CAR_Public/150807.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, August 7, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 157


                            Headlines


142 MERCER: "Solorio" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Damages
3101 CORP: Faces "Bustamante" Suit Over Failure to Pay Min. Wage
3D SYSTEMS: Aug. 11 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
ALASKA USA: Faces "Reith" Suit Over Overdraft Fee Policies
ALEX QUALITY: Faces "Infante" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

ALEXIAN BROTHERS: Faces "Hauser" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ALLTECH SYSTEMS: "McColgin" Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Tran" Suit Over Air Ticket-Price Fixing
AMG TRANSPORTATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ANGIE'S LIST: Indiana Judge Grants Bid to Dismiss "Baron" Suit

ANTHEM BLUE: Faces "Sheynberg" Suit Over Claims Handling Policy
ANTHEM BLUE: Accord in "Lees" TCPA Suit Wins Final Approval
APPLE INC: iPhone Users Suit Does Not Need AT&T, 9th Cir. Rules
ASA COLLEGE: Wins Dismissal of "Sanchez" Fraud Suit in S.D.N.Y.
ASPEN NATIONAL: Faces "Ames" Suit in Florida Over FDCPA Violation

AT&T MOBILTY: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Data Speed Throttling
AUGUSTA, GA: Settles Firefighters' Overtime Dispute Class Suit
AVALANCHE BIOTECH: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
AVALANCHE BIOTECH: Sept. 8 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
AX XPRESS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Messenger" Suit Says

AZ SECURITY: Faces "Allen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Treasury Securities Manipulation
BEAR STEARNS: "Wang" Suit Tossed; Sanctions Imposed
BENDIGO, AUSTRALIA: Unpaid Subcontractors Threatens Class Suit
BRAVO FOODS: "Wise" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

BUILDING MATERIALS: Sued in N.J. Over Defective Decking Products
CELLADON CORP: Aug. 31 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: Removed Fitzgerald Suit to W.D. Oklahoma
CHINA FINANCE: Howard G. Firm Files Securities Class Suit
CHUCK E. CHEESE: Settles Background Check Class Suit for $1.75MM

CHUNGHWA PICTURE: November 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
CIGNA CORPORATION: Sued Over Unlawful Cost-Shifting Practices
DOORMAN'S PRIVATE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Marengo" Suit Says
DR HORTON: D. Nev. Judge Rules on Homeowners' Bid for Relief
EBAY INC: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Intuit Deal in Hiring Workers

EDISON INT'L: Willie Briscoe Files Securities Class Suit
ESPN INC: Judge Junks Lawsuit by Student Athletes
FEIHE INT'L: Aug. 24 Hearing on Proposed $6.5MM Clas Settlement
FLORIDA: Appeals Court Revives Verizon Suit v. Revenue Dept
GENERAL POLYMER: Faces "Gray" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

GERBER: Faces Suit Over Graduate Puffs' Misleading Label
HARTFORD INSURANCE: Conn. High Court Overturns $35-Mil. Verdict
HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS: Gets Prelim. OK of Settlement With Sales Reps
IDT ENERGY: Judge Stays "Ferrare" Suit, Denies Bid to Dismiss
INDIANA: ACLU Suit Alleges Case Managers Can't Protect Kids

INTERNATIONAL STEEL: 6th Cir. Reverses Judgment in "Stiso" Case
JANSSEN PHARMA: Physicians Healthsource's TCPA Suit Goes to Trial
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Suit v. Severance Plan Loses Class Cert. Bid
JOHNSTON BROTHERS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
KNIGHT OIL: "Montemayor" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

KUBRA DATA: Accused in Florida of Taking Criminal Processing Fees
LG ELECTRONIC: Judge Rejects Liebler's Bid to Amend Complaint
LOWE'S HOME: Overcharges for Sales Tax, Class Suit Claims
LRR ENERGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Suit
LUMBER ONE: 11th Circ. Reinstates Class Suit Under ADTPA

LYFT: Former Driver Files Class Suit in Florida
MARKWEST ENERGY: Faces "Katsman" Suit Over Proposed MPLX Merger
MCADAM LANDSCAPING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
M-I LLC: Cal. Judge Transfers "Dewan" Case to Texas
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Ordered to Pay $46MM in Attorney Fees

NEW YORK, NY: Accord Over Firefighters Discrimination Case Okayed
NORTH CAROLINA: Court Certifies Troopers' Suit Over Pay
PAPA JOHN'S: "Perrin" Stayed Pending SC Ruling in "Bouaphakeo"
PEPSI LIPTON: Sued for Falsely Marketing Tea as "All Natural"
PHILIP MORRIS: Judge Removed From Tobacco Case Due to 'Hostility'

RDSL URBAN: "Bascome" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
RIDGEWOOD, CA: Court Rules Water Rates Class Suit Can Proceed
SC EDISON: Class Wants Utility to Pay for Power Surges
SEATTLE SERVICE: Removed "Schaefer" Class Suit to M.D. Florida
SELECTIVE SERVICES: Sued by Teen Girl Over Gender Discrimination

SERVERGY INC: Texas Atty. General Accused of Deceiving Investors
SMITH & NEPHEW: Must Face Rhea Drugstore's TCPA Suit
SOCIAL SECURITY: Confiscated Tax Refunds with 'Insufficient' Info
SOLAZYME INC: Aug. 24 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
ST CHARLES, MO: Dismissal of Suit Over License Taxes Affirmed

STAR NISSAN: Faces "Tam" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
TEXAS A&M: Faces "Posey" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
TRADE STREET: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Suit
TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: Removed "Rogers" Suit to C.D. California
TRI-MED HOME: Faces "Persaud" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

TRUECAR INC: Levi Korsinsky Files Securities Class Suit
UBER: Faces $7.3-Mil. Fine and California Ban
UBS AG: Faces Sonterra Capital Suit Over Euroyen-Price Fixing
UNITED SHIP: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Hernandez" Suit Claims
UNITES STATES: Food Stamp Processing Delays Suit Can Be Filed

UNITED PARCEL: Sued by EEOC Over Religious Discrimination
VANDAHL ENGINEERING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
VIDEOTRON: Faces Class Suit Over Failed TV Coverage
VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS: 11th Cir. Upheld Decision in Fat Loss Suit
W&W ENERGY: Faces "Zook" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

WELLS FARGO: Judge Narrows Claims in "Foley" Suit
WILLOWICK, OH: Residents Refile Class Suit Over Sewer System
WORLD WRESTLING: Blamed by Mom for Death of Doink the Clown
XOMA CORPORATION: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
YELP: Sued Over Unapid Tips for Food Delivery

YINGLI GREEN: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
* Steven Schienvar Joins Risk Settlements as Managing Director
* US Chamber of Commerce Lobbies Against Class Suits in UK Courts


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. to Appeal "Holdsworth" Decision
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Settles "Garvin" Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Awaits Ruling in "DeLisle" Appeal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Awaits Ruling in "Sweberg" Appeal
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Incurs $18.3MM Fibro Costs at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had $600MM Fibro Liability at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Has 1,074 PI Suits at March 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $500-Mil. Fibro Liability
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Had $64MM Receivables at March 31

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has 17,935 Fibro Claimants
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Corp. Unit Has $97MM PI Claims Reserve
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid for Disclosure of Fibro Settlements Denied
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Jersey Court Refuses to Remand "Vesper"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Partially Strikes Opinions in "Vedros"

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. App. Overturns Jury Verdict in "Smith"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aug. 19 Pretrial Conference Set for "Andreadis"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Time in 3 NYCAL Suits Enlarged to Nov.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Certifies Securities Suit vs. Halliburton
ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Jersey Court Remands "Brown"


                            *********


142 MERCER: "Solorio" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Solorio, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. 142 Mercer Street, LLC d/b/a Lure Fishbar, et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-05817 (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime, unpaid minimum wages, unpaid wages for off-the-clock
work caused by time-shaving, liquidated damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

142 Mercer Street, LLC owns and operates the Lure Fishbar
restaurant located at 142 Mercer Street, New York, New York 10012.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


3101 CORP: Faces "Bustamante" Suit Over Failure to Pay Min. Wage
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Bustamante, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
employees v. 3101 Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-22760-RNS (S.D.
Fla., July 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay the minimum wage mandated by Fair Labor Standard Act.

3101 Corporation owns and operates Christy's restaurant located at
999 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1045, Coral Gables, FL 33134.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R Edward Rosenberg, Esq.
      MORGADO, P.A.
      382 NE 191st Street #84164
      Miami, FL 33179
      Telephone: (855) 899-9121
      Facsimile: (855) 499-9191
      E-mail: rer@morgado.us


3D SYSTEMS: Aug. 11 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-----------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the District of South
Carolina on behalf of investors who purchased 3D Systems
Corporation (NYSE:DDD) securities between October 29, 2013 and
October 22, 2014.

The complaint alleges that the Company issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding: (a) the Company's ability to
increase the capacity of its metal printing business; (b) demand
for its consumer products; (c) the value of multiple companies it
was acquiring; and (d) the Company's expected earnings.

If you suffered a loss in 3D Systems you have until August 11,
2015 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contact
Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephone
at 212.425.1140, or visit http://docs.wongesq.com/DDD-Info-
Request-Form-802.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.


ALASKA USA: Faces "Reith" Suit Over Overdraft Fee Policies
----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Reith, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Alaska USA Federal Credit Union and Does 1 through 10,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00125-JWS (D. Alaska, July 24, 2015), is an
action for monetary damages, restitution, punitive damages, and
injunctive relief as a result of the Defendants' alleged breach of
its contracts with consumers in its implementation of an overdraft
fee program.

Alaska USA Federal Credit Union is a federally chartered credit
union with its headquarters in Anchorage, Alaska.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Ehrhardt, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF EHRHARDT & KELLEY
      215 Fidalgo Ave, Ste 205
      Kenai, AK 99
      Telephone: (907) 283-2876
      Facsimile: (907) 283-2896
      E-mail: peter@mail.kenailaw.com

         - and -

      Richard D. McCune, Esq.
      Jae (Eddie) K. Kim, 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
              jkk@mccunewright.com

         - and -

      Taras Kick, Esq.
      G. James Strenio, Esq.
      Thomas A. Segal, Esq.
      THE KICK LAW FIRM, APC
      201 Wilshire Boulevard
      Santa Monica, CA 90401
      Telephone: (310) 395-2988
      Facsimile: (310) 395-2088
      E-mail: taras@kicklawfirm.com
              jstrenio@yahoo.com
              thomas@kicklawfirm.com


ALEX QUALITY: Faces "Infante" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Infante, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly-situated v. Alex Quality Meat Market
Corp., and Aljandro Ynfante, Case No. 1:15-cv-05828 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Alex Quality Meat Market Corp. is a New York based corporation
that sells a variety of meats out of its storefront located at
3413 Boston Road, Bronx, New York 10469.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd Dickerson, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
      1010 Northern Blvd. Ste. 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: td@employmentlawyernewyork.com


ALEXIAN BROTHERS: Faces "Hauser" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Hauser, Kimberly Lind and April Westberg, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated employees v. Alexian
Brothers Medical Center, d/b/a Alexian Brothers Home
Health, Alexian Brothers Health System, and Ascension Health, Case
No. 1:15-cv-06462 (N.D. Ill., July 24, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate a home healthcare facility with its
principal place of business located at 1515 East Lake Street in
Hanover Park, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
      James B. Zouras, Esq.
      STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
      205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2560
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 233-1550
      E-mail: tbecvar@stephanzouras.com
              jzouras@stephanzouras.com


ALLTECH SYSTEMS: "McColgin" Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie McColgin, on Behalf of Himself and Others Similarly
Situated v. Alltech Systems, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00193 (S.D.
Tex., July 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Alltech Systems, Inc. operates a professional staffing business
that focuses on providing engineering and management employees to
oil and gas companies in several states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Tran" Suit Over Air Ticket-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Tran, on behalf of herself 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-03412-
JCS (N.D. Cal., July 24, 2015), arises from the Defendants'
alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix,
raise, maintain, and stabilize prices for air passenger
transportation services within the United States.

The Defendants operates largest commercial airlines in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
      One California Street, Suite 900
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 398-8700
      Facsimile: (415) 398-8704
      E-mail: rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com

         - and -

      Douglas G. Thompson, Esq.
      Michael G. McLellan, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN THOMPSON LLP
      1077 30th Street NW, Suite 150
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 337-8000
      Facsimile: (202) 337-8090
      E-mail: dthompson@finkelsteinthompson.com
              mmclellan@finkelsteinthompson.com


AMG TRANSPORTATION: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Jakubov, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AMG Transportation, Inc., Case No. 509145/2015 (N.Y.
Sup Ct., July 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime,
statutory damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs,
and other damages, and all other appropriate legal and equitable
relief, pursuant to the New York State Labor Law.

AMG Transportation, Inc. operates an ambulette transportation
corporation, transporting the elderly and billing government and
private insurance plans for the services provided.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
      NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C.
      2747 Coney Island Ave
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Telephone: (718) 808-2224
      E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


ANGIE'S LIST: Indiana Judge Grants Bid to Dismiss "Baron" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William T. Lawrence of the Southern District of
Indiana, Indianapolis Division, granted defendants' motion to
dismiss in the case EVA and HAROLD BARON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ANGIE'S
LIST, INC., et al., Defendants, CAUSE NO. 1:13-CV-2032-WTL-TAB
(S.D. Ind.)

Angie's List operates a subscription-based website that publishes
customer reviews of high cost of failure services. It is a
publicly-traded corporation with its principal place of business
in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Plaintiffs are investors of Angie's List that have filed a
putative class action alleging that corporate and individual
officer malfeasance was responsible for Angie's List stock-price
decline in 2013. The class period asserted by the plaintiffs
extends between February 13, 2013, and October 23, 2013.

Lead plaintiff United Food & Commercial Workers Local 464A Pension
Fund filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint, alleging that
Angie's List, its Chief Executive Officer William S. Oesterle, its
Chief Marketing Officer Angela R. Hicks Bowman, its Chief
Accounting Officer Charles Hundt, its Chief Operating Officer Mark
Howell, and its Chief Financial Officer Robert R. Milliard made
materially false and misleading statements regarding:

     1) the stability and predictability of the two core revenue
streams that the paid membership model ("PMM") provided to Angie's
List; and

     2) Angie's List's present success and long-term
sustainability based upon those streams.

The complaint alleges two counts against the defendants: 1)
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and Rule 10B-5 promulgated there
under by the Securities and Exchange Commission, 17 C.F.R. Section
240.10b-5; and 2) violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
against the individual defendant officers.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that
the complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be
granted.

Judge Lawrence granted defendants' motion to dismiss, but allowed
plaintiffs to amend their complaint.  A copy of Judge Lawrence's
entry dated June 18, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/7jlZnJ
from Leagle.com.

EVA BARON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Charles C. Hayes, SWEENEY
HAYES LLC, Deborah Ruth Gross, LAW OFFICE OF BERNARD M. GROSS PC,
James A.L. Buddenbaum, PARR RICHEY OBREMSKEY FRANDSEN & PATTERSON
LLP, Mary K. Blasy, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, Michael L.
Schultz, PARR RICHEY OBREMSKEY FRANDSEN & PATTERSON LLP, Samuel H.
Rudman, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP & Travis W. Montgomery,
PARR RICHEY OBREMSKEY FRANDSEN & PATTERSON LLP

HAROLD BARON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similary
Situated, Plaintiff, represented by Charles C. Hayes, SWEENEY
HAYES LLC, Deborah Ruth Gross, LAW OFFICE OF BERNARD M. GROSS PC,
James A.L. Buddenbaum, PARR RICHEY OBREMSKEY FRANDSEN & PATTERSON
LLP, Mary K. Blasy, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP, Michael L.
Schultz, PARR RICHEY OBREMSKEY FRANDSEN & PATTERSON LLP, Samuel H.
Rudman, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP & Travis W. Montgomery,
PARR RICHEY OBREMSKEY FRANDSEN & PATTERSON LLP

PLYMOUTH COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiff, represented by
Angelina Nguyen, LABATON SUCHAROW LLP, Jonathan Gardner, LABATON
SUCHAROW LLP & Steven Michael Crell, COHEN GARELICK & GLAZIER

UNITED FOOD & COMMERCIAL WORKERS LOCAL 464A PENSION FUND, "Lead
Plaintiff", Plaintiff, represented by Brad A. Catlin, PRICE
WAICUKAUSKI & RILEY, Ronald J. Waicukauski, PRICE WAICUKAUSKI &
RILEY, Darren J. Check, KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK LLP,Johnston
de F. Whitman, Jr., KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP, Joshua A.
Materese, KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP, Meredith L. Lambert,
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP & Michael K. Yarnoff, KESSLER
TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP

CHRISTOPHER BARTOLONE, Individually and on Behalf of all others
Smiliary Situated - Consolidated Plaintiff 1:14-cv-00023-WTL-TAB,
Plaintiff, represented by Charles C. Hayes, SWEENEY HAYES LLC,
Jeremy A. Lieberman, POMERANTZ LLP, Kathleen M. Sweeney, SWEENEY
HAYES LLC & Lesley F. Portnoy, POMERANTZ LLP

ANGIE'S LIST, INC., Defendant, represented by Bruce G. Vanyo,
KATTEN MUCHIN-Los Angeles,George A. Gasper, ICE MILLER LLP, Mary
Ellen Hennessy, KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP-Chicago, Michael J.
Lohnes, KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP-Chicago, Nicholas B. Reuhs, ICE
MILLER LLP & Philip A. Whistler, ICE MILLER LLP

WILLIAM S. OESTERLE, Defendant, represented by Bruce G. Vanyo,
KATTEN MUCHIN-Los Angeles, George A. Gasper, ICE MILLER LLP, Mary
Ellen Hennessy, KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP-Chicago, Michael J.
Lohnes, KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP-Chicago,Nicholas B. Reuhs, ICE
MILLER LLP & Philip A. Whistler, ICE MILLER LLP

ANGELA R. HICKS BOWMAN, Defendant, represented by Bruce G. Vanyo,
KATTEN MUCHIN-Los Angeles, George A. Gasper, ICE MILLER LLP, Mary
Ellen Hennessy, KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP-Chicago, Michael J.
Lohnes, KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP-Chicago, Nicholas B. Reuhs, ICE
MILLER LLP & Philip A. Whistler, ICE MILLER LLP

CHARLES HUNDT, Defendant, represented by Bruce G. Vanyo, KATTEN
MUCHIN-Los Angeles, George A. Gasper, ICE MILLER LLP, Mary Ellen
Hennessy, KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP-Chicago, Michael J. Lohnes,
KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP-Chicago, Nicholas B. Reuhs, ICE MILLER
LLP & Philip A. Whistler, ICE MILLER LLP

ROBERT R. MILLARD, Defendant, represented by Bruce G. Vanyo,
KATTEN MUCHIN-Los Angeles, George A. Gasper, ICE MILLER LLP, Mary
Ellen Hennessy, KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP-Chicago, Michael J.
Lohnes, KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP-Chicago, Nicholas B. Reuhs, ICE
MILLER LLP & Philip A. Whistler, ICE MILLER LLP

MARK HOWELL, Defendant, represented by Bruce G. Vanyo, KATTEN
MUCHIN-Los Angeles, George A. Gasper, ICE MILLER LLP, Mary Ellen
Hennessy, KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP-Chicago, Michael J. Lohnes,
KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP-Chicago, Nicholas B. Reuhs, ICE MILLER
LLP & Philip A. Whistler, ICE MILLER LLP


ANTHEM BLUE: Faces "Sheynberg" Suit Over Claims Handling Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marina Sheynberg, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company,
Case No. 5:15-cv-03417 (N.D. Cal., July 24, 2015), alleged that
the Defendants has engaged in and continues to engage in a pattern
of unreasonable and egregious claims handling practices which have
directly and adversely impacted individuals suffering from
Hepatitis C, and particularly those individuals with a METAVIR
liver fibrosis.

Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health Insurance Company is a
California corporation that sells and markets insurance products
to millions of consumers in California, and across the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Glenn R. Kantor, Esq.
      Timothy J. Rozelle, Esq.
      KANTOR & KANTOR LLP
      19839 Nordhoff Street
      Northridge, CA 91324
      Telephone: (818) 886 2525
      Facsimile: (818) 350 6272
      E-mail: gkantor@kantorlaw.net
              trozelle@kantorlaw.net


ANTHEM BLUE: Accord in "Lees" TCPA Suit Wins Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh of the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division ruled on plaintiff's motions in the
case RONALD LEES, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ANTHEM INSURANCE COMPANIES INC., d/b/a
ANTHEM BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD, Defendant, NO. 4:13CV1411 SNLJ
(E.D. Mo.)

Ronald Lees alleges that Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., d/b/a
Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield violated the Telephone Consumers
Protection Act (TCPA) when it made such calls to plaintiff and
approximately 830,000 other consumers nationwide. Anthem denies
any wrongdoing. The parties engaged in settlement discussions and
reached a settlement agreement.

The settlement also has preliminary approval from the Court.  The
deal calls for a maximum settlement benefit of $6,250,000 and a
minimum settlement benefit of $4,750,000 for the class.

Judge Limbaugh granted plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and
services award in part; as well as the motion for final approval
of class action settlement. A copy of Judge Limbaugh's memorandum
and order dated June 10, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/M1b2ZJ
from Leagle.com.

Ronald Lees, on behalf of Himself and other similarly situated,
Plaintiff, represented by Alexander H. Burke --
ABurke@BurkeLawLLC.com -- at BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC; David M.
Marco -- dmarco@smithlaw.us -- Larry P. Smith --
lsmith@smithmarco.com -- at SMITH MARCO, P.C.

Anthem Insurance Companies, Inc., doing business as Anthem Blue
Cross Blue Shield, Defendant, represented by Christine E.
Czuprynski -- cczuprynski@reedsmith.com -- Dan J. Hofmeister --
dhofmeister@reedsmith.com -- David Z. Smith --
dzsmith@reedsmith.com -- Thomas M. Levinson -- at REED SMITH LLP

Glenn Kassiotis, Objector, represented by John W. Davis -- at LAW
OFFICE OF JOHN W. DAVIS

Anthony R. Brookman, Objector, Pro Se


APPLE INC: iPhone Users Suit Does Not Need AT&T, 9th Cir. Rules
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
class of iPhone users did not have to include AT&T in an antitrust
action against Apple over its wireless exclusivity agreement with
the carrier, the Ninth Circuit ruled June 29.

In a 2-1 decision, a Ninth Circuit panel found the lower court had
failed to analyze AT&T mobility's interest in the litigation and
how that interest could be affected if the action is resolved in
its absence.

Rule 19 under federal civil procedure defines a "required party"
as someone who claims an interest in the case and cannot protect
that interest unless they are joined.

The panel also held that Apple had failed to show that AT&T had
any cognizable legal interest in the action, even though it
claimed the carrier's contractual rights and reputation could be
handicapped by its absence.

"I think the 9th circuit's analysis was exactly right. Apple never
identified any interest that AT&T had," class attorney Mark Rifkin
with Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP said in an
interview.

He said the class likely would have gone after AT&T if it didn't
have an arbitration clause with its customers.

"But the fact is that AT&T insists on arbitration and Apple
insists on being sued in court," Rifkin told Courthouse News.
"The 9th now says we didn't have to sue AT&T as well."

Apple attorney Daniel Wall with Latham and Watkins could not be
reached for comment.

The action brought by lead plaintiffs Zack Ward and Thomas Buchar
in 2012 was the third of three lawsuits claiming Apple and mobile
carrier AT&T entered into a five-year exclusivity agreement
shortly before the iPhone was introduced in 2007.  Apple enforced
the agreement by putting SIM card locks on iPhones without telling
customers.  If customers wanted an iPhone, they were unknowingly
bound to use AT&T as their wireless carrier for five years, even
though they signed two-year wireless service contracts with AT&T.

The first lawsuit entered into arbitration. U.S. District Judge
James Ware ruled in the second case that AT&T was a necessary
party under Rule 19.  The third case, consolidated with the second
and reassigned to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, adopted Ware's
reasoning and was dismissed on the grounds that the class had not
added AT&T as a defendant.

The fact that the class' complaint portrayed AT&T as a central
part of its alleged antitrust conspiracy was not enough to
demonstrate that it was a necessary party, Judge Milan D. Smith
wrote on behalf of the majority, which also comprised Judge
Michelle T. Friedland.

But he added, "The court did not identify any specific interest
ATTM claimed in the action or explain how ATTM's ability to
protect that interest might be impaired by resolution of the
action in its absence."  He said this analysis is essential, as an
absent party could be bound to the outcome of the case.

Judge Clifford Wallace said in his dissent that the appeal had no
merit because the class had agreed to allow Rogers to dismiss the
case based on Ware's earlier order. He said the class needed
Rogers to rule against them "to create a vehicle for appellate
review of Ware's order."  So they stipulated to dismiss their
claims under Ware's order and Rogers signed off on it.

"At bottom, the Apple III plaintiffs invited Judge Rogers to sign
on to an analysis from a different case with the specific intent
to argue on appeal that the analysis was erroneous," Judge Wallace
wrote.  "In doing so, the Apple III plaintiffs sought improperly
to skip over the district court to have us decide the Rule 19
issue in the first instance.  They have thereby waived any
challenge to the error they invited."

Plaintiff-Appellant Zack Ward is represented by:

          Mark C. Rifkin, Esq.
          Alexander H. Schmidt, Esq.
          Michael Liskow, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4762
          Telecopier: (212) 545-4653
          E-mail: rifkin@whafh.com
                  schmidt@whafh.com
                  liskow@whafh.com

               - and -
          Francis M. Gregorek, Esq.
          Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          Symphony Towers
          750 B Street, Suite 2770
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 239-4599
          E-mail: Gregorek@whafh.com
                  rickert@whafh.com

               - and -

          Randall S. Newman, Esq.
          RANDALL S. NEWMAN P.C.
          37 Wall St. # D
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 797-3737

Plaintiff-Appellant Thomas Buchar is represented by:

          Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          30 N. LaSalle Street
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-0000
          Facsimile: (312) 214-0001
          E-mail: alevitt@gelaw.com

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

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

               - and -

          J. Scott Ballenger, Esq.
          Roman Martinez, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, D.C. 20004-1304
          Telephone: (202) 637-2200
          Facsimile: (202) 637-2201
          E-mail: scott.ballenger@lw.com

The appellate case is Zack Ward; Thomas Buchar, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-
Appellants v. Apple inc., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 12-17805,
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The
District Court case is Zack Ward; Thomas Buchar v. Apple inc.,
Case No. 4:12-cv-05404- YGR, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.


ASA COLLEGE: Wins Dismissal of "Sanchez" Fraud Suit in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jesse M. Furman of the Southern District of New
York granted defendants' motion to dismiss in the case KARILIN
FRICA SANCHEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ASA COLLEGE, INC., et al.,
Defendants, NO. 14-CV-5006 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.)

ASA College, Inc. is a for-profit corporation that offers
certificate and associate's degree programs in career-oriented
fields such as business and healthcare. It operates a few campuses
in Brooklyn and Manhattan, and one campus in North Miami Beach,
Florida.

Plaintiffs are all former ASA students who filed a lawsuit and
allege that defendants' fraudulent scheme induced them into
enrolling in ASA certificate and associate's degree programs,
unaware of the financial costs they were incurring and the poor
employment prospects they were facing upon completion of the
programs.

Plaintiffs allege that they were victimized by a massive scheme to
draw millions of dollars of federal and state financial aid to ASA
by the individual defendants, systematically and fraudulently
misrepresenting the nature of ASA's certificate and degree
programs. Plaintiffs contended that defendants' predatory and
fraudulent practices violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1961-68
(RICO), and Section 349 of New York's General Business Law (the
GBL).

They seek, among other relief, an injunction directing defendants
to cease their allegedly unlawful activities and to cancel all
debts purportedly owed to ASA by the plaintiffs and class members,
and cease all collection thereof, actual and/or compensatory
damages and treble damages pursuant to RICO.

Judge Furman granted defendants' motion to dismiss but gave
plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint.

A copy of Judge Furman's opinion and order dated June 5, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/BhMUVXfrom Leagle.com.

Karilin Frica Sanchez, Plaintiff, represented by Danielle Feldman
Tarantolo, New York Legal Assistance Group, Eileen Mathews Connor,
New York Legal Assistance Group, Hayley Horowitz, Emery Celli
Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP, Jane Greengold Stevens, New York Legal
Assistance Group, Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, Emery Celli
Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP & Jason Edward Glick, New York Legal
Assistance Group

Shawanna Dilworth, Plaintiff, represented by Danielle Feldman
Tarantolo, New York Legal Assistance Group, Eileen Mathews Connor,
New York Legal Assistance Group, Hayley Horowitz, Emery Celli
Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP, Jane Greengold Stevens, New York Legal
Assistance Group, Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, Emery Celli
Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP & Jason Edward Glick, New York Legal
Assistance Group

Nelson Forastieri, Plaintiff, represented by Danielle Feldman
Tarantolo, New York Legal Assistance Group, Eileen Mathews Connor,
New York Legal Assistance Group, Hayley Horowitz, Emery Celli
Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP, Jane Greengold Stevens, New York Legal
Assistance Group, Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, Emery Celli
Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP & Jason Edward Glick, New York Legal
Assistance Group

Andre Lashley, Plaintiff, represented by Danielle Feldman
Tarantolo, New York Legal Assistance Group, Eileen Mathews Connor,
New York Legal Assistance Group, Hayley Horowitz, Emery Celli
Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP, Jane Greengold Stevens, New York Legal
Assistance Group, Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, Emery Celli
Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP & Jason Edward Glick, New York Legal
Assistance Group

Tommy Miranda, Plaintiff, represented by Danielle Feldman
Tarantolo, New York Legal Assistance Group, Eileen Mathews Connor,
New York Legal Assistance Group, Hayley Horowitz, Emery Celli
Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP, Jane Greengold Stevens, New York Legal
Assistance Group, Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, Emery Celli
Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP & Jason Edward Glick, New York Legal
Assistance Group

Renee Davis, Plaintiff, represented by Danielle Feldman Tarantolo,
New York Legal Assistance Group

Renee Davis, Plaintiff, represented by Eileen Mathews Connor, New
York Legal Assistance Group,Hayley Horowitz, Emery Celli
Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP, Jane Greengold Stevens, New York Legal
Assistance Group, Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, Emery Celli
Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP & Jason Edward Glick, New York Legal
Assistance Group

Mary Estevez, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Edward Glick, New
York Legal Assistance Group &Hayley Horowitz, Emery Celli
Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP

Rodney Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Edward Glick, New
York Legal Assistance Group & Hayley Horowitz, Emery Celli
Brinckerhoff & Abady, LLP

ASA College, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joshua Michael Sivin,
Johnson Gallagher Magliery LLC & Derek Adam McNally, Johnson,
Gallagher Magliery LLC

Alex Shchegol, Defendant, represented by Joshua Michael Sivin,
Johnson Gallagher Magliery LLC & Derek Adam McNally, Johnson,
Gallagher Magliery LLC

Victoria Kostyukov, Defendant, represented by Joshua Michael
Sivin, Johnson Gallagher Magliery LLC & Derek Adam McNally,
Johnson, Gallagher Magliery LLC

Victoria Shtamler, Defendant, represented by Joshua Michael Sivin,
Johnson Gallagher Magliery LLC & Derek Adam McNally, Johnson,
Gallagher Magliery LLC

Roberto Dumaual, Defendant, represented by Joshua Michael Sivin,
Johnson Gallagher Magliery LLC & Derek Adam McNally, Johnson,
Gallagher Magliery LLC

Lesia Willis-Campbell, Defendant, represented by Joshua Michael
Sivin, Johnson Gallagher Magliery LLC & Derek Adam McNally,
Johnson, Gallagher Magliery LLC

Jose Valencia, Defendant, represented by Joshua Michael Sivin,
Johnson Gallagher Magliery LLC & Derek Adam McNally, Johnson,
Gallagher Magliery LLC

Shanthi Konkoth, Defendant, represented by Joshua Michael Sivin,
Johnson Gallagher Magliery LLC & Derek Adam McNally, Johnson,
Gallagher Magliery LLC

Mark Mirenberg, Defendant, represented by Joshua Michael Sivin,
Johnson Gallagher Magliery LLC & Derek Adam McNally, Johnson,
Gallagher Magliery LLC

John/Jane Does 1 and 2, Defendant, represented by Joshua Michael
Sivin, Johnson Gallagher Magliery LLC

Alla Shchegol, Defendant, represented by Joshua Michael Sivin,
Johnson Gallagher Magliery LLC & Derek Adam McNally, Johnson,
Gallagher Magliery LLC

Duwayne Carthan, Defendant, represented by Joshua Michael Sivin,
Johnson Gallagher Magliery LLC & Derek Adam McNally, Johnson,
Gallagher Magliery LLC

Anthony Dalton, Defendant, represented by Joshua Michael Sivin,
Johnson Gallagher Magliery LLC & Derek Adam McNally, Johnson,
Gallagher Magliery LLC

Robert Faynblut, Defendant, represented by Joshua Michael Sivin,
Johnson Gallagher Magliery LLC & Derek Adam McNally, Johnson,
Gallagher Magliery LLC

United States Of America, Amicus, represented by Tomoko Onozawa,
U.S. Attorney's Office,


ASPEN NATIONAL: Faces "Ames" Suit in Florida Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Ames, Tammy Ames, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Aspen National Financial, Inc., d/b/a Aspen
National Collections and Vacation Village At Parkway Owners
Association, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-61506 (S.D. Fla., July 23,
2015, is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ian Richard Leavengood, Esq.
      J. Andrew Meyer, Esq.
      LEAVENGOOD, DAUVAL, BOYLE & MEYER, PA
      3900 First Street North, Suite 100
      St. Petersburg, FL 33703
      Telephone: (727) 327-3328
      Facsimile: (727) 327-3305
      E-mail: ileavengood@leavenlaw.com
              ameyer@leavenlaw.com


AT&T MOBILTY: Sued in Cal. Over Alleged Data Speed Throttling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marcus A. Roberts, Kenneth A. Chewey and Ashley M. Chewey, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. AT&T
Mobilty LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-03418-PJH (N.D. Cal., July 24,
2015), arises out of the Defendant's deceptive and unfair trade
practice of marketing its wireless service plans as being
"unlimited", without disclosing, or adequately disclosing plans
are subject to a number of limiting conditions, specifically by
throttling the data speed on cellular phones or wireless cards
when the consumer has approached or exceeded the internally
proscribed data usage limits.

