CAR_Public/150810.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, August 10, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 158


                            Headlines


A CAB LLC: Class Suit Filed Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Suit Over "Clothing" Policy Certified
ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Objector's Petition for En Banc Hearing Denied
ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Seeks Dismissal of 3rd Amended "Hughes" Action
ACCRETIVE HEALTH: To Defend Against "Church" Class Action

ACCRETIVE HEALTH: To Defend Against "Anger" Lawsuit
ACCRETIVE HEALTH: "Cassale" Class Action Settled
AIR MEDIA: Suit Reflects Chinese Companies in American Markets
ALIBABA GROUP: California Action Transferred to New York Court
ANTHEM INC: "Juliano" Suit Included in Data Security Breach MDL

APPLIED MATERIALS: Faces "Stewart" Class Suit in N.D. California
ASRM: Egg Donor Lawsuit Could Rattle Fertility Industry
AVID LIFE: Jane Doe Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Retirement Funds Allege Antitrust Practices
BANKRATE INC: Apax Defendants Terminated from Class Action

BMW: Settles Class Suit Over Demo Vehicle Warranties
CANADA: Faces Suit Over Poor Treatment of Mentally Ill Prisoners
CANADA: Medical Marijuana Class Suit Certified by Federal Court
CARIS LIFE: Judge Blasts Grant Thornton Deal Advice As 'New Low'
CBD ENERGY: "Johnson" Class Suit Moved From E.D. to S.D. Texas

COGENTIX MEDICAL: "Frustaci" Case in Minnesota Dismissed
COGENTIX MEDICAL: Plaintiff Intended to Dismiss "Jaret" Case
COMVERSE INC: New Presiding Judge Assigned to Israeli Class Suit
DAIRY FARMERS: Milk Suit To Churn Out Another Settlement Payment
DEKALB COUNTY, GA: Faces Class Suit Over "Cash-Strapped Scheme"

DIGITAL TURBINE: Israeli High Court Rejects Class Action Appeal
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Homeless Families Win Class Action Lawsuit
DR. REDDY'S: Court Grants Consent Motion to Approve Settlement
EAST RAMAPO, NY: School Board Overpaid $2MM To Lawyers
ELECTRONICS ARTS: $60MM Settlement for Video Game Suit Approved

EZCORP INC: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Suit
FAREPORTAL INC: Faces Suit Over Fair Accessibility of Website
FEDEX PACKAGE: Accused of Misclassifying Non-ISP Drivers
FIFA: Lawyers to Sign Up Clients Damaged by Scandal
FINISAR CORPORATION: Class Action Appeal Remains Pending

FLORIDA: Removes "Johnson" Suit to Florida District Court
FORCEFIELD ENERGY: Securities Class Actions Filed v. Company, D&Os
GENERAL NUTRITION: "Clemmons" Suit Included in Supplements MDL
GENERAL NUTRITION: "Reyes" Suit Consolidated in Supplements MDL
GNC HOLDINGS: "Dore" Suit Consolidated in Herbal Supplements MDL

GROWLIFE INC: Court Approved Settlement Notice in Derivative Case
H&R BLOCK: Appeal in Compliance Fee Litigation Remains Pending
H&R BLOCK: Appeal in "Perras" Lawsuit Remains Pending
H&R BLOCK: Form 8863 Litigation Remains Stayed
HALLIBURTON CO: Investor Class Suit Certified

HONGKONG EXCHANGES: Settles 2 US Aluminium Class Suits
ILUKA RESOURCES: Court Rejects Preliminary Discovery Request
ITURAN LOCATION: Faces Class Suit Over Monthly Subscription Fees
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued for "Deceptive" "Bedtime Products Ad
JP MORGAN: Settles RMBS Class Suit

K LINE: Reaches $67-Mil. Settlement Over Antitrust Class Suit
KISMET EXECUTIVE: "Crespo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Faces "Chowning" Suit Over False Advertisement
LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: To Seek Dismisal of Securities Class Action
LIBERTY TAX: Recorded $7.6 Mil. in Class Actions-Related Costs

LIFELOCK INC: Howard G. Smith Firm Files Securities Class Suit
LOGMEIN: "Handy" Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend
MCCORMICK & CO: Sued for Alleged Deceptive Packaging of Pepper
MEDTRONIC PLC: Pretrial Proceedings Underway Sprint Fidelis Case
MEDTRONIC PLC: 800 Cases Filed Over INFUSE Product as of June 1

MEDTRONIC PLC: 11,300 Cases v. Covidien Units as of June 1
MEDTRONIC PLC: Plaintiffs File Appeal in Case Over Covidien Deal
MEDTRONIC PLC: Houston and Clark Lawsuits Now Dismissed
MEDTRONIC PLC: Stipulation of Settlement Filed in Mass. Court
MICHIGAN: Dept. of Corrections Faces Suit Over Juvenile Abuse

MINNESOTA: Cities Ponder Lawsuit Over Flushable Wipes
MONSANTO COMPANY: Sues Insurers for PI Suit Defense Costs
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Seeks Cut In $46MM In Fees Awarded To O'Bannon
NAUTICA RETAIL: Violates Disabilities Act, Florida Suit Claims
NEIMAN MARCUS: 7th Circ. Gives Standing to Credit Card Holders

NOVA BIOMEDICAL: Faces Personal Injury Action
OAKLAND COUNTY, MI: Sued Over Tax Foreclosures
OLD NATIONAL BANK: Suit Will Go Forward as Class Action
P.F. CHANG: Judge 'Tentatively' Junks Suit Over Gluten-Free Menu
PENNSYLVANIA: DOC Faces Suit Alleging Civil Rights Violations

PINCHERS CRAB: "Denney" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Tips
PROVIDENCE MEDICAL: Hospitals Agree to $500K Class Suit Deal
REMINGTON ARMS: Knew Guns Were Defective Guns, Manhattan Man Says
RITE AID: Continues to Defend Indergit Class Action
RITE AID: Court Approval of Pharmacist Case Settlement Pending

RITE AID: Continues to Defend Employee Seating Case
SCRIPPS NETWORKS: Violation of "Junk Fax Act" Leads to Class Suit
SERVICESOURCE INT'L: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
SHAW'S SUPERMARKET: Seeks To Move Age Discrimination Suit
SLING MEDIA: Class Suit Filed Over Forced Advertisements

SONY CORP: Non-U.S. Class Action Related to Cyber-Attack Pending
SONY CORP: SPE Named as Defendant in Class Action
TALIKA USA: False Ad Campaign Class Suit Reaches Settlement
TARGET CORP: "Barber" Suit Consolidated in Herbal Supplements MDL
TARGET CORP: "Farrell" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL

TAURUS FIREARMS: Has $39-Mil. Settlement over Defective Triggers
TOYOTA MOTOR: Injury Claims Over Floor Mat Entrapment Pending
TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Actions Over Takata Airbags at Early Stage
TRANSALTA CORP: Consultant Organizing Suit Over Plant Shutdowns
US BANK: Judge Won't Certify Class Over Preemptive Deal Fears

VASCO DATA: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Suit
VISA: Lawyer Emails Threaten $6-Bil. Class Suit Deal
WALGREEN CO: "Clemmons" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL
WALGREEN CO: "Kardasz" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL
WALGREEN CO: "Trinidad" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL

WAL-MART STORES: "Jones" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL
WAL-MART STORES: "Marshall" Suit Consolidated in Supplements MDL
WAL-MART STORES: "Sparks" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL
WAL-MART STORES: "Stevens" Suit Consolidated in Supplements MDL
WAL-MART STORES: Warns Suppliers Over Labeling Laws

WARNER/CHAPELL: "Happy Birthday" Song May Be Ruled Free
WASHINGTON: May Face Class Suit Over Tuition Cuts in GET
WICKHAM SECURITIES: Retirees' Suit Seeks to Clawback Investments
WILLIAM WARREN: Removes "Holbach" Suit to Florida District Court
XTO ENERGY: Class Suit Filed Over Insufficient Royalties Payment

* CFPB May Allow Payday Loan Class Actions to Come Back


                            *********


A CAB LLC: Class Suit Filed Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wage
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against A Cab LLC of Las
Vegas, Nevada, on behalf of their taxi drivers who were not paid
minimum wage.

In the lawsuit, entitled Dubric v. A Cab LLC, Clark County
District Court Case No. A-15-721063-C, plaintiff alleges that A
Cab failed to pay minimum wage, and had a policy and practice of
crediting tips toward the payment of minimum wage in violation of
Nevada law. The plaintiff also claims that A Cab made unlawful
deductions from her wages, causing her pay, and the pay of the
other drivers, to fall below minimum wage. The plaintiff is
represented by Mark J. Bourassa, Esq. and Trent L. Richards, Esq.
of The Bourassa Law Group in Las Vegas, Nevada. "It's a shame to
see such a prominent local company breaking the minimum wage rules
and short changing their employees," said Bourassa.

In 2014, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled that taxi drivers must be
paid at least minimum wage. This ruling upheld a 2006 state
constitutional amendment that increased the minimum wage and did
away with a 1965 law that used to exempt cab drivers from this
minimum wage requirement.

The Bourassa Law Group represents aggrieved people both
individually and in class actions in employment matters, debt
collection, personal injury, and construction defect claims. The
firm has attorneys admitted to practice throughout Nevada,
Colorado, Arizona, California, Missouri and Florida.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Suit Over "Clothing" Policy Certified
----------------------------------------------------------
Mallory Schlossberg, writing for Business Insider, reported that
two ex-Abercrombie & Fitch workers can sue the retailer on behalf
of thousands of employees who allegedly had to conform to its
notorious look policy, thanks to a federal court ruling that
officially certified the case as a class action.

Judge Jesus Bernal's ruling granting class certification means
there's a lot more at stake than there would be if two individuals
were suing Abercrombie on their own.

While Abercrombie overhauled its "look policy", it's still facing
lawsuits over its past requirements that sales associates adhere
to strict dress codes.

This lawsuit claims Abercrombie & Fitch required as many as 62,000
employees who worked there since 2009 to purchase the brand's
clothing with their own money to conform to the policy requiring
them to wear clothes of "distinctive design."

The recent complaint filed in California federal court claims
Abercrombie required employees to purchase clothing five times a
year -- each time the fashion season changed. The brand allegedly
provided each employee with a "style booklet," dictating what they
could purchase.

Even footwear was mandated, according to the complaint.
Abercrombie allegedly forced employees to wear Vans, Converse,
leather flip flops, or whatever flip flops were in Abercrombie's
seasonal colors.

This, according to the complaint, lowers employees' pay to below
minimum wage.

In an email to Business Insider, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, Reed
Marcy, told Business Insider that Abercrombie benefited from its
"look policy" in two ways:

"First, coerced employee clothing purchases were a substantial
revenue generator, even at the discounted prices charged to
employees. Each time a new style guide came out, Abercrombie
management pushed employees to buy Abercrombie clothes.

Second, Abercrombie's primary marketing tool that its store
personnel wear exclusively Abercrombie clothes, serving as walking
billboards for the latest styles and trends so that when
Abercrombie's young customers come into the stores, they see
latest Abercrombie look and want to buy those clothes."

The complaint also alleges that Abercrombie does not give workers
the rest breaks required by California law. Those who worked
longer shifts did not receive the necessary breaks, either, the
complaint claims. Moreover, Abercrombie allegedly failed to pay
employees the necessary one-hour pay required of the company
should it not provide breaks.

Abercrombie recently received heat after allegedly rejecting a
Muslim teen for a job because she needed to wear a hijab. The case
went to the Supreme Court, and the court ruled in her favor.

A representative for Abercrombie declined to comment on the
current litigation.

However, Abercrombie brand president Christos Angelides spoke to
CNN Money about the brand's decision to reform its look policy.

"We are focused on the future not the past, and there is complete
alignment that these are the right changes," he told CNN Money.


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Objector's Petition for En Banc Hearing Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Accretive Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a petition by an
objector for en banc rehearing has been denied.

"On April 26, 2012 and May 1, 2012, we, along with certain of our
former officers, were named as a defendant in two putative
securities class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, which were consolidated as
Wong v. Accretive Health et al.," the Company said. "The primary
allegations are that our public statements, including filings with
the SEC, were false and/or misleading about our violations of
certain federal and Minnesota privacy and debt collection laws."

"On September 26, 2013, without any admission of liability or
wrongdoing, we entered into a Settlement Agreement to resolve
these suits for $14 million, which has been funded into escrow by
our insurance carriers. On April 30, 2014, the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois granted final approval of
the Settlement Agreement. A single objector to the Settlement
Agreement appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit, and, on December 9, 2014, the court of appeals affirmed
the district court's approval of the settlement. On December 23,
2014, that objector submitted a petition for en banc rehearing,
which was denied on January 26, 2015.


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: Seeks Dismissal of 3rd Amended "Hughes" Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Accretive Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a petition by an
objector for en banc rehearing has been denied.

"On May 17, 2013, we, along with certain of our directors, former
directors and former officers, were named as a defendant in a
putative securities class action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Hughes v.
Accretive Health, Inc. et al.)," the Company said.

"The primary allegations, relating to our March 8, 2013
announcement that we would be restating our prior period financial
statements, are that our public statements, including filings with
the SEC, were false and/or misleading with respect to our revenue
recognition and earnings prospects.

"On November 27, 2013, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed our
directors and former directors (other than Mary Tolan).

"On January 31, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On September 25, 2014, the Court granted our motion to dismiss
without prejudice, however the plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint on October 23, 2014. On November 10, 2014, we filed a
motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.

"While that motion was still pending, on January 8, 2015,
plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the Second Amended Complaint,
seeking to add allegations regarding the recently issued
Restatement.

"On April 22, 2015, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to amend,
and a Third Amended Complaint was filed on May 13, 2015.

"We moved to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint on June 3, 2015.
We continue to believe we have meritorious defenses and intend to
vigorously defend ourselves, Mary Tolan, and our former officers
against these claims. The outcome is not presently determinable."


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: To Defend Against "Church" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Accretive Health, Inc. intends to vigorously defend the "Church"
class action lawsuit, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 23,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014/

"On February 11, 2014, we were named as a defendant in a putative
class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Alabama (Church v. Accretive Health, Inc.),"
the Company said. "The primary allegations are that we attempted
to collect debts without providing the notice required by the
FDCPA and attempted to collect debts after they were discharged in
bankruptcy. We believe that we have meritorious defenses and
intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these claims. The
outcome is not presently determinable."

On February 24, 2015 (amended Feb. 25, 2015), the Plaintiff in the
Church action filed a motion with the Joint Panel for
Multidistrict Litigation to transfer and consolidate the Church,
Anger and Cassale actions for pretrial purposes in the Southern
District of Alabama where the Church case is currently pending.
That motion was withdrawn in May 2015.


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: To Defend Against "Anger" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Accretive Health, Inc. intends to vigorously defend the "Anger"
class action lawsuit, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 23,
2015, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014.

"On July 22, 2014, we were named as a defendant in a putative
class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan (Anger v. Accretive Health, Inc.).
The primary allegations are that we attempted to collect debts
without providing the notice required by the FDCPA. We believe
that we have meritorious defenses and intend to vigorously defend
ourselves against these claims. The outcome is not presently
determinable," the Company said.

On February 24, 2015 (amended Feb. 25, 2015), the Plaintiff in the
Church action filed a motion with the Joint Panel for
Multidistrict Litigation to transfer and consolidate the Church,
Anger and Cassale actions for pretrial purposes in the Southern
District of Alabama where the Church case is currently pending.
That motion was withdrawn in May 2015.


ACCRETIVE HEALTH: "Cassale" Class Action Settled
------------------------------------------------
Accretive Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the "Cassale" class
action lawsuit has been settled.

"On February 6, 2015, we were named as a defendant in a putative
class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan (Cassale v. Accretive Health, Inc.).
The primary allegations are that we attempted to collect debts
without complying with the provisions of the FDCPA. The case was
settled in April 2015," the Company said.

On February 24, 2015 (amended Feb. 25, 2015), the Plaintiff in the
Church action filed a motion with the Joint Panel for
Multidistrict Litigation to transfer and consolidate the Church,
Anger and Cassale actions for pretrial purposes in the Southern
District of Alabama where the Church case is currently pending.
That motion was withdrawn in May 2015.


AIR MEDIA: Suit Reflects Chinese Companies in American Markets
--------------------------------------------------------------
Want China Times reported that the class action case against
Nasdaq-listed AirMedia reflects the challenges Chinese companies
face in the American market and in their plans to move their
listings back to China, according to web portal Sina's technology
blog.

A class action lawsuit was filed on June 25 in the United States
for investors that bought AirMedia's American Depositary Receipts
(ADRs) between April 15 and June 15, when the company saw share
prices first surge and later tank on two successive deals
announced during that period.

AirMedia first announced sales of a 5% stake in its advertising
unit AM Advertising to Shenzhen Liantronics on April 7, which
boosted the company's ADR prices from US$2.05 that day to US$2.84
the next day, Sina said.

Despite a negative report published by Richard Pearson on the
Seeking Alpha website on April 28, which questioned the deal as a
fake agreement that is not legally binding or enforceable,
AirMedia saw its ADR prices climb to US$7.26 on June 12.

AirMedia later saw its ADR prices tank 17.77% on June 15, after
the company announced a new deal to sell a 75% stake in AM
Advertising to Beijing Longde Wenchuang Fund Management and the
cancellation of the April 7 deal.

Air Media's ADR prices dropped further to US$3.50 on June 18
before rebounding 42.6% to US$5.02 on the company's privatization
plan the following day. The Chinese company offered US$6 for all
outstanding ADRs in the market.

Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, which filed the case in a New
York court, alleged that AirMedia provided misleading information
regarding the sales of AM Advertising, since the company did not
disclose full details about these deals and inflated the
advertising unit's value.

This made AirMedia the 10th US-listed Chinese company that saw the
filing of a class action suit, Sina noted.

AirMedia's clause promising the profitability of AM Advertising in
both deals also reflects the different practices involving merger
and acquisition in China and the US, Sina said.

Sina further pointed out that US-listed Chinese companies are
facing new challenges if they plan to delist their shares and
launch a new listing at home, following the sell-off that dragged
down the benchmark Shanghai Composite Index from a high of 5,166
points to the recent level below 4,000.

These companies will have a tougher time to convince investors at
home by just painting a rosy picture, while the Chinese stock
markets are expected to adopt more globally-accepted rules in
their operations, Sina said.


ALIBABA GROUP: California Action Transferred to New York Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alibaba Group Holding Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 25, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015, that the action pending in
the Northern District of California has been transferred to the
Southern District of New York.

The Company said, "On January 30, 2015, we were named as a
defendant in the first of seven putative shareholder class action
lawsuits filed in the United States District Courts for the
Southern District of New York, Central District of California and
Northern District of California, captioned:

   * Manishkumar Khunt v. Alibaba Group Holding Limited et al.,
No. 15-cv-00759-CM (filed Jan. 30, 2015)

   * Devorah Klein v. Alibaba Group Holding Limited et al., No.
15-cv-00811-CM (filed Feb. 3, 2015)

   * Ming Huang v. Alibaba Group Holding Limited et al., No. 15-
cv-00789-PA-AJW (filed Feb. 4, 2015)

   * Claire Rand v. Alibaba Group Holding Limited et al., No. 15-
cv-00991-CM (filed Feb. 11, 2015)

   * Myrtle Chao v. Alibaba Group Holding Limited et al., No. 15-
cv-01102-PA-AJW (filed Feb. 16, 2015)

   * James and Christine Ziolkowski v. Alibaba Group Holding
Limited et al., No. 15-cv-01405-CM (filed Feb. 25, 2015)

   * Placidius O'Silva v. Alibaba Group Holding Limited et al.,
No. 15-cv-01360-HSG (filed March 24, 2015)

The actions were brought on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders who acquired our American Depositary Shares from
October 21, 2014 through January 28, 2015, inclusive.

The Southern District of New York has appointed a Lead Plaintiff
and Lead Counsel on behalf of the putative class pursuant to the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.

On June 9, 2015, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation ordered transfer of the actions in the Central District
of California to the Southern District of New York for coordinated
or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the four actions before
that court. On June 18, 2015, the Panel ordered transfer of the
action pending in the Northern District of California to the
Southern District of New York.

"The complaints generally allege that the registration statement
and prospectus filed in connection with our initial public
offering and various other public statements contained
misrepresentations regarding our business operations and financial
prospects, and failed to disclose, among other things, regulatory
scrutiny by the SAIC prior to our initial public offering.
Specifically, plaintiffs allege that we should have disclosed a
July 16, 2014 administrative guidance meeting with the SAIC that
was later the subject of a self-described "white paper" issued and
then withdrawn by the SAIC. Plaintiffs assert claims against our
company and Executive Chairman Jack Yun Ma, Executive Vice
Chairman Joseph C. Tsai, then Chief Executive Officer Jonathan
Zhaoxi Lu and Chief Financial Officer Maggie Wei Wu for violation
of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, attorney's fees and costs.
The New York court has required that a consolidated amended
complaint be filed on or before June 30, 2015," the Company said.


ANTHEM INC: "Juliano" Suit Included in Data Security Breach MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Juliano v. Anthem Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-00219, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Alabama to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California (San Jose).  The California
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-02635-LHK to the
proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Anthem, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL
No. 5:15-md-02617-LHK.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
a data security breach that allegedly occurred sometime between
December 10, 2014, and February 4, 2015, and resulted in the
electronic theft of personally identifiable information and
personal health information of, by one estimate, some 80 million
current and former health insurance plan members and employees of
Anthem or its affiliated health insurance companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donald W. Stewart, Esq.
          STEWART AND STEWART PC
          1021 Noble Street, Suite 110
          Anniston, AL 36201
          Telephone: (256) 237-9311
          Facsimile: (256) 237-0713
          E-mail: donaldwstewart5354@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Greg William Foster, Esq.
          T. Dylan Reeves, Esq.
          STEWART AND STEWART PC
          The Realty Building, Suite 300
          1826 3rd Avenue North
          PO Box 721 (35021)
          Bessemer, AL 35020
          Telephone: (205) 425-1166
          Facsimile: (205) 425-5959
          E-mail: greg@stewartandstewart.net
                  dreeves@stewartandstewart.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          David R. Boyd, Esq.
          COMEY & BOYD
          1800 M St N.W.
          Ste 575 South
          Washington, DC 20036-5869
          Telephone: (202) 822-6340
          E-mail: dboyd@bsfllp.com

               - and -

          Allison M. Holt, Esq.
          Craig A. Hoover, Esq.
          E. Desmond Hogan, Esq.
          Peter R. Bisio, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          555 13th St NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637-5600
          Facsimile: (202) 637-5910
          E-mail: allison.holt@hoganlovells.com
                  craig.hoover@hoganlovells.com
                  desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com
                  peter.bisio@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          Cavender C. Kimble, Esq.
          BALCH & BINGHAM LLP
          1901 6th Avenue N, Suite 1500
          PO Box 306
          Birmingham, AL 35201-0306
          Telephone: (205) 226-3437
          Facsimile: (205) 488-5860
          E-mail: ckimble@balch.com


APPLIED MATERIALS: Faces "Stewart" Class Suit in N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Stewart and Neil Stewart, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Applied Materials, Inc., Aetna Life
Insurance Company; Aetna Health of California, Inc., Case No.
4:15-cv-02632-DMR (N.D. Cal., June 12, 2015) alleges that Aetna
Life breached its duty by supplanting generally accepted treatment
standards in the mental health field with standards that promote
the self-serving, cost-cutting preferences of Aetna Life and its
corporate affiliates.

Ms. Stewart, and her son Neil Stewart, who was diagnosed with
Autism Spectrum Disorder, are residents of San Jose, California.
She is a participant in the "Applied Materials, Inc. Welfare Plan"
and Neil Stewart is a beneficiary of the Stewarts' Plan.  This
non-grandfathered, large group plan is a self-insured healthcare
policy issued by Applied Materials, Inc. in California.

Aetna Life Insurance Company is a corporation with its principal
place of business located in Hartford, Connecticut.  Aetna Health
is a corporation with its principal place of business located in
Walnut Creek, California.  Aetna adjudicates all mental health
care claims for the Plaintiffs' Plans.  Applied Materials, Inc. is
a corporation with its principal place of business located in
Santa Clara, California.  Applied Materials is the Plan Sponsor of
the Aetna medical plans.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Glenn R. Kantor, Esq.
          Timothy J. Rozelle, Esq.
          Andrew M. Kantor, 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
                  akantor@kantorlaw.net


ASRM: Egg Donor Lawsuit Could Rattle Fertility Industry
-------------------------------------------------------
Jason Kashdan, writing for CBS News, reported that a class-action
lawsuit in California could rattle the fertility industry. Two
donors claim fertility clinics conspired to limit their
compensation to $10,000, an allegation CBS News legal expert Rikki
Klieman said on one hand speaks to unlawful price-fixing, but on
the other, raises ethical concerns.

"If you just read the paperwork and nothing else, it doesn't mean
they win, but the paperwork is a pretty good complaint by the law
of antitrust," Klieman said on "CBS This Morning."

But ethicists, Klieman said, are not keen on the idea of selling
body parts.

"[They] don't like the idea that hospitals and fertility clinics
might become auction houses to have body parts sold to the highest
bidder. And that's what we call public policy. Courts and
legislatures can decide public policy," Klieman said.

Lindsay Kamakahi and Justine Levy sued The American Society for
Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) and the Society for Assisted
Reproductive Technology (SART) in 2011 for violating Section 1 of
the Sherman Antitrust Act. The case is moving forward on the basis
that, according to Klieman, fertility clinics represented by SART
and ASRM "conspired or combined to restrain trade."

"Although there is no consensus on the precise payment that oocyte
donors should receive, at this time sums of $5,000 or more require
justification and sums above $10,000 are not appropriate," the
report states.

The ethics committee also wrote that payment should not hinge on
factors including the donors' "ethnic or other personal
characteristics."

In 2011, San Francisco affiliate KPIX reported on the increasing
demand for eggs from Asian donors. Demand severely outweighed
supply at that time, putting one woman Linh, then 21 years old, in
an opportune position.

Linh had a 3.6 grade point average at Berkeley College and was
dubbed by interested, infertile parents as pretty and tall. Linh
said she had "designer genes."

Jackie Gorton, an attorney specializing in ovum ownership
services, told KPIX she has had clients willing to pay $40,000 for
the "perfect egg."

"The ethical issue is, simply, about are we breeding for brains
and beauty? That offends people dramatically," Klieman said.

Nevertheless, according to Klieman, the free market economy
argument in this case is strong.

"We live in a capitalist society. If we have a product, we should
be able to sell it to the highest bidder," Klieman said.


