CAR_Public/150803.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, August 3, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 153


                            Headlines


ADVANCE MAGAZINE: Sued Over Consumers' Information Disclosure
AETNA HEALTH: Limits Autism Treatment Coverage, Action Claims
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Bell" Suit Over Air Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Berday" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Air Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Jones" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Costantino" Suit Over Airline Tickets
AMERIGAS PROPANE: Faces "Walker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
AMERIPARK LLC: Faces "Malivuk" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

AM SHIELD: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Suits Filed Relating to Broadcom Acquisition
AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Del. Chancery Dismissed Suit Over Emulex Deal
AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Varjabedian" Class Action
AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Del. Action Over PLX Acquisition On-Going

AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal in Class Suit Over LSI Deal Dismissed
AVW OF WEST: Removed "Thompson" Class Suit to N.D. West Virginia
BENEFITS-USA: Faces "Meyer" Suit in Arizona Over TCPA Violation
BEST BUY: Trial Court Stayed Proceedings in IBEW Case
BEST BUY: Received Settlement Proceeds in Cathode Ray Tube Action

BIG LOTS: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Fully Briefed
BIMBO FOODS: Faces "Reich" Suit Over False Information Returns
BLUE CROSS: Face "Conway" Suit Over Market Allocation Conspiracy
BLUE CROSS: Faces "Conway" Suit Over Market Allocation Conspiracy
CALAVO GROWERS: Restatement Class Actions Consolidated

CALERES INC: Has $1.5MM Reserve for Class Action Settlement
CARGO SERVICES: Faces "Trillos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CECO ENVIRONMENTAL: Faces "Brown" Suit Over PMFG Merger Plans
CENTRAL PLAZA: Sued Over Failure to Provide Tenants RLTO Summary
CESARE CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Ortiz" Suit Says

CGI GROUP: Faces "McDowell" Suit in D.C. Over Alleged Data Breach
CHEMOURS COMPANY: Suits Over Drinking Water Remain Pending
CIENA CORPORATION: Class Actions at Preliminary Stage
COLEMAN AMERICAN: Faces "Holland" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CONTAINER STORE: Sued Over Discriminatory Actions Against Blind

COOPER COMPANIES: 50 Class Suits Filed by Contact Lens Consumers
CORPORATE GREEN: Fails to Pay Migrant Workers' OT, Suit Claims
CSPH INC: Faces "Redus" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
CST BRANDS: Defending Against Price Fixing Claims in Quebec
D & A SERVICES: Faces "Harari" Class Suit Over FDCPA Violation

DIAMOND FOODS: Final OK of Settlement in Labeling Cases Sought
DIRECT AUTO: Sued Over Failure to Comply with Insurance Policy
ENBRIDGE ENERGY: Faces "Brinckerhoff" Suit Over Repurchase Plan
ELITE CHECK: Has Invaded Class Members' Privacy, Action Claims
ENOVA INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

ETSY INC: Faces "Cervantes" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
EXPERIAN DATA: Faces "Patton" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
EZCORP INC: Faces "Huang" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
FEDEX GROUND: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Cornielle" Suit Claims
FLOWERS FOODS: Illegally Withholds Workers' Wages, Action Says

FRANCESCA'S HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs Appeal Complaint Dismissal
G STAGE: Faces "Reynolds" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
GLAZIER STEEL: Doesn't Pay Proper Union Rate, "Larios" Suit Says
GLOBAL CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lock" Suit Claims
GRANITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Final Approval Hearing Held on Cunningham Deal
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Final Approval Hearing Held on Salva Deal
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Parties in Karlbom Engaged in Discovery
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify in Benedict Case
HEWLETT-PACKARD: No Oral Argument Yet in Cement & Concrete Appeal

HEWLETT-PACKARD: No Ruling Yet in Securities Litigation
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss ERISA Case
HIRAD INC: Faces "Nazaryan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Settlement Becomes Final; No Appeal Filed
IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Faces "Hovermale" Suit Over FDCPA Violation

INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTOR: Sued Over Failure to Pay Rest Breaks
JUST PUPS: Removed "Canseven" Class Suit to N.J. District Court
L&W SUPPLY: Doesn't Pay Proper Overtime Wages, "Ayala" Suit Says
LAUNDRY ZONE: Faces "Catalino" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LAW OFFICES OF HAYT: Faces "Panichella" Suit Over FDCPA Violation

LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: Class Action at Very Early Stage
LCR ACQUISITIONS: Faces "Gutjahr" Suit Over Alleged Tip Pooling
LEE 'N EDDIES: Has Sent Unsolicited Faxes, Croixco Suit Claims
LOS ANGELES TIMES: Sued Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Plaintiff's Appeal in Securities Case Nixed

MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Motion to Consolidate Granted
MICHAELS COMPANIES: To Defend Against Remaining FCRA Claims
MICHAELS COMPANIES: To Defend Against Suits Over Data Breach
MO DION: Faces "Cardiel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MODUSLINK GLOBAL: Court Enters Final Judgment Concluding Case

MUDTECH SERVICES: Faces "Hebert" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
NEW RESIDENTIAL: 3 Class Actions Filed v. Home Loan Servicing
ONEIDA FINANCIAL: Entered Into MOU in "Parshall" Case
OPENGATE CAPITAL: Removed "Arias" Class Suit to Cal. Dist. Ct.
PARNON ENERGY: October 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

PEOPLES BANK: "Foland" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
PERRY ELLIS: Tentative Settlement Reached in "Ordaz" Case
PYRAMID CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Tucker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
RECEPTOS INC: Faces "Scott" Suit Over Proposed Celgene Merger
ROK SOUTH: Faces "Urbina" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

ROSS STORES: Class Action Litigation Remains Pending
SCREW PRODUCTS: Has Sent Unsolicited Faxes, Bodourian Suit Says
SEARS HOLDINGS: Stockholder Class Action Filed
SHO RIKI: Faces "Hernandez" Suit in N.Y. Over FLSA Violation
SHOPTRIBE INC: Faces "Zuniga" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

SIERRA VIEW: Faces "Ofrecio" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SOHO ACCESSORIES: Removed "Kwon" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
STAPLES INC: Court Consolidated Nine Delaware Actions
STEIN WIENER: Faces "Williams" Suit in N.Y. Over FDCPA Violation
SUSHI SASABUNE: Faces "Kono" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

S&P 72: "Tetlactle-Amayo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
TAQUERIA SAN: Faces "Ruiz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TJX COMPANIES: Faces "Chester" Suit Over False Comparative Prices
TURNKEY CLEANING: "Cormier" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
UCLA HEALTH: Faces "Allen" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach

UNIVERSAL NURSING: Faces "Marks" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
UTI WORLDWIDE: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: New Securities Class Action Filed in Israel
VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Court Takes Dismissal Bid Under Submission
VICTORIA CATERING: Has Sent Unsolicited Faxes, Croixco Suit Says

VIOLIN MEMORY: Class Action Proceeds to Discovery Phase
WAL-MART STORES: Response Filed to Petition for Writ of Certiorari
WAL-MART STORES: ASDA Named Defendant in 5,000 Equal Value Claims

* Two Canadian Men Get 12 Years in Prison Over Ponzi Scheme


                            *********


ADVANCE MAGAZINE: Sued Over Consumers' Information Disclosure
-------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Boelter, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., d/b/a
Conde Nast, Case No. 1:15-cv-05671-NRB (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2015),
arises out of the Defendant's unlawful disclosure of its
customers' personal reading information and other personal,
demographic, and lifestyle information without written consent.

Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. operates an international media
company that publishes some of the most widely circulated
magazines in the United States, including GQ, The New Yorker,
Vanity Fair, Vogue, Glamour, Allure, and Lucky.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
      Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
      Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      888 Seventh Avenue
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 989-9113
      Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
      E-mail: scott@bursor.com
              jmarchese@bursor.com
              pfraietta@bursor.com


AETNA HEALTH: Limits Autism Treatment Coverage, Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anna M. Sanzone-Ortiz, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Aetna Health of California, Inc. and Aetna,
Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-03334 (N.D. Cal., July 20, 2015), arises
out of the Defendants' unfair and unlawful decision to cap
benefits for the treatment of autism spectrum disorder, known as
autism.

Aetna, Inc. is a public managed health care company with
headquarters located in Hartford, Connecticut.

Aetna Health of California, Inc. is an incorporated subsidiary of
Aetna, Inc. with its headquarters located in Walnut Creek,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jordan M. Lewis, Esq.
      KELLEY UUSTAL, PLC
      700 S.E. 3rd Ave., Suite 300
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
      Telephone: (954) 522-6601
      Facsimile: (954) 522-6608
      E-mail: jml@kulaw.com

         - and -

      Teresa S. Renaker, Esq.
      Margaret E. Hasselman, Esq.
      RENAKER HASSELMAN LLP
      235 Montgomery St., Suite 944
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 653-1733
      Facsimile: (415) 727-5079
      E-mail: teresa@renakerhasselman.com
              margo@renakerhasselman.com


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Molina and Erica Molina, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Allied Interstate LLC, Case No. 5:15-
cv-01447 (C.D. Cal., July 20, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's
practice of placing daily calls to the Plaintiffs seeking to
collect the debt allegedly owed, using an automatic telephone
dialing system.

Allied Interstate LLC is in the business of purchasing consumer
debts and collecting thereon from debtors.

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


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Bell" Suit Over Air Ticket-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Bell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. American Airlines, Inc., Delta Airlines, Inc.,
Southwest Airlines Co., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-04245-PKC-RML (E.D.N.Y., July 20, 2015), arises from the
Defendants' alleged unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain,
or stabilize the price of domestic airline tickets, specifically
by constraining the seating capacity on flights within the United
States, limiting the number of flights offered within the United
States, and limiting the transparency of pricing information
available to domestic airline ticket consumers regarding flights
within the United States.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brendan E. Little, Esq.
      Moshe S. Maimon, Esq.
      LEVY KONIGSBERG, LLP
      800 Third Ave., 11th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 605-6200
      Facsimile: (212) 605-6290
      E-mail: blittle@levylaw.com
              mmaimon@levylaw.com

         - and -

      Michael P. Thornton, Esq.
      Jotham C. Kinder, Esq.
      THORNTON LAW FIRM LLP
      100 Summer Street 30th Floor,
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (888) 491-9726
      Facsimile: (617) 720-2445
      E-mail: mthornton@tenlaw.com
              jkinder@tenlaw.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Berday" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Berday, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. American Airlines, Inc., Delta Airlines, Inc.,
Southwest Airlines Co., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-01129-LJM-MJD (S.D. Ind., July 20, 2015), arises from the
Defendants' alleged unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain,
or stabilize the price of domestic airline tickets, specifically
by constraining the seating capacity on flights within the United
States, limiting the number of flights offered within the United
States, and limiting the transparency of pricing information
available to domestic airline ticket consumers regarding flights
within the United States.

The Defendant operates the largest airline companies in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
      Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
      Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
      Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq.
      Vess Allen Miller, Esq.
      COHEN & MALAD LLP
      One Indiana Square
      Suite 1400
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Telephone: (317) 636-6481
      Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
      E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
              ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
              rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
              sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com
              vmiller@cohenandmalad.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Air Ticket-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mingli Chen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc.,
Southwest Airlines Co., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 3:15-
cv-03342-CRB (N.D. Cal., July 20, 2015), arises from the
Defendants' alleged unlawful conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain,
or stabilize the price of domestic airline tickets, specifically
by constraining the seating capacity on flights within the United
States, limiting the number of flights offered within the United
States, and limiting the transparency of pricing information
available to domestic airline ticket consumers regarding flights
within the United States.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Jones" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elsie M. Jones and Chong Hummel, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. American Airlines Group Inc.,
American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines
Co., United Airlines, Inc., and United Continental Holdings, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-04015-GAM (E.D. Pa., July 20, 2015), arises from
the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and
conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and artificially inflate the
price of airline tickets in the United States.

The Defendants own or operate the four largest commercial airlines
in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kirriherly A. Justice, Esq.
      Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
      Terence S. Ziegler, Esq.
      Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
      KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
      280 King of Prussia Road
      Radnor, PA 19087
      Telephone: (610) 667-7706
      Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
      E-mail: kjustice@ktmc.com
              jmeltzer@ktmc.com
              tziegler@ktmc.com
              namjed@ktmc.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Costantino" Suit Over Airline Tickets
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alana Costantino, Jordan Leigh, and Xavier Bess, individually and
on behalf of all those similarly situated v. American Airlines,
Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., and United
Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-06323 (N.D. Ill., July 20, 2015),
arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful conspiracy to fix,
raise, maintain, or stabilize the price of domestic airline
tickets, specifically by constraining the seating capacity on
flights within the United States, limiting the number of flights
offered within the United States, and limiting the transparency of
pricing information available to domestic airline ticket consumers
regarding flights within the United States.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      George A. Zelcs, Esq.
      Robert E. Litan , Esq.
      KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
      205 North Michigan, Suite 1950
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 641-9750
      E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com
              rlitan@koreintillery.com

         - and -

      Stephen M. Tillery, Esq.
      Garrett R. Broshuis, Esq.
      KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
      505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
      St. Louis, MO 63101
      Telephone: (314) 241-4844
      Facsimile: (314) 241-3525
      E-mail: stillery@koreintillery.com
              gbroshuis@koreintillery.com


AMERIGAS PROPANE: Faces "Walker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Walker, and others similarly situated v. Amerigas Propane,
Limited Partnership, Case No. 2015-016326-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct.,
July 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Amerigas Propane, Limited Partnership holds itself as the nation's
largest retail propane marketer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edilberlo O. Marban, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF EDDY O. MARBAN
      1600 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 902
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 448-9292
      Facsimile: (305) 448-9477
      E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com


AMERIPARK LLC: Faces "Malivuk" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Malivuk, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Ameripark, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-02570-WSD
(N.D. Ga., July 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Ameripark, LLC is a provider of valet parking services with its
corporate office located at 3200 Cobb Galleria Parkway, Suite 299,
Atlanta, Georgia 30339.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher Baker Hall, Esq.
      HALL & LAMPROS, LLP
      1230 Peachtree Street, NE
      Promenade Two, Suite 950
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (404) 876-8100
      Facsimile: (404) 876-3477
      E-mail: chall@hallandlampros.com


AM SHIELD: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julio Cesar Mata Flores, Miguel A. Guerrero Mijango, Gerardo
Garcia Perez, Geremias Mata Amaya, Lidio Wilfredo Escarate Gomez,
and Juan Francisco Mata Amaya, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated v. A.M. Shield Waterproofing Corp., Hugo
D'Esposito, Landscapes by Hugo Inc., and/or any related entities,
Case No. 604665/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., July 20, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company in
Albertson, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Suits Filed Relating to Broadcom Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Avago Technologies Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 3, 2015, that lawsuits have been filed
relating to the acquisition of Broadcom.

The Company said, "Following the announcement of our pending
acquisition of Broadcom Corporation, or Broadcom, on May 28, 2015,
four putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Orange as of June 4,
2015 under the following captions: Xu v. Broadcom Corp., et al.,
Case No. 30-2015-00790689-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 1, 2015; Freed v.
Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-00790699-CU-SL-CXC, filed
June 1, 2015; N.J. Building Laborers Statewide Pension Fund v.
Samueli, et al., Case No. 00791484-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 4, 2015;
and Yiu v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 00791490-CU-SL-CXC,
filed June 4, 2015. A fifth putative class action was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara,
captioned Jew v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 115-CV-281353,
filed June 2, 2015.

The complaints name as defendants, among other parties, Avago,
Broadcom, and members of Broadcom's board of directors, and
allege, among other claims, that members of Broadcom's board
breached their fiduciary duties by pursuing a flawed sale process
and failing to obtain adequate consideration. The complaints
further allege that Avago, among other parties, aided and abetted
these purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaints seek,
among other things, an order enjoining or rescinding the proposed
acquisition and an award of attorney's and other fees and costs.
We believe these claims are entirely without merit and intend to
vigorously defend these actions."


AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Del. Chancery Dismissed Suit Over Emulex Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Avago Technologies Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 3, 2015, that the Court of Chancery has
dismissed the consolidated action without prejudice relating to
the acquisition of Emulex.

On March 3, 2015, two putative shareholder class action complaints
were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
against Emulex Corporation, or Emulex, its directors, Avago
Technologies Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing Inc., or AT Wireless,
and Emerald Merger Sub, Inc., or Merger Sub, captioned as follows:
James Tullman v. Emulex Corporation, et al., Case No. 10743-VCL
(Del. Ch.); Moshe Silver ACF/Yehudit Silver U/NY/UTMA v. Emulex
Corporation, et al., Case No. 10744-VCL (Del. Ch.). On March 11,
2015, a third complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, captioned Hoai Vu v. Emulex Corporation, et al., Case
No. 10776-VCL (Del. Ch.). The complaints allege, among other
things, that Emulex's directors breached their fiduciary duties by
approving the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated February 25,
205, by and among AT Wireless, Merger Sub and Emulex, or the
Merger Agreement, and that AT Wireless and Merger Sub aided and
abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaints
seek, among other things, either to enjoin the proposed
transaction or to rescind it should it be consummated, as well as
damages, including attorneys' and experts' fees. The Delaware
Court of Chancery has entered an order consolidating the three
Delaware actions under the caption In re Emulex Corporation
Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 10743-VCL. On June
5, 2015, the Court of Chancery dismissed the consolidated action
without prejudice.


AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Varjabedian" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Avago Technologies Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 3, 2015, that on April 8, 2015, a class
action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, entitled Gary Varjabedian, et
al. v. Emulex Corporation, et al., No. 8:15-cv-554-CJC-JCG. The
complaint names as defendants Emulex, its directors, AT Wireless
and Merger Sub, and purports to assert claims under Sections
14(d), 14(e) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The complaint alleges
that the Board of Directors of Emulex failed to provide material
information and/or omitted material information from the
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 filed with
the SEC on April 7, 2015 by Emulex, together with the exhibits and
annexes thereto. The complaint seeks to enjoin the tender offer to
purchase all of the outstanding shares of Emulex common stock, as
well as certain other equitable relief and attorneys' fees and
costs.


AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Del. Action Over PLX Acquisition On-Going
-------------------------------------------------------------
Avago Technologies Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 3, 2015, that the Delaware class
litigation relating to the acquisition of PLX Technology Inc. is
on-going.

The Company said, "In June and July 2014, four lawsuits were filed
in the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Santa
Clara challenging our acquisition of PLX. On July 22, 2014, the
court consolidated these California actions under the caption In
re PLX Technology, Inc. S'holder Litig., Lead Case No. 1-14-CV-
267079 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara) and appointed lead counsel.
That same day, the court also stayed the consolidated action,
pending resolution of related actions filed in the Delaware Court
of Chancery, described below."

"Also in June and July 2014, five similar lawsuits were filed in
the Delaware Court of Chancery. On July 21, 2014, the court
consolidated these Delaware actions under the caption In re PLX
Technology, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 9880-
VCL (Del. Ch.), appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel, and
designated an operative complaint for the consolidated action. On
July 31, 2014, counsel for lead plaintiffs in Delaware informed
the court that they would not seek a preliminary injunction, but
intend to seek damages and pursue monetary remedies through post-
closing litigation. Our acquisition of PLX closed on August 12,
2014.

"On October 31, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint. This complaint alleges, among other things, that PLX's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to PLX's stockholders by
seeking to sell PLX for an inadequate price, pursuant to an unfair
process, and by agreeing to preclusive deal protections in the
merger agreement. Plaintiffs also allege that Potomac Capital
Partners II, L.P., Deutsche Bank Securities, Avago Technologies
Wireless (U.S.A.) Manufacturing, Inc. and the acquisition
subsidiary aided and abetted the alleged fiduciary breaches.
Plaintiffs also allege that PLX's 14D-9 recommendation statement
contained false and misleading statements and/or omitted material
information necessary to inform the shareholder vote. The
complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages and
attorneys' fees and costs. On November 26, 2014, defendants filed
motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim as a
matter of law. The motions were heard on April 15, 2015 and the
Court has requested further briefing by June 15, 2015."

"The Delaware class litigation is on-going."


AVAGO TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal in Class Suit Over LSI Deal Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Avago Technologies Limited said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 3, 2015, that the appeal in class
action lawsuits relating to the acquisition of LSI has been
dismissed with prejudice.

The Company said, "Fifteen purported class action complaints were
filed by alleged former stockholders of LSI against us. Eight of
those lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, and
the other seven lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California, County of Santa Clara on behalf of the same
putative class as the Delaware actions, or the California Actions.
On January 17, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered an
order consolidating the Delaware actions into a single action, or
the Delaware Action. These actions generally alleged that we aided
and abetted breaches of fiduciary duty by the members of LSI's
board of directors in connection with the merger because the
merger was not in the best interest of LSI, the merger
consideration was unfair and certain other terms of the merger
agreement were unfair. Among other remedies, the lawsuits sought
to rescind the merger or obtain unspecified money damages, costs
and attorneys' fees."

"On March 7, 2014, the parties to the Delaware Action reached an
agreement in principle to settle the Delaware Action on a class
wide basis, and negotiated a stipulation of settlement that was
presented to the Delaware Court of Chancery on March 10, 2014. On
March 12, 2014, the parties to the California Actions entered into
a stipulation staying the California Actions pending resolution of
the Delaware Action. On May 16, 2014, the plaintiffs in the
Delaware Action filed a motion for final approval of the proposed
settlement and award of attorneys' fees and expenses with the
Delaware Court of Chancery. On June 10, 2014, the Delaware court
approved the settlement, including the payment of $2 million to
counsel for the stockholders, entered final judgment and dismissed
the case, or the Order and Final Judgment. On July 10, 2014, a
class member of the Delaware Action filed a notice of appeal from
the Order and Final Judgment. On February 5, 2015, the appeal was
dismissed with prejudice."


AVW OF WEST: Removed "Thompson" Class Suit to N.D. West Virginia
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Dale E. Thompson, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. AVW of West Virginia,
Inc., Case No. WV, 15-C-358, was removed from the Circuit Court of
Berkeley County, WV to the U.S. District Court
Northern District of West Virginia (Martinsburg). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-00087-GMG to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts causes of action under the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Garry G. Geffert, Esq.
      GARRY G. GEFFERT, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      114 S. Maple Ave., PO Box 2281
      Martinsburg, WV 25402
      Telephone: (304) 262-4436
      Facsimile: (304) 262-4436
      E-mail: geffert@wvdsl.net

The Defendant is represented by:

      David M. Hammer, Esq.
      HAMMER, FERRETTI & SCHIAVONI
      408 W. King St
      Martinsburg, WV 25401
      Telephone: (304) 264-8505
      Facsimile: (304) 264-8506
      E-mail: dhammer@hfslawyers.com


BENEFITS-USA: Faces "Meyer" Suit in Arizona Over TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Meyer, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Benefits-USA LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01369-DKD (D.
Ariz., July 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David James McGlothlin, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2633 E Indian School Rd., Ste. 460
      Phoenix, AZ 85016
      Telephone: (602) 265-3332
      Facsimile: (602) 230-4482
      E-mail: david@westcoastlitigation.com

         - and -

      Ryan Lee McBride, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP
      2633 E Indian School Rd., Ste. 460
      Phoenix, AZ 85016
      Telephone: (602) 900-1288
      E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com


BEST BUY: Trial Court Stayed Proceedings in IBEW Case
-----------------------------------------------------
Best Buy Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that the trial court has
stayed proceedings in the case, IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., while the appeal is pending.

The Company said, "In February 2011, a purported class action
lawsuit captioned, IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et
al., was filed against us and certain of our executive officers in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. This
federal court action alleges, among other things, that we and the
officers named in the complaint violated Sections 10(b) and 20A of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act in
connection with press releases and other statements relating to
our fiscal 2011 earnings guidance that had been made available to
the public."

"Additionally, in March 2011, a similar purported class action was
filed by a single shareholder, Rene LeBlanc, against us and
certain of our executive officers in the same court. In July 2011,
after consolidation of the IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund and Rene
LeBlanc actions, a consolidated complaint captioned, IBEW Local 98
Pension Fund v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., was filed and served.

"We filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint in
September 2011, and in March 2012, subsequent to the end of fiscal
2012, the court issued a decision dismissing the action with
prejudice. In April 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion to alter
or amend the court's decision on our motion to dismiss. In October
2012, the court granted plaintiff's motion to alter or amend the
court's decision on our motion to dismiss in part by vacating such
decision and giving plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint,
which plaintiff did in October 2012.

"We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in November
2012 and all responsive pleadings were filed in December 2012. A
hearing was held on April 26, 2013. On August 5, 2013, the court
issued an order granting our motion to dismiss in part and,
contrary to its March 2012 order, denying the motion to dismiss in
part, holding that certain of the statements alleged to have been
made were not forward-looking statements and therefore were not
subject to the "safe-harbor" provisions of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA).

"Plaintiffs moved to certify the purported class. By Order filed
August 6, 2014, the court certified a class of persons or entities
who acquired Best Buy common stock between 10:00 a.m. EDT on
September 14, 2010, and December 13, 2010, and who were damaged by
the alleged violations of law.

"The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals granted our request for
interlocutory appeal. Briefing is complete. Oral argument is
expected to be scheduled later in 2015. The trial court has stayed
proceedings while the appeal is pending.

"We continue to believe that these allegations are without merit
and intend to vigorously defend our company in this matter."


BEST BUY: Received Settlement Proceeds in Cathode Ray Tube Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Best Buy Co., Inc. received settlement proceeds net of legal
expenses and costs in the amount of $67 million in the first
quarter of fiscal 2016 in the Cathode Ray Tube Action, Best Buy
said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 8, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended May 2, 2015.

"On November 14, 2011, we filed a lawsuit captioned In re Cathode
Ray Tube Antitrust Litigation in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California," the Company said. "We
allege that the defendants engaged in price fixing in violation of
antitrust regulations relating to cathode ray tubes for the time
period between March 1, 1995 through November 25, 2007. No trial
date has been set."

"In connection with this action, we received settlement proceeds
net of legal expenses and costs in the amount of $67 million in
the first quarter of fiscal 2016. We will continue to litigate
against the remaining defendants and expect further settlement
discussions as this matter proceeds; however, it is uncertain
whether we will recover additional settlement sums or a favorable
verdict at trial."


BIG LOTS: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Fully Briefed
------------------------------------------------------
Big Lots, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that defendants' motion to
dismiss the putative class action complaint is fully briefed and
awaiting a decision.

On July 9, 2012, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
on behalf of persons who acquired our common shares between
February 2, 2012 and April 23, 2012. This lawsuit was filed
against us, Lisa Bachmann, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Fishman and Mr.
Haubiel. The complaint in the putative class action generally
alleges that the defendants made statements concerning our
financial performance that were false or misleading. The complaint
asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 and seeks damages in an
unspecified amount, plus attorneys' fees and expenses. The lead
plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 4, 2013, which added
Mr. Johnson as a defendant, removed Ms. Bachmann as a defendant,
and extended the putative class period to August 23, 2012. The
defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the putative class
action complaint, and that motion is fully briefed and awaiting a
decision.


BIMBO FOODS: Faces "Reich" Suit Over False Information Returns
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Reich, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC, f/ k/a Bimbo
Foods Bakeries Distribution, Inc. Case No. 6:15-cv-01174-JA-DAB
(M.D. Fla., July 20, 2015), is an action of damages as a proximate
result of the Defendant's willful filing of fraudulent information
returns with  respect to "Nonemployee Compensation" payments.

Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distribution, LLC is a seller and distributor
of fresh baked bread, rolls, cakes, buns, muffins and related
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John M. Finnigan, Esq.
      FINNIGAN LAW FIRM, PA
      1700 Maitland Ave
      Maitland, FL 32751
      Telephone: (407) 478-3700
      Facsimile: (407) 478-6999
      E-mail: john@finniganlaw.com

         - and -

      Steven R. Maher, Esq.
      THE MAHER LAW FIRM, PA
      Suite 200, 631 W Morse Blvd
      Winter Park, FL 32789
      Telephone: (407) 839-0866
      Facsimile: (407) 425-7958
      E-mail: smaher@maherlawfirm.com


BLUE CROSS: Face "Conway" Suit Over Market Allocation Conspiracy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry L. Conway, et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama,
et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00519-WHB-JCG (S.D. Miss., July 20,
2015), arises out of the Defendants' alleged market allocation
conspiracy by entering into a price fixing and boycott conspiracy,
to significantly decreased competition in the markets for
healthcare financing including the markets for healthcare
insurance and in the health services.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama is the health insurance
company operating under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks
and trade names in Alabama.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nathan A. Dickson II, Esq.
      JINKS, CROW & DICKSON, PC
      P. O. Box 350
      Union Springs, AL 36089
      Telephone: (334) 738-4225
      Facsimile: (334) 738-4229
      E-mail: NDickson@jinkslaw.com

         - and -

      Joe R. Whatley Jr., Esq.
      W. Tucker Brown, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      2001 Park Place North
      1000 Park Place Tower
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 488-1200
      Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
      E-mail: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com
              tbrown@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      Edith M. Kallas, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 447-7060
      Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
      E-mail: ekallas@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      60 State Street, 7th Floor
      Boston, MA 02109
      Telephone: (617) 573-5118
      Facsimile: (617) 371-2950
      E-mail: psheehan@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      Deborah J. Winegard, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      1068 Virginia Avenue, NE
      Atlanta, GA 30306
      Telephone: (404) 607-8222
      Facsimile: (404) 607-8451
      E-mail: dwinegard@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      Henry C. Quillen, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      159 Middle Street, Suite 2C
      Portsmouth, NH 03801
      Telephone: (603) 294-1591
      Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
      E-mail: hquillen@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      E. Kirk Wood Jr., Esq.
      WOOD LAW FIRM LLC
      P. O. Box 382434
      Birmingham, AL 35238
      Telephone: (205) 612-0243
      Facsimile: (205) 705-1223
      E-mail: ekirkwood1@bellsouth.net

         - and -

      Debra B. Hayes, Esq.
      Charles Clinton Hunter, Esq.
      THE HAYES LAW FIRM
      700 Rockmead, Suite 210
      Kingwood, TX 77339
      Telephone: (281) 815-4963
      Facsimile: (832) 575-4759
      E-mail: dhayes@dhayeslaw.com
              chunter@dhayeslaw.com

         - and -

      Aaron S. Podhurst, Esq.
      Peter Prieto, Esq.
      PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
      25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 358-2800
      Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
      E-mail: apodhurst@podhurst.com
              pprieto@podhurst.com

         - and -

      Dennis Pantazis, Esq.
      Brian Clark, Esq.
      WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER GOLDFARB
      The Kress Building
      301 Nineteenth Street North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 314-0500
      Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
      E-mail: dgp@wcqp.com
              bclark@wcqp.com

         - and -

      U.W. Clemon, Esq.
      J. Mark White, Esq.
      Augusta S. Dowd, Esq.
      Linda G. Flippo, Esq.
      WHITE ARNOLD & DOWD, P.C.
      The Massey Building
      2025 Third Avenue North, Suite 500
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 323-1888
      Facsimile: (205) 323-8907
      E-mail: uwclemon@whitearnolddowd.com
              adowd@whitearnolddowd.com
              mwhite@whitearnolddowd.com
              lflippo@whitearnolddowd.com


BLUE CROSS: Faces "Conway" Suit Over Market Allocation Conspiracy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry L. Conway, et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama,
et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-03963 (E.D. Pa., July 17, 2015), arises
out of the Defendants' alleged market allocation conspiracy by
entering into a price fixing and boycott conspiracy, to
significantly decreased competition in the markets for healthcare
financing including the markets for healthcare insurance and in
the health services.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama is the health insurance
company operating under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks
and trade names in Alabama.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joe R. Whatley Jr., Esq.
      W. Tucker Brown, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      2001 Park Place North
      1000 Park Place Tower
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 488-1200
      Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
      E-mail: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com
              tbrown@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      Edith M. Kallas, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 447-7060
      Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
      E-mail: ekallas@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      60 State Street, 7th Floor
      Boston, MA 02109
      Telephone: (617) 573-5118
      Facsimile: (617) 371-2950
      E-mail: psheehan@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      Deborah J. Winegard, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      1068 Virginia Avenue, NE
      Atlanta, GA 30306
      Telephone: (404) 607-8222
      Facsimile: (404) 607-8451
      E-mail: dwinegard@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      Henry C. Quillen, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      159 Middle Street, Suite 2C
      Portsmouth, NH 03801
      Telephone: (603) 294-1591
      Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
      E-mail: hquillen@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      E. Kirk Wood Jr., Esq.
      WOOD LAW FIRM LLC
      P. O. Box 382434
      Birmingham, AL 35238
      Telephone: (205) 612-0243
      Facsimile: (205) 705-1223
      E-mail: ekirkwood1@bellsouth.net

         - and -

      Debra B. Hayes, Esq.
      Charles Clinton Hunter, Esq.
      THE HAYES LAW FIRM
      700 Rockmead, Suite 210
      Kingwood, TX 77339
      Telephone: (281) 815-4963
      Facsimile: (832) 575-4759
      E-mail: dhayes@dhayeslaw.com
              chunter@dhayeslaw.com

         - and -

      Aaron S. Podhurst, Esq.
      Peter Prieto, Esq.
      PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
      25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 358-2800
      Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
      E-mail: apodhurst@podhurst.com
              pprieto@podhurst.com

         - and -

      Dennis Pantazis, Esq.
      Brian Clark, Esq.
      WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER GOLDFARB
      The Kress Building
      301 Nineteenth Street North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 314-0500
      Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
      E-mail: dgp@wcqp.com
              bclark@wcqp.com

         - and -

      U.W. Clemon, Esq.
      J. Mark White, Esq.
      Augusta S. Dowd, Esq.
      Linda G. Flippo, Esq.
      WHITE ARNOLD & DOWD, P.C.
      The Massey Building
      2025 Third Avenue North, Suite 500
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 323-1888
      Facsimile: (205) 323-8907
      E-mail: uwclemon@whitearnolddowd.com
              adowd@whitearnolddowd.com
              mwhite@whitearnolddowd.com
              lflippo@whitearnolddowd.com


CALAVO GROWERS: Restatement Class Actions Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------
Calavo Growers, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2015, that in January 2015,
various class action lawsuits, which have been consolidated into a
single lawsuit during our second fiscal quarter, were initiated
against the company related to the restatement of previously-
issued Financial Statements.