AT&T Mobilty LLC is one of the largest wireless telecommunication
providers in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
      Rachel Soffin, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
      201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 223-5505

         - and -

      Jean Sutton Martin, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JEAN SUTTON MARTIN PLLC
      2018 Eastwood Road, Suite 225
      Wilmington, NC 28403
      Telephone: (910) 292-6676


AUGUSTA, GA: Settles Firefighters' Overtime Dispute Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Susan McCord, writing for The Augusta Chronicle, reported that a
week after paying a former deputy coroner $200,000 in Fair Labor
Standards Act and whistleblower complaints, the Augusta Commission
on authorized another settlement with workers alleging they were
improperly paid for overtime work.

A class-action lawsuit filed by Augusta Fire Department Lt. Robert
Morris last October claimed Morris and approximately 85 of his
fire department colleagues hadn't been paid the appropriate
overtime rate based on the extra pay all received to be certified
as paramedics or emergency medical technicians.

Since 2010 the city has paid firefighters an additional $1,800
annually to maintain certification as paramedics and $1,200 to be
certified as EMTs.

When the firefighters worked more than 212 hours in 28 days and
became eligible under FLSA for overtime, however, the
certification pay wasn't used to calculate their overtime rate,
claimed the suit filed in U.S. District Court.

The settlement approved by the commission in a 6-0 vote denied
liability and authorized paying the group of firefighters
$58,455.32, an average of about $688 each.

Tracy Arther, a plaintiff in the class-action suit and vice
president of Augusta Professional Firefighters Association, said
Morris and the other plaintiffs were reviewing the settlement
offer but hadn't decided whether to accept it.

"We'll see what the paperwork looks like," Arther said. "The
biggest thing is them not admitting they have been neglecting to
pay us correctly under federal law. They knew about it and didn't
correct it."

The commission approved paying former deputy coroner Johnny
McDonald $200,000 to settle his complaints he'd been illegally
classified as a manager under FLSA and denied overtime wages for
several years and been retaliated against for reporting former
coroner Grover Tuten's thefts of money and property from the dead
to the FBI.

Like the firefighters, McDonald said in his lawsuit he'd
repeatedly raised the issue of improperly paid overtime with city
staff but had been ignored.

An effort last fall to correct the certified firefighters' pay
discrepancy resulted in the "keying error" that former Human
Resources Director Tanika Bryant said caused more than 200
firefighters to receive an extra $2,500 to $2,700 in a single pay
period. They were asked to return the money.


AVALANCHE BIOTECH: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP announces that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of a class (the "Class")
of purchasers of the securities Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc.
("Avalanche" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: AAVL) between July 31,
2014 and June 15, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Shareholders have until September 8, 2015 to file a motion to be
appointed as lead plaintiff in the shareholder lawsuit.

Avalanche is a biopharmaceutical company purportedly committed to
improving or preserving the sight of people suffering from
blinding eye diseases with an unmet medical need. Avalanche's
proprietary Ocular BioFactory is a platform for discovering and
developing medicines with the potential to offer life-changing
therapeutic benefit. Avalanche's lead product candidate, AVA-101,
is in mid-stage clinical development for patients with wet age-
related macular degeneration.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements regarding the successful
completion of the first duplexer product; as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that
the Phase 2a trial for AVA-10 was not designed to show
statistically significant differences between the active and
control subjects in the secondary endpoints; (2) that the drug
showed little improvement in visual acuity above baseline; (3)
that retinal thickness actually increased among the treatment
group; (4) that, as a result, the trial was improperly designed;
and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than September 8, 2015, to serve as lead plaintiff,
if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the
Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain
counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent
member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action,
or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact
Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at
(310) 201-9150, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit
our website at http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email,
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number
of shares purchased.


AVALANCHE BIOTECH: Sept. 8 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP announces that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of a class (the "Class")
of purchasers of the securities Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc.
("Avalanche" or the "Company") between July 31, 2014 and June 15,
2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Shareholders have until
September 8, 2015 to file a motion to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the shareholder lawsuit.

Avalanche is a biopharmaceutical company purportedly committed to
improving or preserving the sight of people suffering from
blinding eye diseases with an unmet medical need. Avalanche's
proprietary Ocular BioFactory is a platform for discovering and
developing medicines with the potential to offer life-changing
therapeutic benefit. Avalanche's lead product candidate, AVA-101,
is in mid-stage clinical development for patients with wet age-
related macular degeneration.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements regarding the successful
completion of the first duplexer product; as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that
the Phase 2a trial for AVA-10 was not designed to show
statistically significant differences between the active and
control subjects in the secondary endpoints; (2) that the drug
showed little improvement in visual acuity above baseline; (3)
that retinal thickness actually increased among the treatment
group; (4) that, as a result, the trial was improperly designed;
and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than September 8, 2015, to serve as lead plaintiff,
if you meet certain legal requirements. To be a member of the
Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain
counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent
member of the Class. If you wish to learn more about this action,
or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your
rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact
Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, 1925
Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067, at
(310) 201-9150, by e-mail to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit
our website at http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email,
please include your mailing address, telephone number and number
of shares purchased.


AX XPRESS: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Messenger" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Messenger v. AX Xpress, Inc., Gregory Irwin and Ruth
Irwin, Case No. 2:15-cv-01416-BSB (D. Ariz., July 24, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate an asset recovery business, and has its
principal place of business in Arizona at 18402 North 19th Avenue,
PMB-112, Phoenix, Arizona 85023.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sean Christopher Davis, Esq.
      Trey A. R. Dayes III, Esq.
      PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM PC
      3101 N Central Ave., Ste. 1500
      Phoenix, AZ 85012
      Telephone: (800) 562-5297
      Facsimile: (602) 288-1664
      E-mail: SeanD@phillipsdayeslaw.com
              treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com


AZ SECURITY: Faces "Allen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Allen v. AZ Security Force, LLC, Sean Purdy, and Allyson
Kaye Hepting, Case No. 2:15-cv-01414-SPL (D. Ariz., July 24,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in direct violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing security guards to
clientele in Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sean Christopher Davis, Esq.
      Trey A. R. Dayes III, Esq.
      PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM PC
      3101 N Central Ave., Ste. 1500
      Phoenix, AZ 85012
      Telephone: (800) 562-5297
      Facsimile: (602) 288-1664
      E-mail: SeanD@phillipsdayeslaw.com
              treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Treasury Securities Manipulation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marc G. Federighi, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. Bank of Nova Scotia, et al., Case No. 1:15-
cv-05843-UA (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2015), arises out of the
Defendants' alleged collusive manipulation of the market for U.S.
Treasury bills, notes, and bonds, and derivative financial
products based on these Treasury securities, including Treasury
futures and options traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

Bank of Nova Scotia is a New York-based branch of a Canadian
financial services and banking company with its principal place of
business at 250 Vesey Street, New York, New York 10080.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
      NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
      570 Lexington Avenue, 19 Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 722-7053
      E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com

         - and -

      Michael E. Criden, Esq.
      CRIDEN & LOVE, P.A.
      7301 S.W. 57th Court, Suite 515
      South Miami, FL 33143
      Telephone: (305) 357-9000
      Facsimile: (305) 357-9050
      E-mail: mcriden@cridenlove.com

         - and -

      Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq.
      SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A.
      1212 Southeast Third Avenue
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
      Telephone: (954) 320-9507
      Facsimile: (954) 320-9509
      E-mail: scott@schlesingerlaw.com


BEAR STEARNS: "Wang" Suit Tossed; Sanctions Imposed
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert W. Sweet of the Southern District of New
York granted defendants' motions for sanction in the case entitled
IN RE BEAR STEARNS COMPANIES, INC. SECURITIES, DERIVATIVE, AND
ERISA LITIGATION. This Document Relates To: Securities Action, 08
Civ. 2793. VIVINE H. WANG, Plaintiff, v. BEAR STEARNS COMPANIES
LLC; J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC; J.P. MORGAN CLEARING CORP.;
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP; ALAN D. SCHWARTZ; ALAN C. GREENBERG; JOEY
ZHOU; and GARRETT BLAND, Defendants, NOS. 08 MDL 1963, 11 CIV 5643
(S.D.N.Y.)

H. Roger Wang is a real estate mogul whose net worth is more than
$3 billion, while his wife Vivine Wang performs administrative
tasks for the couple, and often opens accounts in her name for the
benefit of both.

Mohammed K. Ghods who is currently the named partner of the Ghods
Law Firm, has represented either Mr. Wang, Mrs. Wang, or both, in
numerous lawsuits and has litigated on behalf of both Mr. and Mrs.
Wang before the court.

In February 2008, Mr. Wang instructed his wife to open a brokerage
account at defendant Bear Stearns & Co.  He asked her to fill out
the necessary paperwork. Between March 6, 2008 and the near-
collapse of Bear Stearns on March 14, 2008, Mr. Wang directed the
purchase of 150,000 shares of Bear Stearns stock most of which he
did not pay.

After the Wangs refused to pay for all of their stock purchases,
BS&Co. liquidated their account on March 18, 2008 and filed an
arbitration to recover the remaining money owed. Mrs. Wang,
represented by Mr. Ghods, refused to participate in the
arbitration and was sanctioned by the FINRA panel for failing to
comply with discovery obligations. Mrs. Wang testified that she
was not even aware that the FINRA panel had imposed sanctions.

Mr. Wang filed a lawsuit against Bear Stearns and several of its
employees in Los Angeles County Superior Court, based on his
purchases of Bear Stearns stock. Mr. Wang's action was removed and
transferred to the federal district court for the Southern
`District of New York. It was then consolidated with related
securities actions under the caption In re Bear Stearns Cos., Inc.
Securities Litigation, No. 08 M.D.L. 1963 (S.D.N.Y.) (RWS).

In 2011, while both Mr. Wang's action and the Securities Class
Action were pending before the court, Mrs. Wang filed suit against
Bear Stearns in federal court in California, basing her
allegations on the same stock purchases alleged in Mr. Wang's
complaint. Over objection, the MDL Panel transferred Mrs. Wang's
action to the present court. On February 6, 2012, the court
granted Mrs. Wang's application to have her case coordinated,
rather than consolidated, with the Securities Class Action.
Consistent with Mr. Wang's complaint, Mrs. Wang alleged that it
was plaintiff's husband who placed all the orders for the account.
The Securities Class Action ultimately settled, and this Court
approved the settlement on November 29, 2012.

The Securities Class Action claims administrator received 111
timely requests for exclusion from the settlement class, including
one from Mrs. Wang, but none from Mr. Wang. Under the applicable
Second Case Management Order, depositions in the opt-out actions
were scheduled to be completed by December 10, 2014.

Bear Stearns initially requested deposition dates for Mr. and Mrs.
Wang on October 3, 2014. Mrs. Wang's deposition took place on
December 3, 2014.

Bear Stearns sought confirmation that Mr. Ghods was authorized to
act on behalf of Mr. Wang at least nine times between October 23
and December 8, 2014. During this period, Mr. Ghods actively
negotiated possible deposition parameters on Mr. Wang's behalf,
but also claimed to be awaiting instructions from his "client" on
the issue of service. On December 9, 2014, Mr. Ghods finally
acknowledged that he was acting as Mr. Wang's counsel in this
matter.

Bear Stearns pursued a variety of other methods to attempt to
obtain Mr. Wang's testimony.  Bear Stearns incurred attorneys'
fees and costs of approximately $100,000 as a result of the Wangs'
discovery abuses, including for time spent attempting to serve Mr.
Wang, for seeking court approval for service by alternate means
and an extension of time to depose Mr. Wang, for preparing for Mr.
Wang's deposition, for traveling to Los Angeles, and for preparing
this motion for sanctions. Defendants moved pursuant to Rule
37(d), F. R. Civ. P. for sanctions based on the failure of Mr.
Wang to appear for deposition in the securities action brought by
Mrs. Wang.

Judge Sweet granted defendants' motions for sanctions and
dismissed the complaint with prejudice.  A copy of Judge Sweet's
opinion dated June 5, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/vJl1GO
from Leagle.com.


BENDIGO, AUSTRALIA: Unpaid Subcontractors Threatens Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Corsetti, writing for ABC news, reported that
subcontractors who are waiting to be paid for work done on
Bendigo's new theatre have joined forces to try to secure the
money they are owed.

Twenty subcontractors rallied in Bendigo in a bid to secure
several million dollars they said was outstanding for their work
on the $26 million Ulumbarra Theatre, which opened in April.

Electrical subcontractor Brendan Trudgett said he walked off the
building site in protest back in May because his business was owed
more than $100,000.

"There are almost 25 subcontractors and there is more that are
starting to ring up and mention that there are outstanding monies
as well, because of the advertisements," he said.

"We've all been trying to receive some payments individually, so
over time we've all got together and decided we need to band as
one and try to get something moving forward, particularly when we
have had [Premier] Daniel Andrews' department state that they are
there to support us."

Cameron McCaig said he had been told a payment variation to his
airconditioning company had not been approved.

"Moving forward we'll try and put pressure on the State
Government, Department of Education and even the local council to
try and get them to pressure the builder to give us that payment,"
he said.

Andrew Shearer said he felt dismayed by the experience and the
group was considering taking further action.

"Working collectively with all the other subcontractors to try to
put a class action in place to either stop the building
functioning and trying to get the Department of Education to
basically come to the party and start making some proper processes
to make sure the subcontractors are all paid in full," he said.

The lead builder, Contract Control, said the dispute was a matter
of unapproved and unassessed variations that lie with the
Education Department.

The department oversaw the project and said it was working with
Contract Control to try to get funds to the subcontractors.  It
also said it obtained occupancy certificates for the theatre but
some work at the site remained unfinished.


BRAVO FOODS: "Wise" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cory Wise, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
Bravo Foods LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv-01199-CEM-DAB (M.D. Fla., July
24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Bravo Foods LLC owns and operates a restaurant in Brevard County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BUILDING MATERIALS: Sued in N.J. Over Defective Decking Products
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Christoffersen, Troy Koster, Steve Brown, Mark Law, John
Kuropatkin, Randy King, Robert Aspinwall, George Johnson, Douglas
Smieja, and Cheryl Johnson, on behalf of himself, herself or
themselves as well as on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Building Materials Corporation of America d/b/a GAF Materials
Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-05765-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., July 24,
2015), is brought on behalf of all the persons who purchased Elk
Cross Timbers and DuraLife Decking products that were designed,
manufactured, marketed, and sold by the Defendants, with design
defects that caused Decking to crack, warp, swell, and expand at
rates well beyond what is acceptable for a product meant for the
outdoors.

Building Materials Corporation of America is a Delaware
corporation with its headquarters in Wayne, New Jersey. GAF is a
manufacturer of exterior building products in North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
      Andrew W. Ferich, Esq
      Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      One Haverford Centre
      361 West Lancaster Ave.
      Haverford, PA 19041
      Telephone: (610) 642-8500
      E-mail: bfj@chimicles.com
              awf@chimicles.com
              jbk@chimicles.com

         - and -

      Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
      WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
      900 W. Morgan Street
      Raleigh, NC 27603
      Telephone: 919-600-5000
      E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com

         - and -

      James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: 973-994-1700
      E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com


CELLADON CORP: Aug. 31 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
--------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, reminds
purchasers of Celladon Corporation common stock from July 7, 2014
through June 25, 2015, all dates inclusive, of the important
August 31, 2015 lead plaintiff deadline in the class action. The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Celladon investors under the
federal securities laws.

According to the lawsuit, Celladon misstated or failed to disclose
adverse information regarding the prospects for MYDICAR -- the
Company's promising investigational drug for heart failure
patients, including that: (1) success in the CUPID1 trial was not
indicative of any success in the CUPID2 trial since the CUPID1
trial was extremely small; and (2) the Company's existence was
tied to the trial results and defendants were aware of their
limitations. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit
claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
August 31, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to join the class action and recover your losses, go to
the firm's website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-660.htmlor
to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact, Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen
Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: Removed Fitzgerald Suit to W.D. Oklahoma
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Fitzgerald Farms LLC, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated v. Chesapeake
Operating LLC, Case No. CJ-10-00038, was removed from the District
Court of Beaver County, Oklahoma to the U.S. District Court
Western District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma City). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-00807-HE to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts causes of action from the alleged breach of
contract.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
      GUNDERSON SHARP & WALKE LLP
      5301 W 75th St
      Prairie Village, KS 66208
      Telephone: (913) 901-0500
      Facsimile: (913) 901-0419
      E-mail: rsharp@midwest-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      John F. Shepherd, Esq.
      HOLLAND & HART
      555 17th St., Suite 3200
      Denver, CO 80201-8749
      Telephone: (303) 295-8333
      Facsimile: (303) 713-6296
      E-mail: jshepherd@hollandhart.com

The Objector is represented by:

      Stephen C. Griffis, Esq.
      THE GRIFFIS LAW FIRM PLLC
      3035 NW 63rd St, Suite 229
      Oklahoma City, OK 73116
      Telephone: (405) 840-2664
      Facsimile: (405) 842-0787
      E-mail: scgriffis@gmail.com


CHINA FINANCE: Howard G. Firm Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against China Finance Online, Co. ("China
Finance" or the "Company"), who purchased shares of China Finance
between May 6, 2014 through June 3, 2015, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), and have been damaged by the recent declines in the
Company's stock price. China Finance investors must file a motion
by August 4, 2015 for consideration as a class representative in
this purported class action.

The lawsuit concerns the Company's and its executives' alleged
violations of securities laws, based on recent reports alleging
that: (1) the most current Chinese government records show that
Chairman and CEO Zhiwei Zhao suddenly resigned from his positions
at three key Chinese VIE subsidiaries of China Finance over the
past few months; (2) Chinese media reports exposing the detention
of the Company's independent director Rongquan Leng prompted China
Finance to announce his resignation, without addressing his
alleged detention; and (3) Ling Wang, a former long-time China
Finance director and associate of Zhao, fled China in 2014,
leaving his company indebted to China Finance for $25 million.

The complaint alleges that when the truth was finally revealed
regarding the above Company matters, shares of China Finance fell
$1.28 per share, to close on June 3, 2015 at $5.67, a one-day
decline of 22% on volume of over 3 million shares thereby damaging
investors.

If you purchased shares of China Finance during the Class Period,
have information or would like to learn more about these claims,
or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights
or interests with respect to these matters, contact Howard G.
Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol
Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at
(215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.


CHUCK E. CHEESE: Settles Background Check Class Suit for $1.75MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reported that a $1.75 million settlement in a
class action lawsuit that claimed entertainment chain restaurant
Chuck E. Cheese failed to provide job applicants with proper
background check disclosures was granted preliminary approval by a
California federal judge.

U.S. District Judge Janis L. Sammartino granted the unopposed
motion by the plaintiffs for preliminary approval. The class
action lawsuit settlement will give relief to approximately 28,500
Class Members who applied to work at Chuck E. Cheese since March
24, 2012.

As part of the class action lawsuit settlement, Chuck E. Cheese --
also known as CEC Entertainment Inc. -- agreed to change job
applications used by the company to better comply with laws
governing the use of background check disclosure forms, Top Class
Actions reports.

The plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claimed the
preauthorization form for background checks used by Chuck E.
Cheese was buried underneath employment application information
and liability release forms and thus violated California laws and
the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Top Class Actions
reports.

According to the FCRA, applicants must give permission on separate
preauthorization forms before employers may perform background
checks.

The class action lawsuit settlement is for Ford, et al v. CEC
Entertainment Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-00677, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California.


CHUNGHWA PICTURE: November 13 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Class action settlements have been reached involving Cathode
RayTubes ("CRTs"), a display device that was sold by itself or as
the main component in TVs and computer monitors.  The lawsuit
claims that the Defendants fixed the prices of CRTs causing
consumers to pay more for CRTs and products containing CRTs, such
as TVs and computer monitors (collectively "CRT Products").  The
Defendants deny Plaintiffs' allegations.

Who is included in the Settlements?

Individuals and businesses that:

   * Purchased a CRT or a product containing a CRT, such as a TV
or computer monitor, in the United States (except Illinois,
Washington and Oregon) between March 1, 1995 and November 25,
2007;

   * For their own use and not for resale.

Purchases made directly from a defendant or alleged co-conspirator
are not included (see the list of defendants and alleged
coconspirators at www.CRTclaims.com or by calling 1-800-649-0963).

What do the Settlements provide?

There are six new Settlements totaling $541.75 million.  Together
with the two previously-approved settlements, the Settlement Fund
is $576.75 million.  Only individuals and businesses who purchased
CRT Products in AZ, CA, FL, HI, IA, KS, ME, MI, MN, MS, NE, NV,
NM, NY, NC, ND, SD, TN, VT, WV, WI, or the District of Columbia,
are eligible to file a claim for money.  HI, NE and NV have
shorter claims periods.  The purchase must have been made in one
of the foregoing states, but you do not have to be a resident of
one of these states.  The Settlements release the injunctive
relief claims of purchasers of CRT Products nationwide.

The amount of money you will receive depends on the type and
quantity of CRT Products you purchased and the total number of
claims made.  Eligible individuals and businesses are expected to
get a minimum payment of $25.  Large purchasers could recover many
thousands of dollars.

How can I get a payment?

Claim online or by mail by December 7, 2015.  The simple online
Claim Form only takes 3-5 minutes for most individuals.

What are my rights?

If you do nothing you will be bound by the Court's decisions.  If
you want to keep your right to sue the Defendants, you must
exclude yourself from the Settlement Class by October 8, 2015.  If
you stay in the Settlement Class, you may object to the
Settlements by October 8, 2015.  The Court will hold a hearing on
November 13, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. to consider whether to approve the
Settlements and a request for attorneys' fees up to one-third of
the Settlement Fund, plus reimbursement of litigation expenses and
awards to Class Representatives.  This date may change so please
check the website.  You or your own lawyer may appear and speak at
the hearing at your own expense.

For More Information:
1-800-649-0963
www.CRTclaims.com
Text: "CRTclaims" to 97000 (text messaging rates may apply)

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT

The Defendant companies are:

   * Chunghwa Picture Tubes Ltd.; Chunghwa Picture Tubes
(Malaysia) SDN. BHD ("Chunghwa");

   * LG Electronics Inc.; LG Electronics USA, Inc.; LG Electronics
Taiwan Taipei Co., Ltd. ("LG");

   * Koninklijke Philips N.V. (f/k/a Koninklijke Philips
Electronics N.V.); Philips Electronics North
America Corporation; Philips Taiwan Limited (f/k/a Philips
Electronics Industries (Taiwan), Ltd.); Philips do Brasil, Ltda.
(f/k/a Philips da Amazonia Industria Electronica Ltda.)
("Philips");

   * Panasonic Corporation (f/k/a Matsushita Electric Industrial
Co., Ltd.); Panasonic Corporation of North
America; MT Picture Display Co., Ltd.; and an affiliate of
Panasonic Corporation, Beijing Matsushita
Color CRT Co., Ltd. (collectively "Panasonic");

   * Hitachi, Ltd.; Hitachi Displays, Ltd. (n/k/a Japan Display
Inc.); Hitachi Electronic Devices (USA), Inc.;
Hitachi Asia, Ltd.; Hitachi America, Ltd. ("Hitachi");

   * Toshiba Corporation; Toshiba America Information Systems,
Inc.; Toshiba America Consumer Products, L.L.C.; Toshiba America
Electronic Components, Inc. ("Toshiba");

   * Samsung SDI Co. Ltd; Samsung SDI America, Inc.; Samsung SDI
Brasil, Ltda.; Tianjin Samsung SDI Co., Ltd.; Shenzhen Samsung SDI
Co., Ltd; Samsung SDI Malaysia Sdn. Bhd; Samsung SDI Mexico
S.A. de C.V. ("Samsung SDI);

   * Technicolor SA (f/k/a Thomson SA); Technicolor USA, Inc.
(f/k/a Thomson Consumer Electronics, Inc.) ("Thomson"); and

   * Technologies Displays Americas LLC (f/k/a Thomson Americas
LLC) ("TDA")


CIGNA CORPORATION: Sued Over Unlawful Cost-Shifting Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Fayeulle and Matthew Gentrup, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Cigna Corporation, Connecticut
General Life Insurance Company, Cigna Health and Life Insurance
Company, and Columbine Chiropractic Plan, LLC, d/b/a Columbine
Health Plan, Case No. 1:15-cv-01581 (D. Colo., July 24, 2015),
arises out of the Defendant's alleged cost-shifting scheme by
sending false Explanation of Benefits forms to insureds that
misrepresent the administrative fees Cigna owes to the
Subcontractors as ordinary medical expenses billed by a medical
provider.

The Defendants operate a global health insurance company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason M. Knott, Esq.
      Carl S. Kravitz, Esq.
      ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
      1800 M Street NW, Suite 1000
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone: (202) 778-1813
      Facsimile: (202) 822-8106
      E-mail: jknott@zuckerman.com
              ckravitz@zuckerman.com

         - and -

      D. Brian Hufford, Esq.
      Jason S. Cowart, Esq.
      ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
      399 Park Avenue, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 897-3434
      Facsimile: (212) 704-4256
      E-mail: dbhufford@zuckerman.com
              jcowart@zuckerman.com


DOORMAN'S PRIVATE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Marengo" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Gerard Marengo, and all others similarly situated v.
Doorman's Private Ride Service, Inc. d/b/a Executive Limousine,
Inc., Executive Limousine Service, Inc., and Associated Limousine,
Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-22758-UU (S.D. Fla., July 24, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

The Defendants own and operate a transportation rental company in
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


DR HORTON: D. Nev. Judge Rules on Homeowners' Bid for Relief
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James C. Mahan of the District of Nevada granted
plaintiff's motion in the case AZURE MANOR/RANCHO DE PAZ
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff(s), v. D.R. HORTON, INC.,
Defendant(s), CASE NO. 2:14-CV-2222 JCM (NJK) (D. Nev.).

Plaintiff is the homeowners association for the Azure Manor/Rancho
De Paz community in Clark County, Nevada. Plaintiff, in its
representative capacity, brought suit in Nevada state court
against D.R. Horton, one of the community's builders, alleging
construction defects. Plaintiff brought an action as a single-
family home class action suit.

D.R. Horton removed the action to the Nevada federal district
court and filed a motion to stay litigation and to dismiss
plaintiff's class action allegations.  D.R. Horton argued that
plaintiff failed to meet the various notice requirements for
construction defect claims established by N.R.S. chapter 40 and
asked the court to stay the case until plaintiff complied with the
statutory requirements. Additionally, D.R. Horton argued that a
class action suit is inappropriate for constructive defect claims
for single-family homes and asked the court to dismiss the portion
of plaintiff's complaint related to the class action allegations.
Plaintiff failed to file its response on due date and finding that
the failure constituted plaintiff's consent to granting D.R.
Horton's motion and that a weighing of the Ghazali factors
supported dismissal of plaintiff's claims, the court dismissed
plaintiff's complaint without prejudice.

Plaintiff moved for relief from the order pursuant to F.R.C.P.
60(b)(1). In the alternative, plaintiff moved for reconsideration
of the order.

Judge Mahan granted plaintiff's motion for Rule 60 relief and
ordered plaintiff to file a response to defendant's motion to
dismiss.

A copy of Judge Mahan's order dated June 10, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/WfpLw5from Leagle.com.

Azure Manor/Rancho de Paz Homeowners Association, Plaintiff,
represented by Anna Mirijanian -- Paul P. Terry -- pterry@angius-
terry.com -- Scott P Kelsey -- skelsey@angius-terry.com -- at
Angius & Terry LLP

D.R. Horton, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joel D. Odou --
jodou@wshblaw.com -- Anthony S Wong -- awong@wshblaw.com - at Wood
Smith Henning & Berman LLP


EBAY INC: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Intuit Deal in Hiring Workers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that EBay and Intuit agreed not to
solicit or hire one another's employees to keep wages down, an
antitrust class action claims in California Superior Court.


EDISON INT'L: Willie Briscoe Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Former United States Securities and Exchange Commission attorney
Willie Briscoe, founder of The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC, and the
securities litigation firm of Powers Taylor LLP announce that a
federal class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California against
Edison International, Inc. ("Edison") EIX, -0.60% and several
officers and directors for acts taken during the period of July
31, 2014 and June 24, 2015 (the "Class Period").

Based upon the allegations in the class action, the firms are
investigating additional legal claims against the officers and
Board of Directors of Edison. If you are an affected Edison
shareholder and want to learn more about the lawsuit or join the
action, contact Willie Briscoe at The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC via
email at shareholders@thebriscoelawfirm.com, Patrick Powers at
Powers Taylor LLP via email at shareholder@powerstaylor.com, or
call toll free at (877) 728-9607. There is no cost or fee to you.

The California Public Utilities Commission ("CPUC") launched an
investigation in October 2012 related to the closure of two
reactor units at a large Southern California nuclear power plant
(San Onofre) owned by Edison's largest subsidiary, Southern
California Edison ("SCE"). In November 2014, Edison entered into a
settlement agreement for $3.3 billion providing that it would
refund customers for excess charges incurred to support the two
closed units.

According to the complaint, the defendants are alleged to have
violated certain provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things,
that Edison failed to disclose that its ex parte contacts with the
CPUC decision makers were more extensive than Edison had reported
to CPUC, and that this delayed disclosure would jeopardize the
settlement. The complaint alleges that SCE submitted a notice to
the CPUC on February 9, 2015 disclosing that a previously
unreported ex parte contact took place during the time of the San
Onofre settlement negotiations. The notice indicates that Stephen
Pickett, then an executive vice president at SCE, and Michael
Peevey, then president of the CPUC, discussed the future of San
Onofre and a potential resolution of the investigation at an
industry conference on March 26, 2013. Edison's failure to timely
report the ex parte meeting represented a possible violation of
CPUC rules governing ex parte contact between CPUC decision makers
and interested parties.

The complaint also alleges that, prompted by SCE's delayed
disclosure and growing public criticism of the relationship
between the CPUC and California's utilities, the CPUC ordered SCE
to turn over additional communications regarding the San Onofre
settlement negotiations. After reviewing the documents turned over
by SCE, an attorney for the Utility Reform Network ("TURN") stated
that the documents showed "a number of unreported ex parte
contacts and that Edison violated the rules by not reporting those
communications."

An article published on May 4, 2015 by SFGate reported that SCE's
newly released documents revealed a previously unreported May 2014
meeting between Michael Peevey and SCE executives, at which the
parties discussed donating millions of dollars to a UCLA institute
at which Michael Peevey held an advisory post. On June 22, 2015,
Strumwasser & Woocher released an independent report commissioned
by the CPUC describing such ex parte meetings as "frequent,
pervasive, and at least sometimes outcome-determinative" and
recommending banning them altogether in rate cases. On June 24,
2015, TURN filed an application with the CPUC that charged SCE
with "fraud by concealment" and urged the CPUC to set aside the
settlement and reopen its investigation. According to the
complaint, Edison stock dropped significantly immediately
following this series of announcements.

The Briscoe Law Firm, PLLC is a full service business litigation,
commercial transaction, and public advocacy firm with more than 20
years of experience in complex litigation and transactional
matters.

Powers Taylor LLP is a boutique litigation law firm that handles a
variety of complex business litigation matters, including claims
of investor and stockholder fraud, shareholder oppression,
shareholder derivative suits, and security class actions.


ESPN INC: Judge Junks Lawsuit by Student Athletes
-------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kevin H. Sharp of the Middle District of Tennessee,
Nashville Division granted defendants' motions to dismiss in the
case JAVON MARSHALL, STEVEN CLARKE, CHRIS CONNER, PATRICK MILLER,
BYRON MOORE, CHAZ MOORE, SEAN PARKER, ERIC SAMUELS, MARLON WALLS,
and ROD WILKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. ESPN INC.; CBS BROADCASTING, INC.,
NATIONAL BROADCASTING COMPANY INC.; ABC, INC.; FOX, INC.; IMG
COLLEGE, LLC; ATLANTIC COAST CONFERENCE; BIG TEN CONFERENCE; BIG
12 CONFERENCE; PACIFIC-12 CONFERENCE; SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE;
CONFERENCE USA; OHIO VALLEY CONFERENCE; BIG EAST CONFERENCE; IMG
WORLDWIDE, INC.; IMG COLLEGE, LLC; BIG TEN NETWORK SERVICES, LLC;
CBS COLLEGIATE SPORTS PROPERTIES, INC.; JMI SPORTS LLC; TELESOUTH
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., T3 MEDIA, INC.; ESPN INC. D/B/A SEC NETWORK;
SOUTHEASTERN CONFERENCE D/B/A SEC NETWORK; ESPN INC. D/B/A
LONGHORN NETWORK; IMG COLLEGE, LLC D/B/A LONGHORN NETWORK;
LEARFIELD SPORTS LLC; and WILLIAM MORRIS ENDEAVORS, LLC,
Defendants, CASE NO. 3:14-CV-01945 (M.D. Tenn.)