AVID LIFE: Jane Doe Suit Alleges Breach of Contract
---------------------------------------------------
Jane Doe (a pseudonym), and all others similarly situated, v. Avid
Life Media, Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-01132 (E.D. Mo., July 22,
2015), seeks actual and compensatory damages, punitive and
exemplary damages, injunctive relief, costs, expenses and attorney
fees for the Defendant's alleged violations of the Stored
Communications Act, negligence, breach of implied contract,
violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and the
substantially similar statutes of the other states in which
Defendant conducts business.

The Defendant is a merchant that owns, operates, and controls
social networking services, including a site on the Internet
branded as "Ashley Madison".

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John J. Driscoll, Esq.
      DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C.
      211 N. Broadway, Suite 4050
      St. Louis, MO 63102
      Tel: (314) 932-3232
      Fax: (314) 932-3233
      E-mail: john@thedriscollfirm.com


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Retirement Funds Allege Antitrust Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Beaver County Employees' Retirement Fund, Erie County Employees'
Retirement System, and Lackawanna County Employees' Retirement
Fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. Bank of Nova Scotia, New York Agency, Barclays Capital Inc.,
BMO Capital Markets Corp., BNP Paribas Securities Corp., Cantor
Fitzgerald & Co., CIBC World Markets Corp., Citigroup Global
Markets Inc., Commerz Markets LLC, Credit Suisse Securities (USA)
LLC, Daiwa Capital Markets America Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities
Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., Jefferies
LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
Smith Incorporated, Mizuho Securities USA Inc., Morgan Stanley &
Co. LLC, Nomura Securities International, Inc., RBC Capital
Markets, LLC, RBS Securities Inc., SG Americas Securities, LLC, TD
Securities (USA) LLC, and UBS Securities LLC, Case 1:15-cv-05807
(S.D. N.Y., July 23, 2015), seeks recovery under the Sherman
Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act, and the Commodity
Exchange Act on behalf of investors that purchased or sold bonds,
notes, or other marketable securities issued by the United States
Department of Treasury or futures, options, or other financial
instruments based on U.S. Treasury Securities during the period
beginning at least by January 1, 2007 and continuing through the
present.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
     Sharan Nirmul, Esq.
     Darren J. Check, Esq.
     280 King of Prussia Road
     Radnor, PA 19087
     Tel: (610) 667-7706
     Fax: (610) 667-7056
     E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
             snirmul@ktmc.com
             dcheck@ktmc.com


BANKRATE INC: Apax Defendants Terminated from Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Bankrate Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 18, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the Apax Defendants
have been terminated from a class action lawsuit.

In October 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was brought in
federal court in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against the Company and certain of its current
and former officers and directors. The suit, captioned The City of
Los Angeles v. Bankrate, Inc., et al., No. 14-CV-81323-DMM,
alleges, among other things, that the Company's 2011, 2012, and
2013 financial statements improperly recognized revenues and
expenses and therefore were materially false and misleading, and
seeks relief (including damages) under the federal securities laws
on behalf of a proposed class consisting of all persons, other
than the defendants, who purchased the Company's securities
between October 16, 2012 and September 15, 2014, inclusive.

On February 23, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, which asserts claims against the Company, certain
officers and directors of the Company, entities associated with
Apax Partners, the underwriters of the Company's March 2014 stock
offering, and the Company's independent registered public
accountant, alleging that the Company's 2011, 2012, and 2013
financial statements were materially false and misleading and that
the Company sold securities in March 2014 pursuant to a
registration statement and prospectuses in violation of federal
securities law. The amended complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages and rescission or rescissionary damages. On
March 9, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.

Other named defendants, including the Company's accountant, the
underwriter defendants, and the Company's former Chief Financial
Officer, Edward J. DiMaria, have each filed separate and
additional motions to dismiss the amended complaint. Those motions
are pending. Pursuant to a notice of voluntary dismissal submitted
by the lead plaintiff, the Apax Defendants were terminated from
the action on April 23, 2015.

"The action is in its preliminary stages and we are not able to
predict its outcome," the Company said.

The Company cannot presently estimate the amount of loss, if any,
that would result from an adverse resolution of this matter.

Two earlier lawsuits making similar allegations, captioned Tong v.
Evans, et al., No. 14-cv-81183-KLR (S.D. Fla), and Atiyeh v.
Evans, et al., No. 14 Civ. 8443 (JFK) (S.D.N.Y), were voluntarily
dismissed by their respective plaintiffs.


BMW: Settles Class Suit Over Demo Vehicle Warranties
----------------------------------------------------
Eric Freedman, writing for Automotive News, reported that BMW of
North America has settled a class-action suit on behalf of buyers
of more than 104,000 dealership demo vehicles that were sold as
new although the vehicles' four-year warranty periods had already
begun.

Members of the class bought the "new" vehicles between Sept. 28,
2006, and Oct. 6, 2014, according to the federal court decision
approving the settlement. The warranties kicked in not on the
dates customers purchased the vehicles but instead on the dates
the vehicles were sold to the dealerships as demo cars, the court
said.

Under the agreement that came after mediation, BMW is extending
the length of its Ultimate Warranty on those vehicles for at least
three months. It also agreed to reimburse purchasers whose
warranties had expired for out-of-pocket repair costs that would
otherwise have been covered. The reimbursements apply to repairs
made within three months of a warranty's expiration.

BMW did not admit any wrongdoing in the settlement.

In approving the final agreement, U.S. District Judge Claire
Cecchi in Newark, N.J., said the settlement "represents a fair,
reasonable, and adequate result" for the purchasers.

The agreement does not apply to leased vehicles.

The case was filed in September 2012 by Sanjay Saini, who bought a
2011 BMW 335d from a dealership in Sterling, Va. Saini's purchase
order identified the 335d as a "new" vehicle; however, he learned
later it had less than the promised four years of Ultimate
Warranty coverage, according to the complaint.

The suit sought damages for violation of New Jersey consumer
protection law and breach of contract. It alleged that BMW
"maintained a corporate policy of failing to provide warranty
coverage for demonstration vehicles sold by BMW dealers as 'new,'
thereby depriving class members of valuable warranty coverage,"
according to Cecchi's decision.

In her ruling, Cecchi said the agreement "provides substantial
relief to the class members," but she didn't put a precise price
tag on the value of the settlement. Instead, she said that when
multiplied by the number of eligible vehicles, the aggregate value
to the class members of extended warranty coverage was between
$12.2 million and $12.8 million, excluding reimbursement of out-
of-pocket expenses for any class members who were denied warranty
coverage.

The plaintiff's expert witness estimated the retail cost of
comparable aftermarket extended warranty coverage for three months
at $263.43 to $316.80 for each class member.

Cecchi also awarded $600,000 for the plaintiff's attorney fees and
litigation costs, an amount BMW agreed to.

A BMW spokesman said the company had no comment. The plaintiff's
lead lawyer didn't respond to requests for comment.


CANADA: Faces Suit Over Poor Treatment of Mentally Ill Prisoners
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Dixon, writing for Oye News, reported that the Canadian
government is now facing another class action lawsuit on its
treatment of mentally ill prisoners in solitary confinement.  The
law firm, Koskie Minsky, is suing the federal government for
providing substandard health care to mental ill prisoners.

The class-action lawsuit was filed against the federal government
at an Ontario court, which referred that the government's ability
to properly handle mentally ill prisoners has been undermined by a
series of claims. According to the activists, there are "cruel and
unusual punishments" for mentally ill prisoners, claiming that the
government is failing to provide qualified staff and they rely too
heavily on the frequent use of "force, compliance and behavioral
inducement methods."

Highlighting the federal prison system's flaws, Attorney James
Sayce stated that "prisoners in federal institutions who suffer
serious mental illness are not being given the treatment they are
statutorily entitled to". The statement admitted that the alleged
rigid conditions that the prisoners are being kept in is a subject
of the lawsuit but has not yet proven in court. He said that "they
are being warehoused and they are being subjected to extended
periods of time in solitary confinement because the federal prison
system doesn't know what to do with them." Sayce pointed out that
"the effect is . . . the illnesses get worse, and you have serious
pain and emotional stress being suffered by these unwell inmates."
Prison staff is blamed for treating mentally ill inmates with
"contempt, prejudice, indifference and abuse."


CANADA: Medical Marijuana Class Suit Certified by Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reported that the Federal Court of Canada has certified a
class-action lawsuit involving 40,000 people in the medical
marijuana access program.

The case was launched in 2013 after Health Canada sent letters to
people with the program's name on the envelope. Before that, mail
sent to individuals in the program didn't mention marijuana.

Recipients were upset, saying their privacy had been violated.
Some said they worried they'd lose their jobs or become victims of
a home invasion.

In March, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada ruled
that Health Canada had violated federal privacy laws. That ruling
didn't allow for any compensation.

In a press release, the Halifax law firm that launched the case
said the certification shows the Federal Court has decided the
class-action lawsuit is necessary to allow people access to
justice.

Medical status disclosed

Debbie Stultz-Giffin, chair of Maritimers Unite for Medical
Marijuana Society, was one of 2,105 people who received the letter
in Nova Scotia, and is anxious to see the case proceed.

She said it left patients and caregivers open to everything from
home invasion, to condemnation from people close to them who may
not have been aware they were using marijuana.

"It opened us up for discrimination," she said. "Health Canada
exposed our privacy to the public, to Canada Post and in some
situations to friends, neighbors. Certainly as patients we have a
right to that level of privacy about our health conditions or what
we chose to use as our medicine."

Stultz-Giffin said her group is encouraging people to share how
the breach impacted them on a website set up for the suit. The
lawyers in the case say more than 1,000 people have registered for
the site.

"This is not over yet, but the thousands of affected program
members should take some comfort that every legal claim we
advanced on their behalf has been approved to go forward," said
David Fraser, a privacy lawyer at McInnes Cooper in Halifax.

The plaintiffs are seeking damages for breach of contract, breach
of confidence, invasion of privacy and charter violations.

Compensation sought

Fraser said it's too early to quantify what compensation they'll
be looking for, but that it may depend on how individuals were
affected by the breach.

The federal government now has 30 days to appeal the Federal
Court's certification.

Fraser said the privacy breach has added extra stress to people
already struggling with serious health issues. He hopes Health
Canada will consider negotiating a resolution instead of appealing
the certification and going through a court battle.

"When you're dealing with 40,000 people with debilitating health
conditions, drawing this out is not to anyone's advantage. It's
best to resolve it as fast as you can," he said.

McInnes Cooper is jointly representing users from across Canada
with Branch MacMaster LLP of Vancouver, Charney Lawyers of
Toronto, and Sutts, Strosberg LLP of Toronto and Windsor, Ont.


CARIS LIFE: Judge Blasts Grant Thornton Deal Advice As 'New Low'
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Hals, writing for Reuters, reported that a judge on Delaware's
Court of Chancery, which is often called on to review Wall Street
mergers for potential conflicts and shoddy advice, singled out a
valuation analysis by Grant Thornton as "a new low" for deal-
related work.

Vice Chancellor Travis Laster blasted Grant Thornton's work in an
opinion in a class action lawsuit by option holders against Caris
Life Sciences Inc over its sale in 2011.

Laster found the tax advisory firm largely cribbed a report from
rival PricewaterhouseCoopers, made "significant errors" on the
work it did do and abandoned its prior valuation method to come up
with numbers to satisfy a top Caris executive.

Grant Thornton in a statement said, "We stand behind the work we
performed at the client's request and based upon the information
provided to us by the client."

The firm was not a defendant in the suit, did not participate in
the trial and did not owe any fiduciary duty to the plaintiffs.

"The Grant Thornton report deserves separate mention because its
contents were so flawed as to support both an inference of bad
faith and a finding the process was arbitrary and capricious,"
wrote Laster in an 84-page opinion.

"Previous Delaware decisions have criticized erroneous or
seemingly motivated analyses by financial advisors, but the Grant
Thornton report reached a new low."

Laster has a reputation for taking a tough stance on what he finds
are advisers with conflicts. Last year he ordered Royal Bank of
Canada to pay $75.8 million in damages to former shareholders of
ambulance operator Rural/Metro and criticized Barclays for alleged
conflicts in the 2011 sale of Del Monte Foods Co.

Tuesday's opinion stemmed from the sale of Caris Life Sciences
Inc, a cancer diagnostic business, to Miraca Holdings Inc of
Japan, and allegations that holders of Caris stock were cashed out
at an unfair price. Laster awarded the option holders $16.2
million plus interest.

Caris was controlled by David Halbert, Caris' chairman and chief
executive, and co-investor JH Whitney & Co. They wanted to sell
Caris but in a way that avoided taxes on their investment,
according to Laster.

To do so, two units, TargetNow and Carisome, were spun off to
Caris shareholders, and the remaining profitable diagnostics
business was sold to Miraca for $725 million, or $4.46 per Caris
share in cash.

Key to capping the taxes was putting a low valuation on the units
that were spun off, and Grant Thornton was brought in to provide a
second opinion, following a review by PwC.

Grant Thornton had valued the units in July 2011 at around $200
million, according to Laster. But in November 2011, after a
discussion with Chief Financial Officer Gerard Martino, Grant
Thornton used a new methodology and said the value was $47
million.

That lower valuation undermined stock options held by Caris
employees, and Kurt Fox, who held options on 71,600 shares,
brought a class action lawsuit on behalf of holders of Caris
options.

Fox alleged the process to assign the $5.07 value to the options
was not done in good faith, and Laster agreed, awarding damages of
$16.2 million plus interest.

The judge dished out plenty of blame beyond Grant Thornton. He
said Halbert and Martino did not provide credible testimony and
said they admitted to engaging in fraud by providing potential
bidders with business projections they did not believe.

A spokesman for Caris did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.


CBD ENERGY: "Johnson" Class Suit Moved From E.D. to S.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Johnson v. CBD Energy Limited, et
al., Case No. 2:14-cv-00997, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston).  The
Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-01668 to
the proceeding.

The case is a federal securities class action brought on behalf of
a class consisting of all persons other than the Defendants, who
purchased the common stock of CBD Energy pursuant and traceable to
the Company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with the Company's public offering, which commenced on
June 13, 2014.  The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages caused by
the Defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws
and to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Dean Gresham, Esq.
          PAYNE MITCHELL LAW GROUP
          2911 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1400
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 252-1888
          Facsimile: (214) 252-1889
          E-mail: dean@paynemithcell.com

               - and -

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686-1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
          E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                  lrosen@rosenlegal.com

Defendants National Securities Corporation and Northland
Securities, Inc. are represented by:

          Paul Richard Bessette, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          401 Congress Avenue, Suite 3200
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 457-2050
          Facsimile: (512) 457-2100
          E-mail: pbessette@kslaw.com

Movants Shan Zhengjian and Charles McKissick are represented by:

          Michael Charles Smith, Esq.
          SIEBMAN, BURG, PHILLIPS & SMITH LLP
          113 E. Austin St.
          P.O. Box 1556
          Marshall, TX 75671-1556
          Telephone: (903) 938-8900
          E-mail: michaelsmith@siebman.com


COGENTIX MEDICAL: "Frustaci" Case in Minnesota Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Cogentix Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 25, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2015, that the District Court has
granted Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, Joseph J. Frustaci
vs. Uroplasty, Inc., et al.

On January 7, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the District Court, Fourth Judicial District, County of Hennepin,
State of Minnesota, by a purported shareholder of Uroplasty under
the caption Joseph J. Frustaci vs. Uroplasty, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 27-cv-15-305. The complaint named as defendants Uroplasty,
Vision, Merger Sub and the members of the Uroplasty board of
directors. The complaint asserted various causes of action,
including, among other things, that the members of the Uroplasty
board of directors breached their fiduciary duties owed to the
Uroplasty shareholders in connection with entering into the merger
agreement and approving the merger. The complaint further alleged
Uroplasty, Vision-Sciences and Merger Sub aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Uroplasty board of
directors. The plaintiff sought, among other things, injunctive
relief enjoining or rescinding the merger and an award of
attorneys' fees and costs.

Defendants moved to dismiss the matter and opposed a motion filed
by the Plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction.  On March 27,
2015, the District Court denied Plaintiff's motion for an
injunction and granted Defendants motion to dismiss the case.


COGENTIX MEDICAL: Plaintiff Intended to Dismiss "Jaret" Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Cogentix Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 25, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2015, that counsel for the named
plaintiff indicated that the plaintiff intended to voluntarily
dismiss the case, Alec Jaret v. Vision-Sciences, Inc., et al.

On March 3, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, by a purported
shareholder of Vision Sciences under the caption Alec Jaret v.
Vision-Sciences, Inc., et al., Case No 10745.  The complaint named
as defendants, Vision, Uroplasty, Merger Sub and the members of
the Vision board of directors.  The complaint asserted various
causes of action, including, among other things, that the members
of the Vision board of directors breached their fiduciary duties
owed to the Vision shareholders in connection with entering into
the merger agreement and approving the merger. The complaint
further alleged Uroplasty, Vision and Merger Sub aided and abetted
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the Vision board of
directors. The plaintiff sought, among other things, injunctive
relief enjoining or rescinding the merger and an award of
attorneys' fees and costs.

On June 11, 2015, counsel for the named plaintiff indicated that
the plaintiff intended to voluntarily dismiss the case.


COMVERSE INC: New Presiding Judge Assigned to Israeli Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Comverse, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 15, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended April 30, 2015, that a new presiding judge
was assigned to the case, Israeli Optionholder Class Action.

Comverse Technology, Inc. ("CTI") and certain of its former
subsidiaries, including Comverse Ltd. (a subsidiary of the
Company), were named as defendants in four potential class action
litigations in the State of Israel involving claims to recover
damages incurred as a result of purported negligence or breach of
contract due to previously-settled allegations regarding illegal
backdating of CTI options that allegedly prevented certain current
or former employees from exercising certain stock options. The
Company intends to vigorously defend these actions.

Two cases were filed in the Tel Aviv District Court against CTI on
March 26, 2009, by plaintiffs Katriel (a former Comverse Ltd.
employee) and Deutsch (a former Verint Systems Ltd. employee). The
Katriel case (Case Number 1334/09) and the Deutsch case (Case
Number 1335/09) both seek to approve class actions to recover
damages that are claimed to have been incurred as a result of
CTI's negligence in reporting and filing its financial statements,
which allegedly prevented the exercise of certain stock options by
certain employees and former employees.

By stipulation of the parties, on September 30, 2009, the court
ordered that these cases, including all claims against CTI in
Israel and the motion to approve the class action, be stayed until
resolution of the actions pending in the United States regarding
stock option accounting, without prejudice to the parties' ability
to investigate and assert the unique facts, claims and defenses in
these cases.

On May 7, 2012, the court lifted the stay, and the plaintiffs have
filed an amended complaint and motion to certify a class of
plaintiffs in a single consolidated class action. The defendants
responded to this amended complaint on November 11, 2012, and the
plaintiffs filed a further reply on December 20, 2012.

A pre-trial hearing for the case was held on December 25, 2012,
during which all parties agreed to attempt to settle the dispute
through mediation.  The mediation process ended without success.
According to the parties' consent to submit summations in the
motion to certify the claims as a class action, including the
certification of the class of plaintiffs, the court held the
following dates for submission of summations: Summations on behalf
of the plaintiffs were submitted on August 31, 2014; Summations on
behalf of the defendants were submitted on November 20, 2014; and
summations of response by the plaintiffs were submitted on
December 30, 2014.

On February 9, 2015, the Judge presiding over the case recused
herself due to a conflict of interests. On March 30, 2015, the
plaintiffs filed a motion to the Court seeking to have the case
assigned to a new presiding Judge and as a result on April 4, 2015
a new presiding judge was assigned to the case. The parties are
now awaiting for the Court's decision.

Separately, on July 13, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking an
order that CTI hold back $150 million in assets as a reserve to
satisfy any potential damage awards that may be awarded in this
case, but did not seek to enjoin the Share Distribution. On July
25, 2012, the court decided that it will not rule on the motion
until after it rules on plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of
plaintiffs.

On August 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to appeal
the court's decision to the Israeli Supreme Court (the "Appeal")
and on November 11, 2012, CTI responded to plaintiff's motion.
On July 1, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a motion to the Supreme
Court to withdraw the Appeal and accordingly the Appeal was
dismissed.

Two cases were also filed in the Tel Aviv Labor Court by
plaintiffs Katriel and Deutsch, and both sought to approve class
actions to recover damages that are claimed to have been incurred
as a result of breached employment contracts, which allegedly
prevented the exercise by certain employees and former employees
of certain CTI and Verint stock options, respectively. The Katriel
litigation (Case Number 3444/09) was filed on March 16, 2009,
against Comverse Ltd., and the Deutsch litigation (Case Number
4186/09) was filed on March 26, 2009, against Verint Systems Ltd.
The Tel Aviv Labor Court has ruled that it lacks jurisdiction, and
both cases have been transferred to the Tel Aviv District Court.
These cases have been consolidated with the Tel Aviv District
Court cases.

The Company has not accrued for these matters as the potential
loss is currently not probable or estimable.

An additional case has been filed by an individual plaintiff in
the Tel Aviv District Court similarly seeking to recover damages
up to an aggregate of $3.3 million allegedly incurred as a result
of the inability to exercise certain stock options. The case
generally alleges the same causes of actions alleged in the
potential class action. The parties conducted a mediation process
that ended without success. On June 26, 2014 the Court ordered the
plaintiff to notify it why not to transfer the claim to the Labor
Court. On July 10, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice to court
according to which the subject-matter jurisdiction is reserved to
the District Court. The Court did not accept the plaintiff's
argument and has assigned the case to the Labor Court. A
preliminary hearing at the Labor court was scheduled for July 8,
2015. The Company has not accrued for this matter as the potential
loss is currently not probable or estimable.


DAIRY FARMERS: Milk Suit To Churn Out Another Settlement Payment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Little, writing for The Greenville Sun, reported that U.S.
District Judge J. Ronnie Greer, presiding judge in the complex
Southeast Milk Litigation lawsuit, entered an order authorizing
the latest distribution of Dean Foods Settlement Payment No. 4.

The order was entered on July 21 and followed a motion for
distribution, filed on July 15 at U.S. District Court in
Greeneville, dairy industry observer Julie G. Walker, of Newport-
based AgriVoice Enterprises, said in a news release.

Walker said that according to sources, the count filing indicates
that dairy farmers and class members in Federal Milk Marketing
Order 5 (Appalachian) and Federal Milk Marketing Order 7
(Southeast) will likely receive their prorated settlement payments
before the end of August.

"The only hold-up would be if there is some very unexpected legal
action taking place," Walker said.

The Southeast Milk Litigation is a class action antitrust lawsuit
in which dairy farmer plaintiffs challenged business practices of
several different dairy processors and milk handlers.

Originally filed in July 2007, settlement agreements were
finalized in February 2012 and January 2013, resulting in cash
settlements of $285 million from three different defendant groups
for the dairy farmer plaintiffs across the Southeast.

"The settlements are widely believed to be one of the largest
settlements ever reached in a dairy and food industry litigation,"
Walker said.

$20 MILLION SETTLEMENT

Consistent with previous payments, the $20 million settlement
payment will have various court-related expenses and
administration fees deducted, then be distributed with about two-
thirds of the total, or $12.1 million, to be paid to over 6,000
class members/farmers of the lawsuit.

Another $6.66 million is designated for the plaintiff's lawyer
teams, Baker-Hostetler, of Washington, and Brewer & Terry, of
Morristown.

Walker said that payment amounts to individual class members will
be similar, but not exactly equal to, those received in Payment
No. 3 distributed in November 2014.

"Pro-rated portions of class members will be based on pounds of
class-defined milk, which were previously approved in earlier
payment cycles. Class members do not need to file any additional
paperwork," Walker said.

The Dean Foods Settlement in the Southeast Milk Litigation was
finalized and approved via the court's orders of Feb.14, 2012,
June 15, 2012, and Jan. 8, 2013.

PREVIOUS PAYMENTS

Three previous payments have been distributed to farmer plaintiffs
and class members. One payment remains, scheduled for summer or
fall 2016, Walker said.

The Dean Settlement Agreement and terms of payment, finalized in
January 2013, differs from separate agreements reached with
Southern Marketing Agency and Dairy Farmers of America and Related
Entities Settlement Agreement in the Southeast Milk Litigation.

Those agreements involved differing terms of payment and
injunctive relief.

The 2012 accord between dairy farmers and Dallas-based Dean Foods
resulted in payments being made to dairy farmers in Tennessee and
other states in the region.

DEAN FOODS SETTLEMENT

Walker said that Dean Foods, one of the defendants, agreed to a
cash payment of $140 million, with payments to take place from
2012 until 2016.

As of the present, farmers across the Southeast will receive a
collective $12 million in the fourth payment from the Dean
Settlement.

"The amount per farm will vary from a few hundred dollars to
several thousand dollars, based on the amount of milk produced by
each farm," Walker said.

With milk prices currently in a cyclical low, "these payments come
at a time very beneficial to farmers. Many of those farms will be
using that influx of 'extra' money to pay bills," Walker said.

The Dean Foods payment schedule included $60 million in the first
distribution, which was approved in December 2012, with payments
received by farmer/class members in January 2013.

The second distribution of $20 million was approved in August
2013.

A total of $20 million in the third distribution was sent to class
members in late 2014, making a total of $100 million of the Dean
Foods settlement distributed through 2014.

The fourth distribution of $20 million to be disbursed this summer
was earlier requested for the summer of 2015. The fifth and final
distribution of $20 million will be requested in the summer of
2016, Walker said.

In the current Dean Foods settlement, producers should be able to
expect checks in their mailboxes by late August or early
September, Walker said.

ELIGIBLE PRODUCERS

In accordance with standard class actions, one-third of the $285
million total was awarded to lawyer teams, with about $188 million
in cash returned to rural communities in the southeastern U.S.
Several forms of changes in marketplace activity by defendants
were also part of the settlements, "with many of those standards
already in place in the dairy marketing business sector," Walker
said.

According to court documents, eligible producers would have been
in operation in a time frame beginning Jan. 1, 2001, until the
settlements claims deadline.

Using the same procedure previously approved by Greer, Rust
Consulting calculated that the proceeds for distribution to
eligible claimants from the third Dean settlement payment was
$11.8 million, slightly less that the total to be distributed,
according to court documents.

In January 2013, Greer wrote that the court determined that
plaintiffs' proposal for distribution of the Dean Settlement funds
to eligible claimants "is fair, reasonable and adequate."

Rust Consulting received and reviewed 7,363 claim forms from
potential claimants. Class counsel is Baker & Hostetler LLP. Other
law firms represent other participants in the lawsuit.

