CAR_Public/150811.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, August 11, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 159


                            Headlines


7-ELEVEN INC: Removed "Chamberlain" Suit to N.D. West Virginia
A & S ENTERTAINMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ADVAXIS INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Stock Options
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Brodsky" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Stewart" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing

ANTHEM INC: Faces Data Breach Class Suit
APPLE: "Shrinkage" Class Suit Trial to Begin January
APPLE: Sued Over Refurbished AppleCare+ Hardware Replacements
ARAMEX INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Lozano" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ASHLEY MADISON: Could Face Data Breach Class Suit

BLL RESTAURANT: Faces "Galindo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BLUE CROSS: Michigan Chiropractors Get Deal in Class Suit
BURNSVILLE, MN: Faces Class Suit over Carport Inspections
CAN-ROXY: Recalls Candy Products Due to Soy, Milk and Wheat
CANADA: Class Suit Over CWB Battle Continues, Lawsuit Amended

CAPALA BROTHERS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Plaintiff Fee Award in Wage Suit
CERTIFIED CREDIT: Faces "Palmer" Class Suit Over FDPCA Violation
CHARLESTON AREA MEDICAL: Faces Data Breach Class Suit
CHRYSLER: Durango Rollover Document May Spur More Settlements
CLEAN AIR: Faces "Chang" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

D&H CANADA: Recalls Tablet Computers Due to Fire Hazard
EAST CHEMICAL: Judge Gives More Time On Chemical Leak Records
ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Stewart" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
EZCORP INC: Glancy Prongay Firm Files Securities Class Suit
FOREST LABORATORIES: Court Refuses To Toll Statute of Limitations

GENERAL MOTORS: Lawyers Spar Over Scope of Valukas Deposition
GENTIVA HEALTH: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
GERMAINE LAW: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit in Ariz. Over FDCPA Violation
HARBOR RAIL: Faces "Wilson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HERCULES TIRE: Recalls Multiple Tire Models

HORIZON HEALTH: Class Suit Continues Despite Dr. Menon's Death
HOWARD S. SCHNEIDER: Judge Weighs in on Abuse Suit
IDAHO: Inmate Can Move Forward with Heart Attack Suit
INNOVATE LOGISTICS: Removed "Torres" Suit to New Jersey Court
JB HUNT: Removes "Silfani" Class Suit to Massachusetts Dist. Ct.

JOHN DEERE: Recalls Lawn Tractors Due to Crash Hazard
JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
KAMBOUSI RESTAURANT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
KEURIG GREEN: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
LONGTOP FINANCIAL: Derek Palaschuk Agrees to $2.3MM Class Deal

LOUISIANA: Retirement System Sued Over Reimbursement Failure
MANHATTAN GROUP: Recalls Activity Toys Due to Choking Hazard
MARTHA STEWART: Faces "Gordon" Suit Over Sequential Merger Plan
MERRILL LYNCH: Sued in Florida Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
MF GLOBAL: Corzine Must Face Commodities Customer Class Suit

MICROSOFT: May Face Class Suit Over Xbox 360 Defective Discs
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Seau Family Seeks Trial in Concussions Suit
NAT'L MILK: Retailers Expand Dairy Antitrust Litigation
NEW JERSEY: 150 Hurricane Sandy Insurance Cases Await Settlement
NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Discrimination Suit

NISSAN: Court Approves Deal in Leaf Misleading Advertising Suit
PENNSYLVANIA: Four-Time Killer's Death Penalty Delayed
PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Aug. 3 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
RECEPTOS INC: Faces "Kadin" Suit Over Proposed Celgene Merger
ROWAN COUNTY, KY: Judge Hears Testimony in Licensing Suit

SANDHURST-WICKHAM: Class Action Has First Court Hearing
SCHUMACHER & SEILER: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
SMKH LLC: Removes "Sobrino" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
SOLAZYME INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
STABIL DRILL: "Veillon" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

US HEALTHWORKS: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Suit Claims
VALENCIA HOLDING: Arbitration Agreement Enforceable, Court Rules
VICE MEDIA: Faces "Ruiz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Injury Risk
VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Injury Risk

WASHINGTON: Tardy Toll Payers Given Break From Late Penalties
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Judge Rejects EPA Pre-emption Claim in Washer Suit
YINGLI GREEN: Goldberg Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit

* FCRA Class Action Suits Rise Sharply in June 2015
* U.S. Securities Class Actions Against Chinese Companies Rise


                            *********


7-ELEVEN INC: Removed "Chamberlain" Suit to N.D. West Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Tammy Chamberlain, Juanita
Gray, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v.
7-Eleven, Inc. d/b/a 7-Eleven, d/b/a 7-Eleven 35901-35969 and
other store names, and 7-Eleven Sales Corporation, Case No. 15-C-
159 was removed from the Circuit Court of Ohio County, West
Virginia to the U.S. District Court Northern District of West
Virginia (Wheeling). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:15-cv-00095-FPS to the proceeding.

The case asserts a claim for violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
      Rodney A. Smith, Esq.
      Tony L. Clackler, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
      209 Capitol Street
      Charleston, WV 25301
      Telephone: (304) 345-6555
      Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
      E-mail: jmarshall@baileyglasser.com
              rsmith@baileyglasser.com
              tclackler@baileyglasser.com

         - and -

      Joy B. Mega, Esq.
      Todd S. Bailess, Esq.
      BAILESS LAW, PLLC
      120 Capitol Street
      Charleston, WV 25301
      Telephone: (304) 342-0550
      Facsimile: (304) 344-5529
      E-mail: bailesslaw@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Eric W. Iskra, Esq.
      Gordon Lee Mowen II, Esq.
      SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE PLLC
      300 Kanawha Blvd E
      P. O. Box 273
      Charleston, WV 25321-0273
      Telephone: (304) 340-3875
      Facsimile: (304) 340-3801
      E-mail: eiskra@spilmanlaw.com
              gmowen@spilmanlaw.com


A & S ENTERTAINMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Deandra Brunson, and other similarly situated individuals v.
A & S Entertainment, LLC d/b/a The Office a/k/a The Office, Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-22778-DPG (S.D. Fla., July 27, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

A & S Entertainment, LLC owns and operates an entertainment club
having its main place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ruben Martin Saenz, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Suite 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


ADVAXIS INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Stock Options
-----------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Larkin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Advaxis, Inc., et al., Case No. 11338-CB (Del. Ch.,
July 27, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the stockholders of
Advaxis, Inc., to enjoin the improper granting of "spring-loaded"
stock options to the Defendants, as well as the excessive and
unfair compensation received by the non-employee Board members.

Advaxis, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company focused on
developing multiple cancer immunotherapies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David A. Jenkins, Esq.
      Neal C. Belgam, Esq.
      SMITH, KATZENSTEIN & JENKINS, LLP
      1000 West Street, Suite 1501
      P.O. Box 410
      Wilmington, DE 19899
      Telephone: (302) 504-1688
      E-mail: djenkins@skjlaw.com
              nbelgam@skjlaw.com

         - and -

      Steven J. Purcell, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (212) 363-7171


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Brodsky" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ethan Brodsky, Jeffrey Robb, and Valbona Alla, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Delta Airlines,
Inc., American Airlines Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., and united
Airlines, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00902-JPS (E.D. Wis., July 27,
2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination,
agreement and conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize
prices of airline tickets through signaling one another how
quickly they would add new flights, routes, and extra seats in
order to limit the capacity, and limiting access to competitive
fare information to keep the price of airfares artificially high.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Guri Ademi, Esq.
      John D. Blythin, Esq.
      Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
      Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
      Denise L. Morris, Esq.
      ADEMI & O'REILLY LLP
      3620 E Layton Ave
      Cudahy, WI 53110
      Telephone: (414) 482-8000
      Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
      E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com
              jblythin@ademilaw.com
              meldridge@ademilaw.com
              sademi@ademilaw.com
              dmorris@ademilaw.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Stewart" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
James L. Stewart, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc.,
Southwest Airlines Co., and Unite Airlines, Inc., Case No. 3:15-
cv-03446-CRB (N.D. Cal., July 27, 2015), arises from the
Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy
to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize prices for air passenger
transportation services within the United States.

The Defendants operate the largest commercial airlines in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ANTHEM INC: Faces Data Breach Class Suit
----------------------------------------
Dan Harkins, writing for Louisiana Record, reported that a couple
is filing a class action lawsuit against a major insurance agency,
alleging failure to protect against a recent hacking breach of
security for 80 million customers.

Stephen and Beryl Fisse, for their minor daughter, filed a lawsuit
June 17 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana against Anthem Inc. and the Anthem Cos. Inc.

The complaint states this class action is for all previous and
present Anthem customers who had personal data stolen hackers,
allegedly due "to Anthem's failure to adhere to reasonable,
industry-standard practices."

On Feb. 4, 2015, the suit says, Anthem announced its information
breach, specifically the personal data of about 80 million former
and current insurance plan customers, including their Social
Security numbers, street addresses, birthdays, email addresses,
employment information and income, the lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs seek to classify this case as a class action and
appoint the plaintiffs as representatives of the class and its
counsel as class counsel, as well as to enter a judgment against
the defendants for cited negligent misrepresentations, breaches of
implied and express contracts and unjust enrichment.

Stephen and Beryl Fisse seek compensatory, statutory and punitive
damages, plus attorney fees and court costs. They are represented
by attorneys Arthur M. Murray, Stephen B. Murray Sr. and Amanda K.
Klevorn of Murray Law Firm in New Orleans.


APPLE: "Shrinkage" Class Suit Trial to Begin January
----------------------------------------------------
David Kravets, writing for ARS, reported that a federal judge has
ruled that Apple must defend a class-action trial, to begin in
January, representing thousands of Apple store workers. The
employees claim they had to spend as much as 20 minutes off the
clock having their bags searched to combat employee theft -- known
as "shrinkage" -- every time they left the premises.

According to US District Judge William Alsup's ruling:

   "In stores where searches were performed by the manager on
duty, some employees say they had to scour the store to find a
manager and wait until that manager finished with other duties,
such as assisting a customer. Where searches were performed by a
security guard, some employees had to wait until a security guard
became available. Some employees sometimes had to wait in line.
Employee estimates of the duration of the whole process, including
both searches and wait times, range from five minutes to up to
twenty minutes per search, with extremes occurring during busy
periods such as product launches or holiday seasons. By contrast,
managers estimate wait times at only a few seconds."

Decision sets the stage for a rare public glimpse into how Apple
treats its retail store workers. Store workers in 2012 e-mailed
Apple chief Tim Cook saying the search policy treated employees
"as criminals."

Alsup's decision applies to about 12,400 workers in California,
which has more employee-friendly work regulations than those of
the federal government or other states. Alsup allowed the
litigation to continue despite the Supreme Court ruling in 2014
that warehouse workers for Amazon.com in Nevada could be forced to
spend as much as 25 minutes off the clock to undergo security
screenings at the end of their shift.

Apple has maintained that the lawsuit should not be granted class-
action status because not all stores conducted the searches or, in
the alternative, the searches only took seconds and did not
warrant compensation.

Here is Apple's employee store search policy, according to the
court record:

   * Ask the employee to open every bag, brief case, back pack,
purse, etc.

   * Ask the employee to remove any type of item that Apple may
sell. Be sure to verify the serial number of the employee's
personal technology against the personal technology log.

   * Visually inspect the inside of the bag and view its contents.
Be sure to ask the employee to unzip zippers and compartments so
you can inspect the entire contents of the bag. If there are bags
within a bag, such as a cosmetics case, be sure to ask the
employee to open these bags as well.

   * At no time should you remove any items inside the bag or
touch the employee's personal belongings. If something looks
questionable, ask the employee to move or remove items from the
bag so that the bag check can be completed.

   * In the event that a questionable item is found, ask the
employee to remove the item from the bag. Apple will reserve the
right to hold onto the questioned item until it can be verified as
employee owned. (This will make the employee more aware to log in
all items at start of shift.)

   * If the item cannot be verified by [the manager on duty],
contact Loss Prevention.

The policy requires workers to find a manager or security guard to
check their bags before leaving the store. Failure to comply,
according to Alsup's ruling, "may lead to disciplinary action, up
to and including termination."

Trial is set for January 25 in San Francisco federal court.


APPLE: Sued Over Refurbished AppleCare+ Hardware Replacements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Fingas, writing for AppleInsider, reported that a case was
entered July 18 via the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, on behalf of Joanne McRight, a woman whose
father bought her an iPhone 5 with AppleCare+ from an Apple Store
in Friendswood, Texas in December 2012. Her screen later broke,
and in September 2013 McRight paid AppleCare+'s then-$49
accidental damage fee to secure a replacement.

The new device's screen also broke, leading to her paying another
$49 in May 2014. Lawyers for McRight said that neither of the
devices were new or "equivalent to new in both performance and
reliability," as promised in the official terms for AppleCare+.
Specifically, McRight argues that refurbished devices -- something
Apple frequently offers up in place of broken units -- do not
qualify.

McRight's father later bought her an iPhone 6 with AppleCare+ in
September 2014, but that device's screen broke as well, leading
her to seek replacement in July, this time at the increased
accidental damage fee of $79. Once again Apple allegedly supplied
her with a device that was not equivalent to new.

The proposed class covers anyone who bought an AppleCare or
AppleCare+ plan between July 11, 2011 and the present, regardless
of whether the device is an iPhone.

McNight's attorneys are asking for an injunction forcing Apple to
provide new devices to people wanting replacements, as well as
compensation in the form of legal fees and damages totaling at
least $5 million, a minimum set by the Class Action Fairness Act.


ARAMEX INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Lozano" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edgar Lozano v. Aramex International Courier, Ltd., Case No.
707869/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., July 24, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
New York Labor Law.

Aramex International Courier, Ltd. operates a courier service
which operates across the United States, internationally, and
within New York State.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
      ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
      215-28 Hillside Avenue
      Queens Village, NY 11427
      Telephone: (718) 740-1000
      Facsimile: (718) 740-2000
      E-mail: abdul@abdulhassan.com


ASHLEY MADISON: Could Face Data Breach Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Laura Wright, writing for CBC News, reported that several high-
profile hacks, including the recent attack against Ashley Madison,
a website for people looking to have an affair, have raised
questions about whether online activity is ever truly private.

Ashley Madison is built around the notion of safeguarding its
users' information -- reflected in its signature image of a
woman's pursed lips making the 'shh' sign, seemingly meant to
reassure would-be adulterers that their secrets are safe.
But now, hackers say 37 million accounts have been compromised.

The company's owner, Toronto-based Avid Life Media, said it has
"always had the confidentiality of our customers' information
foremost in our minds" but was not able to assure its users that
their information is safe.

A similar website, Adult FriendFinder, was also hacked in May.

Is secret information online -- from a sordid affair to an
embarrassing Twilight fan-fiction blog -- ever really secure?

Likely not, security and privacy experts say.

"What people should think about is just acceptable risk. Any time
you're using a computer or giving away information of any kind,
there is the risk that can be misused," says Andrew Hilts,
executive director at Open Effect, a Canadian non-profit that does
research on privacy and security.

"It comes down to what level of risk you're comfortable with,"
says Hilts.

"When payment comes into play, often credit cards are used and
that's pretty inexorably tied to an identity," he adds.

Brian Bourne, co-founder of SecTor, an IT security conference,
says a motivated hacker can break into any site. He estimates,
based on what the hackers posted online, the Ashley Madison attack
took several months or even years.

"To do what they did generally requires more skill and effort and
patience," says Bourne. "So it's not a drive-by and it's not a
smash and grab."

Bourne adds that hackers having long-term access to networks is
"embarrassingly common."
The Ashley Madison hackers take issue with its reported $19 charge
to users for deleting their information. The hackers say the
company doesn't actually delete it, a claim the company disputes.

But a security expert says it's difficult for any company to fully
delete user information.

Robert Beggs, a manager for technical security at
Pricewaterhousecoopers, says information on even a simple
website's database can easily end up in multiple places, such as
test and backup databases, or with marketers.

Compounding the issue is that many companies don't know where the
information on their database goes, or even sometimes where it's
stored.

"So when you say, 'Ashley Madison, remove this data,' it will
exist in multiple forms," says Beggs.

Beggs says it's reasonable to expect that any profile information
on a site like Ashley Madison would be removed, but a user's
credit card information legally has to be kept on file for up to
seven years, which can be linked to a person's name.

Privacy lawyer David Fraser says companies are not required to
guarantee the safety of information they collect. But they do have
to implement commensurate safeguards.

"Canadian privacy laws are more principles-based than anything
else -- how in fact they apply is sometimes a matter of opinion,"
he says.

Fraser expects a big fallout for Ashley Madison, though the
possibility of individual lawsuits isn't likely to pay off for the
user, he says.