CALERES INC: Has $1.5MM Reserve for Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Caleres, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that during 2014, the Company
signed a settlement agreement to resolve a putative class action
lawsuit involving wage and hour claims in California for an amount
not to exceed $1.5 million. The court has granted preliminary
approval of the settlement, pursuant to which the Company will pay
a minimum of $1.0 million in attorneys' fees, costs of
administering the settlement and settlement payments to class
members who submit claims. The ultimate amount paid to resolve the
case may exceed that amount depending on the number of valid
claims submitted. In the event that the settlement is not
consummated, the parties will continue to litigate whether the
action should proceed as a class action. The reserve for this
matter as of May 2, 2015 is $1.5 million.


CARGO SERVICES: Faces "Trillos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexa Trillos, and other similarly-situated individuals v. Cargo
Services, Inc. and Robert E. Booth, Case No. 1:15-cv-22689-JAL
(S.D. Fla., July 17, 2015, is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Cargo Services, Inc. is a company that provides logistic air cargo
services and operates out of Miami.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      3100 South Dixie Highway, Suite 202
      Miami, FL 33133
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


CECO ENVIRONMENTAL: Faces "Brown" Suit Over PMFG Merger Plans
-------------------------------------------------------------
Terry and Georgia Brown, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. CECO Environmental Corp., et al., Case No.
11306-VCN (Del. Ch., July 17, 2015), is brought on behalf of all
the public shareholders of PMFG, Inc., to enjoin the proposed
stock and cash transaction by which CECO will acquire each issued
and outstanding share of PMFG, for an unfair price and inadequate
consideration.

Ceco Environmental Corp. is a global environmental, energy, and
fluid handling technology company with its principal place of
business located at 4625 Red Bank Road, Suite 200, Cincinnati,
Ohio 45227.

PMFG, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that provides custom-
engineered systems and products primarily for the natural gas
infrastructure, power generation, and oil refining and
petrochemical processing markets worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


CENTRAL PLAZA: Sued Over Failure to Provide Tenants RLTO Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diane Butler, on her own behalf and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. Carlos Sotomayor, Eric Rubenstein, Central
Plaza, LLC, and Single Room Housing Assistance Corporation, Case
No. 2015-CH-11002 (Ill. Cir. Ct., July 20, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to provide tenants' summary of
the Residential Landlord and Tenant Ordinance (RLTO) at the
start or renewal of their tenancies.

Central Plaza, LLC is an Illinois Limited Liability Company that
operates apartments for lease.

Single Room Housing Assistance Corporation is an Illinois not-for-
profit organization with its principal offices located at 501 N.
Central Avenue in Chicago, Illinois, and 28 East Jackson Blvd.,
Ste. 605, in Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Berton N. Ring, Esq.
      Stuart M. Clarke, Esq.
      BERTON N. RING, P.C.
      123 West Madison Street, 15th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 781-0290
      E-mail: bring@bnrpc.com
              sclarke@bnrpc.com


CESARE CONSTRUCTION: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Ortiz" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gaudencio Garcia Ortiz, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Cesare Construction Corp. d/b/a Cesare
Construction and Cesare Rivera, Case No. 1:15-cv-04229-RRM-LB
(E.D.N.Y., July 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime compensation for the hours over 40 per
week.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company located at
836 Broadway, Staten Island, New York 10310.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CGI GROUP: Faces "McDowell" Suit in D.C. Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lori McDowell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CGI Group, Inc., CGI Federal, Inc., and Does 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. 1:15-cv-01157 (D.D.C., July 20, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to safeguard its
customers' most personal and sensitive information from theft and
fraud.

CGI Group, Inc. is a global information technology (IT)
consulting, systems integration, outsourcing, and solutions
company headquartered in Montreal, Quebec.

CGI Federal, Inc. is a wholly-owned US operating subsidiary of
CGI, dedicated to partnering with federal agencies to provide
solutions for defense, civilian, and intelligence missions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven W. Teppler, Esq.
      ABBOTT LAW GROUP, P.A.
      2929 Plummer Cove Road
      Jacksonville, FL 32223
      Telephone: (904) 292-1111
      Facsimile: (904) 292-1220
      E-mail: steppler@abbottlawpa.com

         - and -

      Joel R. Rhine, Esq.
      RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C.
      1612 Military Cutoff Road, Ste. 300
      Wilmington, NC 28403
      Telephone: (910) 777-7651
      Facsimile: (910) 772-9062
      E-mail: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com

         - and -

      Richard D. McCune, Esq.
      David C. Wright, Esq.
      Michele M. Vercoski, Esq.
      MCCUNEWRIGHT LLP
      2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
      Redlands, CA 92374
      Telephone: (909) 557-1250
      Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
      E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
              dcw@mccunewright.com
              mmv@mccunewright.com

         - and -

      Michael W. Sobol, Esq.
      Roger Heller, Esq.
      LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
      275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
      Telephone: (415) 956-1000
      Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
      E-mail: msobol@lchb.com
              rheller@lchb.com

         - and -

      John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
      Rachel Soffin, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN
      201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
      Tampa, FL, 33602
      Telephone: (813) 223-5505
      Facsimile: (813) 222-4738
      E-mail: JYanchunis@ForThePeople.com
              RSoffin@ForThePeople.com


CHEMOURS COMPANY: Suits Over Drinking Water Remain Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
The Chemours Company, a consolidated subsidiary of E. I. du Pont
de Nemours and Company, is defending itself vigorously in the
Drinking Water Actions, the Company said in its Amendment No. 4 to
Form 10 Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on June 5, 2015.

Chemours used PFOA (collectively, perfluorooctanoic acids and its
salts, including the ammonium salt), as a processing aid to
manufacture some fluoropolymer resins at various sites around the
world including its Washington Works plant in West Virginia.
Chemours had accruals of $14 million and $15 million related to
the PFOA matters at December 31, 2014 and 2013 respectively.

The accrual includes charges related to DuPont's obligations under
agreements with the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency and
voluntary commitments to the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection. These obligations and voluntary
commitments include surveying, sampling and testing drinking water
in and around certain company sites and offering treatment or an
alternative supply of drinking water if tests indicate the
presence of PFOA in drinking water at or greater than the national
Provisional Health Advisory.

In August 2001, a class action, captioned Leach v. DuPont, was
filed in West Virginia state court alleging that residents living
near the Washington Works facility had suffered, or may suffer,
deleterious health effects from exposure to PFOA in drinking
water.

DuPont and attorneys for the class reached a settlement in 2004
that binds about 80,000 residents. In 2005, DuPont paid the
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses of $23 and made a payment
of $70, which class counsel designated to fund a community health
project. Chemours, through DuPont, funded a series of health
studies which were completed in October 2012 by an independent
science panel of experts (the C8 Science Panel). The studies were
conducted in communities exposed to PFOA to evaluate available
scientific evidence on whether any probable link exists, as
defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and
human disease.

The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the
settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy-
induced hypertension, including preeclampsia; kidney cancer;
testicular cancer; thyroid disease; ulcerative colitis; and
diagnosed high cholesterol. In May 2013, a panel of three
independent medical doctors released its initial recommendations
for screening and diagnostic testing of eligible class members. In
September 2014, the medical panel recommended follow-up screening
and diagnostic testing three years after initial testing, based on
individual results. The medical panel has not communicated its
anticipated schedule for completion of its protocol. Through
DuPont, Chemours is obligated to fund up to $235 for a medical
monitoring program for eligible class members and, in addition,
administrative cost associated with the program, including class
counsel fees.

In January 2012, Chemours, through DuPont, put $1 in an escrow
account to fund medical monitoring as required by the settlement
agreement. The court appointed Director of Medical Monitoring has
established the program to implement the medical panel's
recommendations and the registration process, as well as
eligibility screening, is ongoing. Diagnostic screening and
testing has begun and associated payments to service providers are
being disbursed from the escrow account.

In addition, under the settlement agreement, DuPont must continue
to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level of PFOA in
water to six area water districts, including the Little Hocking
Water Association (LHWA), and private well users.

Class members may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont
only for those human diseases for which the C8 Science Panel
determined a probable link exists. At December 31, 2014, there
were approximately 2,900 lawsuits filed in various federal and
state courts in Ohio and West Virginia, an increase of about 2,800
over year end 2013. In accordance with a stipulation reached in
the third quarter 2014 and other court procedures, these lawsuits
have been or will be served and consolidated in multi-district
litigation in Ohio federal court (MDL). Based on information
currently available to the company the majority of the lawsuits
allege personal injury claims associated with high cholesterol and
thyroid disease from exposure to PFOA in drinking water. At
December 31, 2014, there were 27 lawsuits alleging wrongful death.
In 2014, six plaintiffs from the MDL were selected for individual
trial. The first trial is scheduled to begin in September 2015,
and the second in November 2015. Chemours, through DuPont, denies
the allegations in these lawsuits and is defending itself
vigorously. No claims have been dismissed, settled, or resolved
during the periods presented.


CIENA CORPORATION: Class Actions at Preliminary Stage
-----------------------------------------------------
Ciena Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2015, that from May 15 through
June 3, 2015, five separate putative class action lawsuits in
connection with Ciena's pending acquisition of Cyan, Inc. ("Cyan")
were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware:

* Luvishis v. Cyan, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11027-CB, filed May 15,
2015

* Poll v. Cyan, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11028-CB, filed May 15,
2015

* Canzano v. Floyd, et al., C.A. No. 11052-CB, filed May 20, 2015

* Kassis v. Cyan, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11069-CB, filed May 27,
2015

* Fenske v. Cyan, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11090-CB, filed June 3,
2015

Each of the complaints names as defendants Cyan (except for the
Canzano complaint), members of the Cyan board of directors, Ciena
and Neptune Acquisition Subsidiary, Inc. ("Merger Sub"). The
complaints allege, among other things, that the Cyan board members
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to take steps to
maximize the value of Cyan to its public stockholders, taking
steps to avoid competitive bidding for Cyan, failing to properly
value Cyan and obtain the best exchange ratio from Ciena, and
ignoring or not protecting against certain conflicts of interest.
The complaints also allege that Ciena and Merger Sub aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Cyan board
members. The complaints seek the following: (i) preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief enjoining Cyan and Ciena from
consummating the merger; (ii) in the event the merger is
consummated prior to the entry of the court's final judgment,
rescission of the merger or rescissory damages; and (iii) monetary
damages and costs, including attorneys fees and experts fees.
These lawsuits are at a preliminary stage. However, Ciena believes
that the lawsuits are without merit and intends to defend them
vigorously.


COLEMAN AMERICAN: Faces "Holland" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Holland and Anthony Glover, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Coleman American Moving Services,
Inc., d/b/a Coleman Worldwide Moving, Case No. 1:15-cv-02572-AT
(N.D. Ga., July 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Coleman American Moving Services, Inc. is a Georgia corporation
that provides international, interstate and local residential and
commercial moving services throughout North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin D. Fitzpatrick Jr., Esq.
      Mitchell Douglas Benjamin, Esq.
      DELONG CALDWELL BRIDGERS & FITZPATRICK, LLC
      101 Marietta Street, NW
      3100 Centennial Tower
      Atlanta, GA 30303
      Telephone: (404) 979-3150
      Facsimile: (404) 979-3170
      E-mail: kevin.fitzpatrick@dcbflegal.com
              benjamin@dcbflegal.com


CONTAINER STORE: Sued Over Discriminatory Actions Against Blind
---------------------------------------------------------------
National Federation of the Blind ("NFB"), Mark Cadigan, Mika
Pyyhkala, Lisa Irving, Arthur Jacobs, Jeanine Kay Lineback, and
Heather Albright, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. The Container Store Group, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
12984-NMG (D. Mass., July 20, 2015), seeks to bring an end to the
Defendant's discriminatory actions of denying blind individuals
throughout the United States equal access to the goods and
services it provides to its sighted customers who shop at its
retail stores.

The Container Store Group, Inc. currently operates approximately
70 retail stores in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy Weltman, Esq.
      KERSTEIN, COREN & LICHTENSTEIN LLP
      60 Walnut Street, 4th Floor
      Wellesley, MA 02481
      Telephone: (781) 997-1600
      Facsimile: (781) 997-1633
      E-mail: jweltman@kcl-law.com

         - and -

      Jana Eisinger, Esq.
      Douglas W. Lambalot, Esq.
      MARTINEZ LAW GROUP, P.C.
      720 South Colorado Boulevard
      South Tower, Suite 1020
      Denver, CO 80246
      Telephone: (303) 597-4000
      E-mail: eisinger@mlgrouppc.com
              lambalot@mlgrouppc.com

         - and -

      Scott C. LaBarre, Esq.
      LABARRE LAW OFFICES, P.C.
      1660 South Albion Street, Suite 918
      Denver, CO 80222
      Telephone: (303) 504-5979
      E-mail: slabarre@labarrelaw.com

         - and -

      Timothy Elder, Esq.
      TRE LEGAL PRACTICE, LLC
      4226 Castanos Street
      Fremont, CA 94536
      Telephone: (410) 415-3493
      E-mail: telder@trelegal.com


COOPER COMPANIES: 50 Class Suits Filed by Contact Lens Consumers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cooper Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2015, for
quarterly period ended April 30, 2015, that during the period from
March 2015 through May 2015, over 50 putative class action
complaints were filed by contact lens consumers alleging that
contact lens manufacturers, in conjunction with their respective
Unilateral Pricing Policy (UPP), conspired to reach agreements
between each other and certain distributors and retailers
regarding the prices at which certain contact lenses could be sold
to consumers. The plaintiffs are seeking damages against
CooperVision, Inc., other contact lens manufacturers, distributors
and retailers, in various courts around the United States. Motions
to consolidate the cases are pending. CooperVision denies the
allegations and intends to defend the actions vigorously.

"We are not in a position to assess whether any loss or adverse
effect on our financial condition is probable or remote or to
estimate the range of potential loss, if any," the Company said.


CORPORATE GREEN: Fails to Pay Migrant Workers' OT, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zulma Hernandez and Hermilio Menindez, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Corporate Green, LLC, d/b/a Green
Seasons, Chris Casselberry, and Sheila Casselberry, Case No. 3:15-
cv-00477-JWD-RLB (M.D. La., July 20, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay migrant workers' hourly wage and
overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a landscaping business, providing
lawn care and other landscaping services to business throughout
the greater Baton Rouge area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Brian Davis, Esq.
      ESTES DAVIS LAW, LLC
      850 North Boulevard
      Baton Rouge, LA 70802
      Telephone: (225) 336-3394
      Facsimile: (225) 384-5419
      E-mail: dan@estesdavislaw.com


CSPH INC: Faces "Redus" Suit Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Michael Redus on behalf of himself and others similarly-
situated v. CSPH Inc. d/b/a Domino's Pizza, Case No. 3:15-cv-
02364-M (N.D. Tex., July 20, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages as required by the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

CSPH Inc. operates more than 30 Domino's Pizza franchise stores in
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J Derek Braziel, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL LLP
      1801 Lamar Blvd, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 749-1400
      Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
      E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com


CST BRANDS: Defending Against Price Fixing Claims in Quebec
-----------------------------------------------------------
CST Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2015,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, is defending the
Canadian Price Fixing Claims in Quebec.

Ultramar Ltd., Valero's principal Canadian subsidiary
("Ultramar"), four of its then current and former employees and
several competitors were named as defendants in four class actions
alleging that Ultramar and the other named competitors engaged in
illegal price fixing in four distinct markets in the province of
Quebec. The cases were filed in June 2008 following an
investigation by the Canadian Competition Bureau, which resulted
in limited guilty pleas by Ultramar and two former employees and
charges laid against several alleged co-conspirators. The guilty
pleas followed an extensive government investigation and was
confined to a limited time period and limited geographic area
around Thetford Mines and Victoriaville in Quebec.

As a result, four class actions were filed on the same day in the
matters of (i) Simon Jacques vs. Ultramar et al in the Superior
Court of Quebec, District of Quebec City, (ii) Daniel Thouin/
Marcel Lafontaine vs. Ultramar et al, Superior Court of Quebec,
District of Montreal, (iii) Michael Jeanson et al vs. Ultramar et
al, Superior Court of Quebec, District of Hull and (iv) Thibeau
vs. Ultramar et al, Superior Court of Quebec, District of
Montreal. As required, pursuant to the civil procedure rules in
effect, the first filed claim is given priority, and the others
are suspended pending final judgment on the first filed claim. The
plaintiffs' lawsuits alleged the existence of a conspiracy beyond
the scope of the time and geographic regions of the guilty pleas.

