CAR_Public/150812.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, August 12, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 160


                            Headlines


15TH STREET CUT: "Mason" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
850 INVESTORS: Sued Over Failure to Provide Tenants RLTO Summary
ABBOTT LABS: Can File Motion to Dismiss Similac Class Action
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: BC Court Denies Cert. to Sibutramine Suit
ADAPTIVE MARKETING: Sued in Cal. Over Unauthorized Fund Transfer

ADIDAS: Faces Class Action Over Defective Springblade Shoe
ALAMEDA, CA: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Taxing on Phone Bills
ALLIANCE TANK: Faces "Bravo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ALLIED INTERSTATE: Suit Alleges Debt Collection Violation
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "McMahon" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Park" Suit Over Air Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Sued Over Unlawful Debt Collection Policies
APOLLO EDUCATION: 2 Ex-University of Phoenix Employees File Suit
APOLLO EDUCATION: Motion to Dismiss "Paredes" Case Still Pending
APOLLO EDUCATION: Faces "Azich" Class Action in E.D. Cal.

APOLLO EDUCATION: Faces Barton and Abdullah Suit in N.D. Cal.
APOLLO EDUCATION: Final Approval Hearing Held in Teamsters Case
APOLLO EDUCATION: "Tandy" Case Voluntarily Dismissed
APOLLO EDUCATION: "Gonzalez" Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
ARCH RESOURCES: 9th Cir. Sends Wage-and-Hour Suit to State Court

ARM & HAMMER: Sept. 2 Claims Filing Deadline in Class Settlement
AWM FINANCIAL: Faces "Dees" Suit in Ariz. Over FDCPA Violation
BANGLADESH MEDICAL: Suit Seeks to Enjoin Officers' Election
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Treasury Securities-Price Fixing
BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI: Scott+Scott Files 2nd Amended Complaint

BARCLAYS BANK: "Hale" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
BARNES & NOBLE: Parties in "Nguyen" Case Engaging in Discovery
BARNES & NOBLE: Motion to Dismiss PIN Pad Litigation Pending
BARNES & NOBLE: Appeal in "Lina" Class Suit Ongoing
BARNES & NOBLE: Proceedings in "Jones" Stayed

BARNES & NOBLE: To Appeal Remand Order in "Carag" Case
BARNES & NOBLE: Settlement in "Trimmer" Case Approved
BILT PETROLEUM: "Mudun Kotuwage" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
BLUE DIAMOND: Faces Class Action Over Almond Milk Product Labels
BOOKS-A-MILLION: Faces "Vance" Suit Over Proposed Family Merger

CAIRO, GA: Settles Probation Company Suit
CAMPBELL-EWALD CO: Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in TCPA Case
CASEY'S GENERAL: Fairness Hearing in "Hot Fuel" Case Held
CASEY'S GENERAL: To Defend Against FCRA Action in Missouri
CBM INC: "Estrada" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages

CENTENE CORPORATION: Faces "Larkin" Suit Over Health Net Merger
CHC GROUP: Faces Two Securities Lawsuits in New York Courts
CHEETAH'S: Ex-Strippers Obtain Class Certification in Labor Suit
CHINA FINANCE: Goldberg Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
CHRISTIE'S CABARET: Strippers Sue Over Unfair Pay Practices

COMMAND SECURITY: Trial Date Set for March 2016
COMMERCIAL METALS: No Motion Practice, Discovery Yet in Lawsuit
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces "Ellzey" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
CONNECTICUT: Non-Union State Employees Wins Class Suit
CREDICO LLC: "Vasto" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages

CVS HEALTH: Hausfeld & Stein Mitchell File Class Action in Calif.
DCOMM INC: "Neill" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
DEVINE & SON: Faces "Saunders" Suit for Failure to Pay Min. Wage
DLM STATUTORY: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Stotler" Suit Claims
EBAY: Sellers May Get Refunds from Recurring Fees

EXCALIBUR SPECIAL: Ontario Court Affirms Denial of Certification
FAMILY DOLLAR: 10 Plaintiffs Remain in in North Carolina MDL
FAMILY DOLLAR: Settlement Payments in "Hegab" Case Have Been Made
FAMILY DOLLAR: 3rd Circuit Affirms Decision in "Itterly" Case
FAMILY DOLLAR: Awaits Court Ruling in "Premo" Case

FAMILY DOLLAR: Briefing Done in "Steingruber" Case Dismissal Bid
FAMILY DOLLAR: Tendered "Scott" Case to Insurer
FAMILY DOLLAR: To Defend Against 3 Suits Over Dollar Tree Merger
FAMILY DOLLAR: Working to Evaluate Allegations in "Moore" Action
FRESHPOINT OF SOUTH: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

GOOGLE INC: Scores Win in Android Users' Class Suit
HARVEST NATURAL: Filed Motions to Dismiss Class Actions
HAUPPAUGE BAGEL: Faces "Recarte" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
HERBALIFE: Former Distributors Ask Judge to Reconsider Decision
HEWLETT PACKARD: Settlement in Cunningham/Steavens Approved

HEWLETT PACKARD: Parties in "Karlbom" Engaged in Discovery
HEWLETT PACKARD: Plaintiffs in "Benedict" File Class Cert. Bid
HEWLETT PACKARD: Approval Hearing Held in Securities Case Deal
HEWLETT PACKARD: 2nd Amended Complaint in ERISA Case Dismissed
HOMEJOY INC: "Pickle" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations

HOMELAND PATROL: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
HONDA MOTOR: Product Recall Cases Transferred to Florida
HSBC BANK: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Undisclosed Maintenance Fee
ILLINIOS: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Richmond-Davis Suit
IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Faces "Khaimov" Suit Over FDCPA Violation

INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Settles N.Y. Securities Class Action
JOHN DOE CORP: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
JOHN WM: Falsely Marketed Snack Products, "Jones" Suit Claims
KETTLE: Class Suit Settlement Over Chips Misleading Labels
KNOWLES CORP: Sept. 15 Trial Set in Shareholder Case v. Audience

LENOVO GROUP: Firms Brawl Over Lead Counsel Slots in MDL
LIBERTY TAX: Parties in ERC Class Action Reached Settlement
LIBERTY TAX: TCPA Case Settlement Remains Subject to Conditions
LEVY ACQUISITION: Reached Settlement of "Tomasulo" Claims
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Class Suit Over Top Executives' Exit

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Pickle" Suit Alleges Defective Product
MAGNUM HUNTER: Dismissal of Securities Case Affirmed
MARTHA STEWART: Faces "Seader" Suit Over Sequential Merger Plans
MASTER DOOR: Removes "Velunza" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
MATTY'S BAR: "Olivares" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

MDC PARTNERS: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach
MORGANS HOTEL: Illegally Retains Workers Gratuities, Suit Claims
NAT'L HOCKEY: Commissioner Gives Deposition in Concussion Suit
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Vincent Wong Firm Files Securities Suit

NITRO FLUIDS: "Sheard" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Deal Has Final Approval
PAIN THERAPEUTICS: Court Denied Motion for Summary Judgment
PATH MEDICAL: "Marin" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
PC ADVANTAGE: "Camilleri" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

PEARCE & DURICK: Faces Class Suit Over Role in Ponzi Scheme
PREMIUM RETAIL: Faces "Albanez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PRESSURE CONTROL: "Powell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
RAM'S HEAD: Ex-Pres. Gets 2-Year Jail Over Bathroom Recordings
RECEPTOS INC: Faces "Rockaway" Suit Over Proposed Celgene Merger

RHEEM MANUFACTURING: Sued Over Defective HVAC Systems
RK LIQUORS: Faces "Villalobos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Levi Korinsky Files Securities Suit
SAKUMA BROTHERS: Farmworkers Entitled to Break Pay
SIGNAL INT'L: Agreed to Pay $20MM in Trafficking Suits, Docs Say

SOLARWINDS INC: GPM Files Securities Class Action in Texas
SPOKEO INC: Media, Tech Cos. ask SCOTUS to Restrict Class Suits
STARKIST CO: $12MM Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Approval
STATE FARM: 5th Circ. Upholds Verdict in Whistleblower Suit
TEXAS: Judge Tosses Red-Light Camera Suits Against 53 Cities

TOP HANDS: "Frisco" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Compensation
UBER: Faces Class Suit Over False Advertising
UCLA HEALTH: Faces "Ortiz" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
VASCO DATA: Sued in Illinois Over Misleading Financial Reports
W2007 GRACE: Awaits Final Approval of Class Action Stipulation

WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Reached Settlement in "Freedman" Case
WILLOWTOWN INC: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
UNITED STATES: Oklahoma Schools Lose Contraception Coverage Case
VICTORIA, AU: 2013 Bushfire Victims File Class Suit
X-L FOODS: Settlement Worked Out in 2012 E. Coli Outbreak Suit


                            *********


15TH STREET CUT: "Mason" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hilton Mason, and others similarly-situated v. 15th Street Cut
Rate Liquors LLC, Ida Gonzalez and Steve Gonzalez, Case No. 8:15-
cv-01719 (M.D. Fla., July 23, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate a liquor store in Tampa, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donna V. Smith, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
      1110 North Florida Ave., Suite 300
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Tel: (813) 224-0431
      Fax: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: dsmith@wfclaw.com


850 INVESTORS: Sued Over Failure to Provide Tenants RLTO Summary
----------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Kozin, individually and as representative of a class of
similarly situated persons v. 850 Investors LLC and Seneca
Property and Asset Mgmt., LLC, Case No. 2015-CH-11396 (Ill. Cir.
Ct., July 28, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to provide Chicago tenants the Residential Landlord and Tenant
Ordinance (RLTO) Summary as made for inspection and copying by the
City of Chicago Commissioner of Department of Buildings, when
rental agreements are initially offered and renewed.

850 Investors LLC operates a residential apartment "complex"
containing approximately 500 residential rental dwelling units
located at 850 N. Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60611.

Seneca Property and Asset Mgmt., LLC prepares and offers rental
agreements and renewals to prospective tenants and tenants, on
behalf of Defendant owners.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron Krolik, Esq.
      AARON KROLIK LAW OFFICE, P.C.
      225 W. Washington St., Suite 2200
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 924-0278
      Facsimile: (312) 650-8241


ABBOTT LABS: Can File Motion to Dismiss Similac Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federal
judge is allowing Abbott Laboratories to file a motion to dismiss
a class action lawsuit filed in May over its Similac Advance
Organic Infant Formula.

In June, attorneys at Winston & Straw asked U.S. District Judge
Pamela Chen, of the Eastern District of New York, for permission
to file its dismissal motion.  It listed eight arguments it
anticipates making.

The lawsuit claims 26 of the ingredients in the organic formulas
are prohibited in organic foods.  It claims the ingredients are
"irradiated substances, synthetic compounds, or produced from
hazardous substances."

After the plaintiffs' attorneys, led by Todd Garber of Finkelstein
Blankinship in White Plains, N.Y., wrote that Abbott's request to
file the motion should be denied, Chen sided with Abbott
Laboratories at a conference on July 9.

An amended complaint was to be filed Thursday, Aug. 6, and the
motion to dismiss it is due Aug. 27.

Arguments that Abbott Laboratories are planning are:

   -- Federal law preempts all of the plaintiffs' claims because
an independent organic certifier acting as an agent for the U.S.
Department of Agriculture has certified that the formula qualifies
as organic under federal law;

   -- Federal law allows the ingredients that are the subject of
the plaintiffs' lawsuit;

   -- The Department of Agriculture has primary jurisdiction over
all of the plaintiffs' claims;

   -- Plaintiffs can't complain they were tricked into buying
products with ingredients they didn't want because the ingredients
were listed on the labels of the products;

   -- The New York consumer fraud claim fails because Abbott
Laboratories has complied with federal regulations and because
plaintiffs can't claim they would not have purchased the product
but for the alleged deception;

   -- The express warranty count does not state a claim because
courts have held that labels are not warranties;

   -- The claim for unjust enrichment duplicates and rehashes
other claims; and

   -- None of the claims are pleaded with particularity.

"The complaint contains just one paragraph about each plaintiff,
with only the bare factual detail that is set out at the beginning
of this letter," the letter says.

"Plaintiffs do not allege the required who, what, when, where and
how of the supposed fraudulent conduct."

The plaintiffs' letter to Chen listed their counter-arguments in
detail.  They say federal law doesn't preempt their claims because
the non-agricultural ingredients that they are challenging are not
included on the USDA's "National List."

"(M)any of Abbott's ingredient were petitioned to be added to the
National List, and explicitly refused by the USDA, stressing yet
again that it is not allowed in organic infant formula," the
plaintiffs wrote.

Those ingredients are taurine, l-carnitine, beta-carotene,
ascorbyl palmitate, lycopene, lutein and nucleotides.

Also, the plaintiffs say Abbott's claim that it complied with
federal regulations is "disingenuous."


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: BC Court Denies Cert. to Sibutramine Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michel Gagne, Esq. -- mgagne@mccarthy.ca -- Emmanuelle Poupart,
Esq. -- epoupart@mccarthy.ca -- Julie-Martine Loranger, Esq. --
jmloranger@mccarthy.ca -- Steeves Bujold, Esq. --
sbujold@mccarthy.ca -- and Andree-Anne Labbe, Esq. --
aalabbe@mccarthy.ca -- at McCarthy Tetrault, in an article for
Mondaq, said that in Charlton v. Abbott Laboratories, Ltd., 2015
BCCA 26, the Court of Appeal for British Columbia overturned
certification of a class action on behalf of all Canadian
consumers of sibutramine, a weight-loss drug.

It was alleged that sibutramine increased the risk of
cardiovascular events.

The Plaintiffs' evidence on general causation was a trial that had
demonstrated that sibutramine increased risks of cardiovascular
events on patient with pre-existing cardiovascular disease.

However, evidence was adduced that sibutramine ought not be
prescribed to patients with such pre-existing diseases. Therefore,
the Appellants pleaded that there was no evidence that sibutramine
causes or contributes to cardiovascular events among class
members, i.e. patients for whom it should have been prescribed and
to whom it was marketed.

The Court of Appeal accepted the argument that the Plaintiffs had
failed to adduce some evidence of a workable methodology for how
the proposed common issue of general causation could be resolved
on a class-wide basis. The Court also accepted the argument that
the remaining common issues were heavily dependent on the general
causation common issue, and thus could not be resolved on a class-
wide basis either.

Charlton is the first class action involving a prescription drug
that has been denied certification in British Columbia. This case
provides defendants with an important roadmap for how to defeat
the certification of pharmaceutical class actions in common law
provinces.


ADAPTIVE MARKETING: Sued in Cal. Over Unauthorized Fund Transfer
----------------------------------------------------------------
Virginia Peart, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Adaptive Marketing LLC, and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 5:15-cv-01514-FMO-AJW (C.D.
Cal., July 28, 2015), is an action for damages as a result of the
Defendants' illegal actions of debiting the Plaintiff's and also
the putative Class members' bank accounts on a recurring basis
without obtaining a written authorization signed or similarly
authenticated for preauthorized electronic fund transfers from
their accounts.

Adaptive Marketing LLC operates a marketing services company in
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Suren N. Weerasuriya, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
              sweerasuriya@attorneysforconsumers.com


ADIDAS: Faces Class Action Over Defective Springblade Shoe
----------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Rex Brown, writing for New York Daily News, reports that a
new class action lawsuit charges that Adidas released a defective
running shoe that splits in the middle after minimal use.

The Springblade shoe's debut in 2013 was accompanied by an
aggressive marketing campaign billing it as the next step in
running, papers charge.

The shoe cost around $200 and was the product of six years of
development, according to documents. But the bouncy design had a
seam in the middle that frequently ripped from the sole, papers
charge.

Edward Ruffo, of Westchester, who filed the suit, claims he bought
"several" pairs of the Springblade for use on a treadmill, and
that each one fell apart the same way.

A separate pair he used outdoors "failed after a single use,"
papers charge. He says Adidas failed to respond to his demands for
a refund.

Documents cite customer reviews online indicating Ruffo was far
from the only one to have the problem.

"It's such an obvious defect.  This has been going on all over the
place," Mr. Ruffo's attorney Tom Giuffra said.

The suit seeks damages to be determined at trial.

An Adidas spokesman didn't respond to a request for comment.


ALAMEDA, CA: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Taxing on Phone Bills
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Alameda is illegally taxing its citizens' cellphone bills at
7.5 percent, an irate resident claims in a class action.

Lead plaintiff Clyde Grossman claims the city charges a utility
users tax on services that were recently made nontaxable, such as
communications billed at rates that do not vary with distance and
transmission time.

Since the city adopted the federal excise tax definition of
taxable telephone services in 2002, Grossman says, five federal
appellate courts have held that "a telephonic communication for
which there is a toll charge that varies with elapsed transmission
time and not distance (time-only service) is not taxable toll
telephone service."

The city's utility-users tax should not apply to mobile phone
services or charges for "bundled service," according to the
complaint. But the city continues to add a 7.5 percent tax to
taxpayers' monthly cell phone bills, Grossman says.

He sued the city in Alameda County Court. Grossman claims that
after 2006 the city's utility-users tax on telephone services not
based on time and distance has been "illegal and unlawful."

He claims that taxpayers were unaware that the tax was illegal
because the city represented it as proper. He says he "reasonably
relied upon the city's misrepresentations and omissions by paying
the properly imposed tax from 2006 to present," and that "the
city's continued imposition and collection of the (tax) is an
ongoing violation, constituting a new violation upon each
collection."

He seeks class certification, refunds of all the improperly
collected taxes, with interest, and an injunction against it.

He is represented by Thomas Girardi, with Girardi Keese in Los
Angeles.

Neither Girardi nor Alameda's city attorney could be reached for
comment.

Alameda, pop. 76,000, is on an island in the East Bay, closer to
Oakland than San Francisco.


ALLIANCE TANK: Faces "Bravo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eliseo Valeriano Cruz Bravo a/k/a Valeriano Bravo, on behalf of
himself and all other similarly situated v. Alliance Tank
Fabricators, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-02176 (S.D. Tex., July 29,
2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Alliance Tank Fabricators, LLC is engaged in the business of
welding and fabricating oil drums and other products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Faheem NazarAli Prasla, Esq.
      PRASLA LAW FIRM, PLLC
      6200 Savoy Drive, Suite 625
      Houston, TX 77036
      Telephone: (713) 400-2444
      Facsimile: (713) 400-2448
      E-mail: faheem@praslalaw.com

         - and -

      Zulfiqar N. Prasla, Esq.
      PRASLA LAW FIRM, PLLC
      6200 Savoy Drive, Ste 625
      Houston, TX 77036
      Telephone: (713) 400-2444
      E-mail: ZNP@praslalaw.com


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Suit Alleges Debt Collection Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Annemarie Biolsi, and all others similarly-situated v. Allied
Interstate LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01587 (E.D. Cal., July 23, 2015),
seeks statutory damages, actual damages, and injunctive relief
pursuant to the Federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the
Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Rosenthal
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Defendant uses any instrumentality of interstate commerce or
the mails in its business, the principal purpose of which is the
collection of any debts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Tel: (877) 206-4741
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "McMahon" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer M. McMahon and Edward C. Phillips, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. American Airlines
Group Inc., American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc.,
Southwest Airlines Co., United Continental Holdings Inc., and
United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-06601 (N.D. Ill., July 28,
2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged combination, agreement
and conspiracy to unlawfully fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize
the price of domestic airfare in the United States.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven A. Hart, Esq.
      Robert J. McLaughlin, Esq.
      Brian H. Eldridge, Esq.
      SEGAL McCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY, LTD.
      233 South Wacker Drive
      Willis Tower-Suite 5500
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 645-7800
      Facsimile: (312) 645-7711
      E-mail: shart@smsm.com
              rmclaughlin@smsm.com
              beldridge@smsm.com

         - and -

      W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
      Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
      100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
              hmsilton@locklaw.com

         - and -

      Dario de Ghetaldi, Esq.
      Amanda L. Riddle, Esq.
      Jennifer E. McGuire, Esq.
      COREY, LUZAICH, DE GHETALDI, NASTARI & RIDDLE LLP
      700 El Camino Real, P.O. Box 669
      Millbrae, CA 94030
      Telephone: (650) 871-5666
      Facsimile: (650) 871-4144
      E-mail: deg@coreylaw.com
              alr@coreylaw.com
              jem@coreylaw.com

         - and -

      Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq.
      PRITZKER LEVINE LLP
      180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1390
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (415) 692-0772, Ext. 1001
      Direct: (415) 805-8532
      Facsimile: (415) 366-6110
      E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlcvine.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Park" Suit Over Air Ticket-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Park, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. American Airlines, Inc., Air Lines, Inc., Southwest
Airlines Co. and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-03467-CRB
(N.D. Cal., July 28, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged
unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to reduce the
supply of seats in order to artificially inflate, raise, maintain
and stabilize the price of domestic airfare in the United States.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack W. Lee, Esq.
      Derek G. Howard, Esq.
      Aron K. Liang, Esq.
      Sean Tamura-Sato, Esq.
      MINAMI TAMAKI, LLP
      360 Post Street, 8th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Telephone: (415) 788-9000
      Facsimile: (415) 398-3887
      E-mail: jlee@minamitamaki.com
              dhoward@minamitamaki.com
              aliang@minamitamaki.com
              seant@minamitamaki.om


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Sued Over Unlawful Debt Collection Policies
-------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Diresta, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. American Express Bank, FSB  and American
Express Company, Case No. 157806/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., July 29,
2015), arises from the Defendants' illegal and deceptive business
practices in attempting to collect credit card debt from
individuals using false information and documentation.