"Courts haven't taken privacy breaches to be associated with a
high level of damages. So unless you can point to financial loss,
the damages a court would award for hurt feelings or anxiety are
not particularly high and almost would never make it worth your
while in light of legal fees," says Fraser.

He says a massive class-action lawsuit is more likely if hackers
publicize users' information, because the damages would be higher
if more people are affected.

"A large number of people probably find the Ashley Madison site
personally repugnant and problematic, but I don't think the law
would make that distinction," says Fraser. "Regardless of the
morality, privacy is about individuals being able to make choices
about how their information is collected, used or disclosed."

Fraser says it would be a different story if the site encouraged
illegal activity, but affairs are well within the confines of
Canadian law.

He adds there is a precedent in Canadian law for protecting class-
action participants' identities; so users of the site wouldn't
necessarily "out" themselves if they took part.

Hilts, at Open Effect, says if people want to keep their online
behaviour away from prying eyes, there are certain steps they can
take.

He suggests creating a throwaway email, using pseudonyms, and to
avoid paying online with a credit card. He also suggests using
browsers in "incognito" mode or deleting internet search
histories.

But at the end of the day, online activity can always be dragged
into the bright light of day.

"With every decision you make, decide that if the site loses
control of this information, would anyone have information that
I'd be upset to have public?" says Hilts.


BLL RESTAURANT: Faces "Galindo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rufino de Jesus Galindo, individually and in behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. BLL Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Porto
Bello Restaurant and Vincenzo Bevilacqua, Case No. 1:15-cv-05885
(S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Porto Bello Restaurant located at
208 Thompson Street, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Gurrieri, Esq.
      Law Office of Justin A. Zeller
      277 Broadway Suite 408
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 884-0935
      Facsimile: (212) 224-2246
      E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com


BLUE CROSS: Michigan Chiropractors Get Deal in Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Chiropractic Economics reported that the Michigan Association of
Chiropractors (MAC) is proud to announce that after months of
intense negotiations, a settlement has been reached in lawsuits
against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network,
two of Michigan's largest health insurers. The signed settlement
agreements are believed to be the most successful Blue Cross
settlements ever reached by a chiropractic state association.

When these settlements are implemented on August 1, 2015,
chiropractors will be treated fairly under Michigan's chiropractic
scope of practice and will be able to be reimbursed for many new
services needed by their patients.

"These agreements are truly historic for the chiropractic
profession in our state," said Damian Palmer, DC, president, MAC.
"The settlements are the result of many years of unbelievably hard
work and dedication on the part of MAC leadership and our members.
This is a major win in the fight to end discrimination against
chiropractors and our patients."

The settlement agreements, which become effective August 1, 2015,
contain provisions relating to the following:

Expansion of CPT Code Coverage:

   * If medically necessary, CMT code 98943 (Extra-spinal) and
radiological codes that are part of a Blue Cross policy will now
be covered.

   * All medically necessary physical medicine procedures that are
part of a Blue Cross policy, and in the chiropractic scope, will
now be covered.

   * Coverage for evaluation and management services will now be
the same for chiropractors as for all other physician groups

MAC Representation: The settlement also allows MAC direct
representation on Blue Cross Committees dealing with audits,
profiling, and utilization management of chiropractors.

Marketing Materials: MAC will also have input on relevant
marketing materials and will continue to partner with Blue Cross
on efforts to include more chiropractors in the BCBSM Physician
Group Incentive Program (PGIP)

Dispute Resolution Process: Finally, a dispute resolution meeting
process will be utilized to help ensure future concerns are dealt
with quickly and without the need for litigation.

Attorney fees were also included in the settlement.

"This settlement will have a major impact on every Michigan
chiropractic office that participates with the Blues," said Thomas
Klapp, DC, Chair, MAC Legal Affairs Committee. "Chiropractors can
now not only practice as we are educated and trained, leading to
enhanced patient care, but also be paid for the services we
perform. It's a significant win."


BURNSVILLE, MN: Faces Class Suit over Carport Inspections
---------------------------------------------------------
Joe Augustine, writing for ABC News, reported that the metal
frames and tin roofs of carports were bolted in years ago in
Burnsville.

"It was up there when I bought the place," Donna Stiele said about
the carport that sits in front of her double-wide mobile home.

Stiele's home in the Rambush Estates mobile home park in
Burnsville is on the market and she believes being one of 22 homes
in the park with a carport makes it more valuable.

"It certainly is a selling point," Stiele saAt least, it was a
selling point.

The city of Burnsville sent out 22 notices earlier this summer
notifying carport owners they must take down their driveway
structures.

"All of them were installed without a permit," Christopher
Forslund, the city's code enforcement coordinator, said.

Forslund says the code violations were discovered during citywide
inspections, which were ramped up three years ago at the
instruction of the city council.

"That's the frightening part," he sa"We don't know how they're
installed."

Homeowners can apply for a variance to be able to keep their
carports if they meet the building codes.

An attorney representing several homeowners in the park filed a
class action lawsuit against the city claiming, among other
things, the city does not have the authority to conduct
inspections of carports.

The lawsuit cites a state statute that says the Minnesota
Department of Labor and Industry "shall have the exclusive right
to conduct inspections" of manufactured premises and homes.

It's not clear if that applies to accessory items like carports
which are installed separately from the manufactured home.

A spokesperson for The Department of Labor and Industry did not
comment specifically on this issue but did say it is typical for
cities to enforce state building codes within city limits.

Anlya Martinez will not wait to find out who is in charge of the
inspections.

"I don't want no problems; I'm going to remove it," Martinez saHer
carport was installed before she bought her mobile home two years
ago. "I already sold it," she added.


CAN-ROXY: Recalls Candy Products Due to Soy, Milk and Wheat
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 31, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Soy, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Can Roxy Trading Inc.
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail

Can-Roxy Trading Inc. is recalling Coffee Soft Candy, Maccha Soft
Candy and Ribon brand Soft Hokkaido Milk Candy from the
marketplace because they contain soy, milk and wheat which are not
declared on the label. People with an allergy to soy, milk or
wheat or with a sensitivity to gluten should not consume the
recalled products described below.

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

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

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

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

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

  Brand name    Common name    Size   Code(s) on        UPC
  ----------    -----------    ----   product           ---
                                      ----------
  Japanese      Coffee Soft    90 g   All codes where   4 901243-
  Characters    Candy                 soy, milk and     120684
  Only                                wheat are not
                                      properly
                                      declared on the
                                      label
  Japanese      Maccha Soft    90 g   All codes where   4 901243-
  Characters    Candy                 soy, milk and     120233
  Only                                wheat are not
                                      properly
                                      declared on the
                                      label
  Ribon         Soft Hokkaido  110 g  All codes where   4 903316-
                Milk Candy            milk is not       430812
                                      properly
                                      declared on the
                                      label

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/nEqu0V


CANADA: Class Suit Over CWB Battle Continues, Lawsuit Amended
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jocelyn Turner, writing for Daily Herald Tribune, reported that
Supporters of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) are continuing their
class action suit against the government.

One farmer representing each of the western provinces are the
plaintiffs in the case, which initially began in 2010, and
includes Peace Country farmer Nathan Macklin of DeBolt.

"(The case) has changed somewhat due to the legal decisions that
have come down," Macklin explained. "The original lawsuit was
asking for a much larger amount in damages. It was claiming that
we as farmers had a proprietary interest in the assets of the
(CWB) and we own it."

The CWB is a marketing board for wheat and barley growers in
western Canada which allowed farmers to remain in control of their
product until it hit end users overseas, Macklin explained. Prior
to the government's changes, there were three major players; the
railroads, the grain companies and the board which was controlled
by the farmers.

"Now, there's two major players and 70,000 farmers who have no
control or bargaining capacity once they dump their grain in the
pit at the grain company," he sa

The original class action sought to return the board to a single-
desk mandate as well as $17 billion in compensation for when the
federal government took over the board.

"We were a little disappointed that the lower courts (in 2012)
decided that the government was within its rights to basically
confiscate those assets and... that the CWB was their (government)
property," he sa

"Unfortunately, the Supreme Court declined to hear our appeal of
the lower court ruling on that issue. However, the lower court did
allow a portion of our lawsuit, a smaller portion of our lawsuit,
to proceed."

Macklin said it appears that there was a significant mismanagement
of the board's pooled funds into the contingency fund and the
restructuring costs during it's as a single-desk mandated
operation. According to Macklin, there's up to $720 million that
should have been returned to farmers in the pool, 'depriving
farmers of a lot of value that they are otherwise entitled to.'

"The financial statements of the CWB have not been released since
the government took over the operation," said Macklin.

"We need to get a look at those books to actually figure out how
much of that money was actually misallocated and to have some
transparency and some accountability on farmer's behalves over the
actions that the government has taken through various means, such
as citing commercial confidentiality of a private grain company
and things like that."

In terms of the amended class action, Macklin said they are in the
process of certifying it, which he added will take a bit of time.
Once the action is certified it can then move on to trial.

"We'll see if there's a different government in the meantime," he
sa"What changes the election might bring to the strategy, I am not
sure but certainly, we're committed to ensuring that farmers
receive the full value of the money that they are entitled to...
and we'll do the best to our ability with the resources we have to
ensure that that happens."

It's a bit disappointing that the case seems to have returned to
square one and amended from the original case, Macklin admitted,
but they knew it was an uphill battle.

"We feel we're fighting the good fight on behalf of farmers and we
feel that on this instance, the government is completely wrong and
needs to be challenged and held accountable," he said.


CAPALA BROTHERS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Plaintiff Fee Award in Wage Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Bedell, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
attorney fees in a wages-and-hours case that were double the
damages awarded to the plaintiffs were "amply supported" by the
defendants' litigation tactics, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit ruled on July 29.

But the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) does not allow for
including costs for expert witness fees in the legal fee award,
the appeals court said.

Ruling in Gortat v. Capala Bros., 14-3304-cv, the circuit affirmed
most of the fees awarded by Eastern District Court Judge
Leo Glasser after the plaintiffs prevailed at a two-week trial in
2013.

The jury awarded the plaintiffs $293,000 and Judge Glasser, after
trimming about $300,000 from the fees and costs requested by the
plaintiffs' counsel, awarded attorney fees of $583,000 in August
2014.

The litigation, described by Judge Glasser as an "unexceptional
FLSA case," generated more than 400 docket entries, "no less than
seven appeals taken by the defendants' counsel" and an $8,000
sanction against the defendants' counsel for "ad hominem attacks."

The case was brought in 2007 by seven construction workers who
accused their Brooklyn employer, Capala Brothers Inc., of not
paying them overtime at time and a half, as required by FLSA.
The roofing company workers said they were paid between $15 and
$20 an hour only for time at job sites, mostly in Manhattan.  But
time spent driving company trucks to and from the sites, which
pushed the weekly hours worked over 40, was not paid at the
overtime rate.

"It was a garden-variety wages and hours case," said the
plaintiffs' attorney, Robert Wisniewski.  "They turned it into a
nuclear war."

In a summary order, the panel affirmed Judge Glasser's fee award,
which had been based on the findings of Magistrate Judge Steven
Gold that the "delays in the case were due to defendants'
combative and extraordinary conduct that raised many unnecessary
disputes regarding case management and discovery as revealed by
even a cursory review of the docket sheet."

Judge Glasser criticized the defendants' lawyer, Philip Orner,
saying "his conduct throughout this litigation has been
provocative."  Judge Glasser added that Mr. Orner had made "an
egregiously baseless charge that Judge Gold engaged in improper ex
parte conduct. The tenor of his objections was discourteous and
undignified."

Judge Glasser dismissed several of the defendants' counterclaims
and the jury found the plaintiffs not liable on the remainder.  He
set Wisniewski's hourly rate at $350, $100 less than requested.
On appeal, the circuit rejected Mr. Orner's claim that Wisniewski
was not entitled to compensation for unsuccessful motions he had
filed.  "There is no rule that plaintiffs need achieve total
victory on every motion in pursuit of a successful claim in order
to be compensated for the full number of hours spent litigating
that claim," the panel said in an unsigned ruling.

In a separate opinion, however, the circuit said there was not
statutory authority under FLSA to award $10,000 Mr. Wisniewski had
requested to reimburse an accounting expert.  But the panel said
the claim might prevail under the fee-shifting provisions of the
New York Labor Law.

Judges Guido Calabresi, Chester Straub and Debra Ann Livingston
joined in the rulings.

Judge Wisniewski said the defendants, two brothers who operated
the 30-to-50-employee roofing company for 15 years prior to the
case, filed for bankruptcy protection in June.

"They have also transferred assets they owned to make themselves
judgment-proof" Judge Wisniewski said.  "So the saga continues."

Judge Wisniewski, who heads a two-attorney firm, said he had been
litigating wages and hours cases since 1996.  "I've never seen
this kind of scorched-earth litigation by a defendant before," he
said.

Mr. Orner, a Flushing-based solo practitioner, said his clients
were "entitled to request a writ of certiorari from the U.S.
Supreme Court," but had not yet decided whether to do so.

Mr. Orner, in a phone interview, ascribed the acrimony in the case
to Judge Wisniewski's refusal to settle.  "We had very viable
counter-claims," he said.  "Tortious interference, breach of
fiduciary duty.  The plaintiffs tried to put my clients out of
business."


CERTIFIED CREDIT: Faces "Palmer" Class Suit Over FDPCA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pauline E. Palmer, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated v. Certified Credit & Collection Bureau, et al., Case No.
3:15-cv-05790-FLW-LHG (D.N.J., July 27, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ronald Ira Levine, Esq.
      210 River Street, Suite 24
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Telephone: (201) 489-7900
      E-mail: levinelaw@verizon.net

         - and -

      Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
      KIM LAW FIRM LLC
      411 Hackensack Ave 2 Fl.
      Hackensack, NJ 07601
      Telephone: (201) 273-7117
      Facsimile: (201) 273-7117
      E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


CHARLESTON AREA MEDICAL: Faces Data Breach Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for West Virginia Record, reported that A
class action lawsuit has been filed against Charleston Area
Medical Center for a data breach that occurred nearly two years
ago.

Tiffany Mallion and Nickole Pullen were patients of CAMC and
agreed with the hospital that as part of the hospital's services,
the defendant would protect the plaintiffs' sensitive information,
according to a complaint filed in Kanawha Circuit Court.

The plaintiffs claim the defendants stored their sensitive
information in an unprotected, unguarded, unsecured and/or
otherwise unreasonably protected electronic and/or physical
location and also failed to properly train and supervise employees
in regard to accessing the sensitive information.

CAMC did not adequately protect the plaintiffs' sensitive
information and their physician-patient confidential relationship
has been breached, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim the defendant did not provide adequate
security measures to protect the sensitive information.

Between August 2013 and February 2014, employees of the defendant
viewed and/or accessed certain information in the plaintiffs'
medical records and victims were not notified of the data breach
until nearly two years after the incident actually occurred,
according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim they were notified in May of the data breach.

CAMC's failure to notify its patients of the data breach in a
reasonable time caused the plaintiffs to remain ignorant of the
breach and they were unable to take appropriate action to protect
themselves from identity theft and other harm resulting from the
data breach, according to the suit.

The plaintiffs claim by failing to fulfill their promise to
protect their sensitive information.
The plaintiffs are seeking class certification and compensatory
damages with pre- and post-judgment interest. They are being
represented by Troy N. Giatras and Matthew Stonestreet of the
Giatras Law Firm PLLC.

The case is assigned to Circuit Judge Carrie Webster.


CHRYSLER: Durango Rollover Document May Spur More Settlements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Land, writing for Daily Report, reports that a plaintiffs
lawyer in a deal resolving a $12 million claim concerning the
rollover of a Dodge Durango said a key document unearthed just
weeks before a trial was to begin could spur more settlements.

Jeff Harris -- jeff@hpllegal.com -- of Harris Penn Lowry said the
document produced by defendant Chrysler Group "should have been
produced in hundreds of other cases."

"That document refutes 20 years of roof-crush defense arguments,"
added Harris, whose clients in the recently settled case were a
woman and her husband, who was left quadriplegic after the Durango
he was in rolled over.

In their case, a DeKalb County State Court judge punished Chrysler
for belatedly supplying the document by forbidding it from arguing
it was not on notice that the roof of a Durango could cave in
during a rollover crash.

"This case is the tip of the iceberg" for internal standards
Chrysler claimed never existed, not only for its vehicles' roof-
strength, but also for seat belts, air bags and other auto safety
features, Harris said.

Chrysler Group, the U.S. unit of Fiat Chrysler now known as FCA
US, was represented by Swift Currie McGhee & Hiers partners M.
Diane Owens -- diane.owens@swiftcurrie.com -- and Terry Brantley
and associate Alicia Timm, and by Alison Rodney --
rodney@millercanfield.com -- of Miller, Canfield, Paddock and
Stone's office in Troy, Michigan.  The lawyers referred queries to
a Chrysler spokesman, who declined to comment.