Hearings on class suitability took place in September 2009, and in
November 2009 and the court allowed plaintiffs to assert claims
for a time range of 2002 to 2006, but limited the geographic area
of the claims to the four limited markets, which were the subject
of the investigation by the Competition Bureau. Recently, the
court allowed the plaintiffs to amend their claims to assert
claims, which include claims for 2001 and claims for interest and
attorneys fees.

"During the fourth quarter of 2012, we concluded a loss was
probable and reasonably estimable and as such, we recorded an
immaterial loss contingency liability for the amount we believe
could be assessed against Ultramar," the Company said. "Due to the
inherent uncertainty of litigation, we believe it is reasonably
possible that CST may suffer a loss in excess of the amount
recorded that could have a material adverse effect on our results
of operations, financial position or liquidity with respect to one
or more of the lawsuits. Ultramar intends to vigorously contest
the scope of alleged liability and damages."

On June 10, 2011, Ultramar and several other defendants were
served with a "new" amended motion to institute a class action in
the matter of Daniel Thouin v. Ultramar Ltd., et al., Superior
Court of Quebec, District of Quebec. On September 6, 2012, the
Superior Court of Quebec authorized the class action to be
extended to 14 additional cities/regions of the Province of
Quebec, which were beyond the scope of the Competition Bureau's
investigation and the guilty pleas. CST does not believe that a
loss for this claim is either probable or estimable at this time
and intends to vigorously defend these claims.


D & A SERVICES: Faces "Harari" Class Suit Over FDCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rena Harari, individually and all other similarly situated
consumers v. D & A Services LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-04242-PKC-MDG
(E.D.N.Y., July 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Palace, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DAVID PALACE
      383 Kingston Avenue, Suite 113
      Brooklyn, NY 11213
      Telephone: (347) 651-1077
      Facsimile: (347) 464-0012
      E-mail: davidpalace@gmail.com


DIAMOND FOODS: Final OK of Settlement in Labeling Cases Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2015, that plaintiffs have filed
a motion for final approval of the settlement in the Labeling
Class Action Cases.

On January 3, 2014, Deena Klacko first filed a putative class
action against Diamond in the Southern District of Florida,
alleging that certain ingredients contained in the Company's TIAS
tortilla chip product were not natural and seeking damages and
injunctive relief. The lawsuit alleged five causes of actions
alleging violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act, negligent misrepresentation, breach of implied
warranty for particular purpose, breach of express warranty and
the Magnuson-Warranty Act. The complaint seeks to certify a class
of Florida consumers who purchased TIAS tortilla chips since
January 3, 2010.

On January 9, 2014, Dominika Surzyn brought a similar class action
against Diamond relating to our TIAS tortilla chips in federal
court for the Northern District of California. Surzyn purports to
represent a class of California consumers who purchased said
Kettle TIAS products since January 9, 2010.

On April 2, 2014, Richard Hall filed a putative class action
against the Company in San Francisco Superior Court, alleging that
certain ingredients contained in the Company's Kettle Brand chips
and TIAS Tortilla Chips are not natural and seeking damages and
injunctive relief. The complaint purports to assert seven causes
of action for alleged violations of California's Business and
Profession's Code, California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and
for restitution based on quasi-contract/unjust enrichment.
Plaintiff purports to bring this action on his own behalf, as well
as on behalf of all consumers in the United States, or
alternatively, California, who purchased certain of Diamond's
Kettle Brand Chips or Kettle Brand TIAS tortilla chips within 4
years of the filing of the complaint.

The Company denies all allegations in these cases. Following
mediation and settlement discussions among plaintiffs' counsel in
Klacko, Surzyn and Hall, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement, and it is expected that this settlement will resolve
all claims on a nationwide basis and include: Diamond to take
certain injunctive relief measures to confirm labeling compliance
matters; establishment of a $3.0 million common fund for claims
made available to the class and for the payment of class
administration and attorneys' fees; and any funds unclaimed by the
class to be provided cy pres to a charity as a food donation.

The Company recognized the related settlement charges within the
consolidated financial statements for fiscal 2014.

On October 30, 2014, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement. On February 23, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion
for final approval of the settlement. The settlement is subject to
final court approval.

The Company cannot predict with certainty the ultimate resolution
of these lawsuits, and an unfavorable outcome in excess of amounts
recognized as of July 31, 2014, with respect to one or more of
these proceedings could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's results of operations for the periods in which a loss is
recognized.


DIRECT AUTO: Sued Over Failure to Comply with Insurance Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sal Chavez and Desiree Ballesteros v. Direct Auto Insurance
Company and Northwest Insurance Network Inc., Case No. 2015-L-
007378 (Ill. Cir. Ct., July 20, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to comply with the insurance policy number
114645, by failure to pay for the losses of the Plaintiffs'
medical bills, injuries, and property damages.

The Defendants own and operate an insurance company, with its
principal office and place of business in Chicago, Illinois and
County of Cook.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Silverman, Esq.
      HORWITZ, HORWITZ, AND ASSOCIATES, LTD.
      25 E. Washington, Suite 900
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 372-8822
      E-mail: office@horwitzlaw.com


ENBRIDGE ENERGY: Faces "Brinckerhoff" Suit Over Repurchase Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Brinckerhoff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Enbridge Energy Company, Inc., et al., Case
No. 11314-VCN (Del. Ch., July 20, 2015), is brought on behalf of
the public unit-holders to Enbridge Energy Company, Inc., to
enjoin the proposed repurchase by Enbridge Energy Partners, L.P.
of the Company's 66.67% interest in the United States segment of
the Alberta Clipper Pipeline for an inadequate consideration.

Enbridge Energy Company, Inc. is a Canadian corporation that
operates an integrated midstream asset network in Canada and the
United States.

Enbridge Energy Company, Inc. is a publicly traded Delaware master
limited partnership headquartered in Houston, Texas. EEP's
business focuses on energy transportation in the mid-Continent and
Gulf Coast regions of the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jessica Zeldin, Esq.
      ROSENTHAL MONHAIT & GODDESS PA
      PO Box 1070
      Wilmington, DE 19899
      Telephone: (302) 656-4433
      E-mail: jzeldin@rmgglaw.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey H. Squire, Esq.
      Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq.
      David J. Stone, Esq.
      BRAGAR EAGEL & SQUIRE, PC
      885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 308-5858
      E-mail: squire@bespc.com
              squire@bespc.com


ELITE CHECK: Has Invaded Class Members' Privacy, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jed Alexander, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Elite Check Solutions d/b/a Legal Outsourcing, Case
No. 2:15-cv-05474 (C.D. Cal., July 20, 2015), is an action for
damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the Defendant's illegal actions in negligently,
knowingly, and willfully contacting the Plaintiff on the cellular
telephone in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
thereby invading the Plaintiff's privacy.

Elite Check Solutions is a company involved in consumer debt
buying and recovery/collection.

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


ENOVA INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Quadria Williams, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Enova International, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
06325 (N.D. Ill., July 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, Enova International, Inc. is a
leading provider of online financial services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James X. Bormes, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES
      8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 201-0575
      E-mail: bormeslaw@sbcglobal.net


ETSY INC: Faces "Cervantes" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur V. Cervantes, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Etsy, Inc., et al., Case No. CIV534768 (Cal.
Super. Ct., July 21, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false
and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects issued in connection with the Company's initial public
offering.

Headquartered in Brooklyn, New York, Etsy, Inc. operates online
and offline marketplaces to buy and sell handmade items, vintage
goods, and craft supplies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrice Bishop, Esq.
      STULL, STULL & BRODY
      9430 W Olympic Boulevard, Suite 400
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (310) 209-2468
      Facsimile: (310) 209-2087
      E-mail: service@ssbla.com



         - and -

      Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
      Gregory M Egleston, Esq.
      GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
      440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 983- 1300
      Facsimile: (212) 983- 0383
      E-mail: jmckenna@gme-law.com
              gegleston@gme-law.com


EXPERIAN DATA: Faces "Patton" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maudie Patton, Jacqueline Goodridge, and Virginia Kaldmo,
individually and on behalf of the general public and all others
similarly situated v. Experian Data Corp., Case No. 8:15-cv-01142
(C.D. Cal., July 17, 2015), is an action for damages as a result
of the Defendant's disclosure of the Plaintiff and Class member's
highly sensitive, confidential, and regulated consumer, financial,
and personal records and information without authorization for no
permissible purpose.

Experian Data Corp. is a Delaware corporation that regularly
engages in the business of assembling, evaluating, and dispersing
information concerning consumers for the purpose of furnishing
consumer reports.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
      Paula M. Roach, Esq.
      BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
      701 B Street, Suite 1700
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 338-1100
      Facsimile: (619) 338-1101
      E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
              proach@bholaw.com

         - and -

      Ben Barnow, Esq.
      Erich P. Schork, Esq.
      BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      1 North LaSalle Street, Suite 4600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 621-2000
      Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
      E-mail: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
              e.schork@barnowlaw.com

         - and -

      Richard L. Coffman, Esq.
      THE COFFMAN LAW FIRM
      First City Building
      505 Orleans St., Suite 505
      Beaumont, TX 77701
      Telephone: (409) 833-7700
      Facsimile: (866) 835-8250
      E-mail: rcoffman@coffmanlawfirm.com


EZCORP INC: Faces "Huang" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wu Winfred Huang, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Ezcorp, Inc., Stuart I. Grimshaw, and Mark
E. Kuchenrither, Case No. 1:15-cv-00608 (W.D. Tex., July 20,
2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.

With approximately 1,400 locations and branches, Ezcorp, Inc.
offers customers multiple ways to access instant cash, including
pawn loans and consumer loans in the United States, Mexico, Canada
and the United Kingdom.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joe Kendall, Esq.
      Jamie J. McKey, Esq.
      THE KENDALL LAW GROUP, LLP
      3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
      Dallas, TX 75204
      Telephone: (214) 744-3000
      Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
      E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
              jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com

         - and -

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      GLANCY BINKOW & GOLDBERG LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
              rprongay@glancylaw.com


FEDEX GROUND: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Cornielle" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edwin Cornielle and Oneal Murray v. Fedex Ground Package System,
Inc., Credit To Get It Inc., Te & Ti Transport, Inc., Chuckie
Woods, and Tameka Y. Jones a/k/a Tameka Jonesneville, Case No.
1:15-cv-04211 (E.D.N.Y., July 17, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants provide courier services, including package pickup
and delivery services throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel M. Felber, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL FELBER
      100 Park Avenue, Ste. 1600
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 425-4250
      Facsimile: (212) 422-4605
      E-mail: daniel@felberlaw.com


FLOWERS FOODS: Illegally Withholds Workers' Wages, Action Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Terry Coyle, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
individuals v. Flowers Foods, Inc., and Holsum Bakery, Inc., Case
No. 2:15-cv-01372-ESW (D. Ariz., July 20, 2015), arises out of the
Defendant's improper withholding of distributors' wages in
violation of Arizona Wages and Labor Laws.

The Defendants are in the business of delivering fresh bakery
products throughout the southern and eastern parts of the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles S. Zimmerman, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
      14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145
      Scottsdale, AZ 85254
      Telephone: (480) 348-6400
      Facsimile: (480) 348-6415
      E-mail: Charles.Zimmerman@zimmreed.com


FRANCESCA'S HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs Appeal Complaint Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Francesca's Holdings Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 10,
2015, for the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that Plaintiffs
in a class action lawsuit filed a notice of appeal of the Court's
judgment dismissing the consolidated complaint.

On September 27, 2013 and November 4, 2013, two purported class
action lawsuits entitled Ortuzar v. Francesca's Holdings Corp., et
al. and West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund v. Francesca's
Holdings Corp., et al. were filed in the United States District
Court for the  Southern District of New York against the Company
and certain of its current and former directors and officers for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws arising from
statements in certain public disclosures regarding the Company's
current and future business and financial  condition. On December
19, 2013, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System as lead plaintiff. On March 14,
2014, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class action complaint
purportedly on behalf of shareholders that purchased or acquired
the Company's publicly traded common stock between July 22, 2011
and September 3, 2013 against the Company and certain of its
current and former directors and officers. The consolidated
complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11, 12(a) (2), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 for allegedly false and misleading
statements in the Company's public disclosures concerning, among
other things, the Company's relationship with certain vendors. The
lawsuit seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

On May 13, 2014 defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint. By Order entered April 1, 2015, the Court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed the consolidated
complaint in its entirety with prejudice. On April 29, 2015, the
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the Court's judgment
dismissing the consolidated complaint.

The Company believes that the allegations contained in the
consolidated complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously
defend itself against all claims asserted therein. A reasonable
estimate of any possible loss or range of loss cannot be made at
this time, as such, the Company has not recorded any accrual for
possible loss.


G STAGE: Faces "Reynolds" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heaven Reynolds, individually and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated v. G Stage Love.com, Inc.,
and DOES 1-100 inclusive, Case No. BC588571 (Cal. Super. Ct., July
21, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

G Stage Love.com, Inc. is a California corporation that operates
clothing stores throughout California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
      LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, P.C.
      410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 265-1020
      Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
      E-mail: lfj@lfjpc.com


GLAZIER STEEL: Doesn't Pay Proper Union Rate, "Larios" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Larios, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly
situated v. Glazier Steel, Inc. and Does 1-50, Case No. RG15778749
(Cal. Super. Ct., July 21, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay the proper union rate for all its
non-exempt union-employees.

Glazier Steel, Inc. operates as a steel contractor in Alameda
County, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ari E. Moss, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ARI MOSS
      15300 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 207
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
      Telephone: (310) 982-2984


GLOBAL CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Lock" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Lesley Anne Lock, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Global Credit & Collection Corporation, a/k/a Affinity
Global, and Does 1 through 1 0, inclusive, Case No. 1-15-CV-283297
(Cal. Super. Ct., July 20, 2015), alleges that the Defendants are
engaged in unlawful acts in connection with their attempt to
collect defaulted consumer debts, specifically by sending initial
written communications in window envelopes that display and convey
information about the consumer debt or debtor.

Global Credit & Collection Corporation is a Delaware corporation
engaged in the business of collecting defaulted consumer debts
with its principal place of business located at 438 Main Street,
Suite 200, Buffalo, New York 14202.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Fred W. Schwinn, Esq.
      Raeon R. Roulston, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC.
      12 South First Street, Suite 1014
      San Jose, CA 95113-2418
      Telephone: (408) 294-6100
      Facsimile: (408) 294-6190
      E-mail: fred.schwinn@sjconsumerlaw.com
              raeon.roulston@sjconsumerlaw.com


GRANITE TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Darah Niesen, and all others similarly situated v. Granite
Telecommunications LLC, case No. SUCV2015-02172 (Mass. Super. Ct.,
July 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages for all hours work in excess of 40 hours per
week.

Granite Telecommunications LLC owns and operates a
telecommunication company with a principal place of business
located at 100 Newport Avenue Extension, Quincy, Massachusetts
02171.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Messinger, Esq.
      REGAN, LANE & MESSINGER LLP
      41 Winter Street, 5th Floor
      Boston, MA 02108
      Facsimile: (617)778-9742
      Telephone: (857)227-0902
      E-mail: Rob@reganlanemessinger.com


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Final Approval Hearing Held on Cunningham Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2015, that the final approval
hearing of the settlement in the case, Cunningham and Cunningham,
et al. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, was scheduled for
June 8, 2015.

HP is involved in several lawsuits in which the plaintiffs are
seeking unpaid overtime compensation and other damages based on
allegations that various employees of Electronic Data Systems
Corporation ("EDS") or HP have been misclassified as exempt
employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act and/or in violation
of the California Labor Code or other state laws. Those matters
include the following:

Cunningham and Cunningham, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems
Corporation is a purported collective action filed on May 10, 2006
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York claiming that current and former EDS employees allegedly
involved in installing and/or maintaining computer software and
hardware were misclassified as exempt employees. Another purported
collective action, Steavens, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems
Corporation, was filed on October 23, 2007 in the same court
alleging similar facts. The Steavens case has been consolidated
for pretrial purposes with the Cunningham case. On December 14,
2010, the court granted conditional certification of a class
consisting of employees in 20 legacy EDS job codes in the
consolidated Cunningham and Steavens matter. On December 11, 2013,
HP and plaintiffs' counsel in the consolidated Cunningham/Steavens
matter, and the Salva matter, mediated these cases and reached a
settlement agreement. The court preliminarily approved the
settlement on November 4, 2014. The final approval hearing was
scheduled for June 8, 2015.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Final Approval Hearing Held on Salva Deal
----------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2015, that the final approval
hearing of the settlement in the case, Salva v. Hewlett-Packard
Company, was scheduled for June 8, 2015.