The Defendants operate a financial services company headquartered
in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Timothy DiResta, Esq.
      30 W. Park Ave., Suite 301
      Long Beach, NY 11561
      Telephone: (516) 432-0150
      Facsimile: (516) 345.1678
      E-mail: timothydiresta@optimum.net


APOLLO EDUCATION: 2 Ex-University of Phoenix Employees File Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Education Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended May 31, 2015, that two former
University of Phoenix employees filed on June 9, 2015, an action
in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County Kentucky alleging that
they were wrongfully terminated from their positions with the
University in violation of Kentucky and federal law.

In this action, which is captioned Aldrich et al. v. The
University of Phoenix, 15-C-2839 (Jefferson Cty. Circuit Court),
plaintiffs also allege that the University violated Kentucky wage
and hour law by failing to pay plaintiffs overtime and other
required wages, and in connection with these wage and hour claims,
they seek to represent a class of plaintiffs consisting of all
individuals employed by the University within the past five years
who performed a substantial part of their job duties in Kentucky.
Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on their own behalf in
connection with their alleged wrongful termination and past due
wages, overtime compensation and other relief on behalf of the
class in connection with the wage and hour claims.

"Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the
outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based
on the information available to us at present, we cannot
reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action and,
accordingly, we have not accrued any liability associated with
this action," the Company said.


APOLLO EDUCATION: Motion to Dismiss "Paredes" Case Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Education Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended May 31, 2015, that the Company's motion
to dismiss the newly filed complaint in the case filed by Ashley
Paredes remains pending.

On November 13, 2014, Ashley Paredes filed a class action
complaint against University of Phoenix and Apollo Education
Group, Inc. alleging unfair and deceptive business practices in
violation of California law. Captioned Paredes v. The University
of Phoenix, Inc., the action was initially filed in California
Superior Court in San Bernadino County, but was subsequently
removed to Federal District Court in the Central District of
California. The complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of
the class of individuals who enrolled in the University's
educational programs for Psychology, Education, Nursing, Health
Administration and Criminal Justice, and Technology from November
10, 2011 through November 10, 2014.

The complaint alleges that the University misled class members
regarding transferability of credits earned at the University and
by promising or guaranteeing employment upon completion of
studies. The complaint seeks to recover damages on behalf of
plaintiff and other members of the class.

On March 23, 2015, the district court granted our motion to
dismiss plaintiff's claims, but granted plaintiff leave to file an
amended complaint, which she filed on April 24, 2015.

"On May 11, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's newly
filed complaint, and that motion remains pending before the
district court," the Company said.

"Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the
outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based
on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably
estimate a range of loss for this action and, accordingly, we have
not accrued any liability associated with this action," the
Company said.


APOLLO EDUCATION: Faces "Azich" Class Action in E.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Education Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended May 31, 2015, that George Azich filed
on May 27, 2015, a class action lawsuit, Azich v. The University
of Phoenix, 2:15-at-616 (E.D. Cal.) in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California, alleging that
University of Phoenix violated the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act by contacting class members on their cellular telephones using
automated dialing technology without obtaining their express
written consent. The complaint seeks to recover damages on behalf
of plaintiff and other members of the putative class.

"Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the
outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based
on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably
estimate a range of loss for this action and, accordingly, we have
not accrued any liability associated with this action," the
Company said.


APOLLO EDUCATION: Faces Barton and Abdullah Suit in N.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Education Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended May 31, 2015, that Thomas Barton and
Leon Abdullah filed on February 28, 2015, a class action
complaint, Barton et al. v. The University of Phoenix, 1:15-cv-
939-NJV (N.D. Cal.) against University of Phoenix in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California. The
complaint alleges that University of Phoenix violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by contacting plaintiffs on
their cellular telephones using automated dialing technology
without their express written consent. The complaint seeks to
recover damages on behalf of plaintiffs and other members of the
putative class.

"Because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the
outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point. Based
on information available to us at present, we cannot reasonably
estimate a range of loss for this action and, accordingly, we have
not accrued any liability associated with this action," the
Company said.


APOLLO EDUCATION: Final Approval Hearing Held in Teamsters Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Education Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended May 31, 2015, that a final approval
hearing for the settlement was scheduled for July 28, 2015, in the
case filed by Teamsters Local 617 Pension and Welfare Funds.

On November 2, 2006, the Teamsters Local 617 Pension and Welfare
Funds filed a class action complaint alleging that we and certain
of our current and former directors and officers violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint is entitled
Teamsters Local 617 Pension & Welfare Funds v. Apollo Group, Inc.
et al., Case Number 06-cv-02674-RCB.

On March 31, 2011, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona dismissed the case with prejudice and entered judgment in
our favor. Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of this
ruling, and the Court denied this motion on April 2, 2012.

On April 27, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. During the
pendency of this appeal, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to settle this matter and, at the request of the
parties, the Ninth Circuit issued an order staying the appeal on
April 30, 2014.

On February 19, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking the
preliminary approval of the settlement, which the Court granted on
April 14, 2015. A final approval hearing for the settlement is
scheduled for July 28, 2015.

"We placed an immaterial settlement amount in a common fund
account during the third quarter of fiscal year 2015, which is
included in restricted cash and cash equivalents on our Condensed
Consolidated Balance Sheets as of May 31, 2015. The settlement is
subject to final court approval and we intend to pursue
reimbursement of the settlement amount from our insurance
carriers, although the outcome of any such recovery efforts is
uncertain at this point," the Company said.


APOLLO EDUCATION: "Tandy" Case Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------
Apollo Education Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended May 31, 2015, that Carmin Tandy, who
was previously employed as a faculty member at University of
Phoenix, filed on December 24, 2014, a class action complaint
against Apollo Education Group, Inc. and University of Phoenix
alleging violations of the California Labor Code pertaining to the
manner in which University of Phoenix faculty in California were
compensated. Captioned Tandy v. Apollo Education Group, Inc., et
al., the action was initially filed in California Superior Court
in San Diego County, but was subsequently removed to Federal
District Court in the Southern District of California.  On
February 25, 2015, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her complaint.


APOLLO EDUCATION: "Gonzalez" Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apollo Education Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended May 31, 2015, that Mundy Gonzalez filed
on September 25, 2014, a class action complaint against University
of Phoenix alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"). Captioned Gonzalez v. The University of
Phoenix, 3:14-cv-02279, the action was filed in U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California. On February 13,
2015, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed her complaint.


ARCH RESOURCES: 9th Cir. Sends Wage-and-Hour Suit to State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wiessner, writing for Reuters, reports that a proposed
wage-and-hour class action against a California staffing agency
should be heard in state court because the named plaintiff's
individual claims can't be weighed under the Class Action Fairness
Act (CAFA), a U.S. appeals court ruled on July 30.

A unanimous three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals said a lower court erred in finding that Porfiria
Yocupicio's 2014 suit against Arch Resources Group should be
removed to federal court because her claims added up to more than
$5 million.


ARM & HAMMER: Sept. 2 Claims Filing Deadline in Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Hardy, writing for Top Class Actions, reported that a claim
is at the center of another class action lawsuit involving Arm and
Hammer Essentials deodorant.

Allegations are the deodorant's claims of "natural" were
misleading.

You can get a $4 cash refund for up to 5 units.

The deadline to file a claim is September 2, 2015.

Arm and Hammer denies wrongdoing.


AWM FINANCIAL: Faces "Dees" Suit in Ariz. Over FDCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
David B. Dees, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. AWM Financial Services LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01440 (D. Ariz.,
July 28, 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


BANGLADESH MEDICAL: Suit Seeks to Enjoin Officers' Election
-----------------------------------------------------------
Abul Azad, MD., Syed Rahman, M.D., Masoom Qadeer, M.D., Waled
Chowdhury, M.D., Shah Giashudd1n, M.D., Mohammud Alam, M.D.,
Ziauddin Ahmed, M.D., and others similarly situated v. The
Bangladesh Medical Association of North America, Inc., Case No.
9180/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., July 29, 2015), seeks to enjoin the
Defendant or their representatives from proceeding with the
election or any election of officers, executive committee,
directors, commissioners, principals and the like of the
Bangladesh Medical Association of North America, Inc.

The Bangladesh Medical Association of North America, Inc. is a
non-profit organization whose membership is composed of medical
professionals of Bangladeshi descent.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ferdusi Z. Chowdhury, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF FERDUSI Z. CHOWDHURY
      37-28 75th Street, Suite 1D
      Jackson Heights, NY 11372
      Telephone: (347) 808-8180
      E-mail: fclawnynj@gmail.com


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued Over Treasury Securities-Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
United Food And Commercial Workers Union and Participating Food
Industry Employers Tristate Pension Fund, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bank of Nova Scotia, et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-05931-UA (S.D.N.Y., July 28, 2015), arises
out of the Defendants' alleged collusive manipulation of the
market for U.S. Treasury bills, notes, and bonds, and derivative
financial products based on these Treasury securities, including
Treasury futures and options traded on the Chicago Mercantile
Exchange.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth Bruce Pickle, Esq.
      John D. Radice, Esq.
      RADICE LAW FIRM PC
      425 East 63rd Street
      New York, NY 10065
      Telephone: (919) 749-3980
      E-mail: kpickle@radicelawfirm.com
              jradice@radicelawfirm.com

         - and -

      Eric L. Young, Esq.
      Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
      SHEPERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      35 East State Street
      Media, PA 19063
      Telephone: (610) 891-9880
      Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
      E-mail: eyoung@sfmslaw.com
              nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com

         - and -

      James E. Miller, Esq.
      SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
      65 Main Street
      Chester, CT 06412
      Telephone: (860) 526-1100
      Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
      E-mail: jmiller@sfmslaw.com

         - and -

      Merrill G. Davidoff, Esq.
      Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
      David F. Sorensen, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (800) 424-6690
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: mdavidoff@bm.net
              ecramer@bm.net
              dsorensen@bm.net


BANK OF TOKYO-MITSUBISHI: Scott+Scott Files 2nd Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP on July 31 disclosed that it
has filed a Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint on
behalf of a proposed class in In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark
Rates Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:13-cv-7789 (S.D.N.Y.).
When the original complaint was filed in November of 2013,
plaintiffs alleged that since 2003, financial institutions had
conspired to manipulate the WM/Reuters Closing Spot Rates in the
$5.4 trillion-per-day foreign exchange market.

As a result of cooperation obtained from certain settling
Defendants, the complaint now alleges a broader conspiracy -- one
that affected dozens of currency pairs, including the seven pairs
with the highest market volume, and impacted trading both over the
counter and on exchanges.  More specifically, the Complaint
alleges that from as early as 2003 and continuing through 2013,
the world's major banks used multiple chat rooms -- with names
such as "The Cartel," "The Bandits' Club," and "The Mafia" -- to
communicate with each other.  As the Complaint explains, "[b]eing
a member of certain chat rooms was by invitation only, indicating
the secret nature of this conduct.  These electronic chat rooms
replaced the classic, smoke-filled backrooms of the past."  In
these chat rooms, defendants used code words to avoid detection.

The plaintiffs allege that defendants manipulated the FX market in
at least three separate respects.  First, defendants fixed prices
by agreeing to widen bid/ask spreads on FX spot trades.  Bid/ask
spreads represent the difference between the price at which a bank
will buy a currency and the price at which it will sell it, and
are a source of profit for banks.  As the Complaint describes,
"there are thousands of communications involving multiple
Defendants reflecting discussions about FX spreads."  It goes on
to explain that "[t]hese communications show traders at more than
30 banks, including Defendants, participated in interbank chats
where traders coordinated and exchanged information about spreads
or customer orders."

Second, plaintiffs allege that defendants manipulated FX benchmark
rates, including the WM/Reuters Closing Spot Rates and European
Central Bank's FX Reference Rates, as well as CME/Emerging Markets
Traders Association Russian ruble/U.S. dollar rates.  As the new
Complaint explains "[c]hat room communications demonstrate
Defendants exchanged confidential customer information and
coordinated their trading to manipulate these key rates."

Finally, defendants exchanged key confidential customer
information in an effort to trigger client stop loss and limit
orders.  They exploited these types of orders by manipulating
prices to move the market to levels that triggered the stop-loss
or limit orders.

In addition to adding broader allegations of unlawful behavior,
the Complaint accuses four defendants that were not previously
named.  Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd., RBC Capital Markets,
LLC, Societe Generale S.A., and Standard Chartered plc, have been
added to the list of banks that the Complaint alleges conspired to
manipulate the FX market, bringing the total number of defendants
to sixteen.

"Our complaint makes clear that the conspiracy to manipulate the
FX market was long-running and pervasive," commented David R.
Scott, Managing Partner of Scott+Scott.  He added, "we hope that
that our new complaint helps to rid this market of unlawful and
harmful manipulation."

The new Complaint follows four settlements that Scott+Scott
previously announced, all of which included cooperation provisions
as well as monetary relief.  In May 2015, Scott+Scott announced a
settlement with Citigroup Inc. and Citibank, N.A. that requires it
to pay $394 million, while also providing cooperation to the
plaintiffs in their prosecution of claims against the remaining
defendants.  In April 2015, Scott+Scott announced a settlement
with Bank of America Corporation and Bank of America, N.A. that
includes $180 million in monetary relief and cooperation.  In
March 2015, Scott+Scott announced that it had reached a settlement
with UBS AG, UBS Group AG, and UBS Securities LLC for $135
million, in addition to their cooperation.  In January 2015, the
firm announced a settlement with JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPM
Chase Bank, N.A. for $99.5 million, in addition to their
cooperation.  All told, the settlements disclosed to date amount
to $808,500,000.

Scott+Scott prosecutes high-stakes antitrust and securities
lawsuits throughout the United States on behalf of institutional
investors, businesses, and corporations.  It has offices in New
York, California, Connecticut, and Ohio, and the firm recently
announced the opening of its first European office in London.


BARCLAYS BANK: "Hale" Suit Alleges TCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------
Nathan Hale, and all others similarly-situated v. Barclays Bank
Delaware, Case No. 2:15-cv-05659 (C.D. Cal., July 27, 2015), seeks
damages and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Barclays Bank Delaware creates customized, co-branded credit card
programs for travel, entertainment, retail, affinity, educational,
and financial institutions in the U.S. The company was founded in
2000 and is based in Wilmington, Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M Friedman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC
      324 S Beverly Drive Suite 725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Tel: (877) 206-4741
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


BARNES & NOBLE: Parties in "Nguyen" Case Engaging in Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Kevin Khoa Nguyen, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.,
the parties are engaging in discovery and a trial date of May 3,
2016, Barnes & Noble said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 26, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended May 2, 2015.

On April 17, 2012, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court for
the State of California against the Company. The complaint is
styled as a nationwide class action and includes a California
state-wide subclass based on alleged cancellations of orders for
HP TouchPad Tablets placed on the Company's website in August
2011. The lawsuit alleges claims for unfair business practices and
false advertising under both New York and California state law,
violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act under California law,
and breach of contract. The complaint demands specific performance
of the alleged contracts to sell HP TouchPad Tablets at a
specified price, injunctive relief, and monetary relief, but does
not specify an amount.

The Company submitted its initial response to the complaint on May
18, 2012, removing the case to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, and moved to compel
plaintiff to arbitrate his claims on an individual basis pursuant
to a contractual arbitration provision on May 25, 2012. The
Company also moved to dismiss the complaint and moved to transfer
the action to New York.

The court denied the Company's motion to compel arbitration, and
the Company appealed that denial to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. The court granted the Company's motion to stay on
November 26, 2012, and the action had been stayed pending
resolution of the Company's appeal from the court's denial of its
motion to compel arbitration.

On August 18, 2014, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
the district court's denial of the Company's motion to compel
arbitration. On September 2, 2014, the Company filed a petition
for rehearing and rehearing en banc in the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. On October 14, 2014, the court denied the Company's
petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, and on October 23,
2014, the mandate issued returning the case to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.

The Company then refiled its motion to dismiss the complaint and
motion to transfer the action to New York. On February 17, 2015,
the court denied the Company's motion to transfer. On June 16,
2015 the court granted-in-part the Company's motion to dismiss to
the extent certain California unfair business practices and false
advertising claims sought restitution or injunctive relief and
denied-in-part the Company's motion to dismiss as to the remaining
claims. The surviving claims are for breach of contract, violation
of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act and violation of
two New York consumer protection statutes.

The parties are engaging in discovery and pursuant to the court's
scheduling order dated December 17, 2014, as amended on March 31,
2015 and June 12, 2015. All dates for the case have been
scheduled, including the deadline for plaintiff to file for class
certification of July 30, 2015, and a trial date of May 3, 2016.


BARNES & NOBLE: Motion to Dismiss PIN Pad Litigation Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc.'s second motion to dismiss the PIN Pad
Litigation is pending, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 26,
2015, for the fiscal year ended May 2, 2015.

The Company discovered that PIN pads in certain of its stores had
been tampered with to allow criminal access to card data and PIN
numbers on credit and debit cards swiped through the terminals.
Following public disclosure of this matter on October 24, 2012,
the Company was served with four putative class action complaints
(three in federal district court in the Northern District of
Illinois and one in the Northern District of California), each of
which alleged on behalf of national and other classes of customers
who swiped credit and debit cards in Barnes & Noble Retail stores
common law claims such as negligence, breach of contract and
invasion of privacy, as well as statutory claims such as
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, state data breach
notification statutes, and state unfair and deceptive practices
statutes. The actions sought various forms of relief including
damages, injunctive or equitable relief, multiple or punitive
damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest.

All four cases were transferred and/or assigned to a single judge
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, and a single consolidated amended complaint was filed.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint in its entirety, and in September 2013, the Court
granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice.

The Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint, and the Company
filed a second motion to dismiss. That motion is pending.

The Company also has received inquiries related to this matter
from the Federal Trade Commission and eight state attorneys
general, all of which have either been closed or have not had any
recent activity. The Company intends to cooperate with them if
further activity arises. In addition, payment card companies and
associations may impose fines by reason of the tampering and
federal or state enforcement authorities may impose penalties or
other remedies against the Company.


BARNES & NOBLE: Appeal in "Lina" Class Suit Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------
In an appeal related to the case, Lina v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.,
and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et al., plaintiff's opening
brief was due July 8, 2015 and Barnes & Noble's opposition was due
August 7, 2015, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 26, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended May 2, 2015.

On August 5, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed
against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc.
in the Superior Court for the State of California making the
following allegations with respect to salaried Store Managers at
Barnes & Noble stores located in California from August 5, 2007 to
present: (1) failure to pay wages and overtime; (2) failure to pay
for missed meals and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting time penalties;
(4) failure to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to reimburse for
business expenses; and (6) failure to provide itemized wage
statements. The claims are generally derivative of the allegation
that these salaried managers were improperly classified as exempt
from California's wage and hour laws. The complaint contains no
allegations concerning the number of any such alleged violations
or the amount of recovery sought on behalf of the purported class.

The Company was served with the complaint on August 11, 2011. On
July 1, 2014 the court denied plaintiff's motion for class
certification. The court ruled that plaintiff failed to satisfy
his burden to demonstrate common issues predominated over
individual issues, that plaintiff was a sufficient class
representative, or that a class action was a superior method to
adjudicate plaintiff's claims.

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on August 29, 2014; under the
current appeal briefing schedule, plaintiff's opening brief was
due July 8, 2015 and Barnes & Noble's opposition is due August 7,
2015. On November 18, 2014, the trial court stayed all proceedings
pending appeal.

On January 14, 2015, Barnes & Noble removed the action to federal
court based on new United States Supreme Court authority, and the
district court remanded the action on April 1, 2015.