Mr. Harris credited Chrysler's attorneys for immediately
disclosing the document once it was found.  "I'll give Diane Owens
a lot of credit," said Mr. Harris.  "She did what any ethical
lawyer should do: produce it, knowing full well the judge was
likely to sanction them."

"But Chrysler knew damn well these documents were out there," he
said.

The underlying case involved a 2011 accident when a 2003 Dodge
Durango DN, in which Abu Kalan was a passenger, approached an
intersection on Highway 316 in Barrow County.  A pickup truck
coming the other way abruptly turned in front of the Dodge, whose
driver, Win Tun, jerked the steering wheel to avoid a collision
and lost control. The vehicle rolled over as many as four times.

Mr. Kalan suffered multiple spinal injuries when the Durango's
roof was crushed inward, according to plaintiffs' filings.
Mr. Kalan, a refugee from Burma in his mid-40s, now requires a
ventilator and round-the-clock care, Mr. Harris said.

In 2013, Harris Penn Lowry lawyers Stephen Lowry, Jed Manton,
Madeline McNeeley and Kristy Davies and Rebecca Franklin of
Franklin Law, sued Chrysler, Mr. Tun and the pickup's driver,
William Evans, on behalf of Mr. Kalan and his wife.

Mr. Evans died during the litigation, and his estate was
substituted.  Mr. Tun settled confidentially during the
litigation, but Mr. Harris said Mr. Evans' estate was kept in the
case to prevent Chrysler from shifting blame to a nonparty at
trial.

During discovery, the plaintiffs' lawyers repeatedly demanded any
documents related to internal testing and standards about the roof
structure and crush performance for the Durango.

According to defense filings, Chrysler produced "a myriad of
engineering drawings, graphics and standards" as well as a report
demonstrating that the Durango "was tested to and exceeded the
requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Standard" roof-crush
resistance.

"Chrysler Group also stated that it had no 'other internal
requirements related to the roof structure' or 'other documents
related to roof crush resistance'" regarding the vehicle, the
defense document said.

Among the discovery items Chrysler submitted was a document
referring to a Durango that had passed a "Joint Specification for
Passive Safety" (JSPS) test in 2003.  According to a plaintiffs'
filing, "this language certainly suggested that Chrysler performed
internal rollover testing and measured vehicles for compliance"
with a set of internal standards.

Mr. Kalan's lawyers then filed a "narrow discovery request
specifically based on this document," and were again assured that
all responsive documents had been produced.

Mr. Harris said there were several unsuccessful mediations to
resolve the case.  Mr. Kalan's medical bills have run to about $2
million, he said, and a life-care plan estimated he would need $10
million for necessary care over the course of his projected life.
Trial was set for July 13 before Judge Janis Gordon.

On June 12, two days before the plaintiffs' lawyers were to depose
key Chrysler experts, the automaker's lawyers emailed a document
indicating that, as far back as 2000, Chrysler had implemented
standards for crush-testing its vehicles.  They included "specific
guidelines for 'protection zones for occupants and criterion for
crash test," according to a subsequent plaintiffs' motion calling
for sanctions.

"The defense in roof-crush cases is always that it's not the roof
collapsing down that causes the spinal cord injury, it's the
person being literally thrown into the roof," said Mr. Harris.
"These documents clearly show that, internally, that's not what
they believe; that it's a defense strategy."

Mr. Kalan's sanctions motion argued that the document and
accompanying documents related "to the very issue at the heart of
this case: occupant protection in a rollover wreck."

In a response filing and during a June 22 hearing, Chrysler's
lawyers said the document had only been found in searching an
"obsolete data collection."  It was a vestige of the years after
Daimler-Benz merged with Chrysler in 1998, and it reflected the
German automaker's efforts to initiate internal standards across
the Daimler-Chrysler product line, they said.

Further, they argued, the standards in question were applied only
to vehicles made between 2004 and 2007, so they weren't relevant
to Mr. Kalan's case, which involved a 2003 model.

The defense lawyers said they would agree to a continuance so the
plaintiffs' lawyers could depose Chrysler's experts armed with the
new information.  Mr. Kalan's attorneys countered that they had
spent more than a year preparing for trial with incomplete
evidence, and that any delay would hurt their client, who was in
very poor health.

On June 23 Judge Gordon declined to strike Chrysler's answer as a
punishment.  But she observed that the plaintiffs' "prejudice is
undeniable.  Plaintiffs could not depose its own or Chrysler's
experts about the JSPS standards or conduct additional discovery."
While there was some dispute as to whether the standards applied
to the 2003 Durango, she wrote, "even if they do not, plaintiffs
are still prejudiced, by the failure to disclose standards and
testing which clearly took place before the manufacture of this
vehicle."

While there was no evidence of willful misrepresentation, Gordon
wrote, Chrysler "recklessly failed to take all reasonable steps to
comply with its discovery obligations."

Judge Gordon ordered Chrysler to pay any plaintiffs' expenses
stemming from the review of the new documents and any deposition-
related costs.  She also levied an "issue preclusion" sanction,
decreeing that, at trial, "Chrysler will not be permitted to
introduce evidence or argue that it was not on notice that in a
rollover accident, the roof of a Dodge Durango DN could deform and
crush, causing a risk of serious injury," and that she would so
instruct the jury.

On July 10, three days before trial was to start, the case
settled.  Mr. Harris said his clients were pleased with the
outcome.
"I'm certainly looking at other cases to determine whether these
[documents] should have been produced," said Mr. Harris.

The Daily Report provided key documents from the Kalan suit to
Christopher Glover -- chris.glover@beasleyallen.com -- an auto
products liability litigator with Birmingham's Beasley, Allen,
Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, who was not involved in the
litigation.  The firm represents plaintiffs, and Glover said the
newly uncovered documents could prove vital in both pending and
closed cases.

"I expect that the disclosure of these critical documents will
cause old cases to reopen and fundamentally change existing
litigation," said Mr. Glover via email.


CLEAN AIR: Faces "Chang" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shang Shing Chang, Jie Li, Xiaoxi Xie, Bin Yang, individually and
on behalf of all other employees similarly situated v. Clean Air
Car Service & Parking Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-04385
(E.D.N.Y., July 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Clean Air Car Service & Parking Corporation is in the business of
providing handicap/wheelchair accessible vehicles for
transportation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave, Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      Facsimile: (918) 353-6288
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


D&H CANADA: Recalls Tablet Computers Due to Fire Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 31, 2015
Posting date: July 31, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54452

This recall involves NVIDIA SHIELD tablet computers with 8-inch
touch screens. Model numbers P1761, P1761W and P1761WX and serial
numbers 0410215901781 through 0425214604018 are included in this
recall. NVIDIA and the model and serial numbers are etched on the
left side edge of the tablet computer. The SHIELD logo is on the
back of the tablets.

The battery inside the tablet computer can overheat, posing a
potential fire hazard.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of these tablet computers in
Canada.

NVIDIA has received one report in Canada of a battery overheating,
and four reports of batteries overheating from consumers in the
United States, including two reports of damage to flooring.

Approximately 5000 units of the recalled tablets were sold in
Canada and 83,000 were distributed in the United States.

The recalled product was sold from July 2014 to May 2015 in Canada
and from July 2014 to July 2015 in the United States.

Manufactured in China

Distributor: NVIDIA Corporation
             Santa Clara
             California
             UNITED STATES

Distributor: D&H Canada ULC
             Harrisburg
             Pennsylvania
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the tablets and contact
NVIDIA for instructions on receiving a replacement tablet.

Consumers may contact NVIDIA toll free at 1-888-943-4196 from 8:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. PT, Monday through Friday or on the firm's
website and click on "NVIDIA Tablet Recall Program" at the bottom
center of the page in green letters.

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

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

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/5AsFXY


EAST CHEMICAL: Judge Gives More Time On Chemical Leak Records
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Ward, writing for Gazette Mail, reported that a federal judge
gave lawyers for Kanawha Valley residents, West Virginia American
Water Co. and Eastman Chemical Co. more time to reach agreement
about potentially unsealing documents in a class-action suit over
the January 2014 chemical spill that contaminated drinking water
supplies for hundreds of thousands of residents across the region.

At U.S. District Judge John T. Copenhaver's request, lawyers for
the parties agreed to meet again to discuss the records, which are
under seal in federal court in Charleston as the case proceeds
through the legal system.

At issue are two sets of documents -- one filed by West Virginia
American and one by the residents -- concerning a previous water
company intake located upstream of the Freedom Industries leak
site, near the present site of Coonskin Park, and another set of
records filed by the plaintiffs about Eastman's actions regarding
MCHM and its sale of the chemical to Freedom Industries.

Kevin Thompson, a lawyer for the residents, told the judge that
the plaintiffs' position now is that they were overly cautious in
seeking to file materials about the intake about MCHM under seal
as part of separate motions about whether the case would be
dismissed or if it could proceed under class-action status.

Thompson noted that there is a robust public discussion going on
locally about West Virginia American's quality of service that
includes a specific debate about the water company's response to
the chemical spill. Thompson also noted that Congress continues to
debate a potential rewrite of the federal Toxic Substances Control
Act, and that records about Eastman's handling of safety warning
regarding MCHM would help inform lawmakers on that issue.

"As much as we can possibly reveal to the public should be
revealed," Thompson told Copenhaver. "These are all documents that
are of vital importance to this public discussion."

Thomas Hurney, a lawyer for the water company, complained that
Thompson was discussing in open court some of the very information
-- location of equipment related to the now-abandoned Coonskin
intake -- that the court currently has under seal, "obliterating"
the effect of the confidentiality.

West Virginia American maintains that making public the
information in question, including drawings and descriptions of
water system equipment, would make that system vulnerable to
terrorist attack. Officials from the state Bureau for Public
Health and the Division of Homeland Security and Emergency
Management submitted statements to the court supporting the
general argument that such records should be kept secret.

Water company lawyers indicated in a court filing on that West
Virginia American had agreed to make public several short sections
of a legal brief describing the Coonskin intake, but continued to
argue the rest of the information under seal should stay that way.

Copenhaver said that he may hold a hearing on the matter and if he
does, that state officials and water company officials who support
sealing the material may need to appear for potential cross-
examination about their statements.

Marc Williams, a lawyer for Eastman, said that the company is
agreeable to most of the materials that it has sought
confidentiality for being made public, including parts of a
document that the plaintiffs said in a legal brief shows that MCHM
was known by Eastman to be a danger to corrode Freedom's chemical
storage tanks. Eastman made MCHM and sold it to Freedom, and the
plaintiffs allege Eastman didn't provide Freedom with needed
warnings about the product.

Williams told the judge he would continue to work to finalize a
deal with the plaintiffs about its documents.

Also on Monday, lawyers for Freedom Industries asked U.S.
Bankruptcy Judge Ronald Pearson to approve its hiring of a new
consultant, CORE Environmental Services Inc., to help complete its
cleanup of the Etowah Terminal site on the Elk River where the
MCHM spill occurred. Earlier, lawyers for Freedom and the state
Department of Environmental Protection told Pearson that they had
been unable to reach agreement with the existing contractor
ARCADIS for continuing the project.

ARCADIS had complained that it was still not clear what amount of
site testing the DEP would require, how well an interim cleanup
plan proposed by Freedom - but not yet approved by the state -
would work or what sort of "final remedy would be required by
state regulators. These unknowns, ARCADIS said, combined with "the
finite amount of funding and competing expenditures to collect
stormwater runoff at the site, "create a substantial risk for the
contractor.


ENHANCED RECOVERY: Faces "Stewart" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jacquelyn Stewart, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated who consent to their inclusion in a collective
action v. Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-00921-
MMH-JRK (M.D. Fla., July 27, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Enhanced Recovery Company, LLC provides collection services and
operates throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
      FELDMAN LAW GROUP P.A.
      Westshore Center
      1715 N Westshore Blvd Suite 400
      Tampa, FL 33607
      Telephone: (813) 639-9366
      Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
      E-mail: mfeldman@ffmlawgroup.com


EZCORP INC: Glancy Prongay Firm Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP announces that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas on behalf of a class (the "Class") of purchasers
of the securities of EZCORP, Inc. ("EZCORP" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq: EZPW) between October 27, 2014 and July 16, 2015,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Shareholders have 60 days from the
date of this notice to file a motion to be appointed as lead
plaintiff in the shareholder lawsuit.

EZCORP delivers cash solutions to customers across channels,
products, services and markets. With approximately 1,400 locations
and branches, the Company offers customers multiple ways to access
instant cash, including pawn loans and consumer loans in the
United States, Mexico, Canada and the United Kingdom. The Company
offers these products through four primary channels: in-store,
online, at the worksite, and through a mobile platform.

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 improperly recognized particular
structured assets sales; (2) that the Company improperly
classified certain loans; (3) that, as a result, the Company
overstated its gains on assets sales and accrued interest revenue;
(4) that, as such, the Company's financial statements were not
prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles; (5) that the Company lacked adequate internal and
financial controls; and (6) that, as a result of the foregoing,
defendants' statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. Over the course of several disclosures, the
Company revealed its alleged accounting and securities fraud,
causing the Company's share price to decline thereby harming
investors.

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


FOREST LABORATORIES: Court Refuses To Toll Statute of Limitations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman Jr. and Howard M. Wexler of Seyfarth Shaw LLP,
in an article for Mondaq, said that in a decision worth reading
for all class action practitioners, especially those who face
Equal Pay Act ("EPA") issues, Judge Ronnie Abrams of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York denied
equitable tolling of the statute of limitations period in a high
profile gender discrimination case.  Judge Abrams' decision in
Barrett, et al. v. Forest Laboratories, Inc., et al., 12-CV-5224
(S.D.N.Y.  July 8, 2015), serves a great primer as to the
differences between calculating the limitation periods in Title
VII class actions as compared to EPA collective actions and the
significant impact of these differences.

Background To The Case

Eleven current/former female employees brought individual and
class claims under the EPA and Title VII alleging disparate pay
based on their gender in July of 2012.  Plaintiffs' subsequently
filed a First and Second Amended Complaint, which Defendants moved
to dismiss and the Court decided in August 2014.

In connection with a joint report in anticipation of the parties'
Initial Conference, Plaintiffs, for the first time, raised the
issue of equitable tolling for their EPA claims.  Notably, at no
point during the entirety of the action -- dating back to the
filing of the Complaint in July 2012 -- had the Court ordered or
any party sought a stay of discovery.  Eventually, Plaintiffs
filed a formal motion in January 2015 seeking to toll the statute
of limitations from April 2013 (the date Defendants filed their
motion to dismiss) through the date conditional certification for
the collective action is granted.

The Court's Decision

The Court began with a primer concerning the difference between
collective actions and class actions with respect to the accrual
of claims. Relevant here, under the EPA (which incorporates
various provisions of the FLSA), the statute of limitations for
each plaintiff runs until the individual opts into the lawsuit by
filing written consent.  Accordingly, such signed consent forms
from class members do not relate back to the filing date of the
Complaint as compared to Rule 23 class action claims, whereby "the
commencement of a class action suspends the applicable statute of
limitations as to all asserted members of the class who would have
been parties had the suit been permitted to continue as a class
action."  Equitable tolling creates an exception to the "potential
harshness" of the FLSA's limitation period by allowing courts to
extend the limitations period to avoid "inequitable
circumstances," however, must be "cautious" in doing so...lest
they transform it into the Rule 23 scheme."  A litigant seeking
equitable tolling bears a "high burden" of establishing both: "(1)
that [s]she has been pursuing [her] rights diligently; and (2)
that some extraordinary circumstance stood in [her] way."

Applying this "high burden" to the facts before it, the Court
refused to equitably toll the statute of limitations as
"Plaintiffs cannot reasonably argue that they have been diligent
in pursuing their rights or that some extraordinary circumstance
stood in their way to be diligent." In so holding, the Court noted
that Plaintiffs' argument that discovery was "effectively stayed"
based on the Defendants' motion to dismiss did not hold water
since the case was never stayed, nor did either party ask the
Court to do so?  Accordingly, while there were delays in the
briefing process and in the Court deciding Defendants' motion,
Plaintiffs "failed to explain how these delays erected any barrier
to their seeking the discovery necessary to pursue conditional
certification."

With respect to the second requirement for the Court to apply
equitable tolling -- that some extraordinary circumstance stood in
their way -- the Court distinguished the cases relied upon by
Plaintiffs since in those cases (unlike in this case) where
equitable tolling was ordered, there was "something -- whether
discovery disputes, a discovery stay, or the court's election to
stay a certification motion pending a motion to dismiss" which
prevented plaintiffs from notifying potential collective action
members.