DFA SETTLEMENT

A separate multi-million dollar settlement reached in 2013 between
the Dairy Farmers of America and dairy farmers in the Southeast
marked the end to the detailed and lengthy lawsuit, which involves
thousands of plaintiffs.

The class-action lawsuit alleged that the DFA and other defendants
violated federal antitrust laws. The suit alleged that, through
price-fixing and suppression of prices, lower amounts were paid to
dairy farmers for raw milk than should have been paid.

Class members include nearly all dairy farmers who produced Grade
A milk within the Southeast and sold Grade A milk directly or
through an agent to the defendants from Jan. 1, 2001, to the
present.

Most class members received more than $10,000 each in the DFA
settlement.

Dairy Farmers of America Inc. and several related defendants
settled in January 2013. Producers received one-time settlement
checks in December 2013 and January 2014 out of an initial $140
million settlement fund.


DEKALB COUNTY, GA: Faces Class Suit Over "Cash-Strapped Scheme"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aimee Sachs, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
DeKalb County, Ga. made millions of dollars by unlawfully
convicting citizens of state law violations outside an ordinance
court's jurisdiction, a class claims.

The 34-page class action lawsuit, filed in the Northern Georgia
district court, outlines an alleged "scheme to generate revenue
for a cash-strapped local government" involving the DeKalb County
Recorder's Court.

The DCRC was created to resolve county ordinance violations only,
not state law violations, but it was wrongly used to make the
county money, according to the lawsuit.

Payments of unlawful fines were allegedly made through Judicial
Correction Services and Integrity Integration Services, which are
both listed as defendants along with DeKalb County.

"DeKalb policy makers knew, at least as early as 2011, that the
DCRC was usurping authority that it was not given under state law,
but they took no action to correct the problem and instead
attempted to paper it over by falsely declaring the DCRC to be a
'municipal court,' which it is not and never has been," the
complaint states.

"DeKalb perpetrated this falsehood so that its district attorneys
could prosecute state law violations in recorder's court and so
that the county could keep receiving money it knew it was not
entitled to keep -- namely, tens of millions of dollars per year
in unauthorized fees and fines that were being collected on state
law citations by DCRC and its private probation services."

Georgia state law allows prosecutors to establish a pre-trial
diversion program, which charges offenders up to $1,000 in
exchange for dropped charges. The lawsuit alleges prosecutors in
the DCRC "referred as many accused persons as possible to this
program under threat of a state law charge and penalty, in order
to generate tens of millions of dollars in revenue for DeKalb
County."

The Georgia Prosecuting Attorney's Council recognized the
recorder's court was not a municipal court and advised county
leaders that it did not have jurisdiction to prosecute state law
offenses, which fell on deaf ears, the complaint states.

The county made clear that it intended to have the recorder's
court generate $20 million in revenue per year and "was unwilling
to pull the district attorney's office out of the DCRC and give up
the substantial revenue that the county got from the pretrial
diversion program unlawfully operated by district attorney
[Robert] James," according to the lawsuit.

"DeKalb County's policy-makers consciously disregarded the limits
of DCRC's subject-matter jurisdiction in the name of revenue. JCS
and ISS then collected that revenue on behalf of DeKalb County by
threatening people with state law penalties, such as 12-month
sentences and license suspensions that DCRC never had the power to
impose," the complaint states. "In the process, defendants
deprived thousands of people of property and liberty, under color
of state law but without legal authority."

The scheme allegedly began when the county faced a $60 million
budget shortfall at the time that suspended DeKalb County CEO
Burrell Ellis took office in 2009. Ellis was sentenced to 18
months in prison for corruption convictions on July 8, according
to a WXIA report.

"Ellis and other county officials began searching desperately for
untapped sources of revenue," the complaint states. "They found
one such source in the DCRC, which reportedly had a backlog of
about $500,000 uncollected traffic citations going back to the
late 1990s."

Many of those fines had already been paid but were not recorded by
DCRC personnel due to computer deficiencies, according to the
lawsuit.

JCS, which was contracted with DeKalb County to help administer
the diversion program, charged and collected "supervision fees" on
top of the other fines, which were enforced by probation
revocation hearings, where the DCRC would "revoke" their probation
as punishment for failing to pay fines and fees, the complaint
alleges.

One of the revocation hearings was reportedly documented by Human
Rights Watch. DCRC Judge Angela Brown "hauled 300 probationers
before the court on a docket that the DCRC mockingly titled,
'Animal Control,'" the lawsuit states.

Brown, the complaint claims, "took the JCS representative's
statements at face value without evidence, and then asked the
probationer whether they could pay the amount immediately. If they
said no, they were immediately and summarily jailed."

It wasn't until late 2014 that DeKalb Superior Court Judge
Courtney Johnson rejected the district attorney's claim that the
DCRC was a municipal court, forcing county legislators to move the
DCRC's caseload to the state court, the complaint states.

The district attorney's office allegedly responded by pulling all
prosecutors out of the DCRC. According to the complaint, the move
happened so fast that the DCRC had no prosecutors for two months,
resulting in the continuation of hundreds of cases and the
suspension of the pretrial diversion program.

Even after probation sentences were transferred to state court in
February, ISS allegedly continued to collect illegal fines and
fees at a table set up outside of the courtroom.

The named plaintiffs are Brandon Brickhouse, Monica Alexander,
Adan Munye and Christina Williams, individuals who were all
convicted for traffic violations in the DCRC. Williams claims she
still makes probation payments to ISS.

The proposed class includes those who, in recent years, paid fines
and fees for DCRC state law violation sentences or in connection
with sentences of more than 120 days probation.

Class members seek the return of money unlawfully taken from them
and a court declaration that they don't need to make probation
payments to ISS. The class also seeks punitive damages. It is
represented by Troy Hendrick in Decatur, Ga.


DIGITAL TURBINE: Israeli High Court Rejects Class Action Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Digital Turbine, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 15, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2015, that the Israeli Supreme Court
has rejected an appeal in the class action suit related to Coral
Tell Ltd.

On May 30, 2013, a class action suit in the amount of NIS 19,200
or $5,300 was filed in the Tel-Aviv Jaffa District Court against
Coral Tell Ltd., an Israeli company which owns and operates a
website offering advertisements and Coral Tell Ltd is currently
being sued in a class action lawsuit regarding phone call overages
and has served a third party notice against Logia and two
additional companies for Digital Turbine's alleged involvement in
facilitating the overages. The suit relates to a service offered
by the Coral Tell website, enabling advertisers to display a
virtual cellular number in the advertisement instead of their real
cellular number. The plaintiff claims that calls were charged for
the connection time between two segments of the call, instead of
the second segment alone; that the caller was charged even if the
advertiser did not answer the call (as the charge began upon
initiation of the first segment); and that the caller was charged
for text messages sent to the advertiser, although the service did
not support delivery of text messages.

"We have no contractual relationship with this company. We believe
the lawsuit is without merit and a finding of liability on our
part remote," the Company said.

After conferring with advisors and counsel, management believes
that the ultimate liability, if any, in the aggregate will not be
material to the financial position or results or operations of the
Company for any future period.

On November 25, 2013, the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the
parties to submit their position as to whether the defendant
(applicant) has a right to appeal the Israeli District's Court
decision or must request the Israeli Supreme Court to grant a
right to appeal.

On December 25, 2013, after reviewing the parties' positions, the
Israeli Supreme Court ordered the respondents (Cellcom, Logia,
Ethrix) to submit their response to defendant's petition to grant
the right to appeal, by January 26th, 2014. Appellant responded
thereafter and the appeal is now under review and pending
judgment. Usually, in petitions such as this the Israeli Supreme
Court makes a judgment based on the parties' written responses.

The Defendant appealed the ruling of July 2013, and on April 1,
2015 the Supreme Court rejected the appeal. This means that the
third party notices, Logia included, will be addressed and heard
after judgment is made in the case between the Plaintiff and
Defendant.

Digital Turbine does not believe there is a probable and estimable
claim. Accordingly, Digital Turbine has not accrued any liability.


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Homeless Families Win Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patty Mullahy Fugere, writing for The Huffington Post, reported
that on July 21, 2015, D.C. Superior Court Judge Robert Okun
issued a final order in favor of DC homeless families in the class
action Melvern Reid v. District of Columbia. The class action was
filed in the winter of 2013-2014 in response to the Gray
Administration's placement of homeless families in recreation
centers, which the families alleged, and the court agreed, put
them at risk of serious harm and violated their rights to be
placed in apartment-style or private room shelters under the
Homeless Services Reform Act.

Judge Okun issued a permanent injunction that requires DC to place
all eligible homeless families in apartment-style shelter when the
temperature falls below freezing. If no apartment-style shelter is
available, DC must place families in private rooms, which are
defined in the order. This court order will be displayed at the
centralized intake center for homeless families (the Virginia
Williams Family Resource Center). Lawyers for homeless families
must be allowed into the intake center while families are there to
monitor DC's compliance and advise families about their legal
rights. Finally, DC is required to give written notice "as far in
advance as possible" if it is in danger of violating the court
order.

This decision is a resounding victory for homeless families based
not just on esoteric interpretations of law, but on a common
understanding of basic human rights that must be protected for all
DC residents, no matter their income. As Judge Easterly wrote in
the D.C. Court of Appeals' opinion upholding the preliminary
injunction, "For almost as long as it has had a statutory
obligation to provide shelter to the homeless, the District has
been prohibited from placing homeless families in congregate
shelters. This prohibition, dating back to 1988, is premised on an
understanding that families have special needs that are best
served by affording them apartment-style shelter--i.e., housing
units with cooking facilities, bathroom facilities, and sleeping
quarters--"

This is a victory built upon the courage of homeless families and
the extraordinary legal advocacy by pro bono counsel.

Melvern Reid, the person whose name appears on this case, is a
remarkable woman who should be applauded for her capable
representation of this class of homeless families. She testified
eloquently about the long-lasting and harmful effect that staying
in the recreation centers had on her grandson. Her plea--"For all
of the children like my grandson who will need shelter, please
make sure they have a stable and private place to sleep at
night."--was heard.

We are equally indebted to the amazing legal team at Hogan
Lovells, whose attorneys and support staff stood outside in
freezing temperatures to talk to families, stayed up all night
preparing briefs and pleadings, and spent two years litigating
this case to the best of their very high level ability--winning
every motion and appeal along the way.

Last but not least, we must recognize the fierceness of the
homeless families' community and political allies who stood with
them every step along the way--from the strong coalition of
national and local advocates and legal experts who supported their
appeal, to the DC Council members and staff who legislatively
repudiated their treatment, to Mayor Bowser and her current
homeless services team who have reclaimed a humane approach to
ending family homelessness.

We are grateful to be moving forward with these partners to assure
that every resident of the District of Columbia has a safe and
appropriate place to call home.


DR. REDDY'S: Court Grants Consent Motion to Approve Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 17,
2015, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015, that a U.S. court
has granted the Company's consent motion for approval of the
settlement agreements in the Nexium United States litigation.

Five federal antitrust class action lawsuits have been brought on
behalf of direct purchasers of Nexium, and ten federal class
action lawsuits have been brought under both state and federal law
on behalf of end-payors of Nexium. These actions have been filed
against various generic manufacturers, including the Company and
its U.S. subsidiary Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. These actions
have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

The complaints allege that, beginning in 2005, AstraZeneca sued
various generic manufacturers, including the Company, for
infringement with respect to patents purporting to cover
AstraZeneca's branded drug, Nexium.

Plaintiffs allege that AstraZeneca's settlement agreements with
these various generic manufacturers, including the Company,
violated federal and state antitrust laws, as well as state unfair
competition laws. The complaints seek unspecified damages for
class members as a result of an alleged delay in the entry of
generic versions of Nexium.

The Company believes that each of these complaints lacks merit and
that the Company's conduct complied with all applicable laws and
regulations. All of the defendants, including the Company, filed
motions to dismiss the complaints, which motions were denied in
April 2013. The defendants also filed motions for summary
judgment. Arguments regarding these motions were heard on January
21, 2014.

On February 12, 2014, the Court issued an order granting the
Company's motion in part, finding that the plaintiffs failed to
demonstrate that the Company's settlement of patent litigation
with AstraZeneca included a large and unjustified reverse payment.
On October 20, 2014, the Company reached a settlement with a
majority of the plaintiffs, subject to the Court's approval. Under
the terms of the settlement, the Company will not make any payment
to the plaintiffs. On January 28, 2015, the Court granted the
Company's consent motion for approval of the settlement
agreements.

In addition, two complaints, similar in nature to those referenced
above, were filed in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania by plaintiffs who chose to opt out of the class
action lawsuit. No dispositive motions have been filed in these
actions.


EAST RAMAPO, NY: School Board Overpaid $2MM To Lawyers
------------------------------------------------------
Adrienne Sanders, writing for Iohud Journal, reported that the
East Ramapo school district overpaid two corporate law firms by $2
million for defense of a single case over a two-year period,
according to a state judge.

The district sued its insurance company, New York Schools
Insurance Reciprocal, to recoup $2.2 million in legal fees
associated with school board members' defense in a class-action
civil rights lawsuit between 2012 and 2014. State Supreme Court
Justice Stephen Bucaria determined the insurance company was
liable for "reasonable" legal costs associated with the case
during that time.

A reasonable fee would have been $187,500 for 500 hours at an
average hourly rate of $375, Bucaria said. Instead, the district
paid fees totaling more than 10 times that amount to law firms
Bingham McCutchen (now part of Philadelphia-based Morgan Lewis and
Bockius) and New York City-based Proskauer Rose.

The average hourly rate those firms charged the district was not
available.

"The District retained highly capable counsel of excellent
reputation," Bucaria wrote in his decision. "However, the
questions raised in the ... action were not particularly novel."

School board President Yehuda Weissmandl said the district plans
to meet with Bucaria.

"The real story is that we went after this money from the
insurance company and we won summary judgement," he said. "Now we
have to work out the details of the amount the insurance is liable
for."

New York Schools Insurance Reciprocal declined comment. A Morgan
Lewis spokesman also declined comment, saying the firm does not
discuss active matters. Proskauer Rose did not respond to requests
for comment.

The district accumulated the legal expenses while battling a
parent-driven federal civil rights suit. Parents, backed by the
pro bono firm Advocates for Justice, alleged the district -- led
by the ultra Orthodox-dominated school board -- misdirected public
money to private religious schools to benefit the large ultra-
Orthodox yeshiva community.

Private schools are entitled to a portion of the district budget
for transportation, special education and textbooks. The case is
ongoing.

East Ramapo officials have defended their choices of legal
representation and decried what they call the bleeding of district
funds by "frivolous" lawsuits filed by parents and community
activists. Weissmandl said this lawsuit was unique because it
individually named 11 defendants -- including board members and
schools Superintendent Joel Klein.

"Every single one of us requested counsel" but then agreed to hire
one firm to represent most of the group to avoid costing the
district "a bloody fortune," Weissmandl said. Former board member
Nathan Rothschild was the only defendant represented by Proskauer
Rose. Morgan Lewis represents the others.

Hank Greenberg, a state-appointed fiscal monitor, criticized the
school board in a 2014 report for, among other things, excessive
spending on legal services "in the face of fiscal crisis." Legal
spending in the district rose from $383,071 in 2008-09 to $2.9
million, his report states.

Increased legal costs coincided with a deficit of more than $7
million the district endured in 2012-13. During the height of that
budget crisis, the board slashed many advanced-placement classes,
cut back on sports and kindergarten programs, and fired elementary
music and art teachers.

Andrew Mandel, co-founder of activist group Strong East Ramapo,
asked: "What is the recourse for taxpayers in this latest example
of what Hank Greenberg has called 'reckless mismanagement' and
'absurd' legal spending?"


ELECTRONICS ARTS: $60MM Settlement for Video Game Suit Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anu Passary, writing for Tech Times, reported that the ongoing
class action lawsuit against the NCAA and Electronic Arts (EA) has
taken a new turn as the court has approved the plaintiffs' plea
and granted a $60 million settlement.

On July 16, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken gave the green
light for college basketball and football players to finally get
paid for appearances in the NCAA video games.

For the unfamiliar, the class action lawsuit alleged that the NCAA
used the names and likeness of college basketball and football
players in the video game illegally for years.

"This landmark decision marks the first time student-athletes will
be paid for the likeness or image, and stands as a huge victory in
the ongoing fight for student-athletes' rights," said Steve
Berman, the lawyer for the plaintiffs, July 17.

The maximum amount an individual can claim is $7,200. The payments
are anticipated to begin from September and will depend on the use
of the athlete's profile in the video game.

From 2003 to 2014, nearly 21,309 basketball players and 111,174
football players appeared in the NCAA and EA video games.

Those who are entitled to the claim as a result of appearing in
the NCAA-licensed basketball and football games but have not so
far arranged for the claim need not despair. They have until July
31 to file as well as get their claim approved or else they will
not get their settlement share. The final payout amount will also
be dependent on the total number of athletes filing the claim.

Over 20,000 athletes have already claimed their share.

CBS Sports also revealed that, according to the plaintiffs'
lawyers, the judge could possibly reduce attorneys' fees from 33
percent to 30 percent. In the event this happens, then the money
available for the athletes' claims would increase.

Those who are eligible and would like to file a claim can do so
online.


EZCORP INC: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, a national investor-rights law
firm, advises investors of the September 18, 2015 lead plaintiff
deadline in the securities fraud class action lawsuit filed
against EZCORP, Inc. ("EZCORP" or "the Company"). If you have
losses in excess of $100,000.00 in your investment in EZCORP
securities during the Class Period contact Hagens Berman Partner
Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation, by calling
(510) 725-3000, emailing EZPW@hbsslaw.com or visiting http://hb-
securities.com/investigations/EZPW.

The lawsuit, pending in U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Texas, is filed on behalf of investors who purchased
EZCORP securities between October 27, 2014 and July 16, 2015,
inclusive, (the "Class Period"). No class has been certified in
this case. You do not need to move for lead plaintiff to be a
member of the class.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose
that the Company's financial statements were not prepared in
accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
Specifically, EZCORP improperly recognized structured asset sales
and loans primarily related to its Mexican subsidiary, Grupo
Finmart. The Company's accounting misrepresentations first came to
light in an April 30, 2015 report announcing a delayed release of
second quarter results due to an ongoing review of Grupo Finmart's
loan portfolio. On this news, shares of EZCORP declined $0.79 per
share, an 8.59% drop, to close at $8.41 on May 1, 2015.

On May 20, 2015, after the market closed, the Company revealed
that, while review of the Grupo Finmart loan portfolio was still
ongoing, management and the Audit Committee would likely conclude
that the Company had a material weakness in internal controls over
financial reporting and deficiencies in its disclosure controls
and procedures. On this news, shares of EZCORP declined $0.66 per
share, a 7.59% drop, to close on May 21, 2015, at $8.33 per share.

Finally, on July 17, 2015, EZCORP announced that it will restate
its financial statements for fiscal year 2014 (including the
interim periods during that year) and the first quarter of fiscal
year 2015. On this news, shares in EZCORP dropped nearly 4%,
closing at $6.48 per share on July 17, 2015.

If you were negatively impacted by more than $100,000.00 in your
investment in EZCORP between October 27, 2014 and July 16, 2015,
and would like to learn more about this lawsuit and your ability
to participate as a lead plaintiff, please contact us for your no-
cost evaluation.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
EZCORP should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
SEC whistleblower program, whistleblowers who provide original
information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any
successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call
Reed Kathrein at (510) 725-3000 or email EZPW@hbsslaw.com.

                      About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is headquartered in Seattle, Washington with offices
in nine cities. The Firm represents investors, whistleblowers,
workers and consumers in complex litigation. More about the Firm
and its successes can be found at www.hbsslaw.com


FAREPORTAL INC: Faces Suit Over Fair Accessibility of Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
Perry Lou Wolf, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. Fareportal, Inc., Case 1:15-cv-05801 (S.D. N.Y., July
23, 2015), alleges that the Defendant denied blind individuals
throughout the United States equal access to the goods and
services it provides to its non-disabled customers through its
Website.

Cheapoair.com -- http://www.cheapoair.com-- provides to the
public a wide array of the goods, services, travel technology,
self-booking tools, private negotiated fares, travel reports, and
other programs offered by Fareportal.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     C.K. Lee, Esq.
     LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
     30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: 212-465-1188
     Fax: 212-465-1181


FEDEX PACKAGE: Accused of Misclassifying Non-ISP Drivers
--------------------------------------------------------
Sanel Hodzic, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. FedEx Package System, Inc., Case 2:15-cv-00956-NBF
(W.D. Penn., July 23, 2015), alleges that Defendant classifies
Plaintiff and other Non-ISP Drivers as independent contractors
rather than employees in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

FedEx Package operates a package delivery business servicing
customers throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter Winebrake, Esq.
     R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
     Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
     WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
     715 Twining Road, Suite 211
     Dresher, PA 19025
     Phone: (215) 884-2491

     Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
     Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
     Matthew Thompson, Esq.
     LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
     729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
     Boston, MA 02116
     Phone: (617) 994-5800

     Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
     Barkan Meizlish, LLP
     250 E. Broad Street, 10th Floor
     Columbus, OH 43215
     Tel: (614) 744-2307


FIFA: Lawyers to Sign Up Clients Damaged by Scandal
---------------------------------------------------
Jean-Jacques Cornish, writing for Eyewitness News, reported that
Lawyers in South Africa and the United States are looking to sign
up clients who have been damaged in some way by the Fifa scandal.

Joining such a class action would be without financial costs to
the parties who have been damaged in some way by the corruption
unfolding week by week.

It's too early to say exactly who the plaintiffs will be in case
against Fifa and parties already indicted in New York.

There may also be Fifa constituent member organisations that have
committed serious wrongdoings, either alone or in conspiracy with
others.

The lawyers say clients often have a sense of being harmed in some
way before anyone can tell them exactly what their legal remedies
are.

It may be for out of pocket expenses or being forced to contribute
to bribery slush funds.

They may have been threatened or suffered retaliation for wanting
to reveal the facts of wrongdoings.

Meanwhile, Jeffrey Webb, one of seven high-ranking officials of
soccer's world governing body Fifa who were arrested in
Switzerland on corruption charges, pleaded not guilty in US
federal court on.

Extradited to the United States, the former Fifa vice president
and president of the Concacaf regional soccer federation appeared
at a hearing in Brooklyn, New York, a US lawyer for him declined
to comment.

Webb faces US charges of racketeering conspiracy, wire fraud and
money laundering He was released on a $10 million bond co-signed
by family members.

The four co-signers present in court, his wife and her parents and
grandmother, were advised by the judge of the gravity of their
financial undertaking.

The bond was secured by 10 properties, three cars, a case of
jewellery and watches belonging to Webb and his wife and financial
assets, including his 401k retirement account.

The 50-year-old Cayman Islands national is among nine soccer
officials and five marketing executives charged by the US Justice
Department for allegedly exploiting the sport for their own gain
through bribes of more than $150 million over 24 years.


FINISAR CORPORATION: Class Action Appeal Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Finisar Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 19, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended May 3, 2015, that the lead plaintiffs' appeal of
the dismissal of a class action lawsuit is pending.

Several securities class action lawsuits related to the Company's
March 8, 2011 earnings announcement alleging claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 have been
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of a purported class of persons
who purchased stock between December 1 or 2, 2010 through March 8,
2011. The named defendants are the Company and its Chairman of the
Board, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. To
date, no specific amount of damages have been alleged. The cases
were consolidated, lead plaintiffs were appointed and a
consolidated complaint was filed. The Company filed a motion to
dismiss the case.

On January 16, 2013, the District Court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss and granted the lead plaintiffs leave to amend
the consolidated complaint. An amended consolidated complaint was
filed on February 6, 2013. Thereafter, the Company filed a renewed
motion to dismiss the case.

On September 30, 2013, the District Court granted the Company's
motion and dismissed the case with prejudice. On October 25, 2013,
the lead plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the District
Court's dismissal ruling, and the appeal is pending.


FLORIDA: Removes "Johnson" Suit to Florida District Court
---------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit styled Alisa Johnson v. State of Florida, Department
of State, Case No. 2015 CA 000967, was removed from the Second
Judicial Circuit, Leon County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Florida (Tallahassee).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:15-cv-00308-RH-CAS to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges discrimination and retaliation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marie A. Mattox, Esq.
          MARIE A. MATTOX, P.A.
          310 East Bradford Road
          Tallahassee, FL 32303
          Telephone: (850) 383-4800
          Facsimile: (850) 383-4801
          E-mail: Marie@mattoxlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Linda Bond Edwards, Esq.
          Brian L. Hayden, Esq.
          RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL, A PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
          215 South Monroe Street, Suite 702
          Post Office Box 10507
          Tallahassee, FL 32302-2507
          Telephone: (850) 222-6550
          Telecopier: (850) 222-8783
          E-mail: ledwards@rumberger.com
                  bhayden@rumberger.com


FORCEFIELD ENERGY: Securities Class Actions Filed v. Company, D&Os
------------------------------------------------------------------
ForceField Energy Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 18, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that a lawsuit against the
Company and its officers, Messrs. Richard St-Julien (who resigned
as Chairman and from all other positions he held with the
Company), David Natan, Chief Executive Officer, and Jason
Williams, Chief Accounting and Financial Officer, and certain
other third parties, was filed on April 17, 2015, in the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York.

Since the filing of the Class Action, additional complaints have
been filed seeking class status on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's securities between September 16, 2013 and
April 15, 2015 (the "Period"). The Class Action alleges violations
by the Company and the other persons named therein of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Class Action
seeks an unspecified amount of damages.

On May 15, 2015, a lawsuit (the "Derivative Action") Civil Action
No. CV-15-2782 against the Company's officers, directors and
former director Messrs. St-Julien, Natan, Williams, Kebir Ratnani,
Adrian Auman, and David Vanderhorst (Messrs. Ratnani, Auman and
Vanderhorst are collectively referred to as the "Director
Defendants") was filed by Neil J. Brown, derivatively and on
behalf of ForceField Energy, Inc. in the United States District
Court, for the Eastern District of New York. The Derivative Action
seeks unspecified damages against these individuals for breaches
of their fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment.

Although the ultimate outcome of the Class Action and Derivative
Action cannot be determined with certainty, the Company believes
that the allegations stated in the Class Action and Derivative
Action are without merit against the Company, Individual
Defendants and Director Defendants, and the Company, Individual
Defendants and Director Defendants intend to defend themselves
vigorously against all allegations set forth in the Class Action
and Derivative Action.