On April 13, 2015, Barnes & Noble petitioned the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals for review of the remand decision. The Ninth
Circuit denied the discretionary review and Barnes & Noble is
considering a petition for an en banc review.


BARNES & NOBLE: Proceedings in "Jones" Stayed
---------------------------------------------
All proceedings in the case, Jones et al v. Barnes & Noble, Inc.,
and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. et al., remain stayed pending
appeal in the Lina action, the Company said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June
26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended May 2, 2015.

On April 23, 2013, Kenneth Jones (Jones) filed a purported Private
Attorney General Act action complaint against Barnes & Noble, Inc.
and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. in the Superior Court for the
State of California making the following allegations with respect
to salaried Store Managers at Barnes & Noble stores located in
California: (1) failure to pay wages and overtime; (2) failure to
pay for missed meal and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting time
penalties; (4) failure to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to provide
reimbursement for business expenses; and (6) failure to provide
itemized wage statements. The claims are generally derivative of
the allegation that Jones and other "aggrieved employees" were
improperly classified as exempt from California's wage and hour
laws. The complaint contains no allegations concerning the number
of any such alleged violations or the amount of recovery sought on
behalf of the plaintiff or the purported aggrieved employees.

On May 7, 2013, Judge Michael Johnson (before whom the Lina action
is pending) ordered the Jones action related to the Lina action
and assigned the Jones action to himself. The Company was served
with the complaint on May 16, 2013 and answered on June 10, 2013.
On November 18, 2014, the court stayed all proceedings pending
appeal in the related Lina action.


BARNES & NOBLE: To Appeal Remand Order in "Carag" Case
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Cassandra Carag individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Barnes & Noble, Inc, Barnes & Noble
Booksellers, Inc. and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive, the Company
anticipates filing a petition to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals for review of the federal court's remand decision, the
Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on June 26, 2015, for the fiscal year ended
May 2, 2015.

On November 27, 2013, former Associate Store Manager Cassandra
Carag (Carag) brought suit in Sacramento County Superior Court,
asserting claims on behalf of herself and all other hourly (non-
exempt) Barnes & Noble employees in California in the preceding
four years for unpaid regular and overtime wages based on alleged
off-the-clock work, penalties and pay based on missed meal and
rest breaks, and for improper wage statements, payroll records,
and untimely pay at separation as a result of the alleged pay
errors during employment. Carag seeks to recover unpaid wages and
statutory penalties for all hourly Barnes & Noble employees within
California from November 27, 2009 to present.

On February 13, 2014, the Company filed an Answer in the state
court and concurrently requested removal of the action to federal
court. On May 30, 2014, the federal court granted Plaintiff's
motion to remand the case to state court and denied Plaintiff's
motion to strike portions of the Answer to the Complaint
(referring the latter motion to the lower court for future
consideration). On September 2, 2014, the state court denied
Plaintiff's motion to disqualify counsel based on their prior role
in the Lina matter.

On January 14, 2015, the Company removed the case to federal court
based on new US Supreme Court authority. On June 11, 2015, the
federal court remanded the case to Sacramento Superior Court.
There are no existing deadlines on calendar.  The Company
anticipates filing a petition to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals for review of the federal court's remand decision.

                           *     *     *

District Judge Kimberly  J. Mueller granted the Plaintiff's motion
to remand in the case captioned CASSANDRA CARAG, individually, and
on behalf of other members of the general public similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BARNES & NOBLE, INC., a Delaware
corporation; BARNES & NOBLE BOOKSELLERS, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No.: 2:15-CV-00115-KJM-CKD, (E.D. Cal.).  A copy of Judge
Mueller's Order dated June 10, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/8AoEBJfrom Leagle.com

Plaintiff worked for defendants as an hourly, non-exempt employee
from approximately May 2002 through April 2012.  The complaint
defines the proposed class as follows: "All current and former
California-based (currently residing in California with the intent
to reside in California indefinitely) hourly-paid or non-exempt
individuals employed by any of the defendants at a 'Barnes &
Noble' store located within the State of California at any time
during the period from four years preceding the filing of this
complaint to final judgment."

Plaintiff, in its motion to remand, argued that defendants'
removal is untimely and the calculation of the amount in
controversy is based on "speculation and conjecture."

Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. -- edwin@lfjpc.com -- David Elliot Webb
Gonzalez, Esq. -- elliot@lfjpc.com -- and Jill Jessica Parker,
Esq. -- jill@lfjpc.com -- of Lawyers for Justice, PC serve as
counsel for Plaintiff Cassandra Carag

Heather M. Sager, Esq. -- hsager@vedderprice.com -- of Vedder
Price (CA), LLP serves as counsel for Defendant Barnes & Noble,
Inc.


BARNES & NOBLE: Settlement in "Trimmer" Case Approved
-----------------------------------------------------
The settlement agreement in the case, Trimmer v. Barnes & Noble,
has been approved by the Court and the case has been dismissed,
the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on June 26, 2015, for the fiscal year
ended May 2, 2015.

On January 25, 2013, Steven Trimmer (Trimmer), a former Assistant
Store Manager (ASM) of the Company, filed a complaint in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
("Court") alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). Specifically, Trimmer
alleges that he and other similarly situated ASMs were improperly
classified as exempt from overtime and denied overtime wages prior
to July 1, 2010, when the Company reclassified them as non-exempt.
The complaint seeks to certify a collective action under the FLSA
comprised of ASMs throughout the country employed from January 25,
2010 until July 1, 2010, and a class action under the NYLL
comprised of ASMs employed in New York from January 25, 2007 until
July 1, 2010.

The Company opposed Trimmer's motion to certify the collective
action and class action. While those motions were pending, the
parties engaged in settlement discussions and reached a settlement
of the case on behalf of three plaintiffs (rather than a class).
The settlement agreement was approved by the Court in May 2015 and
the case was dismissed with prejudice.


BILT PETROLEUM: "Mudun Kotuwage" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Chandrasiri G. Mudun Kotuwage, and all others similarly situated
v. Bilt Petroleum, Inc., NSS Petroleum Inc., Amrik S. Dhillon and
Nirmal Singh, Case No. 1:15-cv-04374 (E.D.N.Y., July 27, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for unpaid or underpaid minimum
wages, overtime compensation, and other relief available in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act, Minimum Wage Act of the
New York Labor Law and the Wage Theft Prevention Act.

The Defendants own and operate a gas station doing business as
Gulf and located at Staten Island, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Gurrieri, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER
      277 Broadway Suite 408
      New York, NY 10007
      Tel: (212) 229-2249
      Fax: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com


BLUE DIAMOND: Faces Class Action Over Almond Milk Product Labels
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vicky Gan, writing for Citylab, reports that plaintiffs suing
industry giants Blue Diamond and WhiteWave -- the makers of Almond
Breeze and Silk, respectively, allege that these brands of almond
milk contain only 2 percent almonds, and that the companies have
falsely advertised these products for years.

The class-action lawsuit draws on information available for the
U.K. versions of Blue Diamond and WhiteWave almond milks; their
labels clearly indicate 2 percent almond content.  It is entirely
possible that the U.S. and U.K. versions have different formulas
and that the almond milk on this side of the pond is more or less
almond-y.  But either way, the companies don't disclose that
information to consumers in the U.S.-and the FDA doesn't require
them to. (After all, percentages could reveal a brand's secret
recipe.)

Should you feel cheated by the paltry proportion of almonds in
your non-dairy alternative? Maybe, if your concern is truth in
advertising.  As FoodNavigator points out, this case bears some
resemblance to POM Wonderful's lawsuit against Coca-Cola, which
alleges that the corporate giant misled the public about its
Minute Maid pomegranate-blueberry juice.  The Minute Maid product
contained only 0.3 percent pomegranate juice and 0.2 percent
blueberry juice, compared to POM's 85 percent pomegranate and 15
percent blueberry blend.  The Supreme Court ruled in June 2014
that the lawsuit could proceed -- even though Coke's label
technically complied with FDA regulations -- and POM could seek
damages for sales lost to its cheaper, diluted competitor.

While that decision opened the door to lawsuits on FDA-compliant
labels, it doesn't guarantee a victory against Blue Diamond and
WhiteWave.  Unlike POM vs. Coke, the almond milk case centers on
customers feeling duped by the products' branding.  Almond Breeze
and Silk promise wholesome, plant-based nutrition, the plaintiffs
allege; instead, they give you filtered water with a splash of
almonds and thickening agents.

If that bothers you, consider this: Beer, coffee, Diet Coke, dairy
milk -- most beverages, really -- are mostly water.  Almond milk
is held together by additional emulsifiers and stabilizers -- but
so are most processed foodstuffs.  The relatively meager allotment
of almonds in conventional almond milks should not be news to
anyone.  And if you like the empirically watery taste of almond
milk, by all means, drink on.

On the other hand, if you're ready to swear off almond milk
because of its environmental impact, you should still think twice
before converting to dairy milk.  It's easy to pick on almond
milk, a watered-down version of the nut that has become a
scapegoat for the California drought.  But almonds, while a
significant drain on the state's water supply, are not even the
thirstiest agricultural product out there.  Yes, it takes one
gallon of water to produce one almond -- but it takes 880 gallons
of water to produce one gallon of dairy milk.  Almonds may drink
up 10 percent of California's water, but more than 30 percent of
it goes toward raising livestock.

As Slate's Eric Holthaus puts it: "Replacing a glass of cow's milk
with almond milk is a net gain for the environment."  And that's
true whether almond milk is 98 percent water or not.


BOOKS-A-MILLION: Faces "Vance" Suit Over Proposed Family Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Vance, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Books-A-Million, Inc., et al., Case No. 11343-VCL
(Del. Ch., July 28, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the
stockholders of Books-A-Million, Inc. to enjoin the sale of the
Company to Family Acquisition Holdings, Inc., for unfair
consideration and through an unfair process.

Books-A-Million, Inc. is a book retailer primarily located in the
eastern United States and operates both superstores and
traditional bookstores.

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 -

      Brian C. Kerr, Esq.
      BROWER PIVEN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
      475 Park Avenue South, 33rd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 501-9000


CAIRO, GA: Settles Probation Company Suit
-----------------------------------------
Karen Murphy, writing for Times Enterprise, reported that an
alleged victim of Red Hills Community Probation (RHCP) has
accepted a $25,000 settlement from the City of Cairo.

T.W. Green Jr. reached the individual settlement with the City of
Cairo, but according to his lawyer, K. Todd Butler, "his claim
against RHCP still exists."

"The city offered (Mr.) Green an amount he couldn't turn down,"
said Butler, "and Green dismissed his individual claim against
Cairo."

Butler said, "Anybody who was a member of the class can still make
individual claims against Cairo or RHCP."

Butler said Raleigh Rawlins, who represented Cairo in the matter,
filed the motion early to settle, and the order was issued by the
Grady Superior Court late by Judge H. Arthur McLane, of Valdosta.

According to Butler, judges A. Wallace Cato and J. Kevin Chason
recused themselves from the case.

The class-action lawsuit, filed in April, alleged false
imprisonment, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation and a "pattern of
racketeering activity," against Red Hills Community Probation
(RHCP), LLC, its CEO Margaret B. Crutchfield and the City of
Cairo.

This suit followed on the heels of a suit filed April 9 by the
Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta at the U.S. District
Court in Albany against RHCP, Crutchfield, two of its probation
officers, Pelham Chief of Police Nealie McCormick, Bainbridge
Public Safety Director Eric Miller, the cities of Pelham and
Bainbridge, as well as several Pelham and Bainbridge police
officers. The two suits are separate and not connected.

Butler said the two suits arose "out of nearly identical facts and
the same pattern of conduct. It's just a different set of people."

Green told Butler that on May 14, 2014, he pleaded guilty to
possession of less than one ounce of marijuana and was sentenced
to 12 months probation and a fine of $1,248. Immediately after
being sentenced, Green met with Crutchfield or an employee who
told Green he had to make an initial payment of $400.

According to the suit, if he failed to do so, "the armed,
uniformed police power of the City of Cairo would be utilized to
jail him until he made the demanded initial payment."

Green did not have $400 with him to pay. After he was sentenced
and fined, according to the suit, RHCP used Cairo police to detain
Green, move him from the courtroom to the Grady County Courthouse
holding cell and then transported him to the Grady County jail
where he was booked.

The suit claims Green was held "against his will and until a
family member brought $400 to the jail to re-purchase the liberty
granted to him..."

Butler said RHCP "has no legal authority to jail people."
He said Green came to him, upset that he was jailed because he
couldn't make the initial payment.

"(Mr.) Green knew that was wrong," Butler said.
The Georgia Constitution provides that " 'there shall be no
imprisonment for debt' in Article I of the Bill of Rights.

The suit alleged actions of RHCP were not unique to the Green case
but a policy of the probation company. It said RHCP, "routinely
falsely notifies newly sentenced probationers that they must make
an initial payment against total amounts owed for fines,
probation's supervision fees or other costs charged to the newly
sentenced probationer." They also routinely threatened and used
police to jail them if they fail to make demanded initial
payments, according to the suit.

Red Hills contracted with local governments to supervise probation
cases in municipal courts of Bainbridge, Cairo, Pelham and
Whigham. Joshua Bell, Grady County State Court judge and municipal
court judge for those courts, gave notice he terminated his
working relationship with RHCP and CEO Margaret Crutchfield, on
May 11, 2015. RHCP went out of business in June.

Cairo City Council approved a release agreement between the City
of Cairo and RHCP after a brief closed session.


CAMPBELL-EWALD CO: Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in TCPA Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence I. Weinstein, Esq. -- lweinstein@proskauer.com -- and
James Unger, Esq. -- junger@proskauer.com -- at Proskauer Rose
LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, said that last
year in Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald Co., No. 13-55486, 2014 WL 4654478
(9th Cir. Sept. 19, 2014), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit held that offers of complete relief made to individual
plaintiffs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 68 do not moot either individual
or class claims. This holding mirrors decisions by the Second and
Eleventh Circuits but conflicts with decisions by the Third and
Seventh Circuits. Now the Supreme Court has granted certiorari to
address the circuit split, dialing up an issue with implications
for class actions generally, including false advertising class
actions.

Gomez, the named plaintiff in the 2014 Ninth Circuit case, alleges
that advertising firm Campbell-Ewald sent him, and approximately
100,000 others, unsolicited recruiting messages for the U.S. Navy
in violation of the T.C.P.A. Prior to class certification,
Campbell-Ewald offered Gomez $1,503 as an offer of judgment under
Rule 68. This offer was more than three times the statutory
penalty per text message and at least equal to what Gomez could
hope to obtain if his damage award were trebled. This, Campbell-
Ewald argued, constituted complete relief and mooted Gomez's
claim. But the Ninth Circuit held Gomez's suit could continue.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari to address questions
including whether a case becomes moot when a plaintiff receives an
offer of complete relief on his claim and whether the answer to
that question differs when the plaintiff has asserted a class
claim under F.R.C.P. Rule 23, but receives an offer of complete
relief before a class is certified.

Advocates for the Ninth Circuit's position argue that a contrary
decision could allow defendants to pull the plug on potential
class actions by strategically picking off plaintiffs before class
certification. On the other hand, many members of the class action
defense bar have argued that such offers make plaintiffs whole and
are mainly to the detriment of plaintiff's lawyers who seek large
settlements (and resulting fees) further down the line.

Whatever the Supreme Court decides is likely to have major
implications for class actions generally. In the false advertising
context, if the Court overturns the Ninth Circuit's decision and
sides with Campbell-Ewald, potential defendants could receive a
powerful new tool to defend against budding class actions at their
earliest stages. Stay tuned for more analysis of the outcome and
implications of this important case.


CASEY'S GENERAL: Fairness Hearing in "Hot Fuel" Case Held
---------------------------------------------------------
Casey's General Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 26, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended April 30, 2015, that the Company was named
as a defendant in four lawsuits ("hot fuel" cases) brought in the
federal courts in Kansas and Missouri against a variety of fuel
retailers, which were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Kansas in Kansas City, Kansas as part of the
multidistrict "Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation".

On November 20, 2012, the Court preliminarily approved the
previously-reported settlement involving the Company, which when
approved in final form by the Court following notice to the Class
would result in the settlement and dismissal of all claims against
Casey's in the multidistrict litigation. The preliminarily
approved settlement includes, but is not limited to, a commitment
on the part of the Company to "sticker" certain information on its
fuel pumps and make a monetary payment (which is not considered to
be material in amount) to the plaintiff class.

The process of notice to the class began in February 2015 with
notice being published in various media outlets including selected
radio stations and newspapers. Objections and exclusions to the
proposed settlement must be submitted electronically or postmarked
by March 23, 2015. The Fairness Hearing to consider whether the
settlements are fair, reasonable and adequate was held on June 9,
2015.


CASEY'S GENERAL: To Defend Against FCRA Action in Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------
Casey's General Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 26, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended April 30, 2015, that the Company was named
as a defendant in a purported class action recently filed in
federal court in Missouri on behalf of all individuals on whom
Casey's obtained a consumer report for employment purposes in the
last two years.  Plaintiff alleges Casey's violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)'s stand-alone disclosure requirement.
Casey's has obtained approximately 3,900 consumer reports in the
last year. The FCRA provides for statutory damages of $100 to
$1,000 for each willful violation, as well as punitive damages and
attorneys' fees. The Company does not believe it is liable to the
plaintiff and intends to contest the matter vigorously.


CBM INC: "Estrada" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ramona Estrada, on her own behalf and others similarly situated v.
CBM, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02661-ELR (N.D. Ga., July 28, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
reasonable expenses of litigation, and attorneys' fees pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

CBM, Inc. is a Georgia corporation which provides janitorial
services for various office and commercial properties throughout
the metropolitan Atlanta area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry Allen Pankey, Esq.
      PANKEY & HORLOCK, LLC
      Suite 200, 1441 Dunwoody Village Parkway
      Atlanta, GA 30338-4122
      Telephone: (770) 670-6250
      Facsimile: (770) 670-6249
      E-mail: lpankey@pankeyhorlock.com


CENTENE CORPORATION: Faces "Larkin" Suit Over Health Net Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Larkin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Centene Corporation, et al., Case No. 11349-VCL (Del.
Ch., July 29, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public
stockholders of Health Net, Inc. to enjoin the proposed
acquisition of the publicly owned shares of Health Net by Centene
Corporation, through a flawed process and for inadequate
consideration.

Centene Corporation is a Delaware corporation that operates a
healthcare enterprise that provides a portfolio of services to
government-sponsored healthcare programs, focusing on underinsured
and uninsured individuals.

Health Net, Inc. is a provider of managed health care services
through health plans and government-sponsored managed care plans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
      Innessa S. Melamed, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Fl.
      New York, NY10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
      E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com
              imelamed@faruqilaw.com


CHC GROUP: Faces Two Securities Lawsuits in New York Courts
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHC Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2015, for the fiscal
year ended April 30, 2015, that two securities lawsuits were
recently brought against the Company: McCrory v. CHC Group et al.
was filed on April 17, 2015 in New York Supreme Court (now removed
to the federal district court for the Southern District of New
York), and Rudman et al. v. CHC Group et al. was filed on May 15,
2015 in federal district court for the Southern District of New
York.

"Both complaints allege that the Company and others failed to
disclose in our IPO materials that one of our major customers,
Petrobras, had suspended payments on certain contracts due to the
global stand-down of EC225 aircraft.  Both complaints seek class
treatment and unspecified damages," the Company said.

The Company maintains adequate insurance to respond to these
complaints.  Moreover, the Company disputes the allegations in the
complaints and will vigorously defend against them.


CHEETAH'S: Ex-Strippers Obtain Class Certification in Labor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Saul, writing for New York Post, reports that a half-dozen
ex-strippers just got a touch of class.

A Manhattan judge on July 30 granted class-action status for their
lawsuit against Midtown jiggle joint Cheetah's, opening the door
for fellow pole-dancers to join the claim, which aims to collect
pay and fees the women say they were cheated out of by the owner.

The federal court judge ruled the six strippers showed that other
entertainers at Cheetah's Gentleman's Club & Restaurant also had
their rights violated by not being paid hourly wages, being
required to share tips, having to pay "house fees" of up to $120
per shift, and not being reimbursed for uniform expenses.
"From these statements, the Court 'can fairly infer' that other
entertainers labored under similar working conditions," the judge
wrote.


CHINA FINANCE: 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 China Finance Online Co., Ltd. ("China
Finance" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: JRJC), for alleged violations
of the federal securities laws. Investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares between May 6, 2014 and June 3, 2015
inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until August 4, 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.