Salva v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported collective action
filed on June 15, 2012 in the United States District Court for the
Western District of New York alleging that certain information
technology employees allegedly involved in installing and/or
maintaining computer software and hardware were misclassified as
exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. On December
11, 2013, HP and plaintiffs' counsel in the consolidated
Cunningham/Steavens matter and the Salva matter mediated these
cases and reached a settlement agreement. The court consolidated
the Salva matter into the Cunningham/Steavens matter and
preliminarily approved the settlement on November 4, 2014. The
final approval hearing is scheduled for June 8, 2015.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Parties in Karlbom Engaged in Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2015, that Karlbom, et al. v.
Electronic Data Systems Corporation is a class action filed on
March 16, 2009 in California Superior Court alleging facts similar
to the Cunningham and Steavens matters. The parties are engaged in
discovery.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify in Benedict Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2015, that in the case, Benedict
v. Hewlett-Packard Company, Plaintiffs have filed a motion to
certify a Rule 23 state class of certain Technical Solutions
Consultants in California, Massachusetts, and Colorado that they
claim were improperly classified as exempt from overtime under
state law.

Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported collective
action filed on January 10, 2013 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California alleging that
certain technical support employees allegedly involved in
installing, maintaining and/or supporting computer software and/or
hardware for HP were misclassified as exempt employees under the
Fair Labor Standards Act. The plaintiff has also alleged that HP
violated California law by, among other things, allegedly
improperly classifying these employees as exempt. On February 13,
2014, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for conditional
class certification. The parties are engaged in discovery. On May
7, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify a Rule 23 state
class of certain Technical Solutions Consultants in California,
Massachusetts, and Colorado that they claim were improperly
classified as exempt from overtime under state law.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: No Oral Argument Yet in Cement & Concrete Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2015, that oral argument has not
yet been scheduled in the appeal related to the case, Cement &
Concrete Workers District Council Pension Fund v. Hewlett-Packard
Company, et al.

Cement & Concrete Workers District Council Pension Fund v.
Hewlett-Packard Company, et al. is a putative securities class
action filed on August 3, 2012 in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California alleging, among other
things, that from November 13, 2007 to August 6, 2010 the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
by making statements regarding HP's Standards of Business Conduct
("SBC") that were false and misleading because Mr. Hurd, who was
serving as HP's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer during that
period, had been violating the SBC and concealing his misbehavior
in a manner that jeopardized his continued employment with HP. On
February 7, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint. On August 9, 2013, the court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss with leave to amend the complaint by September
9, 2013. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on September 9,
2013, and the defendants moved to dismiss that complaint on
October 24, 2013.

On June 25, 2014, the court issued an order granting the
defendants' motions to dismiss and on July 25, 2014, plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit. On November 4, 2014, the plaintiff-appellant
filed its opening brief in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. HP filed its answering brief on January 16, 2015 and the
plaintiff-appellant's reply brief was filed on March 2, 2015. Oral
argument has not yet been scheduled.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: No Ruling Yet in Securities Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2015, that a hearing on the
motion for class certification in the case, HP Securities
Litigation, was held on March 20, 2015, and the court has not yet
issued a ruling.

HP is involved in various stockholder litigation relating to,
among other things, its November 20, 2012 announcement that it
recorded a non-cash charge for the impairment of goodwill and
intangible assets within its Software segment of approximately
$8.8 billion in the fourth quarter of its 2012 fiscal year and
HP's statements that, based on HP's findings from an ongoing
investigation, the majority of this impairment charge related to
accounting improprieties, misrepresentations to the market and
disclosure failures at Autonomy that occurred prior to and in
connection with HP's acquisition of Autonomy and the impact of
those improprieties, failures and misrepresentations on the
expected future financial performance of the Autonomy business
over the long term. This stockholder litigation was commenced
against, among others, certain current and former HP executive
officers, certain current and former members of HP's Board of
Directors, and certain advisors to HP. The plaintiffs in these
litigation matters are seeking to recover certain compensation
paid by HP to the defendants and/or other damages. These matters
include the following:

In re HP Securities Litigation consists of two consolidated
putative class actions filed on November 26 and 30, 2012 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California alleging, among other things, that from August 19, 2011
to November 20, 2012, the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material information and
making false statements related to HP's acquisition of Autonomy
and the financial performance of HP's enterprise services
business. On May 3, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint alleging that, during that same period, all of the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and SEC Rule 10b-5(b) by concealing material information and
making false statements related to HP's acquisition of Autonomy
and that certain defendants violated SEC Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) by
engaging in a "scheme" to defraud investors. On July 2, 2013, HP
filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On November 26, 2013, the
court granted in part and denied in part HP's motion to dismiss,
allowing claims to proceed against HP and Margaret C. Whitman
based on alleged statements and/or omissions made on or after May
23, 2012. The court dismissed all of the plaintiff's claims that
were based on alleged statements and/or omissions made between
August 19, 2011 and May 22, 2012. The lead plaintiff filed a
motion for class certification on November 4, 2014 and, on
December 15, 2014, defendants filed their opposition to the
motion. The hearing on the motion for class certification was held
on March 20, 2015. The court has not yet issued a ruling.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss ERISA Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2015, that HP is awaiting a
ruling from the Court on the moton to dismiss the second amended
complaint in the case, HP ERISA Litigation.

In re HP ERISA Litigation consists of three consolidated putative
class actions filed beginning on December 6, 2012 in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California
alleging, among other things, that from August 18, 2011 to
November 22, 2012, the defendants breached their fiduciary
obligations to HP's 401(k) Plan and its participants and thereby
violated Sections 404(a)(1) and 405(a) of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, by concealing negative
information regarding the financial performance of Autonomy and
HP's enterprise services business and by failing to restrict
participants from investing in HP stock. On August 16, 2013, HP
filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.

On March 31, 2014, the court granted HP's motion to dismiss this
action with leave to amend. On July 16, 2014, the plaintiffs filed
a second amended complaint containing substantially similar
allegations and seeking substantially similar relief as the first
amended complaint. HP moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint and a hearing on the motion was held on February 13,
2015. HP is awaiting a ruling from the court.


HIRAD INC: Faces "Nazaryan" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pertos Nazaryan, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Hirad, Inc. d/b/a AM/PM Towing and Does 1-50
inclusive, Case No. BC588585 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 17, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay employees
minimum and overtime wages for all time works as required by the
California Law.

The Defendants are engaged in the towing business within the State
of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Yeremian, Esq.
      DAVID YEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC
      535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Facsimile: (818) 230-0308
      Telephone: (818) 230-8380
      E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com


HOVNANIAN ENTERPRISES: Settlement Becomes Final; No Appeal Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hovnanian Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended April 30, 2015, that the settlement
agreement in a class action lawsuit has become final when no
appeal was taken.

The Company was involved in the following litigation: Hovnanian
Enterprises, Inc. and K. Hovnanian Venture I, L.L.C.
(collectively, the "Company Defendants") were named as defendants
in a class action suit. The action was filed by Mike D'Andrea and
Tracy D'Andrea, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Gloucester County.
The action was initially filed on May 8, 2006 alleging that the
HVAC systems installed in certain of the Company's homes are in
violation of applicable New Jersey building codes and are a
potential safety issue.

On December 14, 2011, the Superior Court granted class
certification; the potential class is 1,065 homes. The Company
Defendants filed a request to take an interlocutory appeal
regarding the class certification decision. The Appellate Division
denied the request, and the Company Defendants filed a request for
interlocutory review by the New Jersey Supreme Court, which
remanded the case back to the Appellate Division for a review on
the merits of the appeal on May 8, 2012.

The Appellate Division, on remand, heard oral arguments on
December 4, 2012, reviewing the Superior Court's original finding
of class certification. On June 18, 2013, the Appellate Division
affirmed class certification. On July 3, 2013, the Company
Defendants appealed the June 2013 Appellate Division's decision to
the New Jersey Supreme Court, which elected not to hear the appeal
on October 22, 2013.

The plaintiff class was seeking unspecified damages as well as
treble damages pursuant to the NJ Consumer Fraud Act. The Company
Defendants' motion to consolidate an indemnity action they filed
against various manufacturer and sub-contractor defendants to
require these parties to participate directly in the class action
was denied by the Superior Court; however, the Company Defendants'
separate action seeking indemnification against the various
manufacturers and subcontractors implicated by the class action is
ongoing.

The Company Defendants, the Company Defendants' insurance carriers
and the plaintiff class agreed to the terms of a settlement on May
15, 2014 in which the plaintiff class was to receive a payment of
$21 million in settlement of all claims, with the majority of the
settlement being funded by the Company Defendants' insurance
carriers. The Company had previously reserved for its share of the
settlement. The Superior Court approved the settlement agreement
on December 23, 2014, and the judgment became final on February
20, 2015, when no appeal was taken. The settlement amount was paid
in full and the class action matter is now concluded.


IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Faces "Hovermale" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer D. Hovermale, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Immediate Credit Recovery Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-05646 (D.N.J., July 20, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
      Philip D. Stern, Esq.
      STERN THOMASSON LLP
      2816 Morris Avenue, Suite 30
      Union, NJ 07083-4870
      Telephone: (973) 379-7500
      Facsimile: (855) 479-9969
      E-mail: andrew@sternthomasson.com
              pstern@philipstern.com

         - and -

      Daniel Adam Frischberg, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL A. FRISCHBERG, LLC
      525 Route 73 South, Suite 200
      Marlton, NJ 08053
      Telephone: (856) 273-6979
      Facsimile: (856) 273-6982
      E-mail: daniel@frischberglaw.com


INTERSTATE DISTRIBUTOR: Sued Over Failure to Pay Rest Breaks
------------------------------------------------------------
Hassan Numi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Interstate Distributor Co., Case No. RG15778541 (Cal.
Super. Ct., July 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay truck drivers employed in California separately and
hourly for time spent on rest breaks, layovers, pre- and post-trip
inspections, completion of work-related paperwork, maintenance,
cleaning and fueling.

Interstate Distributor Co. is a Washington Corporation that
operates several terminals throughout the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Craig J. Ackerman, Esq.
      ACKERMAN & TILAJEF, P.C.
      1180 S. Beverly Dr, Suite 610
      Los Angeles, CA 90035
      Telephone: (310) 277-0614
      Facsimile: (310) 277-0635
      E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com


JUST PUPS: Removed "Canseven" Class Suit to N.J. District Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Berna Canseven, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Just Pups, LLC and
Vincent Losacco, Case No. MID L 03279 15, was removed from the
Middlesex County Superior Court of New Jersey to the U.S. District
Court, District of New Jersey (Trenton). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-05633-AET-TJB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges breach of contract.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew Scott Oorbeek, Esq.
      THE WOLF LAW FIRM LLC
      1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101
      North Brunswick, NJ 08902
      Telephone: (732) 545-7900
      E-mail: moorbeek@wolflawfirm.net

The Defendant is represented by:

      Paul I. Perkins, Esq.
      HADLEY PERKINS, P.C.
      5 Monitor Street
      Ground Floor
      Jersey City, NJ 07304
      Telephone: (201) 942-4470
      Facsimile: (201) 455-6359
      E-mail: pip@pafirm.com


L&W SUPPLY: Doesn't Pay Proper Overtime Wages, "Ayala" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Ayala, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
L&W Supply Corporation and Does 1 through 1 00, Inclusive, Case
No. 1-15-CV-283251 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 17, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay the proper rate of
overtime under California law.

L&W Supply Corporation is a building supply distributor that
regularly transacts business in Santa Clara County, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq.
      Isam C. Khoury, Esq.
      Michael D. Singer, Esq.
      Kimberly D. Neilson, Esq.
      COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER
      605 C Street, Suite 200
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 595-3001
      Facsimile: (619) 595-300
      E-mail: tcohelan@ckslaw.com
              ikhoury@ckslaw.com
              kneilson@ckslaw.com
              msinger@ckslaw.com


         - and -

      Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
      18250 Ventura Blvd.
      Tarzana, CA 91356
      Telephone: (81 R) 609-0807
      Facsimile: (818) 609-0892


LAUNDRY ZONE: Faces "Catalino" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dagoberto Catalino Diaz Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Laundry Zone, Inc., Joseph Lahoud,
and Jeanne D'Arc Lahoud, Case No. 1:15-cv-22708-KMM (S.D. Fla.,
July 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a laundry shop that regularly
transacts business within Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LAW OFFICES OF HAYT: Faces "Panichella" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel H. Panichella, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Law Offices of Hayt, Hayt & Landau, LLC,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00935-MRH (W.D. Pa., July 17, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark G. Moynihan, Esq.
      112 Washington Pl Ste 1-N
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 889-8535
      Facsimile: (800) 997-8192
      E-mail: mark@moynihanlaw.net


LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: Class Action at Very Early Stage
---------------------------------------------------
Layne Christensen Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2015, that a class action suit
against three of Layne's subsidiaries and two other companies is
at a very early stage.

On April 17, 2013, an individual person filed a purported class
action suit against three of Layne's subsidiaries and two other
companies supposedly on behalf of all lessors and royalty owners
from 2004 to the present. The plaintiff essentially alleges that
Layne and two other companies allocated the market for mineral
leasing rights and restrained trade in mineral leasing within the
state of Kansas. The plaintiff seeks certification as a class and
unquantified damages. On April 1, 2014, the plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed one of the other two company defendants without
prejudice. Since this litigation is at a very early state, Layne
is currently unable to predict its outcome or estimate our
exposure.


LCR ACQUISITIONS: Faces "Gutjahr" Suit Over Alleged Tip Pooling
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Gutjahr, Lorraine Cembrale, Frank Moreta and Stephen Shertel,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LCR
Acquisitions Corp. d/b/a Sam Adams Brew Pub, and John Does 1-5 and
6-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-05627-NLH-KMW (D.N.J., July 17, 2015),
arises from the Defendants' unlawful and inappropriate "tip
pooling" policy.

LCR Acquisitions Corp. owns and operates a bar and restaurant at
the Atlantic City International Airport, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Deborah L. Mains, Esq.
      COSTELLO & MAINS, P.C.
      18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
      Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
      Telephone: (856) 727-9700
      Facsimile: (856) 727-9797
      E-mail: dmains@costellomains.com


LEE 'N EDDIES: Has Sent Unsolicited Faxes, Croixco Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Croixco Construction, Inc., individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly- situated persons v. Lee 'N Eddies, LLC,
Case No. 2015-CH-10948 (Ill. Cir. Ct., July 17, 2015), seeks to
secure redress for the Defendant's actions of sending unauthorized
telephone faxes to the Plaintiff and all other persons similarly
situated in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Lee 'N Eddies, LLC is an Illinois corporation that is engaged in
the catering business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark D. Roth, Esq.
      ORUM & ROTH. LLC
      53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1315
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 922-6262
      E-mail: markdroth@gmail.com


LOS ANGELES TIMES: Sued Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Aram Shorvoghlian, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Los Angeles Times Communications LLC, Case No. 2:15-
cv-05483 (C.D. Cal., July 20, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's
practice of repeatedly calling residential telephone numbers on
the National Do Not Call Registry for telemarketing purposes.

Los Angeles Times Communications LLC operates a print and digital
publishing business with a publishing portfolio that includes the
Los Angeles Times metropolitan daily newspaper, the Los Angeles
Times' website at latimes.com, the Los Angeles Times magazine, and
various other print and digital media publications.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, 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

         - and -

      Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
      106 East Sixth Street, Suite 913
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 322-3912
      Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
      E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com


LULULEMON ATHLETICA: Plaintiff's Appeal in Securities Case Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
lululemon athletica inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 3, 2015, that the Court of Appeals has
dismissed plaintiff's appeal in a class action lawsuit.

On July 2, 2013, plaintiff Houssam Alkhoury filed a putative
shareholder class action entitled Alkhoury v. lululemon athletica
inc., et al., No. 13-CV-4596 (S.D.N.Y.) against lululemon, a
certain director and a certain officer of the Company
(collectively, "Defendants"). On October 1, 2013, the Court
appointed Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund as Lead
Plaintiff and on November 1, 2013, Lead Plaintiff filed a
consolidated class action complaint on behalf of a proposed class
of purchasers of lululemon stock between September 7, 2012 through
June 11, 2013 (the "Complaint").

In its Complaint, Lead Plaintiff asserted causes of action under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against Defendants based on certain public disclosures made by the
Company relating to lululemon's product quality and the March 2013
sheer Luon issue.

On January 15, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint") on behalf of a
proposed class of purchasers of lululemon stock between September
7, 2012 through January 10, 2014. In its Amended Complaint, Lead
Plaintiff added new claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on certain of lululemon's
public disclosures related to the Company's ongoing quality
control improvements and the impact of those improvements on the
Company's financial results.

On April 18, 2014, the Court dismissed all of Lead Plaintiff's
claims for failure to state a claim. Lead Plaintiff appealed this
decision and on May 15, 2015, the Court of Appeals dismissed the
plaintiff's appeal.


MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Motion to Consolidate Granted
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar granted the Plaintiff's motion to
coordinate and partially consolidate a related action in the case
captioned KEITH THOMAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MAGNACHIP
SEMICONDUCTOR CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No.: 14-CV-01160-
JST, (N.D. Cal).

In this securities class action, Plaintiffs allege that MagnaChip
Semiconductor Corporation violated federal securities laws by
engaging in a "massive fraud on investors" involving false and
misleading financial statements during the period between February
1, 2012, and February 12, 2015. This fraud was allegedly "so vast
that the Company had to restate results for 2011 and 2012, and the
first nine months of 2013, resulting in a total reversal of
earnings by $142 million, wiping out 55% of its reported profits
for those periods." The initial complaint was filed on March 12,
2014, and Plaintiff Richard Hayes promptly caused to be published
a notice advising members of the purported class of the pendency
of the action.

On May 12, 2014, Keith Thomas filed a motion for appointment as
Lead Plaintiff, which the Court granted on July 3, 2014.  After
the filing of an Amended Complaint, the Court granted two
stipulations extending Defendants' time to respond in order to
permit Plaintiffs to further amend their complaint following
MagnaChip's anticipated filing of its financial restatements.

MagnaChip issued the restated results on February 12, 2015, and
Plaintiffs filed their Second Amended Complaint (SAC) on March 16,
2015.  The SAC alleges claims under sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b),
78t(a), 78t-1, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the
Securities Exchange Commission (SEC).

The Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement System filed a separate
class action complaint on April 21, 2015, and identified Thomas as
a related case. The Oklahoma Police complaint alleges that between
February 1, 2012, and February 12, 2015, MagnaChip issued
materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose
the inadequacy of its internal controls and procedures, leading
MagnaChip securities to be traded at artificially inflated prices
and ultimately causing economic harm and damages to investors.
In addition to Exchange Act claims alleged in Thomas, the Oklahoma
Police complaint alleges claims under sections 11, 12(a)(2), and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933.   It also names several
additional "Underwriter Defendants."

The Court granted MagnaChip's motion to relate the cases on May 4,
2015.  Lead Plaintiff Keith Thomas filed his Motion to Coordinate
and Partially Consolidate a Related Action.

In his Order dated June 15, 2015 available at http://is.gd/VT7X1Q
from Leagle.com, Judge Tigar granted the Thomas's Motion to
Coordinate and Partially Consolidate. The Court consolidates cases
No. 14-cv-01160-JST and No. 15-cv-01797-JST. The first-filed case,
No. 14-cv-01160-JST, shall serve as the lead case and Thomas shall
continue to serve as Lead Plaintiff. The Clerk shall file future
submissions in case No. 14-cv-01160.

Case No. 15-cv-01797-JST is administratively closed, and any
pending dates, deadlines, and case schedules in that case are
vacated. The Court will consolidate these related actions in the
interest of judicial efficiency.

The Court said the cases share common questions of fact because
they are each centered on MagnaChip's restatement of its financial
results for 2011, 2012, and the first nine months of 2013. They
also share Exchange Act claims. While the Securities Act claims
are unique to the Oklahoma Police action, all of the claims
revolve around whether MagnaChip materially misrepresented its
financial condition, and the Court concludes that severance of the
Securities Act claims would impair judicial efficiency.

Accordingly, the Court will consolidate the Thomas and Oklahoma
Police actions in their entirety.  The contours of the lawsuit
have changed somewhat since the original complaint was filed in
March 2014, in that the class period length has expanded,
additional Defendants have been added, and the Retirement System
seeks to pursue Securities Act claims in addition to Exchange Act
claims. But the Retirement System, the Court explained, has not
demonstrated that it is "likely that individuals who could now be
considered potential lead plaintiffs would have disregarded the
earlier notice" or that proceeding without republication would
"potentially exclude qualified movants from the lead plaintiff
selection process."

Although Plaintiffs have supplemented their allegations as
additional information has come to light, the SAC still centers on
the same factual scenario concerning MagnaChip's financial
statements that was presented in Hayes's original complaint. The
new Securities Act claims and additional defendants in the
Oklahoma Police complaint relate to the same misrepresentations,
the Court said.

Shawn A. Williams, Esq. -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Danielle Suzanne
Myers, Esq. -- danim@rgrdlaw.com --  Dennis J. Herman, Esq. --
dennish@rgrdlaw.com -- Mary K. Blasy, Esq. -- mblasy@rgrdlaw.com
-- Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. -- srudman@rgrdlaw.com and Sunny
September Sarkis, Esq. -- ssarkis@rgrdlaw.com of Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP serve as counsel for Plaintiff Oklahoma Police
Pension & Retirement System

Sydney Spector, Esq. -- eruehe@akingump.com -- Douglas Maynard,
Esq. -- dmaynard@akingump.com --  Eric Ghiya Ruehe, Esq. --
eruehe@akingump.com -- John C. Murphy, Esq. --
jmurphy@akingump.com -- Michael Asaro, Esq. -- masaro@akingump.com
-- Reginald David Steer, Esq. -- rsteer@akingump.com and Stephen
Michael Baldini, Esq. -- sbaldini@akingump.com  of Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP serve as counsel for Defendant Randal
Klein


MICHAELS COMPANIES: To Defend Against Remaining FCRA Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Michaels Companies, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that the Company intends
to defend the remaining lawsuits alleging fair credit reporting
claim.

On December 11, 2014, MSI was served with a lawsuit, Christina
Graham v. Michaels Stores, Inc., filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey by a former associate.  The lawsuit
is a purported class action, bringing plaintiff's individual
claims, as well as claims on behalf of a putative class of
applicants who applied for employment with Michaels through an
online application, and on whom a background check for employment
was procured. The lawsuit alleges that MSI violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and the New Jersey Fair Credit
Reporting Act by failing to provide the proper disclosure and
obtain the proper authorization to conduct background checks.
Since the initial filing, another named plaintiff joined the
lawsuit, which was amended in February 2015, Christina Graham and
Gary Anderson v. Michaels Stores, Inc., with substantially similar
allegations.  The plaintiffs seek statutory and punitive damages
as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

Following the filing of the Graham case in New Jersey, four
additional purported class action lawsuits with five plaintiffs
were filed, Raini Burnside v. Michaels Stores, Inc., pending in
the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Missouri,
Michele Castro and Janice Bercut v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in the
U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Texas, Sue
Gettings v. Michaels Stores, Inc., in the U.S. District Court in
the Southern District of New York, and Barbara Horton v. Michaels
Stores, Inc., in the U.S. District Court in the Central District
of California. All five plaintiffs alleged violations of the FCRA.
In addition, Castro, Horton and Bercut also alleged violations of
California's unfair competition law.  The Burnside, Horton and
Gettings lawsuits have been dismissed and an offer of judgment has
been accepted in the Castro lawsuit and will be dismissed. The
Graham and Bercut lawsuits were transferred by the U.S. Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for centralized pretrial
proceedings to the District of New Jersey.

The Company intends to defend the remaining lawsuits vigorously.

"We cannot reasonably estimate the potential loss, or range of
loss, related to the lawsuits, if any," the Company said.


MICHAELS COMPANIES: To Defend Against Suits Over Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
The Michaels Companies, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that the Company intends
to defend lawsuits related to data security breach.

Five putative class actions were filed against MSI relating to the
January 2014 data breach.  The plaintiffs generally alleged that
MSI failed to secure and safeguard customers' private information
including credit and debit card information, and as such, breached
an implied contract, and violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act
(and other states' similar laws) and are seeking damages including
declaratory relief, actual damages, punitive damages, statutory
damages, attorneys' fees, litigation costs, remedial action, pre
and post judgment interest, and other relief as available.  The
cases are as follows: Christina Moyer v. Michaels Stores, Inc.,
was filed on January 27, 2014; Michael and Jessica Gouwens v.
Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on January 29, 2014; Nancy Maize
and Jessica Gordon v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on February
21, 2014; and Daniel Ripes v. Michaels Stores, Inc., was filed on
March 14, 2014. These four cases were filed in the United States
District Court-Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division.

On March 18, 2014, an additional putative class action was filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, Mary Jane Whalen v. Michaels Stores, Inc., but was
voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff on April 11, 2014 without
prejudice to her right to refile a complaint. On April 16, 2014,
an order was entered consolidating the Illinois actions. On July
14, 2014, the Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint was granted. On August 11, 2014, plaintiffs filed a
motion to alter or amend the judgment, which was denied on October
14, 2014. The deadline to file a notice of appeal expired on
November 13, 2014.

On December 2, 2014, Whalen filed a new lawsuit against MSI
related to the data breach in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York, Mary Jane Whalen v. Michaels
Stores, Inc., seeking damages including declaratory relief,
monetary damages, statutory damages, punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, injunctive relief, pre and post judgment interest,
and other relief as available. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss and is awaiting a decision from the Court.

The Company intends to defend these lawsuits vigorously. "We
cannot reasonably estimate the potential loss, or range of loss,
related to the lawsuits, if any," the Company said.

"In connection with the breach, payment card companies and
associations may seek to require us to reimburse them for
unauthorized card charges and costs to replace cards and may also
impose fines or penalties in connection with the data breach, and
enforcement authorities may also impose fines or other remedies
against us. We have also incurred other costs associated with the
data breach, including legal fees, investigative fees, costs of
communications with customers and credit monitoring services
provided to our customers. In addition, state and federal
agencies, including states' attorneys general and the Federal
Trade Commission may investigate events related to the data
breach, including how it occurred, its consequences and our
responses. Although we intend to cooperate in these
investigations, we may be subject to fines or other obligations,
which may have an adverse effect on how we operate our business
and our results of operations. We cannot reasonably estimate the
potential loss or range of loss related to any reimbursement
costs, fines or penalties that may be assessed, if any. Such
amounts incurred to date are immaterial to the consolidated
financial statements," the Company said.


MO DION: Faces "Cardiel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Cardiel, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. M.O. Dion & Sons, Inc., et
al., Case No. BC588570 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 21, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the California Labor Code.

M.O. Dion & Sons, Inc. is a California corporation that supplies
industrial gas throughout California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
      LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE, PC
      410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
      Glendale, CA 91203
      Telephone: (818) 265-1020
      Facsimile: (818) 265-1021
      E-mail: lfj@lfjpc.com


MODUSLINK GLOBAL: Court Enters Final Judgment Concluding Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2015,
for the quarterly period ended April 30, 2015, that a court has
entered the order and final judgment concluding a consolidated
class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "On June 11, 2012, we announced the pending
restatement of the Company's financial statements for the periods
ending on or before April 30, 2012 (the "June 11, 2012
Announcement"), related to the Company's accounting treatment of
rebates associated with volume discounts provided by vendors. The
restated financial statements were filed on January 11, 2013.
After the June 11, 2012 Announcement, stockholders of the Company
commenced three purported class actions in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts arising from the
circumstances described in the June 11, 2012 Announcement (the
"Securities Actions"), entitled, respectively:

    * Irene Collier, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated, vs. ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., Joseph
C. Lawler and Steven G. Crane, Case 1:12-CV-11044-DJC, filed June
12, 2012 (the "Collier Action");

   * Alexander Shnerer Individually And On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated, vs. ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., Joseph
C. Lawler and Steven G. Crane, Case 1:12-CV-11078-DJC, filed June
18, 2012 (the "Shnerer Action"); and

   * Harold Heszkel, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. ModusLink Global Solutions, Inc., Joseph C.
Lawler, and Steven G. Crane, Case 1:12-CV-11279-DJC, filed July
11, 2012 (the "Heszkel Action").

Each of the Securities Actions purports to be brought on behalf of
those persons who purchased shares of the Company between
September 26, 2007 through and including June 8, 2012 (the "Class
Period") and alleges that failure to timely disclose the issues
raised in the June 11, 2012 Announcement during the Class Period
rendered defendants' public statements concerning the Company's
financial condition materially false and misleading in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

On February 11, 2013, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint in the Securities Actions. The Company moved to dismiss
the amended complaint on March 11, 2013. On March 26, 2014,
following a November 8, 2013 hearing, the Court denied the
Company's motion to dismiss, and, on May 26, 2014, the Company
answered the Amended Complaint.

In October 2014, the parties agreed to a stipulation for a
proposed $4 million class settlement to be covered by insurance
proceeds, subject to Court approval. On November 24, 2014, the
Court entered an order preliminarily approving the proposed
settlement, certification of the settlement class, and provision
of notice of the settlement to the settling class. The Court held
a final approval hearing for the settlement on March 11, 2015, and
on March 15, 2015 the Court entered the order and final judgment
concluding this matter.


MUDTECH SERVICES: Faces "Hebert" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Dwayne Hebert, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Mudtech Services, L.P., Case No. 2:15-cv-00933-AJS
(W.D. Pa., July 17, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

Mudtech Services, L.P. is a global oilfield services company with
significant operations throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEW RESIDENTIAL: 3 Class Actions Filed v. Home Loan Servicing
-------------------------------------------------------------
New Residential Investment Corp. said in an exhibit to its Form
8-K Report said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended April 30, 2015, that three putative class action lawsuits
have been filed against Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd. and
certain of its current and former officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
entitled: (i) Oliveira v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et
al., No. 15-CV-652 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on January 29, 2015; (ii)
Berglan v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-
947 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on February 9, 2015; and (iii) W. Palm Beach
Police Pension Fund v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et
al., No. 15-CV-1063 (S.D.N.Y.), filed on February 13, 2015. On
April 2, 2015, these lawsuits were consolidated into a single
action, which is referred to as the "New York Action." On April
28, 2015, lead plaintiff, lead counsel and liaison counsel were
appointed in the New York Action.

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


ONEIDA FINANCIAL: Entered Into MOU in "Parshall" Case
-----------------------------------------------------
Oneida Financial Corp. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 10, 2015, that on June
9, 2015, Oneida Financial Corp. ("Oneida Financial"), Community
Bank System, Inc. ("Community Bank System"), and the other
defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU")
with plaintiffs regarding the settlement of putative class action
lawsuits captioned Paul Parshall v. Richard B. Myers, et al (Index
No. CA2015-000577), pending before the New York Supreme Court,
Oneida County; John Solak v. Richard B. Myers, et al (Index No.
CA2015-000684), pending before the New York Supreme Court, Oneida
County; and Linda Colvin v. Oneida Financial Corp., et al, pending
before the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland
(collectively, the "Actions").

The Actions relate to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as
of February 24, 2015, by and between Oneida Financial and
Community Bank System, pursuant to which Oneida Financial will
merge with and into Community Bank System.  Pursuant to the MOU,
Oneida Financial has agreed to make available additional
information to Oneida Financial stockholders.  The additional
information is contained in the supplement (the "Supplement") to
the Proxy Statement/Prospectus of Oneida Financial and Community
Bank System dated May 6, 2015 (the "Proxy Statement/Prospectus"),
which is attached as Exhibit 99.1 hereto.  The Supplement should
be read in conjunction with the Proxy Statement/Prospectus and the
documents incorporated by reference therein.

Oneida Financial, Community Bank System and the other defendants
deny all of the allegations made by the plaintiffs in the Actions
and believe the disclosures in the Proxy Statement/Prospectus are
adequate under the law.  Nevertheless, Oneida Financial, Community
Bank System and the other defendants have agreed to settle the
Actions in order to avoid the costs, disruption, and distraction
of further litigation.

On June 10, 2015, Oneida Financial and Community Bank System
issued a joint press release relating to a change in the
anticipated closing date of the merger, the extension of the
election deadline regarding the form of merger consideration that
is currently underway, and the above described settlement.


OPENGATE CAPITAL: Removed "Arias" Class Suit to Cal. Dist. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Sergio Arias, David Johnson
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals v. OpenGate Capital LLC, OpenGate Capital Management
LLC, OpenGate Capital Group LLC, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 30-02015-00792811-CU-OE-CXC, was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of Orange to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District Of California (Southern
Division - Santa Ana). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
8:15-cv-01145-DOC-DFM to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arnab Banerjee, Esq.
      Melissa Grant, Esq.
      Raul Perez, Esq.
      Suzy E. Lee, Esq.
      CAPSTONE LAWYERS APC
      1840 Century Park East Suite 450
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 556-4811
      Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
      E-mail: arnab.banerjee@capstonelawyers.com
              melissa.grant@capstonelawyers.com
              raul.perez@capstonelawyers.com
              suzy.lee@capstonelawyers.com


PARNON ENERGY: October 9 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
If You Purchased or Sold Certain NYMEX or ICE WTI Crude Oil
Futures Contracts or Option Contracts on Such Futures Contracts
During January 1 through May 15, 2008, Inclusive, as Further
Specified in the Settlement Agreement Referenced Below Then Your
Rights Will Be Affected and You May Be Entitled To A Benefit

The purpose of this notice is to inform you of a Settlement with
defendants Parnon Energy Inc., Arcadia Petroleum Ltd., Arcadia
Energy (Suisse) SA, James T. Dyer, and Nicholas J. Wildgoose
("Defendants") in the class action captioned In Re: Crude Oil
Commodity Futures Litig., 11-cv-3600 (KBF) (S.D.N.Y.) pending in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The Court has scheduled a public Fairness Hearing on October 9,
2015, at 11:00 a.m. to be held at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY,
Courtroom 15A.