GENERAL NUTRITION: "Clemmons" Suit Included in Supplements MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Alyssa Clemmons vs. General
Nutrition Corp, et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-05036, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Chicago).  The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-05104 to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: GNC Corp. Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 2621.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth Robert Shemin, Esq.
          SHEMIN LAW FIRM, PLLC
          3333 Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 603
          Rogers, AR 72758
          Telephone: (479) 845-3305
          E-mail: ken@sheminlaw.com

               - and -

          Marcus Neil Bozeman, Esq.
          Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374-1058
          Facsimile: (501) 374-2222
          E-mail: bozemanmarcus@hotmail.com
                  tomthrash@sbcglobal.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lyn Peeples Pruitt, Esq.
          MITCHELL WILLIAMS LAW FIRM
          425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 688-8869
          E-mail: lpruitt@mwlaw.com


GENERAL NUTRITION: "Reyes" Suit Consolidated in Supplements MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Reyes v. General Nutrition
Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-20513, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Chicago).  The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-05107 to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: GNC Corp. Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 2621.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Marion Quaranta, Esq.
          WEIL QUARANTA, P.A.
          200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 372-5352
          Facsimile: (305) 372-5355
          E-mail: John@wqmlaw.net

               - and -

          Ronald Peter Weil, Esq.
          RONALD WEIL PA
          200 S Biscayne Boulevard
          Wachovia Financial Center, Suite 900
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 372-5352
          Facsimile: (305) 372-5355
          E-mail: Ronald@wqmlaw.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Hannah Lisbeth Sorcic, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          10 South Wacker Drive, 40th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 207-6547
          Facsimile: (312) 207-6400
          E-mail: hsorcic@reedsmith.com


GNC HOLDINGS: "Dore" Suit Consolidated in Herbal Supplements MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Dore v. GNC Holdings, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-20618, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05108 to the
proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: GNC Corp. Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 2621.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Scarola, Esq.
          SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART & SHIPLEY
          2139 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard
          PO Drawer 3626
          West Palm Beach, FL 33402-3626
          Telephone: (561) 686-6300
          Facsimile: (561) 383-9451
          E-mail: JSX@searcylaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick Shawn Spellacy, Esq.
          KIRWAN, SPELLACY & DANNER, P.A.
          200 South Andrews Avenue, 8th Floor
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 463-3008
          Facsimile: (954) 463-3010
          E-mail: spellacy@kirwanspellacy.com

               - and -

          Robert J. Neary, Esq.
          Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq.
          Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Esq.
          Monica Marie McNulty, Esq.
          Adam M. Moskowitz, Esq.
          KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON, P.A.
          2525 Ponce de Leon, 9th Floor
          Miami, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 728-2959
          E-mail: rn@kttlaw.com
                  tjl@kttlaw.com
                  TR@kttlaw.com
                  mmcnulty@kttlaw.com
                  AMM@kttlaw.com


GROWLIFE INC: Court Approved Settlement Notice in Derivative Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Growlife, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 17, 2015, that the
court has approved an announcement of the proposed settlement of
the derivative actions pursuant to a stipulation between the
parties.

Beginning on April 18, 2014, three class action lawsuits alleging
violations of federal securities laws were filed against GrowLife,
Inc. (the "Company") in United States District Court, Central
District of California (the "Court"). At a hearing held on July
21, 2014, the three class action lawsuits were consolidated into
one case with Bryan Chong as the lead plaintiff (the "Consolidated
Class Action," styled Romero et al. vs. GrowLife et al.). On May
15, 2014 and August 4, 2014, respectively two shareholder
derivative lawsuits were filed against the Company with the Court
(the "Derivative Actions"). On October 20, 2014, AmTrust North
America, the Company's insurer filed a lawsuit contesting
insurance coverage on the above legal proceedings.

On October 28, 2014, the parties conducted voluntary, non-binding
mediation of the above actions. The parties continued settlement
discussions through early 2015, and reached an agreement on a
mediator's proposal by the first week of February of 2015 to
resolve all of the above litigation.

On February 9, 2015, the parties filed a Joint Notice of Proposed
Settlement with the Court presiding over the Consolidated Class
Action.

On April 27, 2015, the Court approved an announcement of the
proposed class action settlement of the Consolidated Class Action
which announcement was published by counsel for the plaintiffs on
May 7, 2015 as required by the Court.

On June 1, 2015, the Court approved an announcement of the
proposed settlement of the Derivative Actions pursuant to a
stipulation between the parties.  Notice of the settlement of the
Derivative Actions was announced on June 16, 2015 pursuant to that
certain Notice of Settlement of Stockholder Derivative Litigation.

A copy of the Stipulation is available at http://is.gd/fSDfhm

A copy of the Notice is available at http://is.gd/AsWfZX

Plaintiff's Lead Counsel:

     LIFSHITZ & MILLER
     Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
     Edward R. Miller, Esq.
     821 Franklin Avenue, Suite 209
     Garden City, NY 11530

Counsel for the Company and the Individual Defendants:

     HORWITZ + ARMSTRONG, LLP
     John R. Armstrong, Esq.
     26475 Rancho Parkway South
     Lake Forest, CA 92630


H&R BLOCK: Appeal in Compliance Fee Litigation Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 17, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended April 30, 2015, that an appeal related to the
Compliance Fee Litigation remains pending.

The Company said, "On April 16, 2012, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed against us in the Circuit Court of Jackson
County, Missouri styled Manuel H. Lopez III v. H&R Block, Inc., et
al. (Case # 1216CV12290) concerning a compliance fee charged to
retail tax clients in the 2011 and 2012 tax seasons. The plaintiff
seeks to represent all Missouri citizens who were charged the
compliance fee, and asserts claims of violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act, money had and received, and unjust
enrichment. We filed a motion to compel arbitration of the 2011
claims. The court denied the motion. We filed an appeal."

On May 6, 2014, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District,
reversed the ruling of the trial court and remanded the case for
further consideration of the motion. On March 12, 2015, the trial
court denied the motion on remand.

"We filed an appeal, which remains pending. We have not concluded
that a loss related to this matter is probable, nor have we
accrued a loss contingency related to this matter," the Company
said.


H&R BLOCK: Appeal in "Perras" Lawsuit Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 17, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended April 30, 2015, that plaintiff's appeal related
to the "Perras" lawsuit remains pending.

The Company said, "On April 19, 2012, a putative class action
lawsuit was filed against us in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri styled Ronald Perras v. H&R
Block, Inc., et al. (Case No. 4:12-cv-00450-DGK) concerning a
compliance fee charged to retail tax clients in the 2011 and 2012
tax seasons. The plaintiff seeks to represent all persons
nationwide (excluding citizens of Missouri) who were charged the
compliance fee, and asserts claims of violation of various state
consumer laws, money had and received, and unjust enrichment."

In November 2013, the court compelled arbitration of the 2011
claims and stayed all proceedings with respect to those claims. On
June 20, 2014, the court denied class certification of the
remaining 2012 claims. Plaintiff filed an appeal of the denial of
class certification to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which
remains pending.

"We have not concluded that a loss related to this matter is
probable, nor have we accrued a loss contingency related to this
matter," the Company said.


H&R BLOCK: Form 8863 Litigation Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 17, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended April 30, 2015, that the Form 8863 Litigation
remain stayed with respect to individual plaintiffs who agreed to
arbitration.

"A series of putative class action lawsuits were filed against us
in various federal courts and one state court beginning on March
13, 2013. Taken together, the plaintiffs in these lawsuits purport
to represent certain clients nationwide who filed Form 8863 during
tax season 2013 through an H&R Block office or using H&R Block At
Home(R) online tax services or desktop tax preparation software,
and allege breach of contract, negligence and violation of state
consumer laws in connection with transmission of the form," the
Company said.  "The plaintiffs seek damages, pre-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs."

"In August 2013, the plaintiff in the state court action
voluntarily dismissed her case without prejudice. The Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation subsequently granted our
petition to consolidate the remaining federal lawsuits for
coordinated pretrial proceedings in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri in a proceeding styled
IN RE: H&R BLOCK IRS FORM 8863 LITIGATION (MDL No. 2474/Case No.
4:13-MD-02474-FJG).

"On July 11, 2014, the MDL court granted our motion to compel
arbitration for those named plaintiffs who agreed to arbitrate
their claims. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint in October 2014. We filed a motion to strike the class
allegations relating to those clients who agreed to arbitration,
which the court granted on January 7, 2015. The cases remain
stayed with respect to the individual plaintiffs who agreed to
arbitration. A portion of our loss contingency accrual is related
to this matter for the amount of loss that we consider probable
and reasonably estimable."


HALLIBURTON CO: Investor Class Suit Certified
---------------------------------------------
Hazel Bradford, writing for Pensions & Investments, reported that
a group of pension funds and other institutional shareholders can
pursue a class-action lawsuit against Halliburton Co., a U.S.
District Court in Dallas ordered July 27.

After two trips to the Supreme Court over the issue of whether
loss causation and other factors affecting stock prices had to be
shown at the class certification stage, the case -- Erica P. John
Fund Inc. vs. Halliburton Co. -- is back before District Judge
Barbara Lynn.

Ms. Lynn denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification on
five Halliburton corrective disclosures that they claimed caused
the stock price to drop, but allowed a class action to proceed on
one disclosure that followed the Dec. 7, 2001, settlement of a
Baltimore asbestos lawsuit against Halliburton affiliate Dresser,
that caused a one-day stock drop of 40%.

"At this stage of the proceedings, the court concludes that the
asserted misrepresentations were, in fact, misrepresentations,"
Ms. Lynn wrote. "Halliburton has not met its burden of showing
lack of price impact with respect to the announcement of the
Baltimore verdict on Dec. 7."

In June 2014, a unanimous Supreme Court largely upheld a 25-year-
old legal precedent that allows class actions to go forward on the
presumption that stock prices can be negatively affected by
corporate actions or misrepresentations, but gave corporate
defendants an opening to rebut lawsuits at earlier stages, and
sent the case back to the District Court.

An amicus brief in the case was signed by 20 pension funds,
including the $301.5 billion California Public Employees'
Retirement System, Sacramento; $191.4 billion California State
Teachers' Retirement System, West Sacramento; $181.7 billion New
York State Common Retirement Fund, Albany; $47.7 billion Colorado
Public Employees' Retirement Association, Denver; and the Florida
State Board of Administration, Tallahassee, which oversees the
$149.3 Florida Retirement System.


HONGKONG EXCHANGES: Settles 2 US Aluminium Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------
Metal Bulletin reported that Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Ltd
said that it settled two US class actions lawsuits against itself
and its subsidiaries London Metal Exchange and LME Holdings Ltd
filed over allegations of manipulating aluminium supplies to drive
up prices.

Of the 26 class actions filed alleging anti-competitive and
monopolistic behaviour in metal warehousing related to aluminium
prices, 24 were consolidated into 3 complaints of "first level"
purchasers of primary aluminium, the consumer end users and the
commercial end users, HKEx said on July 19. The consumer end user
plaintiffs and commercial end user plaintiffs, subject to
conditions, have agreed to dismiss their appeals against the LME
and LMEH.


ILUKA RESOURCES: Court Rejects Preliminary Discovery Request
------------------------------------------------------------
Stan Lewis and Katrina Sleiman of Corrs Chambers Westgarth, in an
article for Lexology, reported that in Bonham v Iluka Resources
Limited [2015] FCA 713, the Federal Court of Australia refused an
application for preliminary discovery by a prospective securities
class action applicant related to a decline in the share price of
Iluka Resources Limited (Iluka).

The applicant alleged that he purchased shares in Iluka at an
inflated price in reliance on misleading or deceptive statements
made by Iluka and submitted that preliminary discovery would
likely assist him to decide whether or not he had a cause of
action. This was against a background where the applicant's
solicitor had earlier publicised the fact that a class action was
going to be commenced against Iluka as a result of its alleged
market misconduct.

The Court refused the application, finding that there was not an
objective basis for the applicant to reasonably believe either
that Iluka's representations were requisitely misleading or
deceptive or that Iluka breached its continuous disclosure
obligations.

In so finding, the Court was critical of the applicant's
solicitor's conduct in promoting the class action. The Court held
it was wrong for the applicant's solicitors to "book-build" for
the purpose of recruiting potential group members by making
statements that they had determined to commence a class action,
while simultaneously and inconsistently contending to the Court
that the lead plaintiff needed the assistance of the Court by way
of preliminary discovery to enable him to make a decision whether
to commence the proceeding.

BACKGROUND FACTS

Iluka is a major Australian mining company listed on the ASX.
Iluka provided regular quarterly production reports and half-
yearly financial reports to the ASX. In addition, Iluka adopted
the practice of publishing notices from time to time, commonly
under the title "Key Physical & Financial Parameters". The updates
were published with the disclaimers that they were provided to
assist sophisticated investors with the modelling of the company
and that Iluka did not provide pricing forecasts and that any
guidance was subject to supply and demand dynamics and that the
updates should not be relied upon as a predictor of future
performance.

On 8 May 2012, Iluka published an ASX notice "Key Physical &
Financial Parameters Iluka 2012 - May Update" in which it
downgraded its profit guidance. Iluka's downgrade was modest, in
the case of zircon, its main product, it forecast a fall in
production of about 16% and a fall in sales of about 12%.

On 15 May 2012, the applicant purchased shares in Illuka.

On 9 July 2012, Iluka published an ASX notice "Forecast Sales
Volumes - Update", said to be "in accordance with its continuous
disclosure obligations", revealing that it now predicted
significantly lower sales volumes, reflecting second quarter sales
below expectations and a deteriorating economic outlook. The
revised guidance forecast annual sales of zircon to between 50%
and 75% of that forecast in May 2012. Iluka's stock price fell by
24% following this announcement.

On 24 March 2014, ACA Lawyers issued a media release under the
title "Shareholder Class Action Against Iluka Resources" which
stated it had obtained funding to commence a class action against
Iluka alleging Iluka failed to comply with its continuous
disclosure obligation and engaged in misleading or deceptive
conduct. The action was to be commended on behalf of shareholders
who acquired shares between 8 May and 8 July 2012. The action was
to allege that Iluka's zircon sales forecast in May 2012 was
overly optimistic and not achievable and that the company had
information prior to July 2012 that it could not achieve its
forecast and did not keep the market informed. ACA Lawyers sought
expressions of interest from shareholders to join the class
action.

No proceedings were immediately instituted. Instead, in November
2014, ACA Lawyers wrote to Iluka advising that they were
investigating commencing a class action proceeding. It was
asserted that the applicant was in the position of having a
reasonable cause to believe that he may have the right to obtain
relief in the Federal Court from Iluka, but after making
reasonable inquiries of all available material did not have
sufficient information to decide whether to start the proposed
class action proceeding.

ACA Lawyers asked Iluka to provide access to internal Iluka
documents that were said to be necessary to enable a decision to
be made whether to commence the proposed proceeding. Iluka
declined the invitation to voluntarily provide documents.

On 24 December 2014, the applicant filed his application seeking
preliminary discovery.

THE LAW GOVERNING PRELIMINARY DISCOVERY

The relevant law, pursuant to which an application for preliminary
discovery may be made in the Federal Court of Australia, is r 7.23
of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). That rule requires the
prospective applicant to demonstrate:

a reasonable belief that he or she may have the right to obtain
relief from a prospective respondent;

after making enquiries, he or she does not have sufficient
information to decide whether to start a proceeding to obtain that
relief;

a reasonable belief that the prospective respondent has or is
likely to have documents directly relevant to the question whether
the prospective applicant has a right to obtain the relief; and

a reasonable belief that inspection of the documents by the
prospective applicant would assist in making the decision.

Whether the applicant's belief is or is not reasonable must be
assessed objectively.

CONCLUSIONS BASED ON REASONABLE BELIEF

Threshold issues

The Court disposed of two threshold issues. The first was whether
the Court was entitled to, or must, have regard to the
circumstances of prospective class members who purchased shares in
Iluka between 8 May and 9 July 2012. The Court accepted Iluka's
submissions that the Court cannot.

The second was the applicant's submission that the May 2012 update
statements conveyed misleading or deceptive "express
representations", to the effect that Iluka would achieve certain
full year sales of zircon (and certain other products). The Court
held that no such express representations were conveyed in the
document.

Implied representation and reasonable grounds

What the applicant's counsel referred to as Iluka's "implied
representation", that Iluka had a reasonable basis for making
projections of future volumes, stood in a different position.

Importantly, in determining whether a person had reasonable
grounds for making a representation in respect of a future matter,
the question must be judged as at the date of the representation.
Iluka presented evidence relevant to the reasonableness of its
grounds for making the representations in the May 2012 update,
including statements which the Court considered appeared plausibly
to explain why, notwithstanding deteriorating market conditions,
Iluka continued to stand by its May 2012 forecasts of future
volumes for some time thereafter; until well after the applicant
had purchased his shares on 15 May 2012.

The Court held that the relevant circumstances did not give rise
to a reasonable suspicion, let alone an objective reasonable
belief, that by 8 May 2012 Iluka would or should have known that
its forecast could not be met.

The Court did not overlook the possibility that notwithstanding
the want of persuasiveness of each of the individual propositions
advanced by the applicant, that taken together they could amount
to an objective basis for the applicant to have held the required
belief. However, in rejecting this possibility also, the Court
commented that "a cable of belief cannot be woven exclusively from
threads of mere speculation or conjecture, nor do unfocussed
feeble rays add up to illumination".

The Court held that none of the facts or circumstances put forward
by the applicant amounted to more than conjecture, suspicion or
speculation that Iluka breached its continuous disclosure
obligations or engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by the
making of future representations without reasonable grounds.

The Court refused the application.

Is evidence of the applicant's own belief required?

It was strictly unnecessary to consider this issue, however in
recognition that the question was fully argued, the Court also
made findings on this issue.

The Court referred to and adopted the conclusions of Perry J in
ObjectiVision v Visionsearch [2014] FCA 1087 at [35], where it was
concluded that in the absence of higher authority, it is prudent
to proceed on the basis that evidence of an applicant's subjective
belief is necessary. In reaching this view, the Court also
considered that this construction accords with the ordinary
meaning of the phrase "reasonably believes" which suggests that
the prospective applicant must have a subjective state of belief
which is reasonable.

The applicant's counsel submitted that evidence of the applicant's
solicitor, Mr Lewis of ACA Lawyers, satisfied this requirement.

The Court held that what was stated in Mr Lewis's affidavit did
not establish the fact in issue. It advanced a conclusion based on
a logical fallacy. It asserted that because the applicant relied
upon Mr Lewis for advice in the proceedings, Mr Lewis's views were
the views of the applicant.

If the Court had not already determined that the application
should be refused, it would also have done so on this basis.

CONSEQUENTIAL ISSUES

The discretion and ACA Lawyers conduct in "book-building"

Similarly, it was not necessary for the Court to consider whether
the application would have been refused on discretionary grounds,
however, the Court observed that it would have, based on the
conduct of ACA Lawyers.

As noted above, ACA Lawyers had issued a media release announcing
that it had obtained funding to commence a class action proceeding
in the Federal Court against Iluka. Furthermore, statements
listing the Iluka class action as one of ACA Lawyers' current
class actions, remained on ACA Lawyers' website until they were
removed some time after the first day of the hearing.

However, at the hearing, Mr Lewis gave sworn testimony that "...
it was likely that we would [commence legal action] but no
decision had been made [at the time of the media release] whether
we would".

Although, under cross-examination, Mr Lewis denied that ACA
Lawyers' 24 March 2014 media release had conveyed a misleading and
deceptive picture, he accepted that the statement that
"Shareholders are commencing legal action against Iluka for
failing to inform shareholders that it would not achieve its sales
forecasts for the calendar year 2012" was not a true statement.

The Court was not prepared to find dishonesty on Mr Lewis's part.
However, the corollary of the Court accepting Mr Lewis' evidence
was that the Court was compelled to conclude that the statements
made by ACA Lawyers conveyed at least inaccurate and false
impressions.

For his part, Mr Lewis conceded that the purpose of the website,
at least in part, was to "book-build" - that is to recruit
potential members of a class for whom litigation is in
contemplation.

The Court considered it was wrong for ACA Lawyers to "book-build"
for the purpose of recruiting potential members of a class action
through statements that they had determined to commence a class
action, while simultaneously and inconsistently contending to the
Court that the lead plaintiff needed the assistance of the Court
by way of preliminary discovery to enable him to make a decision
whether to commence the proceeding.

The Court stated that ACA Lawyers' conduct cannot be accepted to
be usual practice in this area of legal practice. Even if it be
usual practice, that practice may nevertheless be wrong and
require correction.

The Court referred its reasons to the Office of the Legal Services
Commissioner (NSW).

Fraud on the market

The applicant's draft pleading invoked the doctrine of "fraud on
the market" as a basis to satisfy the requirements of causation
and proof of loss and damage. The Court briefly discussed the
doctrine, which is premised on the "efficient market hypothesis"
and the idea that shareholders rely on the integrity of the market
price in making their investment decisions, such that individual
reliance does not need to be proved.

The Court noted there has been no instance where the doctrine has
been given effect in Australia to establish causation and it goes
too far to treat the obiter remarks of Perram J in Grant-Taylor v
Babcock & Brown (In Liquidation) [2015] FCA 149 as doing more than
endorsing the efficient market hypothesis as an available
mechanism to measure loss.

The Court did not have to make any findings on the issue as the
applicant made an alternative claim based on actual reliance.


ITURAN LOCATION: Faces Class Suit Over Monthly Subscription Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ituran Location & Control (NASDAQ: ITRN) announced that on July
19, 2015, Ituran Location and Control Ltd. (the "Company")
received a purported class action lawsuit which was filed against
the Company in the District Court of Central Region in Tel-Aviv on
July 13, 2015, by one plaintiff who is a subscriber of the
Company, alleging that the Company, which was declared a monopoly
under the Israeli Restrictive Trade Practices Law, 1988,
unlawfully abused its power as a monopoly and discriminated
between its customers.

The plaintiff claims that the alleged discrimination resulted from
the Company charging higher monthly subscription fees from
customers who are obliged by insurance company requirements to
install location and recovery systems in their vehicles than the
monthly subscription fees that are charged from customers who are
not required by insurance companies to install location and
recovery systems in their vehicles. In addition the plaintiff
claims that the Company offers to customers who are not required
by insurance companies to install location and recovery systems in
their vehicles, a discounted warrantee service to their location
and recovery systems. The plaintiff claims in addition to the
above, that such actions raise additional claims against the
Company such as negotiations without good faith, executing
contract without good faith, breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, breach of consumer protection laws, tort laws, and
breach of statutory duty.

The lawsuit is yet to be approved as a class action. The total
amount claimed if the lawsuit is approved as a class action was
estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS 300 million
(approximately USD 79 million).

Based on an opinion of its legal counsels, the Company believes
that the lawsuit lacks substantiation, and that the Company has
good defense arguments in respect of claims made by the plaintiff.

A class action lawsuit based on similar claims, against the
Company, which was filed on form 6-K on March 22, 2011, was
dismissed by the court on the request of both parties, on March 5,
2012 for a small compensation to the plaintiff and his attorneys,
in a total amount of NIS 30,000 (approximately USD 7,900). Such
dismissal of a similar class action lawsuit may have a positive
effect on the Company ability in its defense against the current
lawsuit.

Notwithstanding the aforesaid, at this preliminary stage, the
Company is unable to assess the lawsuit's chances of success.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued for "Deceptive" "Bedtime Products Ad
------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Garcia-Catalan, Individually on his own behalf and
others similarly situated, v. Johnson & Johnson Consumer
Companies, Inc., Case 3:15-cv-02003-GAG (D. P.R., July 23, 2015),
alleges that the Defendant failed to adequately disclose that its
"Bedtime Product(s)" were not clinically proven to help babies
sleep better at all and is thus advertising its product(s) in a
fraudulent, deceptive, and false manner.

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc. engages in the research
and development of products in the categories of baby's skin,
bathtime, bedtime, playtime, and natural.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jose R. Franco-Rivera, Esq.
     P.O. Box 16834
     San Juan, PR 00907-6834
     Tel: 787/407-7041
     E-mail: jrfrancolaw@gmail.com


JP MORGAN: Settles RMBS Class Suit
----------------------------------
Hannah Junkerman and Thomas Kidera of Orrick, in an article for JD
Supra, reported that on July 17, 2015, lead plaintiffs filed a
stipulation and agreement settling a 2009 class action lawsuit
against JPMorgan Chase & Co. ("JPMorgan") alleging that the bank
had misrepresented the quality of loans underlying $10 billion
worth of mortgage-backed securities it sold. Without admitting any
wrongdoing JPMorgan agreed to pay plaintiffs $388 million, subject
to court approval.


K LINE: Reaches $67-Mil. Settlement Over Antitrust Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys representing a group of plaintiffs including freight
forwarding groups involved in antitrust claims against more than a
dozen international shipping firms have reached a settlement with
Japanese RoRo cargo carrier, K Line which had already been fined
over $67 million. The plaintiffs, which include the indirect
purchasers of millions of vehicles transported to the United
States as well as car, truck and equipment dealerships, claimed
that Tokyo-based K-Line and other maritime carriers unlawfully
conspired in a cartel to rig bids, fix prices and overcharge for
their services. Now it will be interesting to see if, and how, the
victors will pass on the cash to some of the end users who
actually bought the vehicles at presumably inflated prices.

The class action included three groups of plaintiffs, 'direct
purchasers', principally freight forwarding agents, who contracted
ocean carriage from the offenders, a selection of auto dealers and
lastly private and business vehicle buyers. The class action has
now closed so it would be up to the dealers to reimburse anyone
who was directly affected by a sale made to them and not included
in the class action. The settlement with K-Line was announced
during a hearing before Judge Esther Salas of the US District
Court for the District of New Jersey in Newark. The court also
heard arguments from other maritime company defendants seeking to
dismiss the claims by arguing that the 1984 Shipping Act, which
regulates ocean shipping companies, pre-empts state antitrust laws
that protect indirect purchasers against price-fixing.

Dallas attorney Warren T. Burns of Burns Charest LLP, interim co-
lead counsel for the end 'payor' plaintiffs, countered with the
argument that state antitrust laws complement the Shipping Act,
and that Congress in no way intended to bar such state claim.
Burns commented:

"We are delighted to announce the first major settlement in the
vehicle carriers' case with K-Line. This is a very significant and
substantial first step to assure that American consumers are
compensated for the conspiracy to fix the price of international
car-shipping services. We expect to make the dollar amount public
very soon as we file for preliminary approval of the class
settlement."