China Finance is an online financial services company based in the
People's Republic of China. The complaint alleges that: (1) the
most current Chinese government records show that Chairman and CEO
Zhiwei Zhao abruptly resigned from his positions at three
important subsidiaries of China Finance over the past few months;
(2) Chinese media reports exposing the detention of the Company's
independent director Rongquan Leng prompted China Finance to
announce his resignation, without addressing his alleged
detention; and (3) Ling Wang, a former long-time China Finance
director and associate of Zhao, fled China in 2014, leaving his
company indebted to China Finance for $25 million. When the truth
was revealed, the stock dropped causing investors harm.

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.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules


CHRISTIE'S CABARET: Strippers Sue Over Unfair Pay Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sean Holstege, writing for USA Today, reported that about 120
exotic dancers are suing Christie's Cabaret, a Valley strip club,
for what the performers claim are unfair labor practices, in what
has become a growing and lucrative area of legal practice around
the country.

Days before the most recent hearing in the Christie's case, about
4,000 dancers in Florida won a $6 million settlement in an almost
identical case.

Houston-based law firm Kennedy Hodges brought both cases. The
company also won a similar case in Dallas, has ongoing cases in
North Carolina and Texas, and its attorneys have sued the Alaska
Bush Co. and Bliss Show Club in Phoenix, said Beatriz Sosa-
Morris, the attorney representing the Christie's dancers.

Other firms have filed similar cases around the country in recent
months.

In the Phoenix metro area, Christie's dancers have banded together
in a class-action labor-rights lawsuit in federal court, claiming
that since 2011, clubs in Phoenix and Tempe and their corporate
owners have illegally classified them as independent contractors,
rather than employees. The suit, filed in May 2014, seeks to
recover overtime pay and unpaid hourly minimum-wage earnings.

Initially dancers also sued the Christie's in Glendale as well as
sister clubs in Ohio and North Carolina. A federal judge ruled
against hearing the action against out-of-state clubs, and
attorneys are working to include Glendale dancers in the lawsuit.

Lawyers for Christie's countered in U.S. District Court filings
that the clubs have no record of some of the women ever working
there. Lawyers also argued that the women mistakenly sued some
wrong corporate entities and that they entered agreements to
dance, knowing they were not employees.

Records filed in court show that dancers are required to sign an
"Independent Contractor Agreement," which states "Company and
contractor intend to create an independent relationship," and were
not entering a relationship as employer and employee. In essence,
the dancers were paying fees to lease the stage, DJ, lighting and
venue in exchange for being allowed to keep their tips.

The dancers, and their attorney Sosa-Morris, describe a workplace
where the dancers are routinely exploited and strict rules govern
almost every aspect of their work shifts.

"These clubs will just take, take, take from the dancers," Sosa-
Morris said. "These dancers are a lot of times abused by the
system and just tossed into the sex industry."

La'Shaunta Cooper, in a written statement in court, said that she
worked at the Tempe club for two years and that "the ultimate
factors which control how much money we can make at Christie's
Cabaret are largely out of our control."

Cooper said in addition to required tips to the DJ, "house mom,"
bouncers and managers, she had to pay a set house fee as well as
any fines for arriving late, leaving early or violating rules.

Those rules are set forth in a seven-page document filed in court.
Examples include: "no gum," "no negativity" and, "Don't talk about
your personal problems to a customer. They are there to forget
theirs."

Generally, women are encouraged to dress and act in a way as to
project a "classy" image and are discouraged from overtly sexual,
lewd or trashy costumes or acts, according to the document.

Sosa-Morris said she's heard stories of some dancers owing more
money than they make in a shift and having to work off debt or
visit the clubs' ATMs to have enough for another fee at the end of
their shift.

Christie's lawyers declined comment for this story, but the club
maintains in court records that it has no control over the
dancers, who simply lease out the space.

The area of law is nothing new.

Exotic dancers began winning similar cases 20 years ago.

Still, Sosa- Morris said, the policies at Christie's have been
mirrored at strip clubs across the country for years. What's
changed, she said, is "the dancers are becoming more aware of
their rights."

Nor is the treatment of independent contractors in labor law
unique to strips clubs. Similar arrangements exist with cab
drivers, delivery jobs and the trucking industry, as well as in
some heavy-construction industries in which skilled workers, such
as oil-field workers and welders, move from place to place to
follow the work. Employers don't pay overtime, benefits or taxes
to independent contractors.

Strip-club managers insist the dancers are not employees and are
free to work as they please as long as they follow the rules.

The case is still in its early stages. Legal teams are gathering
evidence and, in pretrial motions and counter-motions, trying to
expand or narrow the size of the plaintiff class.

Rulings are expected near the end of the year with the case, if
there is no settlement, unlikely to get before a jury before
spring 2016.


COMMAND SECURITY: Trial Date Set for March 2016
-----------------------------------------------
Command Security Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 26, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015, that the trial date in a
class action lawsuit has been set for March 16, 2016.

On April 29, 2014, the California Superior Court granted a
plaintiffs' motion to certify a class consisting of all persons
who were employed by the Company in a non-exempt security officer
position within the State of California at any time since May 2,
2007 through the date of trial who agreed to and signed an on-duty
meal period agreement at the time of their employment. The case is
a certified class action involving allegations that the Company
violated certain California state laws relating to on-duty meal
and rest breaks.

The Company intends to conduct a vigorous defense of this case,
which is currently in the discovery stage. The Company is unable
to determine the potential outcome of this case, which could be
material, at this time. The trial date has been set for March 16,
2016.


COMMERCIAL METALS: No Motion Practice, Discovery Yet in Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Metals Company said in its Form 10-Q report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 31, 2015, that no motion practice or
discovery has taken place in a class action filed in Tennessee
state court on behalf of a purported class of indirect purchasers
in Tennessee.

On September 18, 2008, the Company was served with a purported
class action antitrust lawsuit alleging violations of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act, brought by Standard Iron Works of Scranton,
Pennsylvania, against nine steel manufacturing companies,
including CMC. The lawsuit, filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleged that the
defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the
price at which steel products were sold in the United States by
artificially restricting the supply of such steel products. The
lawsuit, which purported to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of all parties who purchased steel products directly
from the defendants between January 1, 2005 and September 2008
(collectively, the "Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs"), sought treble
damages and costs, including reasonable attorney fees and pre- and
post-judgment interest.

On March 14, 2014, the Company entered into a final settlement
agreement with the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs. As part of that
final settlement, in April 2014, the Company paid approximately
$4.0 million to the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs in consideration
for the full and final release of all claims of the Direct
Purchaser Plaintiffs. The Company maintains that the claims lacked
merit and that it has full and complete defenses to all of the
claims asserted against it. However, the Company agreed to enter
into the settlement agreement to avoid further expense,
inconvenience, and distraction of burdensome and protracted
litigation. On October 17, 2014, the court granted final approval
of the settlement.

On September 24, 2008, a case was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of
a purported nationwide class of indirect purchasers naming the
same defendants and containing allegations substantially identical
to those of the complaint filed by Standard Iron Works. The
lawsuit sought damages, including reasonable attorney fees and
other amounts recoverable by statute. Some document production has
occurred in the case.

Another action was filed in Tennessee state court on behalf of a
purported class of indirect purchasers in Tennessee naming the
same defendants but seeking recovery for purchases through 2010.
The lawsuit sought damages and costs, including reasonable
attorney fees and pre- and post-judgment interest. The case has
been removed to federal court and was transferred to United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in March
2012. No motion practice or discovery has taken place.

The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and plans
to defend them vigorously. Due to the uncertainty and the
information available as of the date of this Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q, the Company cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss
relating to these cases.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces "Ellzey" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kathy Ellzey, et al. v. Community Health Systems, Inc. and
Community Health Systems Professional Services Corporation, Case
No. 3:15-cv-00832 (M.D. Tenn., July 28, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to provide adequate security and
protection for its computer systems containing patient's
personally identifiable information and personal health
information.

The Defendants is one of the largest publicly-traded hospital
companies in the United States and a leading operator of general
acute care hospitals in communities across the country.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clint H. Scott, Esq.
      GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER SCOTT & BOBBIT PLC
      101 North Highland Avenue
      Jackson, TN 38301
      Telephone: (731) 664-1340
      Facsimile: (731) 664-1540
      E-mail:

         - and -

      Jeffrey E. Friedman, Esq.
      Christopher J. Zulanas, Esq.
      John Michael Bowling, Esq.
      FRIEDMAN, DAZZIO, ZULANAS & BOWLING, P.C.
      3800 Corporate Woods Drive
      Birmingham, AL 35242
      E-mail: jfriedman@friedman-lawyers.com
              czulanas@friedman-lawyers.com
              mbowling@friedman-lawyers.com

         - and -

      Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
      Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
      100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55113
      E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
              kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com

         - and -

      Christopher T. Hellums, Esq.
      PITTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, P.C.
      2001 Park Pl, #1100
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com

         - and -

      Turner W. Branch, Esq.
      Mary Lou Boelcke, Esq.
      BRANCH LAW FIRM
      2025 Rio Grande Blvd NW
      Albuquerque, NM 87104
      E-mail: tbranch@branchlawfirm.com
              mlboelcke@branchlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Donald W. Stewart, Esq.
      Dylan Reeves, Esq.
      STEWART & STEWART PC
      1826 3rd Avenue North, Suite 300
      Bessemer, AL 35021
      E-mail: donaldwstewart5354@yahoo.com
              dreeves@stewartandstewart.net


CONNECTICUT: Non-Union State Employees Wins Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Edmund H. Mahony, writing for Hartford Couran, reported that the
state has quietly settled a suit that challenged what critics
claim was a policy permitting a labor union to collect dues from
state employees who choose not to be union members.

The settlement, approved by a federal judge in Hartford, requires
the state and its principal public employees union to modify a
payroll system that about 200 state employees claim violated their
constitutional right not to participate in union activities

The employees who brought the class action suit are members of a
bargaining unit of about 2,300 engineering, scientific and
technical personnel. They were represented by the nonprofit,
Washington, D.C.-based National Right to Work Legal Defense
Foundation.

The settlement, endorsed by U.S. District Judge Vanessa L. Bryant,
ends what the plaintiffs called a decade-long grievance among non-
union employees, but purposely avoids assigning legal liability
for the way dues have been deducted in the past from state
paychecks.

State Comptroller Kevin Lembo, whose office runs the state payroll
system, declined through a spokeswoman to comment on the case and
referred questions to state Attorney General George Jepsen.
Jepsen's staff referred questions about the suit's allegations to
the Connecticut State Employees Association. The union lawyer and
a spokesman for the union did not respond to questions about the
suit and settlement.

Stanley Juber, a state bridge engineer and lead plaintiff in the
case, said the settlement was a victory for state employees who
choose to opt out of unions and a repudiation of what he called an
unconstitutional state law and payroll system that let the union
structure payroll deductions.


Juber said the suit targeted a law he said remains on the books
and requires non-union state employees to pay union dues. But he
said the state and the union settled the suit before questions
about the law's constitutionality were reached.

"The statute that authorizes full union dues for non-members is
unconstitutional," Juber said. "Rather than deal with that issue,
the state and the union sort of settled out of court and agreed to
treat us as if we had won."

Under the settlement, state employees who chose not to be union
members can withdraw at any time. When they withdraw, the state
will promptly stop deducting a full amount of union dues from
their checks. The employees will be required to pay proportional
dues to pay for the costs of collective bargaining by the union on
workplace issues. But the employees will not be charged for union
expenses such as lobbying and political activities.

Juber said the difference between proportional and full union dues
is about $300 annually.

In the past, employees wishing to withdraw from union membership
were allowed to do so only during a one month period each year.
Those who failed to withdraw during the designated month were
required to retain their membership and pay full dues.

The settlement complies with U.S. Supreme Court holdings on union
membership and dues, according to Will Collins, of the National
Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation.

Juber said the Supreme Court decisions are apparently at odds with
state labor law, which reads in part:

"If an exclusive representative has been designated for the
employees in an appropriate collective bargaining unit, each
employee in such unit who is not a member of the exclusive
representative shall be required, as a condition of continued
employment, to pay to such organization for the period that it is
the exclusive representative, an amount equal to the regular dues,
fees and assessments that a member is charged."


CREDICO LLC: "Vasto" Suit Seeks to Recover Wages
------------------------------------------------
Philip Vasto, Zao Yang, Alex Torres, and Xiaoj Zheng, and all
others similarly situated v. Credico (USA) LLC, Cromex Inc., Jesse
Young and Meixi Xu, Case No. 1:15-cv-06503 (N.D. Ill., July 27,
2015), seek restitution of all wages deprived, payment for
training time, and all other relief entitled pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act and New York Labor Law.

Credico (USA) LLC, on its own and through various entities
operated by Credico, including CroMex, provides its clients with
face-to-face sales and marketing services through its team of
workers located throughout the country. Jesse Young is the
president of Credico (USA) LLC.

CroMex Inc provides clients with face-to-face sales and marketing
services throughout its team of workers located in New York,
Maryland, Michigan, Arizona and Nevada. Meizi Xu is the owner and
manager of Cromex Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James B. Zouras, Esq.
      STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
      205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2560
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 233-1550
      Fax: (312) 233-1560
      E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com

         - and -

      Harold Lichten, Esq.
      LICHEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Tel: (617) 994-5800
      E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com


CVS HEALTH: Hausfeld & Stein Mitchell File Class Action in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pharmacy customers of CVS Health Corporation (CVS) filed a class
action lawsuit on July 30 in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California alleging that CVS employed a
fraudulent scheme to overcharge millions of customers across the
country for generic prescription drugs.  Attorneys from Hausfeld
and Stein Mitchell Muse Cipollone & Beato LLP represent the
plaintiffs and filed the suit on their behalf.

CVS is alleged to have implemented and maintained a false and
deceptive pricing scheme affecting more than 400 generic drugs,
forcing customers with health insurance to pay CVS copayments far
higher than the usual and customary price CVS charged its cash-
paying customers.

"Consumers filled more than 935 million prescriptions at CVS last
year, capturing nearly a quarter of the U.S. market.  The
potential scope of the harm alleged in the complaint is massive,"
said Robert B. Gilmore -- RGilmore@steinmitchell.com -- a partner
with Stein Mitchell Muse Cipollone & Beato LLP.

CVS generates approximately $67 billion in annual revenues from
its retail pharmacy business, and plaintiffs allege that CVS'
wrongful overcharging is a significant percentage of those
revenues.

"As alleged in the complaint, for seven years CVS has
systematically been overcharging their insured consumers for
prescriptions.  The alleged scheme is especially harmful to those
people with low or fixed incomes who use medications on a regular
basis. Plaintiffs assert that the drug chain wrongfully has
charged insured consumers inflated copayments on more than 400
generic medications, including some of the most commonly used
drugs on the market today.  According to the complaint, millions
of people have been affected by this misconduct," said Hausfeld
partner Richard S. Lewis -- rlewis@hausfeld.com

The plaintiffs seek to represent all consumers who were
participants in third-party healthcare plans and who filled their
prescriptions for certain generic drugs at CVS between November
2008 and the present, and paid more than prices available under
the CVS Health Savings Pass program.

The plaintiffs are jointly represented by Washington, D.C.-based
firms Hausfeld and Stein Mitchell Muse Cipollone & Beato LLP, both
of which carry substantial experience in class action, healthcare,
and commercial litigation.

A copy of the complaint is available on the Hausfeld firm site:
www.hausfeld.com, and on the Stein Mitchell Muse Cipollone & Beato
LLP firm site: www.steinmitchell.com

Insured CVS pharmacy customers may contact the firms to learn more
about their legal rights.  For additional inquiries, please
contact Kristen Ward Broz (Hausfeld) at 202-540-7170
kward@hausfeld.com or Erin Clancy (Stein Mitchell Muse Cipollone &
Beato LLP) at 202-661-0936. Customers can also email inquiries to
cvs@steinmitchell.com

                         About Hausfeld

Hausfeld -- http://www.hausfeld.com-- is a global law firm with
offices in Washington, DC; Philadelphia; San Francisco; Brussels;
and London.  The firm has a broad range of complex litigation
expertise, particularly in consumer, antitrust/competition,
financial services, sports and entertainment, environmental, mass
torts, and human rights matters.

         About Stein Mitchell Muse Cipollone & Beato LLP

Stein Mitchell Muse Cipollone & Beato LLP --
http://www.steinmitchell.com-- is a litigation law firm with
national and international reach that has achieved successful
results for clients for more than 50 years.  Stein Mitchell Muse
Cipollone & Beato LLP provide counsel in complex, high-stakes
litigation, including commercial litigation, consumer class
actions, and whistleblower suits.


DCOMM INC: "Neill" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
DJ Neill, and others similarly-situated v. Dcomm Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-00616 (W.D. Tex., July 23, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
back wages and liquidated damages equal in amount of the unpaid
compensations pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant is involved in the business of installation of
broadband telecommunications, internet and telephone systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DEVINE & SON: Faces "Saunders" Suit for Failure to Pay Min. Wage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Curtis Saunders, Omar Shepherd, Dwayne Forcell, and Christopher
Kyles v. Devine & Son Trucking Co. Inc., Case No. RG15779800 (Cal.
Super. Ct., July 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay minimum wages for all hours worked in violation of
the California Labor Code.

Devine & Son Trucking Co. Inc. operates four terminals located in
Sacramento, Fresno, Oakland, and Lathrop.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christina A. Humphrey, Esq.
      MARLIN & SALTZMAN
      29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
      Agoura Hills, CA 91301
      Telephone: (818) 991-8080
      Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
      E-mail: chumphrey@marlinsaltzman.com


DLM STATUTORY: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Stotler" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Carey D. Stotler, Christina L. Ketchum, and Michael W. Barnhart v.
DLM Statutory Agent Corp., Providence Healthcare Management, Inc.,
and Eli Gunzburg, Case No. 4:15-cv-01491 (N.D. Ohio, July 28,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a nursing facility located in
Columbiana County, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard T. Bush, Esq.
      GREEN HAINES SGAMBATI
      800 City Centre One Bldg.
      100 Federal Plaza, E
      P.O. Box 849
      Youngstown, OH 44501-0849
      Telephone: (330) 743-5101
      E-mail: rbush@green-haines.com


EBAY: Sellers May Get Refunds from Recurring Fees
-------------------------------------------------
Scott Hardy, writing for Top Class Actions, reported that if
you're an eBay seller, and paid for a "good til canceled" listing,
you could get some money back.

Allegations are eBay charged recurring listing fees not included
in their disclosures.

Most people affected received letters indicating that and could
get back around 9 percent of what they spent.

There are varying dates for eligibility from 2008 to 2012.

eBay admits no wrongdoing.

If this affects you, and you didn't get a notification, find out
how to file a claim .


EXCALIBUR SPECIAL: Ontario Court Affirms Denial of Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Cobb, Esq. -- acobb@osler.com -- Craig T. Lockwood, Esq.
-- clockwood@osler.com -- and Joshua Krusell, Esq. --
jkrusell@osler.com -- at Osler, Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, in an
article for Mondaq, reported that in the recent Excalibur Special
Opportunities LP v Schwartz Levitsky Feldman LLP decision, a
majority of the Ontario Divisional Court upheld the ruling of
Justice Perell denying certification of a proposed global class
action on the basis that it failed to meet the preferable
procedure and identifiable class requirements.

The decision is instructive for those responding to certification
motions insofar as it provides insight into application of the
preferable procedure requirements in the class action context, as
well as the limitations imposed on national or global class
actions where the underlying issues are not sufficiently connected
to Ontario.


FAMILY DOLLAR: 10 Plaintiffs Remain in in North Carolina MDL
------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 30, 2015, that there are a total of 10
named plaintiffs in the remaining cases in the North Carolina
Multi-District Misclassification Litigation.

Since 2001, the Company has been involved in a series of cases in
which certain store managers ("Store Managers") have alleged they
were improperly classified as exempt employees under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). Current and former Store Managers
have filed lawsuits alleging the Company violated the FLSA and/or
similar state laws, by classifying them as "exempt" employees who
are not entitled to overtime compensation. The majority of the
complaints also request recovery of overtime pay, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and court costs.

In April 2008, a Multi-District Litigation forum ("MDL") was
created in the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte
Division ("NC Federal Court") to handle cases alleging FLSA
violations against the Company. The first two of the MDL cases
were Grace v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc. and Ward v. Family Dollar
Stores, Inc., filed in May 2004 and June 2006, respectively. In
each of these cases, the court entered orders finding the
plaintiffs were not similarly situated and, therefore, neither
nationwide notice nor collective treatment under the FLSA was
appropriate. Since that time, the NC Federal Court has granted 60
summary judgments ruling Store Managers are properly classified as
exempt from overtime.