A putative class action suit was brought by current and former
Student Athletes who played National Collegiate Athletic
Association (NCAA) football and Division I college basketball.
Plaintiffs are eight former college football players and two
former college basketball players.

Defendants are more than two dozen separate entities that fall
into three camps. The assorted athletic conferences, specifically
the Atlantic Coast Conference, Big East Conference, Inc., Big 12
Conference, The Big Ten Conference, Inc., Conference USA, Ohio
Valley Conference, Pac-12 Conference, and Southeastern Conference
(the Conference Defendants), manage athletic competition among
teams and sell the rights to broadcast conference games. The
networks, specifically, ESPN Inc., CBS Broadcasting Inc.,
NBCUniversal Media, LLC, ABC, Inc., Fox Broadcasting Company, Big
Ten Network, LLC, SEC Network, and Longhorn Network (the Network
Defendants), purchase media content, including college sports from
content owners, or produce it internally, and then telecast that
content to television viewers. The licensing agencies,
specifically, Outfront Media Sports, Inc., IMG Worldwide, LLC, IMG
College, LLC, William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, LLC, JMI
Sports LLC, Learfield Sports LLC, T3 Media, Inc., and TeleSouth
Communications, Inc. (the Licensing Defendants), offer brand
development and management and act as a conduit in licensing
college teams' intellectual property.

Plaintiffs' complaint contains seven causes of action. The first
two causes, against all defendants, allege a statutory violation
of the right of publicity under Tenn. Code Ann. Section 47-25-1105
(First Cause) and a violation of the right to publicity under
Tennessee common law (Second Cause); the Third Cause, also against
all defendants, alleges a civil conspiracy; the Fourth Cause,
again against all defendants, alleges a violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Antitrust Act; the Fifth Cause, against only the
Licensing and Network defendants, alleges false endorsement in
violation of Section 43(a) the Lanham Act; and the Sixth Cause,
against all defendants, alleges unjust enrichment; and the Seventh
Cause seeks an accounting as to all defendants.

Defendants filed motions to dismiss which seeks dismissal of all
of plaintiffs' claims.

Judge Sharp granted the motions to dismiss filed by the Network
defendants, the Conference defendants, and the Licensing
defendants and such dismissal is with prejudice.

A copy of Judge Sharp's memorandum datedv June 8, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/JahDHqfrom Leagle.com.

Javon Marshall, Plaintiff, represented by John Parker Branham,
Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC, Patrick D. McMurtray, McMurtray
Law Firm, PLLC, Richard Manson, Manson, Jones & Whitted, Ronald A.
Stewart, Stewart, Johnson, Conner & Manson, LLP & Stephen J.
Zralek, Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC

Steven Clarke, Plaintiff, represented by John Parker Branham,
Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC, Patrick D. McMurtray, McMurtray
Law Firm, PLLC, Richard Manson, Manson, Jones & Whitted, Ronald A.
Stewart, Stewart, Johnson, Conner & Manson, LLP & Stephen J.
Zralek, Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC

Chris Conner, Plaintiff, represented by John Parker Branham, Bone,
McAllester & Norton, PLLC, Patrick D. McMurtray, McMurtray Law
Firm, PLLC, Richard Manson, Manson, Jones & Whitted, Ronald A.
Stewart, Stewart, Johnson, Conner & Manson, LLP & Stephen J.
Zralek, Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC

Patrick Miller, Plaintiff, represented by John Parker Branham,
Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC, Patrick D. McMurtray, McMurtray
Law Firm, PLLC, Richard Manson, Manson, Jones & Whitted, Ronald A.
Stewart, Stewart, Johnson, Conner & Manson, LLP & Stephen J.
Zralek, Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC

Byron Moore, Plaintiff, represented by John Parker Branham, Bone,
McAllester & Norton, PLLC, Patrick D. McMurtray, McMurtray Law
Firm, PLLC, Richard Manson, Manson, Jones & Whitted, Ronald A.
Stewart, Stewart, Johnson, Conner & Manson, LLP & Stephen J.
Zralek, Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC

Chaz Moore, Plaintiff, represented by John Parker Branham, Bone,
McAllester & Norton, PLLC, Patrick D. McMurtray, McMurtray Law
Firm, PLLC, Richard Manson, Manson, Jones & Whitted, Ronald A.
Stewart, Stewart, Johnson, Conner & Manson, LLP & Stephen J.
Zralek, Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC

Sean Parker, Plaintiff, represented by John Parker Branham, Bone,
McAllester & Norton, PLLC, Patrick D. McMurtray, McMurtray Law
Firm, PLLC, Richard Manson, Manson, Jones & Whitted, Ronald A.
Stewart, Stewart, Johnson, Conner & Manson, LLP & Stephen J.
Zralek, Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC

Eric Samuels, Plaintiff, represented by John Parker Branham, Bone,
McAllester & Norton, PLLC, Patrick D. McMurtray, McMurtray Law
Firm, PLLC, Richard Manson, Manson, Jones & Whitted, Ronald A.
Stewart, Stewart, Johnson, Conner & Manson, LLP & Stephen J.
Zralek, Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC

Marlon Walls, Plaintiff, represented by John Parker Branham, Bone,
McAllester & Norton, PLLC, Patrick D. McMurtray, McMurtray Law
Firm, PLLC, Richard Manson, Manson, Jones & Whitted, Ronald A.
Stewart, Stewart, Johnson, Conner & Manson, LLP & Stephen J.
Zralek, Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC

Rod Wilks, Plaintiff, represented by John Parker Branham, Bone,
McAllester & Norton, PLLC, Patrick D. McMurtray, McMurtray Law
Firm, PLLC, Richard Manson, Manson, Jones & Whitted, Ronald A.
Stewart, Stewart, Johnson, Conner & Manson, LLP & Stephen J.
Zralek, Bone, McAllester & Norton, PLLC

ESPN Inc., doing business as SEC Network doing business as
Longhorn Network, Defendant, represented by Daniel Alexander
Richards, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Evan R. Chesler, Cravath,
Swaine & Moore LLP, Joe Wesley Earnhardt, Joel D. Eckert, Bradley
Arant Boult Cummings LLP, Roger G. Brooks, Cravath, Swaine & Moore
LLP, Stefan H. Atkinson, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP & Samuel
David Lipshie, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

CBS Broadcasting, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric S.
Hochstadt, Weil, Gotshal & Manges, James W. Quinn, Weil, Gotshal &
Manges, Robert Dale Grimes, Bass, Berry & Sims & Yehudah L.
Buchweitz, Weil, Gotshal & Manges

National Broadcasting Company, Inc., now known as NBCUniversal
Media, LLC, Defendant, represented by Arthur Burke, Davis, Polk &
Wardwell, Dana Meredith Seshens, Davis, Polk & Wardwell, James W.
Haldin, Davis, Polk & Wardwell, Jeffrey P. Yarbro, Bass, Berry &
Sims, Kelli L. Sager & Robert Dale Grimes, Bass, Berry & Sims

ABC, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel Alexander Richards,
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, Evan R. Chesler, Cravath, Swaine &
Moore LLP, Joe Wesley Earnhardt, Nathan E. Siegel, Levine Sullivan
Koch & Schultz, LLP, Roger G. Brooks, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP,
Stefan H. Atkinson, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP & Samuel David
Lipshie, Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP

Fox Broadcasting Company, Defendant, represented by Carl R. Metz,
Williams & Connolly, John E. Schmidtlein, Williams & Connolly,
Kevin T. Baine, Williams & Connolly, Thomas G. Hentoff, Williams &
Connolly & Hal D. Hardin

IMG College, LLC, doing business as Longhorn Network, Defendant,
represented by Andrew J. Thomas, Jenner & Block LLP, David R.
Singer, Jenner & Block LLP, Kenneth L. Doroshow, Jenner & Block,
LLP,Richard L. Stone & W. Scott Sims, Sims Funk, PLC

Atlantic Coast Conference, Defendant, represented by D. Erik
Albright, Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP,David Alexander Fardon,
Harwell, Howard, Hyne, Gabbert & Manner, P.C., Gregory G. Holland,
Smith Moore Leatherwood LLP & Jonathan P. Heyl, Smith Moore
Leatherwood LLP

Big Ten Conference, Defendant, represented by Andrew S. Rosenman,
Mayer Brown LLP, Britt Marie Miller, Mayer Brown LLP, Jay Scott
Bowen, Shackelford Bowen Zumwalt & Hayes, Richard J. Favretto,
Mayer Brown LLP & William V. Parsons, III, Shackelford Bowen
Zumwalt & Hayes

Big 12 Conference, Defendant, represented by Amy D. Fitts,
Polsinelli P.C., Caitlin J. Morgan, Polsinelli PC, J. Gregory
Grisham, Leitner, Williams, Dooley, and Napolitan, Leane K. Capps,
Polsinelli PC & Reid Daniel Leitner, Leitner, Williams, Dooley,
and Napolitan

Pacific-12 Conference, Defendant, represented by Jacquelyn Ferry,
James N. Bowen, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson, Jennifer L. Jones,
Proskauer Rose, LLP, John R. Jacobson, Riley, Warnock &
Jacobson,Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum, Proskauer Rose, LLP & Scott P.
Cooper, Proskauer Rose, LLP

Conference USA, Defendant, represented by Amy D. Fitts, Polsinelli
P.C., J. Gregory Grisham, Leitner, Williams, Dooley, and
Napolitan, Leane K. Capps, Polsinelli PC & Reid Daniel Leitner,
Leitner, Williams, Dooley, and Napolitan

Ohio Valley Conference, Defendant, represented by Bradford David
Box, Rainey, Kizer, Reviere & Bell, P.L.C.

Big East Conference, Defendant, represented by Jacquelyn Ferry,
James N. Bowen, Riley, Warnock & Jacobson, Jennifer L. Jones,
Proskauer Rose, LLP, John R. Jacobson, Riley, Warnock &
Jacobson,Sarah Kroll-Rosenbaum, Proskauer Rose, LLP & Scott P.
Cooper, Proskauer Rose, LLP

IMG Worldwide, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Thomas,
Jenner & Block LLP, David R. Singer, Jenner & Block LLP, Kenneth
L. Doroshow, Jenner & Block, LLP, Richard L. Stone & W. Scott
Sims, Sims Funk, PLC

Big Ten Network Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Carl R.
Metz, Williams & Connolly, John E. Schmidtlein, Williams &
Connolly, Kevin T. Baine, Williams & Connolly, Thomas G. Hentoff,
Williams & Connolly & Hal D. Hardin

CBS Collegiate Sports Properties, Inc., now known as Outfront
Media Sports Inc., Defendant, represented by Bradley G. Hubbard,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Brian E. Robison, Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher, LLP,Robert C. Walters, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP &
John S. Hicks, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC

JMI Sports LLC, Defendant, represented by Amy J. Everhart,
Everhart Law Firm PLC, Daniel M. Mayeda, Leopold, Petrich & Smith,
Louis Peter Petrich, Leopold, Petrich & Smith & Maria A. Spear,
Everhart Law Firm PLC

Telesouth Communications, Inc., Defendant, represented by John S.
Hicks, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, Samuel
D. Gregory, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC, W.
Scott Welch, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC &
Walker W. Jones, III, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell &
Berkowitz, PC

T3 Media, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robb S. Harvey, Waller,
Lansden, Dortch & Davis, LLP & Todd Ryan Hambidge, Waller,
Lansden, Dortch & Davis, LLP

Learfield Sports LLC, Defendant, represented by Gail Vaughn
Ashworth, Wiseman Ashworth Law Group PLC, Grant Kojis Schmidt,
Fish & Richardson, P.C., M. Brett Johnson, Fish & Richardson,
P.C., Thomas M. Melsheimer, Fish & Richardson, P.C. & Thomas B.
Walsh, IV, Fish & Richardson, P.C.

William Morris Endeavors, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew J.
Thomas, Jenner & Block LLP, David R. Singer, Jenner & Block LLP,
Kenneth L. Doroshow, Jenner & Block, LLP, Richard L. Stone & W.
Scott Sims, Sims Funk, PLC

Southeastern Conference, doing business as SEC Network, Defendant,
represented by Aubrey B. Harwell, Jr., Neal & Harwell, James
Franklin Sanders, Neal & Harwell, James Isaac Sanders, Neal &
Harwell, Mark W. Merritt, Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A. &
Robert W. Fuller, Robinson Bradshaw & Hinson, P.A.


FEIHE INT'L: Aug. 24 Hearing on Proposed $6.5MM Clas Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Entwistle & Cappucci
LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP regarding the Feihe
International, Inc. Shareholder Litigation:

THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH

IN RE FEIHE INTERNATIONAL, INC. SHAREHOLDER LITIGATION

Lead Case No. 120906911

CLASS ACTION

This Document Relates To:
ALL ACTIONS.

The Honorable Andrew H. Stone
SUMMARY NOTICE

IF YOU HELD SHARES OF COMMON STOCK IN FEIHE INTERNATIONAL, INC.
("FEIHE") AT ANY TIME FROM AND INCLUDING OCTOBER 3, 2012 THROUGH
AND INCLUDING JUNE 28, 2013 (THE "CLASS PERIOD"), YOUR RIGHTS MAY
BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF A CLASS ACTION.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the Third
Judicial District Court for Salt Lake County, Utah, that a hearing
will be held on August 24, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., at the Court's
chambers, 450 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114, for
the purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement of
the claims in the Action for the sum of $6,500,000.00 in cash plus
accrued interest should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the Court should enter a
final judgment in the Action on the merits against the named
Plaintiffs and the Class as set forth in the Stipulation of
Settlement dated May 27, 2015 ("Stipulation");[1] (3) whether the
Plan of Allocation of settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and therefore should be approved; and (4) whether the
application of Plaintiffs' Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses incurred in connection with this litigation should be
approved.

If you held Feihe common stock at any time from and including
October 3, 2012, through and including June 28, 2013, your rights
may be affected by the settlement of this Action.  If you have not
received a detailed Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action,
Settlement Hearing and Right to Appear ("Notice") and a copy of
the Proof of Claim and Release form, you may obtain copies by
writing to Feihe International, Shareholder Litigation, Settlement
Administrator, c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 990, Corte Madera,
CA 94976-0990, or you can download a copy at
www.feiheshareholderlitigation.com.  If you are a Class Member, in
order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Amount,
you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release form postmarked no
later than November 6, 2015, establishing that you are entitled to
recovery.  You will be bound by any judgment rendered in the
Action whether or not you make a claim.

If you held Feihe common stock at any time from and including
October 3, 2012, through and including June 28, 2013, and you
desire to be excluded from the Class, you must submit a request
for exclusion so that it is received no later than August 10,
2015, in the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice
referred to above.  All members of the Class who do not timely and
validly request exclusion from the Class will be bound by any
judgment entered in the Action pursuant to the Stipulation.

Any objection to the Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, or
Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses must be filed with the Court at the address above and
served by hand or first-class mail on counsel listed below such
that it is received no later than August 10, 2015:

         Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq.
         ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
         280 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West
         New York, NY 10017
         Tel: (212) 894-7200
         www.entwistle-law.com/

         Carl L. Stine, Esq.
         WOLF POPPER LLP
         845 Third Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Tel: (212) 759-4600
         Fax: (212) 486-2093
         http://www.wolfpopper.com/

         Ellen Gusikoff Stewart, Esq.
         ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Tel: (619) 231-1058
         Fax: (619) 231-7423
         http://www.rgrdlaw.com/

         Jon V. Harper, Esq.
         ANDERSON & KARRENBERG, P.C.
         50 West Broadway, Suite 700
         Salt Lake City, UT 84101
         Tel: (801) 534-1700
         Fax: (801) 364-7697
         Park City (Toll Free): (435) 655-0188
         http://www.aklawfirm.com/

         Nicole A. DiSalvo, Esq.
         Eric S. Waxman, Esq.
         SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
         300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400
         Los Angeles, CA 90071
         Tel: (213) 687-5000
         Fax: (213) 687-5600

         SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
         One Rodney Square
         P.O. Box 636
         Wilmington, DE 19899
         Tel: (302) 651-3000
         Fax: (302) 651-3001
         https://www.skadden.com/

         Robert S. Clark, Esq.
         PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS, P.C.
         101 South 200 East, Suite 700
         Salt Lake City, UT 84111
         Tel: (801) 532-7840
         Fax: (801) 532-7750
         Email: mkano@parrbrown.com

         Paul J. Lockwood, Esq.
         Andrew R. Escobar, Esq.
         DLA PIPER LLP (US)
         701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 7000
         Seattle, WA 98104
         Tel: (206) 839-4800
         Fax: (206) 839-4801
         https://www.dlapiper.com/

         James S. Jardine, Esq.
         RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER P.C.
         36 South State Street, Suite 1400
         P.O. Box 45385
         Salt Lake City, UT 84111
         Tel: (801) 532-1500
         Fax: (801) 532-7543
         http://www.rqn.com/

         Matthew L. Lalli, Esq.
         SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
         15 W South Temple #1200
         Salt Lake City, UT 84101-1531
         Tel: (801) 257-1900
         Fax: (801) 257-1800
         http://www.swlaw.com/

If you held Feihe common stock at any time from and including
October 3, 2012 through and including June 28, 2013 and you do not
take the required steps to appear in this Action, object to the
proposed Settlement, or exclude yourself from the Class, and the
Settlement is approved, you will be barred from raising an
objection to the Settlement in this or any other action or
proceeding, bound by the Settlement and the Court's judgment, and
certain claims that you might have released.

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

DATED: June 25, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT FOR SALT LAKE
COUNTY, UTAH


FLORIDA: Appeals Court Revives Verizon Suit v. Revenue Dept
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Joseph Lewis, Jr. of the District Court of Appeal of
Florida, First District, reversed the final judgment and remanded
the appealed case entitled VERIZON BUSINESS PURCHASING, LLC,
Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, A STATE
AGENCY, Appellee, CASE NO. 1D14-3213 (Fla. Dist. App.)

On January 2007, the Florida Department of Revenue notified
Verizon Business Purchasing, LLC that it was going to audit the
monthly sales tax returns that Verizon had filed for the preceding
three-year period, January 2004 through December 2006. The audit
was commenced and, for various reasons, the parties entered into a
series of agreements extending the statute of limitations time
period within which the Department could issue an assessment.

The final extension agreement was entered into in August 2010 and
provided that the new statute of limitations date for issuance of
the tax assessment would be March 31, 2011. On February 8, 2011,
the Department issued to Verizon a Notice of Proposed Assessment
(NOPA), which identified the tax deficiency for the three-year
period at issue. Verizon was informed that if it did not agree
with the proposed assessment, it could request a review through an
informal protest, an administrative hearing, or a judicial
proceeding. Verizon had until April 11, 2011, to file an informal
written protest. If Appellant did not file a protest, the proposed
assessment would become a final assessment on April 11, 2011.

In September 2011, Verizon filed an amended complaint against the
Department. In Count One, Verizon challenged the NOPA on statute
of limitations grounds. It contended that the sales and use tax
liability asserted in the NOPA did not become an assessment until
April 11, 2011, that the Department was required to issue any
assessment with respect to the audit period at issue prior to
March 31, 2011, and that, as a result, the Assessment is invalid
in its entirety and must be abated.

As an affirmative defense, the Department argued that Count One
failed to state a cause of action because the NOPA was a legal
assessment as a matter of law for purposes of the statute of
limitations. Both parties subsequently moved for summary judgment.

The trial court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and
granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. It determined
that the NOPA constituted an assessment for purposes of section
95.091(3)(a). The trial court rejected Verizon's argument that
section 213.21(1)(b), Florida Statutes, which provides for a
tolling of the statute of limitations period for the issuance of
final tax assessments when informal protest procedures are sought,
establishes that the assessment contemplated in section
95.091(3)(a) is a final assessment.

The trial court alternatively determined that even if the NOPA was
not an assessment, only the first month of the audit period would
be untimely because each month of the taxing periods in the audit
period was extended.

The trial court entered a Partial Final Judgment in the
Department's favor as to Count One of the amended complaint,
Verizon voluntarily dismissed the other two counts of its amended
complaint, and the Final Judgment was entered.

Verizon subsequently took an appeal from the trial court's Final
Judgment entered in favor of the Department.  It argues that the
NOPA issued to it by the Department was not the final assessment
contemplated in the statute of limitations.

The Appeals Court reversed the final judgment and remanded the
case with instructions that judgment be entered in Verizon's
favor.

A copy of Chief Judge Lewis' opinion dated June 11, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/1CEtxBfrom Leagle.com.

Katherine E. Giddings -- katherine.giddings@akerman.com -- Kristen
E. Fiore --  kristen.fiore@akerman.com -- Michael J. Bowen --
michael.bowen@akerman.com -- Peter O. Larsen --
peter.larsen@akerman.com -- at Akerman LLP, for Appellant
Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and J. Clifton Cox , Special
Counsel, for Appellee

The District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District panel
consists of Chief Judge Joseph Lewis, Jr. and Judges Ronald V.
Swanson and Stephanie W. Ray.


GENERAL POLYMER: Faces "Gray" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
James Gray, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. General Polymer Services, L.L.C., Case No. 4:15-cv-02130 (S.D.
Tex., July 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

General Polymer Services, L.L.C. operates an insurance agency
located at 4705 Decker Drive, Baytown, TX 77520,

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joe Micah Williams, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF JOE M. WILLIAMS & ASSOCIATES
      810 Highway 6 South, Suite 111
      Houston, TX 77079
      Telephone: (832) 230-4125
      Facsimile: (832) 230-5310
      E-mail: jwilliams10050@gmail.com


GERBER: Faces Suit Over Graduate Puffs' Misleading Label
--------------------------------------------------------
Gerber, the best-known baby food company in America, has a well-
known brand built on a reputation for providing healthful and
nutritious food for babies and toddlers. Unfortunately, with its
Graduates Puffs, the company is misleading parents into buying a
product that is far from nutritious, according to the class action
complaint filed.

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

Three prominent consumer advocacy firms -- the Stanley Law Group,
Bailey & Glasser LLP, and David F. Sugerman -- have filed the
class action, claiming that these depictions of Graduates mislead
toddlers' parents.

The suit alleges that parents trying to buy healthy and nutritious
snacks for their toddlers have trusted Gerber's reputation and
package presentations, paid Gerber's premium prices based on that
reputation, and, in exchange, unwittingly provided their toddlers
with empty calories.

Far from the healthy treat the labels and Gerber's reputation
suggest, Puffs are little more than flour and sugar.

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


HARTFORD INSURANCE: Conn. High Court Overturns $35-Mil. Verdict
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Nolan, writing for the Connecticut Law Tribune, reported
that the state's highest court has overturned a nearly $35 million
verdict in a class action lawsuit accusing The Hartford insurance
company of scheming to fix the rates it paid for auto body
repairs.

Contrary to what a jury and trial judge previously decided, the
justices ruled unanimously in the 18-page decision that the
insurer did not violate Connecticut law.
Justice Richard Palmer said that insurance companies in the state
have the right to negotiate the hourly labor rate that they are
willing to pay for auto body repairs and have the right to refuse
to give their business to a repair shop with which they cannot
agree on a rate. Further, he stated, insurance companies can
employ appraisers to negotiate the labor rate for repairs on the
insurer's behalf.

"It would be an anomalous result, to say the least, if we were to
endorse the position of the plaintiffs that every time an
insurance company exercises its right to negotiate with an auto
body repair shop for an hourly labor rate, and then proceeds to
have its appraisers estimate the cost of repairing its insureds'
vehicles on the basis of that agreed on rate, it is somehow
committing an unfair trade practice," Palmer wrote.

A dozen years ago, a group of about 1,000 Connecticut auto body
shops brought a class action against The Hartford Fire Insurance
Co., part of The Hartford Financial Services Group, claiming the
insurer violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act by
pressuring its independent appraisers to establish artificially
low hourly labor rates for auto body repair work.

The plaintiffs alleged that The Hartford used a group of pre-
approved "direct repair providers," repair shops that accept lower
rates for a high volume of work. The Hartford, in turn, would not
pay any auto body shop higher rates than those paid to the direct
repair providers. That put pressure on independent auto repair
appraisers to write lower-than-market-value estimates or not get
work.

At the trial, an appraiser who worked for The Hartford for 20
years testified that, he would have used a higher hourly labor
rate when estimating the cost of auto body repairs because he
believed the prevailing rate was too low, a state of affairs he
attributed to the ability of the insurance companies to
effectively dictate that rate. He further testified that if he and
an auto body repair shop could not agree on a labor rate, he would
call his supervisor, who would either authorize an increase or
tell the shop that the insured motorist would have the repair done
elsewhere.

The case went to trial over 17 days in November 2009 and the jury
returned a $14.7 million verdict. Then in June 2013, Stamford
Superior Court Judge Alfred Jennings added $20 million for
punitive damages. It was believed to be the largest CUTPA verdict
in Connecticut history.

A team of lawyers from Wiggin and Dana in New Haven, led by
Jonathan Freiman and Aaron Bayer, represented The Hartford. They
appealed the trial court verdict and the state Supreme Court
agreed to hear the case. The lawyers for The Hartford argued that
the auto repair shops in the class action were using CUTPA to try
to drive up repair prices.

"Like any seller of goods or services, plaintiffs wanted to
increase profits by charging more," the defense lawyers wrote in
court documents. "Unable to convince their customers, including
The Hartford, to pay more, the auto body shops aimed to use CUTPA
to force them to pay more -- at the expense of consumers and
competition."

Palmer and the justices apparently agreed.

"Indeed, we are unable to discern why appraisers, when negotiating
for the cost of auto repairs on behalf of their employers, would
ever owe a duty of impartiality to the auto body repair shops with
whom they are negotiating," wrote Palmer. "Under our regulatory
provisions, those businesses are deemed to be capable of
representing their own interests, and certainly are under no
obligation to accept insurance related work that is not
sufficiently remunerative."

A spokesman for The Hartford said they were "delighted" by the
ruling, but declined to allow the Law Tribune to interview the
lawyers who handled the case.

'Cigarette Rule'

The plaintiffs' legal team was led by David Slossberg, of Hurwitz,
Sagarin, Slossberg & Knuff in Milford. Slossberg was disappointed
with the decision.

"I feel most badly for the thousands of small businesses in
Connecticut who had a bona fide claim that a jury agreed with us
and a trial judge agreed with us," said Slossberg. "There were
several big issues before the [Supreme Court justices] that they
did not write on and I think the opinion is noteworthy for that."
One of those was the so-called the cigarette rule, which grew out
of cases challenging television ads for tobacco products. Under
the rule, the following criteria must be considered in determining
whether the defendant had engaged in an unfair trade practice:
whether the practice, without necessarily having been previously
considered unlawful, offends public policy established by statute
or common law; whether it is immoral, unethical, oppressive or
unscrupulous; and whether it causes substantial injury to
consumers, competitors or other businesspersons.

The Hartford argued that the trial judge improperly instructed the
jury on the cigarette rule because of the Federal Trade
Commission. The insurer argued that the FCC has abandoned the
cigarette rule and replaced it with a different test for courts to
consider.

Experts had expected the state's high court to address the fate of
the cigarette rule in Connecticut. Two amicus briefs were
submitted to the Supreme Court about that issue, including from
the state Attorney General's Office. Attorney General George
Jepsen declined to comment on the issue because the justices
declined to address it.

"In light of our conclusion in the present case that the
plaintiffs' CUTPA claim fails even under the more lenient
cigarette rule, it is unnecessary for us to decide whether that
rule should be abandoned in favor of the federal test," Palmer
wrote in a footnote. "Because of the likelihood that this court
will be required to address this issue in a future case, however,
the legislature may wish to clarify its position with respect to
the proper test."

Slossberg said the plaintiffs were still "digesting" the decision
and could not yet comment on whether they would pursue any further
legal action.

Business lawyer Anthony Minchella, of Minchella & Associates in
Middlebury, who was not involved in the case, was also
disappointed with the ruling but acknowledged that this case was
probably not the best set of circumstances to determine the fate
of the cigarette rule.

"I am disappointed because the court appears to substitute its own
judgment for the jury's," said Minchella. "Typically a trial
court's refusal to set aside a verdict is entitled to great weight
and presumed to be correct. I didn't even read that standard
anywhere in the court's opinion."

Minchella pointed to the 2013 state Supreme Court decision in
State v. Acordia, which he called part of a trend in not holding
insurance companies liable for CUTPA violations. In that case, the
court reversed the ruling of a trial judge who had decided that
one of the country's largest insurance brokerage firms had
violated the state statute when taking kickbacks to push clients
to certain insurers.

Minchella believes the decisions are showing that small business
owners are being held liable under CUTPA while large companies are
not.

"If there was any doubt after Acordia whether insurance companies
would be subject to CUTPA, this decision is the death knell for
that doubt," said Minchella.


HOWMEDICA OSTEONICS: Gets Prelim. OK of Settlement With Sales Reps
------------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that without specifying dollar
amounts, a federal judge preliminarily approved settlement of a
sales reps' class action against Howmedica Osteonics and Stryker
Corp., and set Oct. 8 for a final approval hearing.

The case is Tanner Trosper v. Howmedica Osteonics Corporation, et
al., Case No. 5:13-cv-00607-LHK, in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, San Jose Division.


IDT ENERGY: Judge Stays "Ferrare" Suit, Denies Bid to Dismiss
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Anita B. Brody of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania ruled on defendant's motion in the case ANTHONY
FERRARE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. IDT ENERGY, INC., Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-
4658 (E.D. Pa.)

IDT Energy, Inc. is an electric generation supplier (EGS) that
entered the Pennsylvania energy market as a result of
deregulation. IDT is licensed by the Pennsylvania Public Utility
Commission (the PUC) to supply electricity to residential
customers in Pennsylvania.

Anthony Ferrare alleges that IDT induced energy consumers to
switch to IDT from the local utility or from other energy
suppliers by promising competitive, market-based rates and savings
on electric energy bills and offered new customers a teaser rate,
and promised that after the rate expired, IDT would replace it
with a market-competitive variable rate. Despite the promise, IDT
raised customers' rates to above-market prices. Ferrare alleges
that from September 2013 until March 2014, IDT overcharged him by
hundreds of dollars above the local utility's rate for
electricity.

Ferrare brought a suit on behalf of himself and putative class
members, who are "all persons in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
who contracted with IDT to act as their electric supplier."
Ferrare brought three claims against IDT related to IDT's pricing
practices: (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing; and (3) declaratory judgment.

On June 20, 2014, the Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General and
the Pennsylvania Office of Consumer Advocate commenced a
proceeding against IDT before the PUC. The Commonwealth's PUC
complaint relates to the IDT pricing practices implicated in
Ferrare's lawsuit.

In August 2014, two Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) issued an
interim order on some of the claims raised in the PUC Proceeding.
IDT and the Commonwealth each petitioned the PUC for interlocutory
review of the ALJs' August 2014 order.

The PUC granted both petitions and issued a decision clarifying
the ALJs' August 2014 order. The PUC determined that because PUC
regulations require that an EGS's billed price reflect its
disclosure statement, the PUC has jurisdiction and authority to
determine whether IDT billed customers in accordance with its
Disclosure Statement. The PUC clarified that it lacks "subject
matter jurisdiction to interpret the terms and conditions of a
contract between an EGS and a customer to determine whether a
breach of the contract has occurred.

IDT moves for a stay of this lawsuit pursuant to the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction or, alternatively, dismiss plaintiff's
amended complaint.

Judge Brody granted defendant's motion to stay and denied its
motion to dismiss without prejudice. The action will be stayed
until the PUC decides whether IDT charged prices consistent with
its Disclosure Statement, and if there were any overcharges,
whether refunds are necessary.

A copy of Judge Brody's memorandum dated June 10, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/YAzLFDfrom Leagle.com.

ANTHONY FERRARE, Plaintiff, represented by JONATHAN SHUB --
jshub@kohnswift.com -- at KOHN SWIFT & GRAF PC; TROY M. FREDERICK
-- at MARCUS & MACK PC & SCOTT A. GEORGE --
sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- at SEEGER WEISS

IDT ENERGY, INC., Defendant, represented by THOMAS L. ALLEN --
tallen@reedsmith.com -- HENRY F. REICHNER --
hreichner@reedsmith.com -- at REED SMITH LLP


INDIANA: ACLU Suit Alleges Case Managers Can't Protect Kids
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Gherardi, writing for CBS4, reported that The Indiana
chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a
class action lawsuit against the Indiana Department of Child
Services (DCS). The ACLU claims case managers for DCS are
overworked, and as a result, are unable to protect thousands of
children across the state.

ACLU lawyers claim DCS is breaking Indiana law. In the suit, the
ACLU represents a case manager responsible for 43 cases. The state
required maximum is 17.

The ACLU has filed a preliminary injunction requesting immediate
action on behalf of the Indiana General Assembly to hire enough
DCS case workers to get the case load down to a legal level.

"This isn't a lawsuit about case managers having to work too hard.
This is a lawsuit about what happens when case managers are not
able to do their job," said Ken Falk, the Legal Director for the
ACLU of Indiana.