Based on Plaintiffs' failure to satisfy either required test for
the application of equitable tolling, the Court denied Plaintiffs'
request since "to grant the exceptional remedy of equitable
tolling for the pendency of a motion to dismiss when there was
nothing standing in the way of a plaintiff's pursuing collective
certification would be tantamount to tolling the statute of
limitations for FLSA claims as a matter of course for all
potential plaintiffs whenever the first plaintiff files her
complaint -- a result plainly contrary to the procedural rules
that govern FLSA collective actions."

Implication for Employers

This decision serves as a great reminder of the differences
between class action certification and collective action
certification and the real world impact of these differences as it
pertains to the statute of limitations period. Given such
differences, employers should always be mindful of the limitations
period and that short of a court order otherwise, the limitations
period continues to run in collective actions under the EPA and
FLSA. While equitable tolling is a powerful tool for Plaintiffs'
counsel in collective actions, this decision highlights the high
burden that plaintiffs' counsel must satisfy to warrant its
application in a particular case.


GENERAL MOTORS: Lawyers Spar Over Scope of Valukas Deposition
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for Law.com, reports that General Motors
Co. and plaintiffs lawyers are fighting over the scope of the
upcoming deposition of the lawyer whose report on the company's
ignition-switch defect blamed a handful of employees for the
fiasco.

Jenner & Block chairman Anton Valukas issued the 315-page report
last year explaining how GM failed for more than a decade to
identify a defect that causes the ignition switch to slip into the
accessory position, shutting down engines and disabling airbags.
The defect prompted recalls of 2.6 million cars and trucks
worldwide and has been linked to 124 deaths.

Valukas is scheduled to give a deposition on Sept. 24. His report,
which included 350 witness interviews, largely absolved senior
management and GM's board of directors. Fifteen employees were
fired over the ordeal.

Plaintiffs lawyers now want to question Valukas about the report's
accuracy.  GM has insisted that those topics are privileged given
that Valukas represents the automaker in criminal and regulatory
investigations.

"GM has affirmatively used this report all over the world as part
of their transparency, and it's ironic that now they want to be
opaque," said plaintiffs co-lead counsel Robert Hilliard, a
partner at Hilliard MuĀ¤oz Gonzales in Corpus Christi, Texas.
"They say we have to take the report on its face."

GM spokesman James Cain declined to comment.  Mr. Valukas did not
respond to a request for comment.

In addition to the civil cases, the Justice Department is pursuing
potential criminal wrongdoing against GM, which also faces
investigations from attorneys general and, in May, paid a $35
million fine to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
for failing to report the defects in a timely manner.

The Valukas report is the latest discovery dispute between
plaintiffs lawyers and GM, which is scheduled to go to trial over
the ignition switch on Jan. 11.  Since May 7, more than 200 people
have been deposed, including current and former GM employees.  In
addition to Valukas, former GM general counsel Michael Millikin
and GM chief executive officer Mary Barra have upcoming deposition
dates scheduled.

On July 24, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman rejected GM's request
for a blanket protective order over all pretrial discovery after
the automaker alleged that Hilliard disclosed discovery materials,
such as deposition names and dates, "to garner sensational press
coverage, rather than preparing for a trial on the merits."

Judge Furman found that "the public interest in this case weighs
heavily against an order as broad as that" but he also cautioned
lawyers to follow the state of New York's rules of professional
conduct pertaining to statements made outside of court.

Judge Furman also is weighing plaintiffs lawyers' request to
access the privileged internal memos and notes of GM's lawyers at
King & Spalding, which represented the automaker in lawsuits filed
over accidents linked to the defect.

As to the Valukas deposition, plaintiffs lawyers wrote in briefs
filed last month that they need at least seven hours to question
Mr. Valukas about "multiple witnesses" in recent depositions who
have contradicted the report's facts or claimed that Mr. Valukas
misrepresented their statements to him.  "This ranges from
witnesses failing to recall whether they actually attended the
meetings listed in the Valukas report, to witnesses outright
disagreeing with Mr. Valukas's conclusions and characterization of
their statements," according to one brief.

GM, in its own briefs, has maintained that plaintiffs lawyers are
merely attempting to skirt Furman's Jan. 15 order rejecting their
request for notes and memos associated with witness interviews in
the report.  GM also said that a deposition of Mr. Valukas is
unnecessary or, at the very least, should be limited to two hours.

Richard Godfrey -- richard.godfrey@kirkland.com -- a partner at
Kirkland & Ellis in Chicago, wrote in one brief that questioning
Mr. Valukas' "mental impressions" is privileged.

"Plaintiffs have yet to identify a single topic of examination
that would be appropriate to cover with Mr. Valukas," he wrote.


GENTIVA HEALTH: Faces "Johnson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Johnson v. Gentiva Health Services, LLC, Case No. 3:15-
cv-02474-L (N.D. Tex., July 27, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Gentiva Health Services, LLC operates a home healthcare facility
in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tom A. Carse, Esq.
      CARSE LAW FIRM
      6220 Campbell Road, Suite 401
      Dallas, TX 75248
      Telephone: (972) 503-6338
      Facsimile: (972) 503-6348
      E-mail: service@carselaw.com


GERMAINE LAW: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit in Ariz. Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pedro Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Germaine Law Office PLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01427-ROS (D. Ariz.,
July 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Lee Davidson, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
      5550 Glades Rd., Ste. 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Telephone: (561) 826-5477
      Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
      E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com


HARBOR RAIL: Faces "Wilson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Wilson and Anthony Gonzalez, individually and on
behalf of the other members of the general public similarly
situated v. Harbor Rail Services of California, Inc., Case No.
BC589348 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 27, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
California Labor Code.

Harbor Rail Services of California, Inc. operates a railroad
equipment services company in Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HERCULES TIRE: Recalls Multiple Tire Models
-------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 31, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Tire
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Tires
Units affected: 10000
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015346TC
ID number: 2015346

Certain tires may experience tread separation, which could result
in a loss of vehicle control and a crash causing injury and/or
property damage. Correction: Hercules dealers will replace
affected tires.

  Make        Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----      ----------------------
  HERCULES               2008, 2008, 2008, 2008, 2008, 2009


HORIZON HEALTH: Class Suit Continues Despite Dr. Menon's Death
--------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reported that a class-action lawsuit against Dr. Rajgopal
Menon and the Horizon Health Network will proceed, despite the
recent death of the disgraced Miramichi pathologist, says one of
the lawyers representing the patients.

"It does cause complications to the case," said Ray Wagner, of the
Halifax-based serious injury law firm Wagners.

But Horizon, which absorbed the former Miramichi Regional Health
Authority years ago, is now the target, he said.

"The focus, really, is that they did nothing when they were aware
that there were serious issues in the pathology lab," he sa"And
they didn't do what they were supposed to do to ensure they had a
competent pathologist working in that lab."

Menon died on April 21.

The class-action lawsuit against him and the Miramichi Regional
Health Authority dates back to 2008.

It was filed after a public inquiry found Menon partially or fully
misdiagnosed thousands of pathology samples in New Brunswick
between 1995 and 2007.

The certification order issued by the court defines the "class" in
the lawsuit as including:

    More than 15,000 patients whose tissue samples underwent
pathology testing by Menon between Jan. 1, 1995 and Feb. 7, 2007.

    The estates, children, parents and spouses of deceased
patients."

'Somebody has to be held accountable'

About 100 former patients have signed up for the class action. Jim
Wilson is among them.

Wilson was misdiagnosed for almost three years.

"Finally after the third set of biopsies, I was diagnosed with
cancer. And by then, it was on both sides of my prostate," he
said.

Wilson is cancer-free, but is pleased to see the lawsuit go ahead,
even with Menon gone.

"Somebody has to be held accountable for what happened up there,"
he said.

Horizon officials declined to comment.

The lawyer for Menon's estate was unavailable for an interview on.

Wagners was only advised on Menon's death on May 6, about one week
after his passing, said Wagner.
Schedule to deal with continuance matters

A case management conference was held on June 2 before Justice
Jean-Paul Ouellette to set up a schedule to deal with various
matters concerning the continuance of the class action

The schedule extends until March 31, 2016, with another case
management call slated for Aug. 19, 2015.

The Court of Appeal agreed in February 2014, to allow the class-
action lawsuit against Menon and the Miramichi health authority to
go ahead, making it the first class-action lawsuit to be certified
in New Brunswick since legislation in 1982 was enacted to allow
such lawsuits.

In a 2-1 decision, the province's highest court overruled the
lower court decision that struck down the class action brought by
former patients.

Menon worked as a pathologist at the Miramichi Regional Health
Authority from 1995 until February 2007, when he was suspended
after complaints about incomplete diagnoses and delayed lab
results.

Former health minister Michael Murphy called a formal public
inquiry into the pathology work at the Miramichi hospital after an
independent audit of 227 cases of breast and prostate cancer
biopsies from 2004-05 found 18 per cent had incomplete results and
three per cent had been misdiagnosed.

Justice Paul Creaghan found that Menon should have been fired two
years before he was suspended.

Creaghan's final report offered 52 recommendations to improve
pathology services in the province.


HOWARD S. SCHNEIDER: Judge Weighs in on Abuse Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Vic Micolucci, writing for News4Jax, reported that the case
against a former pediatric dentist accused of abusing children
moved out of the streets and before a judge.

The attorney for Howard S. Schneider asked the judge to dismiss a
potential class action lawsuit against him and to issue sanctions
against the attorney who filed it. But after hearing from both
sides, Judge Kevin Blazs allowed the suit to continue if some
inflammatory language is removed.

Dozens of parents and former patients began coming forward in
April with allegations of abuse and neglect from Schneider, who
for decades ran a dental clinic on University Boulevard North.
They claimed he intentionally abused his patients and did
unnecessary work in the name of profit.

The state of Florida opened an investigation into his Medicaid
billing that amounted to more than $5 million over the last five
years.

About about a month of daily protests outside his practice, an
online petition that drew more than 78,000 supporters, and local,
state and national news converge, Schneider relinquished his
license and closed his practice for good.

Schneider's attorney, Richard Ramsey, claims that attorney for
many of the dentists' accusers, Gust Sarris, wrongly filed the
suit.

"Anybody who's injured by a dentist or physician has a right to
bring a claim, but there has to be due process it is filed,"
Ramsey sa"There are procedures are in place. People can't be
defaming other people improperly and our courts. It is not
permitted, and that's what my primary argument was."

Among the claims in the lawsuit are that Schneider is "a
pathological sadist" with a "psycho-sexual disorder."

"I have never in 28 years seeing a complaint with these types of
personal attacks," Ramsey sa"Horrible, vicious comments that are
being made about this dentist who is entitled to his day in court
if, in fact, a valid lawsuit is brought against him."

Attorney Gust Sarris represents nearly 100 plaintiffs who brought
the suit.

"We will see the things that I have alleged in the complaint will
come out to be true and that this case will proceed," Sarris said.

While Sarris stands behind the lawsuit was filed, he agreed to
change the complaint at the judge's request.

"All you have to do is alleged the necessary facts without
inflammatory language, and then you don't have these problems,"
Blazs said.

Blazs told both attorneys they had 10 days to submit written
opinions on why the lawsuit should or shouldn't be dismissed.


IDAHO: Inmate Can Move Forward with Heart Attack Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Boone, writing for San Francisco Gate, reported that a
federal judge says an Idaho inmate can move forward with his
lawsuit against the state even though he has already won a six-
figure settlement from the state's prison health care provider.
William Bown, an inmate at the Idaho Maximum Security Institution
south of Boise, filed the lawsuit against Idaho prison officials
and the prison health care contractor Corizon in 2012 after he had
a heart attack.

Bown contended that the prison guards and the medical care
providers failed to realize the seriousness of his condition and
sent him to an observation cell instead of calling for emergency
care. Bown says that as a result, his heart attack went untreated
for roughly eight hours despite his screams for help, leaving him
with severe and irreversible heart damage.

Bown named several Idaho prison officials, Corizon Inc. and
several Corizon employees as defendants in the case. Corizon
agreed to pay Bown more than $670,000 to settle its portion of the
case.

In a statement, Corizon Health officials declined to comment on
the settlement because of a confidentiality agreement. But the
company said its top priority was providing skilled and
compassionate health care to patients.
The inmate asked to modify his lawsuit to remove Corizon and its
employees from the defendant list, leaving just the state
officials.

The state of Idaho, which has denied any liability in the case,
then asked the federal judge to toss out the case entirely.
Idaho's attorneys said that the settlement with Corizon rendered
the remaining lawsuit moot.

But in a sharply worded order issued late, U.S. District Judge B.
Lynn Winmill said Bown's lawsuit against the state would stand.
Just because Bown agreed to release the Corizon defendants from
the lawsuit doesn't mean the Idaho Department of Corrections
defendants are automatically released as well, the judge said.

"This conclusion is so patently clear, that the Defendants'
opposition to the Motion to amend borders on being frivolous,"
Winmill wrote.

In his lawsuit, Bown contends that the state should have better
trained Department of Corrections employees to recognize the signs
and symptoms of a heart attack, and that the state failed to
ensure that its medical care provider had adequate policies in
place to treat medical emergencies.

The state should have known that Corizon wasn't providing adequate
care, Bown says in the lawsuit, because Idaho officials had fined
Corizon and CMS -- a company that formerly held the state prison
health care contract, and that Corizon later merged with --
hundreds of thousands of dollars for not meeting the terms of the
contract. Bown also cited a class-action lawsuit over medical care
at a neighboring prison that has spanned more than three decades.

Bown says the Department of Corrections had long abandoned its
obligation to preserve the physical safety and constitutional
rights of its inmates, and that the state "allowed and even
fostered systemic conditions evidencing a deliberate indifference
to the serious medical needs of those individuals in their
custody, including Mr. Bown."

Bown is asking for damages in an amount to be proven at trial.


INNOVATE LOGISTICS: Removed "Torres" Suit to New Jersey Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Jorge Torres and Luis Rivera, for
themselves and on behalf of a class of similarly situated workers
v. Innovate Logistics, LLC and Matthew Kim, Case No. MID-L-00573-
15, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey Middlesex
County, New Jersey to the U.S. District Court District of New
Jersey (Newark). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-
cv-05770-WHW-CLW to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Tykulsker, Esq.
      TYKULSKER & ASSOCIATES
      161 Walnut Street
      Montclair, NJ 07042
      Telephone: (973) 509-9292
      E-mail: david@dtesq.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Haejin A. Shim, Esq.
      FRECKER & SHIM LLC
      2160 North Central Road Suite 112
      Fort Lee, NJ 07024
      Telephone: (855) 373-2537
      Facsimile: (212) 352-0204
      E-mail: haejin@freckershim.com


JB HUNT: Removes "Silfani" Class Suit to Massachusetts Dist. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Abe Silfani, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. J.B. Hunt Transport,
Inc., Case No. 1581cv04837 was removed from the Middlesex Superior
Court to the United States District Court District of
Massachusetts (Boston). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-13019-RGS to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brant Casavant, Esq.
      Hillary A. Schwab, Esq.
      FAIR WORK P.C.
      192 South Street, Suite 450
      Boston, MA 02111
      Telephone: (617) 231-6777
      Facsimile: (617) 488-2261
      E-mail: brant@fairworklaw.com
              hillary@fairworklaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Stephen T. Melnick III, Esq.
      LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
      One International Place
      Suite 2700
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 378-6000
      Facsimile: (617) 737-0052
      E-mail: smelnick@littler.com


JOHN DEERE: Recalls Lawn Tractors Due to Crash Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 4, 2015
Posting date: August 4, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Outdoor Living
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Physical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54464

This recall involves John Deere lawn tractors with model numbers
D110, D125, D130, D140, D155, D160 and D170 with serial numbers
beginning with 1GXD. A complete list of serial numbers included in
this recall can be found on the firm's website. The model number
can be found on the bottom left and right of the hood in yellow.
The serial number is located on the left side of tractor, under
the fender, above the left rear tire.

The brake arm on the lawn tractor can fail, posing a crash hazard
that could result in serious injury or death.

Neither Health Canada nor Deere & Company has received any reports
of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these lawn
tractors.

Approximately 370 of the recalled lawn tractors were sold in
Canada at John Deere dealers, Lowe's and The Home Depot stores.
Approximately 1,700 products were distributed in the United
States.

The recalled products were sold from May 2015 to August 2015 in
Canada and the United States.

Manufactured in the United States

Manufacturer: Deere & Company
              Moline
              Illinois
              UNITED STATES

Distributor: John Deere Canada ULC
             Grimsby
             Ontario
             CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled lawn tractors
and contact the nearest John Deere dealer to make arrangements for
a free repair.

For more information, consumers may contact Deere & Company at 1-
800-537-8233 between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. ET, Monday through
Friday and between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. ET Saturday, or visit
the firm's website and select Product Recall Information on the
drop-down menu under Services & Support.