Presently, there are a total of 10 named plaintiffs in the
remaining cases in the MDL, for which the NC Federal Court has not
decided the class certification or summary judgment issue. The
Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of
loss that may result from these cases.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Settlement Payments in "Hegab" Case Have Been Made
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 30, 2015, that all class settlement
payments in the case, Hegab v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., have
been made per the terms of the settlement agreement.

Hegab v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey on March 3,
2011. The plaintiff is seeking unpaid overtime for himself and
allegedly similarly situated current and former Store Managers
under New Jersey law. The matter was administratively dismissed
without prejudice. At the time of dismissal, no class had been
certified.

On January 14, 2014, the parties preliminarily agreed to resolve
the litigation on a claims-made basis. On June 6, 2014, the
parties filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of the
settlement with the Court. The Court preliminarily approved the
settlement on October 3, 2014.

The Court granted final approval of the settlement on March 9,
2015, for an amount not material to the Consolidated Condensed
Financial Statements. All class settlement payments have been made
per the terms of the settlement agreement.


FAMILY DOLLAR: 3rd Circuit Affirms Decision in "Itterly" Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 30, 2015, that in the case, Itterly v.
Family Dollar Stores of Pennsylvania, Inc., the Third Court has
affirmed the district court's decision granting summary judgment
in favor of Family Dollar.

Itterly v. Family Dollar Stores of Pennsylvania, Inc., which was
formerly pending in the NC Federal Court, was remanded back to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on February 8, 2012. The plaintiffs are seeking
unpaid overtime for a class of current and former Pennsylvania
Store Managers whom the plaintiffs claim are not properly
classified as exempt from overtime pay under Pennsylvania law.
Discovery closed in June 2012.

In August 2013, the Company filed summary judgment requesting the
Court rule that Itterly was properly classified as exempt from
overtime. The District Court granted the Company's motion on
January 30, 2014, and the case is now dismissed.

On February 1, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. On April 9, 2015, the Third
Court affirmed the district court's decision granting summary
judgment in favor of Family Dollar. As a result, this case is now
dismissed.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Awaits Court Ruling in "Premo" Case
--------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 30, 2015, that the Company currently
awaits the Court's ruling on its motion in the case, Premo v.
Family Dollar Stores of Massachusetts, Inc.

Premo v. Family Dollar Stores of Massachusetts, Inc., was filed in
Worcester County Superior Court in the State of Massachusetts for
alleged violations of the Massachusetts overtime law on April 26,
2013. The plaintiffs are seeking unpaid overtime for a class of
current and former Massachusetts Store Managers whom plaintiffs
claim are not properly classified as exempt from overtime under
Massachusetts law. The Company removed the case to federal
district court in Massachusetts on May 28, 2013. The plaintiffs
challenged the removal to federal court.

On March 28, 2014, the court remanded the claim back to state
court. On April 7, 2014, the Company filed an interlocutory
petition for appellate relief from the remand decision to the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

In the interim, the Company filed its answer to the lawsuit on May
13, 2014. The Company currently awaits the Court's ruling on its
motion.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Briefing Done in "Steingruber" Case Dismissal Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 30, 2015, that in the case, Steingruber
v. Family Dollar Stores of Florida, Inc., briefing is completed on
the Company's Motion to Dismiss, or in the alternative to Stay the
Case, a Motion to Compel Arbitration, and a Motion to Strike the
Collective Action Allegations.

Steingruber v. Family Dollar Stores of Florida, Inc., was filed in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida on February 23, 2015. The lawsuit was brought as a
collective action on behalf of the plaintiff and other similarly
situated Family Dollar store managers alleging the store managers
are misclassified as being exempt from overtime under the FLSA.

On April 3, 2015, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss, or in the
alternative to Stay the Case, a Motion to Compel Arbitration, and
a Motion to Strike the Collective Action Allegations. Briefing is
completed on these motions and they are currently pending before
the court.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Tendered "Scott" Case to Insurer
-----------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 30, 2015, that the Company has tendered
the case, Luanna Scott, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., to
its Employment Practices Liability Insurance ("EPLI") carrier for
coverage under its EPLI policy.

On October 14, 2008, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court in Birmingham, Alabama captioned Scott, et al. v. Family
Dollar Stores, Inc., alleging discriminatory pay practices with
respect to the Company's female Store Managers. This case was pled
as a putative class action or collective action under applicable
statutes on behalf of all Family Dollar female Store Managers. The
plaintiffs seek recovery of back pay, compensatory and punitive
money damages, recovery of attorneys' fees, and equitable relief.
The case was transferred to the United States District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina in November 2008.

Presently, there are 48 named plaintiffs in the Scott case. On
January 13, 2012, the trial court granted the Company's Motion to
Strike the class allegations asserted in the complaint based in
part upon the United States Supreme Court's ruling in Dukes v.
Wal-Mart. The plaintiffs filed an appeal of the Court's dismissal
of the class allegations to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit.

On October 16, 2013, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals partially
reversed the trial court's ruling. While the Fourth Circuit agreed
the original Complaint should not proceed as a class action, it
remanded the case and instructed the trial court to allow the
amendment of the complaint, and then consider, based upon the
amended complaint, whether the case should proceed as a class
action.

On November 14, 2013, the Fourth Circuit denied further en banc
review of the decision. On January 24, 2014, the Company filed a
Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Supreme
Court.

On June 30, 2014, the United States Supreme Court denied further
review of the Fourth Circuit's decision. The case is now back with
the district court.

On September 8, 2014, the district court entered a new Pretrial
Order and Scheduling Plan and the parties are proceeding with
limited discovery pursuant to those Orders.

The Company has tendered the matter to its Employment Practices
Liability Insurance ("EPLI") carrier for coverage under its EPLI
policy. At this time, the Company expects the EPLI carrier will
participate in any resolution of the case. The Company has
exceeded its insurance retention and expects any additional legal
fees and settlements will be paid by the EPLI carrier. No reserve
is appropriate due to the status of the case.


FAMILY DOLLAR: To Defend Against 3 Suits Over Dollar Tree Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 30, 2015, that the company intends to
vigorously defend the claims in three putative class action
lawsuits related to a merger deal.

Three putative class action lawsuits have been filed against
Family Dollar, its directors, Dollar Tree and Dime Merger Sub,
Inc., (subsidiary of Dollar Tree established for Family Dollar to
merge into upon consummation of merger) in the Delaware Court of
Chancery:

* Shiva Y. Stein v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
9985, filed on July 31, 2014,

* Darrell Wickert v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
10025, filed on August 11, 2014, and

* Stuart Friedman v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
10080, filed on September 3, 2014.

On August 26, 2014, the Stein and Wickert actions were
consolidated under the caption In re Family Dollar Stores, Inc.
Stockholder, Litig., C.A. No. 9985-CB. On September 11, 2014, all
three actions were consolidated under the caption In re Family
Dollar Stores, Inc. Stockholder Litig., C.A. No. 9985-CB.

Each of the three actions has been brought on behalf of a putative
class of Family Dollar's stockholders, and each alleges,
generally, that the members of the Family Dollar Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
pending Dollar Tree merger by, among other things, carrying out a
process that the plaintiffs allege did not ensure adequate and
fair consideration to Family Dollar's stockholders. The plaintiffs
further allege that Family Dollar and Dollar Tree aided and
abetted the individual defendants' breaches of their fiduciary
duties. The plaintiffs seek equitable relief to enjoin
consummation of the merger, rescission of the merger and/or
rescissory damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 28, 2014, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action
filed motions for expedited proceedings and for a preliminary
injunction enjoining the merger. On September 3, 2014, the
plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed a motion for a
temporary restraining order to require Family Dollar to terminate
its rights agreement and to direct the Family Dollar Board of
Directors to deem the terms of Dollar General's proposal
sufficient to warrant entering into negotiations with Dollar
General under the terms of the Dollar Tree merger agreement.

At a hearing on September 10, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery
concluded the temporary restraining order application did not
merit scheduling a hearing to consider such relief, and declined
to do so. A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary
injunction was held on December 5, 2014, and on December 19, 2014,
the Delaware Court of Chancery denied, in its entirety, the
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunctive relief.

On December 24, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an application in the
Delaware Court of Chancery to certify an appeal from the denial of
preliminary injunctive relief to the Delaware Supreme Court, which
application the Delaware Court of Chancery denied on January 2,
2015.

The Company believes these lawsuits are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend the claims in these actions. Due to the
preliminary status, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the
possible loss or range of loss that may result from these
lawsuits.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Working to Evaluate Allegations in "Moore" Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Family Dollar Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended May 30, 2015, that the case, Reginald
Moore, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., is in the initial
stages of litigation and the Company is working to evaluate the
allegations contained in the class action petition.

On August 13, 2014, the Company was served with a putative class
action petition entitled Reginald Moore, et al. v. Family Dollar
Stores, Inc., in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis,
Missouri. Mr. Moore contends that he, and others similarly
situated, received Short Message Service ("SMS") text message
advertisements from the Company, without providing express written
consent in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA"). Mr. Moore has requested the court enter an order
certifying the action as a class action, and appointing him as
representative of the class. Mr. Moore further seeks judgment in
favor of himself, and the proposed class, for all damages
available under the TCPA, including statutory damages of $500 -
$1,500 per willful violation.

The Case has been removed from the Circuit Court of the City of
St. Louis, Missouri, to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern Division. The Company moved
to bifurcate discovery, thus limiting initial discovery to the
individual named plaintiff, Reginald Moore. After a hearing on the
issue, the judge ruled in favor of the Company and issued an order
limiting initial discovery to Mr. Moore's individual TCPA claim.
The parties have conducted initial discovery related to Mr.
Moore's TCPA claim only. Additionally, the Company has filed a
Motion for Summary Judgment on Mr. Moore's individual claim. No
ruling has been made on the Company's Motion for Summary Judgment.

The case against the Company is in the initial stages of
litigation and the Company is working to evaluate the allegations
contained in the class action petition. Due to the preliminary
status, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss
or range of loss that may result from this case.


FRESHPOINT OF SOUTH: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Yauhen Brasaus a/k/a James Ericsson, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated individuals v. FreshPoint Of South Florida,
Inc., 0:15-cv-61529-WPD (S.D. Fla., July 28, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

FreshPoint Of South Florida, Inc. provides produce distribution
for hotels, restaurants, and supermarkets throughout South
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon Lee Bogle, Esq.
      LEVIN PAPANTONIO THOMAS MITCHELL RAFFERTY and PROCTOR, P.A.
      316 S. Baylen Street, Suite 600
      Pensacola, FL 32502
      Telephone: (850) 435-7043
      Facsimile: (850) 436-6102
      E-mail: bbogle@levinlaw.com


GOOGLE INC: Scores Win in Android Users' Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Jason Mick, writing for Daily Tech, reported that after a number
of previous dismissals and a short-lived class action Google
pounds the nail in the coffin of a long-lived legal headache

Three disgruntled users of Google Inc.'s (GOOG) mobile Android
operating system must be none too happy with their lawyers, who
managed to scuttle their federal class action privacy lawsuit
against Google in the most bizarre of turns.

I. Gimme Privacy

Robert DeMars of Calif., Michael Goldberg of Ohio, and Scott
McCullough of New Jersey first filed the suit back in June 2012.
The suit dealt with the major shift in Google's privacy policy
that occurred in March 2012.  Prior to that, Google had maintained
separate databases of user information for each of its products.

But starting in spring of 2012, Google put forth a new set of
privacy terms that allowed it to mix its data across multiple
platforms, including its ubiquitous search self-titled search
engine, its popular Gmail email client/service, and across the
wold's most used smartphone platform, Android.  Unhappy with the
impact that would have on their privacy, the trio filed their
claims and consolidated them into a federal suit in Calif. seekd
consumer class action status. The suit was also tied to
controversial tactics Google was using to mine user data into its
cross-platform database, including circumventing security settings
in Apple, Inc.'s (AAPL) Safari browser.  That tactic led to a
probe of Google by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC).  The
FTC would eventually accept a settlement that some analysts
likened to "a slap on the wrist" -- a mere $22.5M USD fine.

From the beginning the case was overseen by U.S. District Judge
Paul Singh Grewal of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Northern California (CAND-USC).  Out the gate, things got off to
the rocky start.  On Dec. 28, 2012 Judge Grewal dismissed the
case, ruling in so many words that the customers failed to provide
enough hard evidence that Google's new policy was damaging them
financial or privay-wise.  But to Google's chagrin he let the
plaintiffs and their legal team rework their claim.

Thus the case lingered on. II. Round Two and Three The plaintiffs
would soldier on.  The lawyers tried to rework the case,
presenting the case to a different U.S. District Judge -- Judge
Lucy H. Koh -- in the same court one year later. This time around
they would make the creative claim that Google was violating the
so-called "Federal Wiretap Act" (18 U.S. Code Chapter 119) -- a
set of U.S. criminal laws that were put in place by the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (referred to as the
"Wiretap Statute") and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act
of 1986 (ECPA).

Generally speaking, Google was right.  The plaintiffs were on
shaky legal footing, esp. considering that (as noted by Google's
lawyers) Yahoo! Inc. (YHOO) had already prevailed in a similar
terms-of-service/user privacy case. The plaintiffs lawyers fired
back with a buckshot approach citing dozens of cases, some of
which seemed tenuously related to the matter at hand.

That argument failed to persuade Judge Koh, who granted another
partial dismissal -- this time citing technical flaws in the
claims.  As Judge Grewal did, however, Judge Koh's Sept. 26, 2013
ruling left the door open to revised filings.

But interestingly Judge Grewal this time decided somewhat in the
plaintiff's favor.  He indicated that their arguments pertaining
to smartphone battery life and data usage relating to the app
store and its new privacy provisions.  He commented:

Thus the plaintiff's had at least a clear path forward -- or so it
seemed -- as Judge Grewal made it exceedingly clear that they had
two -- and only two -- possible valid claims against Google from a
privay perspective (both pertaining to app privacy on Android).
But apparently Judge Grewal's instructions weren't explict enough.
In Feb. 2015 the plaintiff's lawyers -- Mark Gardy and Joseph
Sabella -- did something that even the Judge in the case noted as
somewhat bizarre.

The lawyer duo appeared not to take his previous ruling
previously.  Not only did they add on new privacy related claims,
but they basically abandoned the sole claims Judge Grewal had told
them they could pursue -- the battery life and data usage angles.
Judge Grewal was even taken aback.  Reuters quotes him as saying:

The plaintiffs and their lawyers managed something somewhat
unusual: they pled themselves out of a case.  With no allegation
of dissemination or improper receipt of information, any profit or
loss made from any alleged disclosure, let alone a potential
disclosure, is conjectural.

You might think that after three years of complaints, motions to
dismiss, orders on motions to dismiss, leave to amend, amended
complaints and more, at least the fundamental question of
plaintiffs' Article III standing to pursue this suit would be
settled.  You might think that, but you would be wrong.

Thus Judge Grewal completely dismissed the case.  This time
there's no chance of a fourth revival.  The privacy class action
suit is dead.

But it will surely live on in the constant stream of suits that
Apple, Google, Facebook, Inc. (FB), Yahoo!, and others face on a
regular basis.  After all the Google suit is hardly special for
its premise.  All of the major players in the internet services
space have been targeted by similar class actions in recent years.

Still the Google Privacy case (re: Google Inc Privacy Policy
Litigation, No. 12-01382) will surely live on in memory as one of
the more bizarre class actions in both its ability to revive
itself zombie style, not once, not twice, not thrice, but four
times in federal court only to ultimately have the plaintiff's
lawyers kill it dead for good in a bizarre moment of confusion or
hubris.


HARVEST NATURAL: Filed Motions to Dismiss Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------
Harvest Natural Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q/A Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 26,
2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the
Company has filed motions to dismiss class action lawsuits.

The following related class action lawsuits were filed on the
dates specified in the United States District Court, Southern
District of Texas: John Phillips v. Harvest Natural Resources,
Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (March 22, 2013)
("Phillips case"); Sang Kim v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc.,
James A. Edmiston, Stephen C. Haynes, Stephen D. Chesebro', Igor
Effimoff, H. H. Hardee, Robert E. Irelan, Patrick M. Murray and J.
Michael Stinson (April 3, 2013); Chris Kean v. Harvest Natural
Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April
11, 2013); Prastitis v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A.
Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 17, 2013); Alan Myers v.
Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A. Edmiston and Stephen C.
Haynes (April 22, 2013); and Edward W. Walbridge and the Edward W.
Walbridge Trust v. Harvest Natural Resources, Inc., James A.
Edmiston and Stephen C. Haynes (April 26, 2013). The complaints
allege that the Company made certain false or misleading public
statements and demand that the defendants pay unspecified damages
to the class action plaintiffs based on stock price declines. All
of these actions have been consolidated into the Phillips case.
The Company and the other named defendants have filed a motion to
dismiss and intend to vigorously defend the consolidated lawsuits.


HAUPPAUGE BAGEL: Faces "Recarte" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Recarte and Rosa Hernandez, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, and Moises Recarte, and Jose Turcios,
individually v. Hauppauge Bagel Corp., d/b/a Brendel's Bagels, et
al., Case No. 2:15-cv-04421 (E.D.N.Y., July 28, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

Hauppauge Bagel Corp. operates Brendel's Bagels store with its
principal place of business is located at 950 Wheeler Road,
Hauppauge, New York 11788.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Garrett D. Kaske, Esq.
      SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
      534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 449-9100
      Facsimile: (631) 449-9120
      E-mail: gkaske@shulmankessler.com


HERBALIFE: Former Distributors Ask Judge to Reconsider Decision
---------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Long, writing for Natural Products, reported that former
Herbalife distributors who objected to an approved class-action
settlement have asked a federal judge in Los Angeles to reconsider
her decision.

Herbalife Ltd. agreed to reserve US$15 million for distributors
and abide by other terms including a number of corporate reforms
to settle a class-action lawsuit that alleged the multilevel
marketer (MLM) was a pyramid scheme.

Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell concluded in May that the settlement
was fair, adequate, and reasonable. But lawyers representing 18
distributors who previously objected to the agreement aren't done
contesting its adequacy. A motion for reconsideration was filed,
asking the judge to vacate the final judgment and order of
dismissal in the case.

Massachusetts lawyer Douglas Brooks argued the notice to the class
was inadequate and that the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit didn't
have the right or "standing" to seek injunctive relief because
they are no longer active participants in the MLM. And the judge
erred by failing to independently evaluate the value of the
plaintiffs' lawsuit, according to Brooks' 29-page memorandum.

Finally, Brooks referenced an old speech by Herbalife CEO Michael
Johnson and a recent Herbalife annual sales convention or
"Extravaganza" where the St. Louis Post-Dispatch interviewed
distributors who operate in a level dubbed "Future Millionaire."
The New York Post quoted Johnson in a 2005 speech as stating that
distributors had sometimes engaged in unethical practices, and
Herbalife's leader reportedly encouraged high-level distributors
to do the right thing.

"The conduct at Herbalife Extravaganza in St. Louis indicates that
Michael Johnson's warnings to Herbalife's high level distributors
have been ignored, and that Herbalife is not serious about
enforcing them," Brooks wrote.

Although the company has faced accusations that it operates a
massive pyramid scheme and is being investigated by state and
federal authorities, fewer than 8,000 individuals -- or less than
1 percent of class members -- filed a claim for relief under the
class-action settlement.

Herbalife doesn't see a problem with that. Earlier, Herbalife
argued in court papers that the majority of class members who
declined to file a claim "confirmed the integrity of its business
model."

Herbalife on declined to comment on the motion for
reconsideration.

If the judge declines to change her mind, Brooks' clients will
have to decide whether to live with the final settlement or lodge
an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The former distributors are being represented by Brooks and the
Los Angeles law firm Cohen McKeon LLP.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Settlement in Cunningham/Steavens Approved
-----------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in an exhibit to its Form
10 Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 1, 2015, that the court approved the settlement
in the consolidated Cunningham/Steavens matter on June 16, 2015.

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

* Cunningham and Cunningham, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems
Corporation is a purported collective action filed on May 10, 2006
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York claiming that current and former EDS employees allegedly
involved in installing and/or maintaining computer software and
hardware were misclassified as exempt employees. Another purported
collective action, Steavens, et al. v. Electronic Data Systems
Corporation, was filed on October 23, 2007 in the same court
alleging similar facts. The Steavens case was consolidated for
pretrial purposes with the Cunningham case.

