ENERGY: "Murray" TCPA Class Action Dismissed
CLEVELAND WHOLE SALE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Compensation
CONTINENTAL HOME: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
COOPERVISION INC: "Cesare" Suit Consolidated With Contact Lens MDL
CUBE INC: Recalls Eye Drops Products Due to Misbranding

DATAPRO INC: "Mino" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
ELI LILLY: Faces "Beard" Suit Alleging Cymbalta-Related Injuries
EMBARQ CORP: Court Addresses ERISA Limitations Provision in Ruling
EXXON MOBILE: Judge Denies Request to Amend Class Action Dismissal
FACEBOOK INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Shareholder's IPO Suit

FANNIE MAE: Must Defend Against "Unger" Wage & Hour Suit
FORD: Stanley Law Group Files Class Action Over Hacking Risk
FOXY LADY: Owners Seek Dismissal of Exotic Dancers' Suit
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Fed. Ct. Has Jurisdiction in Avandia Fee Dispute
GNC HOLDINGS: "De La Torre" Class Suit Transferred to Illinois

HARTE HANKS: "Shetzer" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
HARTFORD FIRE: Conn. SC Rules on Artie's Auto CUTPA Claim
HEALTHY BUTCHER: Recalls Smoked Fish Products Due to Clostridium
HEARTS WITH HOPE: "Anderson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
HIALEAH REY PIZZA: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

HOMEJOY INC: Faces Class Action Over WARN Act Violation
HQ FINE: Updates Sandwich Products Recall
HUSQVARNA CANADA: Recalls Rear Tiller Due to Injury Hazard
IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Court Delays $1-Bil. Payment to Quebec Smokers
INDIANA: Top BMV Official Questioned in "Convenience" Fee Suit

ITT EDUCATIONAL: Plaintiffs File Motion for Class Certification
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Defending Against Indiana Securities Litigation
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Defending Against Gallien Litigation
JFK MEDICAL: 11th Circuit Agrees to Hear Appeal in PIP Case
JOHNCOL INC: "Schnaudt" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

JPMORGAN CHASE: Connecticut to Get $2MM in Robo-Signing Settlement
KAISER PERMANENTE: "Sidlo" Suit Alleges ERISA Violation
KEURIG GREEN: Appeals Court Revives Shareholder Lawsuit
KOHLER CO: "Park-Kim" Suit Alleges Civil Code Violation
KNV FOOD: Recalls Biscuit Products Due to Egg, Milk, and Wheat

KRAFT CANADA: Recalls Cajun Barbeque Sauce Products
LIFELOCK INC: Glancy Prongay & Murray Files Securities Class Suit
LLOYDS BANKING: Pension Funds Sue Over Botched 2008 HBOS Takeover
LOUISVILLE DISTILLING: Court Trims Aliano False Advertising Suit
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Consumer Class Actions Still Pending in Va.

M3P DIRECTIONAL: "Seligman" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
MARK ANTHONY: Recalls Portable Device Chargers Due to Fire Hazard
MARSHALL FINANCING: Faces Suit Alleging Wrongful Termination
MARTHA STEWART: Faces "Steiner" Action Over Sequential Deal
MASTERCARD INC: Willkie Ex-Partner Roils Swipe-Fee Case Settlement

MCHENRY COUNTY, IL: Judge Dismisses Violators' Suit
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Court to Hear Class Certification Bid
MERCEDES-BENZ FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over BEE Scheme
MIDWAY RENT: Suit Alleges Consumers Act Violation
MYLAN: Faces Second Class Action Over Dutch Poison Pill

NAT'L COLLEGIATE: July 31 Likeness Claims Filing Deadline Set
NATURE'S BOUNTY: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Deceptive Packaging
NATURE'S BOUNTY: Faces "Sitt" Suit Over False Advertisement
NEIMAN MARCUS: 7th Cir. Reinstates Data Breach Class Action
NEIMAN MARCUS: Customers Get Favorable Ruling in Data Breach Suit

NESTLE PURINA: "Kacocha" Suit Alleges Misleading Advertisement
NESTLE USA: "Trazo" Plaintiff May Assert Unjust Enrichment Claim
NESTLE USA: "Coffey" Plaintiff May Assert Unjust Enrichment Claim
NESTLE USA: "Belli" Plaintiff May Assert Unjust Enrichment Claim
NIKE: Settles Class Action Over False FuelBand Claims

NORTHERN TREE: "Lemus" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
OHIO TEAMSTERS: Faces Suit Alleging Age and Gender Discrimination
ONTARIO POPPING: Recalls Popcorn Products Due to Milk
ORBITAL ATK: Parties Entered into MOU to Settle Lawsuit
OTTEROO CORPORATION: Recalls Inflatable Baby Float Products

PARTY CITY: Recalls Re-Lite Birthday Candles Due to Fire Risk
PRICELINE GROUP: "Singer" Suit Alleges Misleading Advertisement
PROVIDENCE COMMUNITY: Sued Over Illegal Collection of Fees
QUALITY NATURAL: Recalls Puffed Amaranth Products
REGIONS BANK: October 1 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

RJ REYNOLDS: Jury Awards $10.5 Million to Smoker's Family
RWLS LLC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SAKUMA BROTHERS: Wash. High Court Denies Bid for Attorneys' Fee
SIRIUS XM: Turtles Fails to Block $210MM Class Action Settlement
SOCIAL SECURITY: Must Face "Hart" Suit Over Disability Benefits

ST. CHARLES: Settles Class Action Over Unpaid Off-the-Clock Work
STEIN MART: Faces "Sperling" Suit Over False Advertising
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Oil Consumption Issues
TARGET CORPORATION: Recalls Circo(TM) Nightlight Collection
TEAVANA CORP: Recalls Glass Pitchers Due to Laceration Hazard

TEPPO PARTNERS: Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
TJ MAXX: Faces Class Action Over Bogus Price Comparisons
TREE OF LIFE: Recalls Hummus Dip Products Due to Sesame Seeds
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Continues to Defend Class Actions
TSUKIJI FISH: "Pillco" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

TUESDAY MORNING: Faces "McMahon" Suit Over FCRA Violation
TYCO ELECTRONICS: Must Pay $125.8MM to Shareholders, Court Rules
UBER CANADA: Faces C$400-Mil. Class Action in Ontario
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Trims "Reardon" TCPA Lawsuit
UCLA HEALTH: Faces Data Breach Class Action in California

UNILEVER CANADA: Recalls Dove Men Face Lotion
UNITED STATES: Half of Keepseagle Settlement Fund Remains Unspent
VERMONT: Faces Class Action Over Reach Up Benefit Cuts
VOLVO: 3rd Cir. Remands Sunroof Class Action to District Court
WAL-MART STORES: "De La Torre" Class Suit Transferred to Illinois

WAL-MART STORES: "Mesa" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Cote" Suit Over Spouse Insurance Benefits
WRIGHT MEDICAL: Executed MOU to Settle Delaware Action
WYNDHAM VACATION: Faces "Gray" Suit in California District Court
WYNDHAM VACATION: Arbitrator to Decide on Class Arbitration

XOOM CORPORATION: Faces Stockholder Action Over PayPal Deal
YONGKANG NUOGE: Recalls Air Purifiers Due to Counterfeit Mark

* Hong Kong Government Has Yet to Approve Class-Action Mechanism


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Formosa Plastics Wins Summary Judgment in "Lee"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals from PPG Unit's Ch. 11 Plan Are Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Financial Has $1.92-Bil. A&E Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 44,587 PI Claims at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court To Hear Oral Argument in "Dummitt"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oral Argument in "Suttner" Set for This Year
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Appeal in "Hellam" Is Pending
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. To Seek Review of "Amato" Ruling
ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA Safety Unit Has 2,237 Exposure Suits Pending


                            *********


5514 KM: Recalls Bumper Bars for Strollers Due to Choking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 23, 2015
Posting date: July 23, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Choking Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-53419

This recall involves the bumper bar sold with the 2015 models of
the VISTA stroller, the CRUZ stroller, and the Rumble Seat that
attaches to the frame of the stroller. Only strollers sold from
January  1st, 2015 to present are affected by this recall.

Strollers affected by this recall:

  Model Number     Brand Name                   UPC
  ------------     ----------                   ----
  0205-JKE         VISTA Stroller - Jake        817609012231
                   (Black/Carbon)
  0205-PAS         VISTA Stroller - Pascal      817609012262
                   (Grey/Carbon)
  0205-GEO         VISTA Stroller - Georgie     817609012224
                   (Marine Blue/Carbon)
  0205-MYA         VISTA Stroller - Maya        817609012255
                   (Gold/Carbon)
  0205-SAM         VISTA Stroller - Samantha    817609012279
                   (Amethyst/Carbon)
  0205-DNY         VISTA Stroller - Denny       817609012217
                   (Red/Silver)
  0205-LSY         VISTA Stroller - Lindsey     817609012248
                   (Wheat/Silver)
  0205-TAY         VISTA Stroller - Taylor      817609012286
                   (Indigo/Silver)
  0181-JKE         CRUZ Stroller - Jake         817609011449
                   (Black/Carbon)
  0181-PAS         CRUZ Stroller - Pascal       817609011470
                   (Grey/Carbon)
  0181-GEO         CRUZ Stroller - Georgie      817609011432
                   (Marine Blue/Carbon)
  0181-MYA         CRUZ Stroller - Maya         817609011463
                   (Gold/Carbon)
  0181-SAM         CRUZ Stroller - Samantha     817609011487
                   (Amethyst/Carbon)
  0181-DNY         CRUZ Stroller - Denny        817609011425
                   (Red/Silver)
  0181-LSY         CRUZ Stroller - Lindsey      817609011456
                   (Wheat/Silver)
  0181-MVE         CRUZ Stroller - Maeve        817609011494
                   (Lavender/Grey/Silver)
  0252-JKE         VISTA 2015 Rumble Seat -     817609011661
                   Jake (Black/Carbon)
  0252-PAS         VISTA 2015 Rumble Seat -     817609011685
                   Pascal (Grey/Carbon
  0250-GEO         VISTA 2015 Rumble Seat -     817609011777
                   Georgie (Marine Blue/Carbon)
  0252-MYA         VISTA 2015 Rumble Seat -     817609011784
                   Maya (Gold/Carbon)
  0252-SAM         VISTA 2015 Rumble Seat -     817609011791
                   Samantha (Amethyst/Carbon)
  0252-DNY         VISTA 2015 Rumble Seat -     817609011654
                   Denny (Red/Silver)
  0252-LSY         VISTA 2015 Rumble Seat -     817609011678
                   Lindsey (Wheat/Silver)
  0252-TAY         VISTA 2015 Rumble Seat -     817609011692
                   Taylor (Indigo/Silver)

The injected polyurethane foam on the bumper bar that attaches to
the front of the stroller and the rumble seat accessory may be
bitten off when a child continually bites on the bar, posing a
choking hazard.

Neither Health Canada nor 5514 KM Corporation has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
these bumper bars in Canada.

UPPAbaby has received 22 reports of foam pieces being released as
a result of biting. No injuries were reported.

Approximately 8,000 units were sold in Canada and approximately
71,000 were sold in the United States.

The recalled bumper bars were sold from January 1st, 2015 to May
5th, 2015 in Canada.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: UPPAbaby
              Hingham
              Massachusetts
              UNITED STATES

Distributor: 5514 KM Corporation
             Toronto
             Ontario
             CANADA

Consumers should immediately remove the bumper bar from the
stroller and contact UPPAbaby for a free bumper bar cover and
warning label. For more information, please contact UPPAbaby at
844-540-8694 or visit the firm's website.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/X4UwOp


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Court Certifies "Look Policy" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Bain, writing for Quartz, reports that Abercrombie & Fitch's
workplace "look policy" continues ticking people off.  The
American retailer of rumpled, California surf-prep is known for
dictating what its employees can and can't wear on the job.  It's
even gone as far as to tell its workers how to do their hair, and
not long ago its policy brought it all the way to the US Supreme
Court, after it refused to hire a Muslim woman because her hijab
didn't meet company guidelines.

Now the retailer has 62,000 employees lined up against it in a
class-action suit that was certified in California.  The employees
say that, in violation of the state's labor codes, Abercrombie
forces workers to wear its clothing, which means they have to buy
new clothes every time the company issues a new sales guide.  They
say the company won't reimburse them for the purchases, which is
also a violation.

Abercrombie allegedly also sent employees home or reduced their
shifts if they showed up to work and didn't meet the retailer's
strict requirements.  Reed Marcy, a lawyer for the plaintiffs,
described the action as discriminatory and illegal, in a story on
the Huffington Post.

Quartz has reached out to Abercrombie for comment and will update
this story as warranted.

Lately, when Abercrombie's name has come up in the news, it hasn't
been for anything good.  The company has drawn criticism for not
selling women's sizes XL or XXL because they don't want overweight
women wearing their clothes. It has been accused of harassment and
discrimination.  Then, after years of sales declines, its
controversial CEO, Michael Jeffries, stepped down.  Sales have
kept falling, and its stock has been in a four-year slide,
currently down to around $20 per share from more than $70 in 2011.


ALCON LABORATORIES: "Gray" Suit Consolidated With Contact Lens MDL
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Gray, et al. v. Alcon
Laboratories, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-02642, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Kansas to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida (Jacksonville).  The Florida District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:15-cv-00699-HES-JRK to the proceeding.

The lawsuit has been consolidated with the multidistrict
litigation captioned In re: Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 3:15-md-2626-J-20JRK.

The cases in the litigation concern the Defendants' alleged
anticompetitive conduct aimed at fixing, raising, maintaining and
stabilizing the prices at which disposable contact lenses are sold
in the United States.  At issue in all actions are the Defendants'
pricing policies that allegedly prevented resale of the subject
contact lenses below a minimum price.  The Plaintiffs are
purchasers of contact lenses and the retailer Costco, which sells
contact lenses at its warehouses.  The purchaser plaintiffs allege
that manufacturers of contact lenses conspired with each other and
with defendant ABB Optical Group, a wholesaler that is purportedly
the largest distributor of contact lenses, as well as with
independent eye care professionals represented by ABB and their
trade association, the American Optometric Association, to impose
minimum resale prices on certain contact lens lines.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas V. Bender, Esq.
          Dirk Hubbard, Esq.
          Brooke Blake Edenfield, Esq.
          WALTERS BENDER STROHBEHN & VAUGHAN, P.C.
          2500 City Center Square, 1100 Main
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 421-6620
          Facsimile: (816) 421-4747
          E-mail: tbender@wbsvlaw.com
                  dhubbard@wbsvlaw.com
                  bedenfield@wbsvlaw.com

               - and -

          Mark P. Bryant, Esq.
          BRYANT LAW CENTER, P.S.C.
          P.O. Box 1876
          601 Washington Street
          Paducah, KY 42003
          Telephone: (270) 442-1422
          Facsimile: (270) 443-8788
          E-mail: mark.bryant@bryantpsc.com

Defendant Bausch Lomb is represented by:

          James D. Griffin, Esq.
          BLACKWELL SANDERS PEPER MARTIN LLP
          40 Corporate Woods, Suite 1200
          9401 Indian Creek Parkway
          Overland Park, KS 66210-5388
          Telephone: (913) 696-7000

               - and -

          Lisa M. Bolliger, Esq.
          SCHARNHORST AST KENNARD GRIFFIN PC
          1100 Walnut, Suite 1950
          Kansas City, MO 64106-2143
          Telephone: (816) 268-9400
          Facsimile: (816) 268-9409
          E-mail: lbolliger@sakg.com

Defendant Cooper Vision, Inc. is represented by:

          Christopher S. Yates, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
          Telephone: (415) 391-0600
          Facsimile: (415) 395-8095
          E-mail: chris.yates@lw.com

               - and -

          David F. Oliver, Esq.
          BERKOWITZ, STANTON, BRANDT, WILLIAMS & SHAW, LLP
          2 Emanuel Cleaver II Blvd., Suite 500
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 561-7007
          Facsimile: (816) 561-1888
          E-mail: doliver@berkowitzoliver.com

Defendant ABB Optical Group is represented by:

          Kenneth J. Duvall, Esq.
          BERKOWITZ OLIVER WILLIAMS SHAW & EISENBRANDT, LLP
          2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 627-0268
          Facsimile: (816) 561-1888
          E-mail: kduvall@berkowitzoliver.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "King" Suit Alleges Airfare Price-Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Richard King, and all others similarly-situated v. American
Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., and
United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-03296 (N.D. Cal., July 15,
2015), to recover treble damages, equitable relief, costs of suit,
and reasonable attorneys' fees for violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1, under Sections 4 and 16 of the
Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. sections 15 and 26.

This action arises out of an alleged conspiracy by the four
largest commercial airlines in the United States -- American
Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Southwest Airlines, and United
Airlines -- which began no later than July 2, 2011, and continues
to the present (the "Class Period"), to fix, raise, maintain,
and/or stabilize prices for air passenger transportation services
within the United States by, among other things, colluding to
limit seat capacity.

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Azra Z. Mehdi, Esq.
      THE MEHDI FIRM, PC
      One Market
      Spear Tower, Suite 3600
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Tel: (415) 293-8039
      Fax: (415) 293-8001
      E-mail: azram@themehdifirm.com

         - and -

      Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Tel: (415) 633-1908
      Fax: (415) 358-4980
      E-mail: bsweeney@hausfeld.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Kraft" Suit Alleges Airfare Price-Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard E. Kraft, Vincent Panfil, and all others similarly-
situated v. American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc.,
Southwest Airlines Co., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-06216 (N.D. Ill., July 15, 2015), to recover treble damages,
injunctive relief and costs of suit under the of the U.S.
antitrust laws.

Plaintiffs brought this action pursuant to Sections 4 and 16 of
the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. sections 15 and 26, for violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1, as alleged in
this Class Action Complaint.

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Reid Malkinson, Esq.
      MALKINSON & HALPERN, P.C.
      208 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1750
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Tel: (312) 427-9600
      Fax: (312) 750-1912
      E-mail: jmalkinson@mhtriallaw.com


AMADEUS GDS: "Kolman" Suit Alleges Antitrust Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Bruce A. Kolman, Stephen P. Moore, Jeanne Rice and all others
similarly-situated v. Amadeus IT Group, S.A., Amadeus North
America, Inc., Amadeus Americas, Inc., Sabre Corporation fka Sabre
Holdings Corporation, Sabre Holdings Corporation, Sabre GLBL Inc.,
Sabre Travel International Limited, Travelport Worldwide Limited,
and Travelport LP dba Travelport, Case No. 1:15-cv-05625
(S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2015), seeks damages under Section 1 of the
Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1, Section 16 of the Clayton Act,
15 U.S.C. section 26 and state antitrust and consumer protection
laws.

Plaintiffs seek treble damages for injuries and damages they have
suffered as a result of Defendants' anticompetitive practices,
equitable relief in the form of an injunction prohibiting
Defendants from engaging in any further illegal conduct, and the
costs of this suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees.

The Defendants Amadeus IT Group, S.A., Amadeus North America,
Inc., Amadeus Americas, Inc., owned and operated the Amadeus
Global Distribution System ("Amadeus GDS"), through which it has
provided GDS services to the Airlines and other air carriers
operating to, from, and within the United States and entered into
agreements with one or more of the Airlines with respect to those
services.

The Defendants Sabre Corporation, Sabre Holdings, Sabre GLBL, and
Sabre Ltd. operate as a single enterprise, with Sabre Holdings
responsible for, among other things, negotiating and contracting
with the Airlines and other air carriers on behalf of Sabre GLBL
and directing their actions with respect to all agreements with
the Airlines. Sabre Holdings is headquartered in Southlake, Texas.

The Defendants Travelport Worldwide Limited and Travelport LP dba
Travelport owned and operated the Galileo and Worldspan global
distribution systems ("Travelport GDSs"), through which it has
provided GDS services to the Airlines and other air carriers
operating to, from, and within the United States and entered into
agreements with one or more of the Airlines with respect to those
services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Mayra V. Tarantino, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG
      570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
      Newark, NJ 07102
      Tel: (973) 623-3000
      Fax: (973) 623-0858
      E-mail: mtarantino@litedepalma.com

         - and -

      Krishna B. Narine, Esq.
      MEREDITH & NARINE
      100 S. Broad St., Suite 905
      Philadelphia, PA 19110
      Tel: (215) 564-5182
      Fax: (267) 687-1628
      E-mail: knarine@m-npartners.com


ATLANTIC BLUE: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosa Sanchez, and others similarly-situated v. Atlantic Blue Ocean
Corp. and Victor Vargas Sandoval, Case No. 2015-016146-CA-01 (Fla.
Cir. Ct., July 16, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and
minimum wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages,
obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs.

The Defendant is a domestic profit corporation in the State of
Florida. Victor Vargas Sandoval is a corporate officer of the
corporate defendant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason S. Remer, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Tel: (305) 416-5000
      Fax: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com


ATLANTIC POWER: Canadian Judge Tosses Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cara Salvatore and Jeff Overley, writing for Law360, report that a
Canadian judge on July 24 ended a securities class action against
Atlantic Power Corp. over its decision to slash its dividend,
saying there's no "reasonable possibility" that the plaintiffs
would prevail.

Under Ontario law, plaintiffs have to get leave from a judge
before they can bring claims of secondary-market misrepresentation
in earnest.  That leave is what a judge of the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice denied, saying Atlantic Power had always warned
of the possibility of fluctuations in the dividend.  Atlantic
trimmed its traditionally healthy dividend by 65 percent, irking
investors, in late February 2013.

"ATP repeatedly made clear in its public disclosures that 'future
dividends are not guaranteed' and that the payment or amount of
any dividend was discretionary and could be reduced or eliminated
at any time . . . the connection between cash flow and the
company's ability to pay dividends was also made clear," Justice
Edward Belobaba said.

"No misrepresentations were made, whether by assertion or
omission; nor were any material changes not disclosed.  I have
therefore no difficulty concluding that there is no reasonable
possibility that any of the allegations leveled at the defendants
would succeed at trial."

As just one example, he said, a 2012 quarterly document "contained
no guarantee, assurance, opinion or other statement that the $1.15
dividend would continue in the future."

A similar suit was filed in the U.S. in April 2013, when an
Atlantic Power shareholder zapped the energy giant with a proposed
class action in Massachusetts federal court, saying executives
misled investors into thinking robust payouts were sustainable.

Shareholder John Dornan sued on behalf of investors who purchased
Atlantic stock between July 23, 2010, and March 4, 2013, during
which time the company paid "an outsized 10 percent" dividend that
compared favorably with the typical maximum of 4 percent among
public companies, according to the complaint.

In its February 2013 announcement, Boston-based Atlantic cited
numerous financial pressures that drove it to cut dividends,
include asset sales that ate into income from energy sales,
reduced demand and market prices in the New York market, and the
need for investment in various projects that could take two years
to show returns.

Plaintiffs Jacqueline Coffin and Scott Fife are represented by
Joseph Groia -- jgroia@groiaco.com -- Kirk Baert --
kbaert@kmlaw.ca -- Bonnie Roberts Jones -- brjones@groiaco.com --
Jonathan Ptak -- jptak@kmlaw.ca -- David Sischy --
dsischy@groiaco.com -- and Garth Myer -- gmyers@kmlaw.ca .

Defendants Atlantic Power Corp., Barry Welch and Terrence Ronan
are represented by Benjamin Zarnett -- bzarnett@goodmans.ca --
David Conklin -- dconklin@goodmans.ca -- Michael Wilson --
mwilson@goodmans.ca -- and Charlie Pettypiece --
cpettypiece@goodmans.ca

The case is Coffin v. Atlantic Power, case number CV-13-480939-CP,
in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Suit Over Treasury Auction Manipulation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that twenty-two
financial companies that have served as primary dealers of U.S.
Treasury securities were sued in federal court on July 23, in what
was described as the first nationwide class action alleging a
conspiracy to manipulate Treasury auctions that harmed both
investors and borrowers.

The State-Boston Retirement System, the pension fund for
Boston public employees, accused Bank of America Corp's Merrill
Lynch unit, Citigroup Inc., Credit Suisse Group AG, Deutsche Bank,
Goldman Sachs Group Inc, HSBC Holdings Plc, JPMorgan Chase & Co,
UBS Group AG and 14 other defendants of illegally trying to profit
on the sale of Treasury bills, notes and bonds at investors'
expense.

According to the pension fund's complaint, filed in U.S. District
Court in New York, the banks used chat rooms, instant messages and
other means to swap confidential customer information and
coordinate trading strategies in the roughly $12.5 trillion
Treasury market.

This enabled the banks to inflate prices on Treasuries they sold
to investors in the pre-auction "when issued" market, and deflate
prices when they bought Treasuries to cover their pre-auction
sales, violating antitrust laws, according to the complaint.

Primary dealers are the banks authorized to transact directly with
the Federal Reserve. They are big players in Treasury bond
auctions and act as market makers in the secondary market.

The pension fund said its "expert economists" observed wide gaps
between when-issued and auction prices around December 2012, but
that these gaps narrowed significantly as the U.S. Department of
Justice and other regulators began probing alleged manipulation of
the London interbank offered rate, a benchmark used to set
interest rates for trillions of dollars worth of loans around the
world.

"The only plausible explanation for the sharp break," the fund
said, "is that defendants felt the heat of the DOJ's ongoing
investigation into Libor, and ceased their efforts to manipulate
the Treasury securities market because defendants' Treasury
traders feared that they too would be prosecuted."

Media reports last month said the Justice Department was also
investigating possible collusion in Treasury auctions.

"The scheme harmed private investors who paid too much for
Treasuries, and it harmed municipalities and corporations because
the rates they paid on their own debt were also inflated by the
manipulation," Michael Stocker -- mstocker@labaton.com -- a
partner at Labaton Sucharow, which represents State-Boston, said
in an interview.  "Even a small manipulation in Treasury rates can
result in enormous consequences."

The lawsuit seeks class-action status on behalf of investors in
Treasury securities, including futures and options, from 2007 to
2012, and unspecified triple damages.

Spokespeople for Bank of America, Citigroup, Credit Suisse,
Deutsche Bank, Goldman, HSBC and UBS declined to comment. Other
banks had no immediate comment or were not reached.

The case is State-Boston Retirement System v Bank of Nova Scotia
et al, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 15-
05794.


BELMONT MEAT: Recalls Beef Burger Products Due to Soy and Wheat
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 24, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Soy, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Belmont Meat Products
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail

Belmont Meat Products is recalling The Keg brand Horseradish
Blended Prime Rib Beef Burgers from the marketplace because it
contains soy and wheat which is not declared on the label. People
with an allergy to soy or wheat or sensitivity to gluten should
not consume the recalled product described below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to soy or wheat or sensitivity to gluten,
do not consume the recalled product as it may cause a serious or
life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of this product.

This recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand name   Common name      Size    Code(s) on       UPC
  ----------   -----------      ----    product          ---
                                        ----------
  The Keg      Horseradish      908 g   All codes where  6 95676-
               Blended Prime            soy and wheat    00617 5
               Rib Beef Burgers         are not declared
                                        on the label

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


BP WEST COAST: Deadline to File Debit Card Fee Claims Extended
--------------------------------------------------------------
Molly Young, writing for The Oregonian, reports that the window
has reopened for Oregon drivers to file claims in the $400 million
class-action suit against the operator of Arco gas stations.

A Multnomah County jury decided in 2014 that BP West Coast
Products wrongly charged a 35-cent fee to use debit cards at most
Arco and AmPm stations in Oregon.  More than 2 million consumers
who paid the price are now eligible for individual payments of
$200, minus attorney's fees.

The deadline to file claims initially ended in 2014, but has been
extended to September 21 under a new Oregon law.

The bill changes the way unclaimed money is treated in class-
action suits.  In the past, the cash went back to defendants.  Now
it will be split between Oregon Legal Aid and other groups that
protect victims and consumers.  In the BP case, that pool of money
could amount to $60 million.

"So we had to give notice again and let people who haven't made
claims get another shot," said David Sugerman, the Portland
attorney who is representing the class.

"We had been working to reform this rule for decades. Under the
old rule, the money went back to the wrongdoer."

A spokeswoman for BP declined to comment about the new
development.

The extension applies to people who think they paid the fee
between Jan. 1, 2011 and August 31, 2013 but have not already
filed a claim or received a letter saying they are part of a
class.  The extra time will allow people to either opt in or out
of the proceedings, Mr. Sugerman said.

He said 1.7 million claims have already been lodged, adding up to
$340 million.

Even after the new deadline passes, people may wait years for
their checks. BP has said it plans to appeal.  The process could
take five years.


BP WEST COAST: Sept. 21 Unclaimed Money Allocation Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following is being released by the Notice Provider in the
lawsuit Scharfstein v. BP West Coast Products LLC by order of the
Circuit Court for Multnomah County, Oregon.

There is an update for affected consumers in a class action
lawsuit against BP West Coast Products LLC ("BPWCP").

Previously, an Oregon jury found that BPWCP charged more for gas
than the amount registered at the pump and failed to properly
disclose its prices when it charged a 35-cent fee to consumers who
used debit cards to pay for gas at Oregon ARCO-branded stations
and ampm locations.  BPWCP denies the claims and plans to appeal
the jury verdict.

The Oregon state rule on unclaimed money in class actions has
recently changed.  Affected consumers who did not previously
receive a letter about the case, file a claim, or opt out of the
lawsuit may need to take action.  If this case applies to them,
they must file a claim or opt-out of this lawsuit to preserve
their rights.  Any money that is not claimed will be paid to
Oregon Legal Services and an entity (or entities) chosen by the
Court.

Consumers who purchased gas with a debit card at certain Oregon
ARCO or ARCO ampm locations between January 1, 2011 and August 30,
2013 and paid a 35-cent debit card transaction fee are eligible to
get $164.85 or more (a $200 payment, minus attorneys' fees of up
to $35.15 per claim).

Important Information and Dates:

Consumers who received a direct notice letter in the mail or
already filed a claim do not need to do anything in order to
qualify for an automatic payment.

Consumers who did not receive a direct notice letter in the mail
or already file a claim may:

File a claim online or by mail by September 21, 2015 to get a
payment.  Consumers who file a claim give up the right to sue
BPWCP for the claims in this case.

Object to the notice or claims process (or the fees if you file a
claim now) by September 18, 2015.

Complete an opt-out form online or by mail or submit a letter to
exclude themselves from the case. Opt-out requests must be
received by September 21, 2015.

The Court will hold a hearing on how the unclaimed money should be
allocated on September 21, 2015.

No payments will be made unless the verdict is upheld after BPWCP
appeals.

For more information about the lawsuit, the request for attorney
fees and costs, or to file a claim, visit
www.DebitCardClassAction.com call 1-866-329-5931, or write to:
ARCO/ampm Debit Card Class Action, PO Box 3266, Portland, OR
97208-3266.


BROADCOM CORP: Faces "Davies" Suit Alleging Gender Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Davies, an individual v. Broadcom Corporation, a
California corporation, Case No. 8:15-cv-00928-AG-JC (C.D. Cal.,
June 11, 2015) alleges that the Plaintiff is repeatedly denied
promotions afforded to similarly situated males.

Broadcom Corporation is a California corporation with its
principal place of business in Orange County.  Broadcom is a
global leader and innovator in semiconductor solutions for wired
and wireless communications.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan A. Greenberg, Esq.
          Wayne R. Gross, Esq.
          Adrianne E. Marshack, Esq.
          Leanna C. Costantini, Esq.
          GREENBERG GROSS LLP
          650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1750
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (949) 383-2800
          Facsimile: (949) 383-2801
          E-mail: AGreenberg@GGTrialLaw.com
                  WGross@GGTrialLaw.com
                  AMarshack@GGTrialLaw.com
                  LCostantini@GGTrialLaw.com


C.M. & MCKAY: "Sheah" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Sheah, and all others similarly-situated v. C.M. & McKay
Corp., dba Japon Steakhouse and Sushi Bar, and Tracy McKay, Case
No. 4:15-cv-00488 (E.D. Tex., July 17, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid back wages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and
attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Japon Steakhouse and Sushi Bar is a steak and sushi restaurant in
Texas. The Defendant Tracy McKay is an owner and director of Japon
Steakhouse.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jesse Hamilton Forester, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIL, LLP
      1801 N. Lamar, Ste 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Tel: (214) 749-1400
      Fax: (214) 749-1010
      E-mail: forester@l-b-law.com


CASTLE ENTERPRISE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Celio Adan Rincon, Fernando Lopez, and others similarly-situated
v. Castle Enterprise Construction Inc. dba Castle Enterprise
Construction, Castle Construction Partners Inc. dba Castle
Enterprise Construction, George Duffy, and James Duffy, Case No.
1:15-cv-05589 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations
of the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants owned, operated, and controlled a construction
company located at Maspeth, New York, under the name Castle
Enterprise Construction

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHOICE ENERGY: "Murray" TCPA Class Action Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Timothy S. Black of the Southern District of Ohio,
Western Division granted defendants' motion to dismiss in the case
TERRY MURRAY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CHOICE ENERGY, LLC, et al., Defendants,
CASE NO. 1:15-CV-60 (S.D. Ohio)

Choice Energy, LLC and Premiere Business Solutions, LLC are
limited liability companies organized in Iowa. Choice Energy is a
licensed electric supplier providing electric generation services
for primarily residential customers and businesses. Premiere is a
telemarketing company that actively sells Choice Energy's
services, on Choice Energy's behalf, through widespread
telemarketing.

Plaintiff Terry Murray brought a putative class action against
Choice Energy and Premiere Business, alleging violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA).

Between August and November 12, 2014, plaintiff received at least
ten telephone calls to his landline telephone from the same
telephone number. Plaintiff answered the call on more than one
occasion and was informed that the call was from Choice Energy.
Plaintiff expressly requested to be removed from the calling list
and to no longer receive any calls from defendants. However,
plaintiff continued to receive calls.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants acted in concert to solicit
customers to use defendant Choice Energy's electric energy supply
services and that defendants acted in a joint manner as a singular
entity to solicit consumers to purchase electric supply services
from Choice Energy through telemarketing.

Defendant Choice Energy filed a motion to dismiss.

Judge Black granted the motion to dismiss plaintiff's TCPA claim
against Choice Energy without prejudice. Plaintiff may file an
amended complaint within 21 days of the entry date of the order.

A copy of Judge Black's order dated July 10, 2015, is available at
http://goo.gl/jf5bpMfrom Leagle.com.