"Hopefully the lawsuit will remind people that when the
legislature says that there shall be efficient staff to achieve
these levels, that the legislature itself takes that seriously and
gives enough money to alleviate all the problems that give rise to
the fact that at the current time, my client is handling 43 cases
when the statute says she's supposed to have 17," said Falk.

Falk doesn't blame DCS for the department's shortcoming. Constant
case manager turnover, and massive caseloads he says is due to a
lack of DCS funding from the state legislature.

"The legislature has set the rules and the legislature has to
abide by its own rules," he said.

"The Governor's request looked to me like it should be adequate to
really solve this problem and also required some management work
inside the department," said State Senator Luke Kenley (R --
Noblesville).

Kenley was a part of Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee
that approved extra funding to hire 100 additional case managers.

The ACLU claims that move did not go nearly far enough.

"It just shows how tough that problem is when you have more than
four times as many case workers as you used to have and yet
there's still a squeaky wheel issue," said Kenley.

In a statement on the suit DCS Director, Mary Beth Bonaventura
issued this statement:

    "Lawsuits are distractions from the essential efforts underway
to help children in need. Our commitment to Hoosier children is
genuine and resolute, and we are 100 percent engaged in hiring
more caseworkers and increasing training opportunities as directed
by Governor Pence and the 2015 General Assembly. By July 27, we
will have hired all of the newly-created positions for our 100
Family Case Managers and their training will then commence
immediately. DCS is working diligently to bring help and hope to
children affected by the tragedy of child abuse."

The ACLU legal team is hoping more case managers will join in this
class action lawsuit.


INTERNATIONAL STEEL: 6th Cir. Reverses Judgment in "Stiso" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Gilbert S. Merritt of the United States Court of
Appeals, Sixth Circuit, reversed the judgment of the district
court and remanded the appealed case of MICHAEL STISO, for himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
INTERNATIONAL STEEL GROUP, d/b/a ARCELORMITTAL USA, LLC;
ARCELORMITTAL USA LLC; INTERNATIONAL STEEL GROUP INC. LONG TERM
DISABILITY INSURANCE PLAN; METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants-Appellees, NO. 13-3503 (6th Cir.)

International Steel Group, doing business as ArcelorMittal USA,
LLC, provides its employees with long-term disability benefits if
certain eligibility conditions are met. Defendant Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company (MetLife) administers the long-term
disability benefits program as agent for International Steel and
is the party responsible both for deciding eligibility and paying
benefits. The benefit plan is governed by the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. Sections 1001 et seq., and it is an
employer-funded welfare benefit plan within the meaning of ERISA.

Plaintiff became employed with International Steel in May 2003. He
became a participant in the company's long-term disability plan
and received the summary plan description from International Steel
in January 2005. Thereafter, plaintiff had a stroke and became
disabled and unable to work. He received a copy of the actual plan
document after he became disabled and has been receiving benefits
since March 2006. In February 2009, plaintiff requested an
increase in his monthly benefits based on the language in the plan
and the summary providing for a 7% annual increase.

MetLife denied the claim and plaintiff filed an action to recover
an equitable remedy equivalent to a 7% per year cost-of-living
increase to his long-term disability benefits in federal court
against his employer ArcelorMittal, the name used by International
Steel after a merger with Mittal Steel Company and Arcelor Steel
Company, and against MetLife, the claims administrator.

Plaintiff seeks relief under two sections of the Employment
Retirement Income Security Act: wrongful denial of benefits under
the terms of the insurance plan in violation of Section
502(a)(1)(B), 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(1)(B), and equitable
claims of estoppel and breach of fiduciary duty under Section
502(a)(3), 29 U.S.C. Section 1132(a)(3).

The district court granted summary judgment to defendants,
concluding that plaintiff was not entitled to the 7% annual
increase and that equitable relief was not warranted. Plaintiff
appealed.

Circuit Judge Merritt reversed the judgment of the district court
and remanded the case for further proceedings.

A copy of Judge Merritt's unpublished amended opinion dated June
9, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/y8DAmrfrom Leagle.com.

The Sixth Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Gilbert S.
Merritt, Danny J. Boggs and Jane Branstetter Stranch.


JANSSEN PHARMA: Physicians Healthsource's TCPA Suit Goes to Trial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Freda L. Wolfson of the District of New Jersey
denied defendants' motion for summary judgment in the case
PHYSICIANS HEALTHSOURCE, Inc., an Ohio corporation, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., ALERT
MARKETING, INC., ORTHO-McNEIL PHARMACEUTICAL, LLC., ORTHO-McNEIL,
INC., Defendants, CIV. NO. 12-2132 (FLW-TJB) (D.N.J.)

In the spring of 2008, two faxes were sent to Dr. Jose Martinez on
behalf of Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals (Janssen).  The
faxes were sent by defendant Janssen's marketing department to
physicians' fax machines in New York City, Southern FL, New
Jersey, Texas, Northern FL, Georgia, Chesapeake, Rocky Mountain,
Ohio, Missouri, North Carolina and New England. Teose regions
corresponded to the regions defendant Janssen's marketing
department was targeting in 2008 in its bid to increase Levaquin's
market share.

On April 5, 2012, plaintiff filed a lawsuit, alleging that the two
faxes in question constituted unsolicited advertising that
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C.
Section 227 et seq., which the defendant filed a motion to
dismiss.

On January 31, 2013, Judge Wolfson granted defendants' motion to
dismiss and, thereafter, supplemented its opinion on the motion.
Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration and a motion to
amend, which Judge Wolfson denied the motion for reconsideration
but granted the motion to amend.

On June 26, 2013, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. In its
amended complaint, plaintiff added eight new allegations, which
boil down to the following factual assertions (1) Plaintiff did
not have a business relationship with Defendants; (2) Levaquin had
the same Tier reimbursement rating from at least 2004 to the time
the faxes were sent and, thus, the faxes provided stale
information; (3) any insurance reimbursement information was not
directly relevant to any fax receipients.

Defendants moved for summary judgment on plaintiff's amended
complaint, which the court denied without prejudice finding that
plaintiff did not have an adequate opportunity to take discovery.

After the parties engaged in discovery, defendants renewed their
motion for summary judgment. Defendants argue that the faxes are
clearly informational because there is no need for a fax to
contain breaking news to be informational and because the faxes
contained important information, the faxes were issued because
UnitedHealthcare renewed Levaquin's tier status on its commercial
formulary in early 2008, and the faxes are informational even
under a standard requiring a tier change in the drug to qualify as
informational because significant changes were made in Levaquin's
tier status on several UnitedHealthcare group plans in early 2008.

Judge Wolfson denied defendants' motion for summary judgment.  A
copy of Judge Wolfson's opinion dated June 19, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/0ZecaHfrom Leagle.com.

PHYSICIANS HEALTHSOURCE, INC., an Ohio corporation, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated
persons, Plaintiff, represented by MATTHEW NICHOLAS FIOROVANTI --
mfiorovanti@ghclaw.com -- at GIORDANO HALLERAN & CIESLA PC

JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Defendant, represented by MARSHA
JESSICA INDYCH -- Marsha.Indych@dbr.com -- at DRINKER BIDDLE &
REATH LLP

ALERT MARKETING, INC., Defendant, represented by KATHLEEN M.
FENNELLY -- kfennelly@grahamcurtin.com -- THOMAS R. CURTIN --
tcurtin@grahamcurtin.com -- GEORGE C. JONES --
gjones@grahamcurtin.com -- at GRAHAM CURTIN, PA


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Suit v. Severance Plan Loses Class Cert. Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Freda L. Wolfson of the District of New Jersey
ruled on the parties' motions in the case ALAN M. BECKNELL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
Plaintiff, v. SEVERANCE PAY PLAN OF JOHNSON & JOHNSON AND U.S
AFFILIATED COMPANIES and PENSION COMMITTEE OF JOHNSON & JOHNSON,
Defendants, CIV. ACTION NO. 13-4622 (FLW)(TJB) (D.N.J.)

From 1977 to 2007, Allan M. Becknell was employed by Ethicon,
Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson (J & J), and a
participating company under the Severance Plan. The Severance Plan
is maintained as an Employment Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) welfare benefit plan. The administrator of the Severance
Plan is the Pension Committee of Johnson & Johnson. Defendants
also offer their employees a Long-Term Disability Income Plan,
which provides long-term disability income protection.

Claims Service Organization is a corporation, or other entity,
retained by the Plan Administrator on behalf of the Disability
Plan to provide specified administrative services to the
Disability Plan.

On October 16, 2007, plaintiff began a short-term disability (STD)
leave. He exhausted his 26-week STD leave on April 15, 2008, but
did not return to work after that date.  Subsequently, plaintiff
applied for, and received, long-term disability (LTD) benefits for
14 months, from April 15, 2008 to June 11, 2009.

Three years later, plaintiff sent a letter, dated October 25,
2012, to Ethicon's Corporate Benefits department requesting an
application for severance benefits based on his employment with J
& J.  By letter dated February 4, 2013, plaintiff's claim was
denied by the Claims Administrator.

On March 4, 2013, plaintiff, through his counsel, appealed the
Claim Administrator's determination to the Benefit Claims
Committee in accordance with the Severance Plan's administrative
procedures. Plaintiff had not received a decision on his appeal by
July 31, 2013, and so plaintiff initiated a putative class action
involving the denial of plaintiff's claim for severance benefits
under the Severance Pay Plan of Johnson & Johnson and Affiliated
Companies established under ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Section
1132(a)(1)(B), et seq.

Defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that the denial
of plaintiff's claim for severance benefits is subject to the
arbitrary and capricious standard of review, and their decision
was reasonable based because the termination of plaintiff's
employment did not result from a severance-eligible event, as
defined in the Severance Plan.

Plaintiff opposed the motion, and further moves for class
certification on behalf of those similarly situated.

Judge Wolfson granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and
denied plaintiff's motion for class certification as moot.

A copy of Judge Wolfson's opinion dated June 19, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/J2L1kHfrom Leagle.com.

ALAN M. BECKNELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by LAWRENCE A. KATZ --
lkatz@ckmo.com -- at COFFEY, KAYE, MYERS & OLLEY, ESQS.

Defendants, represented by FRANCIS X. DEE -- fdee@mdmc-law.com --
at MCELROY, DEUTSCH, MULVANEY, & CARPENTER, LLP


JOHNSTON BROTHERS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Arleen Uerling v. Johnston Brothers II L.L.C., Walter Johnston and
Jane Doe Johnston, George Johnston Jr. and Jane Doe Johnston II,
Case No. 2:15-cv-01417-SPL (D. Ariz., July 24, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate the Rose Terrace RV Trailer Park in
Maricopa County, Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sean Christopher Davis, Esq.
      Trey A. R. Dayes III, Esq.
      PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM PC
      3101 N Central Ave., Ste. 1500
      Phoenix, AZ 85012
      Telephone: (800) 562-5297
      Facsimile: (602) 288-1664
      E-mail: SeanD@phillipsdayeslaw.com
              treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com


KNIGHT OIL: "Montemayor" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marcos Montemayor, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Knight Oil Tools, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-
00315 (S.D. Tex., July 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Knight Oil Tools, LLC operates an oil and gas service company
providing oil and gas related services and equipment, such as
rental tools, fishing tools and services, well services,
manufacturing, inspection and hard-banding, and QHSE training and
consulting.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP
      1150 Bissonnet Street
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com


KUBRA DATA: Accused in Florida of Taking Criminal Processing Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Kubra Data Transfer made
millions by taking "criminal" processing fees from electronic bill
payments, for utilities and others, a class action claims in
Florida Federal Court.


LG ELECTRONIC: Judge Rejects Liebler's Bid to Amend Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson of the District of New Jersey
denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint in
the case DAVID LIEBLER and GREG CAREY, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LG ELECTRONICS
U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO.
14-CV-03500 (JLL) (JAD) (D.N.J.)

Liebler, a Michigan resident, filed on June 2, 2014, a complaint
alleging that LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.'s business practices
regarding the marketing and sale of certain of its cellular phones
constituted a violation of New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA)
N.J. Stat. Sections 56, et seq, alleging that LG has engaged in
deceptive practices and made both fraudulent misrepresentations
and omissions, and served as the basis of common law claims for
fraud in the inducement, negligent misrepresentation, breach of
contract, and unjust enrichment.

On July 15, 2014, plaintiff Liebler filed an amended complaint
that, among other things, added Greg Carey, a resident of Kanas,
as a named plaintiff and potential class representative.
Plaintiffs Liebler and Carey also added various factual
allegations, converted the breach of contract claim into a claim
for breach of express warranties, and reiterated the other causes
of action pled in the original complaint.

LG filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its
entirety. On September 31, 2014, before Judge Linares had an
opportunity to address that motion, plaintiffs filed a motion for
leave to file second amended complaint. The proposed amended
complaint (PSAC) proposes that both Liebler and Carey will be drop
from the complaint and be relpalce with new potential class
representative, Michael Criaris.

Moreover, in addition to revising certain factual allegations, the
PSAC would: (1) modify the NJCFA claim so that it seeks relief
solely under a fraud by omission theory, thereby eliminating
references to defendant's alleged deceptive practices and
misrepresentations; (2) replace the common law claim for fraud in
the inducement with a common law claim for fraud by omission; and
(3) eliminate the common law claims for both negligent
misrepresentation and breach of express warranties.

Defendant opposes plaintiff's motion, arguing that plaintiff's
PSAC would be vulnerable to dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and, therefore, plaintiff's proposed
amendment would be futile.

Judge Dickson denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second
amended complaint without prejudice.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Dickson's opinion dated June 4, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/Q7Lb1Dfrom Leagle.com.

DAVID LIEBLER, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by STEFAN LOUIS COLEMAN

LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant,
represented by JONATHAN SAMUEL HERSHBERG --
jhershberg@rlrpclaw.com -- MARK M. ROTTENBERG --
mrottenberg@rlrpclaw.com -- at ROTTENBERG LIPMAN RICH, PC.


LOWE'S HOME: Overcharges for Sales Tax, Class Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that Lowe's Home Centers
overcharges for sales tax, and knows it does it, a class action
claims in Hillsborough County Court.


LRR ENERGY: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
case no. 4:15-cv-02017, on behalf of unit holders of LRR Energy,
L.P. ("LRR Energy" or the "Company") (NYSE: LRE) who held (and
continue to hold) LRR Energy securities acquired on or before
April 20, 2015.

On April 20, 2015, the Company entered into a Purchase Agreement
and Plan of Merger ("Merger Agreement") under which Vanguard
Natural Resources, LLC ("Vanguard") will acquire all of the
outstanding units of LRR Energy through Vanguard's wholly owned
subsidiary Lighthouse Merger Sub, LLC ("Merger Sub"). The unit-
for-unit transaction is valued at approximately $251 million, with
Vanguard assuming LRR Energy's net debt of $288 million. The vote
on the proposed transaction is currently scheduled for September
10, 2015.

The complaint charges LRR Energy, its Board of Directors,
Vanguard, and Merger Sub with violations of Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, which was
unanimously approved by the Company's Board of Directors (the
"Board" or "Individual Defendants"), LRR Energy unitholders will
receive a fixed exchange ratio of 0.55 Vanguard units for each
common unit of LRR Energy they own. LRR Energy and Vanguard claim
that this exchange ratio amounts to a deal consideration of $8.93
per LRR Energy common unit, based on Vanguard's closing price of
$16.23 on April 20, 2015. However, Vanguard units are currently
trading at significantly lower prices, closing at $13.56 on July
14, 2015.

Critically, the Merger Agreement includes no protective collar on
the transaction's exchange ratio and no guarantee that LRR Energy
unitholders will receive the estimated $8.93 per unit
consideration. Moreover, the $8.93 per unit consideration falls
well below LRR Energy's recent historical unit prices (the Company
had a 52-week trading high of $20.11) and certain analyst
opinions.

The complaint alleges that the S-4 Registration Statement (the "S-
4") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on
June 3, 2015 (amended on July 9, 2015) provided materially
incomplete and misleading disclosures, thereby violating Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The omitted information is
material to the impending decision of LRR Energy unitholders on
whether or not to exchange their shares. The complaint also
alleges that the 0.55 Vanguard units per LRR Energy unit is
inadequate, as LRR Energy has experienced significant growth in
recent months and has consistently exceeded management's revenue
and earnings expectations. The offer price also fails to
adequately value LRR Energy's prospects for future growth.

Take Action

Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with
extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant
expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.  Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal
office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California, and
Pennsylvania.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days.  Any member of the putative class may move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice,
or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.  If
you wish to discuss this action, or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact:

         Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
         FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
         369 Lexington Ave, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Tel: (212) 983-9330
         E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com


LUMBER ONE: 11th Circ. Reinstates Class Suit Under ADTPA
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Carroll, Burt M. Rublin, and Neal Walters of Ballard Spahr
LLP, in an article for JD Supra, reported that dealing a blow to
defendants facing consumer fraud litigation in the 11th Circuit,
the court of appeals for that circuit has reinstated a class
action under the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practice Act (ADTPA),
despite that the ADTPA itself expressly prohibits class action
litigation.

The ADTPA creates a private right of action for consumers, but it
expressly prohibits plaintiffs from bringing their claims on
behalf of a class. In Lisk v. Lumber One Wood Preserving, LLC, the
11th Circuit held that Rule 23 -- which provides for class actions
in federal court -- trumps the ADTPA, and allows plaintiffs to
file a class action in federal court, despite that it would be
barred in Alabama state court.

Plaintiff Robert Lisk purchased allegedly defective wood from
Lumber One. When the wood prematurely rotted, plaintiff brought
suit in federal court on behalf of a nationwide class of
consumers. Based on the ADTPA's prohibition against class actions,
the district court dismissed the case. The 11th Circuit reversed,
concluding that the case was effectively identical to the U.S.
Supreme Court's holding in Shady Grove Orthopedic Associates v.
Allstate Ins. Co.

In Shady Grove, the Supreme Court held that Rule 23 trumped a New
York statute precluding class actions in all cases involving a
statutory penalty. But Shady Grove was a 5-4 decision, and the
majority was split in its reasoning. A four-vote plurality
opinion, authored by Justice Scalia, concluded that the New York
statute was procedural, and not substantive, and therefore Rule 23
could apply without violating the Rules Enabling Act. The Rules
Enabling Act provides that federal rules of procedure "shall not
abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right."

Justice Stevens -- the fifth vote in the majority -- authored a
separate concurrence, disagreeing with the plurality's reasoning.
He concluded that some state procedural rules nonetheless should
apply in federal court, because they function as a part of the
state's definition of substantive rights and remedies. Justice
Stevens found it notable that the New York rule at issue in Shady
Grove was in a procedural statute, applicable to claims not only
under New York law, but also those brought under federal law or
the law of another state. As such, it is difficult to characterize
that rule as one of substantive New York law.

By contrast, the prohibition against class actions in Lisk is
located directly within the text of the ADTPA itself. The 11th
Circuit disregarded that distinction, concluding that "how a state
chooses to organize its statutes affects the analysis not at all."
Instead, the 11th Circuit drew a distinction between what it saw
as a substantive claim -- whether Lumber One violated the ADTPA --
and a procedural right -- whether offended consumers may seek
redress in a single action.

In so ruling, the 11th Circuit states in the opinion that it did
not choose between the competing rationales of the Shady Grove
majority. But in drawing a simple distinction between procedure
and substance, without exploring the purpose or reasoning behind
the ADTPA's class action limitation, the 11th Circuit plainly
sided with Justice Scalia's plurality opinion. That approach
creates a meaningful difference for defendants, and eliminates
substantive statutory protections included in the very state laws
under which plaintiffs are bringing suit.


LYFT: Former Driver Files Class Suit in Florida
-----------------------------------------------
Wade Tyler Millward, writing for Tampa Bay Business Journal,
reported that in fall 2014, Fequiere Frederic became one of the
infamous Uber and Lyft drivers charged with a misdemeanor in
Hillsborough County for providing public transportation without a
license.

Now, Frederic has made a move against Lyft as part of a class-
action lawsuit in U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida
that accuses ridesharing companies of violating state and federal
laws because of how they treat their drivers.

Frederic accuses Lyft of wrongfully classifying its drivers as
independent contractors instead of employees. This way, Lyft
avoided federally guaranteed employee benefits, including at least
$7.25 an hour in minimum wages and overtime for working over 40
hours a week, according to court documents filed July 8.

Though only Lyft's Florida branch is named in the lawsuit, these
court decisions would increase the amount of money ridesharing
services are expected to pay for drivers. This could potentially
harm Lyft and Uber's businesses. Lawsuits are unproven
allegations.

A call to Frederic's attorney and emails to Uber representatives
are still pending return.

A Lyft spokeswoman said the company doesn't comment on pending
litigation.

Steve Anderson, an attorney who has represented Lyft in front of
Hillsborough's Public Transportation Commission, said the company
hasn't been served yet.

Lyft, valued at about $2 billion thanks to investments from groups
like Icahn Enterprises (NASDAQ: IEP) and Alibaba (NYSE: BABA),
also has avoided responsibility for drivers cited and criminally
charged for operating as a taxi service without a license,
according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges the company hasn't compensated drivers for
community service hours or court costs after they've been found
guilty of a crime.

Hillsborough County's public transportation commission has
repeatedly threatened to cite people like Frederic if caught
driving for Lyft or Uber.

A county representative will argue for a judge to ban such
services from the county, paving the way for harsher penalties.

Uber and Lyft representatives have in the past called their
employers "technology companies" as opposed to taxi or limo
services to justify ignoring public transit regulations.

Frederic drove for Lyft in Tampa from January 2013 until October
2014. His suit argues Lyft is an employer because it controls
whether drivers get work. It allows them onto the company's
platform through an application process and boots them for
unsatisfactory performance.

Instead of a minimum wage, Lyft drivers are paid based on a
formula in which Lyft gets 20 percent of the transaction. Lyft
sets rates, discounts and standards for clean cars and passenger
interactions.

Lyft blocks drivers from working past a certain number of hours
and from driving more than 60 miles at once, and provides a two-
hour training session for drivers.

Frederic seeks the money Lyft owes him, not stated in the suit,
plus the same amount in damages. He also wants Lyft to pay
attorney fees and court costs. His misdemeanor case is still open.


MARKWEST ENERGY: Faces "Katsman" Suit Over Proposed MPLX Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Katsman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MarkWest Energy GP, L.L.C., et al., Case No.
11332 (Del. Ch., July 24, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the
common unit holders of MarkWest Energy, L.P., to enjoin the merger
agreement between MarkWest and MPLX LP for inadequate
consideration.

MarkWest Energy GP, L.L.C. is engaged in the gathering, processing
and transportation of natural gas; the transportation,
fractionation, storage and marketing of NGLs; and the gathering
and transportation of crude oil.

MPLX LP is one of the largest petroleum product refiners,
marketers and transporters in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
      ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
      919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401
      P.O. Box 1070
      Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
      Telephone: (302) 656-4433
      E-mail: ckeener@rmgglaw.com

         - and -

      U. Seth Ottensoser, Esq.
      Joseph R. Seidman Jr., Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
      10 East 40th Street
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 779-1414
      E-mail: Ottensoser@bernlieb.com
              Seidman@bernlieb.com


MCADAM LANDSCAPING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Martinez, a/k/a Arturo Brito, a/k/a Elias Martinez, on behalf
of himself and all other similarly situated v. McAdam Landscaping,
Inc., and W. Scott McAdam and Robert McAdam, Case No. 1:15-cv-
06461 (N.D. Ill., July 24, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

McAdam Landscaping, Inc. provides landscaping design,
construction, and maintenance, in addition to snowplowing
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John William Billhorn, Esq.
      BILLHORN LAW FIRM
      53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 853-1450
      E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com


M-I LLC: Cal. Judge Transfers "Dewan" Case to Texas
---------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Anthony W. Ishii of the Eastern District of
California granted defendant's motion to transfer in the case
MATTHEW DEWAN, individually, Plaintiff, v. M-I, L.L.C., doing
business as M-I SWACO, Defendant, CASE NO. 1:14-CV-01151-AWI-MJS
(E.D. Cal.)

Matther Dewan, Intervenors Sarmad Syed and Ashley Balfour are
former drilling fluid specialist for M-I, L.L.C. (M-I).

Dewan filed a putative class action suit in the Southern District
of Texas and alleges that he was misclassified as an exempt
employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C.
Sections 201-219, and seeks to recover overtime pay as well as
asserts violations of the Texas Labor Code.

Syed and Balfour alleges that they were improperly classified as
exempt employees and not paid overtime under the FLSA and
additionally alleging Rule 23 class action for wage and hour
violations under the California Labor Code, had previously filed a
collective action in the Eastern District of California on October
18, 2012 and moved for conditional nationwide certification on
July 8, 2013.

Syed and Balfour subsequently filed in the Southern District of
Texas a motion to intervene and transfer the later filed Dewan
matter to the present court. The District Judge in Texas granted
the motion.

M-I filed a motion to transfer the Dewan matter back to the
Southern District of Texas.

Senior District Judge Ishii granted defendants' motion.  A copy of
Senior District Judge Ishii's order dated June 18, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/9Y8QQnfrom Leagle.com.

Matthew Dewan, Plaintiff, represented by:

R Ira Spiro, Esq.
Spiro Law Corp.
10573 West Pico Blvd. #865
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Telephone: 310-235-2350
Email: info@spiromoore.com

     - and -

Curt Christopher Hesse, Esq.
Melissa Moore, Esq.
Moore & Associates
4350 East-West Hwy #500
Bethesda, MD 20814
Telephone: 301-565-5100

M-I, L.L.C., Doing business as MI Swaco, Defendant, represented by
Patricia S Riordan -- at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LlP; Samuel
Zurik, III -- sz@kullmanlaw.com -- Martin J Regimbal --
mjr@kullmanlaw.com -- Robert Peter Lombardi -- rpl@kullmanlaw.com
-- at The Kullman Firm

Schlumberger Technology Corp., Defendant, represented by Patricia
S Riordan -- at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LlP

Intervenors, represented by:

Jennifer L. Conner, Esq.
Ira Spiro, Esq.
Spiro Law Corp.
10573 West Pico Blvd. #865
Los Angeles, CA 90064
Telephone: 310-235-2350
Email: info@spiromoore.com

     - and -

Jennifer Lynn Connor, Esq.
Cohelan Khoury & Singer
605 C Street, Suite 20
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 888-808-8358
Facsimile: 619-595-3000
Email: JConnor@CKSLaw.com

     - and -

Richard J Burch, Esq.
Bruckner Burch PLLC
8 Greenway Plaza #1500
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: 713-877-8788


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Ordered to Pay $46MM in Attorney Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reported that a federal judge ordered the NCAA to pay
nearly $46 million in attorneys' fees and costs to lawyers for
student-athletes including former UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon
in their class-action antitrust lawsuit against the organization.

The decision late night by U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins
came nearly a year after U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken in
Oakland, California said the NCAA violated antitrust law by
barring athletes from sharing in revenue from the use of their
names and images in broadcasts and video games.

In awarding the athletes' lawyers 90 percent of the $50.9 million
they sought, Cousins rejected the NCAA insistence that any award
not exceed $9.1 million, and its subsequent "middle ground"
suggestion to cut the fee request in half.

"This win against a behemoth of an institution like the NCAA could
significantly change American college sports," wrote Cousins, who
works in San Jose. "Plaintiffs did not succeed on every claim. But
the time spent on the unsuccessful claims contributed to the
decisive success by laying the groundwork for the eventual trial
victory."

The NCAA declined to comment.

Cousins' decision is the latest defeat for the NCAA in litigation
over its refusal to pay major college soccer and men's basketball
players.

Critics say the prohibition shortchanges athletes, and often keeps
them from taking paid jobs while in school. O'Bannon, who won an
NCAA championship in 1995, testified to spending 40 to 45 hours a
week on basketball.

On March 17, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard the
NCAA's appeal of Wilken's August ruling, which also said some
athletes may deserve up to $5,000 a year in deferred payments. The
outcome could affect Cousins' decision.

In seeking lessened fees, the NCAA alluded to Charles Dickens in
calling the athletes' case "a tale of two lawsuits." It said many
claims in the original 2009 lawsuit were unsuccessful, before the
narrowed 2012 lawsuit found success.

Cousins, though, said a more apt allusion was to "Game of
Thrones," adapted from the works of George R.R. Martin.

"In Martin's world, when you play the game of thrones, you win or
you die. There is no middle ground," Cousins wrote. "For
plaintiffs, their trial victory in this adventurous, risky suit,
while more than a mere game, is nothing less than a win."

Michael Hausfeld, a lawyer for the athletes, said: "It's a solid
decision, and takes apart the NCAA's attempted fabrications."

The case is O'Bannon et al v. NCAA et al, U.S. District Court,
Northern District of California, No. 09-03329.


NEW YORK, NY: Accord Over Firefighters Discrimination Case Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis of the Eastern District of New
York granted Plaintiff-Intervenors' motions in the case UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, and THE VULCAN SOCIETY, INC., for
itself and on behalf of its members, JAMEL NICHOLSON, and RUSEBELL
WILSON, individually and on behalf of a subclass of all other
victims similarly situated seeking classwide injunctive relief;
ROGER GREGG, MARCUS HAYWOOD, and KEVIN WALKER, individually and on
behalf of a subclass of all other non-hire victims similarly
situated; and CANDIDO NUNEZ and KEVIN SIMPKINS, individually and
on behalf of a subclass of all other delayed-hire victims
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Intervenors, v. THE CITY OF NEW
YORK, Defendant, NOS. 07-CV-2067 (NGG) (RLM), 13-CV-3123 (NGG)
(RLM) (E.D.N.Y.)

In 2007, the United States of America brought suit against the
City of New York, alleging that certain aspects of the City's
policies for selecting entry-level firefighters for the New York
City Fire Department (FDNY) violated Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sections 2000e, et seq., as amended.
The Vulcan Society, Inc. and several individuals intervened as
plaintiffs, alleging similar disparate impact claims and also
alleging claims of disparate treatment on behalf of a class of
black entry-level firefighter candidates, bringing all claims
under various federal, state, and local laws.

Proceedings were bifurcated and on July 2009, the court granted
summary judgment in favor of the United States' and plaintiff-
intervenors' Title VII disparate impact claims, finding the City
liable. Subsequently, in January 2010, the court granted summary
judgment in favor of plaintiff-intervenors' various disparate
treatment claims, and plaintiff-intervenors' disparate impact
claims brought pursuant to the New York State Human Rights Law and
New York City Human Rights Law.

The court issued an Initial Remedial Order which explains that
claimants were entitled to two broad categories of relief: (1)
prospective injunctive relief to ensure future compliance with
Title VII; and (2) individual compensatory, "make whole" relief
for the individual victims of the City's discrimination.
In August 2011, the court held a remedial-phase bench trial, and
ordered prospective injunctive relief in a Remedial Order and
Partial Judgment, Permanent Injunction, & Order Appointing Court
Monitor. The court appointed a Court Monitor to oversee the City's
compliance with the Remedial Order.

On appeal, the Second Circuit reversed the court's granting of
summary judgment only with respect to plaintiff-intervenors'
disparate treatment claims, finding that a trial was needed to
determine whether the City had acted with discriminatory intent.
The federal district court issued a Modified Remedial Order and
Partial Judgment, Permanent Injunction, & Order Appointing Court
Monitor on June 6, 2013, which incorporated the Second Circuit's
modifications as well as proposed amendments from the Court
Monitor and the parties.

On remand, plaintiff-intervenors and the City reached an agreement
to settle plaintiff-intervenors' disparate treatment claims
through injunctive relief. On April 22, 2014, they jointly moved
for preliminary approval and entry of the Intent Stipulation which
the court granted. After a notice-and-objection period, plaintiff-
intervenors moved for final approval and entry of the Intent
Stipulation. The court held a fairness hearing on October 1, 2014,
at which plaintiff-intervenors and the City argued in support of
final entry of the Intent Stipulation, and some class members
lodged oral objections thereto. The court held open the record
until October 15, 2014, at 5:00 p.m., for any additional written
statements in support of or opposition to final approval and entry
of the Intent Stipulation.

On December 1, 2014, in accordance with the court's direction,
plaintiff-intervenors and the City submitted a proposal regarding
the provision of notice of the Intent Stipulation and a
supplemental fairness hearing to 23 class members who had not
previously received proper notice thereof. The court approved the
proposal submitted by the parties and scheduled the Supplemental
Fairness Hearing. The court held the supplemental fairness hearing
on February 20, 2015, at which, after remarks by the court,
plaintiff-intervenors and the City again spoke in support of final
entry of the Intent Stipulation.

Judge Garaufis granted plaintiff-intervenors' first and second
motions for final entry of intent stipulation and in a separate
docket entry, the court contemporaneously approved and entered the
Stipulation to resolve Plaintiff-Intervenors' intentional
discrimination claims.

A copy of Judge Garaufis's memorandum and opinion dated June 5,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/lyMeFbfrom Leagle.com.