On December 14, 2010, the court granted conditional certification
of a class consisting of employees in 20 legacy EDS job codes in
the consolidated Cunningham/Steavens matter. On December 11, 2013,
Parent and plaintiffs' counsel in the consolidated
Cunningham/Steavens matter, and the Salva matter, mediated these
cases and reached a settlement agreement. The court approved the
settlement on June 16, 2015.

* Salva v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported collective
action filed on June 15, 2012 in the United States District Court
for the Western District of New York alleging that certain
information technology employees allegedly involved in installing
and/or maintaining computer software and hardware were
misclassified as exempt employees under the Fair Labor Standards
Act. On December 11, 2013, Parent and plaintiffs' counsel in the
consolidated Cunningham/Steavens matter and the Salva matter
mediated these cases and reached a settlement agreement. The court
consolidated the Salva matter into the Cunningham/Steavens matter
and approved the settlement on June 16, 2015.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Parties in "Karlbom" Engaged in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in an exhibit to its Form
10 Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 1, 2015, that Karlbom, et al. v. Electronic
Data Systems Corporation is a class action filed on March 16, 2009
in California Superior Court alleging facts similar to the
Cunningham and Steavens matters. The parties are engaged in
discovery.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Plaintiffs in "Benedict" File Class Cert. Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the case, Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Company, have
filed a motion to certify a Rule 23 state class of certain
Technical Solutions Consultants in California, Massachusetts, and
Colorado, Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in an exhibit to
its Form 10 Registration Statement filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 1, 2015.

Benedict v. Hewlett-Packard Company is a purported class action
filed on January 10, 2013 in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California alleging that certain
technical support employees allegedly involved in installing,
maintaining and/or supporting computer software and/or hardware
for Hewlett-Packard Company or Parent were misclassified as exempt
employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The plaintiff has
also alleged that Parent violated California law by, among other
things, allegedly improperly classifying these employees as
exempt.

On February 13, 2014, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for
conditional class certification. On May 7, 2015, the plaintiffs
filed a motion to certify a Rule 23 state class of certain
Technical Solutions Consultants in California, Massachusetts, and
Colorado that they claim were improperly classified as exempt from
overtime under state law.


HEWLETT PACKARD: Approval Hearing Held in Securities Case Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in an exhibit to its Form
10 Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 1, 2015, that preliminary approval hearing was
set for July 17, 2015, in the settlement agreement with the lead
plaintiff in the consolidated securities class action.

In re HP Securities Litigation consists of two consolidated
putative class actions filed on November 26 and 30, 2012 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California alleging, among other things, that from August 19, 2011
to November 20, 2012, the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act by concealing material information and
making false statements related to Hewlett-Packard Company or
Parent's acquisition of Autonomy and the financial performance of
Parent's enterprise services business.

On May 3, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint
alleging that, during that same period, all of the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule
10b-5(b) by concealing material information and making false
statements related to Parent's acquisition of Autonomy and that
certain defendants violated SEC Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) by engaging
in a "scheme" to defraud investors.

On July 2, 2013, Parent filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On
November 26, 2013, the court granted in part and denied in part
Parent's motion to dismiss, allowing claims to proceed against
Parent and Margaret C. Whitman based on alleged statements and/or
omissions made on or after May 23, 2012. The court dismissed all
of the plaintiff's claims that were based on alleged statements
and/or omissions made between August 19, 2011 and May 22, 2012.

The lead plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on
November 4, 2014 and, on December 15, 2014, defendants filed their
opposition to the motion.

On June 9, 2015, Parent entered into a settlement agreement with
the lead plaintiff in the consolidated securities class action.
Under the terms of the settlement, Parent, through its insurers,
will contribute $100 million to a settlement fund that will be
used to compensate persons who purchased Parent's shares during
the period from August 19, 2011 through November 20, 2012. No
individual is contributing to the settlement.

Parent and its current and former officers, directors, and
advisors will be released from any Autonomy-related securities
claims as part of the settlement. The settlement is subject to
court approval. The preliminary approval hearing was set for July
17, 2015.


HEWLETT PACKARD: 2nd Amended Complaint in ERISA Case Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett Packard Enterprise Company said in an exhibit to its Form
10 Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 1, 2015, that in the HP ERISA Litigation, the
court has granted Hewlett-Packard Company or Parent's motion to
dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety and denied
plaintiffs leave to file another amended complaint.

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

On August 16, 2013, Parent filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
On March 31, 2014, the court granted Parent's motion to dismiss
this action with leave to amend.

On July 16, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
containing substantially similar allegations and seeking
substantially similar relief as the first amended complaint.

On June 15, 2015, the court granted Parent's motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint in its entirety and denied plaintiffs
leave to file another amended complaint. Plaintiffs had thirty
days to appeal the court's order.


HOMEJOY INC: "Pickle" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Reyna, and others similarly-situated v. Homejoy, Inc. dba
Homejoy, Case No. 4:15-cv-03405 (N.D. Cal., July 23, 2015), seeks
to recover unpaid wages, interest, waiting time penalties,
injunctive relief, other equitable relief, civil penalties,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the California
Labor Code.

The Plaintiff brings this action on his own behalf, and on behalf
of other similarly situated former employees who worked for the
Defendant and who were abruptly terminated as part of or as a
result of mass layoffs ordered by the Defendant on or about July
17, 2015, who were not provided 60 days advance written notice of
their termination.

The Defendant provides cleaning services in cities throughout the
country via an on-demand dispatch system.  It is based in San
Francisco, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lesley Elizabeth Weaver, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      492 9th Street, Suite 260
      Oakland, CA 94607
      Tel: (415) 968-8999
      Fax: (617) 507-6020
      E-mail: lweaver@blockesq.com

         - and -

      Lori E. Andrus, Esq.
      ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP
      155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Tel: (415) 986-1400
      Fax: (415) 986-1474
      E-mail: lori@andrusanderson.com


HOMELAND PATROL: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Homeland Patrol Corporation and Mirtha E. Cordero,
Case No. 1:15-cv-22800-CMA (S.D. Fla., July 28, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a security guard agency in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dale Lyn Friedman, Esq.
      CONROY SIMBERG GANON KREVANS & ABEL
      3440 Hollywood Boulevard, 2nd Floor
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Telephone: (954) 961-1400
      Facsimile: 967-8577
      E-mail: dfriedman@conroysimberg.com


HONDA MOTOR: Product Recall Cases Transferred to Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. provides warranty programs with regard to
the product recalls and SIC (Safety Improvement Campaign) related
to airbag inflators.  In North America, various class actions
related to the product recalls and SIC have been filed against
Honda since October 2014. The plaintiffs have claimed for properly
functioning airbag inflators, compensation of economic losses
including for incurred costs and the decline in the value of
vehicles, as well as punitive damages. Most of the cases in the
United States were transferred to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida and consolidated into a
multidistrict litigation, Honda said in its Form 20-F Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 26, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015.


HSBC BANK: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Undisclosed Maintenance Fee
------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Wechsler, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., Case No. 1:15-cv-05907 (S.D.N.Y.,
July 28, 2015), arises from the Defendant's  imposition of
undisclosed and unlawful monthly account maintenance fee charges
on customers with HSBC Everyday Savings Accounts.

HSBC Bank USA, N.A. is a national banking association with its
principal place of business located at 452 Fifth Avenue, New York,
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
      Kai H. Richter, Esq.
      Joseph C. Hashmall, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      4600 IDS Center
      80 South Eighth Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 256-3200
      Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
      E-mail: fisher@nka.com
              krichter@nka.com
              jhashmall@nka.com


ILLINIOS: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Richmond-Davis Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Schory, writing for Kane County Chronicle, reported that
the Illinois Second District Appellate Court in Elgin upheld a
lower court's decision to dismiss a class-action complaint against
St. Charles School District 303 in the reorganization of Richmond-
Davis schools.

Parents of students at the schools alleged District 303 had acted
contrary to the Illinois School Code when it converted Davis to a
school for students in kindergarten through second grade and
Richmond into a campus for students in third through fifth grade.

In filing the class-action complaint in October 2013, the parents
claimed the district did not "give the parents of the children
forced to attend Richmond a 'choice' to transfer them to another
school 'in contravention of the law.'"

Some parents put their children in private schools at a cost in
excess of $50,000, according to the suit. They sought, among other
things, compensatory damages, attorney fees and costs, according
to the suit.

In a 10-page decision, the three appellate judges agreed with the
Kane County Circuit Court ruling the suit was barred by state law,
and the school code did not allow for a private cause of action
for damages.

St. Charles attorney Timothy Dwyer represented the parents.

"Obviously, we are disappointed," Dwyer said. "I think both trial
courts and the appellate court said the school district obviously
violated the law, but we were not able to get any remedy."

Parent Larry Norgaard said he has mixed emotions at this point.

"I objected to the railroading," Norgaard said, referring to the
way the reorganization plan was put in place for the 2011-12
school year.

"They did not address the Hispanic population, which was 51
percent, in their language," Norgaard said. "That is not fair.
They were just as concerned as we were."

Superintendent Donald Schlomann said he hoped this would complete
the trio of legal cases that arose from the reorganization.

"Should a decision, made by the board of education, [result in the
district] being required to pay local community members in a class
action?" Schlomann said. "And the court found, in this case, the
answer to that is 'no.' "

Schlomann said the district now can be "focused on the classroom,
not the courtroom."

"We are trying to make sure we have a quality education for our
children, whether they are at Richmond, Davis, or any of our
schools," Schlomann said.


IMMEDIATE CREDIT: Faces "Khaimov" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Venyamin K. Khaimov, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Immediate Credit Recovery, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-04412 (E.D.N.Y., July 28, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
      ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      483 Chestnut Street
      Cedarhurst, NY 11516
      Telephone: (516) 791-4400
      Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
      E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com



INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: Settles N.Y. Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Intralinks Holdings disclosed the following on July 31:

"On July 30, 2015, IntraLinks Holdings, Inc. entered into a
stipulation and agreement of settlement that will resolve the
federal securities class action lawsuit filed in 2011 against the
Company and other defendants, captioned Wallace v. IntraLinks
Holdings, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:11-cv-08861-TPG, which is pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  The current and former officers, directors and
underwriters named as defendants in the Securities Class Action
have also entered into the Settlement.  The Settlement provides
for the resolution of all of the pending claims in the Securities
Class Action, without any admission or concession of wrongdoing or
liability by the Company or the other defendants.  The Company and
the other defendants continue to maintain that they have
meritorious defenses to all claims alleged in the Securities Class
Action.  The Company and the other defendants agreed to the
Settlement to avoid further expense, inconvenience, and the
distraction and inherent risks of burdensome and protracted
litigation."

"Pursuant to the Settlement, the defendants will pay $14.0 million
for a full and complete release of all claims that were or could
have been asserted against the Company or other defendants in the
Securities Class Action.  The Company currently expects that the
full Settlement Amount will be paid for and covered by the
Company's insurers.  The Settlement is subject to preliminary and
final approval by the District Court and certain other
conditions."


JOHN DOE CORP: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Negrete Zaragoza and Nael Lopez Martinez, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. John Doe Corp. d/b/a To
Be Thai, Manit Yotmanee and Cherri Yotmanee, Case No. 1:15-cv-
04396 (E.D.N.Y., July 28, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Thai restaurant located at 126
Beverley Rd., Brooklyn, New York 11218.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JOHN WM: Falsely Marketed Snack Products, "Jones" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maureen Jones, individually on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. John WM. Macy Cheesesticks, Inc., Case No.
509337/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., July 29, 2015), is brought on behalf of
all the consumers in the State of New York who purchased Cheese
Crisps, Cheese Sticks, and Sweet Sticks, that were falsely
marketed by the Defendant as "All Natural."

The products at issue are not "all natural" because they contain
synthetic ingredients thiamine mononitrate, niacin, reduced iron,
riboflavin, and folic acid.

John WM. Macy Cheesesticks, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation that
manufactures, sells, markets, distributes, advertises, and
promotes snack products in and throughout New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Lipari, Esq.
      Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
      Jean M. Sedlak, Esq.
      THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
      77 Water Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (646) 722-4266
      Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
      E-mail: liparij@thesultzerlawgroup.com


KETTLE: Class Suit Settlement Over Chips Misleading Labels
----------------------------------------------------------
Joey Ducey, writing for ABC15, reported that a class action
lawsuit claims Kettle brand chips were mislabeled.

Scott Hardy with Top Class Actions said "they are marked or were
marketed as all natural, no GMOs, no preservatives."

But allegations are that that's not true.

So if you bought Kettle Potato, Tortilla or TIAS chips, you could
get back $1 per bag up to $20.

They had to be bought between January 2010 and February 2015.

The claim deadline is July 30, 2015.

Kettle chips denies any wrongdoing.


KNOWLES CORP: Sept. 15 Trial Set in Shareholder Case v. Audience
----------------------------------------------------------------
Knowles Corporation said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2015,
that trial has been scheduled for September 15, 2015, in the class
action lawsuit against Audience, Inc.

On September 13, 2012, a purported shareholder filed a class
action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California
for Santa Clara County against Audience, the members of its board
of directors, two of its executive officers and the underwriters
of its IPO. An amended complaint was filed on February 25, 2013,
which purports to be brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of
the Company's common stock issued in or traceable to the IPO.

On April 3, 2013, the outside members of the board of directors
and the underwriters were dismissed without prejudice. The amended
complaint added additional shareholder plaintiffs and contains
claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act. The
complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages,
rescission and attorney's fees and costs.

On March 1, 2013, defendants responded to the amended complaint by
filing a demurrer moving to dismiss the amended complaint on the
grounds that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The
court overruled that demurrer. On March 27, 2013, defendants filed
a demurrer moving to dismiss the amended complaint on other
grounds. The Court denied the demurrer on September 4, 2013.

On January 16, 2015, the court granted plaintiff's motion to
certify a class. A trial has been scheduled for September 15,
2015.

Audience believes that the allegations in the complaint are
without merit and intends to vigorously contest the action.

On July 1, 2015, Knowles, a Delaware corporation ("Knowles"),
completed its acquisition of all of the outstanding shares of
common stock, par value $0.001 per share (the "Shares"), of
Audience, a Delaware corporation ("Audience"), pursuant to an
Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of April 29, 2015 (the
"Merger Agreement"), by and among Knowles, Orange Subsidiary,
Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of
Knowles ("Purchaser"), and Audience, pursuant to which Purchaser
offered to purchase all of the outstanding Shares (the "Offer").


LENOVO GROUP: Firms Brawl Over Lead Counsel Slots in MDL
--------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reported that Plaintiffs
lawyers handling privacy cases might work on cutting-edge legal
issues, but that doesn't prevent them from breaking into old-
fashioned lead counsel fights.

Four groups of plaintiffs firms are set to convene in U.S.
District Judge Ronald Whyte's San Jose courtroom morning to vie
for the lead counsel spot in privacy litigation against laptop
maker Lenovo Group Ltd. and adware company Superfish Inc. In their
briefs, the plaintiffs groups have taken aim at each others'
motives, tactics and qualifications almost as aggressively as
they've targeted the defendants.

The underlying litigation accuses Lenovo of installing Superfish
adware on its notebook computers that allegedly tracked users'
Internet activity and made their computers vulnerable to
cyberattacks. More than two dozen lawsuits have been filed against
the companies since Lenovo's insertion of the Superfish program
onto its laptops became public in February. In June, the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the cases to Whyte
for pretrial proceedings in In re Lenovo Adware Litigation, 15-
2624, despite calls from some plaintiffs to route the cases to the
Eastern District of North Carolina, the home of Lenovo's U.S.
headquarters.

Three plaintiffs groups have emerged as top contenders for the
coveted lead counsel spot in the MDL. Privacy specialists at the
Edelson law firm have paired with class action firm Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd in one of the most formidable groups, and the one
most willing to criticize others in the back-and-forth motions
leading up to hearing. They're facing a competing bid from a trio
of Bay Area firms: Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, Girard Gibbs and
Pritzker Levine. The Bay Area group touts the backing of the vast
majority of other MDL plaintiffs.

A third group from Block & Leviton and Van Laningham Duncan claims
that their work on a preliminary-injunction motion benefited all
potential class members, and that they're the only group with
lawyers in North Carolina and the Bay Area, where Superfish is
headquartered. Joseph Saveri of the Joseph Saveri Law Firm has
also made a bid to be appointed interim class counsel.

Things could get uncomfortable in Whyte's courtroom if the hearing
is as contentious as the briefing that's led up to it.
In one filing, Robbins Geller's Patrick Coughlin and Edelson's Jay
Edelson labeled the Bay Area firms' campaign to garner support
from other plaintiffs a "popularity contest" unworthy of
consideration from the judge. Coughlin and Edelson also claim the
complaint filed by the Cotchett firm lifted nine paragraphs word-
for-word from the initial suit filed by Edelson. "Leaders draft,
followers copy," they wrote. They further accuse the Bay Area
firms of going behind their backs to complain to the defendants
about arranging "secret" mediation session after initially
collaborating on a pre-MDL effort to streamline the case.
In reply, the Bay Area firms accuse Robbins Geller and Edelson of
engaging in pre-MDL settlement talks without the benefit of
discovery and against the better judgment of other plaintiffs.
"This is hardly a record demonstrating the ability to work
cooperatively with other plaintiffs' counsel," wrote Jonathan
Levine of Pritzker Levine. ("Ability to work cooperatively with
others" was one of six criteria Whyte laid out for lead counsel
candidates in June in an initial case management order.)
Despite often taking aim at one another, the Bay Area firms and
the Edelson/Robbins Geller group were united in criticizing the
preliminary injunction efforts of Block & Leviton and Van
Laningham Duncan. The motion for a preliminary injunction to force
Lenovo to give notice to customers about the risks associated with
the Superfish adware and instructions on how to remove it was
briefed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina. The case was transferred before a ruling on the
injunction.

Levine wrote that the injunction bid was "a 'go-it-alone' strategy
that has found no support from any other plaintiffs firm in the
litigation." Edelson and Geller wrote that the lack of
communication with other plaintiffs about the injunction bid
demonstrated either an inability to cooperate or a desire to show
some procedural advancement in hopes of bolstering the firms'
leadership bid. Even Lenovo's counsel, Daniel Stephenson at K&L
Gates, said that the preliminary-injunction motion had been
ineffective, though the company expressed no preference in the
lead counsel fight. "Lenovo believes that the PI motion
accomplished nothing," Stephenson wrote.

In response, Block & Leviton's Lesley Weaver claimed that the
preliminary-injunction effort had elicited potentially damaging
statements from the company. "None of the competing movants have
been able to identify a single concrete step that they have taken
to address the ongoing harm that all movants have alleged in their
complaints," she wrote. Weaver also warned that "perceived
attacks" on the qualifications of other firms by plaintiffs could
potentially be fodder for the defendants to challenge the adequacy
of any proposed class as the case progresses.
Reached by phone morning, Weaver said the feuding amounts to "a
bunch of talented lawyers interested in leading an important
case."

"We're focused on representing the rights of consumers," she said,
declining to comment further.

Edelson and Levine both declined to comment. Saveri didn't respond
to phone and email messages.

The hearing is set for 9 a.m. in San Jose.


LIBERTY TAX: Parties in ERC Class Action Reached Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Tax, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2015, for the fiscal
year ended April 30, 2015, that the parties in the ERC class
action litigation have entered into a settlement agreement in June
2015 pursuant to which the Company will establish a settlement
fund of $5.3 million.

"We were sued in November 2011 in federal courts in Arkansas,
California, Florida, and Illinois, and additional lawsuits were
filed in federal courts in January 2012 in Maryland and North
Carolina, in February 2012 in Wisconsin, and in May 2012 in New
York and Minnesota," the Company said.

In April 2012, a motion to consolidate all of the then-pending
cases before a single judge in federal court in the Northern
District of Illinois was granted, and in June 2012, the plaintiffs
filed a new complaint in the consolidated action.

"The consolidated complaint alleges that our refund transfer
products formerly called electronic refund checks ("ERC")
represent a form of refund anticipation loan ("RAL") because the
taxpayer is "loaned" the tax preparation fee, and that the refund
transfer product is, therefore, subject to federal truth-in-
lending disclosure and state law requirements regulating RALs,"
the Company said.  "The plaintiffs also allege disclosure
violations related to the ERC fees paid by RAL customers. The
plaintiffs, therefore, claim violations of state-specific RAL and
other consumer statutes."

The lawsuit purports to be a class action, and the plaintiffs
allege potential damages in excess of $5.0 million.