Terry Murray, Plaintiff, represented by:

William McAllum Harrelson, II, Esq.
12 S Cherry Street
Troy, OH, 45373-3206
Telephone: 937-335-8324

     - and -

Stefan L. Coleman, Esq. -- stefan@classaction.ws -- at Stefan
Coleman, PLLC

Choice Energy, LLC, Defendant/Cross Claimant, represented by
Christopher S Williams -- cwilliams@calfee.com -- David Thomas
Bules -- dbules@calfee.com -- Jamie M Ramsey -- jramsey@calfee.com
-- at Calfee Halter & Griswold LLP; Gabrielle A. Figueroa --
Murray E. Bevan -- mbevan@bmgzlaw.com -- at Bevan, Mosca, Giuditta
& Zarillo, P.C.

Premiere Business Solutions, LLC, Defendant, represented by
Kimberly Smith Rivera -- kyrivera@mcglinchey.com -- at McGlinchey
Stafford PLLC


CLEVELAND WHOLE SALE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Lewis, and all others similarly situated v. Cleveland
Whole Sale, Cash & Carry, Inc., Obay Altaher, and Eiab Taher, Case
No. 1:15-cv-01395 (N.D. Ohio, July 14, 2015), seeks to recover all
unpaid minimum and overtime wages, liquidated damages, any other
compensatory damages, prejudgment interest at the statutory rate,
post-judgment interest, attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Cleveland Whole Sale, Cash & Carry, Inc. is an enterprise engaged
in interstate commerce.

The Defendants Obay Altaher and Eiab Taher had operational control
of Cleveland Whole Sale.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephan I. Voudris, Esq.
      VOUDRIS LAW LLC
      8401 Chagrin Road, Suite 8
      Chagrin Falls, OH 44023
      Tel: (440) 543-0670
      Fax: (440) 543-0721
      E-mail: svoudris@me.com


CONTINENTAL HOME: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Adiel Posada, Leonard Volodarsky, and others similarly-situated v.
Continental Home Loans, Michael McHugh, Eric Reeps, Richard
Tschernia, and Santo Barretta, Case No. 2:15-cv-04203 (E.D.N.Y.,
July 17, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime
compensation and statutory penalties pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Laws.

Continental provided mortgage-banking services to consumers in New
York from its offices located in Melville, New York. The
Defendants Michael McHugh, Eric Reeps, Richard Tschernia and Santo
Barretta are controlling officers of Continental.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James B. Zouras, Esq.
      STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
      205 North Michigan Avenue , Ste 2560
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 233-1550
      Fax: (312) 233-1560
      E-mail: lawyers@stephanzouras.com

          - and -

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


COOPERVISION INC: "Cesare" Suit Consolidated With Contact Lens MDL
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Cesare v. Coopervision, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 0:15-cv-60466, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Jacksonville).
The Middle District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00700-
HES-JRK to the proceeding.

The lawsuit has been consolidated with the multidistrict
litigation captioned In re: Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 3:15-md-2626-J-20JRK.

The cases in the litigation concern the Defendants' alleged
anticompetitive conduct aimed at fixing, raising, maintaining and
stabilizing the prices at which disposable contact lenses are sold
in the United States.  At issue in all actions are the Defendants'
pricing policies that allegedly prevented resale of the subject
contact lenses below a minimum price.  The Plaintiffs are
purchasers of contact lenses and the retailer Costco, which sells
contact lenses at its warehouses.  The purchaser plaintiffs allege
that manufacturers of contact lenses conspired with each other and
with defendant ABB Optical Group, a wholesaler that is purportedly
the largest distributor of contact lenses, as well as with
independent eye care professionals represented by ABB and their
trade association, the American Optometric Association, to impose
minimum resale prices on certain contact lens lines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael R. Whitt, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          711 Fifth Avenue South, Suite 201
          Naples, FL 34102
          Telephone: (239) 430-7070
          Facsimile: (239) 213-1970
          E-mail: mwhitt@robinskaplan.com

               - and -

          Bernard Persky, Esq.
          Hollis Salzman, Esq.
          Kellie Lerner, Esq.
          Michelle C. Zolnoski, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          601 Lexington Avenue, Suite 3400
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 980-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
          E-mail: bpersky@robinskaplan.com
                  hsalzman@robinskaplan.com
                  klerner@robinskaplan.com
                  mzolnoski@robinskaplan.com

               - and -

          K. Craig Wildfang, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 349-8500
          Facsimile: (612) 339-4181
          E-mail: kcwildfang@robinskaplan.com

               - and -

          Gary Charles Rosen, Esq.
          BECKER & POLIAKOFF, P.A.
          One East Broward Blvd., Suite 1800
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 985-4133
          Facsimile: (954) 985-4199
          E-mail: grosen@becker-poliakoff.com

Respondent Coopervision, Inc. is represented by:

          Andrew C. Lourie, Esq.
          John Daniel Couriel, Esq.
          KOBRE & KIM, LLP
          2 S Biscayne Blvd., 35th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 967-6107
          Facsimile: (305) 967-6128
          E-mail: andrew.lourie@kobrekim.com
                  john.couriel@kobrekim.com

               - and -

          Christopher S. Yates, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
          Telephone: (415) 391-0600
          Facsimile: (415) 395-8095
          E-mail: chris.yates@lw.com

Respondent Alcon Laboratories, Inc. is represented by:

          David Marriott, Esq.
          CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE, LLP
          825 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 474-1346
          E-mail: dmarriott@cravath.com

               - and -

          Samuel Olds Patmore, Esq.
          STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITTERSON
          Museum Tower, Suite 2200
          150 W Flagler Street
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 789-3200
          Facsimile: (305) 789-2647
          E-mail: spatmore@stearnsweaver.com

Respondent Baush & Lomb Incorporated is represented by:

          Paul M. Eckles, Esq.
          SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          Four Times Square
          New York, NY 10036-6522
          Telephone: (212) 735-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 733-2000
          E-mail: paul.eckles@skadden.com

               - and -

          Steven C. Sunshine, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP
          1440 New York Avenue, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 371-7000
          E-mail: steve.sunshine@skadden.com

               - and -

          Richard J. Ovelmen, Esq.
          Enrique Daniel Arana, Esq.
          CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, PA
          100 SE 2nd St., Suite 4200
          Miami, FL 33131-9101
          Telephone: (305) 530-0050
          Facsimile: (305) 530-0055
          E-mail: rovelmen@CFJBLaw.com
                  earana@cfjblaw.com

Respondent Johnson & Johnson Vision Care Inc. is represented by:

          William F. Cavanaugh, Jr., Esq.
          PATTERSON, BELKNAP, WEBB & TYLER
          1133 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036-6710
          Telephone: (212) 336-2000
          Facsimile: (212) 336-2394
          E-mail: wfcavanaugh@pbwt.com

               - and -

          John F. Mariani, Esq.
          SHUTTS & BOWEN, LLP
          525 Okeechobee Blvd., Suite 1100
          West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6351
          Telephone: (561) 650-8528
          Facsimile: (561) 655-5902
          E-mail: jmariani@shutts.com

Respondent ABB/Con-Cise Optical Group, LLC., also known as ABB
Optical Group, is represented by:

          Edwin John, Esq.
          Ian R. Conner, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP
          655 15th St. NW, Suite 1200
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 879-5000
          Facsimile: (202) 879-5200
          E-mail: eu@kirkland.com
                  ian.conner@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Dennis Parker Waggoner, Esq.
          HILL WARD HENDERSON
          101 E Kennedy Blvd., Suite 3700
          PO Box 2231
          Tampa, FL 33602-5195
          Telephone: (813) 221-3900
          Facsimile: (813) 221-2900
          E-mail: dennis.waggoner@hwhlaw.com


CUBE INC: Recalls Eye Drops Products Due to Misbranding
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 16, 2015
Type of communication: Advisory
Subcategory: Drugs
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Unauthorized products, Product withdrawal
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54270

Health Canada is informing Canadians that five brands of
unauthorized eye drops (listed in table below) labelled to contain
a prescription drug (neostigmine methylsulfate) have been seized
from two retailers, Cube Inc. and Magic Queen Cosmetics in
Richmond, B.C. (Aberdeen Centre 4151 Hazelbridge Way). These
products may pose serious risks to the health of Canadians.

Speak to your healthcare practitioner should you have any
questions or concerns regarding the use of these products.
Read the label of the products you buy to verify that they have
been assessed by Health Canada for safety, effectiveness and
quality. Health products that have been authorized for sale by
Health Canada will have an eight-digit Drug Identification Number
(DIN), a Homeopathic Medicine Number (DIN-HM) or a Natural Product
Number (NPN) on the label. Products that have been authorized for
sale can be found by searching the Drug Product Database and the
Licensed Natural Health Product Database.
Report any adverse events using these products to Health Canada.
Report complaints about health products to Health Canada by
calling toll-free to 1-800-267-9675, or complete an online
complaint form.

Canadians who either have used or purchased these products.

The eye drops seized at retail labeled to contain Neostigmine
methylsulfate are promoted to relieve tired and red eyes.

There are no approved eye drops containing neostigmine
methylsulfate on the Canadian market. In the past, drugs similar
to neostigmine were in use for the treatment of glaucoma. These
medications are no longer widely used due to their significant
number of potential eye-related side effects including: blurred
distance vision, frontal headaches, twitching lids, red injected
eyes, cataracts, allergic reactions, iris cysts, retinal
detachment, and the potential for causing a specific type of
glaucoma attack. In addition, absorption into the nose via the
tear duct may cause serious cardiac and respiratory side effects.

Products recalled/affected:

  Product Name      Prescription                 Retail Location
  ------------      Ingredient(s)                ---------------
                    -------------
  Super Cool Pit    Neostigmine methylsulfate    Cube Inc.
  Nano Eye          Neostigmine methylsulfate    Cube Inc.
  Digi Eye          Neostigmine methylsulfate    Cube Inc.
  Sante Neo FX      Neostigmine methylsulfate    Magic Queen
                                                 Cosmetics
  Z!                Neostigmine methylsulfate    Cube Inc. and
                                                  Magic Queen
                                                  Cosmetics

Health Canada has seized the products from the retail locations.
Should additional retailers or distributors of these products be
identified, Health Canada will take appropriate action and inform
Canadians.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/AHt8D7


DATAPRO INC: "Mino" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Diego Mino, and all others similarly situated v. Datapro, Inc. and
Ricardo R. Montero, Case No. 2015-016115-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct.,
July 16, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum
wages, an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain
declaratory relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Datapro, Inc. is a software development company that provides
financial information systems. It is headquartered in Miami Dade
County, Florida.

The Defendant Ricardo R. Montero is a corporate officer and
exercised operational control over the activities of Datapro, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason S. Remer, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGE-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flagler Street, Ste. 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Tel: (305) 416-5000
      Fax: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com


ELI LILLY: Faces "Beard" Suit Alleging Cymbalta-Related Injuries
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yvette Beard, et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company, an Indiana
corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-00922-JMS-MJD (S.D. Ind., June 11,
2015) alleges personal injuries and damages that the Plaintiffs
suffered as a result of Lilly's failure to provide both: (a)
adequate instructions for discontinuing use of Cymbalta, and (b)
an adequate warning that fully and accurately informed the
Plaintiffs about the frequency, severity, and duration of symptoms
associated with Cymbalta withdrawal.

Cymbalta (generically known as duloxetine) is a prescription
antidepressant manufactured, marketed and sold by Eli Lilly and
Company.

Lilly is an Indiana corporation with its headquarters in
Indianapolis.  Lilly is a pharmaceutical company involved in the
research, development, testing, manufacture, production,
promotion, distribution, marketing, and sale of numerous
pharmaceutical products, including Cymbalta.

The other Plaintiffs are Terry Brown, Theresa Carr, Linda Coles,
Donna Colgan, Maria Deville, Billy George Duggar, Frances
Bernadette Forrester, Richard Joseph Kaschak, Billie Jane Lee,
Essie Antonio Mitchell, Damien Moore, Tina Marie Robinson, Amy
Thomas, Joyce White, Michael Worl, Tina Forbes, Teresa Kelly, Neil
Schaffer, Elaine Scherer, Judy Brant, Maria Antoinette Collier,
Doris Porter Edwards, David Scott Foster, Jose Ruben Galvan,
Angela Haley, William Earl Holly, Lewis Bryant Horne, Carolyn
Humphrey, Justin Collier Hunt, Karen Judge, Richard Lee Lynch,
Jr., Gene David Mckenzie, Kathleen Clare Miles, Myrna Nolan,
Jacqueline Fredia Osborne, Gale Marie Pettis, Wendy Prescott,
Viola Lynn Spurlock, Jack Wolfe, William Foster Young, Brittany
Nickole Zabriskie, Carolyn Desharnais, Elizabeth Rushworth, Leasa
Skaggs, and Mavis Renee Harper.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert J. Schuckit, Esq.
          SCHUCKIT & ASSOCIATES PC
          4545 Northwestern Drive
          Zionsville, IN 46077
          Telephone: (317) 363-2400
          Facsimile: (317) 363-2257
          E-mail: rschuckit@schuckitlaw.com

               - and -

          Steven B. Stein, Esq.
          KNOX RICKSEN LLP
          One Kaiser Plaza, Suite 1101
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 285-2500
          Facsimile: (510) 285-2505
          E-mail: sbs@knoxricksen.com


EMBARQ CORP: Court Addresses ERISA Limitations Provision in Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------------
Renee DeMoss, Esq. of GableGotwals, in an article for JDSupra,
reports that in Fulghum v. Embarq. Corp., 785 F.3d 395 (10th Cir.
2015), the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals considered the claims of
a class of telephone company retirees whose life and health
insurance benefits were reduced or eliminated by their former
employers after the employees retired.  The employer Defendants
included Embarq Corporation and companies who became Embarq
subsidiaries after its spin-off from Defendant Sprint Nextel.  The
Plaintiffs claimed they were entitled to vested lifetime benefits
pursuant either to the terms of their various ERISA welfare
benefit plans, or to fraudulent communications made to them by
plan administrators.  They filed claims for breach of contract and
breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA, as well as claims under the
Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

During their employment, the Plaintiffs had received summary plan
descriptions ("SPDs") that explained the benefits provided in
their plans.  The Defendants based motions for summary judgment on
the SPDs, organizing 32 different identified SPDs into five
separate groups, according to similarities of plan language and
coverage. Fulghum, 785 F.3d at 402.  They contended the class
members against whom they sought judgment had retired under one of
the identified SPDs, or under an SPD that was not included in one
of the five groups, but was identical in all material respects to
one of the identified SPDs. Id.

The Court first considered whether Defendants breached their
contractual duties under ERISA to provide vested benefits because
the terms of the plans, as expressed in the SPDs, promised
lifetime benefits to the employees.  Under ERISA, an employer is
generally free to change, modify or terminate its welfare benefit
plans for any reason at any time, unless the employer has
contractually agreed to provide vested benefits. Fulghum, 785 F.3d
at 402, citing Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonajongen, 514 U.S. 73,
78 (1995).  An employer creates a contractual agreement by
incorporating "clear and express language" promising vested
benefits into a formal written ERISA plan, which can be done
through SPD documents. Id. at 403.

After reviewing the SPDs submitted by Defendants and applying
general principles of contract construction, the Tenth Circuit
found that none of the SPDs in the five groups contained clear and
express language promising vested benefits, and affirmed summary
judgment on those claims based on the identified SPDs.  The plans
either contained language that expressly reserved the employers'
rights to change or terminate the described benefits, or they
contained language that otherwise unambiguously contemplated
future plan changes or terminations in a manner that could not
reasonably be misinterpreted by the employees.[1]

The Court next considered the Defendants' argument that
Plaintiffs' claims for breach of fiduciary duty under 29 U.S.C.
Sec. 1104(a)(1) were time-barred.  The limitations periods that
apply to such actions is found at 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1113:

No action may be commenced under this subchapter with respect to a
fiduciary's breach of any responsibility, duty, or obligation
under this part, or with respect to a violation of this part,
after the earlier of -- (1) six years after (A) the date of the
last action which constituted a part of the breach or violation,
or (B) in case of an omission the latest date on which the
fiduciary could have cured the breach or violation, or (2)
three years after the earliest date on which the plaintiff had
actual knowledge of the breach or violation, except that in the
case of fraud or concealment, such action may be commenced not
later than six years after the date of discovery of such breach or
violation.

The parties' dispute arose from application of the six-year
exception, which applies in cases of "fraud or concealment." The
Defendants claimed the exception applies only when a plan
fiduciary takes steps to fraudulently conceal an alleged breach of
duty, thus preventing its discovery, and that the Plaintiffs did
not allege the Defendants attempted to conceal their actions.

The Plaintiffs, on the other hand, claimed the exception also
applies when a Sec. 1104(a)(1) breach of fiduciary duty claim is
based on the theory that a plan fiduciary engaged in fraud, i.e.,
a fiduciary knowingly misrepresented or omitted to tell an
employee of a material fact with the intent to deceive.  They
contended the misrepresentations and omissions Defendants made
about lifetime benefits were fraudulent, and that the lawsuits
Plaintiffs filed were timely under the exception because they were
filed within six years after the plans were amended, which enabled
discovery of the alleged breaches.

Prior to Embarq, the Tenth Circuit had never addressed the
application and scope of the exception provision, and looked to
other circuit court cases, finding the First, Third, Eighth,
Ninth, and DC circuits hold the exception applies only when a
fiduciary has taken concrete steps to conceal an alleged breach.
Fulghum, 785 F.3d at 414.  This approach is based on the belief
that Congress intended to incorporate the federal "fraudulent
concealment" doctrine into the "fraud or concealment" language of
Sec. 1113.  The fraudulent concealment doctrine tolls the running
of a statute of limitations when a defendant acts to prevent a
plaintiff from timely discovering its fraud.

The Tenth Circuit then noted a different approach taken by the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which declined to combine the
words "fraud or concealment" into the term "fraudulent
concealment." Fulghum, 785 F.3d at 414. The Second Circuit court
held the exception does not act to toll the running of the statute
of limitations in Sec. 1113(1), but instead is itself another,
separate statute of limitations that applies only in certain types
of cases, i.e., when a fiduciary acts to conceal a breach of duty,
and when an ERISA plaintiff's breach of fiduciary duty claim is
based on a fraud theory.

The Tenth Circuit declined to follow either of these approaches.
Instead, it decided that Sec. 1113(1) is a six year statute of
repose rather than a statute of limitations, and that "the better
view is that the fraud or concealment provision is a
legislatively-created exception" to that statute of repose.  It
observed that Sec. 1113(1)(A) requires an ERISA plaintiff to file
a breach of fiduciary duty claim within six years after the date
of the last action which constituted a part of the breach, and, in
the case of an omission claim under Sec. 1113(1)(B), within six
years of the last date the fiduciary could have cured the breach.
Although it clearly sets forth a limited six year period of time
within which an ERISA plaintiff must bring its fiduciary duty
claims regardless of time of discovery, and the defendant's
liability is extinguished as a matter of right if the claims are
not timely brought, it is a statute of repose and, therefore, it
can be subject to legislatively-created exceptions that can extend
the filing period.

The Court's conclusion was based on principles of statutory
construction.  The language the Legislature used to create the
exception follows Sec. 1113 subparagraph 1 and Sec. 1113
subparagraph 2, but the exception itself is not contained in a
third numbered subparagraph 3.  This structure suggested to the
Court that the exception provision was not meant to be a separate
statute of limitations.  Further, the fact that it begins with the
word "except" means it must be read with reference to the two
preceding subsections, and not as a separate statute of
limitations. Fulghum, 785 F.3d at 415.

The Court further stated the scope of the exception turned on the
meaning of the terms "fraud" and "concealment."  Because the ERISA
statute does not contain definitions for these terms, the Court
looked to their ordinary meanings at the time the exception was
enacted, which could be viewed as separate and distinct meanings.
Also, Congress' use of the disjunctive "or" in the language "fraud
or concealment" indicated to the Court that the terms should be
given separate meanings.

The Court concluded its analysis by noting that because a statute
of repose creates a substantive right in defendants to be
liability-free after a specific period of time, it is not subject
to the judicial doctrines of equitable tolling or estoppel, but
that Congress, by creating the fraud or concealment exception, was
restoring these doctrines to selected ERISA breach of fiduciary
duty claims. Fulghum, 785 F.3d at 416.  This lessened the harsh
result that could occur in situations where a plan fiduciary has
engaged in prohibited conduct that a plan member could not readily
discover in time to meet the filing periods of Sec. 1113.

Finally, the exception promotes one of the primary purposes of
ERISA, which is to ensure that employees receive sufficient
information about their rights under employee benefit plans to
make well-informed decisions.

Because the Plaintiffs' pleadings had included a comprehensive
list and fully developed record of allegations and facts
concerning fraud, which the Defendants denied, a factual dispute
existed as to whether Defendants committed fraud or concealment
within the six-year exception period, and Defendants were not
entitled to summary judgment on the breach of fiduciary duty
claims. Fulghum, 785 F.3d at 416.

Finally, the Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for
Defendants on all claims based on the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act.  Existing federal regulations authorized the
reductions made in certain of the benefits, and the Court found
Defendants had legitimate "non-age reasons" for instituting other
reductions and terminations, including a desire to reduce costs
and to bring their plan benefits in line with those provided by
other companies. Fulghum, 785 F.3d at 417-421.

[1] The Court, however, reversed summary judgment as to those
class members whose contract claims arose from SPDs other than
those 32 specifically identified in the five groups.


EXXON MOBILE: Judge Denies Request to Amend Class Action Dismissal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Debra Hale-Shelton, writing for Arkansas Online, reports that a
federal judge on July 24 denied a request that he alter or amend
his decision dismissing a class-action lawsuit against Exxon Mobil
over its Pegasus crude-oil pipeline.

In March, U.S. District Judge Brian Miller dismissed the lawsuit
filed in response to a March 2013 oil spill in Mayflower on behalf
of landowners whose property is physically crossed by the
now-shuttered Pegasus pipeline from Corsicana, Texas, to Patoka,
Ill.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs wanted Miller to vacate his order
because they contended the oil giant had earlier suppressed
evidence involving interference with property owned by the
plaintiffs.  They said that evidence, filed under seal, "would
probably result in a different outcome."

In his order on July 24, Judge Miller wrote in part that,
"crucially, the new evidence which plaintiffs seek to introduce
does not address the issue that was the heart of the March 17,
2015, order: plaintiffs have not suffered any actual damages."

"As noted in the order, plaintiffs are not the citizens of
Mayflower whose property was subject to damage due to the pipeline
rupture," he added.  "They suffered no discoloration, smelled no
fumes, and had no oil leakage on their property. . . . Thus, as
the evidence plaintiffs seek to introduce does not address this
pivotal issue, it will not produce a different result."

Tom Thrash, one of the plaintiffs' attorneys, said that should
Judge Miller deny the plaintiffs' motion, they would appeal.

The Pegasus pipeline, built in 1947-48, cracked open March 29,
2013, in Mayflower's Northwoods subdivision, spilling tens of
thousands of gallons of heavy crude into the neighborhood,
drainage ditches and a cove of Lake Conway.  The main 650-mile
section of the pipeline remains shut down.


FACEBOOK INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Shareholder's IPO Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zach Miners, writing for Computerworld, reports that an appeals
court has ruled that shareholders cannot sue Facebook or CEO Mark
Zuckerberg in a case that accused the company of withholding key
financial information from the public until after its IPO.

The shareholders alleged that Facebook had failed to share its
projections for mobile ad sales prior to the offering, disclosing
them only to analysts who then relayed the information to certain
investors.

The plaintiffs complained that Facebook's stock was "hammered"
after it went public and the market learned of the lower
forecasts.  Facebook's shares opened at just over $42 on the
Nasdaq on May 18, 2012, and fell to the low $30-range in the
ensuing days.  The stock has since risen strongly, trading at
around $96 on July 24.

In his decision, Circuit Judge Dennis Jacobs said that because the
shareholders weren't owners of Facebook stock at the time the
sales information wasn't disclosed, they had no legal standing to
sue.

In so-called derivative litigation, "a proper plaintiff must have
acquired his or her stock in the corporation before the core of
the allegedly wrongful conduct transpired," the judge said, and
none of the plaintiffs satisfied that requirement.

Geoffrey Johnson, an attorney for the plaintiffs, declined to
comment.

Facebook spokeswoman Vanessa Chan said the company was pleased
with the ruling.

The ruling affirms an earlier decision from the District Court in
Manhattan, which dismissed plaintiffs' claims partly on the same
grounds.  It also comes after the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission dropped its own investigation into the matter roughly a
year ago.

Facebook's IPO was also marred by technical problems, and in
April, the Nasdaq paid $26.5 million to settle a class action
lawsuit over a a glitch that delayed trade notices.

Facebook has since become successful in making money from ads on
mobile devices, which is where the company makes the bulk of its
revenue.


FANNIE MAE: Must Defend Against "Unger" Wage & Hour Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Ann Unger brought an employment class action against Federal
National Mortgage Association d/b/a Fannie Mae in Orange County
Superior Court on April 17, 2015. In her Complaint, Plaintiff
alleged Defendant violated California wage and hour laws by
misclassifying its "asset managers" and "sales representatives" as
salaried exempt from California's overtime laws. Plaintiff alleged
violations of (1) California Labor Code section 510 for failure to
pay wages and overtime; (2) California Labor Code section 226 for
failure to provide accurate wage statements; (3) California Labor
Code section 204 for failure to timely pay wages for hours worked;
and (4) California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL).

On June 16, 2015, Defendant removed the action to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.

Defendant argued that Plaintiff's second cause of action under
section 226 of the Labor Code should be dismissed to the extent
Plaintiff was seeking statutory penalties since Defendant was
under the conservatorship with the Federal Housing Finance Agency
(FHFA), it was statutorily exempt from taxes, penalties, and
fines. Defendant further sought to dismiss Plaintiff's third cause
of action under section 204 of the Labor Code, arguing that no
private right of action existed under section 204.

District Judge Cormac J. Carney in the Order dated July 16, 2015
available at http://is.gd/3cwrkTfrom Leagle.com, denied
Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim under section 226
because the Complaint only sought actual, not statutory, damages.
The court, however, granted Defendant's motion to dismiss the
third cause of action under section 204 since the Court could not
conclude that section 218 provided a private right of action under
section 204, especially given that the clear language of section
204 did not provide that one existed.  The court denied
Defendant's motion to strike because a claim for violating section
558 could only be brought pursuant to the Private Attorneys
General Act, which was not alleged.

The case is captioned, ANN UNGER, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION, INC., a California Corporation d/b/a FANNIE MAE,
Defendant, Case No. SACV 15-00951-CJC (JCX)(C.D. Cal.).

Ann Unger is represented by:

     Allen B. Felahy, Esq.
     Ashleigh N. Martinez, Esq.
     FELAHY TRIAL LAWYERS APC
     4000 Cover St #100
     Long Beach, CA 90808
     Tel: (562)499-2121

Defendant is represented by Carolina Schwalbach, Esq. --
cschwalbach@cdflaborlaw.com -- Jing Yuan Li, Esq. --
jli@cdflaborlaw.com -- Kimberly Marie Foster, Esq. --
kfoster@cdflaborlaw.com -- Timothy M. Freudenberger, Esq. --
tfreud@cdflaborlaw.com & Amy S. Williams, Esq. -
awilliams@cdflaborlaw.com -- CAROTHERS DISANTE & FREUDENBERGER LLP


FORD: Stanley Law Group Files Class Action Over Hacking Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Craig, writing for LawyersandSetlements.com, reports that
Marc Stanley, from the Stanley Law Group in Dallas, Texas, has
recently filed the first-ever class-action suit on behalf of
owners with vehicles equipped with computer systems that, as the
documents describe, "are susceptible to computer hacking and are
therefore unsafe."

"These vehicles owners don't 'think' they are vulnerable to it,"
says Stanley.  "That's what the current science says."

In fact, just recently, two rapidly becoming well-known security
engineers, Charlie Miller and Chris Valasek, grabbed the headlines
by doing a spectacular video demonstration of a potential hacker's
ability to hack into a Jeep and disable the vehicle's braking
system through its onboard computer system.

Mr. Stanley's class action names Ford, GM and Toyota as defendants
in the case.  Although none of his clients, so far, have had their
vehicles hacked, the suit alleges that the automakers have
breached their contracts to sell safe and defective-free vehicles.

The suit also alleges breach of privacy given the potential for
hackers to use the onboard communications system to literally
"eavesdrop" on people riding in the vehicles.

Automakers and consumers have been adopting car technology at a
rapid rate.  As Mr. Stanley describes it, "It's a wild west
environment" out there in terms of rules, regulations and security
systems for highly computerized vehicles.

Although the technology was meant to provide safety and
convenience for drivers, it does not provide appropriate security
to keep intruders out of the system.

Originally, it was thought that the onboard computer systems could
only be compromised by physically accessing the port typically
used by mechanics using computers to diagnosis mechanical
problems.

However, researchers have now provided a number of high-profile
car-hack demonstrations whereby car system invaders can seize
control of the vehicle wirelessly through Bluetooth systems,
cellular telephone network systems used to provide roadside
assistance, onboard Wi-Fi systems, and even through the vehicle's
entertainment system.

The vehicles use a controller area network, or a CAN or CAN bus
system, that connects to electronic control units or ECUs.
Hackers gain access to the CAN bus system and simply start telling
the ECUs what to do and the driver no longer has control of his
own car.

"You could do this to a single car vehicle or a group of similar
vehicles.  All they have to do is call some code using a piece of
software and turn off the vehicle ignition while it is in motion
driving down the highway, or apply the brakes, or any other
scenario you can imagine."

Plaintiffs in the class action own a variety of vehicles including
a 2008 Lexus RX 400 H, a 2014 Ford Escape and a 2013 Chevrolet
Volt.

According to the documents, the "vehicles contain more than 35
separate electronic control units (ECUs), connected through a
controller area network ("CAN" or "CAN bus").  Vehicle
functionality and safety depend on the functions of these small
computers, the most essential of which is how they communicate
with one another."

"The members and potential members of the class action include
anyone who owns a vehicle with onboard Wi-Fi, OnStar, Lexus
Connect or any other computer system that is hackable," says
Stanley.

"Technology is good as long as it is reined in properly. This is
sort of like participating in unprotected sex after people became
aware of the AIDS virus," he adds.  "There is just no protection
for vehicles owners.  We just want the automakers to make our cars
safe," says Mr. Stanley.

There are, so far, no injuries or deaths that can be related to a
car-hacking event.  However, that potential exists.

"That is the nightmare scenario," says Mr. Stanley.  "The idea
that this could result in injury or death.  Unfortunately, I have
to say that is a likely outcome."

Interestingly, two US Senators who have been concerned about the
increasing use of "connected devices," including the increasing
use in cars, recently introduced legislation asking the NHTSA and
the FTC to establish federal standards to secure vehicles and the
privacy of drivers.  The legislation, The Security and Privacy In
Your Car Act (SPY Car Act 2015), would also mandate a dashboard
rating of the security level of the vehicle.

Fiat Chrysler also reacted quickly to the highly publicized
hacking demonstration of its Jeep.  Fiat Chrysler will recall 1.4
million cars and trucks in the United States and update the
vehicles' software with a Uconnect patch to prevent hackers from
entering the vehicles through CAN bus and ECUs.


FOXY LADY: Owners Seek Dismissal of Exotic Dancers' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Katie Mulvaney, writing for Providence Journal, reports that the
owners of The Foxy Lady are asking the court to dismiss claims of
unfair labor practices brought against them by former exotic
dancers at the Chalkstone Avenue strip club.

Thomas and Patricia Tsoumas, of Canton, Mass., argue that the
former dancers -- Ruby Levi and Emily Chicoine -- failed to prove
that the Tsoumases and the real estate holding company Solid Gold
Properties Inc. had a direct hand in creating and adopting the
allegedly unlawful pay practices at the heart of the dancers'
class-action lawsuit.  In asking that counts be dismissed, the
Tsoumases accuse the dancers of failing to allege any facts that
would meet a state or federal standard needed to back up their
assertions that the Tsoumases or Solid Gold employed them.

In addition, Rhode Island and the federal fair labor laws do not
have express provisions regarding the distribution of gratuities,
unlike Massachusetts, they argue.  Similarly, Rhode Island wage
laws do not provide a mechanism to recover the purportedly
"unlawful fees and fines" the former dancers are seeking, they
say.

The Tsoumases assert that under federal law, and most state laws,
employers may pay employees who earn tips less than the statutory
minimum wage as long as the employees receive enough to make up
the difference.

In May, Ms. Levi brought a class-action lawsuit against The Foxy
Lady, alleging that the strip club violated fair labor standards
by failing to pay her and other dancers a base wage and forcing
them to "tip-out" the house mom, disc jockey and others as a
condition of their employment.  Ms. Levi, of Smithfield, filed the
suit in U.S. District Court against the strip club; its corporate
owners, Gulliver's Tavern Inc. and Solid Gold Properties; and the
Tsoumases.  In June, Emily Chicoine, of Providence, joined the
suit, which applies to all dancers who worked at the club for the
three years leading up to the filing.

Ms. Levi and Ms. Chicoine charge that the club has made a practice
of misclassifying dancers as independent contractors, rather than
employees, and required them to pay illegal fines and fees in
violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and state
minimum wage laws.  They are seeking unspecified wages and for the
state to declare that exotic dancers are and were at all times
employees of the club, not independent contractors, under the law.
Another former exotic dancer, Marisa Pizzarelli, of North
Smithfield, has launched a similar class-action challenge against
the Cadillac Lounge and its owners, Richard and Nancy Shappy, of
Johnston.  Court papers show that Ms. Pizzarelli danced at the
Charles Street club from September 2013 through August 2014.  She
is seeking to recover unspecified damages and restitution arising
from the defendants' "failure to pay wages, and their practice of
requiring dances to pay unlawful fees, fines, and tip-outs to
ineligible employees," such as bouncers and disc jockeys.

Ms. Pizzarelli's complaint details that dancers are required to
pay a $70 to $80 "house fee" each dancing shift Monday through
Saturday and $50 on Sundays.  Fines of $25 to $50 are imposed for
"infractions" of club rules.  And dancers must tip out bouncers
and deejays $10 to $15 per shift. The club also gets $5 per lap
dance.

That class-action lawsuit also applies to dancers over the past
three years, whose numbers in both cases are estimated in the
hundreds.  Former U.S. Attorney Robert Clark Corrente, who is
representing the Cadillac Lounge, declined comment on July 24.

The dancers are being represented by Massachusetts lawyer
Brant Casavant, who has brought similar suits against strip clubs
in Massachusetts and Connecticut.  Those cases have been resolved
in confidential settlements, he said, adding that as a result some
of the clubs have changed their practices.