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

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

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

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

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


JPMORGAN CHASE: Sued Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Terry, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated
and the general public v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., and Real Time
Resolutions, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01666-DMS-KSC (S.D. Cal., July
27, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' unlawful debt collection
practices in connection with their attempt to collect residential
purchase or refinancing loans.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. is a Delaware banking corporation with
its principal place of business in New York, New York.

Real Time Resolutions, Inc. is a Texas corporation that operates a
full service debt collection agency specializing in mortgage
loans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Daniel Forde, Esq.
      Schuyler Hoffman, Esq.
      HOFFMAN & FORDE, ATTORNEYS AT LAW
      3033 Fifth Avenue, Suite 225
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 546-7880
      Facsimile: (619) 546-7881
      E-mail: dforde@hoffmanforde.com
              shoffman@hoffmanforde.com


KAMBOUSI RESTAURANT: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Paola Sanchez, Arturo Cuautle, Josias Rumbo, and Sergio Ramirez,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Kambousi Restaurant Partners, Llc, Kopy Diner LLC, and/or any
other business entity doing business as "Royal Coach Diner", and
Konstantinos Paxos, Case No. 1:15-cv-05880 (S.D.N.Y., July 27,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay the
food service employees time and one-half for their overtime hours
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate the Royal Coach Diner in the Bronx,
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Evan Hudson-Plush, Esq.
      COHEN, WEISS AND SIMON
      330 West 42nd Street
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 563-4100
      Facsimile: (212) 695-5436
      E-mail: ehudson-plush@cwsny.com


KEURIG GREEN: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of
Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. securities from February 4, 2015
through May 14, 2015, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Keurig Green Mountain
investors under the federal securities laws.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:
(1) defendants' projections for sales were unrealistic and
unattainable given the continuing consumer confusion over Keurig
Green Mountain's Keurig 2.0 brewing system; (2) the retail
distribution of Keurig Green Mountain's new cold brewing system,
Keurig Kold, would be delayed; and (3) as a result, defendants'
statements about Keurig Green Mountain's business, operations, and
prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit
claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
August 18, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-616.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip
Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at
866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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


LONGTOP FINANCIAL: Derek Palaschuk Agrees to $2.3MM Class Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP regarding the In re Longtop Financial Technologies
Limited Securities Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE LONGTOP FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED SECURITIES LITIGATION
Civil Action No. 11-cv-3658-SAS

SUMMARY NOTICE TO CLASS MEMBERS OF PROPOSED $2.3 MILLION
SETTLEMENT WITH DEFENDANT DEREK PALASCHUK, SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS
HEARING, AND MOTION FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

To: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Longtop Financial Technologies, Ltd. ("Longtop") American
Depositary Shares ("ADSs") during the period from February 21,
2008 through May 17, 2011, inclusive, and were damaged thereby
(the "Class").  Certain Persons are excluded from the definition
of the Class as set forth in detail in the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement dated June 18, 2015 (the "Stipulation").

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.  YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED
BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, that a settlement of the
above-captioned litigation ("Action") has been proposed with
defendant Derek Palaschuk ("Palaschuk") for $2.3 million in cash
("Settlement").  A hearing will be held before the Honorable Shira
A. Scheindlin in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States
Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 15C, New York, NY 10007-
1312 at 2:30 p.m., on October 13, 2015 to determine whether:  (1)
the proposed Settlement should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable and adequate; (2) the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice against Palaschuk, and the releases specified and
described in the Stipulation should be granted; (3) the proposed
Plan of Allocation should be approved; (4) Lead Counsel's
application for reimbursement of expenses should be approved; and
(5) Lead Plaintiffs' application for reimbursement of costs and
expenses (including lost wages) in connection with their
representation of the Class should be approved.

The proposed Settlement follows the November 2014 trial against
Palaschuk, whereby a jury found Palaschuk liable for violating
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act") between February 10, 2010 and May 17, 2011.
Further, as required under the Exchange Act, the jury apportioned
liability for total damages determined at trial amongst the three
named defendants in the Action as follows:  Longtop (49%), Wai
Chau Lin a/k/a Lian Weizhou ("Lin") (50%) and Palaschuk (1%).  In
addition to the jury verdict against Palaschuk, the Court
previously entered a default judgment against Longtop and Lin, for
violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act between
February 21, 2008 and May 17, 2011.  Pursuant to the default
judgment, Longtop and Lin are jointly and severally liable to Lead
Plaintiffs and the Class for damages totaling $882,300,000 plus 9%
interest on such amount from February 21, 2008, through the date
of payment.  This amount is the maximum amount of damages
available to the Class.  Lead Plaintiffs' efforts to collect this
judgment remain ongoing; however, given the complexities of the
international laws implicated, Longtop's corporate structure and
its potential lack of financial resources, the likelihood of Lead
Plaintiffs collecting this judgment or any portion thereof is
uncertain.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED BY THE PENDING ACTION AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE
IN THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT.  A detailed Notice to Class Members of
Proposed $2.3 Million Settlement with Defendant Derek Palaschuk,
Settlement Fairness Hearing, and Motion for Reimbursement of
Litigation Expense ("Notice") and Proof of Claim and Release Form
("Claim Form") are currently being mailed to Class Members
explaining Class Members' rights in connection with the Settlement
and the process for submitting a claim.  If you have not received
a Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents,
and other information about the Settlement and the Action, at
www.longtopclassaction.com or by calling (855) 382-6454.

In order to be eligible to share in the Settlement, you must
submit a valid Claim Form postmarked no later than November 10,
2015, to Longtop Financial Technologies Securities Litigation, c/o
GCG, P.O. Box 10149, Dublin, OH  43017-3149.  Please Note:  As
discussed in the previously disseminated Notice of Pendency of
Class Action dated July 29, 2014 ("Class Notice"), at trial, Lead
Plaintiffs pursued claims based on Palaschuk's alleged
misrepresentations during the period February 10, 2010 through May
17, 2011 (the "Trial Class Period").  Accordingly, only those
Class Members who purchased or otherwise acquired Longtop ADS
during the Trial Class Period and submit valid Claim Forms will be
potentially eligible to share in the Settlement.  If you are a
Class Member and do not submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be
eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the
Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgment or
orders entered by the Court in this Action.

If you previously submitted a request for exclusion from the Class
in connection with the Class Notice and you wish to remain
excluded from the Class, no further action is required.  If you
previously submitted a request for exclusion from the Class in
connection with the Class Notice and you want to opt-back into the
Class and be potentially eligible to receive a payment from the
Settlement, you must submit a request to opt-back into the Class
in writing such that it is received no later than September 22,
2015, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.
If you previously submitted a request for exclusion from the Class
in connection with the Class Notice and do not opt-back into the
Class in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice,
you will not be bound by any judgment or orders entered by the
Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the
net proceeds of the Settlement.

If you are a Class Member, you have the right to object to the
Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, and/or the requests by Lead
Counsel and Lead Plaintiffs for reimbursement of expenses.  Any
objections must be filed with the Court and delivered to Lead
Counsel and counsel for the Settling Defendant such that they are
received no later than September 22, 2015, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form, may
be made to Lead Counsel: Gregory M. Castaldo and Kimberly A.
Justice of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, 280 King of Prussia
Road, Radnor, PA  19087, (610) 667-7706, info@ktmc.com.  Further
information may also be obtained by directing your inquiry in
writing to the Claims Administrator, GCG, at the address and phone
number listed above.


LOUISIANA: Retirement System Sued Over Reimbursement Failure
------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Barnett, writing for Louisiana Record, reported that a former
bus driver for the Jefferson Parish School Board claims that the
state school retirement system has failed to reimburse him for
funds that were improperly paid into the system.

Joyle Pertuit filed suit against The Louisiana School Employees
Retirement System and The Jefferson Parish School Board in the
24th Judicial District Court on May 29.

Pertuit claims he was employed by the Jefferson Parish School
Board a bus driver for over 30 years during which time he made
required contributions to the Louisiana School Employees
Retirement System program. The plaintiff alleges that near the end
of his employment he was making a base salary of $29,800 plus
$7,050 in operation expenses as well as $1.37 per mile driven.

Pertuit contends he was notified in 2007 that The Louisiana School
Employees Retirement System had been improperly taking funds for
his retirement from only his base pay when it should have been
requiring him to submit part of his operational pay in which
Jefferson Parish School Board included his per mile payments.
However, on Jan. 15, 2008 the plaintiff asserts he was informed
The Louisiana School Employees Retirement System had incorrectly
withheld funds from his operational expenses and he should have
received a refund.

During the time his income was improperly reported to The
Louisiana School Employees Retirement System Pertuit claims he
received $12,179.71 in operational and mileage reimbursement part
of which was wrongfully taken from his pay to go towards his
retirement fund. The plaintiff alleges that despite making
numerous demands The Jefferson Parish School Board has failed to
reimburse him for the funds improperly paid to The Louisiana
School Employees Retirement System. In addition, Pertuit contends
the overcharges were spread amongst other drivers employed by the
Jefferson Parish School Board who were similarly affected as a
class.

The defendant is accused of breach of fiduciary duty, negligence
and breach of contract.

An unspecified amount in damages is sought for declaratory
judgment and injunctive relief.

Pertuit is represented by James F. Willeford of New Orleans-based
Willeford & Toledano.

The case has been assigned to Division L Judge Donald A. Rowan Jr.
Case no. 750-170.


MANHATTAN GROUP: Recalls Activity Toys Due to Choking Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 4, 2015
Posting date: August 4, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Toys
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Choking Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54474

This recall involves the My Snuggly Ellie Activity Toy. The toy is
a plush brown elephant with white crinkle ears. The green hanging
loop on top of its head can attach to a stroller or crib. On the
stomach, there is a mini mirror while a teether and wooden ring
hang below its body. Item number 12520 can be found on the small
white tag sewn into the bottom of the toy.

The wooden ring can break into small pieces, posing a choking
hazard to young children.

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

Manhattan Group has received one report of the wooden ring
breaking in Norway. No injuries were reported. The company has not
received any reports of injuries in the United States.

For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them
keep children safe when they play with toys, see the General Toy
Safety Tips.

Approximately 100 units of the recalled toys were distributed in
Canada, and approximately 2,700 units were distributed in the
United States at specialty toy and baby stores, and online at
www.manhattantoy.com.

The recalled toys were distributed from February 2014 to May 2015.

Manufactured in China.

Distributor: Manhattan Group LLC
             Minneapolis
             Minnesota
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately take the recalled toy away from
children and return the toy where it was purchased for a full
refund.

For more information, consumers may contact Manhattan Group toll-
free at 1-800-541-1345 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT, Monday
through Friday. Consumers may also visit the firm's website and
click on "Recalls" for additional information.

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

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

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/j5N0k0


MARTHA STEWART: Faces "Gordon" Suit Over Sequential Merger Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Gordon, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., et al., Case
No. 11340-VCN (Del. Ch., July 27, 2015), is brought on behalf of
the public stockholders of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc.,
to enjoin the MSLO's Board of Directors' attempt to sell the
Company to Sequential Brands Group, Inc. by means of a flawed
process and for an inadequate price.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Derrick B. Farrell, Esq.
      James R. Banko, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI LLP
      20 Montchanin Road Suite 145
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Telephone: (302) 482-3182
      Facsimile: (302) 482-3612
      E-mail: dfarrell@faruqilaw.com
              jbanko@faruqilaw.com

         - and -

      Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
      Innessa S. Melamed, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
      E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com
              innessamelamed@faruqilaw.com


MERRILL LYNCH: Sued in Florida Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
--------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Fernandez, Gustavo Martinez, Oscar Luzuriaga, and
Daniel Araujo as trustees of and on behalf of the LAAD Retirement
Plan, and as trustees of and on behalf of the LAAD Corporation
S.A. Money Purchase Retirement Plan, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated, Case No. 1:15-cv-22782-MGC (S.D. Fla., July 27,
2015), arises from the Defendant's alleged breach of fiduciary
duties owed to the Class under Employee Retirement Income Security
Act, specifically by  failing to provide the information necessary
for mutual fund companies to give the Plans the Class A mutual
fund share sales charge waiver discounts that the Plans were
entitled to receive.

Based in New York, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated operates a global investment banking and brokerage
firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frank R. Rodriguez, Esq.
      Paulino A. Nunez Jr., Esq.
      RODRIGUEZ TRAMONT & NUNEZ P.A.
      255 Alhambra Circle
      Suite 1150
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone: (305) 350-2300
      Facsimile: (305) 350-2525
      E-mail: frr@rtgn-law.com
              pan@rtgn-law.com

         - and -

      Lawrence A. Kellogg, P.A.
      Jason Kellogg, Esq.
      LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER + GROSSMAN LLP
      201 South Biscayne Boulevard
      Miami Center, 22nd Floor
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 403-8788
      Facsimile: (305) 403-8789
      E-mail: lak@lklsg.com
              jk@lklsg.com


MF GLOBAL: Corzine Must Face Commodities Customer Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reported
that MF Global Holdings Ltd. commodities customers may pursue
their lawsuit seeking hundreds of millions of dollars from former
chief executive Jon Corzine and other officials over the
brokerage's bankruptcy as a class action, a federal judge said.

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero in Manhattan said it was
desirable to let the roughly 25,200 customers sue as a group
rather than require a "plethora" of individual lawsuits, a process
he said would be "wholly inefficient and wasteful."

The lawsuit seeks at least $820 million, comprising at least $350
million of prejudgment interest, and $470 million to repay
advances from MF Global brokerage trustee James Giddens, which he
could not recover in the bankruptcy proceedings, according to
Merrill Davidoff, a lawyer for the customers.

MF Global filed for Chapter 11 protection on Oct. 31, 2011, in a
collapse that left $1.6 billion missing from customer accounts.
The customers recouped that sum in exchange for assigning some of
their claims to Giddens.

"We were expecting a favorable decision," Davidoff, a partner at
Berger & Montague, said in an interview. "They all had their money
raided and stolen and dipped into illegally, and still have
important claims that need to be pursued."

Corzine is also a former New Jersey governor and senator, and co-
chairman at Goldman Sachs.

His lawyer Jonathan Streeter, a partner at the Dechert law firm,
did not immediately respond to requests for comment. MF Global is
now defunct.

Former MF Global investors have separately reached $204.4 million
of settlements with the company's former banks, auditor and
officials.

These include a $64.5 million accord with Corzine and other
executives and directors, which would be covered by insurance.

Marrero designated the law firms Berger & Montague and Entwistle &
Cappucci as co-lead counsel of the commodities customer class
action.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission is separately suing
Corzine over MF Global's collapse. MF Global settled related CFTC
claims for $100 million.


MICROSOFT: May Face Class Suit Over Xbox 360 Defective Discs
------------------------------------------------------------
Wesley Copeland, writing for IGN News, reported that Microsoft may
be on the verge of a class-action lawsuit following a recurring
claim that an Xbox 360 defect gouges discs.

As Arstechnica reports, a decision was made by the 9th US Circuit
Court of Appeals on that says Microsoft should either face
litigation regarding the claims or face a Supreme Court showdown.

Throughout the lifespan of the Xbox 360, Microsoft maintained that
scratched discs were the result of consumer misuse, most of which
were caused by customers moving the console with a disc in the
tray. That said, if it was a Microsoft-published game, customers
did have the option of getting the disc replaced for free.

One of the arguments put forth draws on the case of Kenneth Gable
and Brian Wolin vs Land Rover. Both Gable and Wolin purchased Land
Rover's LR3 vehicles, which allegedly suffered from an alignment
geometry defect that causes the tires to wear out prematurely.

In the case of Gable/Wolin, the class-action was eventually
dropped. As for the scratched disc lawsuit, the plan was to
enforce the Gable/Wolin ruling, thus ending the class-action.
Judge Martinez, however, doesn't think the two cases are similar
enough make the same ruling.

"Judge Martinez concluded that the presumption had not been
rebutted because the Gable/Wolin Land Rover litigation was
distinguishable from the scratched disc litigation," reads the
court document.

The class-action against Microsoft aims to establish whether disc
scratches were made due to consumer misuse, or because the Xbox
360 suffered a design flaw.

"[. . . ] although individual factors may affect the timing and
extent of the disc scratching, they do not affect whether the
Xboxes were sold with a defective disc system. Plaintiffs contend
that (1) whether the Xbox is defectively designed and (2) whether
such design defect breaches an express or an implied warranty are
both issues capable of common proof."

In an earlier court document, the suit claims that Microsoft saw
some 55,000 complaints regarding disc scratching.

"As of April 30, 2008, Microsoft Manager Douglas Park estimates
that Microsoft's customer service department has received
approximately 55,000 complaints from consumers regarding disc
scratches."


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Seau Family Seeks Trial in Concussions Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Noreen O'Donnell, writing for NBC News, reported that three years
after legendary San Diego Chargers linebacker Junior Seau shot
himself in the chest with a .357 Magnum revolver, his relatives
continue to battle the National Football League over what they say
was a decades-long deception about concussions and brain injuries.