"We appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit a ruling that certain of the plaintiffs' claims were not
subject to arbitration. Following mediation, the parties entered
into a settlement agreement in June 2015 pursuant to which we will
establish a settlement fund of $5.3 million, inclusive of
settlement administration costs and plaintiffs' counsel fees," the
Company said.  "The parties are in the process of arranging for
the remand of the case to the trial court, which must approve the
settlement. We have preserved potential claims against a financial
product partner that was responsible for the design of a portion
of our ERC programs in the years at issue in the cases. We have
also accrued the proposed settlement amount."


LIBERTY TAX: TCPA Case Settlement Remains Subject to Conditions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Tax, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 1, 2015, for the fiscal
year ended April 30, 2015, that the settlement reached in a TCPA
class action litigation remains subject to other conditions
typical in a class action.

"We were sued in September 2013 in federal court in Illinois in
connection with alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act," the Company said.  "Plaintiff alleges that we
inappropriately made auto dialed telephone calls to cellular
telephones, seeks the certification of a nationwide class action,
and claims statutory damages of $500-$1,500 per violation. We
tendered the defense of this litigation to a third party entity
that had contracted with us to solicit potential franchisees, and
that third party entity acknowledged its defense and
indemnification obligations to us. However, because the third
party did not have the financial resources to satisfy its defense
and indemnity obligations, we concluded that we could not rely
upon the fulfillment of those obligations."

"In September 2014, the Company and the plaintiffs reached a
tentative settlement of this litigation pursuant to which we will
establish a settlement fund of $3.0 million, inclusive of
settlement administration costs and plaintiffs' counsel fees. This
settlement has received the preliminary approval of the court, but
remains subject to other conditions typical in a class action. We
have accrued the proposed settlement amount."


LEVY ACQUISITION: Reached Settlement of "Tomasulo" Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Levy Acquisition Corp. has reached a settlement in principle of
all claims asserted in Tomasulo v. Levy Acquisition Sponsor, LLC,
et al., a putative class action lawsuit pending in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, Levy said in its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30,
2015.

The settlement resolves all claims that the June 11, 2015
definitive proxy filed by LAC is misleading or incomplete as well
as all other causes of action asserted in the case. The settlement
in principle does not provide for any monetary payment to the
plaintiff or the putative plaintiff class, but the plaintiff may
request that the Circuit Court order the Company to pay its
attorneys' fees. Any final settlement will be subject to the
Circuit Court's approval.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Class Suit Over Top Executives' Exit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reported
that Lumber Liquidators Holdings Inc., whose stock has plummeted
since a "60 Minutes" expose revealed that its hardwood laminate
flooring products contained illegal levels of formaldehyde, is
fending off a raft of shareholder lawsuits filed against its top
executives, many of whom have abruptly left the company.

The shareholder lawsuits are separate from the more than 100
consumer class actions coordinated before U.S. District Judge
Anthony Trenga in the Eastern District of Virginia.

Shareholders filed a consolidated derivative complaint on behalf
of Toano, Virginia-based Lumber Liquidators on June 26 against the
company's board and five officers, including three who have left
since the "60 Minutes" report on March 1. In April, the company
announced chief financial officer Daniel Terrell's resignation.

Chief executive officer Robert Lynch abruptly left in May. William
Schlegel, who was the head of merchandising, was fired.

Those executives and Lumber Liquidators also moved to dismiss a
separate securities class action brought on behalf of shareholders
accusing them of securities fraud.

The lawsuits have proliferated since the "60 Minutes" piece
revealed Lumber Liquidators was working with Chinese mills that
didn't comply with the California Air Resources Board's
regulations on formaldehyde emissions.

Depending on the reasons, the high-profile executive departures
could bolster the shareholder litigation against Lumber
Liquidators, said John Coffee, a professor at Columbia Law School.

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

A Lumber Liquidators spokeswoman and Lyle Roberts, a partner in
the Washington office of Palo Alto, Calif.-based Cooley who
represents the company and its board and officers, did not respond
to a request for comment.

Both shareholder actions allege that Lumber Liquidators and its
executives misled investors in financial reports and conference
calls by attributing its increasing gross margins to improvements
in its business partnerships. Instead, the lawsuits allege, Lumber
Liquidators used illegally sourced, cheaper lumber and partnered
with Chinese mills that manufactured flooring products with
dangerous levels of formaldehyde.

The securities class action complaint originally was filed in
November 2013 following reports that federal agents had searched
the corporate offices of Lumber Liquidators. Since then, Lumber
Liquidators stock has plummeted from a peak of $119 a share to
less than $20.

On Feb. 25, Lumber Liquidators confirmed that the Justice
Department was considering criminal charges as part of an
investigation into whether the company violated the U.S. Lacey Act
by importing illegally sourced timber from protected forests in
Russia.

In the securities class action's amended complaint, filed on April
22, plaintiffs allege that the misrepresentations of the three
executives and founder Thomas Sullivan, now interim CEO, caused
investor losses of $1.52 billion. The complaint, which references
the statements of six confidential witnesses, also alleges that
they had a financial incentive to conceal that information because
they cashed out millions of dollars of their own stock during the
class period.

"Our investigation showed the company was illegally sourcing wood
from China and that explained the exceptional gross margins that
Lumber Liquidators was able to achieve," said Jeremy Lieberman, a
partner at Pomerantz in New York, lead plaintiffs counsel in the
class action. "The recent resignations since the '60 Minutes'
episode only confirm the allegations that we had in the original
complaint. The company had too high levels of formaldehyde --
above levels by regulators -- in addition to illegally sourced
wood."

The class action was brought on behalf of anyone who purchased
Lumber Liquidators stock between February 22, 2012, and February
27, 2015.

The defendants moved to dismiss that action on June 2, blaming
some of the stock drops on negative reports of short sellers and
refuting any knowledge of the noncompliance issues.

"The complaint identifies no document, witness, or other piece of
evidence establishing that any individual defendant -- or anyone
else at the company -- knew or was severely reckless in not
knowing of the supposed regulatory violations and their alleged
impact on Lumber Liquidators' financial performance," wrote
Roberts, of Cooley.

U.S. District Judge Arenda Wright Allen of the Eastern District of
Virginia ordered that plaintiffs attorneys submit more information
by July 21 about the confidential witnesses cited in their
complaint after Lumber Liquidators discovered that one of them,
having been contacted, disputed making the statements.

Meanwhile, shareholders also have filed five derivative actions,
which are brought by shareholders on behalf of the company
generally against board members for failing to perform their
fiduciary duties. Two cases have been filed in state courts in
Virginia and Delaware, where the company is incorporated. On June
17, Wright Allen consolidated three derivative actions in federal
court.

The defendants are due to file their motions to dismiss by July
24.

Despite the higher hurdle of a derivative complaint, Benny
Goodman, a partner at San Diego's Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd who
filed the consolidated derivative complaint, said the executive
departures could demonstrate wrongdoing.

"Often times, we see these kinds of mass resignations in the
corporate suite in light of massive wrongdoing when there's a big
financial scandal," he said. "In light of this, I think it's fair
to say we rarely see a major financial scandal like this that
doesn't originate from a failure of corporate governance."


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Pickle" Suit Alleges Defective Product
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stacey Pickle, and all others similarly situated v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., Lumber Liquidators Leasing, LLC, Lumber
Liquidators Holding, Inc. and Lumber Liquidators Services, LLC,
Case No. 5:15-cv-00804 (W.D. Okla., July 23, 2015), seeks damages,
equitable monetary relief, attorneys' fees and litigation costs
pursuant to the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act, Oklahoma Deceptive
Trade Practices for Breach of Warranty and Oklahoma Consumer
Protection Act.

Lumber Liquidators supervised and controlled the manufacturing,
and packaged, distributed, marketed, and sold a variety of
Chinese-manufactured laminate wood flooring materials that it
prominently advertised and warranted as fully compliant with
California's formaldehyde emission standards promulgated by the
California Air Resources Board.

The Defendants are specialty retailers of hardwood flooring in the
U.S., with over 300 retail stores located in 46 states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Monty L. Cain, Esq.
      CAIN LAW OFFICE
      P.O. Box 892098
      Oklahoma City, OK 73189
      Tel: (405) 378-3033
      Fax: (405) 632-3036
      E-mail: monty@cainlaw-okc.com

         - and -

      Edward L. White, Esq.
      EDWARD L. WHITE, P.C.
      825 East 33rd Street
      Edmond, OK 73013
      Tel: (405) 810-8188
      Fax: (405) 608-0971
      E-mail: ed@edwhitelaw.com

         - and -

      Roger L. Mandel, Esq.
      LACKEY HERSHMAN, LLP
      3102 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 777
      Dallas, TX 75219
      Tel: (214) 560-2201
      Fax: (214) 560-2203
      E-mail: rlm@lhlaw.net


MAGNUM HUNTER: Dismissal of Securities Case Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------
Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30,
2015, that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has
entered a Summary Order unanimously affirming the Southern
District of New York's dismissal of the Securities Case in favor
of the Company and the individual defendants.

As reported by Magnum Hunter Resources Corporation in its filings
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"), including
the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014, certain class action complaints had previously
been filed against the Company and certain of its officers
relating to the alleged accounting issues further described below.
In late 2013, the class action cases that remained outstanding
were consolidated into one action in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaints in the Securities Case alleged that the Company
made certain false or misleading statements in its filings with
the SEC, including statements related to the Company's internal
and financial controls, the calculation of non-cash share-based
compensation expense, the late filing of the Company's Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012
(which was filed by the Company with the SEC in June 2013), the
dismissal of the Company's previous independent registered
accounting firm, and other matters identified in the Company's
Form 8-K filed with the SEC on April 16, 2013, as amended. The
complaints demanded that the defendants pay unspecified damages to
the class action plaintiffs, including damages allegedly caused by
the decline in the market price of the Company's common stock
between February 22, 2013 and April 22, 2013.

As reported by the Company in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed
with the SEC on June 25, 2014, on June 23, 2014, the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an
Opinion and Order granting the Company's and the individual
defendants' motion to dismiss the Securities Case.  The plaintiffs
subsequently appealed the decision dismissing the Securities Case
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On June 23, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
entered a Summary Order unanimously affirming the Southern
District of New York's dismissal of the Securities Case in favor
of the Company and the individual defendants.

A copy of the Summary Order is available at: http://is.gd/KQ2GOk


MARTHA STEWART: Faces "Seader" Suit Over Sequential Merger Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Seader, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., et al., Case
No. 11341-VCN (Del. Ch., July 28, 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:

      Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
      ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
      919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Telephone: (302) 656-4433
      E-mail: ckeener@rmgglaw.com

         - and -

      Carl L. Stine, Esq.
      Fei-Lu Qian, Esq.
      Sean M. Zaroogian, Esq.
      WOLF POPPER LLP
      845 Third Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 759-4600
      E-mail: cstine@wolfpopper.com
              fqian@wolfpopper.com
              szaroogian@wolfpopper.com


MASTER DOOR: Removes "Velunza" Class Suit to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Pedro Velunza and other
similarly situated individuals v. Master Door & Services, Inc. and
Albert Gomez, Case No. 15-11516-CA-01, was removed from the 11th
Judicial Circuit in 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-22802-RNS to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts causes of action for violation of Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

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


MATTY'S BAR: "Olivares" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ernesto Olivares and Alfredo Benitez, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Matty's Bar & Grille, Inc. and
Matt Anderson, Case No. 2:15-cv-00912 (E.D. Wis., July 28, 2015),
seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated damages, costs,
attorneys' fees, and any such other relief pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant with its principal
place of business located at 14460 West College Avenue New Berlin,
Wisconsin 53151.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Summer Murshid, Esq.
      Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
      Timothy Maynard, Esq.
      HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
      222 East Erie, Suite 210, P.O. Box 442
      Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
      Telephone: (414) 271-8650
      Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
      E-mail: smurshid@hq-law.com
              ljohnson@hq-law.com
              tmaynard@hq-law.com


MDC PARTNERS: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on July 31 disclosed that a class
action has been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of MDC Partners, Inc. common
stock during the period between September 24, 2013 and April 27,
2015.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from July 31, 2015.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H.
Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com
If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/mdc/
Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges MDC and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
MDC is a holding company that provides a comprehensive range of
customized marketing, activation, communications and consulting
services via its subsidiaries.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made or caused to be made a series of materially false or
misleading statements about MDC's business, executive
compensation, related-party transactions, goodwill, prospects and
operations.  These material misstatements and omissions had the
cause and effect of creating in the market an unrealistically
positive assessment of MDC and its business, prospects and
operations, thus causing the Company's common stock to be
overvalued and artificially inflated.  As a result, MDC common
stock traded at artificially inflated prices and the investing
public suffered damages.

On April 27, 2015, after the close of trading, MDC issued a press
release announcing its financial results for the period ended
March 31, 2015.  The press release also reported that the
Securities and Exchange Commission had been conducting a formal
investigation into the Company's reporting of executive
compensation and goodwill.  In response to these revelations, the
price of MDC common stock, which traded near the Class Period high
of $28.65 per share on the last day of the Class Period, plummeted
27.8%, or $7.78 per share, from $27.98 per share on April 27, 2015
to close at $20.20 per share on April 28, 2015.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
MDC common stock during the Class Period.  The plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive experience in
prosecuting investor class actions including actions involving
financial fraud.

With 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller represents U.S.
and international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation.

Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/mdc/for more
information.


MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Faces Class Action Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
WANE reports that a medical software company based in Fort Wayne
recently sent out thousands of letters, letting people know their
personal information may have been compromised.

It happened during a network hack back in May.  Now, James Young
of Indianapolis has filed a federal class action lawsuit against
Medical Informatics Engineering.

"This data breach is an example of one of the more serious types
of data breach situations to occur because the information that's
been released consists primarily of personnel health information
and electronic medical records," attorney Richard Shevitz said.

That lawsuit claims MIE failed to ensure its data systems were
adequately protected, and didn't notify victims in a timely
manner.

"A company of this nature should have the highest level of
safeguards in place to make sure that the information will not be
compromised, so for it to allow for the information to become
released this way is obviously something regarded as a very
serious breach," Mr. Shevitz said.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court because it's expected to
have more than 100 plaintiffs.  Six counts are included in the
suit, including negligence, breach of contract and violation of
Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act.  The suit also claims the
company didn't provide timely notice of the breach.  It happened
in May and letters were sent to patients in July.  Now,
Mr. Shevitz is asking for damages.

"There is a number of different ways they can be calculated, so we
haven't yet come to a specific figure per person, but the amount
damages is clearly in the millions of dollars of range,"
Mr. Shevitz said.

The Indiana Attorney General is also investigating the breach.
According to the AG's Office, about 1.5 million Hoosiers were
affected and 3.9 million people across the country could have been
impacted.  The investigation will focus on whether or not
customers were properly notified of the breach and if MIE had
appropriate safeguards in place to protect customers' data.

"We're all looking at the same set of facts that occurred, trying
to assemble the information and come up with an accurate picture,
for example, what types of controls the company had in place or
didn't have in place, how soon the company knew of the problem
before it alerted the consumers and that type of thing,"
Mr. Shevitz said.

MIE Chief Operating Officer Eric Jones told 24-Hour News 8's
sister station WANE-TV in an email on July 31 that they are aware
of the suit and are reviewing it.  He went on to say, "Our primary
focus at this time is on our response to those affected by this
cyber attack."

Cohen & Malad LLP out of Indianapolis is handling the case.  Any
and all questions about the lawsuit can be directed to them at
317-636-6481.

MORGANS HOTEL: Illegally Retains Workers Gratuities, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jahangir Ahmed, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Morgans Hotel Group Management LLC and Richard Szymanski, Case
No. 153841/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., July 28, 2015), arises from the
Defendants' policy and practice of unlawfully retaining employees'
gratuities at all of their catering facilities in New York.

The Defendants operate a hotel and catering venues located in New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brett R. Cohen
      Jeffrey K. Brown
      Michael A. Tompkins
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Telephone: (516) 873-9550


NAT'L HOCKEY: Commissioner Gives Deposition in Concussion Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
SportingNews' Bob Hille, citing ESPN.com, reports that NHL
commissioner Gary Bettman was scheduled to give a legal deposition
last July 31 as part of the class-action lawsuit against the
league regarding concussions.

Mr. Bettman's testimony was scheduled to begin at 10:00 a.m. ET in
U.S. District Court in New York before Judge Susan Richard Nelson,
who ruled in May that Mr. Bettman possessed "unique or special
knowledge relevant" to the players' lawsuit.

Judge Nelson's ruling allowed the plaintiffs' attorneys the
opportunity to first depose other witnesses, including deputy
commissioner Bill Daly and director of hockey operations Colin
Campbell, as well as one team trainer and a team doctor.

More than 60 former NHL players -- including lead plaintiffs
Dan LaCouture, Michael Peluso, Gary Leeman, Bernie Nicholls,
David Christian and Reed Larson -- sued the league in November of
2013, claiming the NHL not only avoided its responsibility to
forewarn players of the risks they faced with concussions and
brain injuries, but also both "intentionally concealed material
information" from and "recklessly endangered" the plaintiffs.

Mr. Bettman previously said there is no evidence linking hockey
and chronic traumatic encephalopathy, a degenerative disease
caused by brain trauma.

"From a medical science standpoint, there is no evidence yet that
one necessarily leads to the other," Mr. Bettman said.  "I know
there are a lot of theories, but if you ask people who study it,
they tell you there is no statistical correlation that can
definitively make that conclusion."

The plaintiffs' class-action suit covers approximately 5,000
living former players who seek unspecified damages and court-
approved, NHL-sponsored medical monitoring for neurological
disorders and other concussion-related health problems.

The NHL players' lawsuit came months after 4,500 former NFL
players reached a $765 million settlement with the NFL over the
same type of concussion-related complaints.


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Vincent Wong Firm Files Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Southern District
of Florida on behalf of investors who purchased Nationstar
Mortgage Holdings Inc. (NYSE:NSM) securities between February 27,
2014 and May 4, 2015.

The complaint alleges that Nationstar issued materially false and
misleading statements. In particular it is alleged that Nationstar
made certain positive statements about improving its
profitability, however, Nationstar failed to disclose deficiencies
in management control and supervision necessary to ensure the
Company's compliance with applicable laws and regulations in
connection with the servicing of MSRs. The complaint further
alleges, among other allegations, that Nationstar had been gouging
mortgagors and illegally enhancing its profits through illicit
practices, including charging for repeated, unnecessary
inspections.

If you suffered a loss in Nationstar 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. To obtain additional information, contact
Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephone
at 212.425.1140, or visit http://docs.wongesq.com/NSM-Info-
Request-Form-786.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights.

The firm may be reached at:

         Vincent Wong, Esq.
         The Law Office Of Vincent Wong
         39 East Broadway
         Suite 304
         New York, NY 10002
         Tel. 212.425.1140
         Fax. 866.699.3880
         Email: vw@wongesq.com


NITRO FLUIDS: "Sheard" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Sheard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Nitro Fluids, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00323 (S.D. Tex.,
July 28, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Based in Nordheim, Texas, Nitro Fluids, LLC provides oilfield
services to drilling and production sites throughout the State of
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Clifton Alexander, Esq.
      SICO WHITE HOELSCHER & BRAUGH LLP
      900 Frost Bank Plaza
      802 N Carancahua Ste 900
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Telephone: (361) 653-3300
      Facsimile: (361) 653-3333
      E-mail: calexander@swhhb.com


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Deal Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. court has granted final approval of the settlement and
entered a final judgment and order dismissing a securities class
action, OmniVision Technologies said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended April 30, 2015.

"On October 26, 2011, the first of several putative class action
complaints was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against us and three of our
executives, one of whom is a director," the Company said. "All of
the complaints alleged that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making misleading statements or omissions
regarding our business and financial results, in particular
regarding the use of our imaging sensors in Apple Inc.'s iPhone."

These actions have been consolidated as In re OmniVision
Technologies, Inc. Litigation, Case No. 11-CV-5235 (RMW) (the
"Securities Case").

"On April 23, 2012, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock
between August 27, 2010 and November 6, 2011, seeking unspecified
damages. On March 29, 2013, the court denied the defendants'
motion to dismiss.

"On December 30, 2014, the parties entered into a stipulation and
agreement of settlement to resolve the litigation, which was then
submitted to the court for preliminary approval. The stipulation
and agreement of settlement provides for a payment of $12.5
million to the plaintiff class, which is funded solely by our
insurance carriers. We also entered into a mutual release
agreement with one of our insurance carriers.

"In March 2015, the court entered an order granting preliminary
approval of the settlement and ordering notice to the putative
plaintiff class. On June 5, 2015, the court granted final approval
of the settlement and entered a final judgment and order
dismissing the action.