In order to resolve the claims against them, the Defendants have
agreed to pay $16,500,000 for the benefit of the Settlement Class.
The Defendants have consistently and vigorously denied Plaintiffs'
claims.  By entering into the Settlement Agreement the Defendants
do not admit and instead continue to deny that they engaged in any
unlawful conduct, and that any member of the Settlement Class
suffered compensable damages.  Absent a settlement, the
Defendants would continue to vigorously oppose each and every
aspect of Plaintiffs' claims and alleged damages.

A copy of the Settlement Agreement, the formal Settlement Notice,
Plan of Allocation, Proof of Claim, Request for Exclusion Form and
other important documents are available on the settlement website
at www.crudeoilfuturessettlement.com

For additional information, you may also contact the Settlement
Administrator at 1 (866) 828-2487 or at the below address:

   In Re: Crude Oil Commodity Futures Litigation Settlement
   c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
   PO Box 170900
   Milwaukee, WI 53217

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, you may seek to
participate in the Settlement by submitting a Proof of Claim that
is received by the Settlement Administrator on or before
December 23, 2015.  You may obtain a Proof of Claim on the
settlement website referenced above.  If you are a member of the
Settlement Class but do not file a Proof of Claim,
you will still be bound by the releases set forth in the
Settlement Agreement if the Court enters an order approving the
Settlement Agreement.  All objections must be made in accordance
with the instructions set forth in the formal Settlement Notice
and must be filed with the Court and served on the Parties'
counsel by September 18, 2015.  All requests to be excluded from
the Settlement must be made in accordance with the instructions
set forth in the formal Settlement Notice and must be received by
the Settlement Administrator no later than September 4, 2015.
You may obtain a Request for Exclusion form on the settlement
website referenced above.

To date, the attorneys representing the Settlement Class have not
received payment for their services or reimbursement for their
expenses.  Settlement Class Members are not personally responsible
for payment of attorneys' fees or expenses.  Instead, as
compensation for their time and their risk in prosecuting the
litigation on a wholly contingent fee basis for more than four
years, Lead Counsel will ask the Court for an award of attorneys'
fees in the amount of not more than one-third (33 1/3%) of the
Settlement Fund, as a common fund, and for reimbursement of
their costs and expenses in the amount of no more than
approximately $4,600,000, all to be deducted from the Settlement
Fund.


PEOPLES BANK: "Foland" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Leonard Foland v. Peoples Bank and Trust Co. and Gary Klopp, Case
No. 1:15-cv-02105 (D. Md., July 17, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate a banking institution that provides
commercial and residential mortgages, loans, and other financial
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James A. Lanier, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF PETER T. NICHOLL
      36 S Charles Street, Suite 1700
      Baltimore, MD 21201
      Telephone: (410) 244-7005
      Facsimile: (410) 244-8454
      E-mail: jlanier@nicholllaw.com


PERRY ELLIS: Tentative Settlement Reached in "Ordaz" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Perry Ellis International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that the parties have
reached a tentative settlement in the case filed by Humberto
Ordaz.

"We are a defendant in Humberto Ordaz v. Perry Ellis
International, Inc., Case No. BC490485 (Cal. Sup. Ct. 2012),
involving claims for unpaid wages, missed breaks and related
claims, which was originally filed on August 17, 2012 by a former
employee in our California administrative offices," the Company
said.  "The plaintiff sought an unspecified amount of damages. The
lawsuit has been pleaded but not certified as a class action.
Mediation was held during the third quarter of fiscal 2015.
Currently, the parties have reached a tentative settlement. The
tentative settlement amount has been provided for in the Company's
results of operations for fiscal 2015."


PYRAMID CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Tucker" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Tucker v. Pyramid Construction, LLC and Rudy Spandler,
Case No. 1:15-cv-01525 (D. Colo., July 17, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company in Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason Travis Brown, Esq.
      JTB LAW GROUP, LLC
      155 2nd Street, Suite 4
      Jersey City, NJ 07302
      Telephone: (201) 630-0000
      Facsimile: (855) 582-5297
      E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com


RECEPTOS INC: Faces "Scott" Suit Over Proposed Celgene Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maureen Scott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Receptos, Inc., et al., Case No. 11316 (Del. Ch., July
20, 2015), on behalf of the public stockholders of Receptos, Inc.,
to enjoin the Defendants' attempt to sell the Company to Celgene
Corporation for inadequate consideration.

Receptos, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company that develops
therapeutic candidates for immune and metabolic diseases.

Celgene Corporation is an integrated global biopharmaceutical
company engaged primarily in the discovery, development, and
commercialization of therapies for cancer and inflammatory
diseases.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROK SOUTH: Faces "Urbina" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Itzen Isaac Cabrera Urbina, and all others similarly situated v.
Rok South, LLC d/b/a Rok:Brgr Burger Bar + Gastropub, and Jey
Hospitality Group, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-22694-UU (S.D. Fla., July
20, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ROSS STORES: Class Action Litigation Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Ross Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 10, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that like many California
retailers, the Company has been named in class action lawsuits
alleging violation of wage and hour and other employment laws.
Class action litigation remains pending as of May 2, 2015.


SCREW PRODUCTS: Has Sent Unsolicited Faxes, Bodourian Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bodourian, Inc. v. Screw Products, Inc. d/b/a Screw Products, Case
No. 8:15-cv-01143-JLS-DFM (C.D. Cal., July 17, 2015), seeks to put
an end on the Defendants illegal practice of transmitting
unsolicited faxes.

Screw Products, Inc. is a distributor of fasteners, hardware arid
related products to businesses in North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mohammad Kazerouni, Esq.
      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Gouya Ranekouhi, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: mike@kazlg.com
              ak@kazlg.com
              gouya@kazlg.com

         - and -

      Robert L. Hyde, Esq.
      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      E-mail: bob@westcoastlitigation.com
              josh@westcoastlitigation.com

         - and -

      S. Masih Kazerouni, Esq.
      RKR LEGAL, APC
      245 Fischer Ave, D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (866) 502-0787
      Facsimile: (866) 502-5065
      E-mail: mk@rkrlegal.com


SEARS HOLDINGS: Stockholder Class Action Filed
----------------------------------------------
Sears Holdings Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 2, 2015, that a putative stockholder
class action and derivative lawsuit was filed on May 29, 2015, in
the Delaware Court of Chancery against Holdings, the members of
the Company's Board of Directors, ESL Investments, Inc. and
Seritage in connection with the proposed rights offering for and
sale of certain properties to Seritage. The derivative suit is
asserted on Holdings' behalf but also names Holdings as a nominal
defendant. The complaint asserts class and derivative claims of
breach of fiduciary duty by the members of the Board and by ESL
Investments, Inc., as controlling stockholder, and of aiding and
abetting breaches of fiduciary duty by Seritage. The claims
asserted by the plaintiff include, among other things, the
allegation that Holdings is selling certain properties and lease
rights to Seritage at a price that is unfairly low from the point
of view of Holdings and that the disclosures made in connection
with the rights offering are either incomplete, false or
misleading.

Among other forms of relief, the plaintiff seeks damages in an
unspecified amount and equitable relief to enjoin in the proposed
transactions.

"We believe the allegations to be meritless and intend to defend
this litigation vigorously," the Company said.


SHO RIKI: Faces "Hernandez" Suit in N.Y. Over FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Esteban Olayo Hernandez, Teodulfo Morales, Gabriel Urrutia Mendez,
on Behalf of Themselves and All Other Employees Similarly Situated
as Collective Representatives v. Sho Riki, Inc., Riki Hashizume,
Satomi Hashizume, Jane Does 1-10, and John Does 1-10, Case No.
1:15-cv-05613 (S.D.N.Y., July 17, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard Alan Levy, Esq.
      LEVY RATNER, P.C.
      80 Eighth Avenue, Floor 8
      New York, NY 10011
      Telephone: (212) 627-8100
      Facsimile: (212) 627-8182
      E-mail: rlevy@levyratner.com


SHOPTRIBE INC: Faces "Zuniga" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alfreso Zuniga, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
v. ShopTribe, Inc. d/b/a Thrive Market, Priority Workforce, Inc.,
and Does 1-100 inclusive, Case No. BC588230 (Cal. Super. Ct., July
17, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate an organic food distribution
warehouse, retail center, and online retail or warehouse
distribution in Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon J. Sweeney, Esq.
      THE SWEENEY LAW FIRM, APC
      3320 W. Victory Blvd.
      Burbank, CA 91505
      Telephone: (818) 668-7451
      E-mail: bsweeney@thesweeneylawfirm.com


SIERRA VIEW: Faces "Ofrecio" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Ofrecio, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly
situated aggrieved employees v. Sierra View Care Holdings, LLC,
Sierra View Care Center, Inc., and DOES 1-100 inclusive, Case No.
BC588412 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 20, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate several healthcare facilities
throughout California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kyle J. Todd, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KYLE TODD
      611 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1000
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (323) 208-9171
      Facsimile: (323) 693-0822
      E-mail: kyle@kyletodd.com


SOHO ACCESSORIES: Removed "Kwon" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Hea Won Kwon, and other
similarly situated employees v. John Lee and Soho Accessories,
Inc., Case No. 15-012782-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial
Circuit for Miami-Dade County, Florida to the U.S. District Court,
Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-22684-RNS to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts causes of action under the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
      Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Courthouse Tower
      44 West Flagler Street
      Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
              jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Robert Stuart Turk, Esq.
      Jorge Freddy Perera, Esq.
      STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITTERSON
      Museum Tower
      150 W. Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 789-3200
      Facsimile: 789-3395
      E-mail: rturk@stearnsweaver.com
              fperera@stearnsweaver.com


STAPLES INC: Court Consolidated Nine Delaware Actions
-----------------------------------------------------
Staples, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2015, that the court
has consolidated the nine Delaware Actions under the caption In re
Office Depot, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No.
10655-CB.

On February 4, 2015, Staples, Inc. ("Staples") entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Office
Depot, Inc. ("Office Depot") and Staples AMS, Inc., a wholly owned
subsidiary of Staples ("Merger Sub"), pursuant to which, upon the
terms and subject to the conditions of the Merger Agreement,
Merger Sub will merge with and into Office Depot, with Office
Depot surviving the merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of
Staples.

Staples is supplementing its disclosure regarding the merger in
connection with litigation brought by stockholders of Office
Depot.  Nothing in this Current Report on Form 8-K shall be deemed
an admission of the legal necessity or materiality under
applicable laws of any of the disclosures set forth herein, and
Staples and the other named defendants continue to deny any
wrongdoing alleged in the litigation.

As disclosed in the registration statement on Form S-4 of Staples
that was declared effective on May 15, 2015, which includes a
prospectus of Staples and a proxy statement of Office Depot, which
Staples filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May
18, 2015 (the "proxy statement/prospectus"), Office Depot, its
directors, Staples, Merger Sub, and Starboard Value LP, among
others, are named as defendants in a number of putative class
action lawsuits brought by purported Office Depot stockholders
challenging the merger, seeking, among other things, to enjoin
consummation of the merger. To date, nine lawsuits have been filed
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware
Actions"), and two lawsuits have been filed in the Fifteenth
Circuit Court of the State of Florida (the "Florida Actions" and,
together with the Delaware Actions, the "lawsuits").

Operative amended complaints were designated in the Delaware and
Florida Actions on March 31, 2015, and April 7, 2015,
respectively. The lawsuits generally allege, among other things,
that the directors of Office Depot breached their fiduciary duties
to Office Depot stockholders in connection with the merger, by,
among other things, failing to fully inform themselves of the
market value of Office Depot, maximize stockholder value, obtain
the best financial and other terms, disclose material information
in the proxy statement/prospectus and act in the best interests of
public stockholders, and by seeking to benefit themselves
improperly. The lawsuits further allege that Staples, Office
Depot, and Starboard Value LP, among others, aided and abetted the
Office Depot directors in the breach of their fiduciary duties.
The lawsuits seek, in general, (i) injunctive relief enjoining,
preliminarily and permanently, the merger, (ii) in the event that
the merger is consummated, rescission or an award of rescissory
damages, (iii) an award of plaintiffs' costs, including fees,
expenses of attorneys, fees for experts, and interest, and (iv)
additional disclosure related to the transactions in the proxy
statement/prospectus, among other relief. In addition to the
allegations raised and the relief sought in the Delaware Actions,
the Florida Actions seek punitive damages and allege that the
forum selection amendment to Office Depot's bylaws was adopted in
breach of all defendants' fiduciary duties, and seek a declaratory
judgment invalidating it.

On March 3, 2015, the plaintiffs in the Florida Actions filed
motions to consolidate the Florida Actions, appoint lead counsel,
and for expedited proceedings. On March 9, 2015, the defendants
filed motions to dismiss the complaints for improper venue, or in
the alternative to stay the Florida Actions in favor of the
Delaware Actions. On May 15, 2015, the court issued an order
granting the defendants' motions to dismiss based on Office
Depot's exclusive forum bylaw, dismissing the Florida complaint
without prejudice to plaintiffs refiling their claims in Delaware,
and denying the plaintiffs' motions for expedited proceedings as
moot.

On March 31, 2015, the court consolidated the nine Delaware
Actions under the caption In re Office Depot, Inc. Stockholders
Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 10655-CB. On May 29, 2015, the
Delaware court scheduled a preliminary injunction hearing on
plaintiffs' motion to enjoin the merger for June 12, 2015.

Staples, Office Depot, and the Office Depot board of directors
believe that the claims asserted in these suits are without merit
and intend to defend against them vigorously, and further believe
that no supplemental disclosure is required under applicable laws.
However, Staples wishes to make certain supplemental disclosures
related to the proposed merger, and on June 4, 2015, in connection
with the filing of these supplemental disclosures, the plaintiffs
withdrew their motion for a preliminary injunction.


STEIN WIENER: Faces "Williams" Suit in N.Y. Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Williams, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated v. Stein, Wiener & Roth, LLP, Case No. 2:15-cv-04217
(E.D.N.Y., July 17, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan L. Gentile, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA
      110 Jericho Turnpike, Suite 100
      Floral Park, NY 11001
      Telephone: (212) 675-6161
      Facsimile: (212) 675-4367
      E-mail: rlg@lawgmf.com


SUSHI SASABUNE: Faces "Kono" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yoshitomo Kono, Daniel Cortes, and Gildardo Ramirez Galindo v.
Sushi Sasabune of New York, New Creators, Inc. and Kenji
Takahashi, Case No. 1:15-cv-05680 (S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2015), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unlawfully withheld
gratuities, monies unlawfully deducted from wages, spread of hours
payments, and penalties for failure to provide proper wage notices
and wage payment stubs in violation of the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 401 East
73rd Street, New York, New York 10021.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Florence Rostami, Esq.
      FLORENCE ROSTAMI, LAW OFFICES
      708 Third Avenue, 5th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3962
      Facsimile: (212) 209-3964
      E-mail: frostami@rostamilaw.com


S&P 72: "Tetlactle-Amayo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Tetlactle-Amayo and Rigoberto Tetlactle-Tepole, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. S&P 72 Corp. d/b/a
Lime Leaf, BMB Corp. d/b/a Roti Roll Bombay Frankie, Sudhir Bhat,
Chander Malik and Sujit Balachandran, Case No. 1:15-cv-05668-AJN
(S.D.N.Y., July 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage,
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an enterprise comprised of two
restaurants in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
              cklee@leelitigation.com


TAQUERIA SAN: Faces "Ruiz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Saul Ceballos Ruiz, on behalf of himself and all other
Plaintiffs similarly situated v. Taqueria San Jose #1, Inc., d/b/a
Taqueria San Jose, and Leticia Navarro, Case No. 1:15-cv-06273
(N.D. Ill., July 17, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant within the State of
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy Michael Nolan, Esq.
      Nicholas Paul Cholis, Esq.
      NOLAN LAW OFFICE
      53 West Jackson Boulevard, #1137
      Chicago, IL 60604-3207
      Telephone: (312) 322-1100
      E-mail: tmnolanlaw@sbcglobal.net
              n.cholis.nolanlaw@sbcglobal.net


TJX COMPANIES: Faces "Chester" Suit Over False Comparative Prices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Staci Chester, Daniel Friedman, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. The TJX Companies, Inc., T.J. Maxx of
CA, LLC, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 5:15-cv-
01437-DDP-DTB (C.D. Cal., July 17, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of using deceptive comparative prices to
trick its customers into mistakenly believing they are saving
specific and substantial amounts on name brand items.