Mr. Casavant dismissed the Tsoumases' motion as a "delaying
tactic" which, even if granted, would allow claims to survive
against The Foxy Lady's corporate owner, Gulliver's Tavern Inc.
Lauren J. O'Connor, who represents the Tsoumases, did not
immediately return a phone call placed to her Boston office on
July 24.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Fed. Ct. Has Jurisdiction in Avandia Fee Dispute
-----------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a federal judge has ruled that her court has jurisdiction over
whether a firm litigating Avandia cases in Illinois state court
must pay a fee for the work product developed by the plaintiffs
steering committee in the federal Avandia multidistrict
litigation.

U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania said the Law Offices of Steven Johnson, handling
Avandia litigation in state court, had to pay a percentage of the
recovery from the resolution of those cases to the common benefit
fund in the MDL for the firm's use of a "trial in a box."

The trial in a box was the name used by the steering committee for
work product and materials amassed by the plaintiffs' attorneys in
the federal Avandia litigation.  Furthermore, the steering
committee created the common benefit fund to compensate attorneys
for developing that work product.

The Johnson firm claimed the federal court did not have
jurisdiction in the matter since the cases the firm was handling,
all captioned under Gabel v. GlaxoSmithKline, were tried
exclusively in Illinois state court.  The plaintiffs MDL committee
argued the firm was subject to the MDL's Pretrial Order 70, which
ordered a percentage be paid to the common benefit fund, because
the Johnson firm worked with co-counsel who had signed the
attorney participation agreement to use MDL materials.

"The court finds that the Johnson firm intentionally sought out
and then relied upon the MDL work product to advance the Gabel
litigation, knowing that, in doing so, it was obligating itself to
pay a common benefit assessment," Judge Rufe said.  "The
availability of the Avandia MDL [steering committee's] work
product, which has been offered to state-court counsel with
restrictions and conditions established by the MDL parties and
adopted by order of the MDL court, does not, and should not, allow
windfall opportunities to state-court litigators to benefit from
this work product without fair consideration."

Judge Rufe took cues from a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit ruling that the Girardi Keese firm of Los Angeles --
which represented thousands of plaintiffs in Avandia cases in
California state court and 25 in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania-based MDL -- could not get out of paying into the
committee's common benefit fund.

According to Third Circuit Judge D. Michael Fisher's July 6
opinion, by signing a contract to participate within the steering
committee, Girardi Keese agreed to pay 7 percent of the gross
recovery gained from its cases to the fund, a payment that the
firm later refused after settling all of its cases.

"A district court that supervises a multidistrict litigation
'has -- and is expected to exercise -- the ability to craft a
plaintiffs' leadership organization to assist with case
management,'" Judge Fisher said.  "Included in that ability 'is
the power to fashion some way of compensating the attorneys who
provide classwide services.'  Here, the district court issued an
order -- Pretrial Order 70 -- dictating how it would allow the
leadership organization -- the steering committee -- to be
compensated.  One way was to assess a percentage of the recovery
of the cases before the MDL.  The district court also permitted
the steering committee to, essentially, trade work product for a
share in the recovery in cases not before the MDL.  The district
court identified a form agreement that the steering committee and
interested counsel must use to participate in the common benefit
scheme and 'incorporated' the agreement into the order."

In the case before Judge Rufe, the Johnson firm also argued that
the federal court had no jurisdiction over the firm's clients, who
according to the order must pay 3 percent out of their recovery
with the law firms paying 4 percent for the total of 7 percent the
order required be paid for use of the MDL materials.

However, Judge Rufe said the court did not need to address whether
it had jurisdiction over the individual plaintiffs.

"Consistent with the guidance provided by the Third Circuit in its
recent opinion, the court holds that it has jurisdiction to order
GSK to withhold from the Gabel settlement funds the full 7 percent
assessment contemplated by PTO 70, as Third Circuit held that
counsel for the settling state-court claimants 'promised to
contribute the entire [common benefit] assessment, and the
district court could ensure that it complied with the agreement
and Pretrial Order 70.  Whether [counsel] must reimburse its
clients for that share of the assessment is a question governed by
the representation agreement between [counsel] and its clients,'"
Judge Rufe said.

Avandia is a prescription drug used to treat Type 2 diabetes.
Thousands of the drug's users sued GSK claiming that it increased
the risk of heart failure.

Dianne Nast, of the plaintiffs steering committee, did not return
a call seeking comment.  The Johnson firm's lawyer, Mathieu J.
Shapiro -- mathieu.shapiro@obermayer.com -- of Obermayer Rebmann
Maxwell & Hippel, declined to comment.


GNC HOLDINGS: "De La Torre" Class Suit Transferred to Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled De La Torre, et al. v. GNC
Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-00561, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (Chicago).  The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:15-cv-05105 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
          PRATT & ASSOCIATES
          1871 The Alameda, Suite 425
          San Jose, CA 95126
          Telephone: (408) 429-6506
          Facsimile: (408) 369-0752
          E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Thomas A. Evans, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          1999 Harrison St., Suite 2400
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 466-6728
          Facsimile: (510) 273-8832
          E-mail: tevans@reedsmith.com


HARTE HANKS: "Shetzer" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------
Elissa Shetzer, and all others similarly situated v. Harte Hanks
Response Management/Austin LP, 5:15-cv-00112 (E.D. Tex., July 14,
2015), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs,
including reasonable attorneys' fees caused by the Defendant's
failure to pay overtime compensations under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendant operates and manages a telephone call center in
Texarkana, Texas, among other enterprises.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Jon Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 South Shackleford, Suite 400
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Tel: (501) 221-0088
      Fax: (888) 787-2040
      E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


HARTFORD FIRE: Conn. SC Rules on Artie's Auto CUTPA Claim
---------------------------------------------------------
Artie's Auto Body, Inc., A & R Body Specialty, Skrip's Auto Body,
and the Auto Body Association of Connecticut, brought the class
action against The Hartford Fire Insurance Company, on behalf of
more than 1,000 independent automobile body repair shops in
Connecticut. They principally claimed that the defendant had
violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) by
requiring its staff motor vehicle physical damage appraisers
(appraisers), who must be licensed in accordance with General
Statutes Sec.  38a-790 (a), to use the hourly labor rates agreed
on by the defendant and the plaintiff auto body shops, instead of
rates that more accurately reflect the actual value of those
services, when appraising auto body damage sustained by the
defendant's insureds.

Defendant later appealed the trial court's denial of its motion
for a directed verdict and its motion to set aside verdict and for
judgment.  The defendant claimed, inter alia, that the trial court
improperly denied its motion for a directed verdict and its motion
to set aside the verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the
verdict because Sec. 38a-790-8 did not prohibit the insurance
practices at issue in the case.

Judge Richard N. Palmer of the Supreme Court of Connecticut in the
Order dated July 21, 2015 available at http://is.gd/Em8Eg4from
Leagle.com, reversed the judgment of the trial court finding that
the Plaintiffs' CUTPA claim could not stand and that the Defendant
was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Court further
remanded with direction to render judgment for the defendant.

The case is, ARTIE'S AUTO BODY, INC., ET AL., v. THE HARTFORD FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. SC 19219 (Conn.).

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     David A. Slossberg, Esq.
     David L. Belt, Esq.
     Nicole H. Najam, Esq.
     Alan Neigher, Esq.
     Ronald J. Aranoff, Esq.
     HURWITZ, SAGARIN, SLOSSBERG & KNUFF LLC
     147 North Broad Street, P.O. Box 112
     Milford, CT 06460
     Tel: (203)877-8000

Defendant is represented by Jonathan M. Freiman, Esq. --
jfreiman@wiggin.com -- Aaron S. Bayer, Esq. -- abayer@wiggin.com
-- Benjamin M. Daniels, Esq. -- bdaniels@wiggin.com -- Robert M.
Langer, Esq. -- rlanger@wiggin.com  -- WIGGIN AND DANA


HEALTHY BUTCHER: Recalls Smoked Fish Products Due to Clostridium
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 19, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Clostridium botulinum
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: The Healthy Butcher
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9955

The Healthy Butcher is voluntarily recalling smoked fish from the
marketplace because it may permit the growth of Clostridium
botulinum. Consumers should not consume the recalled products
described below.

The affected products were sold in variable weight packages at The
Healthy Butcher retail locations in Ontario.

Consumers who are unsure if they have purchased the affected
products are advised to contact their retailer.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

Food contaminated with Clostridium botulinum toxin may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include
nausea, vomiting, fatigue, dizziness, blurred or double vision,
dry mouth, respiratory failure and paralysis. In severe cases of
illness, people may die.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.

This recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand name   Common     Size       Code(s) on    UPC
  ----------   name       ----       product       ---
               ------                ----------
  The Healthy  Smoked     Variable   "Pkgd. on"    Starting with
  Butcher      Fish-
               Wild                  dates up to   0201230
               Mackerel              and including
                                     2015.JL.16
  The Healthy  House      Variable   "Pkgd. on"    Starting with
  Butcher      Smoked
               Fish -                dates up to   0201231
               Pickerel              and including
                                     2015.JL.16
  The Healthy  House      Variable   "Pkgd. on"    Starting with
  Butcher      Smoked                dates up to   0202149
               White                 and including
               Sturgeon              2015.JL.16
  The Healthy  Smoked     Variable   "Pkgd. on"    Starting with
  Butcher      Fish -                dates up to   0202150
               Pickerel              and including
                                     2015.JL.16
  The Healthy  House      Variable   "Pkgd. on"    Starting with
  Butcher      Smoked                dates up to   0202151
               Organic               and including
               B.C.                  2015.JL.16
               Chinook
               Salmon
  The Healthy  Smoked     Variable   "Pkgd. on"    Starting with
  Butcher      Fish -                dates up to   0202152
               Pickerel              and including
                                     2015.JL.16
  The Healthy  Smoked     Variable   "Pkgd. on"    Starting with
  Butcher      Fish -                dates up to   0202153
               Steelhead             and including
               Trout                 2015.JL.16
  The Healthy  Smoked     Variable   "Pkgd. on"    Starting with
  Butcher      Fish -                dates up to   0202158
               Albino                and including
               Rainbow
               Trout


HEARTS WITH HOPE: "Anderson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Vance Anderson, and all others similarly situated v. Hearts with
Hope Foundation, Case No. 4:15-cv-02037 (S.D. Tex., July 15,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
interests, costs and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Hearts with Hope Foundation is a long-term care, residential
treatment home operating at two locations.  It is a Texas
nonprofit corporation with its principal place of business in
Spring, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles William Branham , III, Esq.
      DEAN OMAR & BRANHAM, LLP
      3900 Elm Street
      Dallas, TX 75226
      Tel: (214) 722-5990
      Fax: (214) 722-5991
      E-mail: tbranham@dobllp.com


HIALEAH REY PIZZA: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Hernandez, and all others similarly-situated v. Hialeah Rey
Pizza, Inc. and Ramon Rodriguez, Case No. 2015-016119-CA-01 (Fla.
Cir. Ct., July 16, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid
minimum wage and overtime compensation, and additional equal
amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Article X, Section 24(d) of the Florida
Constitution.

The Defendants own and operate "Cuban" pizza chain. It is
headquartered in Miami, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason S. Remer, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Tel: (305) 416-5000
      Fax: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com


HOMEJOY INC: Faces Class Action Over WARN Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that Homejoy Inc.,
which cited a wave of lawsuits it faces as a prime reason it will
shut down at the end of July, was sued again on July 23.

Lesley Weaver -- lesley@blockesq.com -- of Block & Leviton sued
Homejoy on behalf a Berkeley man who claims the San Francisco-
based home-cleaning platform violated state and federal laws by
failing to give workers 60 days advance notice of their
termination.

The proposed class action filed in U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California seeks 60 days' pay and benefits
under state and federal WARN Acts.  The laws require employers
conducting a mass layoff to give 60 days notice before the
terminations are set to take effect.  The law also requires that
notice be given to social service and government organizations
because of the effect on the local economy.

Homejoy announced earlier this month that it will cease operations
on July 31.  In an interview with Re/Code, company co-founder
Adora Cheung blamed lawsuits alleging that the company's cleaners
had been misclassified as independent contractors rather than
employees.  Among the suits Ms. Cheung referenced were two filed
by lawyers at Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho and Browne Labor
Law in San Francisco Superior Court in March -- one a proposed
class action and the other filed under the Private Attorneys
General Act.  Shannon Liss-Riordan of Lichten & Liss-Riordan, who
is heading up federal misclassification suits against ride-hailing
companies Uber Technologies Inc. and Lyft Inc., filed a class
action in federal court bringing similar claims against Homejoy
later in March.

Lawyers at Paul Hastings who have been defending Homejoy in the
suits recently asked to withdraw from the cases.  U.S. District
Judge Edward Chen denied their request to withdraw from the
federal suit on July 22, asking that they show they had informed
Homejoy of the possibility of default and other potential negative
consequences of withdrawal.  A spokesperson for Homejoy declined
to comment on the July 23 filing or what firm it will use going
forward, citing a company policy against speaking about pending
litigation.

Ms. Weaver said on July 24 that Homejoy's actions were
"particularly egregious" in light of last month's decision from
the California Labor Commissioner finding that an Uber driver was
an employee rather than a contractor.

"To not give its employees and the local economy notice of
termination after that ruling simply to save a month's pay to
those workers calls into question why we have accepted the moniker
'sharing economy,'" Ms. Weaver said.  "Some of these people will
not be able to find work in just two weeks."


HQ FINE: Updates Sandwich Products Recall
-----------------------------------------
Starting date: July 16, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: HQ Fine Foods
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nunavut,
Possibly National, Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories, Yukon
Extent of the product distribution: Retail

The food recall warning issued on July 10, 2015 has been updated
to include additional distribution information. The additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

HQ Fine Foods is recalling Gloria's, Oven Pride Kitchen, Quality
Fast Foods brands and Lunch Box sandwich products from the
marketplace due to possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination.
Consumers should not consume the recalled products described
below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness. Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.

This recall was triggered by the company. The CFIA is conducting a
food safety investigation, which may lead to the recall of other
products. If other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will
notify the public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled products
from the marketplace.

  Brand    Common name    Size    Code(s) on      UPC
  name     -----------    ----    product         ---
  ----                            ----------
  None     Lunch Box      356 g   Best Before /   0 24904 47529 0
           Ham, Turkey,           Meilleur Avant
           & Swiss                15JL16
           Cheese
           Multigrain
           Ciabatta
           Sandwich with
           Creamy Coleslaw
  Gloria's Ham & Cheese   220 g   Best Before /   0 24904 38509 4
           Sub                    Meilleur Avant
                                  15JL10
  Gloria's Turkey & Ham   239 g   Best Before /   0 24904 38560 5
           Club Sub               Meilleur Avant
                                  15JL10
  Gloria's Our Super      286 g   Best Before /   0 24904 38565 0
           Loaded Sub             Meilleur Avant
                                  15JL10
  Quality  Shaved Beef    146 g   Best Before /   0 58578 37172 5
  Fast     Dijon Mini             Meilleur Avant
  Foods    Sub                    EXP AUG 08
  Oven     Pastrami       172 g   Best Before /   0 56040 68653 7
  Pride    Swiss                  Meilleur Avant
  Kitchen  Baguette               EXP AUG 08
           Sub                    and AUG 14
  Quality  Beef Swiss     178 g   Best Before /   0 58578 37175 6
  Fast     Baguette               Meilleur Avant
  Foods    Sub                    EXP AUG 08
  Quality  Pastrami       172 g   Best Before /   0 58578 37176 3
  Fast     Swiss                  Meilleur Avant
  Foods    Baguette               EXP AUG 08
           Sub

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/dxQ5vS


HUSQVARNA CANADA: Recalls Rear Tiller Due to Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 23, 2015
Posting date: July 23, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Outdoor Living
Source of recall: Health Canada
Identification number: RA-54334

This recall involves Husqvarna and Poulan Pro brand rear tine
tillers used for plowing, cultivation, and ridging gardens and
lawns. The tillers have an engine to power the wheels and the rear
tines, an operator handle with forward and reverse transmission,
and tilling widths ranging from 17 to 19 inches (43 to 48
centimetres).

The model and serial numbers of the affected tillers are:

  Brand       Model Name   Colour             Serial Number
  -----       ----------   ------             -------------
  Husqvarna   DRT900E      Orange with black  101514MXXXXX to
                           and grey trim      053115MXXXX
  Poulan Pro  PRRT900      Black and gold

The model number and serial numbers are printed on a label next to
the tiller's engine.  The brand name is printed on the side of the
tiller.

The tiller's transmission shift rod and clip can come into contact
with the control cable during shifting and cause the tiller to
unintentionally move forward or backward, posing an injury hazard
to the user.

Neither Health Canada nor Husqvarna Canada has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries in Canada.

Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor Products N.A. Inc. has not received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries in the United States.

Approximately 520 units were sold in Canada, and approximately
24,000 units were sold in the United States by authorized
Husqvarna dealers and retail establishments.

The recalled units were sold from October 2014 to June 2015.

Manufactured in the United States.

Distributor: Husqvarna Canada Corp.
             Mississauga
             Ontario
             CANADA

Manufacturer: Husqvarna Consumer Outdoor Products N.A. Inc.
              Charlotte
              North Carolina
              UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled tillers and
return it to the nearest authorized dealer for a free repair.

For more information, consumers may contact Husqvarna by telephone
toll free at 1-877-257-6921, Monday to Friday, between 8:00 a.m.
and 7:00 p.m. EST. Consumers may also visit Husqvarna and Poulan
Pro websites for more information.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/EVMK1J


IMPERIAL TOBACCO: Court Delays $1-Bil. Payment to Quebec Smokers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald McKenzie, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that the
country's largest tobacco firms will not have to make an immediate
$1-billion payment to Quebec smokers who won a landmark class-
action suit.

In a ruling on July 23, the Quebec Court of Appeal said it could
be problematic for the companies to recoup the money if they are
eventually successful in appealing a judgment ordering them to pay
$15.6 billion.

The initial $1.13-billion payment was due on July 27 after a judge
ordered it handed over to smokers within 60 days of his ruling.

Imperial Tobacco, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges and JTI-Macdonald have
appealed the overall decision that saw a Quebec judge rule that
they must fork over the $15.6 billion to smokers who either fell
ill or couldn't quit the habit.

Lawyers for all three firms argued earlier this month they simply
didn't have the funds to cover the $1.13 billion, saying it could
cause irreparable harm to their ability to appeal and even put
them on the brink of bankruptcy.

They also argued the amount would not be recoverable if they
eventually won on appeal.

The appeal court touched on that point in its ruling.

"There is the nagging issue of reimbursement if appellants succeed
on appeal," the panel of three justices wrote.

"The potential necessity of seeking reimbursement of $10,000 from
each of 100,000 class members is by any objective standard a
prejudice that cannot be ignored."

Imperial Tobacco welcomed the ruling.

"We knew all along that we had very strong grounds to appeal and
the unanimous decision confirms that there was no legal basis for
ordering the provisional execution," said Tamara Gitto,
vice-president law & general counsel.

The executive director of Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada said
she wasn't unduly disappointed by the decision.

"No, not really, because it was a bit of a sideshow,"
Cynthia Callard said in an interview.  "It would have been very
nice.  It was important symbolically that the initial judge
recognized that people needed money.

"It was a very nice add-on but the big show is yet to come."

"They (the companies) were successful but the court made it very
clear in this ruling that they're only successful on this
particular pre-payment.  They said it was administratively
difficult to see how the money could come back."

The case stemmed from two 1998 suits that were consolidated, with
the first witnesses heard only in 2012.

Cecilia Letourneau filed on behalf of the province's smokers who
were addicted to nicotine and remained addicted or who died
without quitting -- some 918,218 people.

The other was filed by the late Jean-Yves Blais and sought
compensatory and punitive damages for smokers who'd suffered from
cancer in their lungs, larynx or throat, or emphysema. That group
was comprised of 99,957 people.

For the plaintiffs under Mr. Blais, an expert testified at the
trial that 85 per cent would be dead within five years.

The lawsuit is believed to be the biggest class-action ever seen
in Canada, and lawyers have acknowledged the appeals process could
take several years and likely end up in the Supreme Court of
Canada.

In ordering the three firms to split the $15.6 billion as follows:
67 per cent to Imperial Tobacco ($10.5 billion), 20 per cent to
Rothmans, Benson & Hedges ($3.1 billion) and 13 per cent to
JTI-Macdonald ($2 billion), Quebec Superior Court Justice Brian
Riordan wrote that they chose profits over people's health.


INDIANA: Top BMV Official Questioned in "Convenience" Fee Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Cook, writing for Indianapolis Star, reports that a top
Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles official encouraged the use of a
fee whose legality has been questioned -- and now he works for a
BMV contractor that benefited from that fee.

In the latest revelation of questionable actions by top BMV
officials, The Indianapolis Star has learned that former Chief of
Staff Shawn Walters signed a state contract with a relatively
small contractor called Express MVA, allowing the company to
charge customers a so-called "convenience fee" for providing
services traditionally available only through the BMV.

He later took a newly created executive job with the company
without seeking an opinion from the state ethics commission.

The move raises questions about whether he complied with a
conflict-of-interest law designed to prevent state employees from
using their office to help a future employer at the expense of the
public.

BMV officials declined to comment on the propriety of Mr. Walters'
hiring by Express MVA, saying only that he is prohibited from
working on BMV matters while at the company.  They acknowledge,
however, there's no way to verify his compliance.

Mr. Walters did not return phone calls or emails from The Star.
Neither did the owners of Express MVA.  But in a legal deposition
in another matter, Mr. Walters said he has no oversight of the
company's Indiana operations.

His potential conflict of interest aside, critics of the BMV cite
the convenience fees promoted by Walters and others as yet another
example of the BMV gouging Hoosier drivers.

At least one state lawmaker says they may have been illegal.

"They've been charging a fee for the better part of a decade
without the statutory authority to do it," said state Rep. Dan
Forestal, the top Democrat on the House Roads and Transportation
Committee.  "They were operating outside of their authority and
overcharging Hoosiers."

The BMV defends the legality of the convenience fees, which it has
allowed private contractors to charge for years.  But only this
year did the state pass legislation expressly allowing the fees.

It wouldn't be the first time the BMV overcharged Hoosier
motorists.  As The Star reported in an ongoing investigation of
the agency, a class-action lawsuit filed in 2013 resulted in the
BMV refunding $30 million to motorists for higher-than-allowed
operator license fees.  Since then, the BMV has refunded another
$30 million in other overcharges.  And a second, still-pending
lawsuit seeks to recoup up to $40 million more in overcharges.

A Star investigation published in March found that top BMV
officials -- including Walters -- knew about some of those fee
problems for years, but chose to ignore or cover up the
overcharges rather than refund the extra money and adjust to
significant budget losses.  Another Star investigation showed
lingering vestiges of a political patronage system used to hire
top officials of the agency.

The convenience fees were not part of either lawsuit.  And BMV
officials say they have no idea how much money private contractors
have charged customers in convenience fees.  But the potential
charges are great.

The contractors have handled more than a million title and
registration transactions for the BMV during the past 18 months
alone -- about 6 percent of all BMV transactions.  With
convenience fees that can double or even triple the price charged
by the BMV, the charges amount to millions of dollars.

Speed vs. Accuracy

With an eye toward speeding up service at the BMV's license
branches, Mr. Walters and other leaders took an unprecedented step
in 2010: They allowed a private, for-profit company to open what
they called a "partial service license branch," complete with BMV-
provided workstations and access to the BMV's STARS computer
system.

The arrangement allowed the relatively new company, Express MVA,
to quickly process registration and title transactions -- even
fairly complicated ones -- at its office on Southeastern Avenue in
Indianapolis. It was a convenience for customers, often auto
dealerships, because they did not have to stand in line at a BMV
branch.

The BMV paid the company nothing, but their five-year contract
allowed Express MVA to charge "a convenience charge as determined
by the contractor to cover the Contractor's costs of operation."
Auto dealerships often passed that convenience fee on to car
buyers.

Today, Express MVA tacks on convenience fees of $10 to $15 for
common transactions, in some cases doubling the cost of the same
service at the BMV.

Express MVA grew rapidly thanks to the arrangement.  In 2012,
Walters personally signed an amended contract with the company
allowing it to open a second branch in Evansville.  Soon, it was
the largest automotive title processor in the state.

The BMV went on to make similar arrangements with four other
companies.  Mr. Walters personally signed most of those contracts.

If the arrangements proved lucrative for the companies, they were
helpful to the BMV, too.

"It moves the large volume commercial customers out of the
branches, which allows the citizens to have quicker access to
transactions," Mr. Walters explained in an April 7 legal
deposition.

The expanded use of private contractors also helped advance the
agenda of then-Gov. Mitch Daniels.  He had campaigned on improving
customer service at BMV license branches, where long wait times
had become the butt of jokes.  When he left office at the end of
2012, reduced BMV wait times were a major feather in his cap.

But the BMV's emphasis on speed has raised questions about whether
it came at the expense of accuracy -- specifically as it relates
to fees.  What fees the BMV is allowed to charge is directly
governed by law, but the BMV sometimes exceeded its legal limits.

At one point in his deposition, Mr. Walters is asked whether speed
or accuracy was more important to him at BMV.

"They were equally important," he said.

A scandal and a new job

Mr. Walters left the BMV soon after the first of two class-action
lawsuits rocked the agency in 2013.

In depositions from second lawsuit, several BMV officials
testified they warned Mr. Walters about probable overcharges and
urged him to authorize an outside audit back in 2011 -- two years
before the lawsuit publicly exposed overcharges for the first
time.

But in each case, the officials said, Mr. Walters refused.  When
one of them went over his head and took the problem to then-BMV
Commissioner Scott Waddell, Mr. Walters -- a 23-year veteran Army
officer -- chewed him out and accused him of insubordination,
according to the official's sworn testimony.

In his deposition, Mr. Walters said he didn't recall those
conversations.  In fact, his memory failed him more than 30 times
during his deposition.  He did say he remembered raising his voice
with the employee he considered insubordinate.

Despite his central role in the fee scandal, Mr. Walters was never
publicly disciplined or reprimanded.

He instead landed a new position as chief of staff at another
state agency, the Family and Social Services Administration, where
he received a raise and earned $125,000 a year.

But he didn't stay there long.  A year later, in June 2014,
Walters took a job as chief operating officer at Express MVA, the
company whose expansion he enabled while at the BMV.

The company's owners -- Kevin Calvert and Doug Pillow --
apparently created the new executive position for Mr. Walters.  He
testified in his deposition that the position hadn't previously
existed at the company.

The state requires a one-year cooling-off period for employees who
want to take a job with a company that does business with the
state.  The law is intended to prevent private companies from
using lucrative jobs to entice or reward state officials who have
the power to award them contracts.

The state ethics law says the cooling off period begins when a
state official "ceases to be a state officer, employee, or special
state employee."  It had been more than a year since Mr. Walters
worked for the BMV, but he had remained a state executive right up
until he took the job with Express MVA.

How the ethics law applies in Mr. Walters' situation is unknown
because he never asked.

In his deposition, he said he did not consult the state ethics
commission.  Nor did he obtain a waiver of the rule, according to
a review of ethics commission records.

A new law

The legality of the convenience fee is another matter.  Although
the BMV has allowed contractors to collect the fees for years,
insisting they were legal, the state this year passed legislation
that appears to have allowed them for the first time.

The new legislation raises a question: If the fees were already
legal, why was the new law needed?

The events leading up to the passage of the legislation offer some
insight.

Shortly after Mr. Walters left the BMV, Gov. Mike Pence hired
Indianapolis law firm Barnes and Thornburg to conduct a review of
the BMV's fees in light of the first lawsuit.

The Pence administration has refused to release the results of
that review, arguing it is protected by attorney-client privilege,
so it's impossible to know what, if anything, the review found in
regard to the convenience fees.

But after the review, Pence said his administration would work
with Rep. Ed Soliday, the Republican leader of the House Roads and
Transportation Committee, on House Bill 1393, a wide-ranging BMV-
related measure intended to simplify the complicated web of state
laws and regulations that govern the agency's 1,000-plus fees.

During a February hearing on that bill, Forestal, the committee's
ranking Democrat, objected to a provision that said "a partial
services provider may impose, collect, and retain a convenience
fee."

He read an email he had received from a former BMV title director
expressing concerns about the convenience fees: "I do not believe
the BMV has statutory authority to allow a company to charge an
additional fee on top of existing transaction fees, yet this
process has been common practice for years," the email said.

The BMV's attorney, Patrick Price, deferred Forestal's questions
to lobbyist Mark Shublak.  He represents Envirotest, a BMV
contractor that charges customers $45 for a vehicle title that
would cost $15 at a license branch.

"It's nothing more than an abundance of caution and to clarify the
code," Mr. Shublak said.

Mr. Price also defended the convenience fee.

"If the companies do not have the ability to charge any fee then
they have no opportunity to recoup any costs for performing these
services and that hurts everyone," he said.

Ultimately, Mr. Forestal's effort to strip the language from the
bill failed.

When The Star later questioned the convenience fee provision, BMV
officials denied seeking the change -- a denial that seems to
contradict what Mr. Soliday said about the motivation for the new
language.

He told The Star it stemmed from "vulnerabilities" discovered by
the BMV or outside legal counsel it hired to review fees after the
2013 lawsuit.

"At least one plaintiff's attorney thinks he has a fertile field
for taking taxpayer money and putting it in his pocket," the
Valparaiso Republican said, referring to Irwin Levin, the
Indianapolis attorney behind the class action lawsuits.  Levin's
law firm, Cohen & Malad, received $6 million as part of the first
lawsuit.

"It was clarified so that any lawyer could understand it," Mr.
Soliday said.  "If a lawyer came in and said, 'here are some
vulnerabilities in the law that are poorly drafted,' would you fix
it?"

In an email exchange with The Star earlier this year, the BMV's
new commissioner, Kent Abernathy, also defended the new law.

"Like any private vendor, the vendor has a right to charge a
service or convenience fee to make a profit," he said. "Our
website says that convenience fees may apply. Vendors are also
required by contract to announce the fee to customers before the
transaction is performed."

But both Messrs. Forestal and Soliday said that doesn't always
happen -- especially at auto dealerships where customers may not
know that a third party is processing their title and registration
for a significant fee.

Mr. Soliday said lawmakers would likely take up that issue during
next year's legislative session.

"The real issue," he said, "is if it's transparent enough."


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Plaintiffs File Motion for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 28, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that Plaintiffs in a
consolidated class action lawsuit have filed their motion for
class certification.

The Company said, "On March 11, 2013, a complaint in a securities
class action lawsuit was filed against us and two of our current
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York under the following caption: William
Koetsch, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc., et al. (the "Koetsch
Litigation"). On April 17, 2013, a complaint in a securities class
action lawsuit was filed against us and two of our current
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York under the following caption:
Massachusetts Laborers' Annuity Fund, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. ITT Educational Services,
Inc., et al (the "MLAF Litigation")."

On July 25, 2013, the court consolidated the Koetsch Litigation
and MLAF Litigation under the following caption: In re ITT
Educational Services, Inc. Securities Litigation (the "New York
Securities Litigation"), and named the Plumbers and Pipefitters
National Pension Fund and Metropolitan Water Reclamation District
Retirement Fund as the lead plaintiffs.

On October 7, 2013, an amended complaint was filed in the New York
Securities Litigation, and on January 15, 2014, a second amended
complaint was filed in the New York Securities Litigation. The
second amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended ("the Exchange Act") and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by:

   * our failure to properly account for the 2007 RSA, CUSO RSA
and PEAKS Program;

   * employing devices, schemes and artifices to defraud;

   * making untrue statements of material facts, or omitting
material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which they were made, not
misleading;

   * making the above statements intentionally or with reckless
disregard for the truth;

   * engaging in acts, practices, and a course of business that
operated as a fraud or deceit upon lead plaintiffs and others
similarly situated in connection with their purchases of our
common stock;

   * deceiving the investing public, including lead plaintiffs and
the purported class, regarding, among other things, our
artificially inflated statements of financial strength and
understated liabilities; and

   * causing our common stock to trade at artificially inflated
prices and causing the plaintiff and other putative class members
to purchase our common stock at inflated prices.

The putative class period in this action is from April 24, 2008
through February 25, 2013. The plaintiffs seek, among other
things, the designation of this action as a class action, an award
of unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs and expenses,
including counsel fees and expert fees, and such
equitable/injunctive and other relief as the court deems
appropriate.

"On July 22, 2014, the district court denied most of our motion to
dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims for failure to state a claim
for which relief can be granted," the Company said.

"On August 5, 2014, we filed our answer to the second amended
complaint denying all of the plaintiffs' claims and the parties
are currently engaged in discovery. Plaintiffs filed their motion
for class certification on March 27, 2015. All of the defendants
have defended, and intend to continue to defend, themselves
vigorously against the allegations made in the second amended
complaint."


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Defending Against Indiana Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services, Inc. is defending against the Indiana
Securities Litigation, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 28, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company said, "On September 30, 2014, a complaint in a
securities class action lawsuit was filed against us and two of
our current executive officers in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana under the following caption:
David Banes, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Kevin M. Modany, et al. (the "Banes Litigation"). On
October 3, 2014, October 9, 2014 and November 25, 2014, three
similar complaints were filed against us and two of our current
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana under the following captions: Babulal
Tarapara, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc. et al. (the "Tarapara
Litigation"), Kumud Jindal, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Kevin Modany, et al. (the "Jindal
Litigation") and Kristopher Hennen, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc. et
al. (the "Hennen Litigation"). On November 17, 2014, the Tarapara
Litigation and the Jindal Litigation were consolidated into the
Banes Litigation. On January 21, 2015, the Hennen Litigation was
consolidated into that consolidated action (the "Indiana
Securities Litigation"). On December 1, 2014, motions were filed
in the Indiana Securities Litigation for the appointment of lead
plaintiff and lead counsel. On March 16, 2015, the court appointed
a lead plaintiff and lead counsel. Subsequently, the caption for
the Indiana Securities Litigation was changed to the following: In
re ITT Educational Services, Inc. Securities Litigation
(Indiana)."