The other defendants include among others NYK Line and CSAV, both
of which previously pled guilty to participating in the conspiracy
that is still being investigated by the federal government. Other
carriers named in the lawsuit are MOL, World Logistics Service,
Hoegh, Wallenius Wilhelmsen Logistics, and EUKOR. In February
2014, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Defendant
CSAV agreed to plead guilty and pay an $8.9 million criminal fine
and in September of the same year, K Line also agreed to plead
guilty and pay a $67.7 million criminal fine for its involvement
in the conspiracy. In December 2014, NYK entered a guilty plea and
was ordered to pay $59.4 million.


KISMET EXECUTIVE: "Crespo" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Orlando Crespo, Tommy Dayioglu, Osman Taymis, Oktay Tuzer, Bulent
Yenal, and all others similarly-situated v. Kismet Executive
Limousine Service Inc., Teaneck Taxi Inc., and Emin Kahyoaglu,
Case No. 2:15-cv-05706 (D.N.J., July 22, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages, overtime pay, and an additional and equal
amount as liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.

Kismet Executive Limousine Services, Inc. and Teaneck Taxi Inc.
provide limousine services. Emin Kahyoaglu is the owner and an
officer of Kismet and Teaneck.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael R. Dichiara, Esq.
      KRAKOWER DICHIARA LLC
      One Depot Square
      77 Market Street, Suite 2
      Park Ridge, NJ 07656
      Tel: (201) 746-0303
      Fax: (347) 765-1600
      E-mail: md@kdlawllc.com


KOHL'S DEPARTMENT: Faces "Chowning" Suit Over False Advertisement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Chowning, Lourdes Casas, and all others similarly-situated
v. Kohl's Department Stores, Inc., Kohl's Corporation and DOES 1
through 20, Case No. 3:15-cv-01624 (S.D. Cal., July 22, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for unlawful, misleading and false
advertising practices in violations of False Advertising Law,
Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law.

The Defendants own, operate, license and control over 100 retail
stores in the State of California selling, among other consumer
goods, clothing, footwear, home products, and accessories.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James P. Frantz, Esq.
      FRANTZ LAW GROUP, APLC
      402 West Broadway, Suite 860
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 233-5945
      Fax: (619) 525-7672
      E-mail: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com


LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: To Seek Dismisal of Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc. plans to file a motion to dismiss a
class action lawsuit after the lead plaintiff files an amended
consolidated complaint, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 15,
2015, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015.

A consolidated securities class action captioned In re LeapFrog
Enterprises, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-CV-00347-
EMC, is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against LeapFrog and two of its
officers, John Barbour and Raymond L. Arthur (the "Class Action").
The various Class Action plaintiffs, who filed their complaints
between January 23 and February 2, 2015, allege that all
defendants violated Section 10(b) the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and SEC Rule 10b-5, by
making materially false or misleading statements regarding the
Company's financial projections, performance, and development of
new products between May 5, 2014 and January 22, 2015. The
plaintiffs also allege that Messrs. Barbour and Arthur violated
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiffs seek class
certification, an award of unspecified compensatory damages, an
award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees,
and other further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Based on a review of the allegations, the Company and the
individual defendants believe that the plaintiffs' allegations are
without merit, and intend to vigorously defend against the claims.
The Company plans to file a motion to dismiss the Class Action
after the lead plaintiff, which was appointed by the Court on May
5, 2015, files an amended consolidated complaint.


LIBERTY TAX: Recorded $7.6 Mil. in Class Actions-Related Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Tax, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 18, 2015, that
the Company recorded $7.6 million in costs related to potential
losses on two class action lawsuits, net of recovery from a
vendor. These cases are now awaiting final approval from the
courts.  These items are excluded from the Company's adjusted
results.


LIFELOCK INC: Howard G. Smith Firm Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of a class (the "Class") of
purchasers of the securities LifeLock, Inc. ("LifeLock" or the
"Company") (NYSE:LOCK) between July 30, 2014 and July 20, 2015,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). LifeLock investors have until
September 21, 2015 to file a motion to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the class action lawsuit.

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

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

If you purchased shares of LifeLock 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.


LOGMEIN: "Handy" Suit Dismissed with Leave to Amend
---------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that software provider LogMeIn will at least briefly escape class-
action claims that it did not properly inform customers that its
free remote-access app could be replaced by a paid-for app, a
federal judge ruled.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Jennifer Thurston dismissed lead plaintiff
Darren Handy's false-advertising and unfair-competition claims,
with leave to amend.

LogMeIn at one point provided two products that allowed customers
to remotely access their desktop computers through a virtual
private network. LogMeInFree, the company's free app, allowed
access from another laptop or desktop computer, while its paid
app, Ignition, allowed access from a tablet or smart phone.

Plaintiff Handy said he installed LogMeInFree and then purchased
Ignition for $29.99 in 2010. Ignition was advertised as "one app
to control all your information," he said.

Handy says he thought the app was a premium supplement to
LogMeInFree.

In early 2014, LogMeIn introduced a third product, LogMeInPro,
which required a subscription and annual fee, and provided
additional features such as remote printing and file sharing.

LogMeIn posted on its website that it was planning to migrate
users of Ignition and the free app to the new product. It told
customers it would unify its portfolio of free and premium remote
access products into the paid-only offering.

Handy says he never saw this message, but learned that LogMeInFree
was no longer supported when he tried to log in and received a
message that he would need to buy a subscription to LogMeIn Pro
for remote access.

Handy says he believed this meant he could also no longer use the
Ignition app.

In July 2014, LogMeIn informed customers by email that the
Ignition app would continue to work, but it would no longer
receive updates or bug fixes.

Because updates and bug fixes are necessary components to any
smart phone app, LogMeIn's decision rendered the app obsolete,
Handy claims.

He says he would not have purchased Ignition had he known the
company would stop updating it and known that LogMeInFree would be
terminated.

Handy's second assertion is defeated by the fact that ads for
Ignition did not mention LogMeInFree or advertise the paid app as
a companion to the free app, the judge ruled.

Handy acknowledged in his complaint that LogMeIn advertised
Ignition as one app to manage everything.

"(T)he advertisements could not possibly have encouraged a
reasonable consumer to believe that by buying Ignition, the
purchaser also bought assurances related to the continuation of
the LogMeInFree app," Thurston wrote in the July 24 order of
dismissal.

Although many users might have needed both products to control
their desktop from another computer and/or a tablet or smartphone,
both apps were standalone products that could be used
independently, the judge said.

"Given this, plaintiff's conclusion that any communication by
defendant as to either product by necessity applied to both is
unsupported in the second amended complaint," Thurston wrote.

Handy's claim that LogMeIn acted unfairly when it did not inform
Ignition purchasers that it would eventually stop providing
software updates and bug fixes also failed.

There is no evidence that when Handy bought the Ignition app in
2010 LogMeIn knew it would stop providing updates and bug fixes or
that it would migrate its users to a subscription-only plan.

"To the contrary, the fact that plaintiff received four years of
updates and bug fixes undercuts this claim as well as the claim
that defendant acted unfairly," Thurston said.

LogMeIn was under no obligation to tell Ignition purchasers how
long the company planned to provide the LogMeInFree app; and even
if it was, LogMeIn posted the information on its website, the
judge pointed out.

LogMeIn must use Handy's user name and password for his
LogMeInFree account to determine whether Handy accepted the "Terms
and Conditions" of the app. The company must also try to determine
whether every user of the free app was required to accept the
terms during the period that Handy obtained LogMeInFree.

Handy must review this information to determine whether he has a
basis to file an amended complaint. This will be his final chance
to fix his claims, Thurston said.

Another federal class action was filed against LogMeIn at the end
of June. In that case, a customer said his account was renewed
without his permission and that LogMeIn continued to charge his
credit card exponentially higher amounts.

Lead plaintiff Britt Stoker said LogMeIn drained his account of
nearly $1,500 one year after his $200 subscription ran out.

Both Stoker and Handy are represented by Todd Friedman, who did
not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Brian Glennon, counsel for LogMeIn on both cases, said the company
is pleased with Thurston's ruling.

"She took the time and made the effort to really dig into the
record in order to reach the right decision. We do not believe
either case -- Handy or Stoker -- has any merit and the company
intends to vigorously defend itself in both actions," said
Glennon, with Lathan & Watkins based in Los Angeles.

On, shares of LogMeIn went up about 11 percent after the company
reported second quarter revenue of $64.8 million. The reported
revenue is up 18 percent from the second quarter in 2014.

The company said it expects third quarter revenue to fall in the
range of $68.8 million to $69.3 million.


MCCORMICK & CO: Sued for Alleged Deceptive Packaging of Pepper
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Scott Bunting, Brandon Grady, Tyler Underwood and Nicholas
Hilla, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. McCormick & Company, Inc., Case 3:15-cv-01648-BAS-BGS
(S.D. Cal., July 23, 2015), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and
any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from
the alleged unlawful and deceptive actions of McCormick & Company,
Inc. with respect to the packaging of its ground black pepper.

McCormick is one of the largest producers of spices and herbs in
the world and is the largest spice distributor in the United
States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
     Gouya Ranekouhi, Esq.
     KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
     245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Tel: (800) 400-6808
     Fax: (800) 520-5523
     E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
             gouya@kazlg.com

    Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
    Naomi Spector, Esq.
    HYDE & SWIGART
    2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
    San Diego, CA 92108
    Tel: (619) 233-7770
    Fax: (619) 297-1022
    E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com
            naomi@westcoastlitigation.com

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
     GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
     150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Tel: (212) 228-9795
     E-mail: NYJG@aol.com
             danalgottlieb@aol.com


MEDTRONIC PLC: Pretrial Proceedings Underway Sprint Fidelis Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 23,
2015, for the fiscal year ended April 24, 2015, that pretrial
proceedings are underway in the product liability case involving
Sprint Fidelis.

In 2007, a putative class action was filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice in Canada seeking damages for personal injuries
allegedly related to Medtronic, Inc.'s Sprint Fidelis family of
defibrillation leads. On October 20, 2009, the court certified a
class proceeding but denied class certification on plaintiffs'
claim for punitive damages. Pretrial proceedings are underway.

The Company has not recorded an expense related to damages in
connection with this matter because any potential loss is not
currently probable or reasonably estimable under U.S. GAAP.
Additionally, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of
loss, if any, that may result from this matter.


MEDTRONIC PLC: 800 Cases Filed Over INFUSE Product as of June 1
---------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 23,
2015, for the fiscal year ended April 24, 2015, that as of June 1,
2015, plaintiffs had filed approximately 800 lawsuits against
Medtronic in the U.S. state and federal courts, reflecting
approximately 1,500 individual personal injury claims from the
INFUSE bone graft product. Certain law firms have advised
Medtronic that they represent a large number of similar claimants
against Medtronic.

The Company estimates those law firms represent approximately
4,600 unfiled claimants. Medtronic recorded expenses of $37
million and $140 million in fiscal years 2015 and 2014,
respectively, related to probable and reasonably estimated damages
and expenses in connection with these matters.


MEDTRONIC PLC: 11,300 Cases v. Covidien Units as of June 1
----------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 23,
2015, for the fiscal year ended April 24, 2015, that as of June 1,
2015, approximately 11,300 pending cases or claims were filed or
estimated to be filed involving products manufactured by
Covidien's subsidiaries.

Covidien currently is involved in litigation in various state and
federal courts against manufacturers of pelvic mesh products
alleging personal injuries resulting from the implantation of
those products. Two subsidiaries of Covidien supplied pelvic mesh
products to one of the manufacturers named in the litigation and
Covidien is indemnifying that manufacturer on certain claims.

In addition, the Company believes that this manufacturer has an
obligation to indemnify Covidien with respect to the promotion of
the pelvic mesh products. The litigation includes a federal multi-
district litigation in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of West Virginia and cases in various state
courts and jurisdictions outside the United States.

Generally, complaints allege design and manufacturing claims,
failure to warn, breach of warranty, fraud, violations of state
consumer protection laws and loss of consortium claims.


MEDTRONIC PLC: Plaintiffs File Appeal in Case Over Covidien Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 23,
2015, for the fiscal year ended April 24, 2015, that the
plaintiffs have filed an appeal with the Minnesota State Court of
Appeals related to the Covidien acquisition.

On July 2, 2014, Lewis Merenstein filed a putative shareholder
class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court seeking
to enjoin the then-potential acquisition of Covidien. The lawsuit
named Medtronic, Inc., Covidien, and each member of the Medtronic,
Inc. board at the time as defendants, and alleged that the
directors breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders with
regard to the then-potential acquisition.

On August 21, 2014, Kenneth Steiner filed a putative shareholder
class action in Hennepin County, Minnesota, District Court, also
seeking an injunction to prevent the potential Covidien
acquisition.

In September of 2014, the Merenstein and Steiner matters were
consolidated and in December of 2014, the plaintiffs filed a
preliminary injunction motion seeking to enjoin the Covidien
transaction. On December 30, 2014, a hearing was held on
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and on defendants'
motion to dismiss.

On January 2, 2015, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary injunction and on January 5, 2015 issued its opinion.
On March 20, 2015, the Court issued its order and opinion granting
Medtronic's motion to dismiss the case. In May of 2015, the
plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Minnesota State Court of
Appeals.


MEDTRONIC PLC: Houston and Clark Lawsuits Now Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 23,
2015, for the fiscal year ended April 24, 2015, that the Houston
and Clark class action lawsuits related to related to the Covidien
acquisition have been dismissed.

In connection with the then-potential acquisition of Covidien, on
September 19, 2014, William A. Houston filed a putative
shareholder class action in the United States District Court for
the District of Minnesota and on October 3, 2014, Marilyn Clark
filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota that is nearly identical to the Houston
complaint. These actions named as defendants certain members of
Medtronic, Inc.'s board of directors at the time and certain of
Medtronic, Inc.'s officers, and also named Medtronic, Inc. as a
nominal defendant.

The Houston and Clark complaints asserted various causes of action
under Minnesota law, including that the individual defendants
allegedly breached fiduciary duties in providing for excise tax
reimbursements to certain individuals who were and/or are
directors and executive officers of Medtronic, Inc. in connection
with the then-potential acquisition of Covidien.

In October of 2014, the Houston and Clark matters were
consolidated and the plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction
motion seeking to enjoin the Company from the payment of the
excise tax reimbursements. On December 16, 2014, the Court heard
the preliminary injunction motion and on December 22, 2014, the
Court denied the preliminary injunction motion.

On January 6, 2015, the Company consented to plaintiffs' request
to voluntarily dismiss the matter without prejudice. On January 7,
2015, the Court entered its order of dismissal, bringing these
matters to a conclusion.


MEDTRONIC PLC: Stipulation of Settlement Filed in Mass. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 23,
2015, for the fiscal year ended April 24, 2015, that a stipulation
of settlement has bene filed with the court and a hearing will be
scheduled at which the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

Putative shareholder class action complaints have been filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
by purported shareholders of Covidien under the captions Taxman v.
Covidien plc, et al., 14-cv-12949, Lipovich v. Covidien plc, et
al., 14-cv-13308 and Rosenfeld Family Foundation v. Covidien plc,
et al., 14-cv-13490. On October 20, 2014, the plaintiff in the
Rosenfeld action and another purported shareholder of Covidien
filed a motion seeking to consolidate the Taxman, Lipovich and
Rosenfeld actions, and on November 14, 2014, the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted that
motion consolidating the actions (the Consolidated Action).

On December 23, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in
principle with plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action, and that
agreement is reflected in a memorandum of understanding. In
connection with the settlement contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding, Covidien agreed to make certain additional
disclosures related to the Transactions, which are contained in
Covidien's Report on Form 8-K filed on December 23, 2014. The
memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties will
enter into a stipulation of settlement.

A stipulation of settlement was filed with the court on May 15,
2015, and a hearing will be scheduled at which the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts will consider the
fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the settlement,
including attorneys' fees and expenses that will be paid to
plaintiffs' counsel. If the settlement is finally approved by the
court, it will resolve and release all claims in all actions that
were or could have been brought by Covidien shareholders
challenging any aspect of the Transactions. There can be no
assurance that United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts will approve the settlement. In such event, the
proposed settlement as contemplated by the memorandum of
understanding may be terminated.


MICHIGAN: Dept. of Corrections Faces Suit Over Juvenile Abuse
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brookr Allen, writing for CBS Detroit, reported that "the only
time you're safe is when they lock the doors and everyone is in
their cell," said Kenny Thornsberry, who served time in Jackson
State Prison at age of 18.

For teens convicted of some crimes -- prison becomes an emotional
and physical struggle for survival.

Everyone starts at Jackson prison, says Thronsberry, where there
is no separation. "You still walk to eat, you still walk to
medical, dental so all those times you are just hanging out with
them all day."

Juvenile prisoners have filed a class-action lawsuit against the
Michigan Department of Corrections, alleging rape and other
abuses.

Ann Arbor attorney Deborah Labelle, who is part of the team
representing the John Does, said there is more than just one
element to the case.

"This case is about what happens to youth when you do put them in
an adult prison. The sexual abuse and assaults by adult prisoners
and staff, the Tasering, shackling and placing them in excessive
solitary confinement." she said.

The landmark Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, in part,
requires juvenile prisoners be separated from adult prisoners.
Chris Gautz, a public information officer for MDOC, says 74 male
prisoners, 17 and under are separated from adult prisoners in
Michigan's thumb area. "They have their own housing unit -- they
are separated sight and sound from adult prisoners. The same would
be true for our female prisoners that are under the age of 17 --
they have their own secure units at the Women's Huron Valley
Correctional Facility and the same is true for them where they
have their own yard area, their own common area and their own
housing units. So they are also separated sight and sound from
adult prisoners."

He says incoming prisoners are screened to determine if they are
sexual preditors or sexual victims so not to be housed together.
"They are quick to throw them in and make them pay the price for
their mistakes but then there is nothing to help. No back up,"
says Frances Giordano, mother of Kenny Thornsberry. "There's no,
'let's get you through this in the right way' the counseling part,
the mental health part of things what makes you tick and let's fix
it -- the bad part."

Giordano says that "he had trouble with . . . decision making and
that's what got him in the position he was in."
Thornsberry went to Jackson prison when he was 18 and remained in
Michigan prisons for over six years. Thornsberry had consensual
sex with his then girlfriend a freshman in high school and was
convicted under the Romeo and Juliet law.

Gautz says the state is confident they will come out on top.
"The department of corrections has provided more than a half-
million pages of documents and more than 550 videos as part of the
discovery process to the plaintiffs, none of which provide any
support for the allegations made in the lawsuit. So, we're
confident that when all the facts are presented in court, rather
than a few strategically placed allegations presented to the
media, that the outcome of this case will be in favor of the
state," he said.

Holmes Youthful Trainee Act: State law allows a judge to place a
youth between 17 and 20 who is alleged to have committed a crime
and who has pleaded guilty to that crime to be placed in prison or
on probation without a conviction to avoid a criminal record.
Excluded from this program are youth who are charged with a felony
for which the maximum punishment is life imprisonment, a major
controlled substance offense or a traffic offense. This action
protects the privacy of the offender while on trainee status. If
the youth successfully completes the program, there is no criminal
record. Imprisonment or probation cannot exceed three years,
according to MDOC.

Attorney LaBelle says the program puts these younger offenders at
greater risk.

"You're going to do your probation, but you are going to do it in
prison -- in the adult prison -- and so once they get in there,
they are subject to the same harms as everybody else," says
LaBelle. "They aren't actually convicted of anything -- they are
doing probation. Hundreds of youth doing probation in the Michigan
Department of Corrections adult prison and they are getting hurt
very badly.

Governor Rick Snyder has recently signed expanded law for the HYTA
program.

State Representative Marcia Hovey-Wright of Muskegon is one of the
sponsors. "You know we are trying to keep them out of the adult
prison system for their safety but also . . . to put them on a
better path toward being self sufficient and then gaining job
skills and being able to have gainful employment in a legal way."
Hovey-Wright says many juvenile prisons have been victim to sexual
assault and violent crimes.

Michigan is one of the top 5 states in the nation with the number
of youth put directly into the adult prison system when they're
under the age of 18.

All, WWJ's Brooke Allen takes a look at juvenile offenders placed
into the adult prison system.


MINNESOTA: Cities Ponder Lawsuit Over Flushable Wipes
-----------------------------------------------------
Anna Erickson, writing for Grand Forks Herald, reported that the
city of Wadena has been asked to consider joining a class action
lawsuit regarding flushable wipes.

Public Works Director Dan Kovar was approached by an attorney from
the Coalition of Greater Minnesota Cities.

The city of Wadena has experienced an increasing number of sewer
backups and sent a message to residents earlier this year,
explaining that many of the blockages could be attributed to these
wipes.

"These blockages may not affect the household flushing the wipes
but may be affecting a neighbor down the block, on the next street
or someone clear across town," Kovar wrote.

The class action lawsuit was started by the city of Wyoming, which
has also had trouble with backups caused by flushable wipes. The
city of Wadena would not have to contribute any money toward the
lawsuit. Kovar may need to contribute time and possible a
deposition if it proceeded. If the class action lawsuit was
successful, cities could see a payout.

Councilman Don Niles said that he has worked on some class action
lawsuits and they can be somewhat burdensome timewise but given
what the city has been experiencing it might be worth looking
into.

The council suggested giving the information to City Attorney Jeff
Pederson to look over before getting on board with the lawsuit.

Wipes labeled "flushable" -- including baby wipes and those
intended for adults -- have been the subject of consternation
among public works departments across the nation, particularly in
recent years as they've gained popularity. A quick online search
reveals stories of sewer problems related to the wipes everywhere
from other small Minnesota cities to New York City. The New York
Times reported the city's spent more than $18 million in the past
five years on problems related to the wipes.

"Usually every time we do have a blockage or an emergency call
like this, we do run across these items in there," Kovar said.

Each time a sewer backup happens, Kovar reports, it requires a
city crew to identify where the blockage is occurring. If it is in
the city's pipes, crews and equipment are sent to clear the
blockage. This costs taxpayer dollars.

"I know how easy it is to just send this stuff down the pipe,"
Kovar said. "But unfortunately, just because it makes it down,
doesn't mean it's going to not cause you a problem. If it causes
someone else a problem, it's all taxpayer money that is spent
trying to resolve these problems."

A particularly bad backup into a residential basement is what
prompted Kovar to post the message. He said the problem was
identified soon enough to isolate the issue to one home, although
the blockage had the potential to affect up to 20 homes on the
same line.

Those wipes that make it through the system can also cause
problems at wastewater treatment plants. A 2014 article by Chris
Groh, a wastewater trainer with the Wisconsin Rural Water
Association, explained the lingering effects of the wipes.

"These wipes will plug pumps, shear apart and the resulting fibers
will wrap around impellers or shafts (causing failures)," Groh
wrote. "And as they're not biodegradable they have to be removed
from the treatment flow at the plant headworks."

So how are these wipes able to be marketed as flushable when
they're causing so many problems? The Association of the Nonwoven
Fabrics Industry (INDA), the trade group for wet wipes said it
encourages manufacturers to follow flushability guidelines
developed by the group. These guidelines are non-binding, however,
and even those might not be as intensive as they should be, Groh
opined.

Groh wrote in testing wipes for flushability, manufacturers will
slosh them in a collection system for three hours and measure
their mass afterward. If the mass is reduced by 25 percent, the
product is deemed flushable.

"When they test these things, they really move and beat the
material around for three solid hours," Groh wrote. "Nothing like
what you would find in your collection system."

A YouTube video made by Rob Villee, executive director of the
Plainfield Area Regional Sewerage Authority in New Jersey,
demonstrates how intact these wipes remain, despite soaking for up
to three weeks in water. Six of the eight wipes Villee tested
failed to break down at all.

In a press release, INDA reported it is collaborating with four
other associations to produce a new edition of the flushability
guidelines, set to be complete by July 2016. The groups are
exploring establishing a "collaborative product stewardship
initiative" to address concerns with industry practices.

The intent, INDA reports, "is for the associations to develop a
roadmap for future activities, including improved product
labeling, increased public education and better consumer
information regarding product flushability." The groups will also
discuss increasing accountability for wipes industry's "downstream
impacts" of their products and the potential of working with other
industries producing products tending to cause problems for
sewers, including paper towels, feminine hygiene products and
cotton swabs.


MONSANTO COMPANY: Sues Insurers for PI Suit Defense Costs
---------------------------------------------------------
Monsanto Company has initiated litigation against several of its
insurers and certain individuals seeking a declaration of
insurance coverage for defense costs, the Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
June 25, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 31, 2015.

The company has been named in personal injury lawsuits filed over
several years on behalf of approximately 750 persons in state
courts in St. Louis, Missouri and Los Angeles, California. The
suits claim that plaintiffs' various forms of non-Hodgkin lymphoma
have been caused by their trace levels of PCBs allegedly
manufactured by Pharmacia's former chemical business over four
decades ago, which entered the environment from a wide variety of
end-use applications in products made by others. In May 2014, the
first jury trial of such claims occurred in Los Angeles, resulting
in a defense verdict in favor of Pharmacia.

On June 2, 2015, the company initiated litigation styled Pharmacia
LLC v. Grupo de Inversiones Suramercana S.A. as successor-in-
interest to Compania Agricola de Seguros S.A. Bogata, Colombia, et
al. in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, against
several of its insurers and certain individuals seeking a
declaration of insurance coverage for defense costs of the
litigation and also asserting that any underlying injury claims
are subject to federal preemption.

While the company remains engaged in efforts to resolve the injury
claims, the company believes it has meritorious legal and factual
defenses to these cases and is vigorously defending them. The
company is defending such claims under indemnity agreements
resulting from its 2000 spinoff from Pharmacia and subsequent
agreements under Solutia's February 2008 plan of reorganization.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Seeks Cut In $46MM In Fees Awarded To O'Bannon
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Berkowitz, writing for USA Today, reported that the NCAA
asked U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken to substantially reduce
the nearly $46 million in attorneys' fees and costs that a federal
magistrate judge recently awarded lawyers for the plaintiffs in
the Ed O'Bannon class-action antitrust lawsuit against the
association.

Nathanael Cousins' decision on fees and costs July 13 came nearly
a year after Wilken ruled that the NCAA's limits on what major
college football and men's basketball players can receive for
playing sports "unreasonably restrain trade" in violation of
antitrust laws. Although the case -- which began in the summer of
2009 -- did not include a financial damages component, Wilken
ruled that the plaintiffs "shall recover their costs from the
NCAA."

The NCAA has appealed the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Appeals,
and a three-judge panel heard oral arguments in mid-March but has
yet to issue an opinion.

The fees-and-costs award could be affected by the appellate
panel's decision.