United States of America, Plaintiff, represented by Allan K.
Townsend, United States Department of Justice, Barbara A.
Schwabauer, U.S. Department of Justice, David Michael Eskew,
United States Attorneys Office, Elliot M. Schachner, United States
Attorneys Office, Eric Bachman, U.S. Department of Justice,
Jennifer Swedish, United States Department of Justice, Civil
Rights Division,Kathryn Ladewski, United States Department of
Justice, Civil Rights Division, Meredith L. Burrell, U.S.
Department of Justice, Michael J. Goldberger, United States
Attorneys Office, Raheemah Abdulaleem, US Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division & Sharon Seeley, US Department of Justice,
Civil Rights Division, Employment

Vulcan Society, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Allyson L.
Belovin, Levy Ratner, P.C., Anjana Samant, Center for
Constitutional Rights, Beth A. Kaswan, Scott + Scott, LLP, Dana E
Lossia, Levy Ratner, P.C., Darius Charney, Center for
Constitutional Rights, Ghita Schwarz, Center for Constitutional
Rights, Judith S Scolnick, Scott and Scott, LLP, Leon Friedman,
Offices of Leon Friedman, Richard A. Levy, Levy Ratner P.C.,
Robert H. Stroup, Levy Ratner P.C., Shayana Devendra Kadidal,
Center for Constitutional Rights & Chauniqua Danielle Young,
Center for Constitutional Rights

Marcus Haywood, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Allyson L.
Belovin, Levy Ratner, P.C., Anjana Samant, Center for
Constitutional Rights, Beth A. Kaswan, Scott + Scott, LLP, Dana E
Lossia, Levy Ratner, P.C., Darius Charney, Center for
Constitutional Rights, Ghita Schwarz, Center for Constitutional
Rights, Judith S Scolnick, Scott and Scott, LLP, Richard A. Levy,
Levy Ratner P.C.,Robert H. Stroup, Levy Ratner P.C. & Shayana
Devendra Kadidal, Center for Constitutional Rights

Candido Nunez, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Allyson L.
Belovin, Levy Ratner, P.C., Anjana Samant, Center for
Constitutional Rights, Beth A. Kaswan, Scott + Scott, LLP, Dana E
Lossia, Levy Ratner, P.C., Darius Charney, Center for
Constitutional Rights, Ghita Schwarz, Center for Constitutional
Rights, Judith S Scolnick, Scott and Scott, LLP, Richard A. Levy,
Levy Ratner P.C., Robert H. Stroup, Levy Ratner P.C., Shayana
Devendra Kadidal, Center for Constitutional Rights &Chauniqua
Danielle Young, Center for Constitutional Rights

Roger Gregg, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Allyson L.
Belovin, Levy Ratner, P.C., Anjana Samant, Center for
Constitutional Rights, Beth A. Kaswan, Scott + Scott, LLP, Dana E
Lossia, Levy Ratner, P.C., Darius Charney, Center for
Constitutional Rights, Ghita Schwarz, Center for Constitutional
Rights, Judith S Scolnick, Scott and Scott, LLP, Richard A. Levy,
Levy Ratner P.C.,Robert H. Stroup, Levy Ratner P.C. & Shayana
Devendra Kadidal, Center for Constitutional Rights.

Jamel Nicholson, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Beth A.
Kaswan, Scott + Scott, LLP, Dana E Lossia, Levy Ratner, P.C.,
Richard A. Levy, Levy Ratner P.C. & Chauniqua Danielle Young,
Center for Constitutional Rights

Rusebell Wilson, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Beth A.
Kaswan, Scott + Scott, LLP, Dana E Lossia, Levy Ratner, P.C.,
Richard A. Levy, Levy Ratner P.C. & Chauniqua Danielle Young,
Center for Constitutional Rights

Kevin Walker, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Dana E Lossia,
Levy Ratner, P.C. & Richard A. Levy, Levy Ratner P.C.
Kevin Simpkins, Intervenor Plaintiff, represented by Dana E
Lossia, Levy Ratner, P.C., Richard A. Levy, Levy Ratner P.C.,
Shayana Devendra Kadidal, Center for Constitutional Rights &
Chauniqua Danielle Young, Center for Constitutional Rights

City of New York, Defendant, represented by Georgia Mary Pestana,
Office of the Corporation Counsel, Jessica Giambrone, New York Law
Dept., Kami Zumbach Barker, NYC Law Department,Kathleen Marie
Comfrey, Office of the Corporation Counsel, Keri Reid McNally, New
York City Law Department, Leah Sharon Schmelzer Serrano, New York
City Law Department, Patricia B. Miller, NYC Corporation Counsel,
Vivien V. Ranada, The City of New York Law Department, William
S.J. Fraenkel, Corporation Counsel of the City of NY, Yuval
Rubinstein, New York City Law Department & Benjamin J. Traverse,
NYC Law Department


NORTH CAROLINA: Court Certifies Troopers' Suit Over Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
ABC 13 reported that a lawsuit seeking more money for North
Carolina state troopers now has class action status.

Waynesville attorney David Wijewickrama is one of the lawyers
involved in the case.  It all started with 50 troopers on board.
Now, he says a judge has heard testimony and is giving the case
class action status with 800 troopers involved.

Wijewickrama says some troopers started with salaries around
$35,000 a year, but expected to make upper 50s with step raises.
He says the state hasn't delivered on those promises, causing
hardship for many troopers.

"They're unable to provide for their families, basic needs for
their health care, for their heating fuel, for their food,"
Wijewickrama said.

He says there's no excuse, especially with a $450 million state
budget surplus.

"It is a clear choice that the state is making to not honor their
promises. It's appalling and disgusting," Wijewickrama said.

Residents like Dianne Burnette agree.

"I mean if they was promised something they should get what
they're promised," Burnette said.

Wijewickrama says some troopers have quit taking higher paying
jobs at North Carolina police departments. All troopers can opt
out of the class action lawsuit. A hearing on the merits of the
case is likely by this Fall.

The state says it doesn't comment on pending litigation.


PAPA JOHN'S: "Perrin" Stayed Pending SC Ruling in "Bouaphakeo"
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Fleissig of the Eastern District of Missouri,
Eastern Division, granted in part defendants' motion to stay the
case of WILLIAM TIMOTHY PERRIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PAPA JOHN'S
INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants, NO. 4:09-CV-01335-AGF
(E.D. Mo.)

Plaintiffs brought a class and collective actions against
defendants Papa John's International, Inc. and Papa John's USA,
Inc., asserting claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., and the minimum wage laws of five
states, Missouri, Arizona, Florida, Illinois, and Maryland.
Plaintiffs are current and former delivery drivers, who alleges
that defendants violated the laws by underestimating plaintiffs'
automotive expenses for reimbursement purposes, and consequently,
failing to pay them minimum wage.

The court conditionally certified the FLSA collective action based
on plaintiffs' allegation that the drivers were similarly situated
in that they were all subject to a single policy which under-
reimbursed them for vehicle expenses, decreasing their hourly pay
below their respective minimum wages. After discovery was
conducted against the opt-in class, plaintiffs moved to certify
the five state-law classes under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3), which the court certified.

After discovery, defendants moved to decertify the class and
collective actions, asserting two main arguments:

     (1) that individualized issues will predominate because
plaintiffs must demonstrate that their individual vehicle expenses
caused them to receive less than minimum wage, and that even if
individual plaintiffs can estimate these expenses by reasonable
inference, they may not do so using group-wide averages based on
statistical samples and composite evidence, as plaintiffs purport
to do, and

     (2) that, even under plaintiffs' theory of the case, the
class impermissibly contains uninjured members who lack standing
because they suffered no minimum wage violation in any workweek.

Defendants moved to stay the case pending the decision of the
United States Supreme Court in Bouaphakeo v. Tyson Foods, Inc.,
arguing that the Supreme Court's decision in Bouaphakeo will
provide controlling precedent regarding the two issues raised in
their decertification motions, and that staying this case pending
the Supreme Court's decision will ultimately save the parties and
the court significant time and resources.

Judge Fleissig granted defendants' motion to stay in part.
Notwithstanding the stay, the court will rule on the parties'
pending motions for partial summary judgment, and the parties
shall proceed in good faith with a mediation conference. However,
all other proceedings in the case are stayed until such time as
the Supreme Court comes to a final disposition of Tyson Foods,
Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, No. 14-1146.

Within seven days following the Supreme Court's ruling in Tyson
Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, No. 14-1146, defendants shall file an
appropriate motion as to the lifting of the stay.

All deadlines previously set, including the hearing on defendants'
motions to decertify set for June 25, 2015 and the trial date of
August 10, 2015, were vacated, to be reset as appropriate upon
lifting of the stay.

A copy of Judge Fleissig's memorandum and order dated June 19,
2015, is available at http://is.gd/LcWoxbfrom Leagle.com.

William Timothy Perrin, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett J.
Vahle, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE AND
SIEGEL, LLP, George A. Hanson, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A.
Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW
FIRM LLC & Mark A. Potashnick, WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK

Bryan Keith Harris, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders,
STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP,Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee
R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC,Mark A. Potashnick,
WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK & Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP

Andrew Massin, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders,
STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP,
Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC, Mark A. Potashnick,
WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK & Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP

James E. Welsh, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders,
STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP,Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee
R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC,Mark A. Potashnick,
WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK & Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP

Merle Summers, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders,
STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP,
Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC, Mark A. Potashnick,
WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK & Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP

Aaron Mayhew, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE
AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R.
Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC & Mark A. Potashnick,
WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK

Tyrone Bowden, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders,
STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP,
Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC & Mark A. Potashnick,
WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK

Dan Benton, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE
AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R.
Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC & Mark A. Potashnick,
WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK

William E. Cox, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders,
STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP,
Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC, Mark A. Potashnick,
WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK & Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP

Dexter Bradley, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders,
STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP,
Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC, Mark A. Potashnick,
WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK & Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP

Tom Mitchell, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE
AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R.
Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC & Mark A. Potashnick,
WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK

Tim Bauer, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE
AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R.
Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC, Mark A. Potashnick, WEINHAUS
AND POTASHNICK & Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP

Kevin Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders,
STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP,
Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC, Mark A. Potashnick,
WEINHAUS AND POTASHNICK & Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP

Joel Bass, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE
AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R.
Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC, Mark A. Potashnick, WEINHAUS
AND POTASHNICK & Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP

Virginia Gardner, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders,
STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP,Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee
R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC & Richard M. Paul, III,
PAUL MCINNES LLP

Marniz Moose, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE
AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R.
Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC, Mark A. Potashnick, WEINHAUS
AND POTASHNICK & Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL MCINNES LLP

Brad Parks, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE
AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R.
Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC & Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL
MCINNES LLP

David Travis, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE
AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R.
Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC & Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL
MCINNES LLP

Aleczander Vanselow, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders,
STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP,Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee
R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC & Richard M. Paul, III,
PAUL MCINNES LLP

James Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders,
STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP,
Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC &Richard M. Paul, III,
PAUL MCINNES LLP

Scott Dzik, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE
AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R.
Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC & Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL
MCINNES LLP

Christopher Tindale, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders,
STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP,Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee
R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC & Richard M. Paul, III,
PAUL MCINNES LLP

Stacey Grissom, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders,
STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP,
Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC &Richard M. Paul, III,
PAUL MCINNES LLP

Donna Greene, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE
AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R.
Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC &Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL
MCINNES LLP

Brian Phillips, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders,
STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP,
Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC & Richard M. Paul,
III, PAUL MCINNES LLP

Robert Duncan, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders,
STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP,
Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC &Richard M. Paul, III,
PAUL MCINNES LLP

Amariah Anderson, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders,
STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP,Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee
R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC & Richard M. Paul, III,
PAUL MCINNES LLP

Daniel Sitter, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders,
STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP,
Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC & Richard M. Paul,
III, PAUL MCINNES LLP

Casey Breiten, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders,
STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP,
Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC &Richard M. Paul, III,
PAUL MCINNES LLP

Sylvester Powell, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders,
STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP,Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee
R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC & Richard M. Paul, III,
PAUL MCINNES LLP

James Van Deven, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders,
STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP,Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee
R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC & Richard M. Paul, III,
PAUL MCINNES LLP

Andre Boury, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE
AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R.
Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC & Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL
MCINNES LLP

Morgan Jones, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders, STUEVE
AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee R.
Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC &Richard M. Paul, III, PAUL
MCINNES LLP

Benjamin Kopriva, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders,
STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP,Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lee
R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC & Richard M. Paul, III,
PAUL MCINNES LLP

Kenneth Manzo, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders,
STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP,
Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC &Richard M. Paul, III,
PAUL MCINNES LLP

Tamika Shears, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders,
STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP,
Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC &Richard M. Paul, III,
PAUL MCINNES LLP

Branden Twist, Plaintiff, represented by Bradley T. Wilders,
STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP, Lauren A. Wolf, STUEVE AND SIEGEL, LLP,
Lee R. Anderson, CIVIL JUSTICE LAW FIRM LLC &Richard M. Paul, III,
PAUL MCINNES LLP

Papa John's International, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Jennifer Kate Oldvader, OGLETREE AND DEAKINS, L. Gray Geddie, Jr.,
OGLETREE AND DEAKINS, P.C., Patrick F. Hulla, OGLETREE AND
DEAKINS, Rodney A. Harrison, OGLETREE AND DEAKINS, Sarah J.
Kuehnel, OGLETREE AND DEAKINS, David L. Schenberg, OGLETREE AND
DEAKINS & Eric A. Todd, OGLETREE AND DEAKINS

Papa John's USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric A. Todd,
OGLETREE AND DEAKINS,Jennifer Kate Oldvader, OGLETREE AND DEAKINS,
L. Gray Geddie, Jr., OGLETREE AND DEAKINS, P.C., Patrick F. Hulla,
OGLETREE AND DEAKINS, Rodney A. Harrison, OGLETREE AND DEAKINS,
Sarah J. Kuehnel, OGLETREE AND DEAKINS & David L. Schenberg,
OGLETREE AND DEAKINS


PEPSI LIPTON: Sued for Falsely Marketing Tea as "All Natural"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reports that The Pepsi Lipton Tea
Partnership markets its Pure Leaf products as "all natural," but
the beverages contain chemically processed citric acid, a class
claims in New York court.


PHILIP MORRIS: Judge Removed From Tobacco Case Due to 'Hostility'
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Palm Beach Post reported that a Palm Beach County circuit judge
has been thrown off a tobacco case because an attorney claimed she
tearfully told him she would never forgive him for blocking her
dreams of becoming a federal court judge.

Saying it was bound to accept the allegations lodged against
Circuit Judge Meenu Sasser as true, the 4th District Court of
Appeal said she should not rule on a $4 million jury verdict that
Fort Lauderdale attorney Scott Schlesinger's law firm won against
two cigarette-makers.

The move, the appellate judges noted, is unusual. "Though we
previously concluded that any hostility arising from the events of
the judicial nominating process did not warrant disqualification,
the judge allegedly opened the door and displayed the depth of
such hostility by failing to remain silent despite the passage of
time," the opinion said.

After Schlesinger's law partners won a $4 million jury verdict for
Debra Perrotto from R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris for causing
her husband's death from smoking, Schlesinger and the Boca Raton
woman approached Sasser to thank her. In an affidavit submitted to
the appeals court, Perrotto said Sasser said she would "never
forgive (Schlesinger) for what he did to me."

It appeared Sasser was "highly emotional and on the verge of tears
as she said this," Perrotto said in the affidavit.

The alleged exchange, which was confirmed by Schlesinger's law
partner, illustrates ongoing animosity and justifies Perrotto's
claims that she can't get a fair shake from Sasser, the appeals
court said. The ruling means another judge will review the trial
transcript to rule on motions filed by R.J. Reynolds and Philip
Morris, which are asking that the verdict Perrotto won be thrown
out.

The bad blood between Schlesinger and Sasser dates back to a 2013
tobacco trial when Sasser threw out a $1.2 million verdict
Schlesinger won against cigarette-makers for his Delray Beach
client, David Cohen, whose wife died from lung cancer. Sasser
claimed Schlesinger's high-octane closing arguments were
misleading and constituted a fraud upon the court.

Later, Sasser submitted the order as a writing sample to a
committee reviewing her application to become a federal court
judge. Schlesinger responded by sending the committee a letter,
challenging the facts in Sasser's order and questioning her
suitability to become a federal court judge.

"Generally, a trial judge's expression of dissatisfaction with
counsel or a party's behavior does not warrant disqualification,"
the appeals court ruled. "Here, the judge's comments, as alleged
by (Perrotto) and her trial attorney in their sworn affidavits,
rebut any assumption of non-prejudice."

The case was one of two tobacco lawsuits the appeals court
decided. It also threw out a $1.5 million verdict that widow
Beatrice Skolnick, of Boca Raton, won in 2013. When she received
$60,000 from a New York manufacturer in a settlement of an
unrelated 2002 class-action lawsuit, she agreed not to sue other
companies over her husband's death from lung cancer. The appeals
court said she could raise other claims against tobacco companies
in a new trial.


RDSL URBAN: "Bascome" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Whitney Bascome and Destiny Crespo, on behalf of themselves,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated v.
RDSL Urban NY LLC, d/b/a Open Loop New York, Case No. 1:15-cv-
05822 (S.D.N.Y., July 24, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

RDSL Urban NY LLC operates a sightseeing "hop on hop off" line of
bus tours throughout New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd Dickerson, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
      1010 Northern Blvd. Ste. 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: td@employmentlawyernewyork.com


RIDGEWOOD, CA: Court Rules Water Rates Class Suit Can Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Nichols, writing for The Bergen Dispatch, reported that an
appellate panel ruled that the courts had jurisdiction to hear a
law suit filed by Wyckoff Glen Rock, and Midland Park against the
village of Ridgewood.  Ridgewood Water utility provides potable
water for the residents of Wyckoff Glen Rock, and Midland Park.

A Bergen County Supervisor Court judge had ruled the matter should
be handed by the Board of Public Utilities.

In 2010, Wyckoff, Glen Rock, and Midland Park filed a suit against
the Village of Ridgewood claiming it raise the rate on the water
supply to provide tax relief to residents. The suit says Ridgewood
"improperly permitted the Utility to include millions of dollars
Ridgewood's municipal operating expenses, such as the cost of
providing health insurance to non-utility employees, police
department salaries and expenses, fire department salaries and
expenses, and the fees charged by Ridgewood's corporation
counsel."

By ordinance, Ridgewood inceased the water rates charged by the
Utility to its customers by a total of thirty-one percent over the
course of 2010, 2011, and 2012.

The plaintiffs claim Ridgewood "used the Utility as a means of
clandestine form of municipal tax relief to its own residents,
consequently imposing an improper tax burden on plaintiffs'
residents in the form of higher water rates"

"We do not find any legal or public policy basis to conclude the
BPUhas the greater expenses expertise at performing this type of
statutory analysis than the Supreme Court. Indeed, it is the
function of the Supreme Court to engage in this kind of analysis,"
wrote the court. "We hold the motion judge erred in applying the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction to transfer this case to the
BPU."


SC EDISON: Class Wants Utility to Pay for Power Surges
------------------------------------------------------
Julianna Krolak, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported
that power surges repeatedly damage computers and other appliances
but Southern California Edison denies liability for them and
refuses to compensate injured customers, a class action claims.

Greg Nordyke claims power surges in June and December 2013 did
$3,000 in damages to electrical equipment in his Ventura home.

Ted Bauer claims a July 2014 power surge cost him $1,800.

The lead plaintiffs claim that "(d) despite the well-settled state
of the law in California, defendants SCE has routinely,
affirmatively, and uniformly misled its customers/ratepayers by
falsely stating that SCE is not strictly liable for damages caused
by a power surge."

They claim that SCE has equipment and procedures to track the
homes of customers affected by a power surge, but routinely denies
all claims for property damage unless it determines the surge was
caused by negligence.

SCE serves 14 million customers in 50,000 square miles.

Nordyke and Bauer seek class certification, costs of restoration,
repair and/or replacement, attorney's fees, and equitable relief.

They are represented by Allen Ball with Ball & Yorke in Ventura.

Parties to the lawsuit could not be reached for comment after
business hours.


SEATTLE SERVICE: Removed "Schaefer" Class Suit to M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Amanda Schaefer, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Seattle Service
Bureau, Inc. d/b/a National Service Bureau and State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Company, Case No. 15-CA-1577, was removed
from the Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and
for Lee County, Florida to the U.S. District Court Middle District
of Florida (Ft. Myers). The District Court Clerk assigned 2:15-cv-
00444-SPC-CM to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts insurance-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ernest H. Kohlmyer III, Esq.
      URBAN THIER & FEDERER, PA
      200 S Orange Ave Ste 2000
      Orlando, FL 32801-3418
      Telephone: (407) 245-8352
      Facsimile: (407) 897-8361
      E-mail: kohlmyer@urbanthier.com

         - and -

      Maria Alaimo, Esq.
      VILES & BECKMAN, LLC
      Suite A, 6350 Presidential Ct
      Ft Myers, FL 33919
      Telephone: (239) 334-3933
      Facsimile: (239) 334-7105
      E-mail: maria@vilesandbeckman.com


SELECTIVE SERVICES: Sued by Teen Girl Over Gender Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Esther Crain, writing for Yahoo Parenting, reported that women
have long been welcome to join all branches of the military, and
since the ban on combat was lifted in 2013, they've been able to
fight in battle for their country as well.

But only men are required to register for the draft through the
Selective Service System, which they must do after they turn 18,
even though the U.S. hasn't had a draft since 1973.

So when Elizabeth Kyle-LaBell, a recent high school grad from New
Jersey who is contemplating becoming a military veterinarian,
tried to register on the Selective Service's website, she was
barred from doing so as soon as she checked the box indicating her
sex.

Seventeen-year-old Elizabeth, who goes by Liz, says that's
discrimination. "I hadn't even entered my age yet when the website
directed me to a page saying I couldn't register," Kyle-LaBell
tells Yahoo Parenting. "I feel that if a woman wants to register
for the draft, she should be able to."

To overturn what she describes as a policy that violates women's
civil rights, Kyle-LaBell and her mom, Allison Kyle, filed a
class-action lawsuit against the Selective Service System. As a
minor, Kyle-LaBell wasn't able to file it herself, so her mother
filed on her behalf, she says.

"With both males and females available for such roles, the two
sexes are now similarly situated for draft registration purposes,
and there is no legitimate reason for the government to
discriminate against the female class, so equal protection
applies," the complaint, which identifies Kyle-LaBell by her
initials, E.K.L., states.


SERVERGY INC: Texas Atty. General Accused of Deceiving Investors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul J. Weber, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton had an investment opportunity: a
tech startup making data servers.  He told people he had put his
own money into Servergy Inc., according to prosecutors, and helped
persuade a state lawmaker and another wealthy businessman to buy
more than $100,000 in shares.

All the while, Mr. Paxton was actually being compensated by
Servergy, according to an indictment unsealed on Aug. 3, the same
day the state's top law enforcement officer turned himself into
jail on securities fraud charges.  The alleged deception took
place before Paxton took office in January.  If convicted, the
rising Republican star could face five to 99 years in prison.

It was a low moment for a tea-party favorite who is barely seven
months on the job, and whom GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz
candidate called a "tireless conservative warrior" when Paxton ran
for office last year.

Attorneys for Mr. Paxton, 52, said he will plead not guilty to two
counts of first-degree securities fraud and a lesser charge of
failing to register with state securities regulators.

"He is looking forward to the opportunity to tell his side of the
story in the courtroom," said Dallas attorney Joe Kendall, adding
that a judge instructed Mr. Paxton's lawyers not to comment
further.

A frenzy of media outside the Collin County jail in Paxton's
hometown was reminiscent of a year ago, when then-Texas Gov. Rick
Perry was booked after being indicted on charges of abusing his
power with a 2013 veto.  But whereas Perry defiantly welcomed the
cameras at jail, Mr. Paxton ducked reporters after his booking,
driving away in a black SUV.

Nor did top Texas Republicans rush to Mr. Paxton's side with the
same outrage as they did with Perry, whose case has not yet gone
to trial.  Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, who last held the attorney
general job, issued only a brief statement that urged the justice
system to play out.

"I recognize this is the first step in a lengthy process and will
respect that process as it moves forward," Mr. Abbott said.

The Collin County normally jail makes suspects wear a towel around
their neck before taking their mug shot.  Mr. Paxton was allowed
to be photographed without one, allowing his suit and red tie to
be part of his booking photo.

Just as Mr. Perry was allowed to finish his term after his
indictment, Mr. Paxton can stay on the job while his criminal case
proceeds.  However, some are already calling for him to resign,
including several Democratic Party officials.

In the middle of a heated Republican primary last year, Mr. Paxton
admitted to violating state securities law by not telling
regulators that he got commissions for referring law clients to a
financial planner.  He paid a $1,000 fine and chalked it up as an
administrative oversight.

Texas Democratic Party Chairman Gilberto Hinojosa issued a
statement on Aug. 3 calling Paxton "an admitted lawbreaker" who
"needs to spare Texas the embarrassment of a drawn out legal fight
in the public eye, take responsibility, and accept the
consequences."

Questions about Mr. Paxton's financial dealings shadowed him
during his first seven months on the job. His aides have denied
any wrongdoing by Paxton and described the criminal investigation
led by two special prosecutors as a political smear campaign.

According to prosecutors, Republican state Rep. Byron Cook was
among those duped.  While serving in the Legislature in 2011,
Mr. Paxton told Mr. Cook that he personally invested in Servergy
and offered Cook a chance to buy more than $100,000 of stock in
the company, according to the indictment.

Unbeknownst to Mr. Cook, Mr. Paxton had been given more than
100,000 shares of Servergy stock, according to the indictment.

Mr. Cook's lawyer, Terry Jacobson, declined to comment on Aug. 3.

The Associated Press reported last month that Mr. Paxton listed
himself as a shareholder in Servergy and that his name was among
search terms that Servergy attorneys used to satisfy a federal
subpoena.  The company is under investigation by the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission over allegations of deceiving
investors.

While top Republican leaders were cautious in their remarks about
Paxton, the Texas GOP struck a defiant tone, calling the grand
jury process "sloppy" and praising Paxton's performance in office.

Mr. Paxton joins other current or recent state attorneys general
facing criminal charges.

In Pennsylvania, a grand jury in January recommended that state
Attorney General Kathleen Kane face charges over allegations of
engaging in a cover-up and lying about her role in a grand jury
leak to a newspaper.  Ms. Kane, a Democrat who took office in
2013, has not been charged and has denied breaking any laws.
Utah's previous two attorneys generals were also arrested last
summer on charges of running pay-to-play schemes during their
combined 13 years in office.


SMITH & NEPHEW: Must Face Rhea Drugstore's TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon P. McCalla of the Western District of
Tennessee, Western Division, denied defendant's motion to dismiss
in the case RHEA DRUGSTORE, INC., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SMITH & NEPHEW, INC.,
Defendant. SMITH & NEPHEW, INC., Third-Party Plaintiff, v. MODERN
MARKETING CONCEPTS, INC., Third-Party Defendant, NO. 2:15-CV-
02060-JPM-TMP (W.D. Tenn.)

Rhea Drugstore sued Smith & Nephew, alleging that the latter
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section
227, by faxing unsolicited advertisements to the former and others
similarly situated without providing the opt-out notice required
by statute.

Plaintiff alleges that those faxes are exemplary of the junk faxes
defendant sends. As individual and class relief, plaintiff
requested the court to determine that the action may be maintained
as a class action under Rule 23, ask the court of an award for
damages for each violation in the amount of actual monetary loss
or $500, whichever is greater, and treble those damages, enjoin
defendant from additional violations and other legal and equitable
relief as the court may deem appropriate, including costs and
attorney's fees.

On February 4, 2015, Rhea filed a motion for class certification
and to stay briefing, explaining that it had filed the motion out
of an abundance of caution in light of a potential mootness
problem.

S&N filed a motion to dismiss on April 9, 2015, on the ground of
mootness and lack of subject matter and argued that it provided
Rhea with an offer of judgment pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure on March 19, 2015. According to S&N, it
offered:

     (1) to pay damages to Rhea Drug for its individual claims
under the TCPA in the amount of $5,000;

     (2) to be enjoined from sending facsimiles in violation of
the TCPA; and

     (3) to pay Rhea Drug all of its costs accrued as well as its
reasonable attorneys' fees to be determined by the court.

A copy of Judge McCalla's order dated June 10, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/QMKRNBfrom Leagle.com.
Rhea Drugstore, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by John Charles
Williams -- jwilliams@cbplaw.com -- at CARNEY BATES PULLIAM PLLC
Smith & Nephew, Inc., Defendant, represented by Glen G. Reid, Jr.
-- greid@wyattfirm.com --  Kacey Leigh Faughnan --
kfaughnan@wyattfirm.com -- at WYATT TARRANT & COMBS, LLP
Smith & Nephew, Inc., ThirdParty Plaintiff, represented by Glen G.
Reid, Jr. -- greid@wyattfirm.com --  Kacey Leigh Faughnan --
kfaughnan@wyattfirm.com -- at WYATT TARRANT & COMBS, LLP
Modern Marketing Concepts, Inc., ThirdParty Defendant, represented
by Don Lester Hearn, Jr. --  dhearn@glankler.com -- at GLANKLER
BROWN, PLLC; Randall William Slade --
randall.slade@francomoroney.com -- at FRANCO & MORONEY LLC


SOCIAL SECURITY: Confiscated Tax Refunds with 'Insufficient' Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Fisher, writing for The Salem News, reported that the Social
Security Administration confiscated $75 million in tax refunds due
to about 300,000 Americans without giving those taxpayers
sufficient information to figure out why their money was being
taken, according to a new report by the agency's inspector
general.

After The Washington Post reported on Social Security's drive to
collect decades-old debts from hundreds of thousands of people
whose parents allegedly received overpayments, the agency
temporarily halted the collections and the inspector general
launched an investigation into the practice.

The review concludes that in more than half of the 300,000 cases,
the letters Social Security sent to taxpayers informing them of
debts were returned as undeliverable. In almost 8,000 of those
cases, the government went ahead and confiscated tax refunds due
to people who had never received any notice of a debt, the report
said.

Even when taxpayers did receive the letters, "the information was
insufficient for the debtor to recall the debt and the
circumstances surrounding the debt," according to the report by
Inspector General Patrick O'Carroll Jr.

In 73 percent of the cases, the debts being collected were between
21 and 40 years old, and many of the addresses Social Security
used for the taxpayers were that old.

The inspector general said Social Security needs to do a better
job of explaining to taxpayers how they came to owe the government
money, but the report does not address the central complaint of a
separate class-action lawsuit against the agency: whether it is
fair or constitutional for the government to collect debts
incurred by a taxpayer's parent.

The report says Social Security operated within the law when it
asked the Treasury Department to seize taxpayers' tax refunds to
pay off debts stemming from overpayments Social Security made more
than a decade ago. The collections started after a single sentence
was tucked into the farm bill in 2011 lifting the 10-year statute
of limitations on debts to Uncle Sam.

"The inspector general's report doesn't address the fairness of
going after the child of someone who incurred the debt, and we
contend that is a serious constitutional violation," said Robert
Vogel, a Washington lawyer who filed the federal class-action suit
on behalf of taxpayers who had their refunds confiscated.

Vogel's clients include a Takoma Park woman, Mary Grice, who had
never received notice of a debt when her tax refunds from the IRS
and the state of Maryland were intercepted by the U.S. government.
Social Security says someone in Grice's family was overpaid $2,996
in 1977. Thirty-seven years later, the government took its money,
yet it has never shown Grice evidence of who initially received
excess benefits. And Grice has never found out why the government
came after her, rather than her surviving siblings, for money that
presumably was paid to their mother after their father died. She
was 4 when her father died.

After The Post reported on cases like Grice's, Social Security
announced it would freeze collection efforts on the decades-old
debts "to ensure public confidence." But within a few months, the
agency sent letters reminding people whose debts had been frozen
that those debts remain "subject to future collection." Some
taxpayers whose seized refunds were returned to them because they
had not been given notice of the debt received new demands for
payment a few months later.

In response to the inspector general's report, Social Security
pledged to resolve the address problems and said it would look
into revising the notices to provide a better explanation of why
the debts existed.

The agency told the inspector general it has not resumed
collection efforts on the old debts and is still "exploring policy
or legislative changes to limit [the program] for childhood
beneficiaries."

On its Web site, the Federal Trade Commission advises Americans
that "family members typically are not obligated to pay the debts
of a deceased relative from their own assets." But Social Security
officials say that if children indirectly received assistance from
public dollars paid to a parent, the children's money can be
taken, no matter how long ago an overpayment occurred.

The inspector general found that many of the old debts were
incurred by children who received benefits after a parent died;
the surviving parent or guardian got the money on behalf of the
minor child. In some cases, checks kept coming to that adult even
when the child went off to college  --  a move that should have
ended the benefits. The report said Social Security was within its
rights to try to recoup those payments.

To those who have had their money confiscated, the main question
in the dispute remains unresolved.

"The reason these people didn't get the notice of their alleged
debt is because it was their parents' debt," Vogel said. "This
policy is a scam, and it pits children against their parents."


SOLAZYME INC: Aug. 24 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of Solazyme, Inc. ("Solazyme") between February 27, 2014
and November 5, 2014.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California. If you purchased or otherwise
acquired Solazyme shares between February 27, 2014 and November 5,
2014, your rights may be affected by this action. To get more
information go to: http://zlk.9nl.com/solazyme-szymor contact
Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by
telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is
no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that the Company made materially false
and/or misleading statements and omitted material information
concerning the production capacity of its oil producing facility
in Moema, Brazil. In particular, it is alleged that Solazyme
improperly concealed ongoing construction delays caused by
inadequate access to electricity and steam utility services.

If you suffered a loss in Solazyme you have until August 24,
2015to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New
Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have
extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving
financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in
securities and shareholder lawsuits. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.