"On May 26, 2015, an amended complaint was filed in the Indiana
Securities Litigation. The amended complaint alleges, among other
things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
knowingly or recklessly making false and/or misleading statements
and failing to disclose material adverse facts about our business,
operations, prospects and financial results. Plaintiffs assert
that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme and course of
business and that alleged misstatements and/or omissions by the
defendants caused members of the putative class to purchase our
securities at artificially inflated prices. The amended complaint
includes allegations relating to:

   * the performance of the PEAKS Program and the CUSO Program;

   * our guarantee obligations under the PEAKS Program and the
CUSO Program;

   * our accounting treatment of the PEAKS Program and the CUSO
Program;

   * consolidation of the PEAKS Trust in our consolidated
financial statements;

   * the impact of the PEAKS Program and the CUSO Program on our
liquidity and overall financial condition;

   * our compliance with Department of Education financial
responsibility standards; and

   * our internal controls over financial reporting."

The putative class period in the Indiana Securities Litigation is
from February 26, 2013 through May 12, 2015. The plaintiffs in the
Indiana Securities Litigation seek, among other things, the
designation of the action as a proper class action, an award of
unspecified compensatory damages against all defendants, interest,
costs, expenses, counsel fees and expert fees, and such other
relief as the court deems proper. All of the defendants have
defended, and intend to continue to defend, themselves vigorously
against the allegations made in the amended complaint.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Defending Against Gallien Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services, Inc. is defending against the Indiana
Securities Litigation, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 28, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

The Company said, "On December 17, 2013, a complaint was filed
against us in a purported class action in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles under the
following caption: La Sondra Gallien, an individual, James
Rayonez, an individual, Giovanni Chilin, an individual, on behalf
of themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v.
ITT Educational Services, Inc., et al. (the "Gallien Litigation").
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 13, 2014.
The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that under
California law, we:


   * failed to pay wages owed;

   * failed to pay overtime compensation;

   * failed to provide meal and rest periods;

   * failed to provide itemized employee wage statements;

   * engaged in unlawful business practices; and

   * are liable for civil penalties under the California Private
Attorney General Act.

The purported class includes recruiting representatives employed
by us during the period of December 17, 2009 through December 17,
2013. The amended complaint seeks:

   * compensatory damages, including lost wages and other losses;

   * general damages;

   * pay for missed meal and rest periods;

   * restitution;

   * liquidated damages;

   * statutory penalties;

   * interest;

   * attorneys' fees, cost and expenses;

   * civil and statutory penalties;

   * injunctive relief; and

   * such other and further relief as the court may deem equitable
and appropriate.

"We have defended, and intend to continue to defend, ourselves
vigorously against the allegations made in the amended complaint,"
the Company said.

Kevin M. Modany and Daniel M. Fitzpatrick are named in the New
York Securities Litigation, Indiana Securities Litigation, Wilfred
Litigation, Nottenkamper Litigation and Lawrence Litigation. John
E. Dean is also named in the Wilfred Litigation, Nottenkamper
Litigation and Lawrence Litigation.


JFK MEDICAL: 11th Circuit Agrees to Hear Appeal in PIP Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Elmore, writing for Palm Beach Post, reports that a
federal court has agreed to hear an appeal on whether drivers in
Palm Beach County and across Florida should be granted class-
action status in their claim that HCA hospitals including JFK
Medical Center in Atlantis are grossly overcharging for services
under the state's car insurance system.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Atlanta agreed
to consider an appeal of a lower-court decision in Florida that
drivers could pursue cases individually but not as a group.
Plaintiffs allege the hospitals are draining Personal Injury
Protection benefits by charging up to 65 times what Medicare pays.

"HCA's conduct of overcharging injured individuals who are already
suffering needs to be addressed and stopped and we look forward to
helping to do just that," said attorney Theodore Leopold of Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll in Palm Beach Gardens.

An HCA statement said the case lacks merit and the company intends
to defend it vigorously.


JOHNCOL INC: "Schnaudt" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Jennafer Schnaudt, Hamdi Hassan and all others similarly-situated
v. JohnCol, Inc. and Allen Hertzman, Case No. 2:15-cv-02619 (S.D.
Ohio, July 17, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages,
unpaid overtime, unlawful deductions and chargebacks, back pay and
benefits, front pay and benefits, liquidated damages, statutory
penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act, and
the Ohio Constitution.

JohnCol, Inc. was founded by Allen Hertzman in 1991 and has grown
to own and operate 26 Papa John's Pizza franchise locations in
central Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert John Beggs, Esq.
      BEGGS LAW OFFICES CO., LPA
      1675 Old Henderson Road
      Columbus, OH 43220
      Tel: (614) 678-5640
      Fax: (614) 448-9408
      E-mail: John.Beggs@BeggsLawOffices.com

         - and -

      Andrew Kimble, Esq.
      Kimble Law Office
      1675 Old Henderson Road
      Columbus, OH 43220
      Tel: (937) 286-6428
      Fax: (614) 448-9408
      E-mail: Andrew@kimblelawoffice.com


JPMORGAN CHASE: Connecticut to Get $2MM in Robo-Signing Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Nolan, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune, reports
that the state of Connecticut is slated to receive more than $2
million as part of a settlement agreement between JPMorgan Chase
and 47 states over allegations that the financial services giant
used illegal tactics to go after consumers who were delinquent in
their credit card payments.

State and federal officials claimed the bank illegally engaged in
"robo-signing" -- signing mass quantities of documents without
verifying the data in the accounts.  Then Chase allegedly sold
credit card accounts to third-party debt collectors with
inaccurate or incomplete information.  After that, according to
authorities, Chase filed misleading lawsuits using inaccurate
information to obtain debt collection judgments on accounts that
were paid off, discharged in bankruptcy or otherwise
uncollectable.

"This settlement includes significant consumer restitution and
stringent new standards to help ensure that the unfair credit card
collection practices do not harm consumers in Connecticut and
across the country," Attorney General George Jepsen said in a
statement.  "I am pleased that we have negotiated a settlement
that will institute real and meaningful reforms."

As part of the settlement, Chase has been ordered to permanently
stop all attempts to collect, enforce in court, or sell more than
528,000 consumers' accounts, including about 5,000 Connecticut
consumer accounts.  Chase will pay at least $50 million in
consumer refunds, $136 million in penalties and payments to the
federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and states,
and a $30 million penalty to the Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency from a pending related action.

The agreement also requires Chase to document and confirm debts
before selling them to debt collectors or filing collections
lawsuits.  Further, Chase must prohibit debt buyers from reselling
debt.  Authorities say that's especially significant because it
stops a cycle of reselling stale or error-laden accounts to
unscrupulous debt collectors or assessing illegal fees and
interest.

Chase estimates that it has paid approximately $152,000 to 230
Connecticut consumers to date.  Specifically, Chase will provide
to consumers a cash refund of amounts paid in excess of the
contractual obligation at the time of a collections litigation
referral, plus 25 percent of the excess amount paid.

Of the $136 million in payment Chase must make, $95 million will
go to the participating states and $30 million to the CFPB.
Connecticut's share will be $1,345,048.  Of those funds, $134,504
will be designated as a civil penalty and deposited in the state's
general fund. Some portion of the remaining funds will be used for
up to two temporary positions in the Connecticut Attorney
General's Office dedicated to assisting and educating consumers
and preventing violations of consumer protection and other laws.

Finally, Connecticut will share in an additional $11 million
designated for the executive committee states to be used in future
expenditures relating to the investigation and prosecution of
cases involving fraud, unfair and deceptive acts and practices.

Connecticut's share will be $750,000, of which $250,000 will be
deposited in the Office of the Attorney General's Consumer
Protection Fund.

This executive committee allocation brings Connecticut's total
share of the settlement funds to $2,095,048.

Chase Bank and its subsidiary, Chase BankCard Services, are based
in Delaware and provide consumers with credit card accounts.  The
CFPB found that from 2009 to 2013, Chase violated the Dodd-Frank
Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act's prohibitions
against unfair, deceptive or abusive acts and practices.  The
agency said Chase sold faulty and false debts to third-party
collectors, including accounts with unlawfully obtained judgments,
inaccurate balances, and paid-off balances.  Chase also allegedly
sold debts that were owed by deceased borrowers as well as
allegedly filing misleading debt-collections lawsuits against
consumers using robo-signed and illegally sworn statements.

Chase, in a statement, said simply that it was "pleased to resolve
these legacy issues."

In Connecticut, Assistant Attorneys General Joseph Chambers and
Matthew Budzik, head of the Finance Department, are assisting
Jepsen with this matter.


KAISER PERMANENTE: "Sidlo" Suit Alleges ERISA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Toby Sidlo, and all others similarly-situated v. Kaiser Permanente
Insurance Company, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., and DOE
Defendants 1-50, Case No. 1:15-cv-00269 (D. Haw., July 15, 2015),
seeks injunctive relief, recovery of damages, costs and attorney
fees under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA") 29 U.S.C. section 1001 et seq., stemming from the
Defendants' alleged failure to provide certain healthcare benefits
to ERISA plan participants in the amounts and at the coverage
promised.

Kaiser Permanente is a California non-profit insurance corporation
that acted as an insurer and third-party claims administrator.

Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. is a foreign non-profit
corporation which provides insurance and administrative services
to health plans throughout the District of Hawaii.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Lilly, Esq.
      NING LILLY & JONES
      Ocean View Center
      707 Richards Street, Suite 700
      Honolulu, Hi 96813
      Tel: 528-1100
      E-mail: michael@nljlaw.com


KEURIG GREEN: Appeals Court Revives Shareholder Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond and Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, report
that a federal appeals court on July 24 revived a shareholder
lawsuit accusing Keurig Green Mountain Inc of misleading
shareholders about its business prospects.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York said a lower
court judge erred in dismissing the lawsuit, which accused the
company, once known as Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, of
inflating its share price in 2011 by overstating its growth
prospects and concealing high inventory levels.

The three-judge panel ruled that the lawsuit adequately alleged
false statements were made to investors and that the complaint's
claims supported a "strong inference" that the company intended to
deceive shareholders.

Circuit Judge Denny Chin wrote that the lawsuit's "allegations
articulate defendants' intent to craft a false growth story and
the extraordinary opportunities for personal gain this 'growth'
created for Green Mountain's executives."

Keurig in a statement said it was disappointed by the ruling and
continued to believe the case is "totally without merit."

Mark Rosen, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at Barrack, Rodos &
Bacine, said he looked "forward to returning to the district court
to prosecute our claims."

The lawsuit was filed after a high-profile presentation by hedge
fund manager David Einhorn in October 2011, who, as part of a bet
against the maker of the Keurig brewing system, accused Green
Mountain of misleading auditors and inflating its results.

Over the next two days, the company's stock price fell to $69.80
per share from $92.09, according to the lawsuit.

Weeks later in November 2011, Green Mountain said it failed to
meet sales and revenue expectations for the first time in eight
quarters and disclosed that its inventory levels had sky-rocketed.

The lawsuit soon followed, accusing the company of misleading
investors into believing business was booming when it was
accumulating a significant overstock of expiring and unsold coffee
products.

The lawsuit also named as defendants Lawrence Blanford, Green
Mountain's chief executive from May 2007 to December 2012, and
Frances Rathke, its current chief financial officer.

The plaintiffs, led by five employee retirement systems including
the Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System,
sought class action status for investors who bought the company's
stock from Feb. 2, 2011, to Nov. 9, 2011.

U.S. District Judge William Sessions in Burlington, Vermont,
dismissed the lawsuit in 2013, saying the plaintiffs had failed to
allege any material false statements.

The case is Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement
System v. Green Mountain Coffee Roasters Inc, 2nd U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals, No. 14-199.


KOHLER CO: "Park-Kim" Suit Alleges Civil Code Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Joanna Park-Kim, and all others similarly situated v. Kohler Co.,
and DOES 1 through 50, Case No. BC588369 (Cal. Super. Ct., July
16, 2015), seeks to obtain all damages, injunctive relief,
attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the California Code of Civil
Procedure section 382.

The Defendants designed, manufactured and sold shower valves and
cartridges.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth S. Kasdan, Esq.
      KASADAN LIPPSMITH WEBER TURNER LLP
      500 S. Grand Ave., Suite 1310
      Los Angeles, CA 90015
      Tel: (213) 254-4800
      Fax: (213) 254-4801


KNV FOOD: Recalls Biscuit Products Due to Egg, Milk, and Wheat
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 16, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg, Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: KNV Food Corporation
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia,
Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9947

KNV Food Corporation is recalling biscuits from the marketplace
because they contain egg, milk, and wheat which are not declared
on the label. People with an allergy to egg, milk, or wheat, or
sensitivity to gluten should not consume the recalled products
described below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to egg, milk, or wheat, or sensitivity to
gluten, do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a
serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

This recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand name   Common   Size    Code(s) on        UPC
  ----------   name     ----    product           ---
               ------            ----------
  N/A          Caramel   500 g   All codes where  4 823010 201757
  (Cyrillic    biscuits          egg, milk, and
  characters                     wheat are not
  only)                          declared on the
                                 label


  N/A          Medovyi   500 g   All codes where  4 823010 202068
  (Cyrillic    biscuits          egg, milk, and
  characters                     wheat are not
  only)                          declared on the
                                 label
  N/A          Mint      500 g   All codes where  4 823010 201108
  (Cyrillic    biscuits          egg, milk, and
  characters                     wheat are not
  only)                          declared on the
                                 label

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/XsIt3u


KRAFT CANADA: Recalls Cajun Barbeque Sauce Products
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 24, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Kraft Canada Inc.
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail

Kraft Canada Inc. is recalling Bull's-Eye Hot Southern Cajun
Barbecue Sauce from the marketplace because it contains mustard
which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to
mustard should not consume the recalled product described below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to mustard, do not consume the recalled
product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of this product.

This recall was triggered by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's
(CFIA) inspection activities. The CFIA is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand name   Common name       Size     Code(s) on    UPC
  ----------   -----------       ----     product       ---
                                          ----------
  Bull's-Eye   Barbecue Sauce -  425 mL   Best Before   0 68100-
               Hot Southern               2016 JN 02    89101 0
               Cajun

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


LIFELOCK INC: Glancy Prongay & Murray Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP on July 23 disclosed that it has filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona on behalf of a class (the "Class") of
purchasers of the securities LifeLock, Inc. ("LifeLock" or the
"Company") (NYSE:LOCK) between July 30, 2014 and July 20, 2015,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  Shareholders have 60 days from
the date of this notice to file a motion to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the shareholder lawsuit.

LifeLock provides identity theft protection services for consumers
and fraud and risk solutions for enterprises.  LifeLock's threat
detection, proactive identity alerts, and comprehensive
remediation services purportedly provide peace of mind for
consumers amid the growing threat of identity theft.  In 2010 the
Company entered into a settlement order with the Federal Trade
Commission ("FTC") and purportedly changed its marketing and
business practices in connection with this settlement.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose, among
others: (1) that the Company had failed to establish and maintain
a comprehensive information security program to protect its users'
sensitive personal data, including credit card, social security,
and bank account numbers; (2) that the Company falsely advertised
that it protected consumers' sensitive data with the same high-
level safeguards as financial institutions; (3) that the Company
failed to meet the 2010 settlement order's recordkeeping
requirements; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than 60 days from this notice to serve as lead
plaintiff, if you meet certain legal requirements.  To be a member
of the Class you need not take any action at this time; you may
retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an
absent member of the Class.  If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Casey Sadler, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East,
Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at (310) 201-9150, by
e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email, please include
your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.


LLOYDS BANKING: Pension Funds Sue Over Botched 2008 HBOS Takeover
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Taha Lokhandwala, writing for Investment & Pensions Europe,
reports that European pension funds have held initial talks on
their class action lawsuit against the Lloyds Banking Group over
the botched takeover of Halifax Bank of Scotland (HBOS) in 2008.

Law firm Harcus Sinclair has amassed 6,000 claimants against the
UK banking firm, including 300 pension funds and institutional
investors from Canada, Europe, the UK and the US.

The potentially GBP300 million (EUR424 million) class action suit
is in reference to Lloyds TSB bank's directors allegedly
misleading shareholders into approving a takeover of HBOS despite
the latter's finances not being in order.

Shareholders approved a takeover of HBOS in November 2008.

However, the group now claims Lloyds TSB directors breached their
legal duty in recommending the takeover, and in the information
provided.

Harcus Sinclair said the bank's directors failed to disclose to
Lloyds TSB shareholders that it made a secret GBP10 billion loan
facility to HBOS, or that HBOS received GBP25.7 billion from the
Bank of England and $18 billion (EUR12.5 billion) from the US
Federal Reserve.

The merged firm -- renamed Lloyds Banking Group -- then received
significant bailouts from the UK government, which still retains a
21.8% stake.

Claimants -- which include the Royal Borough of Kensington and
Chelsea Pension Fund, among other local government schemes -- said
the takeover was not in their best interest.

They said it diluted holdings in combined banking group and
included a "gross over-valuation" of HBOS.

"It was a breach of the directors' duties to the Lloyds TSB
shareholders to permit the extraordinary general meeting to take
place, on the basis of what they knew to be incomplete and
misleading information, statements and advice," Harcus Sinclair
said.

In a case management conference held on July 23, the claimants --
whose lawsuit is being funded by Therium Capital Management --
demanded that defendant Lloyds Banking Group reveal all legal
advice provided to directors on the takeover.

Claimants -- which owned around 300m shares in Lloyds TSB at the
time, estimated to be around 5% of market value -- believe the
bank's legal advice would have included informing shareholders of
the private loan facility and HBOS's other financial assistance.

Mr. Justice Nugee, the presiding judge, ruled in favor of the
claimants and said both parties must provide budgets to mitigate
excessive costs in the case.

The case is expected to continue, with pre-trial hearings this
year, before beginning towards the end of 2016.

The suit is among many class action cases launched against UK
banks in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis.

Five UK institutional investors, including the Universities
Superannuation Scheme, are challenging the Royal Bank of Scotland
over a GBP12 billion share issue in 2008 used to fund the
controversial takeover of Dutch bank ABN AMRO.


LOUISVILLE DISTILLING: Court Trims Aliano False Advertising Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss all four counts of the
complaint in the case captioned, MARIO ALIANO, and DUE FRATELLI,
INC., individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. LOUISVILLE DISTILLING COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 15 C 00794.

Mario Aliano was the owner and president of Plaintiff Due
Fratelli, Inc., a restaurant. They brought suit on behalf of
themselves and those similarly situated against Defendant
Louisville Distilling Company, LLC, arguing that it used deceptive
trade practices in marketing and advertising its Angel's Envy Rye
Whiskey Finished in Caribbean Rum Casks.  Aliano brings Count I
under the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act ("KCPA") on behalf of
himself and the entire class. Aliano brings Count II under the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act
("ILCFA") on behalf of himself and subclass A. Fratelli brings
Count III under the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act
("ILDTPA") on behalf of itself and subclass B. Aliano and Fratelli
bring Count IV on behalf of themselves and the entire class,
alleging unjust enrichment. They allege damages including the full
or partial retail price paid.  They suggest that the damages will
not exceed $5,000,000, but Louisville has filed a declaration
suggesting the damages could exceed that amount.

Louisville moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety for
failure to state a claim under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 12(b)(6). It
additionally moved to dismiss Counts II and III on the basis that
it was protected from liability by "safe harbor" provisions in the
ILCFA, and the ILDTPA.

District Judge Marvin E. Aspen of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois in the Order dated July 20,
2015 available at http://is.gd/YVgGA7from Leagle.com, granted in
part Louisville's motion to dismiss without prejudice regarding
Count I, the KCPA claim and Count III, the ILDTPA claim and denied
in part as to Count II, the ILCFA claim, and Count IV, the unjust
enrichment claim.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
     Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
     ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
     77 W Washington St #1220
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Tel: (312)440-0020

Defendant is represented by Francis A. Citera, Esq. --
citeraf@gtlaw.com -- Brian D. Straw, Esq. -- strawb@gtlaw.com --
Thomas E. Dutton, Esq. -- duttont@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TRAURIG,
LLP


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Consumer Class Actions Still Pending in Va.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Mundy, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that a
scathing 60 Minutes report in March 2015 revealed that Lumber
Liquidators was working with Chinese mills that didn't comply with
the California Air Resources Board's regulations on formaldehyde
emissions, and shareholders filed a securities fraud suit against
the company's board.  Three officers have since left, including
the CEO and CFO and another was fired.  This fast exit may work in
shareholders' favor and bolster a negligence claim.

John Coffee, a professor at Columbia Law School, said that "If
they're getting fired because they knew the company was importing
noncompliant products -- products that didn't comply with
California law -- that would be a case in which you can say 'Gee,
that shows it was negligent' . . . The case against those fired
officers would be somewhat stronger," according to Law360.

Lumber Liquidators got caught when its record-high margins came
under suspicion.  They explained the profits were based on
creative "sourcing initiatives," when in fact they came from
illegal wood harvesting in Russia, and they partnered with Chinese
mills that made flooring products with dangerous levels of
formaldehyde.  The securities class action filed by the
shareholders also claims that Lumber Liquidators and its
executives "misled investors in financial reports and conference
calls by attributing its increasing gross margins to improvements
in its business partnerships."

Sharon says she bought 1200 sq. ft. of laminate from Lumber
Liquidators and her husband installed it.  "There were particles
and dust from this product -- I want to call it formaldehyde
flooring -- all over our home for weeks," she says.  "I have two
small children and a baby crawling all over these floors.  I
called Lumber Liquidators and they said that our flooring was from
China and advised me to do the air test.  We are so worried! Do we
rip out our floors that cost thousands of dollars and have no
floors until we can afford to do new flooring?"

Meanwhile, Sharon decided to file a Lumber Liquidators complaint
with an attorney and is hopeful there will be some compensation
forthcoming, at least to cover costs for a new floor.

There are currently more than 100 consumer class actions against
Lumber Liquidators coordinated before U.S. District Judge Anthony
Trenga in the Eastern District of Virginia.  The shareholder
lawsuits are separate from the consumer class actions.  Since the
securities class action was filed in November 2013, Lumber
Liquidators fell to less than $20 a share, from a peak of $119.


M3P DIRECTIONAL: "Seligman" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Dana Seligman, and all others similarly-situated v. M3P
Directional Services, Ltd., Case No. 7:15-cv-00111 (W.D. Tex.,
July 19, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant is a Texas based oilfield service company with
significant operations throughout Texas and the United States.
Defendant provides horizontal and directional drilling services
through MWD, LWD, directional drilling, and field support
professionals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND,
      BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet
      Houston, TX 77005
      Tel: (713) 751-0025
      Fax: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com

         - and -

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


MARK ANTHONY: Recalls Portable Device Chargers Due to Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 16, 2015
Posting date: July 16, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54232

This recall involves the portable device chargers given away as
part of a promotional program with Okanagan Premium Cider
products.

The chargers include a small black power bank, USB cable and a
small key chain. The power bank has a label affixed that reads
Okanagan Premium Cider.

There is no model or serial number or certification on the
product.

The charger can overheat and be a potential fire hazard.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of this product.

Mark Anthony Group Inc. has received 4 incidents where the product
overheated or flame was observed.

Approximately 15,000 units were given to consumers as part of a
promotional program.

The recalled product was distributed from April 2015 to June 2015.

Manufactured in China

Manufacturer: Shenzen Midi Technology
              CHINA

Distributor: Mark Anthony Group
             Vancouver
             British Columbia

Consumers should immediately stop using the chargers and dispose
of them in accordance with local Hazardous Waste Materials
Regulations.

For more information, consumers can contact Okanagan Premium Cider
or by email.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/bIzS9x


MARSHALL FINANCING: Faces Suit Alleging Wrongful Termination
------------------------------------------------------------
Darlene McMillen, an individual v. Marshall Financing Services, a
business entity of unknown form; Monique Marshall, an individual
doing business as Marshall Financial Services; and Does 1 through
50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2015-00791896 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
June 8, 2015) is a wage and hour, wrongful termination and
whistleblower case.

Marshall Financing Services is a business entity of unknown form
doing business in Orange County, California.  Monique Marshall is
a resident of Orange County.  The Plaintiff is unaware of the true
names of the Doe Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick J.S. Nellies, Esq.
          John R. Goffar, Esq.
          Marc G. Kroop, Esq.
          Anthony Ruggieri, Esq.
          ADVANTAGE LAW GROUP, APC
          5820 Oberlin Drive, Suite 110
          San Diego, CA 92121
          Telephone: (858) 622-9002
          Facsimile: (858) 622-9540
          E-mail: pnellies@advantagelawgroup.com
                  jgoffar@advantagelawgroup.com
                  mkroop@advantagelawgroup.com
                  aruggieri@advantagelawgroup.com


MARTHA STEWART: Faces "Steiner" Action Over Sequential Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Steiner, and all others similarly-situated v. Martha
Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., Martha Stewart, Daniel W. Dienst,
Arlen Kantarian, Pierre DeVillemejane, William Roskin, Margaret M.
Smyth, Sequential Brands Group, Inc., Madeline Merger Sub, Inc.,
Singer Merger Sub, Inc., and Singer Madeline Holdings, Inc., Case
No. 11304 (Del. Ch., July 16, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants to challenge the proposed acquisition of Martha Stewart
Living Omnimedia Inc. by Sequential Brands Group, Inc., pursuant
to the Court of Chancery Rule 23.

The Defendant Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. is a
corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of
Delaware with principal offices located in New York. Martha
Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. is a diversified media and
merchandising company which purportedly reaches 100 million
consumers across all media platforms every month.  The Individual
Defendants named are officers and directors of the Company.

The Defendant Sequential is headquartered in New York. Sequential
owns, promotes, markets, and licenses a portfolio of consumer
brands in the fashion, active, and lifestyle categories.
Sequential trades on the NASDAQ market under the symbol "SQBG."

The Defendant Singer Madeline Holdings, Inc. ("Topco") is a
Delaware corporation formed to effectuate the Proposed
Transaction.  Defendants Madeline Merger Sub, Inc. and Singer
Merger Sub are wholly-owned subsidiaries of Topco.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Tel: (302) 295-5310

         - and -

      Emily C. Komlossy, Esq.
      KOMLOSSY LAW, P.A.
      2131 Hollywood Blvd., Suite 408
      Hollywood, FL 33020
      Tel: (954) 842-2021

         - and -

      Gustavo F. Bruckner, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 661-1100


MASTERCARD INC: Willkie Ex-Partner Roils Swipe-Fee Case Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Flaherty, writing for The Am Law Daily, reports that when
Willkie Farr & Gallagher disclosed an ex-partner's communications
with opposing counsel in litigation over credit card "swipe" fees
charged by MasterCard Inc. and Visa Inc., merchants opposed to a
multibillion-dollar settlement in the antitrust case pounced on
the revelation in an effort to undercut the deal.

Now, if some of those merchants have their way, a plaintiffs
lawyer who purportedly shared confidential documents with
ex-Willkie partner Keila Ravelo could lose $32 million in fees
that he was already awarded in the case.

On July 21, a handful of retailers that objected to a $5.7 billion
settlement in the swipe-fee case urged a federal judge in Brooklyn
to vacate attorney fees awarded to Gary Friedman of the Friedman
Law Group.  Mr. Friedman was among the plaintiffs lawyers in
consolidated antitrust litigation accusing Visa and MasterCard of
charging excessive interchange fees to merchants that accept their
payment cards.

Mr. Friedman also previously served as lead plaintiffs counsel in
a similar swipe-fee class action against American Express that
settled in 2013, though that deal is also facing a challenge.

The July 21 motion, filed by Sudbury, Massachusetts-based lawyer
John Pentz, calls attention to emails between Mr. Friedman and
Ms. Ravelo, a former Willkie and Hunton & Williams partner.
Mr. Friedman and Ms. Ravelo had been friends for more than two
decades after working together as associates at Sidley Austin, but
they were on opposing sides of the swipe-fee litigation, with
Ms. Ravelo at one point taking part in MasterCard's defense.

As affiliate publication the New Jersey Law Journal has reported,
Ms. Ravelo, pictured right, currently faces criminal charges that
she bilked Willkie, Hunton & Williams and her client, MasterCard,
out of more than $5 million.  In December, federal prosecutors in
New Jersey accused Ms. Ravelo and her husband, Melvin Feliz, of
creating two dummy litigation support companies and using Ravelo's
position to funnel the firms' money into those entities.
(Coincidentally, Ms. Ravelo met her husband while she was working
on a criminal pro bono case alongside Friedman at Sidley.
Mr. Feliz, who's had his own legal troubles, was the pro bono
client.)

Following Ms. Ravelo's arrest, Willkie engaged in an internal
review of her conduct as it related to the swipe-fee litigation.

In February, the law firm informed U.S. Magistrate Judge James
Orenstein, who's overseeing aspects of the antitrust case, that
the probe uncovered potentially troubling exchanges between
Ms. Ravelo and Mr. Friedman.

According to the firm's letter, Willkie discovered that
Mr. Friedman provided Ms. Ravelo with documents from the Amex case
that were likely confidential.  There were also indications that
Ms. Ravelo might have leaked confidential MasterCard documents to
Friedman.

The revelations provided ammunition to merchants who are actively
opposing settlements in the swipe-fee cases--final approval of the
Amex settlement remains pending, while the final approval granted
to the $5.7 billion Visa and MasterCard deal is under appeal.

While many merchants may hope the Willkie discovery unravels the
entire MasterCard and Visa settlement, the July 21 motion focuses
solely on the fees Mr. Friedman was awarded out of the deal.
Several merchants argue that Mr. Friedman's adequacy as class
counsel has now been thrown into doubt.

"Even if the settlement is upheld despite Mr. Friedman's serious
breach of fiduciary duty to the class and manifest conflict of
interest, the law requires that Mr. Friedman forfeit any
attorneys' fees . . . and that those fees be paid back into the
settlement fund," the objecting merchants wrote in the July 21
motion.

Mr. Friedman didn't immediately respond on July 22 to a request
for comment.


MCHENRY COUNTY, IL: Judge Dismisses Violators' Suit
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Frederick J. Kapala of the Northern District of
Illinois granted defendants' motion to dismiss in the case
Fernando Cruz-Bernal, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Katherine M. Keefe,
et al., Defendants, CASE NO. 14 C 50178 (N.D. Ill.)

Plaintiffs, Fernando Cruz-Bernal, Courtney A. Reinhard, Michael B.
Hodge, and Thomas A. Venezio were all defendants in traffic or
criminal court in the Circuit Court for McHenry County. Upon
conviction and sentencing, each of Cruz-Bernal et al. was informed
that in addition to the fines that were set by the judge, there
would be additional statutory court costs that neither the judge
nor the clerks had control over.  Cruz-Bernal et al. allege that
Katherine M. Keefe -- Circuit Clerk of the Twenty-Second Judicial
Circuit, McHenry County -- imposed, beyond her authority
additional fines or fees.

Cruz-Bernal et al. brought a suit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section
1983, against Ms. Keefe, as well as McHenry County's Treasurer
Glenda Miller, the County itself, and other unknown entities. In
their first amended complaint, Cruz-Bernal et al. allege that
Keefe improperly imposed additional fines on them, which were not
imposed by the court, in violation of their constitutional rights
to due process of law as provided for in the Fourteenth Amendment
and the Ex Post Facto Clause in Article I, Section 10. Plaintiffs
have styled their three counts as (Count One) class action
averments, (Count Two) declaratory judgment and injunctive relief,
and (Count Three) Assumpsit.

A copy of Judge Kapala's dismissal order dated July 13, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/eprV8Wfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:
Raymond M. Flavin, Esq.
Law Office of Ray Flavin
666 Russel Ct #106
Woodstock, IL 60098
Telephone: 815-334-9004

     - and -

James Patrick Kelly, Esq.
Matuszewich & Kelly, LLP
101 North Virginia Street, Suite 150
Crystal Lake, IL 60014
Telephone: 815-459-3120
Facsimile: 815-459-3123
Email: jpkelly@mkm-law.com

     - and -

Matthew James Haiduk, Esq.
Matthew James Haiduk
825 W. State #117D
Geneva, IL 60134
Telephone: 630-557-6288

Katherine M. Keefe, Defendant, represented by Sunil Shashikant
Bhave, Illinois Attorney General & Colin B White, Seyfarth Shaw
LLP

Glenda Miller, Defendant, represented by George Michael Hoffman,
McHenry County State's Attorney

County of McHenry, Defendant, represented by George Michael
Hoffman, McHenry County State's Attorney


MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Court to Hear Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
Jacksonville Business Journal reports that a federal appellate
court is considering a motion by plaintiffs in a complaint filed
against Memorial Hospital in Jacksonville and its parent company
HCA to certify the case as a class-action lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed last October by four Florida residents who
received care at Memorial Hospital and other Florida medical
centers run by HCA claiming they were billed "exorbitant and
unreasonable fees" for emergency radiological services.

One of the plaintiffs, Nicholas Acosta, was treated at Memorial
Hospital's emergency room in October 2013 following a car accident
and two CT scans of his brain were ordered, the total for which
was higher than the $10,000 personal injury protection coverage
required under Florida law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th circuit in Atlanta agreed
on July 22 to hear the plaintiffs' appeal to certify the case as a
class action, which could open the door for similar litigation
from other patients who may have had similar experiences.

In a statement e-mailed to the Business Journal, the plaintiffs'
lead attorney, Theodore Leopold, of Palm Beach Gardens-based
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, said, "We are very pleased
that the 11th Circuit has accepted the appeal and will allow the
issues to be fully briefed.  HCA's conduct of overcharging injured
individuals who are already suffering needs to be addressed and
stopped and we look forward to helping to do just that."

Memorial Hospital did not immediately respond to the Business
Journal's request for a statement, but did say in October 2014,
when litigation began: "The allegations are unfounded and we
intend to defend ourselves vigorously."


MERCEDES-BENZ FINANCIAL: Faces Class Action Over BEE Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------
Caryn Dolley, writing for Weekend Argus, reports that more than 30
Cape Town and Joburg residents believe they were scammed out of
millions of rands in a BEE scheme involving Mercedes-Benz
Financial Services South Africa, and are trying to institute a
class action against the car giant.

They claim they suffered damages because of an alleged breach of
duty by, among others, Mercedes-Benz Financial Services South
Africa and Mercedes-Benz South Africa.

Mxolisi Zwane told Weekend Argus they had launched the process to
have the group acknowledged as a class.  Documents had been filed
in the North Gauteng High Court, and Zwane was awaiting a court
date.

Police are also investigating the BEE scheme.

The BEE scheme was to have created opportunities in the transport
industry for previously disadvantaged people.

It ran in Cape Town from 2007 and saw eligible people getting
finance to buy trucks in transport companies created for them.

But there apparently are questions about whether contracts
enabling them to finance the trucks were dished out simply to
allow them to secure the financing, and whether the companies
created were legitimate.

In an affidavit Thantaswa Matiso of Khayelitsha, whose family took
part in the BEE scheme, described how it had affected them.