His former wife, Gina, and his four children opted out of a
settlement of a federal class-action lawsuit in January because
they want more information to emerge about the debilitating
effects of head injuries, according to their lawyer, Steven M.
Strauss, a partner with the Cooley law firm in San Diego.

The Seaus are trying to get their case returned to a California
state court for a trial, Strauss said.

Seau is to be inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame on Aug.
8.

Before his death in May 2012 at age 43, he had become erratic and
short-tempered, according to legal papers. He was depressed, drank
heavily and gambled millions compulsively. But his family was as
stunned by his suicide as everyone else and wanted answers, Gina
Seau told The Associated Press.

Throughout his long career -- he played 20 seasons with the NFL,
with the Miami Dolphins and the New England Patriots in addition
to the Chargers -- Seau had had concussions, but he always kept
playing, she said.

"That didn't stop him," she sa"I don't know what football player
hasn't. It's not ballet. It's part of the game."

When doctors at the National Institutes of Health examined tissue
samples from his brain, they discovered that he was suffering from
the degenerative brain disease, chronic traumatic encephalopathy,
found in athletes with a history of brain trauma.

The challenge for the Seaus will be to show that his injuries were
caused by football he played in the NFL and not before, whether in
high school or at the University of Southern California, said
Scott Rosner, a sports business professor at the Wharton School at
the University of Pennsylvania. Trying to draw that link will be
risky, he said.

"It might be there but my sense is that there would be a pretty
strong case to be presented to a jury that maybe it was another
injury that caused this, maybe it was before he got to the NFL,"
Rosner said.

The January following his suicide, Seau's family sued the NFL and
the helmet maker Riddell in California Superior Court in San
Diego. The lawsuit alleged that Seau had killed himself because of
his injuries, and that the NFL had long been aware that head
injuries from violent collisions on the field could have long-
term, debilitating effects on players. It ignored the link,
falsified research and tried to repress the findings of other
studies, the lawsuit said.

The family -- including Seau's four children, Tyler, Sydney, Jake
and Hunter -- became part of the federal class-action lawsuit
filed in June 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The complaint also alleged that the NFL
fraudulently concealed the link between football-related head
impacts and long-term neurological injuries from its players --
a charge the NFL denied.

The NFL had argued that safety and health rules were covered by
the league's collective bargaining agreement with its players. It
also said that the lawsuits lacked any proof that it concealed the
risk of head trauma.

Brought by more than 5,000 former players or their families, the
lawsuit was settled in April. The settlement provides payments of
up to $5 million to players with such neurological conditions as
dementia and Alzheimer's and Parkinson diseases, plus money for
medical research and monitoring. It covers about 21,000 former NFL
players.

Since the settlement was approved, about 90 former players have
appealed.

The Seau family is among about 200 who opted out of the
settlement. The Seaus in a "60 Minutes Sports" segment objected
that the NFL took no responsibility for policies that led to the
brain injuries.

"Since this litigation started, there hasn't been one document
produced, there hasn't been one deposition taken," Strauss said in
a statement to ESPN. "It seems very clearly designed to nip this
in the bud and not have the truth come out, and that's not
acceptable to the Seau family, and it's not acceptable to Junior's
legacy."

A lawyer who negotiated the settlement on behalf of the players,
Chris Seeger, a partner at Seeger Weiss, has said in a statement
that if Strauss thought the $4 million the Seaus were eligible for
was insufficient he could forfeit the money and face the
significant risks associated with continuing litigation.

Rosner said Seau was in a category different from many other
players.

"His earning capacity was greater, his earning capacity after the
game was different because of his Hall of Fame status so you could
see monetarily why they would go down this road," he said.

Seau's attorneys also will have to address an outstanding question
of the care that the NFL owed to its players at a time when they
were represented by a union, said Marc Edelman, an associate
professor of law at the Zicklin School of Business of Baruch
College, City University of New York.

And the attorneys will have to show that Seau's injuries led to
his death, he said.


NAT'L MILK: Retailers Expand Dairy Antitrust Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
Matersz Perkowski, writing for Capital Press, reported that
retailers are expanding antitrust litigation against dairy
cooperatives.

Two retail companies are accusing a national dairy organization of
manipulating milk prices, opening a new front in litigation over a
herd retirement program.

Piggly Wiggly Midwest, a grocery chain, and Kinney Drugs, a
pharmacy chain, have filed an antitrust complaint against the
National Milk Producers Federation and associated dairy
cooperatives.

The lawsuit claims that NMPF's "Cooperatives Working Together"
program repeatedly paid farmers to send their herds to slaughter
between 2003 and 2010, thereby reducing milk output and inflating
prices for dairy products.

The plaintiffs characterize the program as an unlawfully anti-
competitive "conspiracy" and have requested class action status
that would allow other direct dairy purchasers to join in the
lawsuit to seek compensation.

NMPF has been battling similar allegations for the past four
years, but that class action case was brought on behalf of
consumers rather than retailers.

Chris Galen, senior vice president of communications for NMPF,
said the group could not yet comment on the latest complaint.

"We just learned of this litigation and we're still consulting
with our attorneys," he said.

According to NMPF, the herd retirements were protected by the
Capper-Volstead Act, which provides farm cooperatives with some
exemptions from antitrust liability.

Since the original antitrust lawsuit was filed in 2011, NMPF has
continued defending the program despite suffering two significant
legal setbacks.

The organization asked U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White to
dismiss the case on the grounds that USDA and not the federal
court has jurisdiction over the controversy.

In 2012, White rejected that argument as well as the claim that
plaintiffs were barred from filing the lawsuit by the statute of
limitations.

The judge dealt NMPF another blow by certifying the consumer case
as a class action -- a step that often exposes defendants to
greater financial losses and thus creates pressure to settle.

A jury trial in the consumer case is scheduled for February 2016.

It's likely that NMPF will again ask the judge to throw out the
case before it goes to trial, based on the theory the cooperatives
are protected by Capper-Volstead, said Peter Carstensen, a law
professor specializing in agricultural antitrust at the University
of Wisconsin Law School.

If the judge agrees that NMPF is shielded by that law, it would
effectively end the case and foreclose the plaintiffs from filing
a similar lawsuit, he said.

"You won't be able to come back and have another crack at it,"
Carstensen said.

As for the new retailer lawsuit, it could be an attempt by other
attorneys to join the dispute in the hope of eventually winning a
share of the fees, he said.

The latest complaint could also be strategically aimed at
expanding the class of plaintiffs, Carstensen sa"It's possible
this is a way of adding another component to the litigation."

Aside from milk, similar lawsuits have targeted volume-control
systems for potatoes, eggs and mushrooms in recent years, he said.

Given the legal uncertainty about such programs and their
vulnerability to litigation, other farm sectors will likely think
twice about trying to limit production, Carstensen sa"My advice
would be, 'Don't do it.'"


NEW JERSEY: 150 Hurricane Sandy Insurance Cases Await Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Gialanella, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
The New Jersey federal judge overseeing mass insurance litigation
over Hurricane Sandy flood damage is attempting to light a fire
under plaintiffs who have yet to declare war or peace.

In a July 30 order, U.S. District Chief Judge Jerome Simandle of
the District of New Jersey indicated that there have been
promising signs since he first issued stays of the litigation
earlier this year in order to encourage settlement: More than 350
cases have been resolved in recent months.

About 150 others are amidst or awaiting settlement negotiations,
Judge Simandle said.  But for the roughly 350 cases that have been
"silent," meaning no settlement materials have been submitted,
Simandle directed attorneys to indicate their intentions.

"The court is concerned that plaintiffs in this latter group of
'silent' cases are neither litigating their claims nor pursuing
the settlement of their claims despite the passage of more than
120 days since the stay was entered," the judge wrote.
"Obviously, by not submitting the materials necessary for the
settlement process, while also not requesting relief from the stay
(which was the procedure offered in each of the stay orders) such
a case becomes dormant due to nonprosecution."

Judge Simandle, at the urging of the district court's Hurricane
Sandy Litigation Committee, issued "one last" stay, of 30 days,
during which plaintiffs must either participate in the expedited
settlement process or seek to move forward with litigation.

Judge Simandle said litigants who do neither will have their cases
dismissed, albeit without prejudice "only for good cause shown."

The case is In re Hurricane Sandy WYO Carrier Flood Litigation.
"WYO" refers to "write your own" -- meaning National Flood
Insurance Program policies that are issued and serviced by private
insurers but underwritten by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency.  FEMA -- after announcing earlier this year that it would
review all Sandy-related claims, whether litigated or not -- has
been negotiating settlements in the Sandy flood litigation in
connection with both WYO policies and policies that originated
with FEMA.

Though there is Sandy flood litigation in other jurisdictions,
primarily in the Eastern District of New York, Judge Simandle is
overseeing only cases filed by New Jersey property owners,
according to Christopher Gerold -- cgerold@csglaw.com -- of
Chiesa, Shahinian & Giantomasi in West Orange, counsel to about
140 New Jersey plaintiffs.

"These settlements are proceeding fairly quickly," Mr. Gerold
said.  "The vast majority of our cases have reached tentative
settlements.

"To FEMA's credit . . . the cases are moving . . . . It's been
working out for the homeowners; it's been working out for the
court."

"None of my cases are dormant, although some of them do appear on
that list" because Judge Simandle hasn't yet been notified of
settlement talks, Mr. Gerold said, adding that he'll do so soon in
keeping with the order.  "I can tell you there have been some
problems in New Jersey where some cases have been taken and not
litigated."

Charles Mathis IV -- cmathis@merlinlawgroup.com -- of the Merlin
Law Group in Red Bank, which also represents a share of the
plaintiffs, painted a somewhat different picture.

"I'm glad to see that they are starting to resolve-there's been a
little bit of delay," he said.  "Things have been sort of sitting
for four months with little or no movement."

Negotiations with FEMA have been smooth, but "getting paid is an
issue," Mr. Mathis added.  "Even when we do have a check, the next
fight is with the banks, getting the banks to [process] the
checks."

FEMA spokesman Rafael Lemaitre said the agency is "going to do
everything we can to make sure policyholders get every dollar they
deserve."

"The settlement program is one component of that," Mr. Lemaitre
said.

FEMA, aside from deploying its own lawyers, has been represented
by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey,
whose spokesman didn't respond to an email seeking comment on the
progression of the litigation.


NEW YORK: 2nd Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Discrimination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Keshner, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled on July 31 that
there could be circumstances where a putative class action suit
alleging employment discrimination could rely on statistics alone
to show discriminatory intent.  But the statistics that New York
City sanitation employees cited on racial make-up in the top ranks
did not convince the panel that there was discriminatory intent in
the department's promotional practices.

As a result, the panel on July 31 upheld a lower court's dismissal
of the employees' case.

Southern District Judge Jed Rakoff, sitting by designation, said
the case presented a matter of first impression for the circuit
"in the context of a putative class action alleging employment
discrimination under [42 U.S.C.] [Section]1981 and/or the Equal
Protection Clause."

As some of the circuit's employment discrimination cases "have
hinted, in certain circumstances . . . statistics alone may be
sufficient," Judge Rakoff said.  But to make the showing on
statistics alone, he said, the figures "must not only not only be
statistically significant in the mathematical sense, but they must
also be of a level that makes other plausible non-discriminatory
explanations very unlikely."

Second Circuit Judges Guido Calabresi and Peter Hall joined
Judge Rakoff in Burgis v. New York City Department of Sanitation,
14-1640.

The plaintiffs contended the Department of Sanitation's promotion
practices made for a predominantly white supervisory staff that
did not reflect the composition of its workforce.

Within the department, employees were first promoted from
sanitation worker to supervisor. The next promotional step was
becoming general superintendent. The general superintendent
position has four levels, and the fourth level is the most
superior.

Promotions for general superintendent levels two through four are
based on recommendations.

All the plaintiffs, black and Hispanic men and women, were
promoted to supervisor, but have not gotten higher than general
superintendent level one.

They sued the department in 2013.

In their papers, they cited publicly available fiscal year 2011
racial makeup statistics for the percentages of whites, blacks and
Hispanics filling the various ranks.

The numbers showed 56 percent of sanitation workers were white,
23.5 percent were black and 18 percent were Hispanic.

However, 81 percent of supervisors were white, 11 percent were
black and 10 percent were Hispanic.

Eighty-one percent of level one general superintendents were
white, 13 percent were black and 9 percent were Hispanic.

For general superintendent levels two and three, 91 percent were
white.  Four percent were black and 3 percent were Hispanic.
At the fourth level, 80 percent were white while blacks and
Hispanics equally constituted the remaining 20 percent.

In March 2014, Southern District Judge Thomas Griesa dismissed the
case before it could get to discovery.  He said the plaintiffs'
Equal Protection and Sec. 1981 claims did not sufficiently allege
discriminatory intent, and dismissed the Title VII disparate
impact claim for a failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

The plaintiffs subsequently filed a state action alleging
disparate impact in violation of the New York City Human Rights
Law.  The matter is pending before Acting Manhattan Supreme Court
Justice Margaret Pui Yee Chan.

The appeal in the federal case was argued March 5.

In his decision, Judge Rakoff said even apart from failing to show
discriminatory intent, the plaintiffs failed to give "meaningful
specifics" on claimed qualification differences between the whites
who landed promotions and seven of the plaintiffs who were
purportedly passed over.

The plaintiffs said the statistics alone could be enough to
warrant a "plausible inference of discriminatory intent" if they
showed a pattern or practice, which could not be explained except
by intentional discrimination.

Judge Rakoff said the proffered information fell short.

"Among other shortcomings, the statistics provided by plaintiffs
show only the raw percentages of white, black, and Hispanic
individuals at each employment level, without providing any detail
as to the number of individuals at each level, the qualifications
of individuals in the applicant pool and of those hired for each
position, or the number of openings at each level," he said.

The judge said claims of discrimination also were undercut by the
fact that each plaintiff had been promoted to a supervisor
position.

Judge Rakoff acknowledged there was an increased disparity between
the racial and nation origin makeup of the level one general
superintendents and level two and three general superintendents.
But he said by level four, the composition returned "to
essentially the same percentage as at level 1."

Arthur Schwartz, principal attorney at Advocates for Justice
Chartered Attorneys, represented the plaintiffs.

Apart from pressing the state case, Mr. Schwartz said he planned
to ask the Second Circuit for an en banc review.

He said the July 31 ruling held him "to a standard of proof on a
motion to dismiss that should have only been applied on summary
judgment or at trial.  The level of statistical proof that the
court was demanding at the pleading stage was unprecedented."

Mr. Schwartz said, "there is no question in our mind that there is
gross discrimination in promotions" at the Sanitation Department.
The plaintiffs were also represented by Tracey Kiernan, an
associate at the firm.

Nicholas Paolucci, a Law Department spokesman, said "this decision
makes clear that the plaintiff's allegations were insufficient to
establish a claim that [the Sanitation Department] discriminated
when promoting staff."

Assistant Corporation Counsels Fay Ng and Pamela Seider Dolgow
appeared for the city.


NISSAN: Court Approves Deal in Leaf Misleading Advertising Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Edelstein, writing for Green Car Reports, reported that
Nissan appears to have reached a final settlement with plaintiffs
in a class-action lawsuit over Nissan Leaf electric-car batteries
that now goes back almost three years.

The suit was filed in California in 2012 on behalf of all Leaf
owners in that state and in Arizona.

Nissan was accused of not accurately describing the Leaf's real-
world range in advertising.

After an initial settlement was rejected, Nissan will now have to
compensate owners and potentially replace more battery packs,
according to InsideEVs.

The suit accused Nissan of misleading customers about the Leaf's
real-world range.

It claimed figures used in advertising for the 2011 and 2012 Leaf
were based on battery packs charged to levels beyond what Nissan
itself recommended to customers.

A previous settlement with a reported value of $38 million was
rejected by Alex Kozinski, 2011 Leaf owner and Chief Judge of the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Kozinski reportedly referred to the arrangement as a sweetheart
deal for the class council that negotiated it, with less real
benefit for the bulk of Leaf owners affected by the issue.

Those objections caused the legal process to stall for roughly two
years.

Now it appears all parties have agreed on a final settlement.

Under the new terms, Nissan will no longer have the option to
repair a battery pack that shows less than nine "bars" of
indicated capacity on the dashboard gauge.

Instead, it will have to replace those packs with updated versions
identical to those used in the 2015 Leaf, which use a newer and
more heat-tolerant cell chemistry.

Nissan will also provide 90 days of free access to DC fast-
charging through its EZ Charge card program.

Already offered to buyers of new Leafs, the EZ Charge card
provides access to stations on the NRG eVgo, Aerovironment, and
Car Charging Group networks.

The card is only available in certain markets, though. Class
members outside of those markets--or those not interested in the
charging program--can get a $50 check instead.