ST CHARLES, MO: Dismissal of Suit Over License Taxes Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Philip M. Hess of the Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern
District, Division Two, affirms the trial court's judgments of
dismissal in the appealed case TONY BETHMAN, et al., Appellants,
v. SALLY A. FAITH, et al., Respondents, NO. ED101896 (Mo. Ct.
App.)

On December 30, 2013, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, filed a petition for writ of mandamus
against the Mayor of the City of St. Charles, the Director of
Finance, and several Council Members.

Plaintiffs sought to compel the collection of allegedly unpaid
license taxes "from all persons responsible for the payment of the
same under Chapter 620 from January 1, 2009 to the present.
Plaintiffs alleged that defendants had failed to properly collect
license taxes from "all entities engaged in the business of a
restaurant as defined in Chapter 620.

The following day, plaintiffs filed a "Class Action Petition," on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, against the
City of St. Charles and numerous current and former city
officials, seeking actual and punitive damages, attorney's fees,
and costs based on claims of negligence and respondeat superior
for failing to properly and fully collect the license tax from
2009 to the present.

In January 2014, the trial court entered a preliminary order
directing defendants to take all actions to collect the license
tax as provided for in Chapter 620 of the ordinances of the City
of St. Charles from all entities located in the City, which
operate a restaurant as defined in Chapter 620.

Defendants filed a motion to quash the preliminary order and
motions to dismiss both the mandamus action and the civil suit
asserting that Plaintiffs lacked standing and failed to state a
claim. The trial court granted defendants' motions and dismissed
both actions based on the grounds alleged. Plaintiffs appeal.

Judge Hess affirms the trial court's judgments of dismissal. A
copy of Judge Hess's decision dated June 9, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/NEtdYNfrom Leagle.com.

The Court of Appeals of Missouri, Eastern District, Division Two
panel consists of Presiding Judge Sherri B. Sullivan and Judges
Mary K. Hoff and Philip M. Hess.


STAR NISSAN: Faces "Tam" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Tam and Lei Guo a/k/a Raymond Guo, on behalf of themselves
and similarly situated v. Star Nissan, Inc. d/b/a Star Nissan, et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-04363 (E.D.N.Y., July 25, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wage and
overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek.

Star Nissan, Inc. owns and operates Nissan Service Center located
at 171-20 Station Road, Flushing, NY 11358.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Troy, Esq.
      TROY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Telephone: (718) 762-1324
      Facsimile: (718) 762-1342
      E-mail: tsaihongjanq@hotmail.com


TEXAS A&M: Faces "Posey" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelli Posey, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Texas A&M University and Texas A&M University
Health Science Center, Case No. 3:15-cv-02465-K (N.D. Tex., July
24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants are university systems organized and managed by the
State of Texas and a subdivision of the state headquartered in
College Station, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Vincent James Bhatti, Esq.
      Ditty Susan Bhatti, Esq.
      HE BHATTI LAW FIRM PLLC
      14785 Preston Road, Suite 550
      Dallas, TX 75254
      Telephone: (214) 253-2533
      Facsimile: (214) 204-0033
      E-mail: vincent.bhatti@bhattilawfirm.com
              ditty.bhatti@bhattilawfirm.com


TRADE STREET: Labaton Sucharow Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP filed an amended class action complaint
asserting claims against the members of Trade Street Residential,
Inc.'s Board of Directors (Board) for breaching their fiduciary
duties to its shareholders in connection with the proposed sale of
Trade Street Residential, Inc. (Trade Street) to Independent
Realty Trust, Inc. (IRT). The complaint also charges certain hedge
funds holding large interests in Trade Street with aiding and
abetting those breaches and unjust enrichment.

According to the complaint, on May 11, 2015, Trade Street
announced that its Board agreed to sell the company to IRT in a
deal in which current Trade Street stockholders would receive a
mix of cash and IRT stock purportedly valued at $7.60 (the
proposed transaction) for each share of Trade Street common stock.
The complaint alleges that the actual consideration being offered
to Trade Street shareholders is presently closer to $7.00 per
share. In addition to providing current Trade Street stockholders
grossly inadequate consideration, the complaint alleges, the
proposed transaction is the end result of a self-interested scheme
by which two hedge funds, Senator Investment Group and Monarch
Alternative Capital, surreptitiously took control of Trade Street
and are now able to quickly and profitably exit their investment
through a forced sale of the company. The complaint further claims
the proposed transaction is unfair to stockholders due to the
involvement of a third hedge fund, BHR Capital, which owns more
than five percent of Trade Street's common stock and (1) began
purchasing substantial amounts of IRT stock while Trade Street was
exploring a deal with the company and (2) had a conflicted
representative on Trade Secret's Board that the Board members
inexplicably permitted to be involved in the proposed transaction
process.

Plaintiffs, represented by Labaton Sucharow, seek to recover
monetary damages resulting from the proposed transaction as well
as all unjust benefits obtained by the three named hedge funds.


TRANSAMERICA PREMIER: Removed "Rogers" Suit to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Mona Rogers, on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated v. Transamerica Premier
Life Insurance Company and Does 1 through 100 inclusive, Case No.
CIVDS 1508469, was removed from the San Bernardino County Superior
Court to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Eastern Division - Riverside). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-01473 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts insurance-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mona Rogers
      PRO SE

The Defendant is represented by:

      Joshua E. Anderson, Esq.
      SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
      555 West 5th Street, Suite 4000
      Los Angeles, CA 90013-1010
      Telephone: (213) 896-6000
      Facsimile: (213) 896-6600
      E-mail: janderson@sidley.com


TRI-MED HOME: Faces "Persaud" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Taragini Aneesa Persaud and Benices Infante, on behalf of
themselves individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-
situated v. Tri-Med Home Care Services, Inc. and Vinod Sinha, Case
No. 2:15-cv-04341 (E.D.N.Y., July 24, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Tri-Med Home Care Services, Inc. operates an assisted living
company with a staff of hundreds of home health aides who provide
healthcare support to the Defendants' customers twenty-four hours
a day, seven days a week.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd Dickerson, Esq.
      BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES
      1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
      Great Neck, NY 11021
      Telephone: (516) 248-5550
      Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
      E-mail: td@employmentlawyernewyork.com


TRUECAR INC: Levi Korsinsky Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of TrueCar, Inc. ("TrueCar") between May 16, 2014 and
May 20, 2015.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. If you purchased or otherwise acquired
TrueCar securities between May 16, 2014 and May 20, 2015, your
rights may be affected by this action. To get more information go
to: HTTP://ZLK.9NL.COM/TRUECAR-TRUE or contact Joseph E. Levi,
Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212)
363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) TrueCar's business
practices violated unfair competition and deceptive trade practice
laws; (b) TrueCar acts as a dealer and broker in car sales
transactions without proper licensing, in violation of various
States' laws that govern car sales; and as a result of the above
(c) the Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

If you suffered a loss in TrueCar you have until July 27, 2015to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New
Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have
extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving
financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in
securities and shareholder lawsuits. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.


UBER: Faces $7.3-Mil. Fine and California Ban
---------------------------------------------
The Week reported that Uber could be fined $7.3 million and
suspended from operating in California over its failure to give
regulators enough information about its service and operations.

Karen V Clopton, a judge at the California Public Utilities
Commission -- the regulator that allows Uber to operate in the
state -- recommended the penalty, arguing that the increasingly
beleaguered company had not filed all the reports required by
state laws.

She ruled that Uber's months-long refusal to provide crucial data
was in violation of the 2013 legislation that authorised ride-
hailing firms to operate in the state, the Los Angeles Times
reports. The requested information includes details of the number
of requests for rides from people with wheelchairs and how many
such rides were completed.

The global taxi-hailing giant, whose headquarters are in San
Francisco, said it would appeal. In a prepared statement, a
spokeswoman called the decision "deeply disappointing". The
appeals process, which could take several months, will decide
whether the fine and suspension are enforced.

Uber has been hit with a series of threats from regulators,
drivers and taxi unions in recent months. If the firm is suspended
in its own backyard, it would be a symbolic and demoralising blow
as it attempts to deal with pushback from taxi operators in many
of the 300+ cities it operates in across six continents.

In the UK, Conservative MP Charles Walker said that London would
have to choose between backing its traditional black cabs or Uber,
but could not have both plying for trade alongside each other.

"Walker said while cab drivers had to pass the Knowledge and
undergo background and financial checks, technology start-up Uber
was brazenly ignoring the rules and flooding the capital with
mini-cab drivers," the Daily Telegraph reports. "Walker said if
Uber was preferred there should be a genuine free for all,
releasing cab drivers from the current regulations on themselves
and allowing them to put 'any old piece of rubbish on the road'."

Meanwhile, a legal bid to force Uber to treat drivers as employees
rather than freelancers could massively inflate the company's
costs (see next page). If drivers were redefined as employees, the
company could be forced to offer a range of perks including health
insurance and reimbursements for fuel and other expenses.

And in a separate case, Uber has reached a settlement with the
family of a six-year-old girl who died after being hit by a driver
offering rides to its customers.

The family of Sofia Liu began legal action after the accident,
which took place in San Francisco on New Year's Eve 2013. Although
the driver was not carrying passengers at the time, the driver was
logged into the Uber app and had said he was available for hire,
Reuter's reports.

In a statement, Uber said: "The Lius suffered a terrible tragedy
and our hearts go out to them. While we cannot ease their pain, we
do hope that this settlement helps the family move forward."

The terms of the settlement will remain confidential at the
request of the family.


UBS AG: Faces Sonterra Capital Suit Over Euroyen-Price Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sonterra Capital Master Fund, Ltd. and Hayman Capital Management,
L.P., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
UBS AG, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-05844-UA (S.D.N.Y., July 24,
2015), arises from Defendants' unlawful combination, agreement,
and conspiracy to fix and restrain trade in, and intentional
manipulation of Euroyen TIBOR (the Tokyo Interbank Offered Rate),
Yen-LIBOR (the London Interbank Offered Rate for the Japanese
yen), and the prices of Euroyen-based derivatives during the
period of at least January 1, 2006 through at least June 30, 2011.

UBS AG is a Swiss banking and financial services company
headquartered in Zurich and Basel, Switzerland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Vincent Briganti, Esq.
      Geoffrey M. Horn, Esq.
      Peter D. St. Phillip, Esq.
      Raymond Girnys, Esq.
      Christian Levis, Esq.
      LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C.
      One North Broadway, 5th Floor
      White Plains, NY 10601
      Telephone: (914) 997-0500
      E-mail: ghorn@lowey.com
              vbriganti@lowey.com
              pstphillip@lowey.com
              rgirnys@lowey.com
              clevis@lowey.com


UNITED SHIP: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Hernandez" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arnaldo Hernandez Hernandez and all others similarly situated v.
United Ship Service Corp. a/k/a United Ship Service Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-22759-DPG (S.D. Fla., July 24, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work performed
in excess of 40 hours weekly.

United Ship Service Corp. is a Florida corporation that provides
marine products and services.

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


UNITES STATES: Food Stamp Processing Delays Suit Can Be Filed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Cohen, writing for WNPR.org, reported that advocates for the
poor have argued that the state takes too long to process food
stamp applications, and that people should have a right to sue.
State attorneys have pushed back. But, a federal appellate court
ruled that applicants can in fact file a class action against the
state.

"When we filed the case in March of 2012, Connecticut was ranked
last in the country in processing food stamps," said Lucy Potter,
a staff attorney with Greater Hartford Legal Aid.

Potter said a judge in 2012 found that as much as 40 percent of
the state's food stamp applications were being processed late. The
deadline is seven days for urgent cases, and 30 days for other
cases. Potter said urgent case are when someone's rent and
utilities add up to more than their income.

Altogether, over 400,000 people get assistance each year to buy
food. Benefits can be used at grocery and convenience stores and
some farmers markets.

Potter said the state has improved its timeliness since her agency
filed suit back in 2012. Now, Potter said an overwhelming majority
of the applications are completed in time. Still, the state hasn't
reached its mandated goals.

"They're at like 87 percent for seven-day cases, and about 94
percent for 30-day cases," Potter said. "For three years they've
been fighting us and also trying to comply. They've made
significant progress."

In an email, a spokesman for the state Department of Social
Services said his agency is reviewing the appellate court's
decision.  But it also said the state has made "tremendous
improvement" when it comes to processing food stamp applications

Potter said that doing better isn't necessarily good enough, and
this latest legal victory promises an avenue for legal relief.


UNITED PARCEL: Sued by EEOC Over Religious Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Bogage, writing for The Washington Post, reported that
federal labor regulators announced that they are suing United
Parcel Service, the country's largest private package delivery
service, for violating its employee's religious rights.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission alleges in its
suit that the company declined to hire applicants and promote
employees because their religious dress habits conflicted with its
uniform policy.

The UPS uniform policy requires supervisors and employees who
regularly come in contact with customers to shave their beards,
according to the EEOC's complaint filed in the Eastern District
Court of New York. Male employees in the same roles are also
barred from growing their hair below collar-length.

"UPS has persistently enforced its appearance policy even when
that policy conflicts with the religious beliefs of its applicants
and employees," said Robert D. Rose, the regional attorney for
EEOC's New York District Office, in a statement. "No person should
be forced to choose between their religion and a paycheck, and
EEOC will seek to put an end to that longstanding practice at
UPS."

UPS did not respond to a request from The Washington Post for a
copy of its uniform policy. It said in a statement that it doesn't
discriminate against its employees.

Regulators are seeking an injunction against UPS, which employs
more than 300,000 people nationwide, and is seeking back pay and
damages for impacted employees and applicants.

UPS spokesman Steve Gaut in a statement said the company works
with employees who request accommodations for their religious
customs such as how they dress and time off needed for prayer.

"UPS respects religious differences and is confident in the
legality of its employment practices. UPS is proud of the
diversity of its workforce," Gaut said in a statement.

He said the company would review the case and "defend its
practices that demonstrate a proven track record for
accommodation."

The EEOC said it the class-action suit on behalf of Bilal Abdullah
and Muhammad Farhan, Muslims who grow beards in accordance with
their faith.

According to the complaint, Abdullah, of Rochester, N.Y., was told
by a supervisor in 2005, "God would understand," if he shaved his
beard to get a job, or that he could apply for a lower-paying job
if he wanted to keep the beard.

Farhan, of Dallas, in 2007, was sent home by a supervisor when he
reported to work on his first day in a new role because of his
beard, the complaint says. He asked five supervisors including
human resources personnel for UPS's religious accommodation
paperwork, but was told the documents were not available.

He was not provided religious accommodation forms until he filed a
discrimination charge with the EEOC, according to the complaint.


VANDAHL ENGINEERING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Tricia Ayala v. Vandahl Engineering and Sales, LTD, Peter A. Van
Wolvelaerd and Jane Doe Van Wolvelaerd, Case No. 2:15-cv-01415-JZB
(D. Ariz., July 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The Defendants are in the business of providing general
construction, construction management, and design/build services
to customers around Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sean Christopher Davis, Esq.
      Trey A. R. Dayes III, Esq.
      PHILLIPS DAYES NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM PC
      3101 N Central Ave., Ste. 1500
      Phoenix, AZ 85012
      Telephone: (800) 562-5297
      Facsimile: (602) 288-1664
      E-mail: SeanD@phillipsdayeslaw.com
              treyd@phillipsdayeslaw.com


VIDEOTRON: Faces Class Suit Over Failed TV Coverage
---------------------------------------------------
Steve Faguy, writing for Montreal Gazette, reported that
Videotron's failure to provide its television subscribers in
greater Montreal with sufficient community access television could
end up hurting the company financially, if a judge accepts a
proposed class-action lawsuit filed by a group that wants to
replace MAtv with its own community TV channel.

As part of the conditions it agrees to abide by to offer a
television service in Canada, Videotron is required by the
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission to
devote five per cent of its gross revenue from TV services to
Canadian programming, and can choose to spend up to two of that
five per cent on a community TV channel, which devotes at least 45
per cent of its programming to community access television.

In February, following a complaint by a grassroots community
organization, the CRTC determined that Videotron's MAtv service in
Montreal fell well short of its obligations, broadcasting mainly
professional in-house programs that were not local and did not
adequately reflect Montreal's diversity. It gave Videotron until
August to come into compliance.

Independent Community Television, the group that launched the
complaint, argues in the motion filed with the court on that
Videotron's subscribers should be compensated.

"The CRTC's diligence exposes that consumers have paid Videotron
for a service that was not delivered by Quebec's largest cable
provider," explained Lorraine Guay, a member of ICTV's board.

ICTV is requesting reimbursement equivalent to revenue spent on
MAtv for the past three years for subscribers in greater Montreal,
which it roughly estimated around $3.6 million, pro-rated to the
hours per week of community programming that should have been
produced, plus damages for breach of charter rights to
unrepresented minorities, plus $2 million in moral and punitive
damages.

Videotron responded to the motion with a brief statement saying
that MAtv "MAtv is a community channel and its programming has
always revolved around the interests of the local communities it
serves" and that it rejected the claims that form the basis for
the motion.

The class action would need to be approved by a judge before it
can proceed. None of the claims have been proven in court. ICTV is
represented by the law firm Grenier Verbauwhede, which has won
class action suits against Bell and Telus in the past over
telecommunications services to consumers. Andre Desrochers, who
founded a community television service in Chƒteauguay and is a
longtime Videotron subscriber, has been named the designated
plaintiff in the case.

Lawyer Bruno Grenier says he is unaware of any similar case of a
cable distributor being sued by subscribers for failing to meet
CRTC requirements. "It is, I think, the first time this has been
tried," he said. But "we studied the file, and we found that the
file was winnable." Costs are assumed by the law firm, which
doesn't get paid unless its lawsuit is successful.

News of the proposed class action drew a comment from Quebec
solidaire MNA Amir Khadir, who got in a dig at a political rival
while saying MAtv has failed in its mandate.

"I invite my colleagues in the National Assembly, and particularly
opposition leader Pierre Karl Peladeau, to reflect on the place of
community television in the context of media convergence,"
Khadir's statement read. Peladeau is the controlling shareholder
of Quebecor Inc., which owns Videotron.


VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS: 11th Cir. Upheld Decision in Fat Loss Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard Goldberg of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in the
case ADAM KARHU, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VITAL PHARMACEUTICALS,
INC., d.b.a. VPX Sports, Defendant-Appellee, NO. 14-11648 (11th
Cir.)

Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (VPX) markets a dietary supplement
called VPX Meltdown Fat Incinerator (Meltdown), which it
advertises for fat loss.   Adam Karhu purchased the supplement in
reliance on Meltdown's advertising. Karhu brought class-action
suit, alleging that Meltdown's advertising is false, insofar as
Meltdown does not aid fat loss.

Karhu moved to certify class of nationwide Meltdown purchasers as
well as a subclass of New York purchasers.

The district court denied Karhu's motion, holding that the
proposed classes satisfied neither the implicit ascertainability
requirement under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23, nor the requirements
listed in either Rule 23(b)(2) or (3).

Karhu moved to alter or amend the order denying certification
pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1)(C). Karhu argued that new evidence
showed that VPX sold Meltdown primarily to third-party retailers,
such that class members could be identified by subpoenaing records
from retailers. According to Karhu, proposing that class members
could be identified using the records of third-party retailers was
sufficient to satisfy the ascertainability requirement. The
district court denied Karhu's motion for reconsideration.

Karhu appeals and claims that the district court erred to hold
that (1) neither proposed class satisfied the ascertainability
requirement, and (2) the New York subclass failed to satisfy Rule
23(b)(3)'s requirements.

Judge Goldberg holds that the district court's ascertainability
decision was proper and therefore affirms the decision without
reaching the district court's Rule 23(b)(3) decision.

A copy of Judge Goldberg's unpublished opinion dated June 9, 2015,
is available at http://is.gd/MIaO6zfrom Leagle.com.


W&W ENERGY: Faces "Zook" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Zook, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated v.
W&W Energy Services, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00605-RP (W.D. Tex.,
July 24, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay its sand coordinators overtime as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

W&W Energy Services, Inc. owns and operates an oil field service
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: ADunlap@fibichlaw.com
              mjosephson@fibichlaw.com

         - and -

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


WELLS FARGO: Judge Narrows Claims in "Foley" Suit
-------------------------------------------------
District Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the District of Massachusetts
ruled on the parties' motions in the case JONATHAN FOLEY,
Plaintiff, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., s/h/m to Wachovia Mortgage
FSB, f/k/a World Savings FSB, Defendant, CIVIL ACTION NO. 13-
12107-LTS (D. Mass.)

Jonathan Foley purchased a home in Hull, Massachusetts in March
2005. To finance the purchase, Foley obtained a Pick-a-Payment
loan. Foley lost his job in October 2008, but continued to pay his
mortgage. Foley made several partial mortgage payments between
October 2010 and April 2011. Foley continued to call the bank to
request loan modifications, but the bank's representatives told
him that he was not qualified for any propriety loan modifications
and that the only relief available was the federal government's
Home Affordable Mortgage Program (HAMP).  Foley requested to
participate in HAMP, and the bank's representatives stated that a
HAMP modification application would be sent to him.

A class action suit was initiated in the Northern District of
California regarding Pick-a-Payment loans were Foley was a member
but plaintiff did not know of the suit. The class representatives
and the bank reached a settlement agreement, which the court
approved in May 2011. The parties agree that Foley is a member of
Settlement Class B. As a Settlement Class B member, Foley was
entitled to have Wells Fargo consider him for a HAMP modification
and, if he did not qualify or accept a HAMP modification, to have
Wells Fargo consider him for a MAP2R modification.

Unaware of the settlement, Foley made continued talks to defendant
Wells Fargo about the HAMP modification, where the latter also
continued to deny Foley on any modification thru letters. After
sometime, Foley became aware of the settlement and asked the
bank's representative if he had been considered for MAP2R. The
representative said that Foley had not been considered for MAP2R
and told Foley that as he had been rejected from other
modification programs, he had also been rejected from MAP2R.

With the threat of foreclosure looming, Foley filed a pro se suit
in Plymouth Superior Court in Massachusetts, and alleges breach of
contract (count one), violation of Mass. Gen. Law ch. 244,
Sections 35A and 35B (count two), violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch.
93A (count three), and breach of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing (count four). Foley alleged that the bank misled him
about his rights under the settlement agreement, misguided him
during the modification process, and altogether ignored his
modification requests. Foley's complaint ultimately sought
specific performance of the settlement agreement and some
unspecified damages. Foley also moved for a temporary restraining
order and preliminary injunction, in an effort to stave off the
foreclosure scheduled to take place about a week later.

Wells Fargo removed the case to federal court, where Foley renewed
his motion for preliminary injunctive relief. After a hearing on
Foley's motion for injunctive relief, the district court
temporarily enjoined Wells Fargo from foreclosing on Foley's home,
pending an evidentiary hearing on the motion. While the injunction
motion was in abeyance, Wells Fargo moved to dismiss Foley's
complaint for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6), to which Foley filed a written opposition.

The case was then reassigned to a different district judge, where
the court denied Foley's motion for a preliminary injunction and
dismissed Foley's action in its entirety three weeks later,

The district court dismissed Foley's contract claims count one for
breach of contract and count four for breach of the covenant of
good faith and fair dealing. The court dismissed count two for
violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 244, Sections35A and 35B because
it found that the Home Owners' Loan Act (HOLA) preempted the state
statutes. The court dismissed count three for violation of Mass.
Gen. Laws ch. 93A because Foley failed to send Wells Fargo a
demand letter, which is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit.

Foley obtained counsel and filed an appeal with the First Circuit.
Foley did not appeal the district court's dismissal of his chapter
93A claim. The First Circuit decided Foley's appeal in November
2014, reversing in part the district court's dismissal. The First
Circuit upheld the district court's dismissal of count two for
violation of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 244, Sections 35A and 35B, but on
a different basis.

Upon remand, Foley again filed for a preliminary injunction,
seeking to enjoin Wells Fargo from foreclosing on his home. Wells
Fargo failed to submit an opposition to the preliminary
injunction, despite the court's allowance of a motion for an
extension of time to file. At the motion hearing, the court issued
a temporary restraining order, enjoining Wells Fargo from
foreclosing Foley's home until the court resolved his motion for a
preliminary injunction. At the motion hearing, Wells Fargo raised
the issue of transfer for the first time in litigation and moves
for a partial dismissal on counts two and three of Foley's
complaint, for violations of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 244, Sections 35A
and 35B and Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A, respectively.

Judge Sorokin denies Wells Fargo's motion to transfer and denies
in part and allows in part Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss. Judge
Sorokin allows Foley's motion for preliminary injunction and
enjoins Wells Fargo from foreclosing on the residence. Plaintiff
shall pay $1,377.86 per month effective July 1, 2015, toward the
mortgage.

A copy of Judge Sorokin's order dated June 5, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/GTAOBnfrom Leagle.com.

Jonathan Foley, Plaintiff, represented by:

Valeriano Diviacchi, Esq.
DIVIACCHI LAW OFFICE
111 Beach St.
Boston, MA 02111
Telephone: 617-542-3175

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., other Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, formerly
known as World Savings Bank, FSB other Wells Fargo Bank Southwest,
N.A., Defendant, represented by David M. Bizar --
dbizar@seyfarth.com -- Jeremy R. Bombard -- jbombard@seyfarth.com
-- at Seyfarth Shaw, LLP


WILLOWICK, OH: Residents Refile Class Suit Over Sewer System
------------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Read, writing for The News-Herald, reported that A class-
action lawsuit filed by Willowick residents who claim city
officials did not do enough to stop the sewer system from backing
up into hundreds of people's homes after a rainstorm has been
refiled.

Ronald Drive resident Kimberley Ragazzo dismissed the lawsuit in
May, but she refiled it July 14 in Lake County Common Pleas Court.

According to the suit, about 200 Willowick homes became flooded
with sewage, pollutants, water, feces, dirt, debris and noxious
odors repeatedly since June 2010, and the city failed to take
necessary steps to fix the situation.

A July 20, 2013, rainstorm resulted in structural damage of homes,
destruction of personal property, a reduction in market value of
their properties, lost wages and emotional stress, according to
the lawsuit filed by attorneys Phillip Ciano, Andrew Goldwasser,
R. Eric Kennedy and Daniel Goetz.


WORLD WRESTLING: Blamed by Mom for Death of Doink the Clown
-----------------------------------------------------------
The wrestler known as the villainous Doink the Clown died of a
drug overdose caused by depression from traumatic brain injuries
in the ring, his family claims in a lawsuit against World
Wrestling Entertainment, reports David Lee, writing for Courthouse
News Service.

The wrestler's mother Michelle James sued World Wrestling
Entertainment in Federal Court on June 26 on behalf of her two
young grandchildren, Teagan and Matthew Osborne.

Her son, Matthew Wade Osborne, wrestled for WWE from 1985 to 2007
and died from a painkiller overdose in 2013 in his Plano home.  He
was 57.

James claims WWE covered up the dangers of head trauma in
professional wrestling, "in a campaign of misinformation and
deception" that kept her son from understanding the consequences
of his injuries.

She claims her son did not take action to mitigate his injuries
because of "misleading statements" by WWE and its failure to
"assess, diagnose and treat concussive and sub-concussive
injuries."

"WWE concealed important medical information, including the
effects of multiple head traumas, and prematurely allowed Matthew
Osborne to return to the ring or to practice, even when injured,"
the 72-page complaint states.  "As a result, wrestlers, including
Matthew Osborne, suffered serious permanent and debilitating
injuries and damages."

James claims that WWE's chief doctor, Dr. Joseph Maroon, was
"involved in prior concussion and head trauma cover ups, including
attempts to discredit research related to CTE (chronic traumatic
encephalopathy)."

Maroon is not named as a defendant.

James claims WWE's Wellness Program, which helps former wrestlers
with problems of drug and alcohol abuse, failed to advise former
wrestlers, including her son, about head injuries.

"WWE has stated that it has 'the finest monitoring program in
American Sports,' thereby admitting the undertaking by WWE to
monitor its wrestler's health and safety, and establishing its
duty to provide full and accurate information to its wrestlers,"
the complaint states.  "WWE's Wellness Program served to deceive
Matthew Osborne by providing a false sense of security and
assurance that his health and safety was being adequately
monitored, both in the ring and as a former wrestler.  The
Wellness Program, by purporting to protect Matthew Osborne, merely
led him into not seeking adequate treatment or otherwise
protecting his health."

James lists 40 other former WWE wrestlers who died prematurely of
suicide, heart attacks or drug addiction.  Including WWE stars
Randy Savage, Eddie Guerrero, Ultimate Warrior, Davey Boy Smith
and Chris Benoit, the wrestlers form an "unfortunately prevalent
case of mortality" in the company, James says.

"The death rate among WWE wrestlers has yet to be subjected to
statistical analysis by an expert qualified to conduct a such a
study; however, upon information and belief, such an analysis
would indicate that the death rate among wrestlers exceeds that of
any similar athletic profession or any professional sport," the
complaint states.

"WWE, as organizer and purveyor of professional wrestling in which
head trauma is a regular and repeated occurrence, had a duty to
act in the best interest of its wrestlers' health and safety --
including to keep wrestlers informed of the neurological risks
associated with head injuries suffered while wrestling for WWE.
WWE had superior knowledge and access to information, and should
have disclosed that information to Matthew Osborne and not
concealed such information."

James said her son did not wear helmets when he trained with the
WWE, though the company now has its wrestlers wear helmets during
training in company facilities.

The complaint includes an image from this season's WWE's "Tough
Enough" reality television show, showing aspiring wrestlers
wearing black helmets in the ring.

James' lawsuit comes eight months after former WWE wrestlers sued
the company in a federal class action in Portland, Ore., with
similar claims: that the company hid and denied evidence and
medical research regarding traumatic brain injuries.

WWE attorney Jerry S. McDevitt, with K&L Gates in Pittsburgh,
downplayed James' lawsuit June 26 evening as a money grab.

He said it was the latest in attorneys' attempts at "drumming up
people" who are "looking for NFL money."

He said the lawsuits have no merit.

"They are all different from the NFL," McDevitt said.  "We never
had anyone claim they had these kinds of injuries until [these
out-of-town attorneys] did.  They find the destitute people who
have no money and told them there's money to be made.  That is
what is going on and I feel bad for these families, because they
think they will make money off of this, and they will not."

James seeks actual and punitive damages for fraudulent
concealment, fraud by omission, negligent misrepresentation,
fraudulent deceit, negligence, gross negligence and wrongful
death.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shezad A. Malik, Esq.
          DR SHEZAD MALIK LAW FIRM
          4925 Greenville Ave., #320
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 390-3189
          Facsimile: (888) 210-9693
          E-mail: DrMalik@ShezadMalik.com

               - and -

          R. Christopher Gilreath, Esq.
          GILREATH & ASSOCIATES
          One Memphis Place200 Jefferson Avenue, Suite 711
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 527-0511
          Toll Free: (800) 637-7024
          Facsimile: (901) 527-0514

               - and -

          Erica Mirabella, Esq.
          MIRABELLA LAW, LLC
          132 Boylston Street, 5th Floor
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 580-8270
          E-mail: erica@mirabellaLLC.com

               - and -

          Konstantine W. Kyros, Esq.
          KYROS LAW
          17 Miles Rd.
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (800) 934-2921


XOMA CORPORATION: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph F. Markette, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Xoma Corporation, John W. Varian, and Paul D. Rubin,
Case No. 3:15-cv-03425 (N.D. Cal., July 24, 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.

Xoma Corporation is a biotech drug company that purports to
discover and develop innovative antibody-based therapeutics.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark Punzalan, Esq.
      PUNZALAN LAW, P.C.
      600 Allerton Street, Suite 201
      Redwood City, CA 94063
      Telephone: (650) 362-4150
      Facsimile: (650) 362-4151
      E-mail: markp@punzalanlaw.com


YELP: Sued Over Unapid Tips for Food Delivery
---------------------------------------------
Jeff John Roberts, writing for Fortune, reported that on-demand
services are growing all the time -- and so is the number of wage-
related lawsuits against them. Yelp is the latest to be sued.

When Yelp bought Eat24 for $134 million in February, the
restaurant review site got a foothold in the growing niche for
food-delivery services. But the purchase appears to have come with
a nasty legal headache: Eat24 drivers filed a lawsuit seeking at
least $5 million in unpaid tips.

According to a complaint filed in San Francisco federal court,
Eat24 encouraged its customers to enter a tip amount for the food
they ordered, but then failed to pass on that money, or even
notify the drivers of the tip in the first place.

The purported class action complaint was filed by Steven Kay of
Oakland and Esteban Polonski of South San Francisco, who are
seeking money from Yelp on behalf of other drivers across the
country. Both men say they work for the car-hire service SideCar.

Yelp has since responded to the lawsuit with an email statement,
suggesting the drivers' quarrel may instead be with Sidecar:

"This case appears to be brought by drivers who contract with
Sidecar to deliver food for orders made through Eat24. To be
clear, neither Yelp nor Eat24 hire or contract with any delivery
drivers. For Sidecar-made deliveries, Eat24 sends all tips to
Sidecar, who we understand then distributes those tips to Sidecar
drivers. We believe this lawsuit has no merit."

Yelp did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The
company is one of a growing number of firms to get tangled up in
labor issues related to tips and the so-called on-demand economy.
Food-delivery service Seamless said it would revise its tip
practices in response to pressure from New York's attorney
general; meanwhile, car-share services Uber and Lyft are in the
midst of high-stakes litigation in which tips are at issue.