Her mother, Nombulelo Celia Konjwa, had paid a deposit for two
trucks and four trailers.  But she ended up cashing in her life
insurance policies worth about R600 000, to save her businesses.

"She was very involved in trying to solve these problems and, as a
result, suffered exceptionally high levels of stress."

In 2010 Ms. Konjwa was diagnosed with cancer and diabetes but,
without the money to pay for adequate medical treatment, she died
in November 2010.  Ms. Matiso said in her own case, she had lost
nearly everything, including her marriage.

Mercedes-Benz said police had approached them.

"The company acknowledges that a request was received from the
SAPS to assist with information for a case, and we gave the
assurance that we will co-operate at all times with the
authorities in this matter."


MIDWAY RENT: Suit Alleges Consumers Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Brayam Rosero, and all others similarly situated v. Midway Rent a
Car, Inc. dba Midway Auto Center, Westlake Services, LLC dba
Westlake Financial Services and DOES 1 through 500, Case No.
BC588481 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 16, 2015), seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief against the Defendants for alleged violation of
Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

Midway Rent a Car, Inc., dba Midway Auto Center is in the business
of buying, repairing, and re-selling used vehicles to the general
public and taking vehicles in trade. Its principal place of
business is in Los Angeles, California.

Westlake Financial Services, LLC is a financial institution
engaged in the business of holding conditional sale contracts and
collecting payments made by consumers pursuant to such contracts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ian Otto, Esq.
      LIBERTY, OTTO & GUILLEN
      553 Pilgrim Drive., Suite A-1
      Foster City, CA 94404
      Tel: (650) 341-0300
      Fax: (650) 341-0302


MYLAN: Faces Second Class Action Over Dutch Poison Pill
-------------------------------------------------------
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that a second class-action lawsuit
is challenging Mylan's Dutch poison pill, saying the defense
against a hostile takeover violates listing rules on the NASDAQ
exchange where the generic drugmaker's shares are traded.  The
complaint, filed July 21 in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh,
accuses Mylan and its two top executives of breach of fiduciary
duty and breach of contract for misleading shareholders regarding
the intent to implement the poison pill through a foundation known
as a "stichting," and eliminate shareholders' voting power.  The
suit, filed by the Roofers Local 149 Pension Fund, follows a
similar suit filed in June.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: July 31 Likeness Claims Filing Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Al.com's Natalie William and The Associated Press report that
college football and men's basketball players have until today to
cash in on the $60 million settlement that a federal judge
recently approved.

The class-action lawsuit filed against the NCAA and video game
maker Electronic Arts will allow a student-athlete to receive up
to $7,026 if their name and likeness was illegally used in one of
EA's video games.

Players who have appeared in the NCAA football and basketball
games have until today, July 31, to make a claim as part of the
settlement.

"This landmark decision marks the first time student-athletes will
be paid for the likeness or image and stands as a huge victory in
the ongoing fight for student-athletes' rights," said
Seattle-based attorney Steve Berman, who represents that
plaintiffs.

EA's NCAA video games were discontinued in 2013 because of the
pending legal cases regarding the use of student-athletes' names,
images and likenesses.

Football and men's basketball players can file their claims at
www.ncaa-ea-likeness-settlement.com

"If You Were Listed on the Roster of an NCAA Division I Men's
Football or Basketball Team, and You or Your Team was included in
one of EA's Videogames Released Between May 4, 2003 and September
3, 2014, You Could Be Entitled to Cash Payments," the website
states.

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken, who ruled in the case, also
made the landmark decision in the O'Bannon v. NCAA antitrust
class-action lawsuit.  The lawsuit filed against the NCAA by
former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon challenges the NCAA's use
of student-athletes' names, images and likenesses.  The NCAA is
appealing that ruling.


NATURE'S BOUNTY: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Deceptive Packaging
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeennit Rodriguez, Josefina Valdez, Jing Ye, John Doe (Florida),
John Doe (Illinois), John Doe (Michigan), and John Does 1-100, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Nature's
Bounty, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-04547 (S.D.N.Y., June 11, 2015)
seeks redress for alleged deceptive and otherwise improper
business practices that Nature's Bounty has engaged in with
respect to the packaging of its products sold under the Nature's
Bounty(R) brand, which are nutritional supplements produced in the
form of tablets and softgels.

Nature's Bounty, Inc. is a New York corporation headquartered in
Ronkonkoma, New York.  The Company manufactures, markets, sells
and distributes nutritional supplements throughout the United
States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465-1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
          E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


NATURE'S BOUNTY: Faces "Sitt" Suit Over False Advertisement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Sitt, and all others similarly-situated v. Nature's
Bounty, Inc. and NBTY, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-04199 (E.D.N.Y.,
July 17, 2015), seeks monetary, treble and punitive damages as
well as any other damages against the Defendants for allegedly
creating or authorizing the false, misleading and deceptive
advertisement and packaging of Nature's Bounty's Black Cohosh 540
mg.

The Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act provides a federal remedy for
consumers who have been damaged by the failure of a supplier or
warrantor to comply with any obligation under a written warranty
or implied warranty, or other various obligations established
under the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. section 2301 et
seq.

The Defendant Nature's Bounty, Inc., and its parent company
Defendant NBTY, Inc. manufacture, market and sell nationwide a
black cohosh supplement, Nature's Bounty's Black Cohosh 540 mg.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
      THE SULTZER LAW GROUP
      P.O. Box 581
      Hopewell Junction, NY 12533
      Tel: (845) 705-9460
      Fax: (888) 749-7747
      E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com


NEIMAN MARCUS: 7th Cir. Reinstates Data Breach Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
On July 20, 2015, the Seventh Circuit reinstated a data breach
class action in Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, No. 14-3122,
after a 2013 malware attack on Neiman Marcus's computer systems
that resulted in the theft of customers' credit and debit card
information.  The plaintiffs argued that they had constitutional
standing to pursue their claims against the retailer based on an
alleged increased risk of future fraudulent charges and greater
susceptibility to identity theft.  This decision is troubling and
could have a potentially significant and wide-ranging impact on
pending and future class actions brought in the wake of similar
data breaches.  In fact, plaintiffs' lawyers already are citing
the decision in other data breach class actions facing Rule 12
standing challenges. See, e.g., In re Barnes & Noble Pin Pad
Litigation, No. 12-08617, U.S. Northern District of Illinois.

To have standing, a litigant must prove that he has suffered a
concrete and particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the
challenged conduct and is likely to be redressed by a favorable
judicial decision.  Federal courts have dismissed similar putative
data breach class actions following the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision in Clapper v. Amnesty International, holding that
plaintiffs must allege they are at imminent risk of suffering a
concrete injury.  In those cases, courts often have relied on the
facts that (a) data breach plaintiffs had fraudulent charges
reimbursed by credit card companies and (b) the defendant arranged
for complimentary free credit and identity theft monitoring
services.

The plaintiffs in the Neiman Marcus case alleged that
approximately 350,000 credit and debit cards of the retailer's
customers had been compromised as a result of the breach and that
fraudulent charges had appeared on 9,200 of the cards.  Although
the plaintiffs conceded that the charges were later reimbursed or
reversed, the Seventh Circuit ruled that those customers had
Article III standing to bring their claims.  Specifically, the
court found that the plaintiffs pled sufficient allegations of
harm based on their "aggravation and loss of the value of the time
needed to set things straight, to reset payment associations after
card numbers are changed, and to pursue relief for unauthorized
charges."

In addition, the court found that the remaining plaintiffs whose
cards had not been fraudulently used also had standing to pursue
their claims. The court noted that the plaintiffs had alleged that
the hackers deliberately targeted Neiman Marcus to obtain their
credit and debit card information, and the court concluded that
the plaintiffs "should not have to wait until hackers commit
identity theft or credit-card fraud in order to give class
standing, because there is an 'objectively reasonable likelihood'
that such an injury will occur."

The Seventh Circuit further held that mitigation expenses
allegedly incurred by the plaintiffs, such as purchasing identity
theft monitoring services, were sufficiently concrete injuries
based on the imminent threat of future identity theft and
fraudulent charges.

Turning to the second and third prerequisites for standing,
causation and redressability, the Seventh Circuit rejected Neiman
Marcus's argument that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate that
their injuries were traceable to the breach at the retailer rather
than to one of several other simultaneous large-scale breaches,
including the Target breach.  The Seventh Circuit ruled that where
there are multiple breaches that could have compromised the
plaintiffs' information, the burden shifts to the defendant to
prove that its actions were not the "but-for" cause of the
plaintiffs' injury.

As a result of the Seventh Circuit's decision in this case,
plaintiffs may have increased success in establishing Article III
standing to maintain a lawsuit following a data breach.  In
addition, courts (particularly in the Seventh Circuit) are likely
to see an increase in the number of class action lawsuits filed as
a result of data breaches.  Organizations suffering data breaches
now face a potentially more difficult and expensive path in
defending data breach class action lawsuits.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Customers Get Favorable Ruling in Data Breach Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Silverstein, writing for Legaltech News, reports that a new
decision by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals involving a large
data breach at Neiman Marcus appears to allow a class-action
lawsuit to proceed.

The ruling is considered important given the number of data
breaches among retailers.  Also, it addresses the argument that
the customers impacted by the data breach are likely to be injured
despite that they did not yet experience identity theft or other
kinds of fraud.

"Neiman Marcus customers should not have to wait until hackers
commit identity theft or credit card fraud in order to give the
class standing, because there is an 'objectively reasonable
likelihood' that such an injury will occur," Judge Diane Wood
wrote in the appellate ruling, in response to the earlier Clapper
v. Amnesty International standard.

Here are the basic facts: Sometime in 2013, hackers attacked
Neiman Marcus and stole credit card numbers of its customers. In
December 2013, the company learned that some of its customers had
found fraudulent charges on their cards.  On Jan. 10, 2014, the
company announced the cyberattack had occurred.  Between July 16,
2013, and Oct. 30, 2013, some 350,000 cards had been exposed to
the hackers' malware.

Karen Katz, Neiman Marcus Group CEO, announced, "Of the 350,000
payment cards that may have been affected by the malware in our
system, Visa, MasterCard and Discover have notified us to date
that approximately 9,200 of those were subsequently used
fraudulently elsewhere."

In response, several customers sued.  The class action was brought
by Hilary Remijas against Neiman Marcus Group.  It was heard by
Judge James B. Zagel in the federal court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

"The district court stopped the suit in its tracks, however,
ruling that both the individual plaintiffs and the class lacked
standing under Article III of the Constitution," Judge Wood said
in the ruling.

"We conclude that the district court erred," Judge Wood added.
"The plaintiffs satisfy Article III's requirements based on at
least some of the injuries they have identified.  We thus reverse
and remand for further proceedings."

The ruling also points out that on Feb. 4, 2014, Michael Kingston,
the company's senior vice president and chief information officer,
testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that, "the
customer information that was potentially exposed to the malware
was payment card account information" and that "there is no
indication that social security numbers or other personal
information were exposed in any way."

The class-action complaints were consolidated in a First Amended
Complaint filed on June 2, 2014, by Ms. Remjas, Melissa Frank,
Debbie Farnoush and Joanne Kao.

The complaint brings up issues including negligence, breach of
implied contract, unjust enrichment, unfair and deceptive business
practices, invasion of privacy, and violation of multiple state
data breach laws.

Invoking Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Neiman Marcus moved to
dismiss the complaint for lack of standing and for failure to
state a claim.  On Sept. 16, 2014, the district judge granted the
motion because of standing issues.

In her ruling, Judge Wood explained that to have standing, a
litigant must "prove that he has suffered a concrete and
particularized injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged
conduct, and is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial
decision."

"These plaintiffs must allege that the data breach inflicted
concrete, particularized injury on them; that Neiman Marcus caused
that injury; and that a judicial decision can provide redress for
them," Judge Wood summarized in the ruling.


NESTLE PURINA: "Kacocha" Suit Alleges Misleading Advertisement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Kacocha, and all others similarly-situated v. Nestle Purina
Petcare Company, Case No. 1:15-cv-05489 (S.D.N.Y., July 14, 2015),
seeks to recover monetary damages they suffered as a result of
this false and misleading advertising, pursuant to the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. section 1332(d).

The Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells pet foods, pet
treats, and related products in the State of New York, nationwide,
and worldwide.  It is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq.
      DENLEA & CARTON LLP
      2 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 410
      White Plains, N.Y. 10604
      Tel: (914) 331-0100
      Fax: (914) 331-0105
      E-mail: jcarton@denleacarton.com

         - and -

      Robert Jeffrey Berg, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD, LLP
      10 East 40th Street, 22nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 779-1414
      Fax: (212) 779-3218
      E-mail: rberg@mdpcelaw.com


NESTLE USA: "Trazo" Plaintiff May Assert Unjust Enrichment Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal of the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division granted plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration in the case JUDE TRAZO, Plaintiff, v. NESTL USA,
INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 5:12-CV-02272-PSG (N.D. Cal.)

Jude Trazo filed a claim for restitution based on unjust
enrichment/quasi-contract against Nestle USA, Inc. In August 2013,
the court dismissed plaintiffs' claim reasoning that plaintiffs'
quasi-contract theory rests on the same allegations already
covered by their other claims, which also provide for restitution
as a remedy, the claim is merely duplicative of statutory or tort
claims' and must be dismissed.

After the Ninth Circuit promulgated its decision in Astiana v.
Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., 783 F.3d 753, 762-63 (9th Cir. 2015),
plaintiff individually and on behalf of similarly situated
plaintiffs, moves for reconsideration of his unjust
enrichment/quasi-contract claim and that Astiana requires that he
be allowed to pursue a claim for unjust enrichment.

Nestle argues that Trazo's motion is dilatory and Trazo had
relinquished and waived his unjust enrichment claim. Nestle also
argues that Trazo's motion should be denied because the unjust
enrichment claim he is trying to assert is not for restitution but
for nonrestitutionary disgorgement, an entirely new claim.

Judge Grewal granted plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and
plaintiff may amend his complaint to include a claim for
restitution based on unjust enrichment/quasi-contract, but may not
include a claim for damages in the form of nonrestitutionary
disgorgement.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Grewal's order dated July 10, 2015, is
available at http://goo.gl/2mwCWvfrom Leagle.com

Jude Trazo, Plaintiff, represented by Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt &
Associates, David Shelton, Alex Peet, Lovelace Law Firm, P.A.,
Ananda N. Chaudhuri, Fleischman Law Firm, Brian K Herrington, Don
Barrett, P.A., Carol Nelkin, Nelkin, Nelkin & Krock, PC, Charles
Barrett, Charles Barrett, P.C., Charles F. Barrett, Charles
Barrett, P.C., David Malcolm McMullan, Jr., Don Barrett, P.A.,
Dewitt Marshall Lovelace, Sr., Lovelace Law Firm, P.A., Don
Barrett, Barrett Law Group, Frank Karam, Fleischman Law Firm, Gene
M. Zona Jones, Provost Umphrey Law Firm, LLP, J. Price Coleman,
Coleman Law Firm, Jay P. Nelkin, Nelkin & Nelkin, P.C., Katherine
B. Riley, Don Barrett, P.A., Keith M. Fleischman, The Fleischman
Law Firm, Richard Barrett, Law Offices of Richard R. Barrett, PLLC
& Stuart M Nelkin, Nelkin, Nelkin & Krock, PC.

Marianna Belli, Plaintiff, represented by Charles F. Barrett,
Charles Barrett, P.C. & Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt & Associates

Nestle USA, Inc, Defendant, represented by Dale Joseph Giali,
Mayer Brown LLP, Carmine R. Zarlenga, III, Mayer Brown, LLP &
Elizabeth Jean Crepps, Mayer Brown LLP


NESTLE USA: "Coffey" Plaintiff May Assert Unjust Enrichment Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal of the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division granted plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration in the case JENNA COFFEY, Plaintiff, v. NESTL
USA, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 5:14-CV-00288-PSG (N.D. Cal.)

Jenna Coffey filed a claim for restitution based on unjust
enrichment/quasi-contract against defendant Nestle USA, Inc. In
August 2013, the court dismissed plaintiffs' claim reasoning that
plaintiffs' quasi-contract theory rests on the same allegations
already covered by their other claims, which also provide for
restitution as a remedy, the claim is merely duplicative of
statutory or tort claims' and must be dismissed.

After the Ninth Circuit promulgated its decision in Astiana v.
Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., 783 F.3d 753, 762-63 (9th Cir. 2015),
plaintiff individually and on behalf of similarly situated
plaintiffs, moves for reconsideration of her unjust
enrichment/quasi-contract claim and that Astiana requires that she
be allowed to pursue a claim for unjust enrichment.

Nestle argues that Coffey's motion is dilatory and Coffey had
relinquished and waived her unjust enrichment claim. Nestle also
argues that Coffey's motion should be denied because the unjust
enrichment claim she is trying to assert is not for restitution
but for nonrestitutionary disgorgement, an entirely new claim.

Judge Grewal granted plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and
plaintiff may amend her complaint to include a claim for
restitution based on unjust enrichment/quasi-contract, but may not
include a claim for damages in the form of nonrestitutionary
disgorgement.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Grewal's order dated July 10, 2015, is
available at  http://goo.gl/ehfSLnfrom Leagle.com.

Jenna Coffey, Plaintiff, represented by:

Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
Pratt & Associates
1871 The Alameda, Suite 425
San Jose, CA 95216
Telephone: 408-369-0800
Facsimile: 408-369-0752

     - and -

Charles Barrett, Esq. -- charles@cfbfirm.com -- at Charles
Barrett, P.C.

Nestle USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dale Joseph Giali --
dgiali@mayerbrown.com -- Carmine R. Zarlenga, III --
czarlenga@mayerbrown.com -- Elizabeth Jean Crepps --
ecrepps@mayerbrown.com -- at Mayer Brown LLP


NESTLE USA: "Belli" Plaintiff May Assert Unjust Enrichment Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal of the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division granted plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration in the case MARIANNA BELLI, Plaintiff, v. NESTL
USA, INC., Defendant, CASE NO. 5:14-CV-00286-PSG (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff Marianna Belli filed a claim for restitution based on
unjust enrichment/quasi-contract against defendant Nestle USA,
Inc. In August 2013, the court dismissed plaintiffs' claim
reasoning that plaintiffs' quasi-contract theory rests on the same
allegations already covered by their other claims, which also
provide for restitution as a remedy, the claim is merely
duplicative of statutory or tort claims' and must be dismissed.

After the Ninth Circuit promulgated its decision in Astiana v.
Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., 783 F.3d 753, 762-63 (9th Cir. 2015).,
plaintiff individually and on behalf of similarly situated
plaintiffs, moves for reconsideration of her unjust
enrichment/quasi-contract claim and that Astiana requires that she
be allowed to pursue a claim for unjust enrichment.

Nestle argues that Belli's motion is dilatory and Belli had
relinquished and waived her unjust enrichment claim. Nestle also
argues that Belli's motion should be denied because the unjust
enrichment claim she is trying to assert is not for restitution
but for nonrestitutionary disgorgement, an entirely new claim.

Judge Grewal granted plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and
plaintiff may amend her complaint to include a claim for
restitution based on unjust enrichment/quasi-contract, but may not
include a claim for damages in the form of nonrestitutionary
disgorgement.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Grewal's order dated July 10, 2015, is
available at  http://goo.gl/auTxbifrom Leagle.com.

Jenna Coffey, Plaintiff, represented by:

Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
Pratt & Associates
1871 The Alameda, Suite 425
San Jose, CA 95216
Telephone: 408-369-0800
Facsimile: 408-369-0752

     - and -

Charles Barrett, Esq. -- charles@cfbfirm.com -- at Charles
Barrett, P.C.

Nestle USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Dale Joseph Giali --
dgiali@mayerbrown.com -- Carmine R. Zarlenga, III --
czarlenga@mayerbrown.com -- Elizabeth Jean Crepps --
ecrepps@mayerbrown.com -- at Mayer Brown LLP


NIKE: Settles Class Action Over False FuelBand Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Mikey Campbell, writing for Apple Insider, reports that consumers
who purchased a Nike+ FuelBand between 2012 and 2015 might be
eligible for a small payment from Nike after the sports brand,
alongside co-defendant Apple, agreed to settle a class action suit
alleging the companies falsely advertised the device's health
tracking capabilities.

Under agreed upon terms reached in June, Nike will dish out up to
$2.4 million to customers who purchased a FuelBand product anytime
between Jan. 19, 2012 and June 17, 2015 to settle a class action
suit first leveled against itself and Apple in 2013.  Although it
was named as a defendant, Apple bears no responsibility or
liability for attorneys' fees or costs.

Plaintiffs, led by class representative Carolyn Levin, allege
Nike's erstwhile FuelBand is unable to live up to advertisements
touting the ability to accurately track calorie burn, steps and
overall activity represented a conceptual "NikeFuel" readings.
The suit claims both Nike and Apple knew of these deficiencies yet
continued to sell the device to an unsuspecting public.

According to attorneys representing the class, the companies
misled consumers by promoting FuelBand in stores, television,
online and elsewhere. Apple, for example, sold various FuelBand
models in its stores and only stopped sales in March.  Since
FuelBand was allegedly never capable of performing advertised
tracking functions, Nike is also in breach of warranty, the suit
asserts.

Notices were sent out to potential class members on July 24 via
email, providing instructions on how to file settlement claims for
either a $15 payment or $25 gift card redeemable at Nike retail
and online stores.  Those notified also have the option to object
or exclude themselves from the settlement.

A fairness hearing is scheduled for Nov. 4 to discuss settlement
terms, attorneys' fees and expenses and an award for the class
representative. More information can be found through the
settlement's website.

Related to the case is Apple's stable of engineers and other
employees previously attached to Nike.  Fitness guru Jay Blahnik,
who consulted on the creation of FuelBand, came on board in 2013
and was later revealed to be a key player in the development of
Apple Watch's health tracking functions.  Other recent hires
include two engineers from Nike's now defunct FuelBand team.

Apple and Nike share a close working relationship after partnering
on multiple health related hardware and software solutions dating
back to the Nike+iPod sensor kit from 2006.  Apple CEO Tim Cook is
a known early adopter and even touted FuelBand's capabilities
prior to Apple Watch's debut.


NORTHERN TREE: "Lemus" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------
Ramiro Lemus, and all others similarly situated v. Northern Tree
Service, Todd Pezzementi and Shawn Pezzementi, Case No. 7:15-cv-
05592 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages and statutory penalties,  and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Law.

The Defendant Northern Tree Service provides tree care and removal
services.  The Defendants Todd Pezzementi and Shawn Pezzemente are
the president, chairman, CEO and controlling members of Northern
Tree.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Louis Braunstein, Esq.
      KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
      747 Chestnut Ridge Road
      Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
      Tel: (845) 356-2570
      Fax: (845) 356-4335
      E-mail: mbraunstein@braunsteinfirm.com


OHIO TEAMSTERS: Faces Suit Alleging Age and Gender Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Mack v. Ohio Teamsters Credit Union, Inc., Bruce Osborn and
Andrew Megrey, Case No. CV-15-846655 (Ohio Comm. Pleas, June 8,
2015) alleges age and gender discrimination.

Ohio Teamsters Credit Union is an Ohio corporation that operates a
credit union in Independence, Ohio.  Bruce Osborn and Andrew
Megrey were employed by OTCU in a supervisory position over Ms.
Mack.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter C. Maple, Esq.
          Brian D. Spitz, Esq.
          THE SPITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
          4620 Richmond Road, Suite 290
          Warrensville Heights, OH 44128
          Telephone: (216) 291-4744
          Facsimile: (216) 291-5744
          E-mail: peter.mapley@spitzlawfirm.com
                  brian.spitz@spitzlawfirm.com


ONTARIO POPPING: Recalls Popcorn Products Due to Milk
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 21, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Ontario Popping Corn Co.
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9949

  Brand   Common name         Size   Code(s) on       UPC
  name    -----------         ----   product          ---
  -----                              ----------
  Uncle   Popcorn Seasoning-  85 g   All codes where  6 62474-
  Bob's   Zesty BBQ                  milk is not      00008 7
                                     declared on the
                                     label.
  Uncle   Microwaveable Pop-  70 g   All codes where  6 62474-
  Bob's   a-Cob Traditional          milk is not      00012 4
          Yellow - Salt and          declared on the
          Vinegar                    label.


ORBITAL ATK: Parties Entered into MOU to Settle Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Orbital ATK, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 29, 2015, that
the parties in a class action lawsuit have entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"), setting forth terms on which
the parties have agreed to settle all claims in the consolidated
lawsuit.

Putative class action and derivative lawsuits challenging Orbital
Sciences Corporation's Transaction Agreement with ATK, were filed
on behalf of Orbital stockholders in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware. On May 9, 2014, a purported class action was
filed by Gregory Ericksen; on May 16, 2014, a purported class
action was filed by Daniel Walsh; on May 22, 2014, a purported
class action was filed by Betty Greenberg; and on May 23, 2014, a
purported class action was filed by Michael Blank.

On September 16, 2014, Ms. Greenberg voluntarily dismissed her
claims.

The plaintiffs in the three remaining consolidated lawsuits
alleged, among other things, that the directors of Orbital
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the Transaction
Agreement.

On January 16, 2015, the parties to this matter entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"), setting forth terms on which
the parties have agreed to settle all claims in the consolidated
lawsuit. The MOU did not require any changes to the substantive
terms of the Transaction, nor the payment of any damages to the
plaintiffs or the putative class members; however, the defendants
acknowledged that plaintiffs are entitled to seek a reasonable
award of attorneys' fees, but reserved the right to oppose the
amount of any requested fee award.


OTTEROO CORPORATION: Recalls Inflatable Baby Float Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 16, 2015
Posting date: July 16, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54240

The Otteroo Inflatable Baby Float is an inflatable round ring made
of clear and blue plastic material. It has two air chambers that
fasten around a baby's neck with a white buckle. The floats have a
chin rest, two handles and two circular openings on the back of
the ring to allow the device to expand as the child grows with
age. There are three colorful balls that move freely around inside
the ring. The name "Otteroo" is imprinted on the top of the float
in the large, orange letters with an Otter Logo.

The seam on the floatation device can leak air and deflate, posing
a risk of drowning.

Health Canada has not received any consumer reports of incidents
or injuries related to the use of the affected floatation devices.
Otteroo Corporation has received 54 reports of broken seams on the
product. No injuries have been reported.

Approximately 137 units were sold in Canada and approximately 3000
units were sold in the United States.

The recalled Otteroo Inflatable Baby Float was sold from January
2014 through November 2014.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Huizhou Chuangjie Indistrial CO., LTD
              Guangdong Province
              CHINA

Distributor: Otteroo Corporation
             San Francisco
             California
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled inflatable
baby floats and contact Otteroo to receive a free replacement.

For more information, consumers may contact Otteroo Corporation by
collect telephone call at (415) 236-5388 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. PST
Monday through Friday or visit the Otteroo's website and click on
"Safety" at the bottom of the page for more information.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.

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


PARTY CITY: Recalls Re-Lite Birthday Candles Due to Fire Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 23, 2015
Posting date:  July 23, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Flammability Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54332

This recall involves candles which spontaneously re-ignite after
being blown out. These candles are identified by the product name
Spring Magic Re-Lite Birthday Candles, Item # 172400.99 and UPC
013051417383. They come in a package of 10.

Candles which can spontaneously relight are prohibited in Canada
under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act as they can re-ignite
after disposal which can potentially lead to fires.

Neither Health Canada nor Party City Canada has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
the product in Canada.

Approximately 26 units were sold online at www.partycity.ca.

The products were sold between February 2014 and June 2015.

Manufactured in the United States.

Distributor: Party City Canada
             Toronto
             Ontario
             CANADA

Consumers should not use the product and dispose of them in
household waste.  If the product has been ignited, it should be
submersed in water before throwing away.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/xTm6JS


PRICELINE GROUP: "Singer" Suit Alleges Misleading Advertisement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Singer, and all others similarly-situated v. The Priceline
Group, Inc. and Hilton Worldwide, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01090 (D.
Conn., July 17, 2015), seeks monetary damages, restitution and
declaratory relief against the Defendants arising from the alleged
unfair and unconscionable operation and disclosures regarding the
"Name Your Own Price" hotel booking service.

The action is brought under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.

Hilton Worldwide, Inc. is a corporation incorporated in Delaware
which maintains its principal places of business and worldwide
headquarters in McLean, Virginia.  Hilton Worldwide, Inc. claims
to have more than 550 hotels and resorts in more than 80
countries.

The Priceline Group, Inc. is a corporation incorporated in
Delaware that operates a commercial travel website known as
Priceline.com, as well as four other primary brands. Its principal
place of business is Norwalk, Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert A. Izard, Jr., Esq.
      IZARD NOBEL, LLP-CT
      29 South Main Street, Ste 305
      West Hartford, CT 06107
      Tel: (860) 493-6295
      Fax: (860) 493-6290
      E-mail: rizard@izardnobel.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
      TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
      2000 L Street NW, Ste 808
      Washington, DC 20036
      Tel: (202) 973-0900
      Fax: (202) 973-0950


PROVIDENCE COMMUNITY: Sued Over Illegal Collection of Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Terry Dickson, writing for Jacksonville.com, reports that a
federal suit asserts that a private probation company has
collected fees from offenders in several counties across Southeast
Georgia although it has no legal contract with the local courts
and governments.

It also asserts that the plaintiff, the only one named so far in a
class action suit, was jailed for nonpayment of fines that she
could not afford to pay.

The class action suit against Providence Community Corrections is
the second against a private probation company filed in U.S.
District Court in Brunswick this summer.  Earlier, Augusta lawyer
John C. Bell and Brunswick lawyer Jason Clark, the same lawyers in
this case, sued Sentinel Offender Services asserting it collected
fees without valid contracts and also charged probation fees on
charges that had expired without any prosecution.

It and other suits assert that only judges can impose fees on
defendants.

Under Georgia law, probationers can be assigned to private
probation companies that collect the cost of supervision and other
services through fees paid by the offenders.

The named plaintiff in the case is Christina Brinson, who pleaded
guilty to driving under the influence of drugs, reckless driving,
driving with a suspended license and attempting to elude officers.

She was sentenced Nov. 19, 2012, to four, one year terms probation
to be served consecutively.

After Ms. Brinson failed to pay fines of $1,551 on the DUI and
$1,355 on the reckless driving, Providence secured warrants for
her arrest, and she has been jailed since June 19, the suit says.

She was arrested even though the fines had expired and even though
Providence had no valid contract for services in Glynn County, the
suit says.

In Glynn County, where the challenged activity occurred,
Providence is still operating under a contract that former
Superior Court Judge Amanda F. Williams signed in 2012.
Judge Williams resigned more than a year ago and no other judge
has signed a contract that would allow Providence to continue
operating in Glynn County, the suit says.

The same is true in Wayne County where a one-year contract
authorizing the company to operate in State Court expired in 2010
has not been renewed by a judge, the suit says.

Ms. Brinson also should have been given consideration as an
indigent under which her fees could have been granted her relief
from fees, but Providence never made the court aware of her
financial status, the suit says.

The suit also points out an unusual provision in Providence's
contract in Wayne County that says no more than 10 percent of its
cases there be those of indigent offenders.  Many of the 20
counties or municipalities where Providence provides services have
poverty rates of 20 percent or higher.

The lawyers in the case are asking for class action status for the
suit, and says Ms. Brinson and others have suffered damages of
more than $5 million.

The suit asks the court to compel Providence to return fees to
probationers and to forbid the company from operating in companies
where it has no valid contract.

In addition to Brunswick and Jesup, Providence has offices in
Blackshear, Cordele, Waycross, Lakeland and other locations in
Georgia.


QUALITY NATURAL: Recalls Puffed Amaranth Products
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 21, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Extraneous Material
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Quality Natural Foods Canada Inc.
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9956

  Brand name     Common name      Size    Code(s) on   UPC
  ----------     -----------      ----    product      ---
                                          ----------
  Quality Super  Rajgira Chikki-  100 g   0315T        6 85441-
  Tasty          Puffed Amaranth          2017 FE 25   00006 4
                 Brittle


REGIONS BANK: October 1 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
If you were charged by and still owe, or if you paid, Regions
Bank, and/or others acting on their behalf between August 1, 2009
and May 8, 2015 for a lender-placed flood insurance policy for
your residential property, you may be entitled to benefits under a
class action settlement.

THIS NOTICE MAY AFFECT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS. PLEASE READ IT
CAREFULLY.  A FEDERAL COURT AUTHORIZED THIS NOTICE.  THIS IS NOT A
SOLICITATION FROM A LAWYER.

WHAT IS THIS CASE ABOUT?

A proposed settlement of a putative class action against Regions
Financial Corp., Regions Bank, and Regions Insurance Inc.
("Regions" or "Defendants") has been reached in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, in the action
Mahan v. Regions Financial Corp., No. 4:14-cv-321-JM.

Plaintiff Gary Mahan ("Plaintiff") alleges, among other things,
that when a borrower was required to have flood insurance pursuant
to a residential mortgage or home equity loan or line of credit,
and the borrower failed to provide evidence of acceptable
coverage, Defendants would obtain Lender-placed flood insurance
policies ("LPFI Policies") in a manner that enabled Regions to
receive unauthorized benefits from the lender-placed flood
insurer, whose affiliates issued the LPFI Policies.  Plaintiff
also alleges that the way in which the LPFI Policies were obtained
and placed caused the LPFI charges to be excessive.  Defendants
deny any wrongdoing and assert that their actions are fully
authorized under the terms of the loans and by law.  There has
been no court decision on the merits and no finding that the
Defendants committed any wrongdoing.

WHAT DOES THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT PROVIDE?

As part of the Settlement, Defendants have agreed to provide
settlement payments to Settlement Class members from the
$612,500.00 Settlement Fund established under the terms of the
Settlement.  Each Settlement Class member will be entitled to a
Settlement Payment in the amount of the percentage of his or her
Individual Net Premium relative to the Total Net Premium charged
to all Settlement Class members, as those terms are defined in the
settlement.  Settlement Class members do not need to submit a
claim form in order to receive a Settlement Payment.  Attorneys'
fees and expenses for the lawyers representing the Settlement
Class, a service award to the Plaintiff, and costs of
administering the Settlement will also be paid out of the
Settlement Fund.  Defendants also have agreed to additional relief
from which you may benefit, including certain commitments
regarding placement of LPFI Policies. For more details regarding
the Settlement Payments, the Settlement Fund, and other benefits
provided under the Settlement, you may go to
www.regionsfloodsettlement.com

ALL SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS ARE CONTINGENT UPON THE COURT ENTERING THE
FINAL APPROVAL ORDER AND THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE SETTLEMENT
OCCURRING.