The Defendants own and operate a chain of so called "off-price"
department stores in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Greg K. Hafif, Esq.
      Michael G. Dawson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF HERBERT HAFIF
      269 W. Bonita Avenue
      Claremont, CA 91711
      Telephone: (909) 624-1671
      Facsimile: (909) 625-7772
      E-mail: ghafif@hafif.com
              mdawson@hafif.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Christopher J. Morosoff, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. MOROSOFF
      77-760 Country Club Drive, Suite G
      Palm Desert, CA 92211
      Telephone: (760) 469-5986
      Facsimile: (760) 345-1581
      E-mail: cjmorosoff@morosofflaw.com


TURNKEY CLEANING: "Cormier" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Cormier, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Turnkey Cleaning Services LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv-02076-
RTH-PJH (W.D. La., July 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Turnkey Cleaning Services LLC owns and operates an industrial
cleaning company specializing in restoration of rigs, production
facilities, liquid mud barges, jack-up rigs, supply vessels, and
other industrial equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W DEJEAN
      P. O. Box 4325
      Lafayette, LA 70502
      Telephone: (337) 235-5294
      Facsimile: (337) 235-1095
      E-mail: kwdejean@kwdejean.com


UCLA HEALTH: Faces "Allen" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Allen, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. UCLA Health Systems Auxiliary, The Regents
of The University of California, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive,
Case No. 2:15-cv-05487 (C.D. Cal., July 20, 2015), arises from the
Defendants' failure to adequately secure the  private, personal
financial information of the Plaintiff and all other persons
similarly situated from being stolen by cyber thieves.

UCLA Health Systems Auxiliary operates a medical and surgical
hospital with its headquarters and principal place of business
located at 10833 Le Conte Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90095-
7131.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
      MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
      249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 590-5550
      Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
      E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net

         - and -

      Briana M. Kim, Esq.
      BRIANA KIM, PC
      249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (714) 482-6301
      Facsimile: (714) 482-6302
      E-mail: briana@brianakim.com


UNIVERSAL NURSING: Faces "Marks" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Natosha Marks v. Universal Nursing Services, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-01437 (N.D. Ohio, July 20, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages on violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Universal Nursing Services, Inc. owns and operates a full-service
home health care company that provides services to patients in
Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

      Thomas A. Downie, Esq.
      Ste. 104, 46 Chagrin Falls Plaza
      Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
      Telephone: (440) 973-9000
      Facsimile: (440) 210-4610
      E-mail: tom@chagrinlaw.com


UTI WORLDWIDE: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
UTi Worldwide Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 8, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2015, that at a hearing on June
2, 2015, the court stated its intent to issue an order granting
the motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit, with leave for
plaintiffs to amend.

On March 17, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company and certain of its executives in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. As amended on September 5, 2014, the complaint, which
is captioned Michael J. Angley, individually and on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. UTi Worldwide Inc.,
Eric W. Kirchner, Richard G. Rodick, Edward G. Feitzinger and
Jeffrey W. Misakian, No. 2:14-cv-02066, generally alleges that the
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by misstating or
failing to disclose, in certain public statements made and in
filings with the SEC between March 28, 2013 and February 26, 2014,
material facts relating to the Company's liquidity position,
financial condition, financial covenants, financial systems and
freight forwarding operating system. The complaint seeks
unspecified damages and other relief.

The Company and the individual defendants deny any allegations of
wrongdoing and intend to vigorously defend against this lawsuit.
All defendants moved to dismiss on November 4, 2014.


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: New Securities Class Action Filed in Israel
-------------------------------------------------------------
Verifone Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2015, that a new securities class
action complaint was filed against the Company in Israel alleging
similar claims as the dismissed Israeli class action, and alleging
that Israeli shareholders were deprived of due process in the U.S.
class action settlement proceedings.

The Company said, "On January 27, 2008, a class action complaint
was filed against us in the Central District Court in Tel Aviv,
Israel on behalf of purchasers of our stock on the Tel Aviv Stock
Exchange. The complaint seeks compensation for damages allegedly
incurred by the class of plaintiffs due to the publication of
erroneous financial reports. We filed a motion to stay the action,
in light of the proceedings already filed in the United States, on
March 31, 2008. A hearing on the motion was held on May 25, 2008.
Further briefing in support of the stay motion, specifically with
regard to the threshold issue of applicable law, was submitted on
June 24, 2008."

"On September 11, 2008, the Israeli District Court ruled in our
favor, holding that U.S. law would apply in determining our
liability. On October 7, 2008, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave
to appeal the Israeli District Court's ruling to the Israeli
Supreme Court.

"Our response to plaintiffs' appeal motion was filed on January
18, 2009. The Israeli District Court has stayed its proceedings
until the Israeli Supreme Court rules on plaintiffs' motion for
leave to appeal. On January 27, 2010, after a hearing before the
Israeli Supreme Court, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion
for leave to appeal and addressed the case back to the Israeli
District Court.

"The Israeli Supreme Court instructed the Israeli District Court
to rule whether the Israel class action should be stayed, under
the assumption that the applicable law is U.S. law. Plaintiffs
subsequently filed an application for reconsideration of the
Israeli District Court's ruling that U.S. law is the applicable
law.

"Following a hearing on plaintiffs' application, on April 12,
2010, the parties agreed to stay the proceedings pending
resolution of the U.S. securities class action, without prejudice
to plaintiffs' right to appeal the Israeli District Court's
decision regarding the applicable law to the Israeli Supreme
Court.

"On May 25, 2010, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to appeal the
decision regarding the applicable law with the Israeli Supreme
Court. In August 2010, plaintiff filed an application to the
Israeli Supreme Court arguing that the U.S. Supreme Court's
decision in Morrison et al. v. National Australia Bank Ltd., 561
U.S. 247, 130 S. Ct. 2869 (2010), may affect the outcome of the
appeal currently pending before the Court and requesting that this
authority be added to the Court's record. Plaintiff concurrently
filed an application with the Israeli District Court asking that
court to reverse its decision regarding the applicability of U.S.
law to the Israel class action, as well as to cancel its decision
to stay the Israeli proceedings in favor of the U.S. class action
in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Morrison.

"On August 25, 2011, the Israeli District Court issued a decision
denying plaintiff's application and reaffirming its ruling that
the law applicable to the Israel class action is U.S. law. The
Israeli District Court also ordered that further proceedings in
the case be stayed pending the decision on appeal in the U.S.
class action.

"On November 13, 2011, plaintiff filed an amended application for
leave to appeal addressing the Israeli District Court's ruling. We
filed an amended response on December 28, 2011. On January 1,
2012, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered consideration of the
application by three justices. On July 2, 2012, the Israeli
Supreme Court ordered us to file an updated notice on the status
of the proceedings in the U.S. securities class action then
pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by
October 1, 2012.

"On October 11, 2012, we filed an updated status notice in the
Israeli Supreme Court on the proceedings in the U.S. securities
class action pending at the time in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit. On January 9, 2013, the Israeli Supreme Court
held a further hearing on the status of the appeal in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and recommended that the
parties meet and confer regarding the inclusion of the Israeli
plaintiffs in the federal class action pending in the U.S.

"On February 10, 2013, the Israeli Supreme Court issued an order
staying the case pursuant to the joint notice submitted to the
court by the parties on February 4, 2013. The plaintiff and
putative class members in this action are included in the
stipulated settlement of the federal securities class action, In
re VeriFone Holdings, Inc., disclosed above unless an individual
plaintiff opts out.

"Following the February 25, 2014 judgment and orders by the U.S.
court, in April 2014, the parties in the Israel class action filed
a joint motion requesting that the Israeli Supreme Court renew the
proceedings on appeal concerning the determination of the
applicable law.

"A hearing was held on June 23, 2014 concerning whether the Israel
class action should proceed in light of the settlement in the U.S.
class action. On June 29, 2014, the plaintiff filed a supplemental
pleading at the court's request. We filed our reply pleading on
August 19, 2014, and plaintiff filed a further response pleading
on September 4, 2014.

"On April 2, 2015, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the
Israeli class action is estopped by the U.S. class action
settlement and dismissed the case.

"On May 13, 2015, a new class action complaint was filed against
us in Israel alleging similar claims as the dismissed Israeli
class action, and alleging that Israeli shareholders were deprived
of due process in the U.S. class action settlement proceedings. We
intend to move to dismiss the new class action on substantially
the same grounds on which the previous case was dismissed."


VERIFONE SYSTEMS: Court Takes Dismissal Bid Under Submission
------------------------------------------------------------
Verifone Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2015, that the court has taken
the motion to dismiss the VeriFone Securities Litigation under
submission without a hearing.

The Company said, "On March 7, 2013, a putative securities class
action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against us, certain of our former officers
and one of our current officers and alleged claims in connection
with our February 20, 2013 announcement of preliminary financial
results for the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2013. The action,
captioned Sanders v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. C 13-
1038, and subsequently re-captioned In re VeriFone Securities
Litigation, was initially brought on behalf of a putative class of
purchasers of VeriFone securities between December 14, 2011 and
February 19, 2013 and asserted claims under the Securities
Exchange Act Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and SEC Rule 10b-5 for
securities fraud and control person liability. The claims were
based on allegations that we and the individual defendants made
false or misleading public statements regarding our business,
operations, and financial controls during the putative class
period. The complaint sought unspecified monetary damages and
other relief."

"Two additional class actions related to the same matter (Laborers
Local 235 Benefit Funds v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al., Case No.
CV 13-1676 and Bland v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al., Case No. CV
13-1853) were filed in April 2013. On May 6, 2013, several
putative plaintiffs and plaintiffs' law firms filed motions to
consolidate these three securities class actions and requesting
appointment as lead plaintiff and lead counsel, respectively. The
plaintiffs in Laborers Local 235 Benefit Funds v. VeriFone
Systems, Inc. et al. and Bland v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al.
voluntarily dismissed their respective actions, without prejudice,
on July 10, 2013 and July 17, 2013, respectively, and filed
motions to be appointed lead plaintiff in the action previously
captioned Sanders v. VeriFone Systems, Inc. et al.

"On October 7, 2013, the court entered an order appointing the
Selz Funds as lead plaintiffs and appointing Gold Bennett Cera &
Sidener LLP as lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs' first amended
complaint was filed on December 16, 2013. The first amended
complaint expanded the putative class period to December 14, 2011
and February 20, 2013, inclusive, and removed the current officer
who was named in the original complaint from the action.

"We filed our motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February
14, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed their opposition on April 15, 2014
and we filed our reply on May 16, 2014. On May 27, 2014, the court
took the motion to dismiss under submission without oral argument.
On August 8, 2014, the court dismissed the amended complaint, with
leave to amend. Lead plaintiffs filed their second amended
complaint on October 7, 2014. We filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint on December 8, 2014. Lead plaintiffs
filed their opposition and we filed our reply. The court has taken
the motion under submission without a hearing."


VICTORIA CATERING: Has Sent Unsolicited Faxes, Croixco Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Croixco Construction, Inc., individually and as the representative
of a class of similarly- situated persons v.  Victoria Catering,
Inc., Case No. 2015-CH-10949 (Ill. Cir. Ct., July 17, 2015), seeks
to secure redress for the Defendant's actions of sending
unauthorized telephone faxes to the Plaintiff and all other
persons similarly situated in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Victoria Catering, Inc. is an Illinois corporation that is engaged
in the catering business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark D. Roth, Esq.
      ORUM & ROTH. LLC
      53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1315
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 922-6262
      E-mail: markdroth@gmail.com


VIOLIN MEMORY: Class Action Proceeds to Discovery Phase
-------------------------------------------------------
Violin Memory, Inc., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 9, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2015, that a consolidated class
action case will proceed to the discovery phase of the litigation.

Beginning on November 26, 2013, four putative class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California naming as defendants the Company,
a number of the Company's present or former directors and
officers, and the underwriters of the Company's September 27, 2013
initial public offering (the "IPO"). The four complaints were
consolidated into a single, putative class action, and co-lead
plaintiffs were appointed by the court.

On March 28, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
purporting to assert claims under the federal securities laws,
based upon seven categories of alleged omissions, on behalf of
purchasers of our common stock issued in the IPO. The complaint
sought damages in an unspecified amount and other relief. On April
18, 2014, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint.
On October 31, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motions to dismiss. The court's order dismissed all
except one category of alleged omissions, and gave plaintiffs the
opportunity to amend the complaint. On November 21, 2014, the
plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint and, in so
doing, chose not to amend their claims against the Company or the
present or former directors and officers.

On April 30, 2015, the court issued an order granting in part the
defendants' motions to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint.
The court's order dismissed all except two categories of claims
against the Company and the present or former directors and
officers of the Company and certain claims against the
underwriters. On May 6, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a second
amended consolidated complaint.

On May 20, 2015, the Company and the present and former directors
and officers filed an answer to the second amended consolidated
complaint denying the material allegations of the complaint and
alleging numerous affirmative defenses to the remaining claims.
The case now will proceed to the discovery phase of the
litigation.


WAL-MART STORES: Response Filed to Petition for Writ of Certiorari
------------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2015, that the plaintiffs in a
Wage-and-Hour Class Action have filed their response in opposition
to a petition for writ of certiorari, and the Company filed its
reply brief.

The Company is a defendant in Braun/Hummel v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., a class-action lawsuit commenced in March 2002 in the Court
of Common Pleas in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs
allege that the Company failed to pay class members for all hours
worked and prevented class members from taking their full meal and
rest breaks. On October 13, 2006, a jury awarded back-pay damages
to the plaintiffs of approximately $78 million on their claims for
off-the-clock work and missed rest breaks. The jury found in favor
of the Company on the plaintiffs' meal-period claims.

On November 14, 2007, the trial judge entered a final judgment in
the approximate amount of $188 million, which included the jury's
back-pay award plus statutory penalties, prejudgment interest and
attorneys' fees. By operation of law, post-judgment interest
accrues on the judgment amount at the rate of six percent per
annum from the date of entry of the judgment, which was November
14, 2007, until the judgment is paid, unless the judgment is set
aside on appeal.

On December 7, 2007, the Company filed its Notice of Appeal. On
June 10, 2011, the Pennsylvania Superior Court of Appeals issued
an opinion upholding the trial court's certification of the class,
the jury's back pay award, and the awards of statutory penalties
and prejudgment interest, but reversing the award of attorneys'
fees.

On September 9, 2011, the Company filed a Petition for Allowance
of Appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. On July 2, 2012,
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted the Company's Petition. On
December 15, 2014, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its
opinion affirming the Superior Court of Appeals' decision. At that
time, the Company recorded expenses of $249 million for the
judgment amount and post-judgment interest incurred to date.

The Company will continue to accrue for the post-judgment interest
until final resolution. However, the Company continues to believe
it has substantial factual and legal defenses to the claims at
issue and, on March 13, 2015, the Company filed a petition for
writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. On April 20, 2015,
the plaintiffs filed their response in opposition and on May 4,
2015, the Company filed its reply brief.


WAL-MART STORES: ASDA Named Defendant in 5,000 Equal Value Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 5, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2015, that ASDA Stores, Ltd.
("ASDA"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, is a defendant
in over 5,000 "equal value" claims that are proceeding before an
Employment Tribunal in Manchester (the "Employment Tribunal") in
the United Kingdom ("UK") on behalf of current and former ASDA
store employees, who allege that the work performed by female
employees in ASDA's retail stores is of equal value in terms of,
among other things, the demands of their jobs to that of male
employees working in ASDA's warehouse and distribution facilities,
and that the disparity in pay between these different job
positions is not objectively justified. Claimants are requesting
differential back pay based on higher wage rates in the warehouse
and distribution facilities and those higher wage rates on a
prospective basis as part of these equal value proceedings. ASDA
believes that further claims may be asserted in the near future.

On March 23, 2015, ASDA asked the Employment Tribunal to stay all
proceedings, contending that the High Court, which is the superior
first instance civil court in the UK that is headquartered in the
Royal Courts of Justice in the City of London, is the more
convenient and appropriate forum to hear these claims.

On March 23, 2015, ASDA also asked the Employment Tribunal to
"strike out" substantially all of the claims for failing to comply
with Employment Tribunal rules. At present, the Company cannot
predict the number of such claims that may be filed, and cannot
reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss that may arise from
these proceedings. The Company believes it has substantial factual
and legal defenses to these claims, and intends to defend the
claims vigorously.


* Two Canadian Men Get 12 Years in Prison Over Ponzi Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charmaine Noronha, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
a judge has sentenced two men to 12 years in prison for one of the
largest Ponzi schemes in Canadian history.

Gary Sorenson and Milowe Brost were found guilty of fraud and
theft in February in an elaborate scheme in which investors were
promised unrealistic returns.

More than 2,400 people around the world lost up to $400 million by
investing in mining and financial companies that prosecutors said
were really just fronts to funnel cash to the two businessmen.

The case was part of a spate of Ponzi schemes in North America
that collapsed around the time of the 2008 financial crisis as
investors tried to cash out.

Ponzi schemes involve taking funds from new investors and using
them to pay old ones.




                            *********

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  * * *