However, the NCAA asked Wilken to deduct a combined total of
nearly $41.8 million from the award -- about $36.9 million in fees
and $4.9 million in costs. Those are the same amounts by which the
NCAA asked Cousins to reduce the plaintiffs' request for nearly
$51 million in fees and costs.

The NCAA argued that Cousins erred in his application of case law
related the awarding of fees and costs and in his analysis of the
plaintiffs' lawyers' time records.

"The records show a disregard for proper billing judgment, and
their requests must be reduced accordingly," the NCAA wrote.
"Judge Cousins failed to adequately account for these dramatic
deficiencies."

The NCAA reiterated its contention that the plaintiffs were only
partially successful compared to the original scope of their case,
making many of their legal-fee and cost claims impermissible.
O'Bannon and a group of other former college athletes were the
named plaintiffs for several years. They later were joined by a
set of then-current athletes -- after the NCAA says the case
fundamentally and unfairly changed from being about former
athletes to being about current and future athletes.

"There is no sense in which Mr. O'Bannon or any other former
student-athlete plaintiff can be said to have substantially
prevailed . . . the fee award must take account of the fact that
from July 21, 2009 through July 18, 2013 there was no plaintiff in
this matter who received any benefit as a result of this
litigation," the NCAA wrote. That "precludes recovery for work on
behalf of those plaintiffs."


NAUTICA RETAIL: Violates Disabilities Act, Florida Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Gomez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Nautica Retail USA, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and
VF Services, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Case No.
1:15-cv-22231-JEM (S.D. Fla., June 12, 2015) alleges violations of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian Tse-Hua Ku, Esq.
          Louis I. Mussman, Esq.
          KU & MUSSMAN PA
          6001 NW 153 Street, Suite 100
          Miami Lakes, FL 33014
          Telephone: (305) 891-1322
          Facsimile: (305) 891-4512
          E-mail: brian@kumussman.com
                  louis@kumussman.com


NEIMAN MARCUS: 7th Circ. Gives Standing to Credit Card Holders
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Zbiegien, Jr., of Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, in
an article for Lexology, reported that the Seventh Circuit may
have gone a long way to opening a flood of data-breach class
actions when it held that "injuries associated with resolving
fraudulent [credit-card] charges and protecting oneself against
future identity theft" suffice as injuries to confer Article III
standing on the plaintiffs in Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC.

Standing (whether a plaintiff has suffered an injury the courts
will recognize) has generally proven to be a substantial hurdle to
plaintiffs seeking to bring class actions related to stolen
credit-card and other personally identifying information, with
courts in Ohio, New York, and elsewhere dismissing claims for lack
of standing. The Neiman Marcus case arises out of an attack by
hackers that exposed the credit-card information of approximately
350,000 of the store's customers, about 9,200 of whom had actually
incurred fraudulent charges. The district court dismissed the
plaintiffs' claims for lack of standing because the past
fraudulent charges had been reimbursed and the plaintiffs could
not satisfy the Supreme Court's standard from Clapper v. Amnesty
International, that a possible future injury must be "certainly
impending" in order to confer standing.

The Seventh Circuit, however, reversed the district court and, in
doing so, distinguished Clapper in three ways:

   -- The court found that even though they had been reimbursed
for all fraudulent charges, the 9,200 customers who incurred
fraudulent charges had still suffered injury in the form of
aggravation and valuable time spent sorting things out with their
account. With respect to the putative class members who had not
already incurred fraudulent charges, the court found that they too
had standing "because there is an objectively reasonable
likelihood that [they will suffer identify theft or credit card
fraud in the future]." In reaching this conclusion, the court
noted that unlike the plaintiffs in Clapper who had no evidence
that their communications had been monitored, the Neiman Marcus
plaintiffs had actually had their credit-card information stolen.

   -- The court found that plaintiffs had additional grounds for
standing if they had lost time and money attempting to mitigate
against future identity theft and fraudulent charges. In Clapper,
the Supreme Court said that plaintiffs "cannot manufacture
standing by incurring costs in anticipation of future harm."

   -- Because Neiman Marcus admitted that a data breach occurred,
the court determined that -- unlike Clapper -- the risk of future
harm was not so ephemeral that mitigation was improper, pointing
to the fact that Neiman Marcus offered credit-monitoring services
to all of its customers whose information may have been exposed.

TAKE AWAY: The Neiman Marcus ruling, along with the district court
rulings in In re Adobe Systems, Inc. Privacy Litigation and the
Target cases, indicate that some courts are not going to be as
willing to dismiss a data-breach class action on standing grounds
as others. To be sure, this area of the law is still developing;
Clapper, itself, is just two years old. Retailers and other
businesses who handle credit-card numbers or other personally
identifying information, however, should reassess their potential
exposure to a data-breach class action in light of these rulings.


NOVA BIOMEDICAL: Faces Personal Injury Action
---------------------------------------------
Norman Massey, and all others similarly-situated v. Nova
Biomedical Corporation, Case No. 1:15-cv-01448 (N.D. Ohio, July
22, 2015), brings the consumer action and personal injury action
against the Defendant for the injuries suffered as a result of
using Nova Max Strips.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover restitution and any statutory
damages, costs of suit, including attorneys' fees and expenses,
pre and post-judgment interest, compensatory, special and punitive
damages.

The Defendant developed and manufactured blood glucose test strips
and monitors for self-testing by diabetics.  It markets the
reliability and functionality of the Nova Max Test Strips used
with its Blood Glucose Meters.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David L. Meyerson, Esq.
      SEAMAN GARSON
      1600 Rockefeller Bldg.
      614 Superior Avenue, NW
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Tel: (216) 830-1000
      Fax: (216) 696-8558
      E-mail: dmeyerson@seamangarson.com


OAKLAND COUNTY, MI: Sued Over Tax Foreclosures
----------------------------------------------
Mike Martindale, writing for The Detroit News, reported that
thousands of properties in Oakland and Wayne counties have been
taken improperly in tax delinquency foreclosures, reaping millions
of dollars for government coffers at the expense of cash-strapped
property owners, according to class-action lawsuits filed in both
counties.

The complaints allege treasurers in both counties have seized
properties without providing the former owners with due process,
equal protection and just compensation.

In some instances, owners claim they were never notified before
their property was auctioned, often for tens of thousands of
dollars below market value.

The treasurers in both counties, however, insist taxpayers are
contacted multiple times over tax delinquencies, given an
opportunity to be heard and offered payment plans.

Andre Ohanessian says he was informed by a neighbor that a 2.7-
acre lot he owned in Orchard Lake Village had been sold at auction
to cover $6,000 in alleged tax delinquencies from 2011 to 2013. In
an interview, he said he was never notified his taxes were
overdue.

The property, off a private road and nature trail in a wooded
neighborhood of $1 million homes, netted $82,000. It's listed for
sale at $349,000.

"I learned of the auction sale by a phone call from an Orchard
Lake neighbor," said Ohanessian, 67, a jewelry wholesaler who now
lives in Sunland, California. "He called, 'Did you know they
auctioned off your property?' I was shocked. I had notified the
treasurer's office that I had moved from Michigan."

The complaints say Oakland County Treasurer Andy Meisner and Wayne
County Treasurer Raymond Wojtowicz don't give delinquent taxpayers
the chance to argue why their properties should not be taken.
Instead, both have conducted informal, nonjudicial "show cause
hearings," the suits allege.

Spokesmen from both offices said their policy is not to comment on
pending litigation.

Meisner said his office instituted monthly payment plans that are
worked out "face-to-face" with property owners. From September
2014 to March 2015, county treasurer officials met with 3,800
individuals to set up payment plans, prevent foreclosures and
recoup money "taxpayers could have otherwise been responsible
for," according to Meisner's office.

Since December 2012, Meisner's office said, 6,571 payment plans
have recovered $61 million in delinquent property taxes.

Wayne County Deputy Treasurer David Szymanski said 22,000 payment
plans have been put in place to help delinquent taxpayers keep
their property, but another 30,000 properties are expected to be
foreclosed at auction.

Attorney Aaron D. Cox, co-counsel for the plaintiffs in both
complaints, said the payment plan hearings are no substitute for a
show cause hearing. "The way it is now is the treasurer acts as
judge, jury and executioner," he said.

Oakland County has received $22.5 million in net proceeds from
foreclosure auctions since 2006. The money is used for maintenance
of unsold properties and demolitions, and treasurer's office staff
relating to the tax foreclosure process and the county's property
tax management.

Szymanski said he was unable to determine how much money has been
obtained through foreclosures but any such money would go into
Wayne County's general fund.

Both of the complaints were filed after a U.S. District judge
dismissed a similar federal suit and ruled the matters should be
decided in state court. The suits seek to block further
foreclosure auctions.

Notice of hearings required

Under state law, tax foreclosures and public auctions occur after
notices are sent to delinquent property owners.

One year after a delinquency is unpaid, properties are forfeited
to county treasurers. The county is required to do title searches
to identify those with interest in a forfeited property, because
they are entitled under state law to notice of two hearings: a
"show cause hearing" and a "foreclosure hearing."

According to the suit, the "show cause" hearings should be
conducted by a judge "or other neutral third-party arbitrator" to
give delinquent taxpayers the chance to demonstrate a foreclosure
judgment is not appropriate.

Once foreclosure occurs, the state and then the county have
successive rights of first refusal to meet a minimum bid. If they
pass, then the properties go to auction.

According to the Wayne County complaint, filed on behalf of Troy-
based Great Lakes Affordable Homes, the foreclosure process has
become a week-long event at Cobo Center where delinquent owners
get "nothing but an opportunity from the county to demand
taxpayers enter into unworkable repayment programs."

Wayne County has had more tax delinquencies and foreclosures than
anywhere else in the state. From 2009 through 2013, 508,936
properties were forfeited because of unpaid taxes. Syzmanski said
2014 numbers were unavailable, but more than 200,000 properties
are delinquent.

"We have significantly more than any other county due to the fact
we have more parcels than any other county and have experienced
the economic fallout more harshly than other counties," he said.

Thousands in delinquency

In Oakland County, an average of about 50,000 owners fall into tax
delinquency annually, according to Meisner's office. The county
has 27,754 parcels in delinquency, according to treasury records.

The Oakland County complaint, filed on behalf of two property
owners, says Meisner forecloses on about 11,000 delinquent land
owners each year. About 700 properties are to be auctioned Aug.
17-19 at the Ultimate Soccer Arenas in Pontiac.

The Oakland complaint argues owners lose all equity on their
foreclosed property, which often is sold at auction at a "handsome
profit" for the county and to new owners, who "flip" it.

The suit says that's what happened to Ohanessian. According to the
complaint, Meisner took the lot in 2014 over the $6,000 in unpaid
taxes and Ohanessian was never given the chance to become current
on his tax payments.

"I had always paid my taxes and have the receipts. I was sometimes
late, but I always paid them," he said. "I guess I overlooked they
were due but wasn't contacted of being delinquent or in danger of
being foreclosed on."

Ohanessian said he has since learned some notices may have been
sent to a former residence in Livonia.

Cox argues that was not proper notice and says the county should
compensate Ohanessian. "He may never have built on the property,
but its equity increased in value every year," he said.

$60K loss tied to $8.41 bill

Another party to the Oakland complaint, a St. Clair Shores
business, alleges it lost a $60,000 property in Southfield over
$8.41 in delinquent taxes.

According to the suit, Rafaeli LLC bought the property at 20159
Mada in August 2011.

In January 2012, Meisner's office certified a deed that all taxes
had been paid on the Southfield address for five years before the
sale, the suit says. A notice mailed to Rafeli that June reported
a delinquency for 2011 taxes.

The complaint says the notice was mailed to the Mada Street
address, not Rafaeli's registered address, and claimed a
delinquency of $496.52 plus interest and fees.

On Aug. 30, 2012, $1,691 was paid for real property taxes on the
Mada address. Despite this, the suit alleges, on Sept. 3, 2012, a
second notice of the $496.52 delinquency was mailed to the Mada
address. In January 2013, Rafaeli paid the treasurer $576.07,
including interest and fees.

But on Feb. 1, 2013, a third notice of delinquency was mailed to
the Mada address, claiming $8.41 in delinquent taxes and $2.26 in
interest, fees and penalties.

On May 16, 2013, Meisner filed a petition of foreclosure in
Oakland Circuit Court seeking to take upwards of 11,000 properties
for alleged tax delinquencies from 2011 or earlier, according to
the complaint. Among them was the Mada property, which Meisner
sought for the $8.41 in tax, plus $198.14 in interest and fees. A
hearing was scheduled for Feb. 26, 2014.

Rafaeli said he was unaware of the hearing in Oakland Circuit
Court on Meisner's mass petition. Afterward, Meisner took the Mada
property for $8.41 in tax and $277.40 in interest and fees.

On Aug. 19, 2014, Meisner accepted $24,500, the highest bid, from
a third party at auction for the Mada property. The buyer got no
deed but evicted Rafaeli's tenants and began trying to resell the
property, according to the complaint.


OLD NATIONAL BANK: Suit Will Go Forward as Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Casey Kuhn, writing for Indiana Public Media, reported that the
Indiana Supreme Court decided not to consider a petition from an
Evansville-based bank on whether the lawsuit the bank is involved
in can proceed as a class action, the Evansville Courier & Press
reports.

Old National Bank has been involved in a lawsuit since 2010
claiming the bank purposely posted debit card and ATM transactions
to increase overdraft fees.

A circuit court judge ruled last year the lawsuit could go forward
as class action, which was affirmed by the Indiana Court of
Appeals in April.

The Supreme Court's denial of the banks petition means that
decision will stand and the Supreme Court will not hear it.

The decision means the Oct. 27 court date will go forward with a
bench trial where a judge will hear both sides and issue a
verdict.


P.F. CHANG: Judge 'Tentatively' Junks Suit Over Gluten-Free Menu
----------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that a federal
judge has "tentatively" dismissed the lawsuit of a woman who
claims P.F. Chang's has violated federal anti-discrimination laws
by charging more for gluten-free items.

In February, P.F. Chang's moved to dismiss Anna Marie Phillips'
class action lawsuit, claiming that her celiac disease does not
make her a disabled person under the Americans with Disabilities
Act. It urged U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte to dismiss the suit
before the entire restaurant industry was impacted.

Phillips sued P.F. Chang's in a California state court in
December, and the defendant later removed the case to U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.

"Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege that she is disabled
under any applicable statute since her condition constitutes only
a minimal limitation on the major life activity of eating," the
motion says.

"She can still consume all gluten-free foods. No authority
supports plaintiff's baseless position that she is disabled."

The company also said it does not discriminate because it charges
all guests the same prices for gluten-free items.

"The price P.F. Chang's charges to all guests for its gluten-free
items does not include an unlawful 'surcharge' under the ADA," the
motion says.

"The disability statutes only require equal access; they do not
require businesses to reduce their prices or even alter their
inventory. And while plaintiff's complaint fails on its face and
as a matter of law, the detrimental implications of allowing
plaintiff's baseless claims to proceed impact an entire industry."

The class action suit states that because a gluten-free diet is
medically necessary for individuals with celiac disease, gluten-
free patrons have no choice but to order at the higher price.

Surcharges for gluten-free items are claimed to occur even where
the items at issue may naturally be gluten free, such as vegetable
dishes, the complaint says.

Phillips brought suit on behalf of persons with celiac disease or
gluten intolerance who ordered items from P.F. Chang's gluten-free
menu in California within four years prior to the suit.

In a February Legal Newsline article, the CEO of the Celiac
Disease Foundation did not seem to agree with Phillips' claims.

"Celiac Disease Foundation recognizes that restaurants bear a
financial burden for the employee training and other
accommodations that are required to serve meals that are safe for
those with celiac disease," Marilyn G. Geller said.

P.F. Chang's cited the article in its motion.

"Moreover, even the national organization that advocates for
sufferers of celiac disease does not seem to support plaintiff's
suit . . . " the motion says.

Phillips is represented by Anthony Orshansky and Justin and
Alexandria Kachadoorian of CounselOne in Beverly Hills, Calif.
They filed their response on April 10.

"Defendant created a special menu expressly for persons with
celiac disease because it knows that they cannot consume foods
that are even exposed to gluten," the response says.

"Defendant intended the gluten-free menu to target - and profit
from - this group of disabled persons."

In a footnote, the plaintiff's attorneys say P.F. Chang's has
inappropriately used the definition of "disability" from the ADA,
even though the plaintiff's claims are premised on California's
Unruh Act and the Disabled Persons Act.

Those two laws define "disability" as a physiological condition
that 'affects' a body system and 'limits' a major life activity,"
they argue.

At a hearing on May 29, Whyte heard oral arguments. According to
the case's docket, the motion to dismiss was "tentatively granted"
at the hearing, and a final ruling will be issued by the court
later.

A case management conference has been scheduled for Aug. 14.

P.F. Chang's is represented by Jon P. Karbassakis and Michael K.
Grimaldi of Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith in Los Angeles.


PENNSYLVANIA: DOC Faces Suit Alleging Civil Rights Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Salvatore Chimenti, Daniel Leyva and David Maldonado, and all
others similarly situated v. Pennsylvania Department Corrections
(DOC); John Wetzel, Secretary of the (DOC); Paul Noel, Chief
Medical Director, Pennsylvania DOC; Christopher Oppman, Director,
Bureau of Health Care Services, DOC; Kephart, Dr., Medical
Director at SCI Smithfield, DOC; William Dreibelbis, Correctional
Health Care Administrator, SCI Smithfield, DOC; Weiner, Dr.,
Medical Director, SCI Graterford;  Joseph C. Korszniak,
Correctional Health Care Administrator, SCI Graterford; Correct
Care Solutions (CCS); Nicholas Scharff, Dr., Medical Director,
CCS; Andrew Dancha, Regional Medical Director, CCS; John Hochberg,
Dr., Assistant Medical Director, CCS; Wexford Health Sources,
Inc.; and Thomas Lehman, Dr., Medical Director, Wexford Health
Sources, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-03333-JP (E.D. Pa.,
June 12, 2015) is brought under the Civil Rights Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Angus R. Love, Esq.
          Su Ming Yeh, Esq.
          PA INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT
          718 Arch St., Suite 304S
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 925-2966
          Facsimile: (215) 925-5337
          E-mail: alove@pailp.org
                  smyeh@pailp.org

               - and -

          David Rudovsky, Esq.
          KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING & FEINBERG LLP
          The Cast Iron Bldg., Suite 501 South
          718 Arch Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 925-4400
          Facsimile: (215) 925-5365
          E-mail: drudovsky@krlawphila.com

               - and -

          Stephen D. Brown, Esq.
          DECHERT LLP
          2929 Arch Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19104
          Telephone: (215) 994-2240
          Facsimile: (215) 655-2240
          E-mail: stephen.brown@dechert.com


PINCHERS CRAB: "Denney" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Tips
---------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Denney, and all others similarly-situated v. Pinchers Crab
Shack of Tarpon PT, Inc. dba Pinchers Crab Shack, Case No. 2:15-
cv-00442 (M.D. Fla., July 22, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid tips,
an equal amount of liquidated damages and reasonable attorney's
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant operates a seafood restaurant in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bill B. Berke, Esq.
      BERKE LAW FIRM, P.A.
      4423 Del Prado Blvd. S.
      Cape Coral, FL 33904
      Tel: (239) 549-6689
      E-mail: berkelaw@yahoo.com


PROVIDENCE MEDICAL: Hospitals Agree to $500K Class Suit Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Margolies, writing for KCUR.org, reported that former
employees of two Kansas City-area hospitals who claimed they
weren't paid promised separation benefits after the hospitals were
sold to Prime Healthcare Services have agreed to settle their
class action lawsuit.

The proposed $550,000 settlement, if approved by the court, would
end a case brought by 49 former workers of Providence Medical
Center in Kansas City, Kansas, and Saint John Hospital in
Leavenworth, Kansas.

In addition to California-based Prime Healthcare, the suit named
as defendants the Sisters of Charity of Leavenworth Health System,
the former owner of the hospitals, and several Prime Healthcare
subsidiaries and benefit plan administrators.

According to the suit, the Sisters of Charity laid off about 24
employees before the sale was completed in April 2013 and paid
them severance. After the sale was completed, however, another 49
employees were terminated but not awarded severance pay.

The suit alleged Prime Healthcare delayed announcing the layoffs
to avoid their financial impact on the deal.

Since its purchase of Providence and Saint John, Prime Healthcare
has bought two other Kansas City-area hospitals, St. Joseph
Medical Center in south Kansas City, and St. Mary's Medical Center
in Blue Springs, Missouri.

The settlement was disclosed in court documents filed in federal
court in Kansas City, Kan. U.S. District Judge Carlos Murguia has
given preliminary approval to the settlement and will hold a
hearing on Jan. 5, 2016, to determine whether it is "fair,
reasonable and adequate."


REMINGTON ARMS: Knew Guns Were Defective Guns, Manhattan Man Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Saboe, writing for KBZK.com, reported that Gus Barber would
have turned 24 years old on, July 19. Instead of celebrating his
birthday, Barber's family is left to wonder what their son and
brother would have been like had he lived past the age of nine.

Since Gus's death in 2000, his father Richard Barber of Manhattan
has worked tirelessly to prove that one of the biggest gun makers
in the world knew about a design defect that caused one of its
most iconic rifles to fire without the trigger being pulled.

Barber said it was that defect that killed Gus during a family
hunting trip in the Gravelly Mountains. His wife Barbara was
unloading a Remington model 700 rifle when the gun misfired and
fatally shot Gus as he came around the side of the horse trailer.
Barbara maintains that her finger was nowhere near the trigger
when the gun went off.

After Gus's death, the Barbers settled with Remington, but now,
nearly 15 years later Barber is ramping up his claims that the gun
makers has been deceiving the public for decades.

"I can prove beyond a reasonable doubt to anyone with an objective
mind that Remington knew that the bolt lock on the rifle was
dangerous," said Barber. "Remington truly is a company built on
lies."

Over the years, Barber has amassed a mountain of documents,
including internal memos from Remington and thousands of consumer
complaints, that he said show that the company knew about the flaw
with the trigger mechanism, known as the Walker Fire Control, and
did nothing about it.

"I believe that I am quite capable of defending myself with
Remington's own documents, which speak for themselves and clearly
speak volumes about what the company knew, when they knew it and
what they did or did not do with that body of knowledge," said
Barber.

Remington has adamantly denied that the Walker Fire Control is
defective. But the company has agreed to replace millions of
trigger mechanisms in its top-selling bolt action rifles as part
of a class-action lawsuit settlement

The details of the settlement are still being worked out in
federal court and aren't expected to be released until December of
2015. But we do know that Remington does not want the trigger
replacement program to be labeled a recall. Also, part of the deal
is that Remington does not have to admit that its products are
defective or concede to wrongdoing.

That does not sit well with Barber.

"Until Remington at least quits denying a problem and wrongdoing,
the cycle of death and injury will just continue," said Barber.

Barber said he wants Remington to come clean about the history of
problems with the model 700 rifle.

He showed MTN an internal memo from 1990 that says, "the number of
model 700 rifles being returned to the factory because of alleged
accidental firing malfunctions is constantly increasing."

The memo was dated January 25 and already 29 rifles had been
returned that month.

Barber also released to MTN a confidential document on testing
done within Remington's own facility. It advised the tester to
wear a glove for protection and "be prepared for the rifle to
inadvertently follow down or fire."

"Remington goes as far as telling their own employees, as shown in
that document, they warn them," said Barber. "They tell them to be
prepared for the gun to fire during testing, but yet they deny
this fact to the public?"

Barber said instead of changing their guns, they changed their
message.

Internal documents from 1979 show that Remington knew about the
misfiring problem with the model 700 and even considered a recall.
But company officials instead decided to launch a marketing
campaign on safe gun handling, saying, "An attempt to recall all
bolt action rifles would undercut the message we plan to
communicate to the public on proper gun handling."

Barber said he is convinced, without a doubt, that Remington
officials knew the Walker Fire control was defective and
continuously worked to conceal it.  He plans to continue to
publicize more of the internal documents he's uncovered through
social media and other news outlets.

"Through moral obligation, I feel compelled to level the playing
field to make a difference and give people the chance that we
ourselves did not have," said Barber.


RITE AID: Continues to Defend Indergit Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation has been named in a collective and class
action lawsuit, Indergit v. Rite Aid Corporation et al pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, filed purportedly on behalf of current and former store
managers working in the Company's stores at various locations
around the country. The lawsuit alleges that the Company failed to
pay overtime to store managers as required under the FLSA and
under certain New York state statutes. The lawsuit also seeks
other relief, including liquidated damages, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief arising out of state
and federal claims for overtime pay.

On April 2, 2010, the Court conditionally certified a nationwide
collective group of individuals who worked for the Company as
store managers since March 31, 2007. The Court ordered that Notice
of the Indergit action be sent to the purported members of the
collective group (approximately 7,000 current and former store
managers) and approximately 1,550 joined the Indergit action.
Discovery as to certification issues has been completed.

On September 26, 2013, the Court granted Rule 23 class
certification of the New York store manager claims as to liability
only, but denied it as to damages, and denied the Company's motion
for decertification of the nationwide collective action claims.
The Company filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the Court's
September 26, 2013 decision which motion was denied in June 2014.

The Company subsequently filed a petition for an interlocutory
appeal of the Court's September 26, 2013 ruling with the U. S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which petition was denied
in September 2014. Notice of the Rule 23 class certification as to
liability only has been sent to approximately 1,750 current and
former store managers in the state of New York.

At this time, the Company is not able to either predict the
outcome of this lawsuit or estimate a potential range of loss with
respect to the lawsuit. The Company's management believes,
however, that this lawsuit is without merit and is vigorously
defending this lawsuit.

No updates were provided in Rite Aid's Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 22, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 30, 2015.


RITE AID: Court Approval of Pharmacist Case Settlement Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to cases involving pharmacist meal and rest periods
(Chase and Scherwin v. Rite Aid Corporation pending in Los Angeles
County Superior Court and Kyle v. Rite Aid Corporation pending in
Sacramento County Superior Court), during the period ended March
1, 2014, the Company recorded a legal accrual with respect to
these matters. The Company and the attorneys representing the
putative class of pharmacists have agreed to a class wide
settlement of the case of $9.0 million subject to final Court
approval. The parties are in the process of obtaining Court
approval, Rite Aid said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 22, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 30, 2015.