PENNSYLVANIA: Four-Time Killer's Death Penalty Delayed
------------------------------------------------------
Rudy Miller, writing for Lehigh Valley, reported that a
Northampton County judge is due to hear arguments on whether to
continue to postpone the execution of quadruple murderer Michael
Ballard.

Ballard is part of a class-action lawsuit seeking to throw out the
death penalty against 184 Pennsylvania death row inmates.

Philadelphia attorney David Rudovsky argues in the suit that the
death penalty can't be carried out in Pennsylvania because the
drugs to be administered under state Department of Corrections
policy fail to meet specifications outlined in the state's death
penalty law.

Northampton County District Attorney John Morganelli, however,
filed court papers noting a similar argument made in Oklahoma was
dismissed by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Morganelli noted in a supplemental brief on that being named in
the class-action suit does not automatically guarantee a stay of
your execution.

Morganelli said he will make further arguments at the hearing
before County Judge Emil Giordano at 10 a.m.. He'll be opposed by
Ballard attorneys James Connell and Michael Corriere.

Connell and Corriere filed papers arguing in part that the death
penalty should be thrown out in Pennsylvania because the
procedures for administering lethal injections weren't open to
public debate. They were formulated by a closed group of
corrections officials, they argue.

The registered nurses who administer the lethal drugs do so
without the direction of a doctor and without a prescription for
the person to be executed, both in violation of state law, the
class action suit says.

Ballard, 42, had recently been released from state prison for an
Allentown murder when he killed his ex-girlfriend, her father, her
grandfather and a neighbor in Northampton in 2010. He was
sentenced to death in 2011.


PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Aug. 3 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, reminds investors that a
securities class action has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
those who purchased shares of Puma Biotechnology, Inc. ("Puma" or
the "Company") during the period between July 23, 2014 and May 13,
2015 inclusive. (The "Class Period").

The lawsuit alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, and failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
prospects and performance. Specifically, during the Class Period,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (i) the Company's NDA filing would be for a
positive early stage breast cancer indication, instead of the
previously announced metastatic breast cancer; (ii) Puma would
need to submit additional safety data from preclinical
carcinogenicity studies with its NDA filing, which Puma did not
have; (iii) the additional required studies would necessarily push
the timeline for filing the NDA into the first quarter of 2016;
(iv) the Company overstated results from its Phase III ExteNET
Trial; and (v) as a  result of the foregoing, Defendants lacked a
reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company
and its outlook, including in its financial statements and about
the ongoing ExteNET trial.

No Class has yet been certified in the above action. If you wish
to review a copy of the Complaint, to discuss this action, or have
any questions, please contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Coordinator Eitan Kimelman of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email
info@bgandg.com. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address and telephone number.  If you
suffered a loss in Puma you have until August 3, 2015 to request
that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to
share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Our primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.   Attorney advertising. Prior results do not
guarantee similar outcomes.


RECEPTOS INC: Faces "Kadin" Suit Over Proposed Celgene Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Kadin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Receptos, Inc., et al., Case No. 11337-CB (Del. Ch., July 27,
2015), is brought on behalf of all the public stockholders of
Receptos, Inc., to enjoin the agreement to sell the Company to
Celgene Corporation, for an unfair price and inadequate
consideration.

Receptos, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company developing
therapeutic candidates for the treatment of immune and metabolic
diseases.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
      Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 682-3025
      E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com
              mrogovin@weisslawllp.com
              kkeenan@weisslawllp.com


ROWAN COUNTY, KY: Judge Hears Testimony in Licensing Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Lana Bellamy, writing for The Independent, reported that during
testimony on the witness stand, Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis told
the court she has been considering how her office would handle
marriage licenses since she took her oath in January.

Rowan County Judge-Executive Walter "Doc" Blevins, Jr., said
during his testimony before U.S. District Judge David Bunning that
he and Davis had "talked for a while" about her potential conflict
with a U.S. Supreme Court decision that would uphold the
constitutionality of gay marriage.

"She's very religious and she said she would not be issuing
licenses to anyone because she didn't want to only do for one
group," Blevins said, adding Davis later voiced concern of the
narrow 5-4 margin of the Supreme Court decision and possibility
that the decision could be changed within 30 days.

Blevins said, despite his personal religious objection, he would
issue a license based on the law.

Bunning did not make a decision on whether or not to make Davis'
office issue licenses to the four couples named in a federal
class-action lawsuit. He said a decision would come as early as
the week of Aug. 11.

Davis and Rowan County government are being sued by the American
Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky on behalf of four Rowan couples
-- two same-sex, two opposite-sex -- that were denied licenses
either by her or by her county clerk office.

Davis said she has ordered her office to stop issuing any marriage
licenses because she did not want to violate her religious beliefs
of discriminating against same-sex couples and does not want to be
seen as approving of their marriages.

Davis said during the hearing she had only spoken directly with
one couple named in the suit, which was same-sex couple Jody
Fernandez and Kevin Holloway.

Davis said she and other county clerks wrote to as many state
legislators as they could find addresses for in January, asking
for a bill to be drafted in order to protect clerks from issuing
licenses that conflicted with their religious convictions.

"It was not a spur-of-the-moment thing for me," she said in court.
"I prayed and fasted weekly before the (Supreme Court) decision."

Davis' attorney, Roger Gannam, submitted a copy of the letter
written on behalf of 57 county clerks, addressed to Gov. Steve
Beshear, into evidence during the hearing.

The letter said the Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex
marriage in all 50 states caused a "dramatic and sudden change" in
clerks offices, but Davis said clerks had met in January to form a
committee focused on the outcomes of the federal decision handed
down in late June.

Davis said six full-time clerks and another employee operating on
alternative hours work in her office.

She testified that four of these clerks told her they had
religious objections to issuing marriage licenses to same-sex
couples, one person was "ambiguous" with their views, and one was
willing to issue licenses.

Bunning asked Davis if she would fire, or otherwise discipline, a
clerk who issued a license. She said the license would still have
her name on it. The judge repeated his question and then she
answered, "They would not be able to without my authority."

Bunning repeated his question to Davis a third time, but she then
refused to answer because she said the question was based off
speculation and she was unsure of how to appropriately respond.

Davis later clarified she did not have any intention to discipline
this employee based on his or her beliefs and described the deputy
clerk as "loyal" and "very dedicated" to the job.

When Davis was questioned about her oath to uphold the U.S. and
Kentucky Constitutions, she defended her decision by saying it was
covered federally under the First Amendment's freedom of religion.

"The Kentucky Constitution, so far, hasn't been re-written. That
takes an act of legislation," she said, and therefore, she
believes she is still upholding state law.

When ACLU Cooperating Attorney Dan Canon asked Davis if she made a
conscious decision not to follow the U.S. Constitution in not
issuing licenses, she paused, then said no.

Near the end of the hearing, Canon asked Davis who she believed
had the "final say" in interpreting the U.S. Constitution.

To this, Casey County Clerk Casey Davis, who has also halted the
issuance of marriage licenses in the county he serves, whispered
from his front row seat in the gallery, "God."

"I don't know," Davis answered.

Rowan County gay couple David V. Moore and David Ermold, who were
denied a license in her office earlier, has also sued Davis. Canon
said the couple has not become part of the class-action suit at
this time.

Casey Davis said he has not been sued over his office's non-
issuance of licenses and marriage license requests have only been
made to his office over the phone.


SANDHURST-WICKHAM: Class Action Has First Court Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------
Jason Spits, writing for Money Management, reported that a class
action worth up to $32 million being brought against Sandhurst
Trustees, which acted as trustee for failed property lender
Wickham Securities, will proceed with the first court date set
for.

The action, which will have its first hearing in the Federal Court
of Australia on July 27, will include around 150 investors with
the lead plantiff -- Graeme and Marion Clark -- seeking to recover
$220,000 in lost funds.

However the head of Shine Lawyers Professional Negligence team Jan
Saddler said the total claims against Sandhurst would be much
higher with Wickham liquidators PBB Advisory estimating total
losses suffered by investors to be between $28 million and $32
million.

Saddler said the 150 investors had signed funding agreements with
more investors expressing interest now that a court date has been
confirmed.

In a 70 page statement of claim Shine stated it would seek to show
that Sandhurst failed to act as a prudent trustee and exercised
appropriate diligence regarding its oversight of Wickham's
borrowing, lending and business management.

The class action will take place after Shine was able to secure
access to 39 different categories of documents which they claimed
were necessary for the action to proceed.

The documents -- in paper and electronic form -- detailed
Sandhurst's role as trustee of Wickham Securities and include
trustee reports, financial statements, trust deeds and
communication with the liquidators which eventually wrapped up the
Wickham business.
Sandhurst was ordered by the court in March of to hand over the
documents which were necessary for Shine and the investors to
ascertain whether they could obtain relief through the courts.

Saddler said Shine and the investors expected a favourable hearing
and that Sandhurst was financially capable of meeting the claim
and it had given no reason to Shine or the investors no reason to
believe the claim would not be met in the event of successful
case.

Brisbane-based Wickham Securities collapsed in 2013 owing $27
million to 300 investors with director Bradley Sherwin appointing
PPB Advisory as voluntary administrator.

Sherwin also operated Sherwin Financial Planners and DIY
Superannuation Services out of the same office as Wickham
Securities.

Sherwin was subsequently banned by the Australian Securities and
Investment Commission for a period of two years and seven months
from September 2013.


SCHUMACHER & SEILER: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Charles Handley v. Schumacher & Seiler, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
02182 (D. Md., July 27, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, interest, and reasonable attorney's fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Schumacher & Seiler, Inc. is engaged in the business of selling
bathroom, kitchen, and plumbing supplies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SMKH LLC: Removes "Sobrino" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Augustin Sobrino and other
similarly situated service advisors v. SMKH, LLC d/b/a South Miami
Kia, Case No. 15-011148-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial
Circuit for Miami-Dade County, Florida to the U.S. District Court
Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-22781-CMA to the proceeding.

The case asserts claim for violation of the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

      Rene J. Gonzalez-Llorens, Esq.
      Paul Jonathan Scheck, Esq.
      SHUTTS & BOWEN
      201 S Biscayne Boulevard
      Suite 1500 Miami Center
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 347-7337
      Facsimile: (305) 347-7837
      E-mail: rgl@shutts.com
              pscheck@shutts.com


SOLAZYME INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, reminds
purchasers of Solazyme, Inc. securities from February 27, 2014
through November 5, 2014, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period") including its March 27, 2014 follow-on public stock
offerings ("the Offerings") of the important August 24, 2015 lead
plaintiff deadline in the class action. The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for Solazyme investors under the federal
securities laws.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, during the Class Period, Solazyme
misstated and/or failed or disclose unfavorable news about its new
renewable oils production facility in Moema, Brazil. Solazyme
initially failed to report that the Moema Facility suffered
construction delays stemming from the inadequate availability of
electricity and steam utilities. As a result, the lawsuit claims
that Solazyme was prevented from increasing output to its
previously projected levels. When the true details entered the
market, the complaint asserts that Solazyme's share price declined
and investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
August 24, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members directing the litigation. If you
wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-650.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip
Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com.


STABIL DRILL: "Veillon" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Terry J. Veillon, III v. Stabil Drill Specialties, LLC and
Superior Energy Services, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-02102 (W.D. La.,
July 27, 2015), seeks to recover overtime pay and penalties under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing rental tools for
down-hole assembly usage.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher Leonard Zaunbrecher, Esq.
      BRINEY FORET CORRY LLP
      P.O. Drawer 51367
      Lafayette, LA 70505
      Telephone: (337) 237-4070
      Facsimile: (337) 233-8719
      E-mail: zaunbrecher@brineyforet.com


US HEALTHWORKS: Illegally Obtains Consumer Reports, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Doe, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. U.S. HealthWorks Inc. and Does 1-10 inclusive, Case No. 2:15-
cv-05689 (C.D. Cal., July 27, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to disclose its intent to use and obtain
consumer-background reports as a factor in their decision to hire,
promote, reassign, or terminate employees.

U.S. HealthWorks Inc. is a California corporation that operates
health care clinics throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Devin H. Fok, Esq.
      DHF LAW, P.C.
      234 E. Colorado Blvd., 8th Floor
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Telephone: (310) 430-9933
      Facsimile: (818) 484-2023
      E-mail: devin@devinfoklaw.com

         - and -

      Joshua E. Kim, Esq.
      A NEW WAY OF LIFE REENTRY PROJECT
      9512 S. Central Ave.
      Los Angeles, CA 90002
      Telephone: (323) 563-3575 Ext. 34
      Facsimile: (323) 563-3445
      E-mail: joshua@anewwayoflife.org


VALENCIA HOLDING: Arbitration Agreement Enforceable, Court Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reports that ruling in a
closely watched case, the California Supreme Court made clear on
Aug. 3 that consumers trying to escape arbitration agreements must
do more than show the contract favored the other side.

A six-justice majority reversed the Second District Court of
Appeal, which ruled in 2011 that an arbitration agreement in a
sales contract for a used Mercedes-Benz could not be enforced
because it favored the car dealer.  However, the court stopped
short of adopting a new, possibly more rigorous, standard for
proving unconscionability.

Writing for the majority in Sanchez v. Valencia Holding, Justice
Goodwin Liu said not all one-sided contract provisions can be
struck down.

"Commerce depends on the enforceability, in most instances, of a
duly executed written contract," he wrote.  "A party cannot avoid
a contractual obligation merely by complaining that the deal, in
retrospect, was unfair or a bad bargain."

Justice Ming Chin issued a dissenting and concurring opinion,
agreeing with the majority's conclusion but challenging its
reasoning.

Justice Liu's opinion follows a period of tension between the pro-
arbitration U.S. Supreme Court and the more plaintiff-friendly
California Supreme Court.  The Aug. 3 ruling could signal the two
courts are falling more in sync, said Rex Heinke --
rheinke@akingump.com -- co-head of the Akin Gump Strauss Hauer &
Feld Supreme Court and appellate practice.

"I think there has been a shift," he said, "and the California
Supreme Court is coming more in line with the U.S. Supreme Court."
The decision is a win for Greines, Martin, Stein & Richland
partner Robert Olson, who argued for Southern California car
dealership Valencia Holding.

"I don't think it's going to make it easier for a company to
uphold a truly oppressive arbitration provision," Mr. Olson said.
"But I think it's going to make it easier to uphold most
arbitration provisions, which do have a modicum of fairness."

Rosner, Barry & Babbitt partner Hallen Rosner, an auto fraud
attorney who argued for plaintiffs, did not return a phone call
seeking comment.

In oral arguments, Mr. Rosner claimed his client wasn't given a
chance to read the sale agreement and wasn't alerted to the
arbitration agreement on the back page.  But the justices wrote
that "Valencia was under no obligation to highlight the
arbitration clause of its contract, nor was it required to
specifically call that clause to Sanchez's attention."

Mr. Rosner also argued the agreement was unfairly one-sided
because it stipulated an arbitration award only could be appealed
by either party if the award was $0 or more than $100,000, or if
it included injunctive relief.  The justices were not persuaded.
Appealing a $0 award would favor the buyer just as much as
appealing a $100,000 award would favor the seller, they wrote.

The justices agreed the ability to appeal injunctive relief has a
greater chance of benefiting the dealership, but they found that
one-sided aspect to be merited.

"We find significant Valencia's concern that the scope of an
injunction can extend well beyond the transaction at issue and can
compel a car seller to change its business practices," Justice Liu
wrote.

Lastly, the justices addressed Mr. Rosner's argument that the
agreement would force the buyer to front all costs for an appeal.

"Sanchez does not claim, and no evidence in the record suggests,
that the cost of appellate arbitration filing fees were
unaffordable for him," Justice Liu wrote, pointing out that the
car at issue in this case, a Mercedes-Benz, is a high-end luxury
item. Liu conceded his decision might have been different if the
arbitration agreement instead was part of an employment contract
signed by a worker in need of a job.

Plaintiff Gil Sanchez filed a putative class action against
Valencia Holding alleging the dealership made false
representations about the condition of its cars and charged
customers unauthorized fees.  Valencia moved to compel
arbitration, but the Los Angeles County Superior Court tossed the
dealership's arbitration agreement because it contained a class
waiver, which was prohibited by California law.  Shortly after,
the U.S. Supreme Court, ruling in Concepcion, found the Federal
Arbitration Act requires enforcement of class waivers.  On appeal,
the Second District panel rejected the arbitration agreement on
separate grounds, ruling it was unfairly one-sided in favor of
Valencia.

During oral arguments in May, the justices had discussed whether
they needed to clarify the standard for determining
unconscionability.  In the past the high court has used a variety
of terms to describe such agreements: "unreasonably favorable" to
one party, "unfairly one-sided," "overly harsh," "unduly
oppressive," or "so one-sided as to shock the conscience."