WHAT ARE MY OPTIONS?

If you remain a Settlement Class member, and the Court approves
the Settlement, enters the Final Approval Order and the Effective
Date occurs, you will be legally bound by its terms and will
release your claims against the Defendants, as provided by the
Settlement.  If you want to exclude yourself from this Settlement,
you must send a written request specifically stating that you wish
to opt out from the settlement to Mahan v. Regions Financial Corp.
Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 40007, College Station, Texas
77842-4007 postmarked no later than September 1, 2015.  Mass or
class opt outs are not allowed.  If you do not opt out, you will
not be allowed to commence or continue any action, including,
without limitation, any lawsuit or arbitration, against any
Released Party based on any Released Claim, as defined in the
settlement.

If you remain a Settlement Class member, you may object to the
settlement by writing to the Court and sending copies to counsel
postmarked no later than September 1, 2015.

Full details on how to object to or opt out of the Settlement can
be found at www.regionsfloodsettlement.com

SETTLEMENT HEARING

The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on October 1, 2015 at
9:30 a.m., to consider whether to approve the Settlement, award
attorneys' fees of up to $204,166.50 plus reasonable costs to
counsel for the Settlement Class, and a service award of up to
$5,000 to the Plaintiff for his service to the Settlement Class.
Any attorneys' fees and expenses or service award approved by the
Court will be paid from the Settlement Fund.

You or your lawyer may ask to appear and speak at the hearing at
your own expense, but do not have to.

The Final Approval Hearing may be moved to a different date or
time.  Any changes to the date or time of the Final Approval
hearing will be posted at www.regionsfloodsettlement.com.

This notice provides only a summary of the terms of the
Settlement.  A more detailed description of the Settlement is
available at www.regionsfloodsettlement.com
You may also contact the Settlement Administrator at
1-888-858-6298 to request a detailed Class Notice.


RJ REYNOLDS: Jury Awards $10.5 Million to Smoker's Family
---------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a
Broward jury awarded $10.5 million to the family of a smoker who
died of lung cancer.

The July 24 verdict assigned $3 million each in punitive damages
to R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., Lorillard Tobacco Co. and Philip
Morris USA Inc.  The jury also provided $1.5 million to
Glodine McCoy's 87-year-old widower for the pain and suffering of
losing his wife in 1997.

McCoy's wrongful death suit was filed soon after the Florida
Supreme Court disbanded the Engle statewide class-action tobacco
lawsuit in 2006.

As a member of the Engle class, McCoy's estate did not have to
prove claims of product defect, negligence, fraudulent concealment
or conspiracy to conceal.

"We're honored to be a part of this Engle litigation," said the
family's lawyer, Scott Schlesinger of Schlesinger Law Offices in
Fort Lauderdale.  "We feel it's a very worthy and important thing
to be doing.  It keeps attention on the lethality of tobacco
addiction."

Ms. McCoy smoked 21 brands of cigarettes before quitting in 1991
after suffering a heart attack, according to the complaint filed
in Broward Circuit Court.  She developed peripheral vascular
disease, coronary artery disease and chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease, along with cancer.

Mr. Schlesinger said his client's lack of brand loyalty followed
the same arc as many smokers of her generation, who shifted away
from unfiltered cigarettes when tobacco companies began marketing
the filtered brands as a healthier alternative.

Ms. McCoy's smoking habits did not present a significant challenge
for the plaintiff, Mr. Schlesinger said.

"As it turned out, it was not a problem," he said.  "Sometimes the
defense will take a great interest in brand usage in great
granularity and attention to detail, and other times they won't
make a big deal of it."

Instead, the defense focused on McCoy's liability, Mr. Schlesinger
said.  Defense attorneys contended it was Ms. McCoy's choice to
smoke cigarettes and that because she managed to quit in 1991, she
could just as easily have quit earlier.

The tobacco companies also questioned whether all of Ms. McCoy's
illnesses developed within the statute of limitations for Engle
claims, which runs from May 1990 to November 1996.

Defense attorneys brought in experts who said that based on when
Ms. McCoy was diagnosed with heart disease and chronic obstructive
pulmonary disease, she likely had the diseases before May 1990.

"But at trial, they were unable to get their experts to give the
testimony to support that defense," Mr. Schlesinger said, which
led the court to grant a directed verdict that took away the
statute of limitations defense for those diseases.

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. declined to comment on the case, and
Philip Morris did not return a request for comment by deadline.
R.J. Reynolds acquired Lorillard during the trial and will assume
its share of the damages.

The jury found Ms. McCoy 35 percent liable for her damages,
assigning 25 percent liability to R.J. Reynolds, 20 percent to
Lorillard and 20 percent to Philip Morris.

While awards are often reduced based on allocation of liability in
negligence cases, Ms. McCoy's family will be able to collect the
full $10.5 million because the tobacco companies' torts were found
to be intentional.

Broward Circuit Judge John J. Murphy III presided over the
monthlong trial.  The jury deliberated for more than three days on
its July 13 Phase I verdict, when it decided the tobacco companies
should pay punitive damages.

The Phase II verdict delivered four days later determined the
amount of punitive damages.

Ms. McCoy's estate was represented by Mr. Schlesinger, Jon Gdanski
and Steven Hammer of the Schlesinger Law Offices in Fort
Lauderdale.  Alex Alvarez of the Alvarez Law Firm in Coral Gables
assisted with jury selection.

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. was represented by Gordon James III and
Eric Lundt of Sedgwick in Fort Lauderdale and Stephanie Parker --
separker@jonesday.com -- John Yarber --
jyarber@jonesday.com -- and John Walker -- jmwalker@jonesday.com
-- of Jones Day in Atlanta.  Philip Morris USA Inc. was
represented by Geri Howell -- ghowell@shb.com -- of Shook, Hardy &
Bacon in Miami.


RWLS LLC: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Javier Andres Lopez, and all others similarly situated v. RWLS,
LLC dba Renegade Wireline Services, Case No. 7:15-cv-00109 (W.D.
Tex., July 17, 2015), seeks to recover all unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant RWLS, LLC dba Renegade Wireline Services is an
oilfield wireline service company servicing the oil and gas
industry in the United States. It is a limited liability company
with its principle place of business in Levelland, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremi K. Young, Esq.
      THE YOUNG LAW FIRM
      1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200
      Amarillo, TX 79101
      Tel: (806) 331-1800
      Fax: (806) 398-9095
      E-mail: jyoung@youngfirm.com


SAKUMA BROTHERS: Wash. High Court Denies Bid for Attorneys' Fee
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc, denied without
prejudice, the request for attorney's fees in the case,
CERTIFICATION FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON IN ANA LOPEZ DEMETRIO and FRANCISCO
EUGNIO PAZ, Plaintiffs, v. SAKUMA BROTHERS FARMS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 90932-6 (Wash.).

The case began in 2013 when two workers sued Sakuma Brothers Farms
Inc. in federal district court on behalf of all seasonal and
migrant agricultural workers Sakuma employs (Workers). The
Workers' class action lawsuit asserted several state and federal
claims arising from Sakuma's use of piece rate wages. In the only
claim relevant here, the Workers alleged that Sakuma deprived them
of paid rest breaks required by WAC 296-131-020(2), which provided
that "every employee should be allowed a rest period of at least
ten minutes, on the employer's time, in each four-hour period of
employment." The Workers contended "on the employer's time" meant
that Sakuma must pay a wage separate from the piece rate for the
10-minute period they were on break, since no piece rate wages
accumulated during that time.

Judge Mary I. Yu, who penned the Order dated July 16, 2015, a copy
of which is available at http://is.gd/a3pF44from Leagle.com, said
the workers' attorney fee request should be directed to the
federal district court.

Plaintiffs are represented by Marc Cote, Esq. -- mcote@tmdwlaw.com
& Toby James Marshall, Esq. -- tmarshall@tmdwlaw.com -- TERRELL
MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC

Defendants are represented by Adam S. Belzberg, Esq. --
adam.belzberg@stoel.com, Elena Christian Bundy, Esq. --
elena.bundy@stoel.com -- Timothy J. O'Connell, Esq. --
tim.oconnell@stoel.com -- STOEL RIVES LLP


SIRIUS XM: Turtles Fails to Block $210MM Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that former Turtles
bandmates Flo & Eddie may live forever on oldies stations, but
their company's lawyers at Gradstein & Marzano have lost a chance
to set precedent on the prerogatives of class counsel.  On July
22, U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez of Los Angeles denied
Gradstein & Marzano's motion to enjoin the satellite and Internet
radio company Sirius XM from moving ahead with a $210 million
settlement with five record labels that say they own or control
the rights to 80 percent of the pre-1972 songs played on Sirius XM
stations.

Flo & Eddie's filings portrayed Sirius XM's deal with the record
labels as an attempt to hijack a certified class action.
Gradstein & Marzano had sued Sirius XM in three different federal
jurisdictions in 2013, claiming the radio company wasn't paying
royalties to the owners of songs that predated the amended
Copyright Act. Judge Gutierrez granted Flo & Eddie summary
judgment on Sirius XM's liability in 2014 and, in May, certified a
class of pre-1972 song owners with claims under California law.
The judge appointed Gradstein & Marzano as class counsel.

The firm contended that, as counsel to a certified class, it
should have been included in settlement talks between Sirius XM
and the record labels -- and that Sirius XM's $210 million deal
with the labels seemed to abridge the rights of song owners who
weren't represented in those negotiations.  Sirius XM, which has
counsel from O'Melveny & Myers, and the record labels, represented
by Sidley Austin, countered that their deal only covers songs for
which the record companies control rights, so no class members
other than the five labels are affected.  They also said Gradstein
& Marzano's real motive was to grab for fees from the record
labels' settlement.

Judge Gutierrez's analysis centered on the timing of Gradstein &
Marzano's protest.  As firm partners Harvey Geller and Henry
Gradstein admitted in declarations, the Flo & Eddie lawyers knew
even before their class was certified that Sirius XM had scheduled
a mediation with the five record labels, which had brought their
own suit against the radio company in state court in Los Angeles.
Gradstein & Marzano pushed to be included in that mediation, but
when Sirius XM refused, the firm agreed to attend a separate
mediation with the radio company.

The mediations took place in June, after the class was certified,
but Gradstein & Marzano didn't ask Judge Gutierrez to order Sirius
XM to include the firm in its talks with the labels.  Nor did the
firm alert the judge when Sirius said it had reached a settlement
with the record companies.  In fact, Gradstein & Marzano went
ahead and negotiated a separate tentative deal for the class with
Sirius XM.

Only after it found out how much the labels were getting in their
settlement did Gradstein & Marzano raise a stink. Judge Gutierrez
found that timing troublesome.  "G&M's delay in challenging Sirius
XM's communications with the record companies and even the
settlement itself suggests to the court that G&M did not care to
enjoin the settlement payment or seek to recover a portion of it
until G&M learned the size of the settlement," he wrote.  "If
class counsel took issue with Sirius XM communicating with the
record companies post-certification, it should have moved to
restrict such communication after the court certified the class."
The size of the settlement, the judge said, "should not have been
a trigger for anything."

Gutierrez agreed with Sirius XM and the record labels that their
agreement did not extinguish the rights of other class members,
describing Gradstein & Marzano's argument about protecting absent
class members as "a straw man."  According to the judge, the $210
million settlement between Sirius XM and the five record labels
only covers songs owned or controlled by the labels, not by other
class members.  If it turns out the record companies oversold
their ownership to Sirius XM, the judge said, that's a problem for
the radio company.  But their agreement, the judge said, has "no
impact on the actual rights-holders" other than the labels.

Judge Gutierrez didn't delve into the merits of Gradstein &
Marzano's assertion that it is entitled to a share of the $210
million settlement because Flo & Eddie's litigation forced Sirius
XM to reach a deal with the record labels.  His opinion just
denied the firm's request to halt distribution of the money or to
place a lien against the settlement.  Name partner Henry Gradstein
said in an email response to a request for comment on the July 21
ruling that the firm intends to "go after the major labels
directly" for a share of the $210 million.

A representative of the Recording Industry Association of America
declined to comment on the ruling. Sirius XM lead counsel
Daniel Petrocelli of O'Melveny didn't respond to an email sent by
Ms. Frankel.


SOCIAL SECURITY: Must Face "Hart" Suit Over Disability Benefits
---------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN HART, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Defendant,
Case No. 15-CV-00623-JST (N.D. Cal.), is filed against Carolyn W.
Colvin in her capacity as Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
challenging the SSA's alleged reliance on consultative
examinations (CEs) performed by Dr. Frank Chen, a physician who is
now disqualified, in denying or terminating disability benefits.
Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief requiring the
SSA to cease relying on Dr. Chen's reports and requiring it to
reopen any benefits determination that relied, at least in part,
on a report prepared by Dr. Chen.

Defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1). She contended that the Court could not
exercise jurisdiction over the case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec.
405(g) because Plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative
remedies through the Social Security Administration's internal
appeals process.

District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court
Northern District of California in the Order dated July 17, 2015
available at http://is.gd/a2LJ1hfrom Leagle.com, denied
Defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) because Plaintiffs had shown that
waiver of Section 405(g)'s exhaustion requirement was appropriate
under the circumstances.

Plaintiffs are represented by William Lewis Stern, Esq. -
wstern@mofo.com, Claudia Maria Vetesi, Esq. - cvetesi@mofo.com &
Elizabeth Gilmore Balassone, Esq. - ebalassone@mofo.com --
MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

Defendant is represented by Michael Andrew Zee, Esq. -- UNITED
STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


ST. CHARLES: Settles Class Action Over Unpaid Off-the-Clock Work
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen McLaughlin, writing for The Bulletin, reports that
St. Charles Health System is close to settling a lawsuit that
claimed physical therapists were forced to work off-the-clock, and
as many as two dozen affected caregivers could share in the
proceeds.

Attorneys for St. Charles and lead plaintiff Rose Dusan-Speck
hammered out the deal on July 22 before a federal judge in
Portland.  The attorneys said in a joint statement they will seek
class-action status, which means other physical therapists who
worked for St. Charles Home Health could be compensated.  The
amount of the settlement and who will be eligible for inclusion
weren't disclosed, but court documents said 20 to 25 other home
health PTs were affected by St. Charles' practices.

"The settlement, which still needs to be submitted to and approved
by the court, will ask the court to approve a class-action
settlement.  Until that process is complete, the parties will not
be further commenting," plaintiff's attorney Roxanne Farra, of
Bend, and St. Charles attorney Brenda Baumgart --
brenda.baumgart@stoel.com -- at Stoel Rives LLP in Portland wrote
in an emailed statement.

Ms. Dusan-Speck's case is one of two class-action suits that hit
St. Charles in 2013.  The other -- which could include as many as
800 plaintiffs -- involves nurses who said they weren't paid for
mandatory training.

Ms. Dusan-Speck, who couldn't be reached for comment, was fired in
May 2012 after 35 years as a physical therapist.  In the suit she
filed the following spring, Ms. Dusan-Speck alleged she and other
home health PTs had been under significant pressure since 2009 to
meet St. Charles' productivity standards while working a 32-hour
week.  Those who couldn't faced discipline or firing, according to
the lawsuit.

The physical therapists' pay ranged from $29.03 per hour to $43.53
per hour, and they were to see five patients for every eight-hour
shift while also driving long distances to appointments.
Ms. Dusan-Speck alleged that PTs routinely put in 45 to 50 hours a
week to keep up with paperwork.  The complaint sought to cover PTs
who didn't receive regular wages after March 2007 and regular and
overtime pay after March 2010.

St. Charles denied the allegations and said Ms. Dusan-Speck failed
to notify the hospital system about unpaid hours.  Chief Judge Ann
Aiken allowed the case to proceed because she said Ms. Dusan-Speck
had presented enough evidence under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The two sides have until Sept. 11 to submit settlement documents
to Aiken.

St. Charles' attorneys and Ms. Farra have also been in settlement
talks on the nurses' case but failed to reach an agreement this
summer, according to the court docket.  The lead plaintiff in that
case is Carol Lynn Giles, a nurse who worked at Pioneer Memorial
Hospital in Prineville.


STEIN MART: Faces "Sperling" Suit Over False Advertising
--------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Sperling, and all others similarly-situated v. Stein Mart,
Inc., and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 5:15-cv-01411 (C.D. Cal.,
July 15, 2015), seeks restitution and injunctive relief under the
Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act to stop Defendant's alleged pervasive
and rampant false and misleading advertising and marketing
campaign.

Stein Mart Inc. is an upscale, boutique-style men and women's
department store chain based in Jacksonville, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher J Morosoff, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CHRISTOPHER J MOROSOFF
      77-760 Country Club Drive Suite G
      Palm Desert, CA 92211
      Tel: (760) 469-5986
      Fax: (760) 345-1581
      E-mail: cjmorosoff@morosofflaw.com

         - and -

      Douglas Caiafa, Esq.
      DOUGLAS CAIAFA APLC
      11845 West Olympic Blvd., Suite 1245
      Los Angeles, CA 90064-5095
      Tel: (310) 444-5240
      Fax: (310) 312-8260
      E-mail: dcaiafa@caiafalaw.com


SUBARU OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Oil Consumption Issues
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Denis Flierl, writing for Torque News, reports that Some Subaru
Foresters, Outbacks, Legacys, XV Crosstreks and Impreza models may
have oil consumption issues.

What models are included in the class action lawsuit against
Subaru?

Some 2011-2014 Subaru Forester, 2013 Outback, 2013 Legacy, 2013 XV
Crosstrek and 2012-2013 Impreza may use more oil than what is
normal. Here's an update and a Q&A that may help consumers who are
experiencing oil consumption issues with these vehicles.

Torque received more information from Girard Gibbs Law Group who
filed an amended complaint in a class action lawsuit against
Subaru on September 17, 2014.  The lawsuit alleges that certain
Subaru vehicles have defective engines, which burn a substantial
portion of their oil.  The lawsuit also alleges that this defect
can damage the engine and other components, create a risk of
stalling, and can lead to increased emissions and decreased fuel
efficiency.

The lawsuit also alleges that Subaru sold and leased vehicles
without disclosing that they consume a substantial portion of
their engine oil.  Below are some Frequently Asked Questions and
answers from Girard Gibbs Law Group for consumers who own one of
these vehicles.

Q. Which vehicles are included?
A. The plaintiffs have asked the court to let this case cover a
class that includes everyone who purchased or leased the following
Subaru vehicles:

2011-2014 Forester (with 2.5-liter engines)
2013 Legacy (with 2.5-liter engines)
2013 Outback (with 2.5-liter engines)
2012-2013 Impreza (with 2.0-liter engines)
2013 XV Crosstrek (with 2.0-liter engines)

Because the court has a role in deciding who is included in the
class, it's possible that the scope of the class could change.
Girard Gibbs Law Group will provide updates if that happens.

Q. Why aren't other Subaru models included in the class?
A. This lawsuit focuses on an alleged oil consumption defect in
Subaru FB engines. Not all Subaru vehicles have FB engines
installed in them.

Q. I have one of the vehicles listed above - what can I do?
A. If you have not already done so, Girard Gibbs Law Group
recommends you contact Subaru of America's customer support and
inform them of your oil consumption issue.  They may request you
take your vehicle to an authorized Subaru dealership to have the
defect diagnosed and documented.  The dealership may require you
to undergo an oil consumption test where the dealership will fill
your vehicle up with oil and have you return at various mileages
to measure the oil consumption.

The Law Group also recommends that you keep a log of when and how
much oil you have been required to add to your vehicle between oil
changes. Please also be sure to keep any receipts of vehicle
repairs and engine oil that you purchase to resolve the issue.

Q. How can I stay up-to-date on the status of the case?
A. Consumers can go to the Girard Gibbs Law Group website and get
updates on the case.

If you own one of the Subaru vehicles with the engine listed
above, and you are experiencing excessive oil consumption, take
your vehicle in to your Subaru dealer and ask for an "oil
consumption test." But keep in mind, it's been reported that some
Subaru dealers are telling owners that the oil consumption issue
is "normal" and that normal usage is 1 quart every 1200 miles.
Not all Subarus have this issue, but if your Forester, Outback,
Legacy, XV Crosstrek or Impreza with the FB engine does, take it
to the dealer who should change the oil free of cost, and ask you
to come back in 1200 miles.  If the oil usage is over their
acceptable specifications, they could replace the piston rings to
correct the problem.


TARGET CORPORATION: Recalls Circo(TM) Nightlight Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 21, 2015
Posting date: July 21, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items, Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Identification number: RA-54284

This recall involves the Circo(TM) brand nightlight collection.
The affected products include nightlights in the form of a pink
hedgehog, a blue bird, a yellow rocket, an orange dinosaur egg, a
white soccer ball and a green shark. The affected products are
powered by one lithium rechargeable battery and include an AC
adaptor. The nightlights are UL certified with file number
E363049.

The following nightlights are included in this recall:

  Name       Model Number   Colour    Size (height x width)
  ----       ------------   ------    ---------------------
  Hedgehog   060-02-1397    Pink      9 cm x 14 cm
                                      (3.5" x 5.5")
  Bird       060-02-1398    Blue      10 cm x 16.5 cm
                                      (4.0"  x 6.5")
  Rocket     060-02-1399    Yellow    15 cm x 12 cm
                                      (6.0" x 4.75")
  Dino Egg   060-02-1400    Orange    15 cm x 12 cm
                                      (6.0" x 4.75")
  Soccer     060-02-1401    White     12.5 cm x 13.5 cm
  Ball                                (5.0" x 5.25")
  Shark      060-02-1402    Green     9 cm x 17.5 cm
                                      (3.5" x 6.9")

The model numbers can be found printed on the bottom side of the
nightlights.

The battery can overheat and cause the nightlight to melt, posing
a fire hazard to consumers.

Neither Health Canada nor Target has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these
nightlights in Canada.

Approximately 3,400 nightlights were sold at Target stores across
Canada.

The recalled nightlights were sold between November 2014 and April
2015.

Manufactured in China

Manufacturer: Luckytown
              Taipei
              CHINA

Distributor: Target Corporation
             Minneapolis
             Minnesota

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled nightlights
and dispose of them according to Municipal Waste Guidelines.

For more information, consumers may contact Target toll-free at 1-
800-440-0680, between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. CST, Monday through
Friday. Consumers may also visit the company's website or the
Recall Tab on the company's Facebook page.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/i5V2R6


TEAVANA CORP: Recalls Glass Pitchers Due to Laceration Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 22, 2015
Posting date: July 22, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Physical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54300
Affected products What you should do
Joint recall with Health Canada, the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission (US CPSC) and Teavana

This recall involves the 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 30 centimetres (12 inches) tall and 10
centimetres (4 inches) in diameter.  The Teavana logo is printed
on the bottom. Style #30593000064 and SKU#11034874 are printed on
the pitchers' box.

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

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of this product.

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

Approximately 4,400 units of the recalled pitchers were sold in
Canada and 52,400 units were sold in the United States.

The recalled pitchers were sold exclusively at Teavana stores and
online at www.teavana.com from May 2012 through June 2015.

Manufactured in China.

Distributor: Teavana Corp.,
             Seattle
             Washington
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled glass
pitchers and return them to a Teavana store location or contact
Teavana for a free replacement infusion tea pitcher plus a $25
Teavana gift card or for a Teavana gift card for the purchase
price plus tax.

For more information, consumers may contact Teavana toll free at
(888) 665-0463 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. EST Monday through Friday.
Consumers can also visit the company's website at www.teavana.com
and click on "Tristan Glass Pitcher Recall".

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/a1VXWj


TEPPO PARTNERS: Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------
Piyapat Ponsurayamas, and others similarly-situated v. Teppo
Partners L.P., Teppo Management LLC, Teppo Enterprises, Inc., and
Masayuki Otaka, Case No. 3:15-cv-02345 (N.D. Tex., July 17, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime and minimum wages, liquidated
damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants is a domestic limited liability company in Texas.
The Defendant Masayuki Otaka is a corporate officer and owner and
manager of the Defendant companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie Harrison Zidell, Esq.
      J H ZIDELL PC
      6310 LBJ Freeway, Ste 112
      Dallas, TX 75240
      Tel: (972) 233-2264
      Fax: (972) 386-7610
      E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


TJ MAXX: Faces Class Action Over Bogus Price Comparisons
--------------------------------------------------------
Alice Gainer, writing for CBSNewYork, reports that major chains
are now facing legal action over their price comparisons.

The best part of bargain hunting is finding a great deal, and at
off price retailers like TJ Maxx it seems like everything is a
great deal.  The comparison price is right there on the tag.

But a proposed class action lawsuit recently filed contends those
"compare at" prices are bogus, tantamount to deceptive
advertising, because in many cases it's not the price you'd
actually pay anywhere else.

"These are just techniques to make the consumer feel like they're
getting a deal, because frankly consumers are addicted to deals,"
psychologist Kit Yarrow said.

Mr. Yarrow said the compare at prices provide an implied assurance
of value.

"In an age where consumers don't trust retailers, seeing that
they're getting a discount or a value or a deal is often the
impetus needed to buy," Mr. Yarrow explained.

But "compare at" prices may now give consumers one more reason not
to trust retailers.

"As long as I'm getting a good deal as I'm buying it.  They can
say it's $100, I still think everything is overpriced," Stellablue
Porzungolo said.

"I do feel like I'm getting cheated, but it does make you feel
like you're getting a bargain," Nancy Stone said.

TJ Maxx admits online that they're simply the "buying staff's
estimate."

CBS2 found in many cases, the folks on TJ Maxx's buying staff
aren't very good at estimating.  Hair spray that the staff said
retails for $20, appeared to be about $15.50.

They underestimated a toning wheel's "compare at" price which
actually retails for as much as $10 more than the TJ Maxx sticker
suggests.

TJ Maxx isn't alone.  Burlington Coat Factory and Nordstrom Rack
both faced similar suits for their comparison pricing.

Many high-end retailers have been accused of deceptive marketing
at their outlet stores.

While TJ Maxx's "compare at" price may be inaccurate, their prices
were still pretty low.  Branded items checked by CBS2 could not be
found for less anywhere else.

So, you may still find a deal, just not the bargain you're hunting
for.

TJ Maxx declined to comment on the class action lawsuit.


TREE OF LIFE: Recalls Hummus Dip Products Due to Sesame Seeds
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 17, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Sesame Seeds
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Tree of Life Canada
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9930

  Brand name   Common      Size    Code(s) on       UPC
  ----------   name        ----    product          ---
               ------              ----------
  Wild Garden  Hummus Dip  380 g   All codes where  0 74265-
               Creamy              sesame seeds are 00711 1
               Garbanzo            not declared on
               Bean Dip -          the label.
               Roasted
               Garlic
Wild Garden   Hummus Dip  380 g   All codes where  0 74265-
               Creamy              sesame seeds are 00714 2
               Garbanzo            not declared on
               Bean Dip -          the label.
               Fire
               Roasted Red
               Pepper


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Continues to Defend Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------
CNN WIRE reports that Presidential candidate Donald Trump wants to
"Make America Great Again!" Before he can do that, he has to
answer to allegations that his now-defunct Trump University was a
scam.

Mr. Trump is involved in two lawsuits brought by former students
and one by the New York Attorney General.

The Donald is expected to be questioned under oath next month in a
class action lawsuit brought by former students.

Art Cohen, who spent more than $36,000 on the Trump programs,
alleges that Trump University failed to deliver on its promises to
provide a premier education.

Trump University, launched in 2005, promised to teach students the
mogul's investing techniques to get rich on real estate.  But the
suit claims the teachers were not professors hand-picked by
Mr. Trump as advertised, but rather independent contractors paid
commissions for sales of the seminars and products.

The suit also alleges that the University would "upsell" students
in its initial free seminar to buy a $1,495 "one year
apprenticeship" -- which was effectively a three-day seminar.
Then if they bought that, the teachers would upsell them again to
buy "mentorships" at a cost of $10,000 and up.  The most
expensive, the Gold Elite program, cost $35,000.

"Even then, after investing nearly $36,500, students still do not
receive Defendant Trump's 'secrets' they were promised, but are
constantly subjected to upsell of additional Live Events, products
and books," the Cohen suit said.

Trump's camp rejects the allegations.  "Mr. Cohen's claims are
completely baseless," said Alan Garten, the executive vice
president and general counsel of The Trump Organization.

Jason Forge, an attorney representing Mr. Cohen, said "We'd rather
try this case in court."

In addition to Mr. Trump's upcoming deposition, more information
about his financial stake in the school may be revealed.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel in California ordered that the
plaintiff may reopen depositions of various Trump witnesses where
they were asked but didn't answer questions about the money Trump
put into -- and received from -- Trump University.

Cohen's Trump University suit isn't the first.  Another class
action suit representing students in California, Florida and New
York made similar claims and is still pending.

And in a suit brought by the State of New York, a trial court
found Trump was personally liable for running an unlicensed school
and must pay restitution to approximately 800 consumers nationwide
who took courses after May 31, 2010 from the Trump Entrepreneur
Initiative (formerly known as Trump University).

In addition, the court authorized Mr. Trump's attorneys to take
the deposition of more than 5,000 consumers who took courses
before that date and for whom New York State Attorney General
Eric Schneiderman is seeking restitution under claims of fraud.


TSUKIJI FISH: "Pillco" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Marco Pillco, and others similarly-situated v. Tsukiji Fish
Market, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-06292 (N.D. Ill., July 19, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime, an additional equal amount as
liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, and Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

The Defendant owns and operates a restaurant located in Chicago,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TUESDAY MORNING: Faces "McMahon" Suit Over FCRA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia McMahon, and all others similarly-situated v. Tuesday
Morning, Inc. and DOES 1-100, Case No. 4:15-cv-03272 (N.D. Cal.,
July 14, 2015), seeks compensatory and punitive damages due to the
Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
("FCRA") and similar California laws.

The Defendant is a corporation authorized to do business in
California. It is a retailer of off-price, upscale decorative home
accessories, house wares, seasonal goods and famous-maker gifts
that the Company generally sells below retail prices charged by
department stores and specialty and on-line retailers in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Chaim Shaun Setareh
      SETAREH LAW GROUP
      9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 711
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2937
      Tel: (310) 888-7771
      Fax: (310) 888-0109
      E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com


TYCO ELECTRONICS: Must Pay $125.8MM to Shareholders, Court Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
Tyco Electronics is liable to a group of former Com-Net Critical
Communications shareholders for $125.8 million, an Allegheny
County judge ruled.

Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Judge Alan Hertzberg ruled
Tyco Electronics owed the shareholders $80 million withheld under
a 2001 stock purchase agreement that provided for the holdback of
up to that amount depending on the future costs of the creation of
a Florida communications system.  And because the judge found Tyco
delayed the completion of the communications system until 2010
when it could have been done in 2005, he awarded the shareholders
nearly $45.8 million in interest dating back to Jan. 1, 2006.

The judge issued his ruling in the nine-year-old case July 13 and
it was first reported by Law360 on July 20.

According to the complaint in Savor v. M/A-Com Tech Holdings, Tyco
purchased in 2001 the stock of Com-Net, a company that had
constructed communications systems for police, fire and other
government agencies to communicate with one another.

Prior to Tyco's acquisition, Com-Net had entered into a contract
to create such a statewide communications system in Florida.  When
Tyco purchased Com-Net, it agreed to pay for the stock in three
ways: a $180 million payment the day the deal closed, a $20
million payment on the first anniversary of the deal and a $100
million payment when the Florida system was completed, with a
possible reduction for any overspend if the project cost more than
$124 million to complete, according to the complaint.

That $100 million figure was later reduced to $80 million less any
possible reduction to account for overspend, according to Judge
Hertzberg's ruling.

Judge Hertzberg said Tyco alleged during trial that the total cost
for the project turned out to be $170.9 million, or an overspend
of $46.9 million.  But in his findings in support of his verdict,
Hertzberg said $55.9 million of the total cost was improperly
included in Tyco's calculations under the stock purchase
agreement's requirement for a setoff of only "reasonable and
necessary costs."  He therefore found there was no overspend and
Com-Net shareholders were due the entire $80 million holdback plus
interest.

Judge Hertzberg said the stock purchase agreement and testimony at
trial require 100 percent of the verdict be paid to attorney
Steve Savor, individually and as attorney-in-fact for and
shareholders' representative of the former shareholders of
Com-Net.  Mr. Savor is the former CEO of Com-Net.

According to the complaint, there were protections put in place in
the stock purchase agreement to ensure M/A-Com Tech Holdings would
not purposefully delay the Florida project to raise costs and
avoid having to pay the shareholders the full $80 million.

Judge Hertzberg said in his findings that the stock purchase
agreement required the "diligent, timely and efficient" completion
of the Florida project using "all commercially reasonable
efforts."

Judge Hertzberg said interest on the $80 million began to accrue
when completion of the project should have occurred.  The state of
Florida had provided written acknowledgement of the project's
completion Sept. 16, 2010.  Judge Hertzberg said that, had M/A-Com
Tech Holdings not breached the agreement's timeliness provisions,
Florida could have acknowledged completion Dec. 31, 2005.

According to their proposed findings of facts and conclusions of
law submitted after the May bench trial, the defendants argued
there was no breach of the stock purchase agreement and that no
money was owed to the former shareholders.

The defendants argued Savor had no engineering background and no
experience with a project of the scale of the Florida deal.  The
defendants said Savor committed to a "commercially unreasonable"
schedule when he entered the agreement between Com-Net and
Florida.

Thomas R. Ajamie -- tajamie@ajamie.com -- of Ajamie LLP in Houston
served as lead trial counsel for the defense.  The defendants were
M/A-Com Tech Holdings, which was the successor of Com-Net after
the stock sale, M/A-Com Inc. and Tyco Electronics Corp., which is
now known as TE Connectivity.  Attorneys at K&L Gates and Thomson,
Rhodes & Cowie also represented the defendants.

Kimberly Brown -- kabrown@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day represented
Mr. Savor.

Calls to Mr. Ajamie and Ms. Brown were not returned by press time.


UBER CANADA: Faces C$400-Mil. Class Action in Ontario
-----------------------------------------------------
Bill Blare, writing for Junior College, reports that Uber is
facing a class action.

The class-action case, represented by law firm Sutts, Strosberg
LLP, seeks a whopping C$400 million ($307 million) in damages.

The lawsuit alleges that UberX and UberXL drivers have been
operating illegally because they're in contravention of section
39.1 of the Ontario Highway Traffic Act, which prohibits the
"arranging" of a commercial trip by a non-commercially licensed
vehicle.