RITE AID: Continues to Defend Employee Seating Case
---------------------------------------------------
Rite Aid Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 22, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 30, 2015, that in the employee seating
case (Hall v. Rite Aid Corporation, San Diego County Superior
Court), the Court, in October 2011, granted the plaintiff's motion
for class certification. The Company filed its motion for
decertification, which motion was granted in November 2012.
Plaintiff subsequently appealed the Court's order which appeal was
granted in May 2014. The Company filed a petition for review of
the appellate court's decision with the California Supreme Court,
which petition was denied in August 2014. Proceedings in the Hall
case are stayed pending a decision by the California Supreme Court
in two similar cases. With respect to the California Cases (other
than Chase and Scherwin and Kyle), the Company, at this time, is
not able to predict either the outcome of these lawsuits or
estimate a potential range of loss with respect to said lawsuits.


SCRIPPS NETWORKS: Violation of "Junk Fax Act" Leads to Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin against the Travel
Channel, L.L.C. and its parent companies Scripps Networks, LLC and
Scripps Networks Interactive, Inc. (collectively the "Travel
Channel"), alleging that the Travel Channel sent unsolicited fax
advertisements in violation of the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005
(the "Junk Fax Act"). Specifically, the plaintiff, a chiropractic
corporation in Wisconsin, alleges that on February 3, 2014, it
received an unsolicited commercial advertisement sent via
telecopier in violation of federal law. The complaint also charges
the Travel Channel with failing to comply with federal law and
rules concerning commercial fax advertisements as promulgated by
the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC").

According to the complaint, on February 3, 2014, the Travel
Channel sent the plaintiff an unsolicited fax advertisement. The
plaintiff further alleges that the Travel Channel is "precluded
from asserting any prior express permission or invitation because
of the failure to comply with the Opt-Out Notice Requirements in
connection with such transmissions." According to the plaintiff,
the fax advertisements sent by the Travel Channel fail to include
a statement informing the recipient that it is legally entitled to
opt-out of receiving future fax advertisements, and a statement
noting that the sender is required to comply with an opt-out
request within 30 days. Failure to include the foregoing
disclosures violates the Junk Fax Act.

The plaintiff has already filed a motion for class certification
(even though the Travel Channel has yet to appear in the action),
seeking to certify a nation-wide class of "[a]ll persons who (1)
on or after four years prior to the filing of this action, (2)
were sent telephone facsimile messages of material advertising the
commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, or
services by or on behalf of Defendants, and (3) which Defendants
did not have prior express permission or invitation, or (4) which
did not display a proper opt-out notice." Summonses in this action
were issued on July 24. However, to date, there is no indication
that the Travel Channel has been served.

Protect Yourself

While traditional telemarketing-related litigation has been on the
rise in recent years, it is important to remember that the Junk
Fax Act is still being used as a tool by litigators against
companies that engage in fax-based advertising. It is not only
important to obtain prior express written consent from consumers
to send such marketing, but it is equally important that all fax
advertising comply with the opt-out notification requirements
contained in the Junk Fax Act.

If you are interested in learning more about this topic or if you
have been served with process concerning your fax advertising or
general telemarketing practices, please e-mail us at
info@kleinmoynihan.com or call us at (212) 246-0900.


SERVICESOURCE INT'L: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray, LLP ("GPM") announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against ServiceSource International, Inc.
("ServiceSource" or the "Company") on behalf of investors who
purchased the Company's shares between January 22, 2014 and May 1,
2014 inclusive (the "Class Period").

ServiceSource provides recurring revenue management, maintenance,
support, and subscription for technology and technology-enabled
healthcare and life sciences companies. The complaint alleges that
defendants made allegedly false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and management which
caused the stock price to inflate, allowing certain insiders to
sell their ServiceSource stock at artificially-inflated prices;
and, in addition whether Mike Smerklo, President and CEO of
ServiceSource, obtained millions of dollars in cash bonuses and
other perks as a result of the alleged fraud. The complaint
further alleges that ServiceSource investors have been damaged by
the defendants' alleged fraud as a result of a sharp decline in
the Company's share price.

If you purchased shares of ServiceSource 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, please contact Casey
Sadler, of GPM, 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.


SHAW'S SUPERMARKET: Seeks To Move Age Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Betts, writing for Bangor Daily News, reported that Shaw's
Supermarket is seeking to move a possible class action lawsuit
filed by former workers who claimed they were let go because of
their age from state to federal court.

An attorney on behalf of Shaw's Supermarket Inc. filed a notice of
removal to federal court in U.S. District Court in Portland. The
case originally was filed in May in Androscoggin County Superior
Court on behalf of four former employees who maintain they
represent a class of older workers who lost their jobs because of
a layoff policy implemented by the grocery store chain.

The Maine Human Rights Commission had unanimously voted in January
that there were reasonable grounds to believe Shaw's discriminated
against three workers who had filed claims. The commission ruled
Shaw's implemented a layoff policy that had an adverse impact
based on the age of employees.

Attempts to reach a settlement failed in February and the lawsuit
by Deborah Lincoln, Theresa Charrette, Dorothy Riley, Lorraine
Scamman and Peter Harriman was filed in May. The lawsuit asks that
these five former workers represent the entire class of older
people who were terminated by Shaw's.

The five former workers were all terminated from their jobs in
November 2012 as part of companywide layoffs.

Lincoln, a Rockland resident, had worked at the Shaw's store in
Rockland for eight years. She was 50 when she lost her job.

Charrette of Sanford had worked at a variety of Shaw's stores for
34 years and was 55 when she was terminated while working at the
store in Sanford.

Riley of Windham had worked at Shaw's for 31 years at a variety of
stores. She was 59 when she lost her job at the Westbrook store.

Harriman of Gorham had worked at a variety of Shaw's stores for 30
years. He was 54 when he was terminated from his job at the
Westgate Mall in Portland.

Scamman of Scarborough had worked at the Saco store for 32 years.
She was 52 when she was terminated.

Shaw's employed 19,000 people throughout New England, including
nearly 1,100 in Maine, according to the lawsuit. In November 2012,
700 people were terminated, including about 110 in Maine. The
lawsuit states Shaw's only considered full-time employees when it
terminated workers and that this tended to impact older workers
more than younger ones.

The lawsuit points out that Shaw's retained younger part-time
workers when they terminated the older full-time workers. One
example listed in court papers was the termination of cashiers.
Seven full-time cashiers were terminated in Maine, and 126 part-
time cashiers were younger than those full-time workers who were
terminated. The lawsuit lists several other types of jobs at the
stores where younger part-time workers were retained while older
full-time workers were terminated.

The lawsuit further contends that the people who were terminated
were only notified if full-time jobs became available and not
part-time jobs.

The lawsuit seeks class action designation, saying the experiences
of the employees listed in the lawsuit are similar to what all
other workers terminated.

Attorney Jeffrey Young of Augusta, who represents the former
workers, said while he cannot speak for Shaw's that sometimes
defendants in potential class action cases prefer federal court
because they feel state judges and juries might be more
sympathetic to Maine clients than a federal judge and jury.

Young said the state court had not yet designated the case as a
class action one but said he was confident it will qualify for
class action status.

The lawsuit seeks economic and noneconomic damages, as well as for
the workers to be returned to comparable positions.

A January 2013 article published in Litigation and Trial by
attorney Max Kennerly stated defendants tend to prefer going to
federal court in class action suits because the rules of evidence
are more favorable, because more motions to dismiss are granted
and there are more urban jurors who tend to award less money when
damages are imposed.

An email message was sent to Shaw's attorney Joshua Scott of
Portsmouth, New Hampshire. A telephone call also was but was not
immediately returned.


SLING MEDIA: Class Suit Filed Over Forced Advertisements
--------------------------------------------------------
Military Technologies Sling Media has been forcing advertisements
into video streams from Slingbox devices unless you pay for a
client application, which is only an option for Apple, Android,
and Windows 8 devices. The issue will now head to the courts, as
two plaintiffs have filed a class action suit against Sling Media,
claiming the company participated in 'bait-and-switch' tactics by
charging users for the hardware, then monetizing the streaming of
content. The suit notes that Sling does not own the rights to the
programming into which they are inserting advertisements.


SONY CORP: Non-U.S. Class Action Related to Cyber-Attack Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sony Corporation said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that a non-U.S. class action
suit related to cyber-attack remains pending.

Beginning in early 2011, the network services of
PlayStation(R)Network, Qriocity(TM), Sony Online Entertainment LLC
and websites of other subsidiaries came under cyber-attack. As of
June 23, 2015, Sony has not received any confirmed reports of
customer identity theft issues or misuse of credit cards from such
cyber-attacks. However, in connection with certain of these
matters, Sony has received inquiries from authorities in a number
of jurisdictions, including formal and/or informal requests for
information from Attorneys General from a number of states in the
United States.

Additionally, Sony Corporation and/or certain of its subsidiaries
were named in a number of purported class actions in certain
jurisdictions, including the United States. The U.S. class action
suits have been settled, and the settlement has received the final
approval of the court. A non-U.S. class action suit remains
pending. Based on the stage of these inquiries and proceedings, it
is not possible to estimate the amount of loss or range of
possible loss, if any, that might result from adverse judgments,
settlements or other resolution of all of these matters.


SONY CORP: SPE Named as Defendant in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Sony Corporation said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 23, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in the fall of 2014,
Sony Corporation's U.S. subsidiary, Sony Pictures Entertainment
Inc. ("SPE"), was subject to a cyber-attack that resulted in
unauthorized access to, and theft and disclosure of SPE business
information, including employee information and other information.
In connection with the theft and disclosure of information, SPE
has been named in a number of purported class action suits in the
United States brought by former employees of SPE. Based on the
stage of these proceedings, it is not possible to estimate the
amount of loss or range of possible loss, if any, that might
result from adverse judgments, settlements or other resolution of
these proceedings.


TALIKA USA: False Ad Campaign Class Suit Reaches Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that a New
York woman agreed to settle a class action lawsuit she filed in
January over a serum that she claimed did nothing to enhance her
breasts.

Judge Paul Engelmayer for the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York signed a notice of dismissal in plaintiff
Raisbel Pena's case against Talika USA June 9.

Pena's lawsuit, originally filed in January, claimed Talika's
product, Talika Bust Serum 2.0, did not bring the results promised
by the defendant's marketing campaign.

According to the complaint, Pena bought a $60 bottle and used it
as directed for six weeks, but "did not observe any physical
alteration (either growth in volume, change in contour, firmness
or lift) of her breasts."

The company's marketing said the serum product would cause a
growth of two to four centimeters in volume, 18 percent more lift
and 70 percent more firmness.

"In truth, the product does not physically increase bust volume
and certainly not within the short time frame advertised by the
defendant," the complaint stated. "There is nothing contained in
the product that can cause breasts to grow by a cup size in six
weeks.

"Defendant's bust growth claims are false, misleading and
reasonably likely to deceive the public."

Pena, in her proposed class action, accused Talika of violating
consumer protection laws in all 50 states.

But after the initial complaint in January, four months went by
without another filing in the case.

It wasn't until Engelmayer filed an order to show cause in May,
asking the plaintiff to advise the court in writing why she had
failed to serve the summons and complaint within the 120-day
period and threatening to dismiss the lawsuit that Pena's attorney
responded.

In a letter to the judge dated June 4, plaintiff's attorney C.K.
Lee with New York law firm Lee Litigation Group PLLC explained
that a deal was made.

"We write to inform Your Honor that the parties have reached a
settlement and are in the process of finalizing the terms," Lee
wrote.

"We expect to file a stipulation of dismissal within and
respectfully request a 15-day adjournment of all dates to allow
the parties to finalize and execute the settlement."

Lee also is helping represent the plaintiff in a somewhat similar
proposed class action against L'Oreal USA and Urban Decay
Cosmetics.

In that lawsuit, the plaintiff, Sonia Severino, claims the
companies falsely advertised the "Lush Lash System" product.

Severino filed the lawsuit in May, also in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

According to the lawsuit, the companies state the product contains
a "growth accelerating serum" and will grow eyelashes by 25
percent in two weeks, 40 percent in four weeks and 63 percent in
six weeks.

"However, nothing in the Lush Lash System is demonstrated to
actually make eyelashes grow, particularly at the rates claim by
(the companies)," the lawsuit alleges.

"(Severino) and other similarly situated consumers have been
harmed in the amount they paid for the Lush Lash System."

Severino is seeking class status for those who purchased the Lush
Lash System, and is seeking more than $5 million in damages plus
court costs.

However, L'Oreal is looking to have the action dismissed. The
company filed a motion July 23.

In a July 24 letter to Judge Lorna Schofield, attorney Frederick
B. Warder III of New York law firm Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler
LLP -- the firm representing L'Oreal -- proposed a briefing
schedule for the motion: plaintiff's opposition to be filed by
Aug. 21 and L'Oreal to reply by Sept. 11.

Severino also is represented by Timothy G. Blood of Blood Hurst &
O'Reardon LLP in San Diego.


TARGET CORP: "Barber" Suit Consolidated in Herbal Supplements MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Barber v. Target Corporation, a
Minnesota Corporation, Case No. 5:15-cv-00568, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (Chicago).  The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:15-cv-05113 to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Target Corp. Herbal Supplements Marketing And Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2622.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC
          651 Arroyo Drive
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com

               - and -

          Beatrice Skye Resendes, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON, APLC
          3636 4th Avenue, Suite 202
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 696-9006
          Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
          E-mail: skye@consumersadvocates.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher Thomas Casamassima, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-5300
          Facsimile: (213) 443-5400
          E-mail: chris.casamassima@wilmerhale.com


TARGET CORP: "Farrell" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Farrell v. Target Corporation,
Case No. 5:15-cv-00635, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).  The
Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05112 to
the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Target Corp. Herbal Supplements Marketing And Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2622.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trevor Matthew Flynn, Esq.
          Tran Hai Thi Nguyen, Esq.
          John Joseph Fitzgerald, IV, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
          Hillcrest Professional Building
          3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Telephone: (619) 692-3840
          Facsimile: (619) 362-9555
          E-mail: trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  tran@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
                  jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher Thomas Casamassima, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-5300
          Facsimile: (213) 443-5400
          E-mail: chris.casamassima@wilmerhale.com


TAURUS FIREARMS: Has $39-Mil. Settlement over Defective Triggers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Owens, writing for Bearing Arms, reported that though it seems
to largely be flying under the radar, a $39 million class action
settlement by Taurus Firearms could impact up to 100,000 handguns
with alleged safety design issues:

Brazil-based handgun maker Forjas Taurus SA has agreed to a $39
million settlement in a class action lawsuit alleging some of the
company's most popular semi-automatic handguns can discharge when
dropped and have a defective safety that allows the gun to fire
even when it's engaged.

According to court documents filed May 15 in a U.S. District Court
in Florida, the company has agreed to pay up to $30 million to
owners of nine separate handgun models who opt to send their
pistols back, with owners receiving anywhere from $150 to $200 for
their pistols depending on how many choose that option.

The agreement also will extend the warranty for the nine handgun
models, allowing gun owners to send the pistols back to have the
handguns inspected by Taurus technicians and address the "safety
defects" alleged in the suit. Documents show the settlement could
include as many as 100,000 handguns.

The settlement also calls for a maximum $9 million in attorney's
fees.

A Taurus official confirmed the settlement agreement, arguing the
company does not admit any wrongdoing.

The settlement includes the following pistols.

   PT-111 Millennium
   PT-132 Millennium
   PT-138 Millennium
   PT-140 Millennium
   PT-145 Millennium
   PT-745 Millennium
   PT-609
   PT-640
   PT-24/7

The safety issues do not apparently affect the older metal frame
pistols based upon Beretta designs, nor the G2 models.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Injury Claims Over Floor Mat Entrapment Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Corporation said in its Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2015, that product liability personal
injury claims related to the floor mat entrapment of accelerator
pedals and slow-to-return or sticky accelerator pedal cases are
pending in several consolidated cases in federal and state courts,
as well as in individual cases in various other states. The judges
in the consolidated federal action and the consolidated California
state action have approved an Intensive Settlement Process ("ISP")
for such claims in those actions. Under the ISP, all individual
claims within the consolidated actions are stayed pending
completion of a process to assess whether they can be resolved on
terms acceptable to the parties. Cases not resolved after
completion of the ISP will then proceed to discovery and toward
trial. Toyota has offered the ISP process to plaintiffs in other
consolidated actions and in individual cases, as well.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Class Actions Over Takata Airbags at Early Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor Corporation said in its Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 24, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2015, that the Company has been named
as a defendant in 27 economic loss class action lawsuits, which
have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, arising out
of allegations that Takata airbags installed in Toyota vehicles
are defective. These lawsuits are at a very early stage.


TRANSALTA CORP: Consultant Organizing Suit Over Plant Shutdowns
---------------------------------------------------------------
Darcy Henton, writing for Calgary Herald, reported that commercial
and industrial businesses are being invited to join a class-action
lawsuit against TransAlta Corporation after the provincial
regulator ruled the utility manipulated power prices.

Electricity consultant David Gray said he is organizing the court
action in a bid to help businesses recoup the money they lost when
TransAlta shut down power plants during periods of peak demand to
drive up prices during the winter of 2010-11.

"I'm doing it because we can. We're the right guys to do it," he
said Tuesday. "It would be nice for someone to stick up for all
the customers who got hosed, rather than just the big
competitors."

Monday's ruling against TransAlta by the Alberta Utilities
Commission suggests the utility caused $100-million in "harm" to
Alberta electricity consumers and TransAlta's competitors.

Gray said the overall impact "could be the better part of a
billion dollars."

Capital Power has claimed the discretionary plant shutdowns cost
it nearly $10 million. Enmax and TransCanada Power have yet to put
a figure on damages they suffered when TransAlta shut down power
plants that were contracted to supply power to their customers.

Those costs are expected to be revealed at upcoming hearings
before the commission to determine an appropriate penalty for
TransAlta's acts of price manipulation and insider trading.

Gray, who operates Gray Energy Economics and previously served as
executive director of the provincial government's Utilities
Consumer Advocate office, said he fears businesses may be left
empty-handed after the rival utility companies are compensated for
their losses.

He estimates that depending on the amount of electricity used
during the winter months of 2010-11, medium-sized businesses paid
between $2,000 and $5,000 more than they would normally have as a
result of the manipulation of power prices.

Gray's website asks: "Did TransAlta screw your company?"

The electricity consultant said residential consumers who aren't
on fixed price contracts also paid more for electricity than they
should have, but because they pay a "hedged" default rate, it
isn't possible to prove in court how much more they paid for
power.

Allen Crowley, a vice-president of the electricity consultant
group EDC Associates Ltd., said it may be difficult to prove the
class action claims in court, based on the AUC ruling.

"They wouldn't get a crisp 'yes' or 'no' out of what the AUC
said," Crowley said. "I'm not sure if that will go anywhere or not
. . . I don't think the result of this hearing would give you a
very good idea of what the outcome of that would be."

The Market Surveillance Administrator, the market watchdog that
brought forward the allegations, estimated that TransAlta made a
$16-million profit from the four shutdowns and trading in Canada's
only fully deregulated electricity market.

Capital Power spokesman Michael Sheehan said the utility couldn't
say much at this point.

"We're reviewing the decision in detail and we're waiting for
further information regarding the next phase," he said.

TransCanada Corporation expressed confidence in the deregulated
market and its oversight.

"We believe Alberta's deregulated market has worked for consumers
and producers for over a decade in a province that has seen
substantial growth," said spokesman Davis Sheremata. "It was
created with market rules that need to be followed."

Enmax said the ruling demonstrates the system works.

The association that represents power plant owners was also
limited in its response.

"Our market has a thorough process for investigation and
enforcement and this process took its course," said Evan Bahry of
the Independent Power Producers Society of Alberta.

Alberta's Market Surveillance Administrator Harry Chandler said
Monday's decision was a "huge win for all Albertans who deserve to
reap the benefits of a fair, efficient and openly competitive
electricity market."

He said his office will "vigorously contest anyone we see as
attempting to game the market."

Energy Minister Marg McCuaig-Boyd said she couldn't comment on
whether electricity market rules need to be beefed up.

"I'm going to wait until we get this process complete," she said.
"I certainly will be taking a good look at what's happened, and if
there's things we need to fix, absolutely, because you and I pay
our bills every month in good faith the system is reasonable and
fair."

But both the Wildrose and Liberals called for stronger oversight
of the electricity market.

"Albertans have been paying some of the highest power prices in
North America and need greater protection," said Wildrose
electricity critic Don MacIntyre.

Liberal Leader David Swann said Albertans can't be sure utilities
that game the system to jack up prices will be caught.

"It does point to the need for stricter regulations and stronger
oversight," he said.


US BANK: Judge Won't Certify Class Over Preemptive Deal Fears
-------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reported
that a federal judge has denied a plaintiff's request to form a
class action in the hopes of blocking the defendant from pre-
emptively settling with her.

U.S. District Judge C. Darnell Jones II of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania tossed plaintiff Kathleen J. Todd's motion for class
certification in her Fair Debt Collection Practices Act case
against U.S. Bank National Association and debt collector McCabe,
Weisberg & Conway.

Todd, who defaulted on her $50,000 mortgage, proposed a class be
established for individuals who secured mortgages on properties
worth less than $231,111 in Pennsylvania "where U.S. Bank or MWC
charged, collected or attempted to collect post-judgment fees,
cost and interest before that interest has accrued and before
those fees and costs had been awarded by an Article V court,
within a period of six years from the date of filing of this
complaint," according to Jones' memorandum.

Todd wanted to avoid a "pick-off" under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 68, or in other words, a pre-emptive offer of judgment
on specific terms prior to trial. A plaintiff is at liberty to
refuse a defendant's offer, but according to the rule, "If the
judgment that the offeree finally obtains is not more favorable
than the unaccepted offer, the offeree must pay the costs incurred
after the offer was made."

Jones said the court would not "cower to the fears of Rule 68" by
granting or staying a motion for class status just so Todd's claim
would be safe from being picked off.

"Additionally, plaintiff's 'course of action comes with a cost'
administratively and 'promote[s] inefficiency and waste,'" Jones
said. "Staying a motion based exclusively on speculation is not a
legitimate reason to add unnecessary burdens to a judge's docket.
No case law within the Third Circuit has been found to suggest
otherwise."

Todd defaulted on her mortgage in March 2008 with foreclosure
initiated by MWC occurring the following August in the amount of
$53,000. According to Jones, the foreclosure complaint demanded
the $50,000 principal and roughly $3,000 in interest, attorney
fees, and other charges.

Todd subsequently filed her class action, and in May 2015 moved
for preliminary class certification all while acknowledging that
the motion was "premature," Jones said.

First and foremost, Jones said Todd failed to meet the criteria
for establishing a class. Regarding numerosity, Jones did not buy
Todd's "unsubstantiated" claims that the number of potential class
members "is unknown, but is believed to include well over 10,000."

And because discovery had not been initiated, Todd's motion failed
on the grounds of commonality, typicality, and adequacy of
representation as well.

As for Todd's aversion to Rule 68, Jones cited three cases that
illustrated why the court could not grant or stay a motion for
class status absent discovery.

In Smith v. Interline Brands, from the District of New Jersey, the
plaintiff filed a premature motion for class certification in
order to avoid being picked off by Rule 68. The court dismissed
the motion.

"Further, the court noted that if it chose to stay the plaintiff's
motion pending class discovery solely for purposes of averting a
potential 'pick-off' under Rule 68, the court would be saddled
with 'administrative costs, unnecessary distractions, and a drag
on efficiency and judicial economy,'" Jones said.

The second case, Church v. Accretive Health, from the Southern
District of Alabama, involved a nearly identical situation. In
that case, Jones said, "the court found the plaintiff's motion to
be 'a mere placeholder, an empty vessel into which plaintiff might
pour substance and content (assuming the evidence gathered in
discovery supports it).'"

Lastly, Jones pointed to Johnson v. U.S. Bank National
Association, a case from the District of Minnesota also involving
a similar fact pattern. The court in that case denied the
plaintiff's motion and said, "No one benefits when judges are
forced to decide premature, half-baked class-certification
motions."

Todd's attorney, Michael P. Malakoff, said there is a split among
circuit courts as to whether plaintiffs' claims should be able to
be picked off at all, with the issue pending before the U.S.
Supreme Court.

"Some of the courts say that you can't pick a plaintiff off after
the class action motion is filed, whether a class is certified or
not, and others have said that you can't pick a class plaintiff
off at all," Malakoff said.

Henry Reichner of Reed Smith represented U.S. Bank and declined to
comment. Candidus Dougherty of Swartz Campbell represented MWC and
did not return a call seeking comment.


VASCO DATA: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against VASCO Data Security International, Inc. ("VASCO" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:VDSI) and certain of its officers. The class
action, filed in United States District Court, Northern District
of Illinois, Eastern Division, and docketed under 15-cv-06605, is
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased VASCO securities between February 18, 2014 and July 21,
2015 inclusive (the "Class Period").  This class action seeks to
recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased VASCO securities during the
Class Period, you have until September 28, 2015 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com  To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

VASCO Data Security International, Inc., together with its
subsidiaries, designs, develops, markets, and supports hardware
and software security systems that manage and secure access to
information assets worldwide. VASCO Data's computer security
subsidiaries include VASCO Data Security, Inc. in Illinois, and
VASCO Data Security nv/sa of Belgium. The Company sells its
security solutions through its direct sales force, distributors,
resellers, and systems integrators.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) VASCO's products were
illegally sold to parties in Iran in violation of federal laws
prohibiting such sales; (2) the Company lacked adequate internal
controls; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, VASCO's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On July 21, 2015, after the market closed for trading, VASCO filed
a Form 8-K with the SEC announcing "that certain of its products
which were sold by a VASCO European subsidiary to a third-party
distributor may have been resold by the distributor to parties in
Iran, potentially including parties" subject to U.S. economic
sanctions.

As a result of this news, shares of VASCO fell $0.86, or over
3.22%, on unusually heavy volume, to close at $25.83 on July 22,
2015.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions.More than 70 years later, the
Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting
for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class
members. See www.pomerantzlaw.com.


VISA: Lawyer Emails Threaten $6-Bil. Class Suit Deal
----------------------------------------------------
Jacob Pramuk, writing for CNBC, reported that a friendship between
two opposing lawyers could shake up a $6 billion class-action
settlement involving Visa and MasterCard.

Lawyers representing about 100 merchants are slated to tell the
card operators that they want to scrap the deal reached in 2012
because of inappropriate communication between lawyers, The Wall
Street Journal reported, citing sources. The initial claims
challenged rules and fees used by Visa and MasterCard, and the
settlement permitted merchants to charge more to customers who pay
with cards.

The agreement came into question during an investigation into
alleged theft by Keila Ravelo, who represented MasterCard during
the proceedings for law firm Willkie Farr & Gallagher. The Journal
wrote that New Jersey authorities investigated Ravelo after
charging her with conspiracy to commit wire fraud shortly after
she resigned from the firm.