In the Yelp case, the drivers' complaint includes a screenshot of
the Eat24 interface, which invites customers to put in various tip
amounts as a percentage or else "pay with cash." It also includes
a Twitter exchange in which Eat24 appears to assure the customer
that the drivers receive the tips.

"This statement was false, however, because drivers do not
actually receive the tips that Eat24 collects on their behalf,"
the lawsuit claims. "Eat24 also conceals the fact that a customer
has tipped a driver through its website, as the tip total is not
included on the delivery invoices that drivers may see when
picking up food to deliver."

The lawsuit comes as additional bad news for Yelp, whose share
price declined significantly earlier amid reports its CEO had
stopped looking for a buyer for the site.

The lawsuit accuses Yelp of breach of contract, unjust enrichment
and of breaching various California state laws. You can read the
complaint for yourself below (I've underlined some of the relevant
bits).


YINGLI GREEN: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP reminds investors of the upcoming
deadline in the class action complaint filed on behalf of a class
comprising purchasers of the securities of Yingli Green Energy
Holding, Co. ("Yingli" or the "Company") between March 18, 2014
and May 15, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Investors are
encouraged to contact Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP prior to the
July 27, 2015 lead plaintiff deadline.

Yingli is one of the world's largest solar panel producers, and
operates on a high volume, low margin business model. Unbeknownst
to investors the Company allegedly has overstated certain material
accounting items, suffers severe liquidity problems, and may not
be able to keep its production lines running in the near term.

The complaint filed on behalf of Yingli investors alleges that
defendants made allegedly false and/or misleading statements
and/or allegedly failed to disclose that: (1) that the Company was
inappropriately recognizing revenue; (2) that the Company had no
reasonable prospects to collect on certain accounts receivable
based on historical customer conduct; (3) that the Company was no
longer able to borrow from commercial banks to fund its
operations; (4) that the Company's inability to raise additional
capital or borrow funds from commercial banks threatened its
ability to continue as a going concern; and, (5) that, as a result
of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Yingli's business,
operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis. When the truth was revealed to investors, the
Company's share price declined sharply thereby damaging investors.

If you purchased Yingli securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than July 27, 2015, if you have
information or would like to learn more about these claims, or
have any questions concerning this announcement, please contact
Lesley Portnoy, of Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, 1925 Century Park
East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150,
Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com,
or visit our website at http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire
by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and
number of shares purchased.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.


* Steven Schienvar Joins Risk Settlements as Managing Director
--------------------------------------------------------------
Risk Settlements is proud to announce that Steven Schienvar has
joined the company as a Managing Director. Prior to joining Risk
Settlements, Steven spent 13 years at AIG in various positions
including President of AIG's assumed reinsurance division (AIG Re)
and EVP COO & Chief Risk Officer of AIG Risk Finance, an
alternative solutions insurance group. "We are thrilled to have an
industry veteran like Steven join our organization. His
quantitative and qualitative underwriting expertise enables us to
provide a higher level of risk assessment and more risk transfer
options," says Joel Fineberg, co-founder.  "I'm very excited to
join an innovative group that designed the nation's first post-
loss class action settlement insurance product (CASI) available in
the market place. Our proprietary algorithms, industry-leading
database and unique approach to settlement design create effective
solutions for companies facing intractable class action
liability," said Schienvar.

About Risk Settlements:  Risk Settlements, the industry leader in
class action settlements, evaluates settlement options and
customizes the optimal settlement structure that reduces risk and
translates into immediate cost savings. In order to lock in the
savings, Risk Settlements designed CASI, which is the nation's
only insurance product that transfers all the volatility
associated with claims payments to a global A-rated insurer. By
working with Risk Settlements, companies save money, cap risk and
remove all financial volatility and uncertainty arising out of
class action settlements. As of July 1, 2015, Risk Settlements has
provided risk transfer for over $70M in class action settlement
liability.  For more information on Risk Settlements or the CASI
Product visit us at www.risksettlements.com.


* US Chamber of Commerce Lobbies Against Class Suits in UK Courts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Owen Bowcott, writing for The Guardian, reported that the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce is lobbying to prevent US-style class actions
being brought in the UK courts as litigation funding expands to
promote consumer rights.

Campaigning under the title Justice not Profit, the organization
is claiming that the Consumer Rights Act 2015 will open the door
to spurious legal claims that undermine the profitability of
business.

The UK litigation-funding industry has expanded rapidly in the
past few years. It is estimated to have amassed more than œ1bn in
capital to invest in court cases. Firms take on the costs and
risks of cases and in return receive a proportion of compensation
awarded in the final judgment.

Over the same period, legal aid for claimants in civil cases has
been repeatedly cut. Litigation funders, who operate like hedge
funds, mainly target very high-value cases and have now begun
repositioning themselves to take on mass lawsuits.

Relatively few class actions have been funded by private funders
in the UK so far. Bentham Europe, whose parent company is based in
Sydney, is coordinating legal action against Tesco for aggrieved
shareholders. The law firm Hausfeld is funding litigation by Apple
users who claim Google has breached their privacy.

But the Consumer Rights Act, which comes into force in October,
introduces an opt-out regime, so that claims for redress can be
brought on behalf of groups of individuals without the need to
identify all the claimants. Cases will be brought in the
Competition Appeal Tribunal.

The current opt-in regime, which is about to disappear, is deemed
not to be working and has resulted in only one collective action,
when which? Magazine sued JJB Sports for overcharging on England
and Manchester United replica football shirts. Other countries,
including Australia, Canada and Portugal, have already introduced
opt-in regimes.

The Justice not Profit campaign is calling for tighter regulation.
"Without adequate safeguards, the new 'opt-out' collective
litigation system in the UK creates a commercial opportunity for
'unregulated and predatory' hedge funds and other investment firms
with a specialized interest in litigation finance," claims the
organization.

It added: "Ever since the 2008 financial crash, use of third party
litigation funding, which is not regulated by the Financial
Conduct Authority, has significantly grown." It is demanding the
retention of the opt-in system.

Justice not Profit's website acknowledges that: "The campaign is
backed by the US Chamber Institute for Legal Reform, a not-for-
profit public advocacy organization affiliated with the US Chamber
of Commerce, the world's largest business federation, which
represents the interests of more than 3 million businesses of all
sizes, sectors and regions, in addition to state and local
chambers and industry associations.

"Many of the US Chamber's members are companies that conduct
substantial business in the UK or are British-owned and operated.
ILR is therefore deeply interested in the orderly administration
of justice in the UK."

Some UK law academics are backing the campaign. Dr. James Griffin,
a senior lecturer at the University of Exeter and expert in
intellectual property law, said: "I would like to see some
regulation that prevents groups of companies getting together and
trying to sue however they like. There needs to be some regulation
in my area."

Professor Richard Grimes, director of clinical programmes at the
University of York's law school is quoted on the Justice not
Profit website as saying: "Consumers should get fair compensation.
The question is if that will happen when there are no caps on
funders' fees."

Chris Bogart, chief executive of Burford Capital Ltd, one of the
largest litigation funders operating in the UK, said: "The US
Chamber of Commerce is a very well-funded lobbying group and
represents the interests of a small number of very large
companies.

"In their corporate self-interest they want as little litigation
as possible. [The British courts] seem eminently capable of
managing these issues. It's clearly the policy of the UK
government to encourage litigation funding."

The industry is self-regulated through the Association of
Litigation Funders. "There's no evidence of any problems in the
UK," Bogart added. "Litigation funding is a very small percentage
of an enormous market.

"Litigation is extremely expensive and means in many cases
consumers can't get redress. In the US, pretty much the only way
is through a class action," he said.

Bogart added that he had recently taken part in a class action
against a credit card company to recover disputed sums lost in
foreign exchanges. "I couldn't have recovered that relatively
small sum of $300 unless it was through collective action."

There is no sign of government concern over the issue. The
Ministry of Justice said it was a matter for the Department of
Business, Skills and Innovation.

A spokesperson for the department said: "We are not introducing a
US-style class actions regime. The Consumer Rights Act is about
getting a better deal for businesses and consumers. The current
opt-in regime isn't working, so we are transforming the system to
ensure consumers and small businesses can hold those that breach
competition law to account in the way big businesses can."

The business department has said there would be significant
safeguards to control the types of cases that will be brought in
the UK. Treble or exemplary damages charges will not be permitted,
cases will be restricted to the specialist Competition Appeal
Tribunal and claims will have to be certified that they are
representative of broader consumer problems and not vexatious.

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. to Appeal "Holdsworth" Decision
----------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. plans to pursue an appeal from a decision in the
asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Lee Holdsworth, according to the
Company's Form 8-K dated April 27, 2015, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015.

On July 31, 2013, a Buffalo, New York state court jury entered a
$3.1 million verdict against the Company in the Lee Holdsworth
claim. The Company filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn
the verdict, to grant a new trial, or to reduce the damages, which
the Company argues were excessive under New York appellate case
law governing awards for non-economic losses and further were
subject to settlement offsets. Post-trial motions were denied, and
the court will set a hearing to assess the amount of damages.
Plaintiffs requested judgment in the amount of $1.1 million, but
have amended that request to seek judgment in the amount of $1.7
million. The Company plans to pursue an appeal.

Crane Co., (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the
Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered
Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic
panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Settles "Garvin" Suit
------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. has settled the asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Lloyd
Garvin, according to the Company's Form 8-K dated April 27, 2015,
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April
30, 2015.

On September 11, 2013, a Columbia, South Carolina state court jury
in the Lloyd Garvin claim entered an $11 million verdict for
compensatory damages against the Company and two other defendants
jointly, and also awarded exemplary damages against the Company in
the amount of $11 million. The jury also awarded exemplary damages
against both other defendants. The Company filed post-trial
motions seeking to overturn the verdict, which were denied, except
that the Court remitted the compensatory damages award to $2.5
million and exemplary damages award to $3.5 million. Considering
settlement offsets, the Court further reduced the total damages
award to $3.5 million. The Company has settled the matter. The
settlement is reflected in the first quarter 2015 indemnity
amount.

Crane Co., (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the
Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered
Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic
panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Awaits Ruling in "DeLisle" Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. is awaiting a ruling on its appeal from a decision in
the asbestos-related lawsuit filed by Richard DeLisle, according
to the Company's Form 8-K dated April 27, 2015, filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30, 2015.

On September 17, 2013, a Fort Lauderdale, Florida state court jury
in the Richard DeLisle claim found the Company responsible for 16
percent of an $8 million verdict. The trial court denied all
parties' post-trial motions, and entered judgment against the
Company in the amount of $1.3 million. The Company has appealed.

Crane Co., (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the
Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered
Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic
panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Awaits Ruling in "Sweberg" Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. is awaiting ruling on its appeal from the $3.5 million
judgment entered in favor of asbestos claimant Ivan Sweberg,
according to the Company's Form 8-K dated April 27, 2015, filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30,
2015.

On June 16, 2014, a New York City state court jury entered a $15
million verdict against the Company in the Ivan Sweberg claim and
a $10 million verdict against the Company in the Selwyn Hackshaw
claim. The two claims were consolidated for trial. The Company
filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdicts, to
grant new trials, or to reduce the damages, which were denied,
except that the Court reduced the Sweberg award to $10 million,
and reduced the Hackshaw award to $6 million. Judgments have been
entered in the amount of $5.3 million in Sweberg and $3.1 million
in Hackshaw. The Company has appealed.

Such judgment amounts are not included in the Company's incurred
costs until all available appeals are exhausted and the final
payment amount is determined.

Crane Co., (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the
Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered
Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic
panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Incurs $18.3MM Fibro Costs at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. incurred a total of $18.3 million for gross settlement
and defense costs relating to asbestos claims and lawsuits,
according to the Company's Form 8-K dated April 27, 2015, filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30,
2015.

The gross settlement and defense costs incurred (before insurance
recoveries and tax effects) for the Company for the three-month
periods ended March 31, 2015 and 2014 totaled $18.3 million and
$20.5 million, respectively. In contrast to the recognition of
settlement and defense costs, which reflect the current level of
activity in the tort system, cash payments and receipts generally
lag the tort system activity by several months or more, and may
show some fluctuation from quarter to quarter. Cash payments of
settlement amounts are not made until all releases and other
required documentation are received by the Company, and
reimbursements of both settlement amounts and defense costs by
insurers may be uneven due to insurer payment practices,
transitions from one insurance layer to the next excess layer and
the payment terms of certain reimbursement agreements. The
Company's total pre-tax payments for settlement and defense costs,
net of funds received from insurers, for the three-month periods
ended March 31, 2015 and 2014 totaled $10.7 million and $12.9
million, respectively.

The amounts shown for settlement and defense costs incurred, and
cash payments, are not necessarily indicative of future period
amounts, which may be higher or lower than those reported.

Cumulatively through March 31, 2015, the Company has resolved (by
settlement or dismissal) approximately 110,000 claims, not
including the MARDOC claims. The related settlement cost incurred
by the Company and its insurance carriers is approximately $430
million, for an average settlement cost per resolved claim of
approximately $3,900. The average settlement cost per claim
resolved during the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012
was $3,800, $3,300 and $6,300, respectively. Because claims are
sometimes dismissed in large groups, the average cost per resolved
claim, as well as the number of open claims, can fluctuate
significantly from period to period. In addition to large group
dismissals, the nature of the disease and corresponding settlement
amounts for each claim resolved will also drive changes from
period to period in the average settlement cost per claim.
Accordingly, the average cost per resolved claim is not considered
in the Company's periodic review of its estimated asbestos
liability.

The Company has retained the firm of Hamilton, Rabinovitz &
Associates, Inc. ("HR&A"), a nationally recognized expert in the
field, to assist management in estimating the Company's asbestos
liability in the tort system. HR&A reviews information provided by
the Company concerning claims filed, settled and dismissed,
amounts paid in settlements and relevant claim information such as
the nature of the asbestos-related disease asserted by the
claimant, the jurisdiction where filed and the time lag from
filing to disposition of the claim. The methodology used by HR&A
to project future asbestos costs is based largely on the Company's
experience during a base reference period of eleven quarterly
periods (consisting of the two full preceding calendar years and
three additional quarterly periods to the estimate date) for
claims filed, settled and dismissed. The Company's experience is
then compared to the results of widely used previously conducted
epidemiological studies estimating the number of individuals
likely to develop asbestos-related diseases. Those studies were
undertaken in connection with national analyses of the population
of workers believed to have been exposed to asbestos. Using that
information, HR&A estimates the number of future claims that would
be filed against the Company and estimates the aggregate
settlement or indemnity costs that would be incurred to resolve
both pending and future claims based upon the average settlement
costs by disease during the reference period. This methodology has
been accepted by numerous courts. After discussions with the
Company, HR&A augments its liability estimate for the costs of
defending asbestos claims in the tort system using a forecast from
the Company which is based upon discussions with its defense
counsel. Based on this information, HR&A compiles an estimate of
the Company's asbestos liability for pending and future claims,
based on claim experience during the reference period and covering
claims expected to be filed through the indicated forecast period.
The most significant factors affecting the liability estimate are
(1) the number of new mesothelioma claims filed against the
Company, (2) the average settlement costs for mesothelioma claims,
(3) the percentage of mesothelioma claims dismissed against the
Company and (4) the aggregate defense costs incurred by the
Company. These factors are interdependent, and no one factor
predominates in determining the liability estimate. Although the
methodology used by HR&A can be applied to show claims and costs
for periods subsequent to the indicated period (up to and
including the endpoint of the asbestos studies), management
believes that the level of uncertainty regarding the various
factors used in estimating future asbestos costs is too great to
provide for reasonable estimation of the number of future claims,
the nature of such claims or the cost to resolve them for years
beyond the indicated estimate.

In the Company's view, the forecast period used to provide the
best estimate for asbestos claims and related liabilities and
costs is a judgment based upon a number of trend factors,
including the number and type of claims being filed each year; the
jurisdictions where such claims are filed, and the effect of any
legislation or judicial orders in such jurisdictions restricting
the types of claims that can proceed to trial on the merits; and
the likelihood of any comprehensive asbestos legislation at the
federal level. In addition, the dynamics of asbestos litigation in
the tort system have been significantly affected over the past
five to ten years by the substantial number of companies that have
filed for bankruptcy protection, thereby staying any asbestos
claims against them until the conclusion of such proceedings, and
the establishment of a number of post-bankruptcy trusts for
asbestos claimants, which are estimated to provide $36 billion for
payments to current and future claimants. These trend factors have
both positive and negative effects on the dynamics of asbestos
litigation in the tort system and the related best estimate of the
Company's asbestos liability, and these effects do not move in a
linear fashion but rather change over multi-year periods.
Accordingly, the Company's management continues to monitor these
trend factors over time and periodically assesses whether an
alternative forecast period is appropriate.

Each quarter, HR&A compiles an update based upon the Company's
experience in claims filed, settled and dismissed during the
updated reference period (consisting of the preceding eleven
quarterly periods) as well as average settlement costs by disease
category (mesothelioma, lung cancer, other cancer and non-
malignant conditions including asbestosis) during that period. In
addition to this claims experience, the Company also considers
additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as the nature
of the aging of pending claims, significant appellate rulings and
legislative developments, and their respective effects on expected
future settlement values. As part of this process, the Company
also takes into account trends in the tort system. Management
considers all these factors in conjunction with the liability
estimate of HR&A and determines whether a change in the estimate
is warranted.

Crane Co., (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the
Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered
Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic
panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Had $600MM Fibro Liability at March 31
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Crane Co. reported $600 million asbestos liability as of March 31,
according to the Company's Form 8-K dated April 27, 2015, filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on April 30,
2015.

With the assistance of Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Associates, Inc.,
effective as of December 31, 2011, the Company updated and
extended its estimate of the asbestos liability, including the
costs of settlement or indemnity payments and defense costs
relating to currently pending claims and future claims projected
to be filed against the Company through 2021. The Company's
previous estimate was for asbestos claims filed or projected to be
filed through 2017. As a result of this updated estimate, the
Company recorded an additional liability of $285 million as of
December 31, 2011. The Company's decision to take this action at
such date was based on several factors which contribute to the
Company's ability to reasonably estimate this liability for the
additional period noted. First, the number of mesothelioma claims
(which although constituting approximately 8% of the Company's
total pending asbestos claims, have accounted for approximately
90% of the Company's aggregate settlement and defense costs) being
filed against the Company and associated settlement costs have
recently stabilized. In the Company's opinion, the outlook for
mesothelioma claims expected to be filed and resolved in the
forecast period is reasonably stable. Second, there have been
favorable developments in the trend of case law which has been a
contributing factor in stabilizing the asbestos claims activity
and related settlement costs. Third, there have been significant
actions taken by certain state legislatures and courts over the
past several years that have reduced the number and types of
claims that can proceed to trial, which has been a significant
factor in stabilizing the asbestos claims activity. Fourth, the
Company has now entered into coverage-in-place agreements with
almost all of its excess insurers, which enables the Company to
project a more stable relationship between settlement and defense
costs paid by the Company and reimbursements from its insurers.
Taking all of these factors into account, the Company believes
that it can reasonably estimate the asbestos liability for pending
claims and future claims to be filed through 2021. While it is
probable that the Company will incur additional charges for
asbestos liabilities and defense costs in excess of the amounts
currently provided, the Company does not believe that any such
amount can be reasonably estimated beyond 2021. Accordingly, no
accrual has been recorded for any costs which may be incurred for
claims which may be made subsequent to 2021.

Management has made its best estimate of the costs through 2021
based on the analysis by HR&A completed in January 2012. Through
March 31, 2015, the Company's actual experience during the updated
reference period for mesothelioma claims filed and dismissed
generally approximated the assumptions in the Company's liability
estimate. In addition to this claims experience, the Company
considered additional quantitative and qualitative factors such as
the nature of the aging of pending claims, significant appellate
rulings and legislative developments, and their respective effects
on expected future settlement values. Based on this evaluation,
the Company determined that no change in the estimate was
warranted for the period ended March 31, 2015. Nevertheless, if
certain factors show a pattern of sustained increase or decrease,
the liability could change materially; however, all the
assumptions used in estimating the asbestos liability are
interdependent and no single factor predominates in determining
the liability estimate. Because of the uncertainty with regard to
and the interdependency of such factors used in the calculation of
its asbestos liability, and since no one factor predominates, the
Company believes that a range of potential liability estimates
beyond the indicated forecast period cannot be reasonably
estimated.

A liability of $894 million was recorded as of December 31, 2011
to cover the estimated cost of asbestos claims now pending or
subsequently asserted through 2021, of which approximately 80% is
attributable to settlement and defense costs for future claims
projected to be filed through 2021. The liability is reduced when
cash payments are made in respect of settled claims and defense
costs. The liability was $600 million as of March 31, 2015. It is
not possible to forecast when cash payments related to the
asbestos liability will be fully expended; however, it is expected
such cash payments will continue for a number of years past 2021,
due to the significant proportion of future claims included in the
estimated asbestos liability and the lag time between the date a
claim is filed and when it is resolved. None of these estimated
costs have been discounted to present value due to the inability
to reliably forecast the timing of payments. The current portion
of the total estimated liability at March 31, 2015 was $79 million
and represents the Company's best estimate of total asbestos costs
expected to be paid during the twelve-month period. Such amount is
based upon the HR&A model together with the Company's prior year
payment experience for both settlement and defense costs.

Crane Co., (Crane) is a manufacturer of engineered industrial
products. The Company operates in four segments: Aerospace &
Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems and Fluid
Handling. Its primary markets are aerospace, defense electronics,
non-residential construction, recreational vehicle (RV),
transportation, automated payment and merchandising, chemical,
pharmaceutical, oil, gas, power, nuclear, building services and
utilities. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has two groups, the
Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. The Engineered
Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforced plastic
panels. The Merchandising Systems segment consists of two
businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The Fluid
Handling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handling
equipment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: IDEX Corp. Continues to Defend PI Suits
--------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corporation continues to defend itself against a number of
asbestos-related personal injuries lawsuits, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

The Company and six of its subsidiaries are presently named as
defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming various asbestos-
related personal injuries, allegedly as a result of exposure to
products manufactured with components that contained asbestos.
These components were acquired from third party suppliers, and
were not manufactured by any of the subsidiaries. As of March 31,
2015, the majority of the Company's settlements and legal costs,
except for costs of coordination, administration, insurance
investigation and a portion of defense costs, have been covered in
full by insurance, subject to applicable deductibles. However, the
Company cannot predict whether and to what extent insurance will
be available to continue to cover these settlements and legal
costs, or how insurers may respond to claims that are tendered to
them. Claims have been filed in jurisdictions throughout the
United States. Most of the claims resolved to date have been
dismissed without payment. The balance have been settled for
various insignificant amounts. Only one case has been tried,
resulting in a verdict for the Company's business unit. No
provision has been made in the financial statements of the
Company, other than for insurance deductibles in the ordinary
course, and the Company does not currently believe the asbestos-
related claims will have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, financial position, results of operations or
cash flows.

The Company is also party to various other legal proceedings
arising in the ordinary course of business, none of which is
expected to have a material adverse effect on its business,
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

IDEX Corporation (IDEX) is an applied solutions business that
sells an array of pumps, flow meters and other fluidics systems
and components and engineered products. All of the Company's
business activities are carried out through wholly owned
subsidiaries. It operates in three business segments: Fluid &
Metering Technologies, Health & Science Technologies and Fire &
Safety/Diversified Products. The Fluid & Metering Technologies
contains the Energy, Water (consisting of Water Services &
Technology and Diaphragm & Dosing Pump Technology), and Chemical,
Food & Process platforms as well as the Agricultural group
(consisting of Banjo). The Health & Science Technologies contains
the IDEX Optics & Photonics, Scientific Fluidics and Material
Processing Technologies platforms, as well as the Sealing
Solutions and the Industrial (consisting of Micropump and Gast)
groups. The Fire & Safety/Diversified Products consist of the
Dispensing, Rescue, Band-It, and Fire Suppression groups.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: TriMas Corp. Has 1,074 PI Suits at March 31
------------------------------------------------------------
TriMas Corporation was a party to 1,074 pending asbestos-related
personal injury cases, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2015.

As of March 31, 2015, the Company was a party to 1,074 pending
cases involving an aggregate of 7,733 claimants alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos containing materials formerly
used in gaskets (both encapsulated and otherwise) manufactured or
distributed by certain of the Company's subsidiaries for use
primarily in the petrochemical refining and exploration
industries. The following chart summarizes the number of
claimants, number of claims filed, number of claims dismissed,
number of claims settled, the average settlement amount per claim
and the total defense costs, exclusive of amounts reimbursed under
the Company's primary insurance, at the applicable date and for
the applicable periods:

For the three-months ended March 31, 2015, there were 7,992
pending asbestos-related claims.

In addition, the Company acquired various companies to distribute
its products that had distributed gaskets of other manufacturers
prior to acquisition. The Company believes that many of its
pending cases relate to locations at which none of its gaskets
were distributed or used.

The Company may be subjected to significant additional asbestos-
related claims in the future, the cost of settling cases in which
product identification can be made may increase, and the Company
may be subjected to further claims in respect of the former
activities of its acquired gasket distributors. The Company is
unable to make a meaningful statement concerning the monetary
claims made in the asbestos cases given that, among other things,
claims may be initially made in some jurisdictions without
specifying the amount sought or by simply stating the requisite or
maximum permissible monetary relief, and may be amended to alter
the amount sought. The large majority of claims do not specify the
amount sought. Of the 7,733 claims pending at March 31, 2015, 126
set forth specific amounts of damages (other than those stating
the statutory minimum or maximum).

In addition, relatively few of the claims have reached the
discovery stage and even fewer claims have gone past the discovery
stage.

Total settlement costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all
asbestos-related cases, some of which were filed over 20 years
ago, have been approximately $7.4 million. All relief sought in
the asbestos cases is monetary in nature. As of March 31, 2015,
approximately 40% of the Company's costs related to settlement and
defense of asbestos litigation have been covered by its primary
insurance. Effective February 14, 2006, the Company entered into a
coverage-in-place agreement with its first level excess carriers
regarding the coverage to be provided to the Company for asbestos-
related claims when the primary insurance is exhausted. The
coverage-in-place agreement makes asbestos defense costs and
indemnity coverage available to the Company that might otherwise
be disputed by the carriers and provides a methodology for the
administration of such expenses. Nonetheless, the Company believes
it is likely there will be a period within the next one or two
years, prior to the commencement of coverage under this agreement
and following exhaustion of the Company's primary insurance
coverage, during which the Company will be solely responsible for
defense costs and indemnity payments, the duration of which would
be subject to the scope of damage awards and settlements paid.

Based on the settlements made as of March 31, 2015, and the number
of claims dismissed or withdrawn for lack of product
identification, the Company believes that the relief sought (when
specified) does not bear a reasonable relationship to its
potential liability. Based upon the Company's experience as of
March 31, 2015, including the trend in annual defense and
settlement costs incurred to date, and other available information
(including the availability of excess insurance), the Company does
not believe these cases will have a material adverse effect on its
financial position and results of operations or cash flows.

TriMas Corporation is a global designer, manufacturer and
distributor of applied products for commercial, industrial and
consumer markets. The Company provides the foundation for
determining its priorities, executing its growth and productivity
initiatives, and allocating capital. It operates six segments:
Packaging, designs, manufactures and distributes specialty,
highly-engineered closure and dispensing systems for end markets;
Energy, manufactures and distributes metallic and non-metallic
gaskets, bolts, industrial fasteners and specialty products for
industrial markets; Aerospace and Defense, design and manufacture
products for use in focused markets; Engineered Components,
design, manufacture and distribute high-pressure and low-pressure
cylinders for the transportation, storage and dispensing of
compressed gases; Cequent APEA and Cequent Americas, design,
manufacture and distribute custom-engineered towing, trailer and
cargo management products.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has $500-Mil. Fibro Liability
------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending
and future claims was $500 million, according to the Company's
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

Union Carbide Corporation is and has been involved in a large
number of asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts
during the past four decades. These suits principally allege
personal injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing
products and frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The
alleged claims primarily relate to products that UCC sold in the
past, alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on
UCC's premises and UCC's responsibility for asbestos suits filed
against a former UCC subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. ("Amchem").
In many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have
suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or
that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to the
Corporation's products.

The Corporation expects more asbestos-related suits to be filed
against UCC and Amchem in the future, and will aggressively defend
or reasonably resolve, as appropriate, both pending and future
claims.

Based on a study completed by Analysis, Research & Planning
Corporation ("ARPC") in January 2003, the Corporation increased
its December 31, 2002 asbestos-related liability for pending and
future claims for the 15-year period ending in 2017 to $2.2
billion, excluding future defense and processing costs. Since
then, the Corporation has compared current asbestos claim and
resolution activity to the results of the most recent ARPC study
at each balance sheet date to determine whether the accrual
continues to be appropriate. In addition, the Corporation has
requested ARPC to review the Corporation's historical asbestos
claim and resolution activity each year since 2004 to determine
the appropriateness of updating the most recent ARPC study.

In October 2014, the Corporation requested ARPC to review its
historical asbestos claim and resolution activity and determine
the appropriateness of updating its December 2012 study. In
response to that request, ARPC reviewed and analyzed data through
September 30, 2014. The resulting study, completed by ARPC in
December 2014, estimates that the undiscounted cost of disposing
of pending and future claims against UCC and Amchem, excluding
future defense and processing costs, to be between $540 million
and $640 million through 2029 based on the data as of September
30, 2014. As in earlier studies, ARPC provided longer periods of
time in its December 2014 study, but also reaffirmed that
forecasts for shorter periods of time are more accurate than those
for longer periods of time.

In December 2014, based on ARPC's December 2014 study and the
Corporation's own review of the asbestos claim and resolution
activity, the Corporation determined that an adjustment to the
accrual was required due to the increase in mesothelioma claim
activity compared with what had been forecasted in the December
2012 study. Accordingly, the Corporation increased its asbestos-
related liability for pending and future claims by $78 million.
The Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending and
future claims was $513 million at December 31, 2014, and
approximately 22 percent of the recorded liability related to
pending claims and approximately 78 percent related to future
claims.

Based on the Corporation's review of 2015 activity, it was
determined that no adjustment to the accrual was required at March
31, 2015. The Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending
and future claims was $500 million at March 31, 2015.
Approximately 20 percent of the recorded liability related to
pending claims and approximately 80 percent related to future
claims.

Union Carbide Corporation makes the legos of the chemicals world.
The company, a subsidiary of Dow Chemical, turns out building-
block chemicals such as ethylene and propylene, which are
converted into widely used plastics resins, primarily
polyethylene. The chemical company is also a leading producer of
ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers
and antifreeze, respectively. Union Carbide makes solvents and
intermediates (such as oxo aldehydes and esters), vinyl acetate
monomer, water-soluble polymers, and polyolefin-based compounds.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Had $64MM Receivables at March 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation's total receivables related to its
asbestos-related liability was $64 million, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

At December 31, 2002, the Corporation increased the receivable for
insurance recoveries related to its asbestos liability to $1.35
billion, substantially exhausting its asbestos product liability
coverage. The insurance receivable related to the asbestos
liability was determined by the Corporation after a thorough
review of applicable insurance policies and the 1985 Wellington
Agreement, to which the Corporation and many of its liability
insurers are signatory parties, as well as other insurance
settlements, with due consideration given to applicable
deductibles, retentions and policy limits, and taking into account
the solvency and historical payment experience of various
insurance carriers. The Wellington Agreement and other agreements
with insurers are designed to facilitate an orderly resolution and
collection of the Corporation's insurance policies and to resolve
issues that the insurance carriers may raise.

In September 2003, the Corporation filed a comprehensive insurance
coverage case, now proceeding in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, County of New York, seeking to confirm its rights to
insurance for various asbestos claims and to facilitate an orderly
and timely collection of insurance proceeds (the "Insurance
Litigation"). The Insurance Litigation was filed against insurers
that were not signatories to the Wellington Agreement and/or do
not otherwise have agreements in place with the Corporation
regarding their asbestos-related insurance coverage, in order to
facilitate an orderly resolution and collection of such insurance
policies and to resolve issues that the insurance carriers may
raise. Since the filing of the case, the Corporation has reached
settlements with most of the carriers involved in the Insurance
Litigation and continues to pursue a settlement with the remaining
carrier. The Corporation's receivable for insurance recoveries
related to its asbestos liability was $10 million at March 31,
2015 and December 31, 2014.

In addition to the receivable for insurance recoveries related to
its asbestos liability, the Corporation had receivables for
defense and resolution costs submitted to insurance carriers that
have settlement agreements in place regarding their asbestos-
related insurance coverage. The Company's total receivables
related to its asbestos-related liability as of March 31, 2015,
was $64 million.

After a review of its insurance policies, with due consideration
given to applicable deductibles, retentions and policy limits, and
after taking into account the solvency and historical payment
experience of various insurance carriers; existing insurance
settlements; and the advice of outside counsel with respect to the
applicable insurance coverage law relating to the terms and
conditions of its insurance policies, the Corporation continues to
believe that its recorded receivable for insurance recoveries from
all insurance carriers is probable of collection.

The amounts recorded by the Corporation for the asbestos-related
liability and related insurance receivable were based upon
current, known facts. However, future events, such as the number
of new claims to be filed and/or received each year, the average
cost of disposing of each such claim, coverage issues among
insurers and the continuing solvency of various insurance
companies, as well as the numerous uncertainties surrounding
asbestos litigation in the United States, could cause the actual
costs and insurance recoveries for the Corporation to be higher or
lower than those projected or those recorded.