The legal action was filed by law firm Sutts, Strosberg LLP and
named cab driver Dominic Konjevic as the plaintiff.

An Ontario court earlier this month rejected the City of Toronto's
bid to halt Uber's activities in Canada's largest city, saying
there was no evidence the company operates as a taxi broker.

"This protectionist suit is without merit", said Susie Heath, a
spokeswoman for Uber Canada.  "As we noticed from a current
courtroom ruling in Ontario, Uber is working legally and is a
enterprise mannequin distinct from conventional taxi providers".

Despite the company being scrutinized by politicians concerning
legality and safety issues, Uber remains strong in their
conviction, operating in the likes of Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal,
Quebec City, and Edmonton at the moment.

The suit centers around the UberX service, which allows drivers to
use their personal cars to ferry passengers around.

Uber's new economic and community impact data outlined the
company's growth not only in terms of drivers, but also how it is
growing its team in Chicago and increasingly servicing Chicago's
underserved neighborhoods.

The unsophisticated process for screening drivers -- exposed by
The Guardian -- also means that travel managers and HR teams will
discourage their staff from using Uber owing to potential duty of
care concerns.  At prices up to twenty-five percent less than a
taxi, uberX is the company's low-cost ridesharing option, offering
reliable on-demand transportation at the touch of a button.

As a result, Strosberg said that revenue is being diverted away
from stakeholders in the taxi industry, resulting in a substantial
losses.  "The courts have made it clear that the Highway Traffic
Act is not the way to go", Toronto police spokesperson Mark Pugash
told Motherboard at the time.

Those services use contract drivers who are not licensed taxi
operators.

Uber is offered in 58 countries, however Windsor is not on the
list of cities where the app is available.

Before Uber confirmed it would launch on July 23, the city's
position was that drivers would face stiff penalties if they
operated as an unlicensed taxi driver.

Uber says its 25 per cent cheaper than traditional taxis.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Court Trims "Reardon" TCPA Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Uber Technologies, Inc. obtained partial dismissal of the claims
asserted in the case captioned, KERRY REARDON, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-05678-JST
(N.D. Cal.).

On December 31, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a class action, alleging
that Uber's practice of sending text messages to recruit drivers
violates the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).
Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that they received texts from
Uber without having expressly consented to receive them.
Plaintiffs Jonathan Grindell, Jennifer Reilly, and Justin Bartolet
further alleged that they continued to receive texts after they
asked Uber to stop sending them texts.

On February 27, 2015, Uber filed its Motion to Dismiss the claims
of all of the Class B Plaintiffs, contending primarily that each
provided his or her cellular telephone number to Uber during the
driver-application process and therefore provided prior express
consent to receive the complained-of text messages.

District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California in the Order dated July
19, 2015 available at http://is.gd/941lIGfrom Leagle.com, granted
in part Uber's Motion to Dismiss without prejudice as it pertained
to Plaintiffs Kerry Reardon and denied in part as to Plaintiffs
James Lathrop, Jonathan Grindell, Jennifer Reilly, and Justin
Bartolet. The Court directed the Plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint within 21 days of the date of the issuance of the Order.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Hassan Ali Zavareei, Esq.
     TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP
     2000 L St NW #808
     Washington, DC 20036
     Tel: (202)973-0900

Defendant is represented by Martin Wojslaw Jaszczuk, Esq. --
mjaszczuk@lockelord.com -- Nick James DiGiovanni, Esq. --
ndigiovanni@lockelord.com -- Susan Jane Welde, Esq. --
swelde@lockelord.com -- LOCKE LORD LLP


UCLA HEALTH: Faces Data Breach Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------
Teri Robinson, writing for SC Magazine, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against UCLA Health System after a
breach exposed the personal data -- including social security
numbers and medical information -- of 4.5 million individuals.

The suit, filed by Michael Allen in a federal court in California,
accused UCLA of violating the state's Confidential Medical
Information Act among other violations.  UCLA Health announced
July 17 that it had detected suspicious activity on its network on
October 2014, and determined on May 5 that attackers accessed
parts of the network containing the sensitive information.

The suit said the health system failed to properly secure the data
and said victims "face a long term battle against identity theft."

An investigation over several months revealed that "unknown cyber
thieves now possess nonpublic personal and health information" on
customers across the nation, according to court documents
published by Health Law Policy Matters.


UNILEVER CANADA: Recalls Dove Men Face Lotion
---------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 20, 2015
Posting date: July 24, 2015
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-54368

Out of specification for Octocrylene

Depth of distribution: Wholesalers

Affected products:
Dove Men+Care Face Lotion
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02408465
Dosage form: Lotion
Strength: Octisalate 5.0% w/w,
          Avobenzone 2.0% w/w,
          Ensulizole 1.5% w/w,
          Octocrylene 1.3% w/w
Lot or serial number: 05314TO01

Recalling Firm: Unilever Canada
                160 Bloor St. E.,
                Toronto
                M4W 3R2
                Ontario
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Unilever Canada
                                160 Bloor St. E.,
                                Toronto
                                M4W 3R2
                                Ontario
                                CANADA


UNITED STATES: Half of Keepseagle Settlement Fund Remains Unspent
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe Tillman, writing for Law.com, reports that more than half of a
$680 million settlement fund for Native American farmers and
ranchers who suffered discrimination in federal loan programs
remains unspent -- a failure of "monumental" proportions, a
federal district judge in Washington said on July 24.

The question of what to do with the remaining $380 million pitted
class members, including named plaintiffs Marilyn and George
Keepseagle, against other class members and the lawyers who
represented the group in their claims against the federal
government.  On July 24, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan
refused requests by both sides to make changes to the settlement
agreement, which called for leftover money to be distributed to
nonprofits that serve Native American farmers and ranchers.

The Keepseagles and other class members wanted remaining funds to
be distributed to farmers and ranchers who already made successful
claims.  The class lawyers and the government asked the court to
change the agreement to create a trust that would decide which
organizations should receive the money.

Without an agreement, Sullivan said his hands were tied. Sullivan
wrote:

The court's role is not to craft a new compromise based upon the
court's own views about the appropriate amount of compensation due
to class members who alleged decades-long, and, in many cases,
life-altering discrimination at the hands of their federal
government. Nor is it to create a preferred process for
distributing the funds to charity.

Sullivan expressed frustration with the government's opposition to
any adjustment to the settlement agreement that would result in
more money for class members, saying it stood in contrast "to the
messages of respect and reconciliation" that President Obama and
other officials made publicly when the settlement was announced.
The judge wrote that he was bound by the agreement, but felt
compelled to make "observations" about the public policy
implications of the failure of the claims process.

"Although a $380,000,000 donation by the federal government to
charities serving Native American farmers and ranchers might well
be in the public interest, the court doubts that the judgment fund
from which this money came was intended to serve such a purpose,"
Judge Sullivan wrote.  "The public would do well to ask why
$380,000,000 is being spent in such a manner."

Judge Sullivan called the massive amount of leftover settlement
money a "cautionary tale" for other class actions.

The judge said he expected the issue to go up to an appeals court.
He urged the parties to reach an agreement.

"The simplest resolution, however, is the same path that took this
case from one of the hardest-fought cases on this court's docket
to one of the more monumental civil-rights settlements in recent
memory.  The parties have the ability to reach a compromise that
the court can approve and which would give this case finality,"
Judge Sullivan wrote.

John Dillard of Olsson Frank Weeda Terman Matz, a lawyer for the
Keepseagles, said they were disappointed with the decision but
glad the judge rejected the changes to the settlement agreement
proposed by class counsel and the government.  He said he and his
clients were open to future negotiations.

"Allowing the settlement agreement to remain as it is would be an
absurd result and not something that's consistent with this
administration's policies towards Native Americans," Mr. Dillard
said.

Joseph Sellers of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, a lead attorney
for the class, said his side was also willing to renew talks about
how best to use the leftover funds.

"We made, on behalf of the class, what we thought was the best
case for the use of the unclaimed funds in a manner that would
serve the class' interest and would meet with the approval of the
USDA," Mr. Sellers said.  "We appreciate the court's thoughtful
decision, even if it led to a result different than the one we
sought, and we are considering our options."

A DOJ spokeswoman declined to comment.


VERMONT: Faces Class Action Over Reach Up Benefit Cuts
-------------------------------------------------------
April Burbank, writing for Burlington Free Press, reports that
four Vermonters who care for children and receive disability
benefits have filed a lawsuit over a section of the state budget
that will soon cut their monthly cash support.

Their attorney, Christopher Curtis of Vermont Legal Aid, describes
the cut as a "poor tax."

"These families are among the lowest-income Vermonters in the
state," Mr. Curtis said.  "They are also struggling to meet the
needs of a person with a disability in the household, and the
grants that they're going to be reducing really are going to
affect the kids in these households . . . . It's housing.  It's
food. It's the clothes on their back."

Under the state budget approved by the Legislature and Gov.
Peter Shumlin, $125 of adult Supplemental Security Income will be
counted as unearned income, reducing Reach Up benefits for
approximately 860 households.

Reach Up is Vermont's program under federal Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families grants.

Vermont Legal Aid filed the lawsuit on July 23 in U.S. District
Court, aiming to prevent the cut from impacting August payments.

"We are asking the court to intervene, because at this point only
the court has the power to stop this cut from taking effect,"
Mr. Curtis said.

The class-action lawsuit tells the stories of four plaintiffs:
Robin Wheeler of Williamstown, who cares for a 15-year-old
daughter; Tina Bidwell of Johnson, who cares for a 17-year-old
grandson; Virginia Mattison, a mother of four children in
Bennington; and a fourth plaintiff referred to as "A.R." who cares
for two children in Lyndonville.

All four plaintiffs rely on SSI benefits they receive because of
various disabilities.

Hal Cohen, secretary of the Agency of Human Services, and
Ken Schatz, commissioner of the Department for Children and
Families, are named as defendants in their official government
roles.

The state had not filed a response to the complaint as of July 24.

Mr. Cohen was unavailable for comment, his office said.

Mr. Schatz said the change to Reach Up eligibility is consistent
with other public assistance programs, such as 3SquaresVT and
heating assistance, that also count SSI as income.

"We realize that these are families in vulnerable situations,"
Mr. Schatz said.

Rep. Mitzi Johnson, the lawmaker who led budget discussions in the
House of Representatives, said the Legislature faced difficult
decisions while trying to reach sustainable spending this year.

"It is a cut to low-income households," said Ms. Johnson, D-South
Hero and chairwoman of the House Appropriations Committee.
"There's no way of describing that another way."

The SSI change is expected to save Vermont about $1.66 million,
Ms. Johnson said.  She noted that last year the Legislature
decided to make a "reinvestment" in Reach Up, focusing on child
care subsidies and earned income calculations, of nearly the same
amount.

"We do need to acknowledge that reshaping the budget requires some
really difficult decisions across state government," Ms. Johnson
said.  "There are places where we made substantial investment --
in protecting children, in clean water and health care -- and
there are places where we had to make decisions that nobody was
excited to make."


VOLVO: 3rd Cir. Remands Sunroof Class Action to District Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reports that a
federal court should have done a better job of establishing the
various classes it approved in class action litigation filed by
Volvo car owners, says a federal appeals court in remanding the
case.

Plaintiffs allege a uniform design defect in the sunroof drainage
systems of certain Volvo models, according to the July 22 rulings
by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia in Joanne
Neal et al. v. Volvo Cars of North America, L.L.C., Volvo Car
Corp.

In August 2012, plaintiffs proposed a nationwide class of current
and former owners and lessees of the vehicles, which are
manufactured by a unit of Gothenburg, Sweden-based Volvo Car
Corp., according to the ruling.

In March 2013, the U.S. District Court in Newark, New Jersey,
denied plaintiffs' motion to certify a nationwide class, but
agreed to certify six statewide classes and denied Volvo's motion
for summary judgment dismissing the case.

Volvo filed an appeal in the 3rd Circuit, and a unanimous three-
judge panel held that the District Court should take a closer look
at the certified classes.

A lack of clarity in plaintiffs' proposed classes and claims
"combined with the district court's failure to address in detail
or list the precise claims subject to class treatment, means that
we would be required to engage in some level of guesswork were we
to try to piece together the class claims," says the ruling.

"We will not attempt to do so.  We will vacate and remand to the
district court so that it can provide a complete list of the class
claim defenses and issues for each of the six statewide classes,"
the ruling states.


WAL-MART STORES: "De La Torre" Class Suit Transferred to Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled De La Torre, et al. v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc. Case No. 5:15-cv-00557, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).
The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05085
to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
          PRATT & ASSOCIATES
          1871 The Alameda, Suite 425
          San Jose, CA 95126
          Telephone: (408) 429-6506
          Facsimile: (408) 369-0752
          E-mail: pgore@prattattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David William Nelson, Esq.
          BARNES AND THORNBURG LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 284-3770
          Facsimile: (310) 284-3894
          E-mail: dnelson@btlaw.com


WAL-MART STORES: "Mesa" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Brynner Mesa, and all others similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Stores
East LP, dba Wal-Mart Supercenter, Case No. 2015-016115-CA-01
(Fla. Cir. Ct., July 16, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wage compensation, an additional equal amount as liquidated
damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, Article X,
Section 24 of the Florida Constitution, and the Florida Minimum
Wage Act.

Wal-Mart Stores East LP dba Wal-Mart Supercenter owns and operates
retail stores, discount stores, and supermarkets. The company was
incorporated in 2001 and is based in Bentonville, Arkansas. Wal-
Mart Stores East, LP operates as a subsidiary of Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason S. Remer, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGE-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flagler Street, Ste. 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Tel: (305) 416-5000
      Fax: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com


WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Cote" Suit Over Spouse Insurance Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline A. Cote, and all others similarly situated v. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-12945 (D. Mass., July 14, 2015), is
brought against the Defendant pursuant to Title VII of the federal
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. sections 2000e, et
seq., the Equal Pay Act of 1963, 29 U.S.C. section 206(d), and the
Massachusetts Fair Employment Practices Law, Mass. Gen. Laws ch.
151B section 4.

The Action is brought on behalf of a class of current and former
Wal-Mart employees, who, prior to Jan. 1, 2014, were denied
spousal health insurance benefits by Wal-Mart due to Wal-Mart's
alleged discriminatory national policy, pattern, and practice of
refusing to provide employees with spouses of the same sex health
insurance benefits for their spouses.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is a publicly-owned corporation, retailer,
and private employer with over two million employees worldwide.
Its corporate headquarters are located in Arkansas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary Buseck, Esq.
      GAY & LESBIAN ADVOCATES & DEFENDERS
      30 Winter Street, Suite 800
      Boston, MA 02108
      Tel: (617) 426-1350
      E-mail: gbuseck@glad.org

         - and -

      Peter Romer-Friedman, Esq.
      WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE
      FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS
      11 Dupont Circle, NW, Suite 400
      Washington, DC 20036
      Tel: (202) 319-1000
      E-mail: peter_romerfriedman@washlaw.org


WRIGHT MEDICAL: Executed MOU to Settle Delaware Action
------------------------------------------------------
Wright Medical Group, Inc. and Tornier N.V. said in their Form 8-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
29, 2015, that defendants in a Delaware consolidated action have
executed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Delaware
plaintiffs reflecting their agreement to settle the Delaware
consolidated action.

Three purported class action complaints were filed in the Court of
Chancery of the state of Delaware (the "Delaware Chancery Court")
on behalf of Paul Parshall, Anthony Marks as Trustee for Marks
Clan Super and Michael Prince (the "Delaware plaintiffs"),
respectively, alleged stockholders of Wright Medical Group, Inc.
("Wright"), and all others similarly situated. The Delaware
Chancery Court consolidated these cases under the caption In re
Wright Medical Group, Inc. Stockholders Litigation (the "Delaware
consolidated action"), which names as defendants Wright, the
members of the board of directors of Wright, Tornier N.V.
("Tornier"), Trooper Holdings Inc. ("Holdco") and Trooper Merger
Sub Inc. ("Merger Sub"). The Delaware consolidated action relates
to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of October 27, 2014
by and among Wright, Tornier, Holdco and Merger Sub (the "Merger
Agreement").

On May 28, 2015, solely to avoid the costs, risks and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, and without admitting any
liability or wrongdoing, Wright and the other named defendants in
the Delaware consolidated action executed a Memorandum of
Understanding with the Delaware plaintiffs reflecting their
agreement to settle the Delaware consolidated action. The terms of
this Memorandum of Understanding provide, among other things, that
the parties will seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement
which provides for the release of all asserted claims and
dismissal with prejudice of the Delaware consolidated action. The
asserted claims will not be released, and the Delaware
consolidated action dismissed, until such stipulation of
settlement is approved by the court. If approved by the court, it
is expected that the stipulation of settlement will bind the
Delaware plaintiffs and a putative class of shareholders of
Wright. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately
enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the court will
approve such settlement even if the parties were to enter into
such stipulation. Additionally, as part of the terms of the
Memorandum of Understanding, Wright has agreed to make certain
additional disclosures related to the proposed transactions
described in the Merger Agreement.

The Memorandum of Understanding provides that Wright and the other
named defendants in the Delaware consolidated action continue to
vigorously deny all allegations of wrongdoing, fault, liability or
damage to any of the respective Delaware plaintiffs or the class
of shareholders of Wright, deny that they engaged in any
wrongdoing, deny that they committed any violation of law, deny
that the definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus is in any way
deficient, deny that they acted improperly in any way, believe
that they acted properly at all times, believe the Delaware
consolidated action has no merit, and maintain that they have
committed no disclosure violations or any other breach of duty
whatsoever in connection with the Merger Agreement or any public
disclosures, but wish to settle the Delaware consolidated action
because it will eliminate the burden, expense, and uncertainties
of further litigation.

'
On November 25, 2014, a class action complaint was filed in the
Court of Chancery of the state of Delaware (the "Delaware Chancery
Court"), by a purported shareholder of Wright under the caption
Paul Parshall v. Wright Medical Group, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
10400-CB. An amended complaint in the action was filed on February
6, 2015. The amended complaint names as defendants Wright,
Tornier, Holdco, Merger Sub and the members of the Wright board of
directors. The amended complaint asserts various causes of action,
including, among other things, that the members of the Wright
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the
Wright shareholders in connection with entering into the merger
agreement, approving the merger, and causing Wright to issue a
preliminary Form S-4 that allegedly fails to disclose material
information about the merger. The amended complaint further
alleges that Wright, Tornier, Holdco and Merger Sub aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Wright
board of directors. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things,
injunctive relief enjoining or rescinding the merger and an award
of attorneys' fees and costs.

Also on November 25, 2014, a second class action complaint was
filed in the Chancery Court of Shelby County Tennessee, for the
Thirtieth Judicial District, at Memphis (the "Tennessee Chancery
Court"), by a purported shareholder of Wright under the caption
Anthony Marks as Trustee for Marks Clan Super v. Wright Medical
Group, Inc., et al., CH-14-1721-1. An amended complaint in the
action was filed on January 7, 2015. On February 23, 2015, the
plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action, as pending in the
Tennessee Chancery Court, without prejudice. Later on February 23,
2015, the plaintiff refiled the action in the Delaware Chancery
Court under the caption Anthony Marks as Trustee for Marks Clan
Super v. Wright Medical Group, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10706-CB.
The complaint names as defendants Wright, Tornier, Holdco, Merger
Sub and the members of the Wright board of directors. The
complaint asserts various causes of action, including, among other
things, that the members of the Wright board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties owed to the Wright shareholders in
connection with entering into the merger agreement, approving the
merger, and causing Wright to issue a preliminary Form S-4 that
allegedly fails to disclose material information about the merger.
The complaint further alleges that Wright, Tornier, Holdco and
Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties by the Wright board of directors. The plaintiff is seeking,
among other things, injunctive relief enjoining or rescinding the
merger and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

On March 2, 2015, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated Paul
Parshall v. Wright Medical Group, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10400-CB,
and Anthony Marks as Trustee for Marks Clan Super v. Wright
Medical Group, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10706-CB, under the caption
In re Wright Medical Group, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No.
10400-CB.

On November 26, 2014, a third class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of Tennessee, for the Thirtieth Judicial
District, at Memphis (the "Tennessee Circuit Court"), by a
purported shareholder of Wright under the caption City of Warwick
Retirement System v. Gary D. Blackford et al., CT-005015-14. An
amended complaint in the action was filed on January 5, 2015. The
amended complaint names as defendants Wright, Tornier, Holdco,
Merger Sub and the members of the Wright board of directors. The
amended complaint asserts various causes of action, including,
among other things, that the members of the Wright board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Wright
shareholders in connection with entering into the merger
agreement, approving the merger, and causing Wright to issue a
preliminary Form S-4 that allegedly fails to disclose material
information about the merger. The amended complaint further
alleges that Tornier, Holdco and Merger Sub aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Wright board of
directors. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things,
injunctive relief enjoining or rescinding the merger and an award
of attorneys' fees and costs.

On December 2, 2014, a fourth class action complaint was filed in
the Tennessee Chancery Court by a purported shareholder of Wright
under the caption Paulette Jacques v. Wright Medical Group, Inc.,
et al., CH-14-1736-1. An amended complaint in the action was filed
on January 27, 2015. The amended complaint names as defendants
Wright, Tornier, Holdco, Merger Sub, Warburg Pincus LLC and the
members of the Wright board of directors. The amended complaint
asserts various causes of action, including, among other things,
that the members of the Wright board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties owed to the Wright shareholders in connection
with entering into the merger agreement, approving the merger, and
causing Wright to issue a preliminary Form S-4 that allegedly
fails to disclose material information about the merger. The
amended complaint further alleges that Wright, Tornier, Warburg
Pincus, Holdco and Merger Sub aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties by the Wright board of directors. The
plaintiff is seeking, among other things, injunctive relief
enjoining or rescinding the merger and an award of attorneys' fees
and costs.

On March 24, 2015, a fifth class action complaint was filed in the
Delaware Chancery Court, by a purported shareholder of Wright
under the caption Michael Prince v. Robert J. Palmisano, et al.,
C.A. No. 10829-CB. The complaint asserts various causes of action,
including, among other things, that the members of the Wright
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the
Wright shareholders in connection with entering into the merger
agreement, approving the merger, and causing Wright to issue a
preliminary Form S-4 that allegedly fails to disclose material
information about the merger. The complaint further alleges that
Wright, Tornier, Holdco and Merger Sub aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Wright board of
directors. The plaintiff is seeking, among other things,
injunctive relief enjoining or rescinding the merger and an award
of attorneys' fees and costs.

In an order dated March 31, 2015, the Tennessee Circuit Court
transferred City of Warwick Retirement System v. Gary D. Blackford
et al., CT-005015-14 to the Tennessee Chancery Court for
consolidation with Paulette Jacques v. Wright Medical Group, Inc.,
et al., CH-14-1736-1.

On May 22, 2015, the Delaware Chancery Court consolidated Michael
Prince v. Robert J. Palmisano, et al., C.A. No. 10829-CB under the
existing consolidated caption In re Wright Medical Group, Inc.
Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 10400-CB. A motion for a
preliminary injunction was filed in the Delaware consolidated
action, and the Delaware Chancery Court set a hearing on that
motion for June 9, 2015.

On May 28, 2015, the parties to the Delaware consolidated action
executed a Memorandum of Understanding (the "Memorandum of
Understanding") reflecting their agreement to settle the Delaware
consolidated action subject to, among other things, approval by
the Delaware Chancery Court. The terms of the Memorandum of
Understanding provide, among other things, that the parties will
seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement which provides for
the release of all asserted claims and dismissal with prejudice of
the Delaware consolidated action. If approved by the court, it is
expected that the stipulation of settlement will bind the
plaintiffs in the Delaware consolidated action and a putative
class of shareholders of Wright. There can be no assurance that
the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement
or that the Delaware Chancery Court will approve such settlement
even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation.
Additionally, as part of the terms of the Memorandum of
Understanding, Wright has agreed to make certain additional
disclosures related to the merger.

Under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, Wright and the
other named defendants in the Delaware consolidated action
vigorously deny all allegations of wrongdoing, fault, liability or
damage to any of the respective plaintiffs or to the class of
shareholders of Wright. Wright and the other named defendants in
the Delaware consolidated action further deny that they committed
any violation of law, that the definitive joint proxy
statement/prospectus is in any way deficient, or that they acted
improperly in any way. Wright and the other named defendants in
the Delaware consolidated action maintain that they have committed
no disclosure violations or any other breach of duty whatsoever in
connection with the merger agreement or any public disclosures,
but wish to settle the Delaware consolidated action because it
will eliminate the burden, expense, and uncertainties of further
litigation.


WYNDHAM VACATION: Faces "Gray" Suit in California District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Gray, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-01103
(C.D. Cal., June 8, 2015) arises from the alleged illegal actions
of Wyndham in negligently, knowingly, and willfully contacting the
Plaintiff and proposed class members on their cellular telephone
in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          2700 N. Main Street, Suite 1000
          Santa Ana, CA 92705
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  ml@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          411 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 301
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


WYNDHAM VACATION: Arbitrator to Decide on Class Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wyndham Vacation Ownership, Inc., lost on its bid for an order (1)
compelling arbitration of plaintiffs' claims; (2) declaring that
class arbitration is not available; and (3) staying the case
pending arbitration, in the case captioned, THOMAS CROOK, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-03669-WHO.

The putative class action stemmed from the sale of vacation
timeshares by defendants Wyndham Vacation Resorts, Inc. and
Wyndham Worldwide Corporation to plaintiffs Thomas and Donna
Crook. On November 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed the complaint in the
Superior Court of California for the County of San Francisco,
alleging the following causes of action against Wyndham and two of
its employees: (i) elder financial abuse in violation of Cal.
Welf. & Inst. Code Sec.  15610.30; (ii) common law fraud; (iii)
age discrimination in violation of California's Unruh Civil Rights
Act; (iv) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL);
(v) violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA);
and (vi) common law fraudulent misrepresentation.

Wyndham removed the case to federal district court, which then
granted Wyndham's motion to compel arbitration and stay all other
proceedings pending arbitration. Following an unsuccessful appeal
of that order, plaintiffs filed their arbitration demand and
requested class treatment in arbitration. Wyndham refused to
consent to class arbitration and filed the motion.

District Judge William H. Orrick of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California in the Order dated
July 20, 2015 available at http://is.gd/F2CAlqfrom Leagle.com,
denied Wyndham's motion because the parties clearly and
unmistakably agreed that an arbitrator would decide whether class
arbitration was available under their arbitration agreement.

"It is up to the arbitrator to decide whether class arbitration is
available under the February 2011 Agreement. This case remains
STAYED pending arbitration. The parties shall submit a joint case
management statement 180 days from the date of this order, and
every 180 days thereafter, apprising the Court of the status of
their arbitration," Judge Orrick said.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Barbara Emily Cowin Figari, Esq.
     THE FIGARI LAW FIRM
     9100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 333
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Tel: (310)910-9442

          - and -

     Lawrence Anthony Organ, Esq.
     Robert Joseph Fordiani, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE A. ORGAN
     407 San Anselmo Ave., Suite 201
     San Anselmo, CA 94960Tel:(415) 453-4740

Defendants are represented by Sarah Diane Youngblood, Esq. --
syoungblood@schiffhardin.com -- Paula J. Morency, Esq. --
pmorency@schiffhardin.com -- Rocky N. Unruh, Esq. --
runruh@schiffhardin.com -- SCHIFF HARDIN LLP


XOOM CORPORATION: Faces Stockholder Action Over PayPal Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Torres, and all others similarly-situated v. Xoom
Corporation, John Kunze, Roelof Frederik Botha, Murray J. Demo,
Kevin E. Hartz, Tom Killalea, C. Richard Kramlich, Anne C.
Mitchell, Matthew Roberts, Chris Shimojima, Paypal, Inc., Timer
Acquisition Corp., and Paypal Holdings, Inc., Case No. 11301 (Del.
Ch., July 16, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
breaching their fiduciary duties in connection with PayPal, Inc.'s
and PayPal Holdings, Inc.'s proposed acquisition, via Timer
Acquisition Corporation, of all the outstanding stock of Xoom.

The Defendant Xoom is a corporation organized and existing under
the laws of Delaware and maintains its executive offices at 425
Market Street, 12th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105. Xoom's common
stock is publicly traded on the NASDAQ exchange under the symbol
"XOOM."

The Defendant PayPal, Inc. is a corporation organized and existing
under the laws of Delaware and is a party to the Merger Agreement.

The Defendant Timer Acquisition Corporation is a corporation
organized and existing under the laws of Delaware and is a party
to the Merger Agreement.

The Defendant PayPal Holdings, Inc. is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of Delaware and is a party to the Merger
Agreement.

The Individual Defendants are officers and/or directors of Xoom.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Tel: (302) 295-5310

         - and -

      Kent A. Bronson, Esq.
      MILBERG LLP
      One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor
      New York, NY 10019
      Tel: (212) 594-5300


YONGKANG NUOGE: Recalls Air Purifiers Due to Counterfeit Mark
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 16, 2015
Posting date: July 16, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Unauthorized products
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54192

This recall involves Dyke model Lightair air purifier.  The
affected product displays a counterfeit Intertek certification
mark and Intertek file number 3131672 on the product nameplate.

The affected air purifier bears a counterfeit cETLus certification
mark and has not been evaluated by Intertek.  It is unknown if
this product is in compliance with the applicable safety standard.

Neither Health Canada nor Intertek has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of this air
purifier.

The number sold is unknown.

The time period sold is unknown, but the product was known to be
sold online at www.dykehome.com.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: YongKang NUOGE Electric Co., Ltd.
              CHINA

Consumers with the affected air purifier are advised to
immediately discontinue use of the product and to contact the
online vendor.

For more information, consumers can view the Intertek public
notice on their website.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Health Canada would like to remind Canadians to report any health
or safety incidents related to the use of this product or any
other consumer product or cosmetic by filling out the Consumer
Product Incident Report Form.

This recall is also posted on the OECD Global Portal on Product
Recalls website. You can visit this site for more information on
other international consumer product recalls.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/61c5bk


* Hong Kong Government Has Yet to Approve Class-Action Mechanism
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Kwok, writing for EJ Insight, reports that surprisingly,
Hong Kong, which is well-known for its longstanding tradition of
the rule of law and its mature judicial system, has never
implemented a class-action mechanism.

The victims of the lead contamination in Kai Ching and several
other public housing estates cannot file a class-action lawsuit
against the Housing Department or the Housing Authority, because
Hong Kong simply doesn't have such a legal procedural device.

Over the years, the legal sector in Hong Kong has been calling for
the introduction of class actions.

In 2006, the Law Reform Commission set up a special committee to
study the feasibility of introducing such a procedural device.

In 2008, the Legislative Council panel on administration of
justice and legal services carried out studies to compare
different class-action lawsuit mechanisms in other countries.

In 2009, the panel called a special meeting to discuss the issue,
during which members from various political parties all spoke in
favor of the idea.

In the same year, the Law Reform Commission launched a
consultation on the issue and published a report in 2012 that
supported the introduction of the class-action device, saying it
can open more channels through which the public can seek justice,
reduce the cost of filing civil lawsuits and increase the chance
of getting unanimous court rulings.

In fact, Hong Kong is not entirely without any class-action
lawsuit mechanism.

For example, the conditions for approval of funding by the
Consumer Legal Action Fund under the Consumer Council bear some
resemblance to the principles of class action, except that the
plaintiff cannot represent any absent party or anyone who hasn't
taken part in the lawsuit.

Hong Kong has already missed many opportunities because of the
absence of a class-action device.

The main reason why Hong Kong is unable to implement "weighted
voting rights" in the stock market is because it doesn't have a
class-action lawsuit mechanism, depriving individual shareholders
of the necessary legal protection against investment risk.

The Hong Kong Stock Exchange has said that the existence of a
class-action device is not a prerequisite for the implementation
of weighted voting rights, and some in the financial sector have
also argued that class actions are complicated and difficult to
implement.

The legal sector has already reached a consensus on the necessity
to introduce a class-action device.

It has put forward a detailed proposal for its implementation, so
all that is needed is the green light from the government.

It remains intriguing why the Department of Justice has continued
to turn a blind eye to the repeated requests of the local legal
sector for something that is clearly in the public interest.


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Formosa Plastics Wins Summary Judgment in "Lee"
----------------------------------------------------------------
A complaint for personal injury and loss of consortium was filed
alleging that Larry Winslowe Lee's condition resulted from
exposure to asbestos, including exposures from asbestos cement
pipe.  Lee was diagnosed with mesothelioma on or about
September 13, 2013.

On March 10, 2015, defendants J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., and
Formosa Plastics Corporation U.S.A. separately filed motions for
summary judgment premised on Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

JMM sought partial summary judgment to the extent the Plaintiffs'
claims relate to pre-1983 exposures from Johns-Mansville asbestos
cement pipes.  In response, the plaintiffs stated that they "do
not contend that JMM bears liability for Johns-Mansville A/C pipe,
except to the extent that JMM sold this product after it took over
Johns-Mansville's A/C pipe operations in 1983."

The plaintiffs responded to Formosa's motion by basing its
liability on its relationship and involvement with J-M A/C Pipe
Company ("JMAC") and JMM in negligently manufacturing and selling
asbestos cement pipes.

Judge Louise W. Flanagan of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, granted
summary judgment for JMM regarding the plaintiffs' claims to the
extent they arise from pre-1983 exposures, but denied to the
extent it sought summary judgment on claims for exposures after
1983.  To the extent JMM sought summary judgment on punitive
damages claims against it, the motion was denied as moot.

As to Formosa's motion, Judge Flanagan found that the plaintiffs
failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact with
respect to their claims against Formosa.  Accordingly, summary
judgment was granted for Formosa and it was dismissed from the
case.

The case is LARRY WINSLOWE LEE and SUSAN PROVOST LEE, Plaintiffs,
v. CERTAINTEED CORPORATION; FORMOSA PLASTICS CORPORATION U.S.A.,
sued individually and as parent, alter ego and successor-in-
interest to J-M Manufacturing Company and to J-M A/C Pipe
Corporation; GENUINE PARTS COMPANY, d/b/a National Automotive
Parts Association (a/k/a NAPA); J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC.,
sued individually and as parent and alter ego to J-M A/C Pipe
Corporation; KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP., U.S.A.; METROPOLITAN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY; PNEUMO ABEX LLC, sued individually and as
successor-in-interest to Abex Corporation and as succesor-in-
interest to American Brakeblok; and YAMAHA MOTOR CORPORATION,
U.S.A., Defendants, NO. 5:13-CV-826-FL (E.D.N.C.).