But the justices ultimately decided there was no need to come up
with one overarching term, concluding that the prior expressions
"all mean the same thing."

Judge Chin's dissenting and concurring opinion challenged that
decision.  Using multiple phrases "has generated confusion and
uncertainty," Judge Chin wrote, "because our lower courts have
understood these different formulations as stating a lower
standard for substantive unconscionability than 'shock the
conscience.'"

Justice Liu rejected Judge Chin's view that "shock the conscience"
sets a higher standard than any other language the high court has
used.

"Adopting [Chin's] approach, however, would call into question a
number of cases where we have found substantive unconscionability
under other formulations," Justice Liu wrote.  "We see no reason
to disturb our precedents."

Mr. Heinke said the court may only have temporarily dodged a
bullet by declining to pick one universal phrase.

"What I think is going to be difficult going forward is there
doesn't seem to be any clear rule as to what is or is not
substantively unconscionable," he said.  "It's very much a
provision-by-provision review of the arbitration agreement."
Contact the reporter at mkendall@alm.com.


VICE MEDIA: Faces "Ruiz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerardo Ruiz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Vice Media, Inc., Case No. BC589379 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
July 27, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Vice Media, Inc. operates a youth media company and digital
content creation studio in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Ricasa, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN RICASA
      2341 Westwood Blvd., Suite 7
      Los Angeles, CA 90064
      Telephone: (424) 248-0510
      Facsimile: (424) 204-0652
      E-mail: jricasa@ricasalaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Injury Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 31, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car, SUV
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Seats And Restraints
Units affected: 250000
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015344TC
ID number: 2015344

On certain vehicles, the steering wheel clock spring could become
contaminated with long hair or long fibers which may cause a
displacement of the internal guide loops. When the guide loops are
dragged out of position, they may apply tension to the internal
flat cable and cause it to tear. Should the cable tear, the
electrical connection to the driver's front airbag may be lost,
causing the airbag monitoring indicator light to illuminate.
Failure of the driver's airbag to deploy during a crash (where
deployment is warranted) could increase the risk of personal
injury to the seat occupant. Correction: To be determined.

  Make          Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----          -----      ----------------------
  VOLKSWAGEN    JETTA      2010, 2010
  VOLKSWAGEN    GOLF       2011
  VOLKSWAGEN    PASSAT     2010
  VOLKSWAGEN    GTI        2011
  VOLKSWAGEN    EOS        2011
  VOLKSWAGEN    TIGUAN     2010


VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Injury Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: July 31, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car, SUV
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Seats And Restraints
Units affected: 250000
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015344TC
ID number:2015344

On certain vehicles, the steering wheel clock spring could become
contaminated with long hair or long fibers which may cause a
displacement of the internal guide loops. When the guide loops are
dragged out of position, they may apply tension to the internal
flat cable and cause it to tear. Should the cable tear, the
electrical connection to the driver's front airbag may be lost,
causing the airbag monitoring indicator light to illuminate.
Failure of the driver's airbag to deploy during a crash (where
deployment is warranted) could increase the risk of personal
injury to the seat occupant. Correction: To be determined.

  Make          Model     Model year(s) affected
  ----          -----     ----------------------
  VOLKSWAGEN    JETTA     2010, 2010
  VOLKSWAGEN    GOLF      2011
  VOLKSWAGEN    PASSAT    2010
  VOLKSWAGEN    GTI       2011
  VOLKSWAGEN    EOS       2011
  VOLKSWAGEN    TIGUAN    2010


WASHINGTON: Tardy Toll Payers Given Break From Late Penalties
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Lindblom, writing for The Seattle Times, reported that the
state will offer one-time forgiveness to drivers who rack up civil
penalties of $40 for failing to pay toll bills on time.

After three years of enforcing overdue fees of $40 per unpaid
toll, the state is offering drivers a second chance when they
don't pay their Highway 520 or Tacoma Narrows Bridge tolls on
time.

Thousands of people have faced civil penalties since the current
electronic toll system began at the end of 2011, and the state
estimates there are 300,000 vehicles right now whose drivers owe
unpaid penalties and tolls.

But most people who've already paid their penalty won't get
refunds, the state says.

Under the new law, which took effect Monday, drivers can get their
civil penalties waived one time if they arrange to pay off their
tolls. Or they can establish a Good to Go debit account that
electronically collects the toll using a vehicle-mounted chip, so
there's no need to mail the driver a bill.

It's not really an amnesty. Unlike a temporary reprieve, the new
policy is permanent, for the sake of newcomers who drive through a
toll area and miss a bill, said Patty Rubstello, toll-operations
director for the Washington State Department of Transportation.

"That first time, we want to help them, educate them, collect the
toll, and hopefully that puts them in a better place next time
they use our facilities," she said.

The law, Senate Bill 5481 sponsored by Sen. Andy Hill, R-Redmond,
calls the first-time forgiveness "an educational opportunity."

Another reason is the Interstate 405 expansion, to start late,
where one- or two-person vehicles can pay a toll to use the
uncrowded high-occupancy lanes, saving minutes between Lynnwood
and Bellevue. That means thousands more drivers will face toll
bills. Without some leniency, many drivers would wind up with
civil penalties as they encounter the new toll lanes and rules.

Civil penalties do not apply on Highway 167, where solo drivers
can pay to use the HOV lanes.

Under the new law, the first time a vehicle owner owes penalties,
a simple phone call or visit within 20 days should erase them --
but the toll portion must be paid before the state will renew
license tabs.

The second time, WSDOT will require the motorist to establish an
electronic Good to Go account, or else the civil penalties would
be retained.

If there's a third time, the motorist would have to see a toll-
court judge to ask for the penalties to be waived.

The new law was praised by attorney Catherine Clark, who filed a
class-action lawsuit on behalf of penalized drivers who are
demanding refunds. About 100 people have joined the suit, but
Clark said the real purpose was to change the toll regime on
behalf of the state's motorists.

"I couldn't be more pleased that people are being relieved of a
situation that has caused financial terror for so many people,"
Clark said.

Those 300,000 currently delinquent accounts involve $10.8 million
in unpaid tolls, and $78.7 million more in civil penalties and
administrative fees, Rubstello said.

So the average vehicle owner owes about $300, mostly in penalties.

The new law doesn't apply to vehicle owners who paid off their
bills or lost their challenges in toll court before Feb. 19, said
toll spokeswoman Patty Michaud. However, there is a provision that
allows a judge to review a past case.

It's fairly easy to get in trouble for failure to pay toll bills
within 80 days.

Car owners might move without updating a mailing address in the
state licensing database, so bills don't arrive. They might
misunderstand or ignore the bills. They might fail to stock enough
money in a Good to Go account. Or they might sell a car and be
billed for trips the new owner made.

"We had a customer who had her mail stolen, for months," Rubstello
sa"We were able to help her and get her on her way."

The new law is designed to prevent what happened to Scott
Tourville, of Redmond, two years ago.

He said he changed debit cards but forgot to file the numbers with
Good to Go, and a few dozen 520 trips mushroomed into $2,500 in
tolls and penalties.

He said police pulled him over for expired tabs, after he lost in
toll court and the state put a hold on his car-license renewal.

Tourville said he finally sold personal items to pay off the bill,
and still crosses the bridge four days a week.

"I think it's a corrupt system. They're just trying to get money
out of people. But I've paid off my account. It's behind me. Now I
watch it like a hawk," he said.

"I'd be really happy for people to not have to go through what I
went through."


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Judge Rejects EPA Pre-emption Claim in Washer Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
a class action claiming Whirlpool Corp. falsely labeled appliances
with the Energy Star insignia is not pre-empted by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's failure to impose penalties in
the case, a federal judge in Newark has ruled.

The EPA's decision not to order Whirlpool to compensate buyers of
the mislabeled washing machines does not rise to the level of a
federal law that can be given pre-emptive effect, U.S. District
Judge Kevin McNulty of the District of New Jersey ruled in Dzielak
v. Whirlpool.

While the judge denied motions to dismiss state-law consumer fraud
and breach of warranty claims, he granted dismissal of a claim
under the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act because the act does
not apply to warranties that are governed by other federal laws.
He also granted dismissal of a claim for unjust enrichment against
Whirlpool, since the plaintiffs bought their appliances at various
retailers that are co-defendants in the case, rather than from the
manufacturer.

The U.S. Department of Energy, which runs the Energy Star program
in conjunction with the EPA, determined in May 2012 that three
models of Maytag washers, made by Whirlpool, did not comply with
the program's efficiency standards.  The plaintiffs claim the EPA
allowed Whirlpool to stop making the mislabeled washing machines,
but people who bought those models, who paid more based on the
Energy Star status, were not notified of their noncompliance, the
suit claims.

The plaintiffs sued Whirlpool as well as five retailers selling
the appliances-Lowe's, The Home Depot, Sears Holdings Corp., Fry's
Electronics and Appliance Recycling Centers of America.

In rejecting the defendants' pre-emption claim, Judge McNulty said
the case does not "involve the sort of formalized agency action
that is capable of pre-empting a state law."

Federal agencies can take actions that pre-empt state law, but not
every agency action holds such weight, Judge McNulty said.
Actions by federal agencies can pre-empt state law, particularly
where formal notice-and-comment rulemaking is involved, or where
an adjudication creates binding rules, Judge McNulty said.  But
less formal actions require case-by-case analysis, examining
whether the agency's action "attained a level of fairness and
deliberation that suggests Congress intended it to constitute a
pronouncement of federal law."  On the other hand, he said,
informal agency proceedings should not have pre-emptive effect
where they lack "fairness and deliberation."

Whirlpool argued that the lack of a penalty represented the EPA's
balancing of three objectives: keeping participation in the Energy
Star program inexpensive, protecting integrity of the Energy Star
logo, and treating parties fairly.  But Judge McNulty said there
was no evidence to support the claim that the EPA's inaction
reflects such an analysis.  The agency is not required to weigh
such factors and render a decision, and it can do nothing without
triggering an obligation to explain itself, he said.

"That is a far cry from the kind of pervasive regulatory regime
that would displace state law," the judge said.

Judge McNulty dismissed the plaintiffs' Magnuson-Moss warranty
count based on case law finding that statute is pre-empted by the
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in suits claiming that
consumer products were sold with misleading labels.  While the
FDCA is mandatory and participating in the Energy Star program is
voluntary, the specific criteria for a product to earn the Energy
Star logo can be considered a warranty and therefore the contents
of that warranty are governed by federal law, Judge McNulty said.

Magnuson-Moss claims in the case were dismissed without prejudice
to permit the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint addressing
the defects in the plaintiffs' theory of liability, Judge McNulty
said.

David Kott -- dkott@mccarter.com -- of McCarter & English in
Newark, representing the defendants, did not return a call about
the case.  Yitzchak Kopel -- ykopel@bursor.com -- of Bursor &
Fisher in New York and Lindsey Taylor of Carella, Byrne, Cecchi,
Olstein, Brody & Agnello in Roseland, representing the plaintiffs,
also did not return calls.


YINGLI GREEN: Goldberg Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Goldberg Law PC announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California against Yingli Green Energy Holding Co. Ltd. (NYSE:
YGE) ("Yingli" or the "Company"), for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws. Investors who purchased shares between
March 18, 2014 and May 15, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
have until July 27, 2015 to serve as lead plaintiff in the class
action.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss during the Class
Period, we advise you to contact Michael Goldberg or Brian Schall,
of Goldberg Law PC, 13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Suite 1404, Marina Del
Rey, CA 90292, at 800-977-7401, to discuss your rights without
cost to you. You can also reach us through the firm's website at
http://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or by email at
info@goldberglawpc.com.

The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

Yingli is a supplier of vertically integrated photovoltaic (PV)
modules based in the People's Republic of China. According to the
complaint, the Company made false and/or misleading statements and
failed to disclose: (1) that the Company was inappropriately
recognizing revenue; (2) that the Company had no reasonable
prospects to collect on certain accounts receivable based on
historical customer conduct; (3) that the Company was no longer
able to borrow from commercial banks to fund its operations; (4)
that Yingli's inability to raise additional capital or borrow
funds from commercial banks threatened the Company's ability to
continue as a going concern; and, (5) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' statements about Yingli's business,
operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis. When the truth emerged, the stock dropped
harming investors.

If you have any questions concerning your legal rights in this
case, please immediately contact Goldberg Law PC at 800-977-7401,
or visit our website at http://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or email us
at info@goldberglawpc.com.

Goldberg Law PC represents shareholders around the world and
specializes in securities class actions and shareholder rights
litigation.


* FCRA Class Action Suits Rise Sharply in June 2015
---------------------------------------------------
Thomas Aheam, writing for ESR Check, reported that Fair Credit
reporting Act (FCRA) class action lawsuits rose 26.8 percent from
May 2015 to June 2015, and FCRA class action lawsuits rose 67.4
percent in June 2015 over June 2014, according Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau (CFPB) Complaint Statistics available on the
WebRecon LLC website.

CFPB Complaint Statistics show 298 FCRA class action lawsuits were
filed between June 1, 2015 and June 30, 2015 while 235 FCRA class
action lawsuits were filed between May 1, 2015 and May 31, 2015, a
rise of 26.8 percent rise from May 2015 to June 2015.

CFPB Complaint Statistics reveal that 178 FCRA class action
lawsuits were filed between June 1, 2014 and June 30, 2014 while
298 FCRA class action lawsuits were filed between June 1, 2015 and
June 30, 2015, a rise of 67.4 percent rise from June 2014 to June
2015.

Year to Date (YTD), FCRA class action lawsuits were up 22.7
percent with 1514 filed from January 2015 to June 2015 and 1234
filed from January 2014 to June 2014. The complete CFPB Complaint
Statistics are at http://dev.webrecon.com/debt-collection-
litigation-cfpb-complaint-statistics-june-2015/


* U.S. Securities Class Actions Against Chinese Companies Rise
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Zhang and Zoe Ferguson, writing for The Asian Lawyer, report
that Chinese companies were the biggest foreign target of U.S.
securities class actions during the first half of 2015, a new
study finds.

A report released on July 30 by litigation research group
Cornerstone Research and Stanford Law School Securities Class
Action Clearinghouse found that just over half of the 20
securities litigation cases filed in the first two quarters this
year were against Asian companies, almost all of them Chinese.

The increase in filings against Asian companies reflects a general
trend of more U.S. securities class actions being filed against
foreign issuers.  In the first half of 2015, cases against foreign
issuers accounts for 24 percent of 85 filings, up from 20 percent
in 2014.  This year foreign issuers, which account for about 18
percent of U.S.-listed companies, were more likely to be sued in
shareholder class actions than U.S.-based issuers, the report
found.

In April, The Asian Lawyer reported that several newly listed
Chinese companies, such as ecommerce giant Alibaba Group Holdings
Ltd., internet cosmetics seller Jumei International Holding Ltd.,
online retailer LightInTheBox Holdings Co. Ltd. and mobile gaming
company iDreamSky Technology Ltd., have all been sued by
shareholders over investment losses.  More cases have been filed
since the publication of the article.  Video streaming site Youku
Toudou Inc., retailer Vipshop Holdings, software developer Xunlei
Ltd. and financial data provider China Finance Online Co. Ltd.-all
U.S.-listed-have been since sued in securities class actions.

This spate of cases is not the first time Chinese issuers have
faced a wave of shareholder litigation in the U.S. As
Cornerstone's report points out, securities class actions against
Chinese companies that went public via reverse merger -- also
known as backdoor listing, allowing them to bypass a normal
disclosure and auditing process -- peaked at 31 in 2011.  That
year, a reverse-merger Toronto-listed Chinese forestry company,
Sino Forest Corp., was accused by short seller Muddy Waters
Research of inflating assets and earnings.  The allegations led to
Sino Forest's bankruptcy in 2012 and triggered a flurry of
government investigations and shareholder lawsuits against U.S.-
listed Chinese companies.

Since then, filings against Chinese reverse-merger companies have
decreased, dropping to three last year, as more Chinese issuers --
mostly internet and technology companies -- have chosen to go
through a conventional initial public offering to list on U.S.
exchanges.  Indeed, the recent increase in class actions against
Chinese issuers follows a surge of U.S. IPOs by Chinese companies
in the past two years.  In the 18 months starting June 2013, a
total of 20 Chinese companies IPOed on either the New York Stock
Exchange or Nasdaq.  That compares to 16 in the previous 30
months.

Lawyers differentiate the current Chinese targets of shareholder
litigation from the reverse takeover issuers, noting that
companies such as Alibaba have been sued because their prices fell
below investors' high expectations, not because of questionable
business operations.

"This could be viewed as an indication that Chinese companies have
entered a more 'mature' phase of development where they are
essentially no different than other listed companies," said
Brian Burke -- brian.burke@shearman.com -- a Hong Kong-based
disputes partner at Shearman & Sterling.



                            *********

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  * * *