Because of the uncertainties, the Corporation's management cannot
estimate the full range of the cost of resolving pending and
future asbestos-related claims facing UCC and Amchem. The
Corporation's management believes that it is reasonably possible
that the cost of disposing of the Corporation's asbestos-related
claims, including future defense costs, could have a material
impact on the Corporation's results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period and on the consolidated financial position
of the Corporation.

While it is not possible at this time to determine with certainty
the ultimate outcome of any of the legal proceedings and claims
referred to in this filing, management believes that adequate
provisions have been made for probable losses with respect to
pending claims and proceedings, and that, except for the asbestos-
related matters, the ultimate outcome of all known and future
claims, after provisions for insurance, will not have a material
adverse impact on the results of operations, cash flows and
financial position of the Corporation. Should any losses be
sustained in connection with any of such legal proceedings and
claims in excess of provisions provided and available insurance,
they will be charged to income when determinable.

Union Carbide Corporation makes the legos of the chemicals world.
The company, a subsidiary of Dow Chemical, turns out building-
block chemicals such as ethylene and propylene, which are
converted into widely used plastics resins, primarily
polyethylene. The chemical company is also a leading producer of
ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers
and antifreeze, respectively. Union Carbide makes solvents and
intermediates (such as oxo aldehydes and esters), vinyl acetate
monomer, water-soluble polymers, and polyolefin-based compounds.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbide Has 17,935 Fibro Claimants
---------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corporation and its subsidiary, Amchem Products,
Inc., had 17,935 asbestos-related claimants, according to the
Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

The Corporation is and has been involved in a large number of
asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state courts during the
past four decades. These suits principally allege personal injury
resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and
frequently seek both actual and punitive damages. The alleged
claims primarily relate to products that UCC sold in the past,
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on UCC's
premises, and UCC's responsibility for asbestos suits filed
against a former subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. ("Amchem"). In
many cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have
suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or
that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to UCC's
products.

It is the opinion of UCC's management that it is reasonably
possible that the costs of disposing of its asbestos-related
claims, including future defense costs, could have a material
impact on the Corporation's results of operations and cash flows
for a particular period and on the consolidated financial position
of the Corporation.

There were 17,935 asbestos-related claimants against the
Corporation and Amchem, based on criteria developed by UCC and its
external consultants as of March 31, 2015,

Plaintiffs' lawyers often sue numerous defendants in individual
lawsuits or on behalf of numerous claimants. As a result, the
damages alleged are not expressly identified as to UCC, Amchem or
any other particular defendant, even when specific damages are
alleged with respect to a specific disease or injury. In fact,
there are no personal injury cases in which only the Corporation
and/or Amchem are the sole named defendants. For these reasons and
based upon the Corporation's litigation and settlement experience,
the Corporation does not consider the damages alleged against it
and Amchem to be a meaningful factor in its determination of any
potential asbestos-related liability.

Union Carbide Corporation makes the legos of the chemicals world.
The company, a subsidiary of Dow Chemical, turns out building-
block chemicals such as ethylene and propylene, which are
converted into widely used plastics resins, primarily
polyethylene. The chemical company is also a leading producer of
ethylene oxide and ethylene glycol used to make polyester fibers
and antifreeze, respectively. Union Carbide makes solvents and
intermediates (such as oxo aldehydes and esters), vinyl acetate
monomer, water-soluble polymers, and polyolefin-based compounds.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Exelon Corp. Unit Has $97MM PI Claims Reserve
--------------------------------------------------------------
Exelon Corporation's subsidiary, Exelon Generation Company, LLC,
had reserved approximately $97 million for asbestos-related bodily
injury claims, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended March 31, 2015.

Generation maintains a reserve for claims associated with
asbestos-related personal injury actions in certain facilities
that are currently owned by Generation or were previously owned by
ComEd and PECO. The reserve is recorded on an undiscounted basis
and excludes the estimated legal costs associated with handling
these matters, which could be material.

At March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, Generation had reserved
approximately $97 million and $100 million, respectively, in total
for asbestos-related bodily injury claims. As of March 31, 2015,
approximately $20 million of this amount related to 224 open
claims presented to Generation, while the remaining $77 million of
the reserve is for estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury
claims anticipated to arise through 2050, based on actuarial
assumptions and analyses, which are updated on an annual basis. On
a quarterly basis, Generation monitors actual experience against
the number of forecasted claims to be received and expected claim
payments and evaluates whether an adjustment to the reserve is
necessary.

On November 22, 2013, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that
the Pennsylvania Workers Compensation Act does not apply to an
employee's disability or death resulting from occupational
disease, such as diseases related to asbestos exposure, which
manifests more than 300 weeks after the employee's last
employment-based exposure, and that therefore the exclusivity
provision of the Act does not preclude such employee from suing
his or her employer in court. The Supreme Court's ruling reverses
previous rulings by the Pennsylvania Superior Court precluding
current and former employees from suing their employers in court,
despite the fact that the same employee was not eligible for
workers compensation benefits for diseases that manifest more than
300 weeks after the employee's last employment-based exposure to
asbestos. Currently, Exelon, Generation and PECO are unable to
predict whether and to what extent they may experience additional
claims in the future as a result of this ruling; as such no
increase to the asbestos-related bodily injury liability has been
recorded as of March 31, 2015. Increased claims activity resulting
from this ruling could have a material adverse effect on Exelon's,
Generation's and PECO's future results of operations and cash
flows.

Exelon Corporation is an energy provider and holding Company for
several energy businesses. Exelon is engaged in the energy
generation business through its Exelon Generation Company, LLC
(Generation) subsidiary; wholesale and retail energy sales through
its Constellation business unit and the energy delivery business
through its Baltimore Gas and Electric (BGE), Commonwealth Edison
Company (ComEd) and PECO Energy Company (PECO) subsidiaries.
Generation's integrated business consists of its owned and
contracted electric generating facilities and investments in
generation ventures that are marketed through its customer-facing
activities. ComEd's energy delivery business consists of the
purchase and regulated retail sale of electricity and the
provision of transmission and distribution services to retail
customers in northern Illinois. PECO's energy delivery business in
southeastern Pennsylvania and BGE's in central Maryland.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bid for Disclosure of Fibro Settlements Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joan A. Madden of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied
the post-verdict motions filed by defendants Cleaver Brooks, Inc.,
and Burnham LLC for orders compelling asbestos plaintiffs to
provide documentation pertaining to all settlements the plaintiffs
have entered into, including settlements with bankruptcy trusts.

Judge Madden ruled that the Defendants have failed to establish a
legal or factual basis for that part of their motions seeking
discovery of settlement agreements and amounts with respect to
these settling entities.

The case is SANTOS ASSENZIO and ANNITOLIA ASSENZIO, ROBERT BRUNCK
PAUL LEVY and ROSLYN LEVY CESAR O. SERNA RAYMOND VINCENT,
Plaintiffs, v. A.O. SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO., et al., Defendants,
DOCKET NOS. 190008/12, 190026/12, 190200/12, 190183/12, 190184/12
(N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge Madden's Decision is
available at http://is.gd/rwZ5Fxfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Jersey Court Refuses to Remand "Vesper"
------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Judge Jerome B. Simandle of the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey, in an opinion dated July 30, 2015,
denied a motion to remand the asbestos-related case captioned
GEORGE VESPER, Plaintiff, v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Defendants, CIVIL
ACTION NO. 1:15-CV-01322 (JBS/AMD)(D.N.J.).  A full-text copy of
Judge Simandle's Decision is available at http://is.gd/P0KOOcfrom
Leagle.com.

Michael S. Noonan, Esq., THE NOONAN LAW FIRM LLC, Red Bank, NJ,
William L. Kuzmin, Esq., COHEN, PLACITELLA & ROTH, P.C., Red Bank,
NJ, Attorneys for the Plaintiff.

Christopher J. Keale, Esq. -- christopher.keale@sedgwicklaw.com --
SEDGWICK LLP, Newark, NJ, Attorney for Defendants CBS Corporation,
Foster Wheeler, LLC, and General Electric Company.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Partially Strikes Opinions in "Vedros"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Carl J. Barbier of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana, in an order and reasons dated July
29, 2015, granted in part and denied in part motions to strike
filed in the asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit captioned
SALLY GROS VEDROS, v. NORTHROP GRUMMAN SHIPBUILDING, INC., ET AL,
Section: "J"(4), CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-1198 (E.D. La.).

Specifically, Judge Barbier granted in part and denied in part the
Motion to Strike Certain Opinions of Dr. Stephen Terry Kraus Which
Are Outside the Scope of Opinions Offered by Dr. Samuel Hammar;
and denied as moot the Motion for Leave to File Reply Memorandum
to Plaintiff's Opposition and the Motion for Leave for Amchem to
File Memorandum in Support of Motion to Strike.

A full-text copy of Judge Barbier's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/fJIdl9from Leagle.com.

Sally Gros Vedros, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel &
Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph
Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Lori Vedros Kravet, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel &
Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph
Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Valerie Vedros White, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit
Roussel, Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel &
Clement, Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph
Roussel, Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Gerald Vedros, Plaintiff, represented by Gerolyn Petit Roussel,
Roussel & Clement, Jonathan Brett Clement, Roussel & Clement,
Lauren Roussel Clement, Roussel & Clement & Perry Joseph Roussel,
Jr., Roussel & Clement.

Albert Bossier, Jr., Defendant, represented by Gary Allen Lee,
Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Anita Ann Cates, Lee, Futrell &
Perles, LLP, Gordon Peter Wilson, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP &
Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

Onebeacon America Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC & Samuel
Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.

American Employers Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC, Gary
Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Gordon Peter Wilson, Lee,
Futrell & Perles, LLP & Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor,
Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.

American Motorists Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Brian C. Bossier, Blue Williams, LLP, Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell
& Perles, LLP, Anita Ann Cates, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP,
Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Blue Williams, LLP, Edwin A.
Ellinghausen, III, Blue Williams, LLP, Erin Helen Boyd, Blue
Williams, LLP & Gordon Peter Wilson, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

Bayer CropScience, Inc., Defendant, represented by Deborah DeRoche
Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Michael A.
Olsen, Mayer Brown, LLP, Alexandra Lamothe, Kuchler Polk Schell
Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Ernest G. Foundas, Kuchler Polk Schell
Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Francis Xavier deBlanc, III, Kuchler Polk
Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Lee Blanton Ziffer, Kuchler Polk
Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, McGready Lewis Richeson, Kuchler
Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Michael H. Abraham, Kuchler
Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Milele N. St. Julien, Kuchler
Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Robert Edward Guidry, Kuchler
Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Sophia L. Lauricella,
Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, LLP.

Eagle, Inc., Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP & Michael David Harold, Simon, Peragine, Smith &
Redfearn, LLP.

McCarty Corporation, Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn,
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Michael David Harold, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

Maryland Casualty Company, Defendant, represented by Edward T.
Hayes, Leake & Andersson, LLP, Adam D Whitworth, Leake &
Andersson, LLP & Marc E. Devenport, Leake & Andersson, LLP.

Continental Insurance Co, Defendant, represented by Glenn Gill
Goodier, Jones Walker, Hansford P. Wogan, Jones Walker, William C.
Baldwin, Jones Walker & William P. Wynne, Jones Walker.

Uniroyal Inc, Defendant, represented by Forrest Ren Wilkes,
Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP & Jason K. Elam,
Forman, Perry, Watkins, Krutz & Tardy, LLP.

Albert L Bossier, Jr, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by Gary
Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Anita Ann Cates, Lee,
Futrell & Perles, LLP, David Leroy Hoskins, Lee, Futrell & Perles,
LLP & Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

J Melton Garrett, Third Party Plaintiff, represented by Gary Allen
Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Anita Ann Cates, Lee, Futrell &
Perles, LLP, David Leroy Hoskins, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP &
Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Third Party Plaintiff,
represented by Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Plaintiff, represented by Anita
Ann Cates, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Brian C. Bossier, Blue
Williams, LLP, Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Blue Williams, LLP &
David Leroy Hoskins, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Third Party Plaintiff,
represented by Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III, Blue Williams, LLP,
Erin Helen Boyd, Blue Williams, LLP, Richard Marshall Perles, Lee,
Futrell & Perles, LLP & Tracy C. Rotharmel, Liskow & Lewis.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Third Party Defendant,
represented by Kaye N. Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers,
LLC, Blaine Augusta Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC,
Jennifer H. McLaughlin, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC,
Jonathan Paul Hilbun, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Louis
Oliver Oubre, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

Albert L Bossier, Jr, Cross Claimant, represented by Gary Allen
Lee, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Anita Ann Cates, Lee, Futrell &
Perles, LLP, David Leroy Hoskins, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP &
Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

J Melton Garrett, Cross Claimant, represented by Gary Allen Lee,
Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Anita Ann Cates, Lee, Futrell &
Perles, LLP, David Leroy Hoskins, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP &
Richard Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

McCarty Corporation, Cross Claimant, represented by Susan Beth
Kohn, Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler,
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Michael David Harold, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

Bayer CropScience, Inc., Cross Claimant, represented by Deborah
DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC,
Michael A. Olsen, Mayer Brown, LLP, Alexandra Lamothe, Kuchler
Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Ernest G. Foundas, Kuchler
Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Francis Xavier deBlanc, III,
Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Lee Blanton Ziffer,
Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, McGready Lewis
Richeson, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Michael H.
Abraham, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Milele N. St.
Julien, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Robert Edward
Guidry, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Sophia L.
Lauricella, Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, LLP.

Huntington Ingalls Incorporated, Cross Claimant, represented by
Brian C. Bossier, Blue Williams, LLP, Gary Allen Lee, Lee, Futrell
& Perles, LLP, Anita Ann Cates, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP,
Christopher Thomas Grace, III, Blue Williams, LLP, David Leroy
Hoskins, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP, Edwin A. Ellinghausen, III,
Blue Williams, LLP, Erin Helen Boyd, Blue Williams, LLP, Richard
Marshall Perles, Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP & Tracy C. Rotharmel,
Liskow & Lewis.

Eagle, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Susan Beth Kohn,
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Douglas Kinler, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, James R. Guidry, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP & Michael David Harold, Simon, Peragine,
Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

Reilly-Benton, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Thomas L.
Cougill, Willingham, Fultz & Cougill, LLP, Diane Sweezer Davis,
Funderburk Finderburk Courtois, LLP, Jeanette Seraile-Riggins,
Willingham, Fultz & Cougill, LLP, Jennifer D. Zajac, Courington,
Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Kenneth R. Royer, Willingham, Fultz &
Cougill, LLP.

Taylor-Seidenbach, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by
Christopher Kelly Lightfoot, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann &
Papale, Jevan Smoot Fleming, Hailey, McNamara, Hall, Larmann &
Papale & Richard J. Garvey, Jr., Lee, Futrell & Perles, LLP.

CBS Corporation, Cross Defendant, represented by John Joseph
Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot L.L.C.,
James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan, Frilot
L.L.C. & Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C..

Maryland Casualty Company, Cross Defendant, represented by Edward
T. Hayes, Leake & Andersson, LLP, Adam D Whitworth, Leake &
Andersson, LLP, Jeffrey Matthew Burg, Courington, Kiefer &
Sommers, LLC & Marc E. Devenport, Leake & Andersson, LLP.

Bayer CropScience, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Deborah
DeRoche Kuchler, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC,
Michael A. Olsen, Mayer Brown, LLP, Alexandra Lamothe, Kuchler
Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Ernest G. Foundas, Kuchler
Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Francis Xavier deBlanc, III,
Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Lee Blanton Ziffer,
Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, McGready Lewis
Richeson, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Michael H.
Abraham, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Milele N. St.
Julien, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC, Robert Edward
Guidry, Kuchler Polk Schell Weiner & Richeson, LLC & Sophia L.
Lauricella, Thompson, Coe, Cousins & Irons, LLP.

General Electric Company, Cross Defendant, represented by John
Joseph Hainkel, III, Frilot L.L.C., Angela M. Bowlin, Frilot
L.L.C., James H. Brown, Jr., Frilot L.L.C., Meredith K. Keenan,
Frilot L.L.C. & Peter R. Tafaro, Frilot L.L.C..

Hopeman Brothers, Inc., Cross Defendant, represented by Kaye N.
Courington, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Blaine Augusta
Moore, Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC, Jennifer H. McLaughlin,
Courington, Kiefer & Sommers, LLC & Louis Oliver Oubre, Simon,
Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP.

OneBeacon America Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe,
APLC & Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.

American Employers Insurance Company, Cross Defendant, represented
by Samuel Milton Rosamond, III, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe,
APLC & Adam Devlin deMahy, Taylor, Wellons, Politz & Duhe, APLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ill. App. Overturns Jury Verdict in "Smith"
------------------------------------------------------------
On January 27, 2014, after a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff,
James Smith, the trial court entered judgment in favor of
plaintiff and against defendant, the Illinois Central Railroad
Company.  On July 11, 2014, the court denied the defendant's post-
trial motion but allowed credits from prior settlements to reduce
the amount of the jury award.  The Defendant appeals, arguing the
trial court erred in multiple ways.

The Appellate Court of Illinois, Fourth District, in an opinion
dated July 30, 2015, reversed the judgment and remanded for a new
trial because the trial court erred by preventing the defendant
from presenting evidence regarding the  plaintiff's work history
at the Union Asbestos & Rubber Company (UNARCO) facility at the
Bloomington rail yard.

The case is JAMES SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ILLINOIS CENTRAL
RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, NO. 4-14-0703 (Ill. App.).
A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/ckwoDQfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Aug. 19 Pretrial Conference Set for "Andreadis"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Barbara Jaffe of the Supreme Court, New York County, in a
decision and order dated July 24, 2015, denied Michail Andreadis,
et al.'s motion for an order consolidating certain asbestos cases
for trial.  Judge Jaffe directed the parties to appear for a final
pretrial conference on August 19, 2015 at 2:30 pm at 80 Centre
Street, Room 279, in New York.

The case is IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION relating to
MICHAIL ANDREADIS, Plaintiff, v. ABB, INC., et al., Defendants,
DOCKET NO. 190411/13 (N.Y. Sup.).  A full-text copy of Judge
Jaffe's Decision is available at http://is.gd/zOsVEofrom
Leagle.com.

Derell D. Wilson, Esq., The Early Law Firm, 360 Lexington Ave.,
20th fl., New York, NY 10017, 212-986-2233, For plaintiff.

Matthew H. Mueller, Esq. -- wmueller@cm-legal.com -- Clemente
Mueller, P.A., 5 Penn Plaza, 23rd fl., New York, NY 10001, 212-
425-5005, For William Powell Co.

Austin D. O'Malley, Esq. -- aomalley@cullenanddykman.com -- Cullen
and Dykman LLP, 44 Wall St., New York, NY 100005-2407, 212-732-
2000, For Mario & DiBono.

Stephen Novakidis, Esq. -- snovakidis@mblaw.net -- Malaby &
Bradley, LLC, 150 Broadway, 6th fl., New York, NY 10038, 212-791-
0285, For joint defendants.

Mark K. Hsu, Esq. -- mhsu@hptylaw.com -- and Joanna Drozd, Esq. --
jdrozd@hptylaw.com -- Hawkins Parnell et al., 600 Lexington Ave.,
8th fl., New York, NY 10022, 212-897-9655, For Milwaukee/Oakfabco.

Lee D. Schneider, Esq. -- lschneider@mklaw.us.com -- McGivney &
Kluger, P.C., 80 Broad St., 23rd fl., New York, NY 10004, 212-509-
3456, For Fairbanks.

Austin D. O'Malley, Esq., Cullen and Dykman LLP, 44 Wall St., New
York, NY 100005-2407, 212-732-2000, For Goulds.

Samantha J. Geoghan, Esq. -- samantha.geoghan@wilsonelser.com --
Wilson, Elser, et al., 150 E. 42nd St., New York, NY 10017, 212-
915-5542, For Andal.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeals Time in 3 NYCAL Suits Enlarged to Nov.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, in decisions dated July 28, 2015, enlarged to the
November 2015 Term the time to perfect appeal in the following
cases:

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. BRESCHARD, v. A.O.
SMITH WATER PRODUCTS CO. -- CRANE CO. -- ESTATE OF BRESCHARD,
MOTION NO. M-2642 (N.Y. App. Div.).  A full-text copy of the
Decision is available at http://is.gd/D4a7iefrom Leagle.com.

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. ACEVEDO, v. A.P.
GREEN INDUSTRIES, INC. -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-2641 (N.Y. App.
Div.).  A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/GGNBk4from Leagle.com.

   * IN RE: NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. MARKOU, v. AIR &
LIQUID SYSTEMS -- CRANE CO., MOTION NO. M-2640 (N.Y. App. Div.).
A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/oHjXBGfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Certifies Securities Suit vs. Halliburton
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Barbara M.H. Lynn of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, in a memorandum
opinion and order dated July 25, 2015, granted in part The Erica
P. John Fund, Inc., et al.'s motion for class certification, only
with respect to the alleged corrective disclosure of December 7,
2001, in the case captioned THE ERICA P. JOHN FUND, INC., On
Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v.
HALLIBURTON COMPANY and DAVID J. LESAR, Defendants, NO. 3:02-CV-
1152-M (N.D. Tex.).

EPJ Fund is the lead plaintiff in a putative class action against
Halliburton and one of its executives alleging violations of
section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 48 Stat.
891, 15 U.S.C. Section 78j(b), and Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5, 17 CFR Section 240.10b-5 (2013).  According
to EPJ Fund . . . Halliburton made a series of misrepresentations
regarding its potential liability in asbestos litigation, its
expected revenue from certain construction contracts, and the
anticipated benefits of its merger with another company -- all in
an attempt to inflate the price of its stock.  Halliburton
subsequently made a number of corrective disclosures, which, EPJ
Fund contends, caused the company's stock price to drop and
investors to lose money.

Judge Lynn denies the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
as to the other five corrective disclosures on which Plaintiffs
rely.

A full-text copy of Judge Lynn's Decision is available at
http://is.gd/SpjXVHfrom Leagle.com.

Highlands Insurance Company, In Re, represented by Brian S Martin,
Thompson Coe Cousins & Irons LLP.

Richard Moore, Plaintiff, represented by Marc R Stanley, Stanley
Law Group, E Lawrence Vincent, Law Office of Joe H Staley PC,
Martin Woodward, Stanley Law Group, Nadeem Faruqi, Faruqi & Faruqi
& Roger L Mandel, Lackey Hershman LLP.

Private Asset Management, Plaintiff, represented by Darren J
Check, Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP, E Lawrence Vincent,
Law Office of Joe H Staley PC, John G Emerson, Jr, Emerson
Poynter, Kay E Sickles, Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP,
Marc I Willner, Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP, Richard S
Schiffrin, Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP, Stuart L
Berman, Barroway Topaz Kessler Meltzer & Check, LLP & William B
Federman, Federman & Sherwood.

Erica P John Fund Inc, Plaintiff, represented by David Boies,
Boies Schiller & Flexner, Arthur L Shingler, III, Scott + Scott,
Carl E Goldfarb, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, Caryl L Boies,
Boies Schiller & Flexner, David R Scott, Scott + Scott, E Lawrence
Vincent, Law Office of Joe H Staley PC, Edmund W Searby, Scott +
Scott, Justin D Fitzdam, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, Kim E
Miller, Kahn Swick & Foti LLC, Marc R Stanley, Stanley Law Group,
Mark V Jackowski, Scott + Scott LLP, Neil Rothstein, Truth in
Corporate Justice, Robert M Thornton, Kilgore & Kilgore, Sashi
Bach Boruchow, Boies Schiller & Flexner, William B Federman,
Federman & Sherwood, William S Lerach, Lerach Coughlin Stoia
Geller Rudman & Robbins, Willie Briscoe & Theodore Carl Anderson,
III, Kilgore & Kilgore PLLC.

Gabriel T Forrest, Plaintiff, represented by David R Scott, Scott
+ Scott, E Lawrence Vincent, Law Office of Joe H Staley PC,
Gregory M Nespole, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, John G
Emerson, Jr, Emerson Poynter, Jules Brody, Esq. --
jbrody@ssbny.com -- Stull Stull & Brody, Kay E Sickles, Schiffrin
Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP, Patrick Slyne, Esq. --
pkslyne@ssbny.com -- Stull Stull & Brody, Richard S Schiffrin,
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP & William B Federman, Esq.
-- wbf@federmanlaw.com -- Federman & Sherwood.

Paul J Benec, Plaintiff, represented by David R Scott, Scott +
Scott, E Lawrence Vincent, Law Office of Joe H Staley PC, Gregory
M Nespole, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, John G Emerson,
Jr, Emerson Poynter, Jules Brody, Stull Stull & Brody, Kay E
Sickles, Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP, Richard S
Schiffrin, Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP & William B
Federman, Federman & Sherwood.

Gary McAdams, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Alfred G Yates, Jr,
Law Office of Alfred G Yates Jr, Paul J Geller, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Steven E Cauley, Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates
& William B Federman, Federman & Sherwood.

Meyer Meyer Abramowitz, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Marc R
Stanley, Stanley Law Group, Martin Woodward, Stanley Law Group &
Roger L Mandel, Lackey Hershman LLP.

David Garden, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Marc R Stanley,
Stanley Law Group, Brian P Murray, Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP,
Eric J Belfi, Murray Frank & Sailer, Leo W Desmond, Law Office of
Leo W Desmond & Roger L Mandel, Esq. -- rlm@lhlaw.net -- Lackey
Hershman LLP.

Manisha Patel, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Theodore Carl
Anderson, III, Kilgore & Kilgore PLLC, Marc I Gross, Pomerantz
Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, Patrick V Dahlstrom, Pomerantz
Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, Richard J Vita, Law Office of
Richard J Vita & Stanley M Grossman, Pomerantz Haudek Block
Grossman & Gross.

Leslie Turbowitz, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Kay E Sickles,
Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP, Marc A Topaz, Schiffrin
Barroway Topaz & Kessler LLP, Paul J Geller, Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP, Robert B Weiser, Weiser Law Firm, Scott E Poynter,
Emerson Poynter, Steven E Cauley, Cauley Geller Bowman & Coates &
William B Federman, Federman & Sherwood.

Alan Gampel, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Brian M Felgoise,
Law Offices of Brian M Felgoise, Robert J Dyer, III, Dyer & Berens
LLP, Robert Schachter, Esq. -- rschachter@zsz.com -- Zwerling
Schachter Zwerling & Koppell & William B Federman, Federman &
Sherwood.

Francisco Vasquez, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Corey D
Holzer, Holzer Holzer & Cannon LLC & William B Federman, Federman
& Sherwood.

Betty P Thibodeau, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey R
Krinsk, Finkelstein & Krinsk & William B Federman, Federman &
Sherwood.

Alida S Coelho, Consol Plaintiff, represented by John G Emerson,
Jr, Esq. -- jemerson@emersonfirmcom -- Emerson Poynter & William B
Federman, Federman & Sherwood.

John A Coelho, Consol Plaintiff, represented by John G Emerson,
Jr, Emerson Poynter & William B Federman, Federman & Sherwood.

Kevin A Stanley, Consol Plaintiff, represented by William B
Federman, Federman & Sherwood.

Salomea J Goldberg-Blum, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Thomas E
Bilek, The Bilek Law Firm LLP.

Lori A Russo, Consol Plaintiff, represented by William B Federman,
Federman & Sherwood.

Ernest Hack, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Adam J Levitt, Grant
& Eisenhofer PA, Charles J Piven, Law Office of Charles J Piven,
Fred T Isquith, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz & Thomas
Burt, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz.

Robert W Davis, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Thomas E Bilek,
The Bilek Law Firm LLP, Aaron Brody, Stull Stull & Brody & Jules
Brody, Stull Stull & Brody.

Charles G Nemeth, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Richard J Zook,
Cunningham Darlow Zook & Chapoton.

Diana L Parkes, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Marc R Stanley,
Stanley Law Group, David R Scott, Esq. -- david.scott@scott-
scott.com -- Scott + Scott, John G Emerson, Jr, Emerson Poynter &
Neil Rothstein, Truth in Corporate Justice.

David Jaroslawicz, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Richard J
Zook, Cunningham Darlow Zook & Chapoton & John G Emerson, Jr,
Emerson Poynter.

Polar Investment Club, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Fred T
Isquith, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz.

John Kimble, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Arthur L Shingler,
III, Scott + Scott & Theodore Carl Anderson, III, Kilgore &
Kilgore PLLC.

Halliburton Company, Defendant, represented by Jessica B Pulliam,
Esq. -- jessica.pulliam@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts, David D
Sterling, Esq. -- david.sterling@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts
LLP, John Benjamin Lawrence, Esq. -- john.lawrence@bakerbotts.com
-- Baker Botts & Thomas E O'Brien, Esq. --
tom.obrien@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts LLP.

David J Lesar, Consol Defendant, represented by David D Sterling,
Baker Botts LLP, Jessica B Pulliam, Baker Botts, John Benjamin
Lawrence, Baker Botts & Thomas E O'Brien, Baker Botts LLP.

Arthur Andersen LLP, Consol Defendant, represented by Lea F
Courington, Stewart Strong Dugger Dean Kulwicki Johnson & Slater
PLLC & Lindsey C Cummings, Bellinger & DeWolf LLP.

The Benec Group, Movant, represented by Charles J Piven, Law
Office of Charles J Piven, Fred T Isquith, Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz & William B Federman, Federman & Sherwood.

Forrest Lead Plaintiffs, Movant, represented by Jules Brody, Stull
Stull & Brody & William B Federman, Federman & Sherwood.

John Miletello, Movant, represented by Marc R Stanley, Stanley Law
Group.

Patricia A Magruder, Movant, represented by Craig M Walker, Walker
Law, Dennis D Gibson, Gibson Law Firm & James M McCoy, The McCoy
Law Firm.

Ben Alan Murphey, Intervenor, represented by Theodore Carl
Anderson, III, Kilgore & Kilgore PLLC.

City of Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Retirement System,
Intervenor, represented by Joe Kendall, Kendall Law Group LLP,
Andrew J Brown, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Thomas G
Wilhelm, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & William S Lerach,
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins.

Laborers National Pension Fund, Intervenor, represented by Joe
Kendall, Kendall Law Group LLP, Andrew J Brown, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Thomas G Wilhelm, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, William S Lerach, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins & Willie Briscoe .

Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund, Intervenor,
represented by Joe Kendall, Kendall Law Group LLP, Andrew J Brown,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Thomas G Wilhelm, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP & William S Lerach, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
Rudman & Robbins.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: New Jersey Court Remands "Brown"
-------------------------------------------------
Harold Brown initiated a common law tort action in New Jersey
Superior Court on May 2, 2014, alleging injury from workplace
asbestos exposure.  The Defendants removed the case to the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey on April 15,
2015, and the Plaintiff now moves to remand it to New Jersey
Superior Court.

In an opinion dated July 28, 2015, U.S. District Judge William H.
Walls granted the Plaintiff's motion, holding that removal of the
case to federal court on diversity grounds was improper under the
voluntary-involuntary rule.

The case is HAROLD BROWN, Plaintiff, v. CATERPILLAR, INC., et al.,
Defendants, CIV. NO. 15-02687 (WHW)(CLW)(D.N.J.).  A full-text
copy of Judge Walls' Decision is available at http://is.gd/1Se9TI
from Leagle.com.

HAROLD BROWN, Plaintiff, represented by LEAH CYLIA KAGAN, LEVY
PHILLIPS KONINGSBERG LLP & ROBERT E. LYTLE, Esq. --
RLytle@szaferman.com -- SZAFERMAN, LAKIND, BLUMSTEIN & BLADER, PC.

CATERPILLAR, INC., Defendant, represented by PAUL JOSEPH SMYTH,
Esq. -- psmyth@moodklaw.com -- MARKS O'NEILL O'BRIEN DOHERTY &
KELLY, P.C..

CUMMINS, INCORPORATED, Defendant, represented by MICHAEL JOSEPH
BLOCK, WILBRAHAM, LAWLER & BUBA.

DANA COMPANIES, LLC, Defendant, represented by GARY D. VAN LIEU,
Esq. -- gvanlieu@ofwvlaw.com -- O'TOOLE FERNANDEZ WEINER VAN LIEU,
LLC.

FEDERAL MOGUL ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY TRUST, Defendant,
represented by JOSEPH M. TOMAINO, Esq. -- jtomaino@lcbf.com --
LANDMAN, CORSI, BALLAINE & FORD, PC.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, represented by JOSEPH F.
LAGROTTERIA, Esq. -- joseph.lagrotteria@leclairryan.com --
LECLAIRRYAN, ROBYN GNUDI KALOCSAY, Esq. --
robyngnudi.kalocsay@leclairryan.com -- LECLAIRRYAN & MICHAEL DORON
GOLDKLANG, Esq. -- michael.goldklang@leclairryan.com -- LECLAIR
RYAN.

MACK TRUCKS, INC., Defendant, represented by JOHN CHRISTIE
MCMEEKIN, II, Esq. -- jmcmeekin@rawle.com -- RAWLE AND HENDERSON
LLP.

MCCORD CORPORATION, Defendant, represented by ANDREW J. SCHOLZ,
Esq. -- ascholz@goldbergsegalla.com -- GIKDBERG SEGALLA LLP & H.
LOCKWOOD MILLER, III, Esq. -- hmiller@goldbergsegalla.com --
GOLDBERG SEGALLA LLP.


                            *********

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  * * *