A full-text copy of Judge Flanagan's July 16, 2015 order is
available at http://is.gd/5m5a2Wfrom Leagle.com.

Larry Winslowe Lee and Susan Provost Lee are represented by:

          Kevin W. Paul, Esq.
          SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER BARTLETT, P.C.
          3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 610
          Dallas, Tex. 75204
          Tel: (214) 276-7680
          Fax: (214) 276-7699
          Email: kpaul@sgpblaw.com

             -- and --

          Janet Ward Black, Esq.
          WARD BLACK LAW
          208 West Wendover Avenue
          Greensboro, NC 27401
          Tel: (336) 333-2244
          Fax: (336) 379-9415

Certainteed Corporation is represented by:

          Charles M. Sprinkle, III, Esq.
          Moffatt G. McDonald, Esq.
          Scott E. Frick, Esq.
          William David Conner, Esq.
          HAYNSWORTH SINKLER BOYD, P.A.
          ONE North Main, 2nd Floor
          Greenville, SC  29601-2772
          Tel: (864) 240-3200
          Fax: (864) 240-3300
          Email: csprinkle@hsblawfirm.com
                 mmcdonald@hsblawfirm.com
                 sfrick@hsblawfirm.com
                 dconner@hsblawfirm.com

             -- and --

          Elizabeth R. Geise, Esq.
          SCHIFF HARDIN LLP
          901 K Street NW, Suite 700
          Washington, DC 20001
          Tel: (202) 778-6400
          Fax: (202) 778-6460
          Email: egeise@schiffhardin.com

Genuine Parts Company is represented by:

          Heather Bell Adams, Esq.
          Matthew Patrick McGuire, Esq.
          Richard Anthony McAvoy, Esq.
          Ryan P. Ethridge, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          4721 Emperor Boulevard, Suite 400
          Durham, NC 27703-8580
          Tel: (919) 862-2200
          Fax: (919) 862-2260
          Email: heather.adams@alston.com
                 matt.mcguire@alston.com
                 rich.mcavoy@alston.com
                 ryan.ethridge@alston.com

J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc. is represented by:

          Carrie Lin, Esq.
          MANION GAYNOR & MANNING, LLP
          201 Spear Street, 18th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Tel: (415) 512-4381
          Fax: (415) 512-6791
          Email: clin@mgmlaw.com

             -- and --

          Christopher O. Massenburg, Esq.
          MANION GAYNOR & MANNING, LLP
          One Canal Place 365 Canal Street, Suite 3000
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Tel: (504) 535-2880
          Fax: (504) 535-2886
          Email: cmassenburg@mgmlaw.com

             -- and --

          John T. Hugo, Esq.
          MANION GAYNOR & MANNING, LLP
          21 Custom House Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Tel: (617) 670-8800
          Fax: (617) 670-8801
          Email: jhugo@mgmlaw.com

             -- and --

          Daniel B. White, Esq.
          James M. Dedman, IV, Esq.
          Stephanie G. Flynn, Esq.
          GALLIVAN, WHITE & BOYD, P.A.
          One Morrocroft Centre, 6805 Morrison Blvd., Suite 200
          Charlotte NC 28211
          Tel: (704) 552-1712
          Fax: (704) 362-4850
          Email: dwhite@gwblawfirm.com
                 jdedman@gwblawfirm.com
                 sflynn@gwblawfirm.com

             -- and --

          Sarah M. Bowman, Esq.
          VOLVO GROUP

Kawasaki Motors Corp., U.S.A., is represented by:

          Kirk G. Warner, Esq.
          Addie K.S. Ries, Esq.
          Christopher R. Kiger, Esq.
          SMITH ANDERSON BLOUNT DORSETT MITCHELL & JERNIGAN
          Wells Fargo Capitol Center
          150 Fayetteville Street, Suite 2300
          Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
          Tel: (919) 821-1220
          Fax: (919) 821-6800
          Email: kwarner@smithlaw.com
                 aries@smithlaw.com
                 ckiger@smithlaw.com

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is represented by:

          Keith E. Coltrain, Esq.
          WALL TEMPLETON & HALDRUP, P.A.
          1001 Wade Avenue, Suite 423
          Raleigh, NC 27605
          Tel: (919) 865-9500
          Fax: (919) 865-9501
          Email: keith.coltrain@walltempleton.com

Pneumo Abex LLC and Yamaha Motor Corporation, U.S.A. are
represented by:

          Timothy W. Bouch, Esq.
          LEATH BOUCH & SEEKINGS, LLP
          92 Broad Street
          Charleston, SC 29401
          Tel: (843) 937-8811


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals from PPG Unit's Ch. 11 Plan Are Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Appeals from the order confirming the Chapter 11 Plan of PPG
Industries, Inc.'s subsidiary, Pittsburgh Corning Corporation,
remain pending, according to PPG's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2015.

For over 30 years, PPG has been a defendant in lawsuits involving
claims alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos.  Most
of PPG's potential exposure relates to allegations by plaintiffs
that PPG should be liable for injuries involving asbestos-
containing thermal insulation products, known as Unibestos,
manufactured and distributed by Pittsburgh Corning Corporation
("PC"). PPG and Corning Incorporated are each 50% shareholders of
PC. PPG has denied responsibility for, and has defended, all
claims for any injuries caused by PC products. As of the April 16,
2000 order which stayed and enjoined asbestos claims against PPG,
PPG was one of many defendants in numerous asbestos-related
lawsuits involving approximately 114,000 claims served on PPG.
During the period of the stay, PPG generally has not been aware of
the dispositions, if any, of these asbestos claims.

Background of PC Bankruptcy Plan of Reorganization

On April 16, 2000, PC filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania located
in Pittsburgh, Pa. Accordingly, in the first quarter of 2000, PPG
recorded an after-tax charge of $35 million for the write-off of
all of its investment in PC. As a consequence of the bankruptcy
filing and various motions and orders in that proceeding, the
asbestos litigation against PPG (as well as against PC) has been
stayed and the filing of additional asbestos suits against them
has been enjoined, until 30 days after the effective date of a
confirmed plan of reorganization for PC substantially in
accordance with the settlement arrangement among PPG and several
other parties.  By its terms, the stay may be terminated if the
settlement arrangement is not likely to be consummated.

"On May 14, 2002, PPG announced that it had agreed with several
other parties, including certain of its insurance carriers, the
official committee representing asbestos claimants in the PC
bankruptcy, and the legal representatives of future asbestos
claimants appointed in the PC bankruptcy, on the terms of a
settlement arrangement relating to certain asbestos claims against
PPG and PC (the "2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement").
On March 28, 2003, Corning Incorporated announced that it had
separately reached its own arrangement with the representatives of
asbestos claimants for the settlement of certain asbestos claims
against Corning Incorporated and PC (the "2003 Corning Settlement
Arrangement").

The terms of the 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement and the 2003
Corning Settlement Arrangement were incorporated into a bankruptcy
reorganization plan for PC along with a disclosure statement
describing the plan, which PC filed with the Bankruptcy Court on
April 30, 2003. Amendments to the plan and disclosure statement
were subsequently filed. On November 26, 2003, after considering
objections to the second amended disclosure statement and plan of
reorganization, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving
such disclosure statement and directing that it be sent to
creditors, including asbestos claimants, for voting. In March
2004, the second amended PC plan of reorganization (the "second
amended PC plan of reorganization") received the required votes to
approve the plan with a channeling injunction for present and
future asbestos claimants under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy
Code. After voting results for the second amended PC plan of
reorganization were received, the Bankruptcy Court judge conducted
a hearing regarding the fairness of the settlement, including
whether the plan would be fair with respect to present and future
claimants, whether such claimants would be treated in
substantially the same manner, and whether the protection provided
to PPG and its participating insurers would be fair in view of the
assets they would convey to the asbestos settlement trust (the
"Trust") to be established as part of the second amended PC plan
of reorganization. At that hearing, creditors and other parties in
interest raised objections to the second amended PC plan of
reorganization. Following that hearing, the Bankruptcy Court
scheduled oral arguments for the contested items.

The Bankruptcy Court heard oral arguments on the contested items
on November 17-18, 2004. At the conclusion of the hearing, the
Bankruptcy Court agreed to consider certain post-hearing written
submissions. In a further development, on February 2, 2005, the
Bankruptcy Court established a briefing schedule to address
whether certain aspects of a decision of the U.S. Third Circuit
Court of Appeals in an unrelated case had any applicability to the
second amended PC plan of reorganization. Oral arguments on these
matters were subsequently held in March 2005. During an omnibus
hearing on February 28, 2006, the Bankruptcy Court judge stated
that she was prepared to rule on the PC plan of reorganization in
the near future, provided certain amendments were made to the
plan. Those amendments were filed, as directed, on March 17, 2006.
After further conferences and supplemental briefings, in December
2006, the court denied confirmation of the second amended PC plan
of reorganization, on the basis that the plan was too broad in the
treatment of allegedly independent asbestos claims not associated
with PC.

Terms of 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement

PPG had no obligation to pay any amounts under the 2002 PPG
Settlement Arrangement until 30 days after the second amended PC
plan of reorganization was finally approved by an appropriate
court order that was no longer subject to appellate review (the
"Effective Date"). If the second amended PC plan of reorganization
had been approved as proposed, PPG and certain of its insurers
(along with PC) would have made payments on the Effective Date to
the Trust, which would have provided the sole source of payment
for all present and future asbestos bodily injury claims against
PPG, its subsidiaries or PC alleged to be caused by the
manufacture, distribution or sale of asbestos products by these
companies. PPG would have conveyed the following assets to the
Trust: (i) the stock it owns in PC and Pittsburgh Corning Europe,
(ii) 1,388,889 shares of PPG's common stock and (iii) aggregate
cash payments to the Trust of approximately $998 million, payable
according to a fixed payment schedule over 21 years, beginning on
June 30, 2003, or, if later, the Effective Date. PPG would have
had the right, in its sole discretion, to prepay these cash
payments to the Trust at any time at a discount rate of 5.5% per
annum as of the prepayment date. In addition to the conveyance of
these assets, PPG would have paid $30 million in legal fees and
expenses on behalf of the Trust to recover proceeds from certain
historical insurance assets, including policies issued by certain
insurance carriers that were not participating in the settlement,
the rights to which would have been assigned to the Trust by PPG.

Under the proposed 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement, PPG's
participating historical insurance carriers would have made cash
payments to the Trust of approximately $1.7 billion between the
Effective Date and 2023. These payments could also have been
prepaid to the Trust at any time at a discount rate of 5.5% per
annum as of the prepayment date. In addition, PPG would have
assigned to the Trust its rights, insofar as they related to the
asbestos claims to have been resolved by the Trust, to the
proceeds of policies issued by certain insurance carriers that
were not participating in the 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement and
from the estates of insolvent insurers and state insurance
guaranty funds.

Under the proposed 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement, PPG would have
granted asbestos releases to all participating insurers, subject
to a coverage-in-place agreement with certain insurers for the
continuing coverage of premises claims. PPG would have granted
certain participating insurers full policy releases on primary
policies and full product liability releases on excess coverage
policies. PPG would have also granted certain other participating
excess insurers credit against their product liability coverage
limits.

If the second amended PC plan of reorganization incorporating the
terms of the 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement and the 2003 Corning
Settlement Arrangement had been approved by the Bankruptcy Court,
the Court would have entered a channeling injunction under Section
524(g) and other provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, prohibiting
present and future claimants from asserting bodily injury claims
after the Effective Date against PPG or its subsidiaries or PC
relating to the manufacture, distribution or sale of asbestos-
containing products by PC or PPG or its subsidiaries. The
injunction would have also prohibited codefendants in those cases
from asserting claims against PPG for contribution,
indemnification or other recovery. All such claims would have been
filed with the Trust and only paid from the assets of the Trust.

Modified Third Amended PC Plan of Reorganization

To address the issues raised by the Bankruptcy Court in its
December 2006 ruling, the interested parties engaged in extensive
negotiations regarding the terms of a third amended PC plan of
reorganization, including modifications to the 2002 PPG Settlement
Arrangement. A modified third amended PC plan of reorganization
(the "third amended PC plan of reorganization"), including a
modified PPG settlement arrangement (the "2009 PPG Settlement
Arrangement"), was filed with the Bankruptcy Court on January 29,
2009. The parties also filed a disclosure statement describing the
third amended PC plan of reorganization with the court. The third
amended PC plan of reorganization also includes a modified
settlement arrangement of Corning Incorporated.

Several creditors and other interested parties filed objections to
the disclosure statement. Those objections were overruled by the
Bankruptcy Court by order dated July 6, 2009 approving the
disclosure statement. The third amended PC plan of reorganization
and disclosure statement were then sent to creditors, including
asbestos claimants, for voting. The report of the voting agent,
filed on February 18, 2010, revealed that all voting classes,
including asbestos claimants, voted overwhelmingly in favor of the
third amended PC plan of reorganization, which included the 2009
PPG Settlement Arrangement. In light of the favorable vote on the
third amended PC plan of reorganization, the Bankruptcy Court
conducted a hearing regarding the fairness of the proposed plan,
including whether (i) the plan would be fair with respect to
present and future claimants, (ii) such claimants would be treated
in substantially the same manner, and (iii) the protection
provided to PPG and its participating insurers would be fair in
view of the assets they would convey to the Trust to be
established as part of the third amended PC plan of
reorganization. The hearing was held in June of 2010. The
remaining objecting parties (a number of objections were resolved
through plan amendments and stipulations filed before the hearing)
appeared at the hearing and presented their cases. At the
conclusion of the hearing, the Bankruptcy Court established a
briefing schedule for its consideration of confirmation of the
plan and the objections to confirmation. That briefing was
completed and final oral arguments held in October 2010. On June
16, 2011 the Bankruptcy Court issued a decision denying
confirmation of the third amended PC plan of reorganization.

Following the June 16, 2011 ruling, the third amended PC plan of
reorganization was the subject of negotiations among the parties
in interest, amendments, proposed amendments and hearings. PC then
filed an amended PC plan of reorganization on August 17, 2012.
Objections to the plan, as amended, were filed by three entities.
One set of objections was resolved by PC, and another set merely
restated for appellate purposes objections filed by a party that
the Bankruptcy Court previously overruled. The Bankruptcy Court
heard oral argument on the one remaining set of objections filed
by the remaining affiliated insurer objectors on October 10, 2012.
At the conclusion of that argument, the Bankruptcy Court set forth
a schedule for negotiating and filing language that would resolve
some, but not all, of the objections to confirmation advanced by
the insurer objectors. On October 25, 2012, PC filed a notice
regarding proposed confirmation order language that resolved those
specific objections. Following additional hearings and status
conferences, technical amendments to the PC plan of reorganization
were filed on May 15, 2013. On May 16, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court
issued a memorandum opinion and interim order confirming the PC
plan of reorganization, as amended, and setting forth a schedule
for motions for reconsideration. Following the filing of motions
for reconsideration, the Bankruptcy Court, on May 24, 2013, issued
a revised memorandum opinion and final order confirming the
modified third amended plan of reorganization and issuing the
asbestos permanent channeling injunction. The remaining insurer
objectors filed a motion for reconsideration on June 6, 2013. On
November 12, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order granting
in part (by clarifying the scope of the channeling injunction in
accordance with the agreement of the parties as expressed at the
time of final argument on the motion for reconsideration) and
otherwise denying the motion for reconsideration. Notices of
appeal to the U. S. District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania were filed by the remaining objecting parties. On
March 17, 2014, the appeal of the remaining non-insurer objecting
party was dismissed voluntarily, leaving only two affiliated
insurance companies as appellants.

On September 30, 2014, the District Court issued a memorandum
opinion and order affirming the confirmation order.  On October
28, 2014, the remaining insurance company objectors filed a Notice
of Appeal with the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals challenging
the affirmance order.  The opening brief of the objecting parties
has been filed. If the District Court opinion and order are
affirmed by the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals, the remaining
objectors subsequently could seek review by the U.S. Supreme
Court.

The 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement will not become effective
until certain conditions precedent are satisfied or waived and the
amended PC plan of reorganization is finally approved by an
appropriate court order that is no longer subject to appellate
review, and PPG's initial contributions will not be due until 30
business days thereafter (the "Funding Effective Date").

Asbestos Claims Subject to Bankruptcy Court's Channeling
Injunction

The Bankruptcy Court's channeling injunction, entered under
Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code and which will become
effective after the order confirming the modified third amended
plan of reorganization is no longer subject to appellate review,
will prohibit present and future claimants from asserting asbestos
claims against PC. With regard to PPG, the channeling injunction
by its terms will prohibit present and future claimants from
asserting claims against PPG that arise, in whole or in part, out
of exposure to Unibestos, or any other asbestos or asbestos-
containing products manufactured, sold and/or distributed by PC,
or asbestos on or emanating from any PC premises. The injunction
by its terms will also prohibit codefendants in these cases that
are subject to the channeling injunction from asserting claims
against PPG for contribution, indemnification or other recovery.
Such injunction will also preclude the prosecution of claims
against PPG arising from alleged exposure to asbestos or asbestos-
containing products to the extent that a claimant is alleging or
seeking to impose liability, directly or indirectly, for the
conduct of, claims against or demands on PC by reason of PPG's:
(i) ownership of a financial interest in PC; (ii) involvement in
the management of PC, or service as an officer, director or
employee of PC or a related party; (iii) provision of insurance to
PC or a related party; or (iv) involvement in a financial
transaction affecting the financial condition of PC or a related
party. The foregoing PC related claims are referred to as "PC
Relationship Claims" and constitute, in PPG management's opinion,
the vast majority of the pending asbestos personal injury claims
against PPG. All claims channeled to the Trust will be paid only
from the assets of the Trust.

Asbestos Claims Retained by PPG

The channeling injunction will not extend to any claim against PPG
that arises out of exposure to any asbestos or asbestos-containing
products manufactured, sold and/or distributed by PPG or its
subsidiaries, or for which they are otherwise alleged to be
liable, that is not a PC Relationship Claim, and in this respect
differs from the channeling injunction contemplated by the second
amended PC plan of reorganization filed in 2003. While management
believes that the vast majority of the approximately 114,000
claims against PPG alleging personal injury from exposure to
asbestos relate to products manufactured, distributed or sold by
PC, the potential liability for any non-PC Relationship Claims
will be retained by PPG. Because a determination of whether an
asbestos claim is a non-PC Relationship Claim would typically not
be known until shortly before trial and because the filing and
prosecution of asbestos claims (other than certain premises
claims) against PPG has been enjoined since April 2000, the actual
number of non-PC Relationship Claims that may be pending at the
expiration of the stay or the number of additional claims that may
be filed against PPG in the future cannot be determined at this
time. PPG intends to defend against all such claims vigorously and
their ultimate resolution in the court system is expected to occur
over a period of years.

In addition, similar to what was contemplated by the second
amended PC plan of reorganization, the channeling injunction will
not extend to claims against PPG alleging personal injury caused
by asbestos on premises owned, leased or occupied by PPG (so
called "premises claims"), which generally have been subject to
the stay imposed by the Bankruptcy Court, although motions to lift
the stay as to individual premises claims have been granted from
time to time. Historically, a small proportion of the claims
against PPG and its subsidiaries have been premises claims, and
based upon review and analysis, PPG believes that the number of
premises claims currently comprises less than 2% of the total
asbestos related claims against PPG. Beginning in late 2006, the
Bankruptcy Court lifted the stay with respect to certain premises
claims against PPG. As a result, PPG and its primary insurers have
settled approximately 580 premises claims. PPG's insurers agreed
to provide insurance coverage for a major portion of the payments
made in connection with the settled claims, and PPG accrued the
portion of the settlement amounts not covered by insurance.
Primarily as a result of motions practice in the Bankruptcy Court
with respect to the application of the stay to premises claims,
PPG faces approximately 330 active premises claims. PPG is
currently engaged in the process of settling or otherwise
resolving approximately 80 of these claims. Of the remaining 250
active premises claims, approximately 115 such claims have been
initiated in lawsuits filed in various state courts, primarily in
Louisiana, West Virginia, Ohio, Illinois, and Pennsylvania, and
are the subjects of active litigation and are being defended by
PPG. PPG believes that any financial exposure resulting from such
premises claims, taking into account available insurance coverage,
will not have a material adverse effect on PPG's consolidated
financial position, liquidity or results of operations.

PPG's Funding Obligations

PPG has no obligation to pay any amounts under the third amended
PC plan of reorganization, as amended, until the Funding Effective
Date. On the Funding Effective Date, PPG will relinquish any claim
to its equity interest in PC, convey the stock it owns in
Pittsburgh Corning Europe and transfer 1,388,889 shares of PPG's
common stock or cash equal to the fair value of such shares as
defined in the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement. PPG will make
aggregate pre-tax cash payments to the Trust of approximately $825
million, payable according to a fixed payment schedule over a
period ending in 2023. The first payment is due on the Funding
Effective Date. PPG would have the right, in its sole discretion,
to prepay these pre-tax cash payments to the Trust at any time at
a discount rate of 5.5% per annum as of the prepayment date. PPG's
historical insurance carriers participating in the third amended
PC plan of reorganization will also make cash payments to the
Trust of approximately $1.7 billion between the Funding Effective
Date and 2027. These payments could also be prepaid to the Trust
at any time at a discount rate of 5.5% per annum as of the
prepayment date. PPG will grant asbestos releases and
indemnifications to all participating insurers, subject to amended
coverage-in-place arrangements with certain insurers for remaining
coverage of premises claims. PPG will grant certain participating
insurers full policy releases on primary policies and full product
liability releases on excess coverage policies. PPG will also
grant certain other participating excess insurers credit against
their product liability coverage limits.

PPG's obligation under the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement at
December 31, 2008 was $162 million less than the amount that would
have been due under the 2002 PPG Settlement Arrangement. This
reduction is attributable to a number of negotiated provisions in
the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement, including the provisions
relating to the channeling injunction under which PPG retains
liability for any non-PC Relationship Claims. PPG will retain such
amount as a reserve for asbestos-related claims that will not be
channeled to the Trust, as this amount represents PPG's best
estimate of its liability for these claims. PPG does not have
sufficient current claim information or settlement history on
which to base a better estimate of this liability, in light of the
fact that the Bankruptcy Court's stay has been in effect since
2000. As a result, PPG's reserve at March 31, 2015 and December
31, 2014 for asbestos-related claims that will not be channeled to
the Trust is $162 million. This amount is included within "Other
liabilities" on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. In
addition, under the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement, PPG will
retain for its own account rights to recover proceeds from certain
historical insurance assets, including policies issued by non-
participating insurers. Rights to recover these proceeds would
have been assigned to the Trust by PPG under the 2002 PPG
Settlement Arrangement.

Following the effective date of the third amended PC plan of
reorganization, as amended, and the lifting of the Bankruptcy
Court stay, PPG will monitor the activity associated with asbestos
claims which are not channeled to the Trust pursuant to the third
amended PC plan of reorganization, and evaluate its estimated
liability for such claims and related insurance assets then
available to the Company as well as underlying assumptions on a
periodic basis to determine whether any adjustment to its reserve
for these claims is required.

Of the total obligation of $1.1 billion under the 2009 PPG
Settlement Arrangement at March 31, 2015, $813 million is reported
as a current liability and $263 million is reported as a non-
current liability in the accompanying condensed consolidated
balance sheet. The future accretion of the noncurrent portion of
the liability will total $78 million and be reported as expense in
the condensed consolidated statement of income over the period
through 2023.

The fair value of the equity forward instrument is included as an
"Other current asset" as of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014
in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet.

Payments under the fixed payment schedule require annual payments
that are due each June. The current portion of the asbestos
settlement liability included in the accompanying condensed
consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2015 consists of all
such payments required through June 2015, the fair value of PPG's
common stock and the value of PPG's investment in Pittsburgh
Corning Europe. The net present value of the remaining payments
due is included in the long-term asbestos settlement liability in
the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March
31, 2015.

Enjoined Claims

If the 2009 PPG Settlement Arrangement is not implemented, for any
reason, and the Bankruptcy Court stay expires, PPG intends to
defend vigorously the pending and any future asbestos claims,
including PC Relationship Claims, asserted against it and its
subsidiaries. PPG continues to assert that it is not responsible
for any injuries caused by PC products, which it believes account
for the vast majority of the pending claims against PPG. Prior to
2000, PPG had never been found liable for any PC-related claims.
In numerous cases, PPG was dismissed on motions prior to trial,
and in others PPG was released as part of settlements by PC. PPG
was found not responsible for PC-related claims at trial in two
cases. In January 2000, one jury found PPG, for the first time,
partly responsible for injuries to five plaintiffs alleged to be
caused by PC products. The plaintiffs holding the judgment on that
verdict moved to lift the injunction as applied to their claims.
Before the hearing on that motion, PPG entered into a settlement
with those claimants in the second quarter of 2010 to avoid the
costs and risks associated with the possible lifting of the stay
and appeal of the adverse 2000 verdict. The settlement resolved
both the motion to lift the injunction and the judgment against
PPG. The cost of this settlement was not significant to PPG's
results of operations for the second quarter of 2010 and was fully
offset by prior insurance recoveries. Although PPG has
successfully defended asbestos claims brought against it in the
past, in view of the number of claims, and the significant
verdicts that other companies have experienced in asbestos
litigation, the result of any future litigation of such claims is
inherently unpredictable.

PPG Industries, Inc., (PPG) manufactures and distributes a range
of coatings, optical and specialty materials and glass products.
It is a supplier of protective and decorative coatings. PPG
operates in five business segments, which includes Performance
Coatings, Industrial Coatings, Architectural Coatings-EMEA
(Europe, Middle East and Africa), Optical and Specialty Materials,
and Glass. The Performance Coatings, Industrial Coatings and
Architectural Coatings- EMEA segments supply protective and
decorative finishes for customers in a range of end use markets,
including industrial equipment, appliances and packaging; factory-
finished aluminum extrusions and steel and aluminum coils; marine
and aircraft equipment; automotive original equipment; and other
industrial and consumer products. The Optical and Specialty
Materials segment consist of the optical products and silicas
businesses. The Glass business segment consists of the flat glass
and fiber glass businesses.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Hartford Financial Has $1.92-Bil. A&E Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., recorded asbestos and
environmental ("A&E") net reserves of $1.92 billion, according to
the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

A number of factors affect the variability of estimates for
asbestos and environmental reserves including assumptions with
respect to the frequency of claims, the average severity of those
claims settled with payment, the dismissal rate of claims with no
payment and the expense to indemnity ratio. The uncertainty with
respect to the underlying reserve assumptions for asbestos and
environmental adds a greater degree of variability to these
reserve estimates than reserve estimates for more traditional
exposures. While this variability is reflected in part in the size
of the range of reserves developed by the Company, that range may
still not be indicative of the potential variance between the
ultimate outcome and the recorded reserves. The recorded net
reserves as of March 31, 2015 of $1.92 billion ($1.68 billion and
$234 for asbestos and environmental, respectively) is within an
estimated range, unadjusted for covariance, of $1.5 billion to
$2.3 billion. The process of estimating asbestos and environmental
reserves remains subject to a wide variety of uncertainties.  The
Company believes that its current asbestos and environmental
reserves are appropriate. However, analyses of future developments
could cause the Company to change its estimates and ranges of its
asbestos and environmental reserves, and the effect of these
changes could be material to the Company's consolidated operating
results and liquidity.

Consistent with the Company's long-standing reserve practices, the
Company will continue to review and monitor its reserves in
Property & Casualty Other Operations regularly, including its
annual reviews of asbestos liabilities, reinsurance recoverables
and the allowance for uncollectible reinsurance, and environmental
liabilities, and where future developments indicate, make
appropriate adjustments to the reserves. The company will complete
both its annual ground-up asbestos and environmental reserve
studies during the second quarter of 2015.

The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. is a holding company
for insurance and financial services subsidiaries that provide
property and casualty and life insurance, as well as investment
products to both individual and business customers in the United
States. The Company conducts business in six segments, including
Property & Casualty Commercial, Consumer Markets, Property &
Casualty Other Operations, Group Benefits, Mutual Funds and
Talcott Resolution, as well as a Corporate category. The Company
includes in its Corporate category the Company's debt financing
and related interest expense, as well as other capital raising
activities, and purchase accounting adjustments related to
goodwill and other expenses not allocated to the segments.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had 44,587 PI Claims at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. had 44,587 pending asbestos-related claims, according to
the Company's Form 8-K dated April 27, 2015, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015.

As of March 31, 2015, the Company was a defendant in cases filed
in numerous state and federal courts alleging injury or death as a
result of exposure to asbestos.

Of the 44,587 pending claims as of March 31, 2015, approximately
18,600 claims were pending in New York, approximately 7,300 claims
were pending in Texas, approximately 5,100 claims were pending in
Mississippi, and approximately 300 claims were pending in Ohio,
all jurisdictions in which legislation or judicial orders restrict
the types of claims that can proceed to trial on the merits.

Crane Co., (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the
Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered
Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic
panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court To Hear Oral Argument in "Dummitt"
---------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co., reported that oral argument in the asbestos lawsuit
filed by Ronald Dummitt claim will be heard this year, according
to the Company's Form 8-K dated April 27, 2015, filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015.

On August 17, 2011, a New York City state court jury found the
Company responsible for a 99% share of a $32 million verdict on
the Ronald Dummitt claim. The Company filed post-trial motions
seeking to overturn the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to
reduce the damages, which the Company argued were excessive under
New York appellate case law governing awards for non-economic
losses. The Court held oral argument on these motions on October
18, 2011 and issued a written decision on August 21, 2012
confirming the jury's liability findings but reducing the award of
damages to $8 million. At plaintiffs' request, the Court entered a
judgment in the amount of $4.9 million against the Company, taking
into account settlement offsets and accrued interest under New
York law. The Company appealed, and the judgment was affirmed in a
3-2 decision and order dated July 3, 2014. The Company has
appealed to the New York Court of Appeals. The parties' briefing
has concluded and oral argument will be heard in 2015.

Crane Co., (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the
Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered
Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic
panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Oral Argument in "Suttner" Set for This Year
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co., reported that oral argument in the asbestos lawsuit
filed by Gerald Suttner will be heard this year, according to the
Company's Form 8-K dated April 27, 2015, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015.

On October 23, 2012, the Company received an adverse verdict in
the Gerald Suttner claim in Buffalo, New York. The jury found that
the Company was responsible for four percent (4%) of plaintiffs'
damages of $3 million. The Company filed post-trial motions
requesting judgment in the Company's favor notwithstanding the
jury's verdict, which were denied. The court entered a judgment of
$0.1 million against the Company. The Company appealed, and the
judgment was affirmed by order dated March 21, 2014. The Company
sought reargument of this decision, which was denied. The Company
sought review before the New York Court of Appeals, which was
accepted in the fourth quarter of 2014. Oral argument will be
heard in 2015.

Crane Co., (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the
Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered
Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic
panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Appeal in "Hellam" Is Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co.'s appeal against the verdict favoring James Hellam
remains pending, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated April
27, 2015, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
on April 30, 2015.

On November 28, 2012, the Company received an adverse verdict in
the James Hellam claim in Oakland, CA. The jury found that the
Company was responsible for seven percent (7%) of plaintiffs' non-
economic damages of $4.5 million, plus a portion of their economic
damages of $0.9 million. Based on California court rules regarding
allocation of damages, judgment was entered against the Company in
the amount of $1.282 million. The Company filed post-trial motions
requesting judgment in the Company's favor notwithstanding the
jury's verdict and also requesting that settlement offsets be
applied to reduce the judgment in accordance with California law.
On January 31, 2013, the court entered an order disposing
partially of that motion. On March 1, 2013, the Company filed an
appeal regarding the portions of the motion that were denied. The
court entered judgment against the Company in the amount of $1.1
million. The Company appealed. By opinion dated April 16, 2014,
the Court of Appeal affirmed the finding of liability against the
Company, and the California Supreme Court denied review of this
ruling. The Court of Appeal reserved the arguments relating to
recoverable damages to a subsequent appeal that remains pending.

Crane Co., (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the
Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered
Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic
panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. To Seek Review of "Amato" Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co., plans to file a motion for reconsideration regarding a
court's decision in an asbestos lawsuit filed by Thomas Amato,
according to the Company's Form 8-K dated April 27, 2015, filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30,
2015.

On February 25, 2013, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, state court
jury found the Company responsible for a 1/10th share of a $2.5
million verdict in the Thomas Amato claim and a 1/5th share of a
$2.3 million verdict in the Frank Vinciguerra claim, which were
consolidated for trial. The Company filed post-trial motions
requesting judgments in the Company's favor notwithstanding the
jury's verdicts or new trials, and also requesting that settlement
offsets be applied to reduce the judgment in accordance with
Pennsylvania law. These motions were denied. The Company has
appealed, and on April 17, 2015, a panel of the Superior Court of
Pennsylvania affirmed the trial court's ruling. The Company plans
to file a motion for reconsideration and/or a request for review
by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

Crane Co., (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the
Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered
Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic
panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: MSA Safety Unit Has 2,237 Exposure Suits Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MSA Safety Inc.'s subsidiary is a defendant in 2,237 exposure
lawsuits, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2015.

Cumulative trauma product liability claims involve exposures to
harmful substances (e.g., silica, asbestos and coal dust) that
occurred many years ago and may have developed over long periods
of time into diseases such as silicosis, asbestosis, or coal
worker's pneumoconiosis. MSA LLC is presently named as a defendant
in 2,237 lawsuits, some of which involve multiple plaintiffs. In
these lawsuits, plaintiffs allege to have contracted certain
cumulative trauma diseases related to exposure to silica,
asbestos, and/or coal dust. These lawsuits mainly involve
respiratory protection products allegedly manufactured and sold by
MSA LLC or its predecessors.

MSA Safety Inc., formerly Mine Safety Appliances Company, is
engaged in the development, manufacture and supply of products
that protect people's health and safety. The Company's line of
safety products is used by workers worldwide in the fire service,
homeland security, oil and gas, construction and other industries,
as well as the military. Its product offering includes self-
contained breathing apparatus (SCBAs), gas masks, gas detection
instruments, head protection, respirators, thermal imaging
cameras, fall protection and ballistic helmets. The Company also
offers consumer and contractor safety products through retail
channels. Its safety products integrate any combination of
electronics, mechanical systems and advanced materials to protect
users against hazardous or life threatening situations. Its Safety
Works, LLC joint venture provides a range of safety products and
gloves to the North American do-it-yourself and independent
contractor market through various channels.



                            *********

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  * * *