Emails and documents sent between Ravelo and Gary Friedman, who
represented merchants in the case, were then discovered, the
report says. Ravelo and Friedman worked together at another firm
earlier in their careers

Merchants plan to say that Ravelo and Friedman exchanged
confidential information and documents, leading to inadequate
representation, according to the report. Friedman represented
American Express in another pending $79 million settlement, which
could be threatened, as well, sources told the paper.

A MasterCard spokesman told CNBC "we believe recent events will
not have any impact on the settlement and the outcome of the case
will stand."

Ravelo's lawyer Steve Sadow said, "We are not in a position to
comment at this time."

AmEx declined to comment. Visa and MasterCard did not immediately
respond to CNBC's requests to comment. Friedman's firm and
Ravelo's former firm also did not answer CNBC's requests.


WALGREEN CO: "Clemmons" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Clemmons v. Walgreen Co., Case
No. 5:15-cv-05032, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Arkansas to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).  The Illinois
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05071 to the
proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 2619.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth Robert Shemin, Esq.
          SHEMIN LAW FIRM, PLLC
          3333 Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 603
          Rogers, AR 72758
          Telephone: (479) 845-3305
          E-mail: ken@sheminlaw.com

               - and -

          Marcus Neil Bozeman, Esq.
          Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374-1058
          Facsimile: (501) 374-2222
          E-mail: bozemanmarcus@hotmail.com
                  tomthrash@sbcglobal.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Judy Simmons Henry, Esq.
          WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP
          200 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3699
          Telephone: (501) 212-1391
          Facsimile: (501) 376-9442
          E-mail: jhenry@wlj.com


WALGREEN CO: "Kardasz" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Kardasz v. Walgreen Co., Case No.
4:15-cv-00251, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri to the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).  The Illinois
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05077 to the
proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 2619.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John F. Medler, Jr., Esq.
          MEDLER LAW FIRM
          7700 Bonhomme, Suite 360
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 727-8777
          Facsimile: (314) 727-7001
          E-mail: john@medlerlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Dale L. Beckerman, Esq.
          DEACY AND DEACY, LLP
          920 Main Street, Suite 1900
          Kansas City, MO 64105
          Telephone: (816) 421-4000
          Facsimile: (816) 421-7880
          E-mail: dlb@deacylaw.com


WALGREEN CO: "Trinidad" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Trinidad v. Walgreen Co., et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00090, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).
The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05102
to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practices
Litigation, MDL No. 2619.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christian A. Jenkins, Esq.
          MINNILLO & JENKINS CO., LPA
          2712 Observatory Avenue
          Cincinnati, OH 45208
          Telephone: (513) 723-1600
          Facsimile: (513) 723-1620
          E-mail: cjenkins@minnillojenkins.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Scott Goldenberg, Esq.
          Robert Brent Sherwood, Esq.
          Todd B. Naylor, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA
          One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 345-8291
          Facsimile: (513) 345-8294
          E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
                  rsherwood@gs-legal.com
                  tnaylor@gs-legal.com


WAL-MART STORES: "Jones" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Jones v. Wal Mart Stores Inc.,
et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00085, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).
The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05081
to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Herbal Supplements Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2620.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Courtney MacCarone, Esq.
          Shane T. Rowley, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          30 Broad Street, Suite 2400
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (866) 367-6510
          E-mail: cmaccarone@zlk.com
                  srowley@zlk.com

               - and -

          Nancy Kulesa, Esq.
          Shannon Hopkins, Esq.
          Stephanie Bartone, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          733 Summer Street, Suite 304
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (866) 367-6510
          E-mail: nkulesa@zlk.com
                  shopkins@zlk.com
                  sbartone@zlk.com

               - and -

          Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
          Joseph Henry "Hank" Bates, III, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          2800 Cantrell Road, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 312-5800
          E-mail: rpulliam@cbplaw.com
                  hbates@carneywilliams.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          E. B. Chiles, IV, Esq.
          Steven W. Quattlebaum, Esq.
          QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS, TULL & BURROW PLLC
          111 Center Street, Suite 1900
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3325
          Telephone: (501) 379-1700
          E-mail: cchiles@qgtb.com
                  quattlebaum@qgtb.com


WAL-MART STORES: "Marshall" Suit Consolidated in Supplements MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Marshall, et al. v. Walmart
Stores, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-60246, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Chicago).  The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-05088 to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Herbal Supplements Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2620.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          Jonathan Betten Cohen, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                  jcohen@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Rachel Lynn Soffin, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          One Tampa City Center, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33609
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          E-mail: rsoffin@forthepeople.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Dora Faye Kaufman, Esq.
          HALEY, SINAGRA, PAUL & TOLAND, P.A.
          100 SE 3rd Ave., Suite 1900
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
          Telephone: (954) 467-1300
          Facsimile: (954) 467-1372
          E-mail: DKaufman@lgplaw.com


WAL-MART STORES: "Sparks" Suit Included in Herbal Supplements MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Sparks v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
Case No. 5:15-cv-05031, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Arkansas to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).  The
Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05082 to
the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Herbal Supplements Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2620.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth Robert Shemin, Esq.
          SHEMIN LAW FIRM, PLLC
          3333 Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 603
          Rogers, AR 72758
          Telephone: (479) 845-3305
          Facsimile: (479) 845-2198
          E-mail: ken@sheminlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
          Marcus Neil Bozeman, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374-1058
          Facsimile: (501) 374-2222
          E-mail: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net
                  bozemanmarcus@hotmail.com

               - and -

          Dewitt M. Lovelace, Esq.
          Valerie Lauro Nettles, Esq.
          12870 U.S. Hwy. 98 West, Suite 200
          Miramar Beach, FL 32550
          Toll Free: (888) 837-2281
          Telephone: (850) 837-6020
          Facsimile: (850) 837-4093

               - and -

          Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          8120 Woodmont Avenue, Suite 810
          Bethesda, MD 20814
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Taylor Asen, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          16 Court Street, Suite 1012
          Brooklyn, NY 11241
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: tasen@cuneolaw.com

               - and -

          Ben F. Pierce Gore, Esq.
          PRATT & ASSOCIATES
          1871 The Alameda, Suite 425
          San Jose, CA 95126
          Telephone: (408) 369-0800
          E-mail: piercegore@gorelawfirm.com

               - and -

          Richard R. Barrett, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD R. BARRETT, PLLC
          2086 Old Taylor Road, Suite 1011
          Oxford, MS 38655
          Telephone: (662) 380-5018
          Facsimile: (866) 430-5459
          E-mail: rrb@rrblawfirm.net

               - and -

          Don Barrett, Esq.
          DON BARRETT, P.A.
          PO Box 927
          404 Court Square North
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834-2488
          Facsimile: (662) 834-2628

The Defendant is represented by:

          E. B. Chiles, IV, Esq.
          Steven W. Quattlebaum, Esq.
          QUATTLEBAUM, GROOMS, TULL & BURROW PLLC
          111 Center Street, Suite 1900
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3325
          Telephone: (501) 379-1700
          E-mail: cchiles@qgtb.com
                  quattlebaum@qgtb.com


WAL-MART STORES: "Stevens" Suit Consolidated in Supplements MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Stevens v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00243 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).  The
Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05103 to
the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Herbal Supplements Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2620.

The actions in the litigation arise from the New York Attorney
General's determination based on DNA barcode testing that certain
herbal supplements sold by Walgreens, Wal-Mart, GNC, and Target do
not contain the herbs advertised on the label and instead contain
fillers or contaminants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Estok, Esq.
          LINDSAY HART LLP
          1300 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 3400
          Portland, OR 97201
          Telephone: (503) 226-7677
          Facsimile: (503) 226-7697
          E-mail: mestok@lindsayhart.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Anne M. Talcott, Esq.
          SCHWABE WILLIAMSON & WYATT, PC
          1211 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 1800
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 796-2991
          Facsimile: (503) 796-2900
          E-mail: atalcott@schwabe.com


WAL-MART STORES: Warns Suppliers Over Labeling Laws
---------------------------------------------------
Paul Ziobro, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reported that
the world's largest retailer has put suppliers on notice: Pay
attention to the little things before they become big problems.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. sent out a memo to hundreds of suppliers from
Kraft Heinz Co. to Nestl‚ SA warning them to comply with labeling
laws, emphasizing that the amount inside a package matches what is
printed on the outside.

The memo, reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, is a direct
response to some retailers, like Whole Foods Market Inc., being
accused of overcharging customers by overstating how much of a
product they are selling, a person familiar with the matter said.
It also comes as corporations and district attorneys are closely
monitoring that suppliers are obeying all labeling and packaging
rules, and are quick to file suit if they're not.

"This is a reminder to our suppliers to make sure their labeling
matches what's in the product," Wal-Mart spokesman Brian Nick
said. "We want our customers to know they can have faith in the
products they buy at Wal-Mart."

Mr. Nick declined to say whether the memo was triggered by a
specific incident at Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart is in the midst of a renewed push to encourage suppliers
to be ever vigilant on their own costs so that the retailer can
sell more products for less than competitors. Earlier, Wal-Mart's
new U.S. leadership called on suppliers to cut back on marketing
spending and plow those savings into lower prices, a strong
message that Wal-Mart was determined to win back its low-price
advantage that has eroded in recent years.

The memo, dated July 20, reads as a perfunctory reiteration of
state, federal and company regulations. It also notes that any
fines against Wal-Mart or the company's membership-only club chain
Sam's Club could be directed back to suppliers.

The company regularly holds compliance sessions with suppliers,
but the memo offers a broad way to reinforce the rules given
recent retail embarrassments.

That includes Whole Foods having to apologize for overcharging
consumers for some prepackaged fresh foods like vegetable
platters.

The New York's Department of Consumer Affairs said 89% of items
tested fell outside the leeway allowed by U.S. Commerce Department
for how much the weight listed on a package can deviate from its
actual weight. As a result, some customers were charged too much,
ranging from an extra 80 cents for a pack of pecan panko or up to
$14.84 extra for coconut shrimp.

Whole Foods initially denied the allegations, but later, the
chain's co-chief executives apologized and promised changes, like
training employees better and conducting regular audits. "Straight
up: We made some mistakes," Whole Foods Co-CEO Walter Robb said in
an online video addressing the problem.

Retailers are also having to answer to complaints that some
suppliers were misleading consumers by reducing the amount of
product they put in their packages to avoid price increases at the
shelf. Such changes are generally permissible if the quantity
listed on the front matches the amount inside.

But some rival corporations, district attorneys and class-action
lawyers are policing whether the changes can run afoul of so-
called slack fill laws, which prohibit too much empty space inside
packages. In recent months, makers of everything from deodorant
and skin cream to snacks and spices have been accused of or
settled complaints of slack violations.


WARNER/CHAPELL: "Happy Birthday" Song May Be Ruled Free
-------------------------------------------------------
Jeff John Roberts, writing for Fortune, reported that the world's
most popular song dates from 1893 but a studio has been forcing
people to pay for it all the same. Now, last minute evidence in a
closely-watched court case could make "Happy Birthday" free at
last, and end one of the most controversial copyright claims in
history.

The evidence comes in the form of a book of music from 1927 titled
"The Everyday Songbook," which was put before a federal judge in
California. There, in its pages, is a copy of the words and melody
of "Happy Birthday," whose appearance should serve to put the
famous song in the public domain once and for all -- and end a
licensing gig that reportedly nets publisher Warner/Chappell's $2
million per year.

In case you're wondering how we even got here in the first place,
the court case began in 2013 when a film-maker objected to paying
$1,500 to license "Happy Birthday" and filed a class action suit
against Warner/Chapell. She argued the song has been in the public
domain for decades and no one should have to pay anything to use
it.

To understand the legal issues, you have to go back to the 1890's
when sisters Mildred J. Hill and Patty Smith Hill composed "Good
Morning to All," which contains the familiar melody we know. Soon,
versions of that song began to appear with the Happy Birthday
lyrics and, in 1935, a publisher called the Clayton F. Summy
Company obtained a copyright.

The copyright passed down through successor companies and
Warner/Chappell obtained the rights as part of a $25 million
acquisition in 1988. The problem, however, is that the copyright
appears to have been no good in the first place due to a problem
with the registration; until, the case hinged on whether the
sisters had actually abandoned the copyright through a
technicality (in those days, you had to stamp the famous (c) on a
work to preserve your rights).

That has been the focus of the court case so far. But now the
discovery of the 1927 songbook appears to blow away that issue
since the appearance of a published version of "Happy Birthday"
means the 1935 copyright is invalid.

The film-maker has just submitted the 1927 songbook ahead of a
hearing, scheduled for, at which a judge is to consider the
abandonment issue. Now, the judge may simply use the new evidence
to rule Happy Birthday is clearly in the public domain.

Such a ruling would certainly be good news for birthday celebrants
everywhere, but may also raise the larger question of why songs
from the 1920's and 1930's are even subject to copyright in the
first place. While copyright law is nominally about incentives,
the U.S. entertainment industry has repeatedly lobbied to extend
its terms, which critics say results in retroactive windfalls that
amount to corporate welfare.


WASHINGTON: May Face Class Suit Over Tuition Cuts in GET
--------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Long, writing for Tri-City Herald, reported that a state
committee that oversees Washington's prepaid college tuition plan
is considering refunding some, or even all, of the money parents
and relatives poured into the plan in recent years.

Under one proposal, everyone who purchased Guaranteed Education
Tuition (GET) units over the past four years -- when the units
were priced at $163 and $172 -- would be able to get a full refund
on those units, without paying a penalty.

Under a second proposal, parents and grandparents who bought GET
units in the past four years would hold onto their units but
receive a partial refund -- the difference between the prices they
originally paid and a new, lower purchase price that would be set
this September.

The idea is to ensure that those who've invested in GET units
don't lose ground from the Legislature's decision to roll back
tuition at the state's public colleges by as much as 20 percent
over the next two years.

Washington is the only state in the nation to make tuition cuts.

As it happens, Washington is also one of the few states that
offers a prepaid college tuition plan, which charges a premium
price in exchange for assurance that 100 GET units will pay for a
year's worth of tuition at the most expensive public college in
Washington. In the past, that has been a good deal, with parents
paying less per unit, even at the premium price, than what tuition
ends up costing when their child goes to college.

But since 2013, GET units have cost $172 apiece, and the payout
value has been just $117 per unit. The tuition rollback raises the
possibility that parents might never recover the premium they paid
to lock in the cost of tuition.

As part of its tuition-rollback bill, the Legislature froze the
payout value at $117 for the next two years. Lawmakers also
charged the GET Committee with coming up with a plan for the
future, and to make recommendations to ensure that unit values are
not decreased or diluted as a result of lower tuition. That plan
is due in December 2016, but GET committee members and staff said
they want to finish that work much sooner -- by this December, if
possible.

GET staff presented the two options to the five-member committee
during a public meeting. But the committee wasn't ready to settle
on either one -- it wanted more time to study the ideas.

"The state guarantee has been a wonderful thing for middle-income
families," said Beth Stecher Berendt, a citizen committee member
who herself owns 400 GET units. "There are a whole number of
issues that need to be thoroughly vetted. Tuition reduction is a
great thing -- and GET is also a great thing."

Echoing her words, committee member and state Treasurer James
McIntire said the committee should present investors with a well
thought-out plan, not choices presented piecemeal, to help them
make the best decisions about their college savings.

"We are legally bound and personally committed" to protecting
account holders, he said. "We need to proceed with some caution."

The GET Committee meets again Aug. 18.

The committee also discussed refunding the roughly $20 per unit
fee that GET-holders have been charged since 2012. That fee was
meant to help GET recover financially after it was hit with the
double blows of a plummeting stock market and rapidly rising
tuition. Since then, GET has fully recovered.

The fund now totals about $3 billion. Nearly four million GET
units were sold between 2012 and 2015, and refunding the fee would
reduce the size of the GET fund by one-two percent, or about $80
million.

It's not known how much it would cost to refund all GET units sold
in the last four years, although based on sales figures the GET
committee has previously published, that figure is likely to be
about $600 million.

GET is currently closed to new accounts until November -- part of
a routine, annual process -- and one option would be to suspend
the program all together until the new payout and purchasing
details are worked out, said GET Director Betty Lochner.

Yet another option: To waive a 10 percent penalty GET currently
charges account-holders who want to roll their money into another
type of college savings plan, such as a 529 plan.

If the state doesn't fix GET so that it's fair to all investors, a
class-action lawsuit may result. A lawyer for the state Attorney
General's office told the committee that some individuals and
lawyers have said they are contemplating taking legal action,
depending on what the committee decides.


WICKHAM SECURITIES: Retirees' Suit Seeks to Clawback Investments
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristian Silva, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reported
that Graeme Clarke jokes that he's signed "a million documents and
a million forms" in the last two years, but his tone becomes far
more serious when he says that he wants his money back.

Mr. Clarke, along with his wife Marion, are the lead applicants in
a class action that aims to win back more than $20 million that
investors poured into failed fund Wickham Securities.

The class action, headed up by Shine Lawyers, represents more than
150 investors however the door remains open for more people to
join.

Most of those out of pocket are Queensland retirees, and none of
them have received a cent since Wickham was liquidated in early
2013.

According to liquidators PPB Advisory, the best they could hope
for was between 6 and 20 cents of every dollar invested.

The Clarkes lost $220,000 and are particularly bitter because they
had a long-standing working relationship with Wickham's former
director Brad Sherwin.

Mr. Clarke accused Mr. Sherwin, who is facing fraud charges and
has been banned by ASIC, of "embezzling" their money. Six months
before Wickham went belly-up, Mr. Sherwin convinced them to invest
another $50,000 into the failing venture.

Mr. Clarke, a retired union official, believes the class action
against Wickham's trustee company, Sandhurst Trustees, will take
four years.

"We've met folk who have been wiped out -- not a cent to their
names, and old people too," he said.

"A few of the other note holders are not going to see out the four
years through age or ill health. Provided they're signed up with
Shine Lawyers as the plaintiffs, if they don't get it their estate
will. It'll come back to them personally or their families or
beneficiaries."

According to court documents lodged on, Shine Lawyers claims
Sandhurst breached the Corporations Act by not properly checking
that Wickham was being run properly or could repay its investors.
The most extraordinary claim was that in 2012 Wickham stated its
application account bank balance was $10.78 million, "when in fact
the actual balance was $264,892".

They also alleged financial records were not properly maintained,
including loans that were not fully documented.

"Wickham did its own research utilising RP Data to determine the
value of the security properties rather than relying on valuation
reports," was another claim made by Shine Lawyers.

Shine also believes Wickham Securities paid $95,113 to a company
run by Mr. Sherwin's wife to complete renovations on Mr.
Sherwin's house.

Sandhurst Trustees was responsible for the loss of investors'
money, Shine argued, because it should have noticed Wickham's
improper dealings and ordered them to be rectified within 21 days.
The case is due in the Federal Court in Brisbane on July 27.

Meanwhile, Mr. Sherwin's criminal fraud case returns to the
Brisbane Magistrates Court on July 23.

Former Wickham chief executive Garth Robertson will face the same
court on fraud charges on August 20.


WILLIAM WARREN: Removes "Holbach" Suit to Florida District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Holbach v. The William Warren
Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-002758-CI, was removed from the
Sixth Judicial Circuit, in and for Pinellas County, Florida, to
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
(Tampa).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:15-cv-
01387-RAL-EAJ to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants engaged in unlawful
employment practices and discriminated against him on account of
his age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Owens, Esq.
          Miguel Bouzas, Esq.
          BOUZAS OWENS, P.A.
          2154 Duck Slough Blvd., Suite 101
          Trinity, FL 34655
          Telephone: (727) 254-5255
          Facsimile: (727) 483-7942
          E-mail: greg@bouzasowens.com
                  miguel@bouzasowens.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew E. Costello, Esq.
          HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
          18100 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 750
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 202-3000
          Facsimile: (949) 202-3001
          E-mail: matthew.costello@haynesboone.com

               - and -

          Tamara I. Devitt, Esq.
          HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
          600 Anton Blvd., Suite 700
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (949) 202-3000
          Facsimile: (949) 202-3001
          E-mail: tamara.devitt@haynesboone.com

               - and -

          W. Drew Sorrell, II, Esq.
          LOWNDES, DROSDICK, DOSTER, KANTOR & REED, PA
          215 N Eola Dr.
          PO Box 2809
          Orlando, FL 32802-2809
          Telephone: (407) 843-4600
          Facsimile: (407) 843-4444
          E-mail: drew.sorrell@lowndes-law.com


XTO ENERGY: Class Suit Filed Over Insufficient Royalties Payment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Genco, writing for The Cranberry Eagle, reported that two
Butler County property owners filed a lawsuit in federal court
against XTO Energy alleging insufficient payment of royalties from
natural gas drilling operations.

The plaintiffs, Richard Marburger as trustee of the Olive M.
Marburger living trust and the Thiele family, allege XTO Energy
has been deducting operating expenses from their royalty payments,
which their lease agreement states they would not do.

"The lease is a contract, and they breached it. They made a
promise, and they broke it," attorney David Borkovic said.
The suit was filed by Jones, Gregg, Creehan and Gerace, a
Pittsburgh-based law firm.

It was filed as a class-action lawsuit and the complaint says
there are potentially more than 100 plaintiffs and more than $5
million in the controversy.

Because the plaintiffs live in Pennsylvania and XTO is based in
both Delaware and Texas, the suit was filed in U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

The mineral rights were leased for the Marburgers' 97.7 acres in
Forward Township and the Thieles' 148 acres in Jefferson Township
by Phillips Production in 2007, according to the complaint.

Both leases stated the property owners would receive one-eighth of
the proceeds the company received for gas sold under the lease.

In 2011, Exxon Mobil acquired Phillips Production and the leases
and gas drilling operations in the region were put under control
of XTO Energy.

The suit alleges XTO has disregarded the language in the leases
and deducted various expenses in calculating and paying royalties.
The families believe there are numerous other land owners who have
been wronged.

"Mr. Marburger and the Thiele Family Limited Partnership are
attempting to sue on behalf of everyone who had a lease with
Phillips and are being charged expenses," Borkovic said about the
suit's class action potential.

The two plaintiffs are both seeking amounts that exceed $75,000.
XTO has 21 days to respond to the complaint, though it is likely
it will request an extension, Borkovic said.

After XTO responds to the complaint, the judge likely will
designate a period of discovery during which the lawyers for the
plaintiffs will access XTO land records to compile a complete list
of property owners who would qualify as plaintiffs under a class-
action suit, Borkovic said.

If a judge rules the case may continue as a class-action suit, the
plaintiffs would be notified and would be able to opt out, which
would allow them to file their own individual claims.

They would not need to do anything to remain as a party to the
suit, Borkovic said.

XTO is waiting for receipt of the suit and could not comment.


* CFPB May Allow Payday Loan Class Actions to Come Back
-------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Craig, writing for Lawyers and Settlements.com, reported
that payday lender shops that offer quick and not-many-questions-
asked loans have been pretty much immune to class-action lawsuits
for the last four years. However, a change may be in the wind.

Executive Director for Public Justice, Paul Bland, says new rules
being considered by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
(CFPB) may turn the tables and once again allow consumers to use
the power of a class-action suit to remedy unfair lending
practices by some payday lenders.

Background

A 2011 Supreme Court decision in the case of AT&T Mobility v.
Concepcion shook the ground. By a margin of 5 to 4, the Supreme
Court ruled that the Federal Arbitration Act of 1925 preempts
state laws that say business contracts cannot prevent disgruntled
consumers from pursuing businesses through class-action suits.

The Court's decision described by one legal analyst as "a real
game changer" essentially squashed class actions against quick-
lending shops. The only option left for unhappy payday lender
customers was to pursue individual arbitration cases.

However, it has become very apparent that the arbitration route
has not been very successful, at least from the point of view of
unhappy borrowers.

Arbitration doesn't work

A study done by the CFPB found that less than seven percent of
consumers actually pursue arbitration in cases where businesses
require the dispute to be resolved in that manner. It means,
according to the CFPB, that millions of dollars owed to consumers
is essentially locked up without an appropriate resolution
mechanism.

"If you file a class action against a payday lender alleging that
a large group of people were misled, the lenders simply argue that
they have an arbitration clause that means you cannot bring a
class action," says Bland. "The only thing they are allowed to do
is go to individual arbitration, but almost no one goes that route
and the cases just disappear."

In March, the CFPB, reviewing the issue of payday lenders, put a
proposal forward that would ban the use of arbitration clauses.

Payday lender history/Pew studies

It has been said there are now as many payday lenders in the US as
there are McDonald's restaurants. That may or may not be true, but
it is a fair comment on the proliferation of the quick cash shacks
across the country.

Although quick cash loans have been around for a century, the last
15 years has seen an explosion in the number of strip mall lending
stores.

The Pew Charitable Trusts, concerned about the effects on many
Americans, has produced a number of studies on payday lenders.
According to Pew, an estimated 12 million people use payday loans
every year in the US. According to its research, payday borrowers
spend an average of $520 in interest, rolling over an average of
$375.

Each time the loan is rolled over there is a fee. Typically, in
order to pay back the loan, borrowers must pay about a third of
their paycheck, leaving them with insufficient funds to pay the
rent, buy food, pay for transportation; and they end up borrowing
again.

Other possible changes in the pipeline

There are some other CFPB possible rule changes that would benefit
payday loan users according to Bland.

Lenders would have to give some consideration to a borrower's
ability to repay.

"The payday lenders extend loans to a huge number of people who
aren't able to pay," he says. "That means they have to roll the
loan over. That's where they make their money. They don't make it
on the original fee. They make it off people who role the loans
over again and again. There are people who role the loans over --
literally dozens of times -- and this sometimes translates to
thousands of dollars. I have had clients who have rolled over as
many as 20 times," says Bland.

Another CFBP proposal would put a limit on the number of rollovers
that a borrower can do.

"Under the CFPB proposal rules, the loan could be rolled over
three times back to back," he explains. "Meaning, if you take out
a loan a third time, they can't charge you another fee.

"And there would be a limit of three back-to-back loans and a
maximum of six per year. If that does stand up, that will be
disastrous for the payday loan business because they count on
multiple renewals," says Bland.

"I think there is a good chance we will see some change within six
to 12 months," adds Bland.

Paul Bland is the executive director of Public Justice in
Washington D.C. As a staff and senior attorney, he was responsible
for developing, handling and helping Public Justice's cooperating
attorneys litigate a diverse docket of public interest cases. Paul
has argued and won more than 30 cases that led to reported
decisions for consumers, employees or whistleblowers in six of the
U.S. Courts of Appeals and the high courts of nine different
states.


                            *********

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  * * *