"As of April 30, 2015, prior to the court granting final approval
of the settlement, we reported on our Consolidated Balance Sheet
$12.5 million as Recoverable insurance proceeds within Total
current assets, and $12.5 million as Litigation settlement accrual
within Total current liabilities."


PAIN THERAPEUTICS: Court Denied Motion for Summary Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pain Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on June 29, 2015, that the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas has denied a
motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants in a class action
lawsuit.

On December 2, 2011, a securities-related purported class action
was filed against Pain Therapeutics, Inc. and its executive
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas.  This action, titled KB Partners I, L.P., Individually and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Pain Therapeutics,
Inc., Remi Barbier, Nadav Friedmann and Peter S. Roddy, was
scheduled for trial by court order dated June 23, 2015.  Trial was
to occur on July 7, 2015 through July 9, 2015 and continue on July
13, 2015 to July 14, 2015.

In an order dated June 16, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas denied a motion for summary judgment
filed by Defendants concluding that there were genuine disputes of
material fact for a jury to resolve in a class action alleging
violations of Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

"We continue to believe we have substantial defenses in this
matter.  As with any litigation proceeding, we cannot predict with
certainty the eventual outcome of this matter," the Company said.


PATH MEDICAL: "Marin" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------
Gabriela Marin, and all others similarly situated v. Dr. Eric
Braverman, Path Medical P.C., and Total Health Nutrients, Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-05852 (S.D.N.Y., July 27, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay wages on time in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Defendants operate a medical clinic that focuses on "brain
health" and longevity.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Orin Robert Kurtz, Esq.
      Gardy & Notis, LLP
      501 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1408
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (212) 905-0509
      Fax: (212) 905-0508
      E-mail: okurtz@gardylaw.com


PC ADVANTAGE: "Camilleri" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Louis Camilleri, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. P.C. Advantage, Inc., Chris Cohen, and Porteck
Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-04410 (E.D.N.Y., July 28, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a medical billing company with its
principal place of business located at 730 Montauk Highway, Center
Moriches, New York 11934.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yale Pollack, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF YALE POLLACK P.C.
      66 Split Rock Road
      Syosset, NY 11791
      Telephone: (516) 634-6340
      Facsimile: (516) 634-6341
      E-mail: ypollack@yalepollacklaw.com


PEARCE & DURICK: Faces Class Suit Over Role in Ponzi Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amy Dalrymple, writing for Inforum, reported that ore than 100
investors from around the world have joined a class action lawsuit
alleging that a Bismarck law firm played a role in a Ponzi scheme
that bilked people out of $62 million.

A complaint filed in U.S. District Court alleges that the Pearce &
Durick law firm, which was the escrow agent for North Dakota
Developments LLC, committed legal malpractice by failing to advise
investors they were investing in unlawful securities.

In May, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil
complaint against North Dakota Developments and its owners, Robert
L. Gavin and Daniel J. Hogan, alleging they had defrauded
investors since 2012 for North Dakota oilfield housing projects
that were never finished.

Investigative records indicate 980 investors from 66 countries
invested more than $62 million in North Dakota Developments,
according to the North Dakota Securities Department.

Investors thought they were buying an interest in housing for oil
workers in the booming Bakken region, but the high returns they
were promised never materialized and the developers are accused of
misusing investor money.

The class action case alleges that investors were required to pay
legal fees to the Pearce & Durick firm for review of documents
related to the investment deals.

That formed an attorney-client relationship between the firm and
the investors, the lawsuit alleges, and the firm should have
advised investors they were investing in unlawful securities.

"We think they should have alerted investors about a number of
pretty serious red flags or outright violations," said securities
lawyer Alan Rosca of Cleveland, one of several lawyers
representing the investors.

But the firm denies that it represented the investors, and made
that fact clear to investors when they signed their purchase
agreements, said attorney Richard Thomas, who represents both the
firm and Bismarck attorney Jonathan Sanstead, who is named in the
case.

The firm's role as escrow agent was to distribute money from
investors to the developer according to stages outlined in the
escrow agreement, Thomas said.

If the allegations against North Dakota Developments are true, the
developers misled the law firm about meeting those stages, Thomas
said.

Thomas said the lawsuit is a consequence of the defrauded
investors seeking recovery.

"We have now become a target. We don't believe that that action
and activity is justified by the actual facts," said Thomas, of
Arden Hills, Minn. "A lot of people were misled, including the
firm, if the allegations against the principals prove true."

The firm has not yet filed an answer to the legal complaint.

Several investors from Singapore are named in the class action
complaint, but the case has grown to include more than 100
investors from several countries, Rosca said.

The attorneys, which include co-counsel Mac Schneider of Grand
Forks, are talking to 250 to 300 more potential clients from
around the world, Rosca said. Many lost between $50,000 and
$100,000 while others lost a few hundred thousand, Rosca said.

"You hear some really sad stories," Rosca said. "Life savings that
are gone and medical situations that they can't take care of
because the money is gone. It's really sad."

Rosca said the class action case does not allege any fraud or
knowing misconduct by the firm or Sanstead, a former partner with
the firm.

"The court will decide who's liable and for what," Rosca said. "I
don't think the firm did anything intentionally wrong."

Additional class action cases are possible. The investors'
attorneys are still reviewing evidence and may file lawsuits
against additional defendants, said Rosca, whose practice
specializes in representing defrauded investors.

"Schemes of this size, you can hardly perpetrate them alone,"
Rosca said. "Once you get above a certain amount, you really need
a lot of professional infrastructure, for lack of a better term."

Meanwhile, the company that provides malpractice insurance for
Pearce & Durick has filed its own lawsuit against the firm and
Sanstead.

ALPS Property & Casualty Insurance Co. is asking the court to rule
that it doesn't have a duty to cover claims against the firm and
Sanstead.

Sanstead denies the allegations in that case and has cooperated
fully with the Securities and Exchange Commission investigation,
said attorney Tim Purdon, who is representing Sanstead in the
insurance coverage case.

Sanstead is no longer with the firm and has started his own
practice, Purdon said.

"His reputation speaks for itself in the legal community," Purdon
said.

Phillip Cole, a Minneapolis attorney representing Pearce & Durick
in the insurance coverage case, said the firm did not profit from
the situation.

"They were a victim, just like these investors, I'm afraid," Cole
said.


PREMIUM RETAIL: Faces "Albanez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Albanez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Premium Retail Services, Inc., Case No. RG15779826
(Cal. Super. Ct., July 29, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California
Labor Code.

Premium Retail Services, Inc. provides product promotion services
to manufacturers and retailers of electronics throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Julian Hammond, Esq.
      HAMMONDLAW, P.C.
      1829 Reisterstown Rd. Suite 410
      Baltimore, MD 21208
      Telephone: (310) 601-6766
      Facsimile: (310) 295-2385
      E-mail: jhammond@hammondlawpc.com


PRESSURE CONTROL: "Powell" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Powell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Pressure Control Specialties, LLC, Case No. 6:15-cv-
02104 (W.D. La., July 28, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Pressure Control Specialties, LLC provides well pressure control
related services to wire-line and related types of operations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RAM'S HEAD: Ex-Pres. Gets 2-Year Jail Over Bathroom Recordings
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Broom, writing for WUSA9, reported that the former president
of a group of popular regional night clubs was given a partially
suspended two-year sentence after he admitted to recording
unsuspecting women using one club's bathroom over a three-year
period.

Prosecutors revealed there may be more locations where similar
video was recorded.

Former Ram's Head group president Kyle Muehlhauser, 37, will spend
90 days of his sentence in the Howard County jail, and could serve
the entire two years if he violates any of the conditions of his
release. He was handcuffed and led from court.

Prosecutors were able to identify at least two victims from video
seized when one of the women contacted police after noticing a
small camera drop to the floor in a bathroom she was using at the
Ram's Head Tavern at Savage Mill, which Muehlhauser owns.

"I'm constantly afraid someone is out there to violate my privacy
--- it makes me sick to my stomach," one of the victims told
District Court Judge Wayne Brooks at a sentencing hearing.

"Your actions will have everlasting impacts on their lives,"
Brooks told Muehlhauser as he rendered the sentence.

Muelhauser's attorney Jason Shapiro explained that the night club
owner suffered stress, which led him to voyeurism. Muelhauser is
being treated by a psychologist and is not a threat to the
community, Shaprio said.

The Ram's Head Group operates seven night club and restaurant
venues in Maryland ranging from smaller tavern-style facilities to
large concert venues, including Pier Six in Baltimore.

Muehlhauser and the group are now the targets of a class action
lawsuit.

"There are potentially thousands of victims," said attorney G.
Russell Donaldson, who has already filed one suit.

Donaldson said any woman who visited bathrooms at the Ram's Head
Tavern at Savage during a three year period from 2012 to February
of 2015 could have been victimized without knowing it.

Muelhauser's attorney disputes the claim. "He placed a camera once
three years ago, and then did it again occasionally starting about
a year and a half ago," Shaprio said. "This was not going on all
the time."


RECEPTOS INC: Faces "Rockaway" Suit Over Proposed Celgene Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Rockaway, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Receptos, Inc., et al., Case No. 11346-CB
(Del. Ch., July 28, 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 -

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


RHEEM MANUFACTURING: Sued Over Defective HVAC Systems
-----------------------------------------------------
Parker Waichman LLP, a national law firm dedicated to protecting
the rights of consumers affected by defective products, is one of
several law firms to file a class action lawsuit over residential
heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems
manufactured by Rheem. The suit alleges that the systems are
defective and that Rheem failed to honor its warranty. Parker
Waichman LLP filed the suit alongside Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca, LLP
and Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman. The case is Argabright et al
v. Rheem Manufacturing Company, Case No. 1:15-cv-05243-JBS-AMD in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

As with all HVAC systems, Rheem HVACs utilize a compressor, a
condenser, and an evaporator to function properly; the systems
also use refrigerant to operate. According to the lawsuit, the
systems' evaporator coils are defective because they degrade and
subsequently release refrigerant. The type of deterioration
allegedly seen in Rheem HVAC systems is known as formicary
corrosion, also known as pinhole corrosion or ants nest corrosion.
Allegedly, this causes the refrigerant to leak, which impedes
normal function. The lawsuit alleges that this defect occurs with
normal and intended use and is not a result of installation.

"By filing this lawsuit on behalf of Rheem HVAC customers, we hope
to hold the manufacturer accountable for their defective
products," said Gary Falkowitz, Managing Attorney at Parker
Waichman. "Our clients spent good money on a product that did not
perform as promised."

The lawsuit alleges that Rheem provided express warranties on all
Rheem HVACs, including that they would be "free from defects in
materials and workmanship ... in normal use and service..." from
five to ten years. However, the systems allegedly failed to live
up to this claim and the systems were not fit for ordinary use.
Additionally, the suit alleges that Rheem failed to fully honor
the existing warranty and did not compensate plaintiffs under its
warranties.

Parker Waichman LLP continues to offer free lawsuit consultations
to consumers who have purchased a Rheem HVAC system. For more
information, please visit the firm's Product Liability page at
yourlawyer.com. Free case evaluations are also available by
calling 1(800) LAW-INFO (1-800-529-4636).


RK LIQUORS: Faces "Villalobos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Villalobos, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated v. RK Liquors, Inc. and Ambrish Patel, Case No.
1:15-cv-06615 (N.D. Ill., July 29, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a liquor store in Cook County,
Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Erik Stevens, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 219-6838
      E-mail: dstevens@yourclg.com


SANDRIDGE MISSISSIPPIAN: Levi Korinsky Files Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of SandRidge Mississippian Trust I ("SandRidge
Mississippian") SDT, -2.86% pursuant to the Initial Public
Offering on or about April 7, 2011 and/orbetween April 7, 2011 and
November 8, 2012.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma. If you purchased or otherwise acquired
SandRidge Mississippian shares pursuant to the IPO and/or between
April 7, 2011 and November 8, 2012, your rights may be affected by
this action. To get more information go to:
http://zlk.9nl.com/sandridge-mississippian-sdtor contact Joseph
E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at
(212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that SandRidge Mississippian made false
and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (a) the
underlying properties from which the royalty interests were
conveyed to the Company consisted of far more low-margin natural
gas deposits and far fewer high-margin oil deposits; and (b) the
reserves of oil in the underlying properties associated with
SandRidge Mississippian were vastly overstated.

If you suffered a loss in SandRidge Mississippian you have until
August 10, 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.

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


SAKUMA BROTHERS: Farmworkers Entitled to Break Pay
--------------------------------------------------
Gene Johnson, writing for KomoNews, reported that farmworkers who
are paid by how much they pick are entitled to separate,
additional pay for their rest breaks, the Washington Supreme Court
said in a unanimous opinion that could have major implications for
the state's agriculture industry -- as well as other businesses
where workers are paid by task rather than by time.

But it's unclear whether the ruling will actually result in the
workers being paid more, or whether companies will simply
restructure the way they pay.

"Paid breaks for workers are a basic principle embodied in state
law, and this decision ensures that some agricultural workers, who
often perform difficult work for low pay, aren't denied this right
arbitrarily, based solely on their compensation method," said
Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson, whose office supported
the pickers.

The decision came in a case involving Sakuma Brothers Farms, a
berry farm in Skagit County, north of Seattle. Some of the farm's
pickers -- seasonal, migrant workers, mainly from Mexico -- filed
a federal class-action lawsuit in 2013, saying they were entitled
to paid rest breaks under state law.

Sakuma Brothers agreed to pay the 900 workers and their lawyers
$850,000 to settle the claims of unpaid back wages for rest
breaks, but it denied further liability. The company said it
agrees that workers are entitled to paid rest breaks -- 10 minutes
every four hours -- but it said the amount it paid the pickers was
inflated to already include compensation for rest breaks.

The federal court asked the state Supreme Court to weigh in, and
the justices said Sakuma's practice, which it has since abandoned,
wasn't good enough. Because workers were paid by how much they
pick, they could make more money by working through their rest
breaks, which can be bad for their health, Justice Mary Yu wrote
for the court.

"The current piece rate scheme encourages employees to 'work
harder' by skipping breaks," Yu wrote. "That result ...
effectively decreases the frequency of employees' rest periods; it
incentivizes Sakuma to employ fewer employees; and it fosters a
culture of working through rest breaks."

Some employment lawyers suggested the ruling could apply not just
to farmworkers, but others paid on a "piece-rate" basis, such as
janitors or hotel housekeepers paid by the floor or the room they
clean. A California appeals court made a similar ruling two years
ago in a case involving grocery store truck drivers paid by the
mile, rather than by the hour. That decision is being appealed.

The Washington justices also made clear that companies must pay
the workers the rate they make when they're picking, rather than
simply paying them the minimum wage during rest breaks.

Dan Ford, a lawyer with Columbia Legal Services who represents the
pickers, said there are an estimated 200,000 seasonal farmworkers
in Washington.

"Being paid for breaks is critical for the compensation
farmworkers should receive," he said. "If breaks are not properly
compensated, then workers are in the position of losing wages, or
losing breaks."

Ford said he expected some pickers might bring lawsuits similar to
the one Sakuma's employees brought, seeking additional pay for
past rest breaks.

In an emailed statement, Sakuma Brothers noted that it no longer
pays workers strictly by how much they pick. Instead, it's paying
$10 an hour plus a bonus of up to $30 per hour based on the number
of pounds picked. Under the system, the company's blackberry
pickers have been making more than $20 per hour on average, it
said.

"The decision by the Washington State Supreme Court confirms that
our current, active pay system goes above and beyond industry
standards and is one of the most progressive in the state, if not
the country," said Sakuma Chief Executive Danny Weeden said.

Jeff Resnick, general counsel at the Irvine, California-based
Western Growers Association, said he expects other agricultural
companies in Washington to adopt similar pay structures.

"Agricultural employers who have been paying by piece-rate for
decades are now informed that they've been doing it wrong all
along," Resnick said. "This really changes the way agricultural
employers are going to pay their workers."


SIGNAL INT'L: Agreed to Pay $20MM in Trafficking Suits, Docs Say
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barry Meier, writing for The New York Times, reported that Signal
International, a maritime construction company, filed for
bankruptcy on, six months after a jury ruled that it, and other
defendants, should pay $15 million in a prominent case involving
the labor abuses and trafficking of foreign workers into the
United States.

In filings in a Delaware bankruptcy court, Signal said it had
agreed to pay $20 million to resolve claims by the five workers
from India involved in that lawsuit and other Indian laborers in
related actions, who said they were falsely lured to the United
States with promises of good jobs and American visas.

Scrutiny has been growing on labor abuses involving foreign
laborers, including during construction in Qatar for the 2022
World Cup as well as on major projects in other Persian Gulf
countries, like the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia.

Several major American construction firms, including CH2M, Aecom
and Bechtel, manage or oversee those projects. On, an official of
Amnesty International testifying at a Senate subcommittee hearing
on the FIFA corruption scandal said such companies had an
obligation to address the conditions faced by such workers, which
reports have described as akin to indentured servitude.

The settlement was unusual because when a company files for
bankruptcy, litigation against it freezes and the litigants stand
behind secured creditors when it comes to receiving proceeds. But
Signal officials and plaintiffs' lawyers negotiated the settlement
as part of the bankruptcy filing.

"This agreement will ensure some compensation for these workers,
who only sought a better life when they took these jobs," said
Alan Howard, a lawyer at Crowell & Moring involved in the case.

The lawsuit against Signal, which is based in Mobile, Ala., was
initially brought by the Southern Poverty Law Center and was later
joined by lawyers working on a pro bono basis from about 10 major
law firms including Crowell & Moring; Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom; and McDermott, Will & Emory.

The Signal case began in 2008 after hundreds of laborers from
India arrived to work at the company's facilities in Pascagoula,
Miss., and Orange, Tex. The company builds and repairs oil-
drilling rigs and ships.

The metal fitters and welders said they had paid over $20,000 to a
labor recruiter in India to get jobs, and to an American company
and lawyer who said they would obtain permanent visas, known as
green cards, for them.

But the workers, who came into the United States under a temporary
visa program, soon realized they were misled, and found themselves
housed in squalid conditions for which Signal charged them over
$1,000 a month.

In 2008, the Southern Poverty Law Center filed a class-action
lawsuit on behalf of the Indian workers against Signal and others.
The case almost came to an end when a federal judge refused to
allow it to go forward as a class action, but the big law firms
salvaged it by agreeing to represent individual workers on a pro
bono basis, said Daniel Werner, a lawyer at the Southern Poverty
Law Center.

In bankruptcy court papers, Signal said it was facing 11 lawsuits
involving 227 foreign workers. Of the $15 million awarded by the
jury, $11 million was assessed against Signal and that award was
upheld in May.

In its filing, Signal said the settlement plan, which a judge must
still approve, covered "the vast majority" of Indian workers
bringing actions, adding that it anticipated more laborers would
join into it.


SOLARWINDS INC: GPM Files Securities Class Action in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP on July 31 disclosed 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 of purchasers of
the securities SolarWinds, Inc. between April 28, 2015 and July
16, 2015, inclusive.  Shareholders have 60 days from the date of
this notice to file a motion to be appointed as lead plaintiff in
the shareholder lawsuit.

SolarWinds and its subsidiaries design, develop, market, sell and
support enterprise-class information technology ("IT")
infrastructure management software to IT professionals in
organizations of all sizes.  The Company's products are
purportedly designed to help enable efficient and effective
management of IT networks, systems and application infrastructure.

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's domestic business was struggling
against the Company's expectations; (2) that the Company's license
sales growth of core license products and resulting license
revenue was lower than expectations and guidance; (3) that the
overall quality of the "demand capture" the Company was garnering
for certain core products was dropping; and, (4) that, as a result
of the foregoing, defendants' statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.  On July 16, 2015, after the
market closed, the Company disclosed its revenues for the second
quarter of 2014 fell below analyst expectations and lowered
revenue guidance for the next few quarters.

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

If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.


SPOKEO INC: Media, Tech Cos. ask SCOTUS to Restrict Class Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reported that it would have
been shocking if big business hadn't turned out in force to back
the search engine Spokeo at the U.S. Supreme Court, in a case with
potentially huge consequences for class action defendants. And
since the business lobby isn't one to ignore an opportunity like
Spokeo, the questions at the filing deadline were how many amicus
briefs would come in and whether new industries would add to the
chorus urging the justices to restrict class actions claiming
statutory damages for violations of federal laws. The answers:
More than three dozen companies, trade groups and state attorneys
general spoke up for Spokeo in 17 amicus briefs, including filings
from media, banking and retail businesses that hadn't previously
been involved in the case. It looks like corporate defendants do
indeed regard Spokeo as a potential blockbuster.

The case presents the question of whether Congress can confer
constitutional standing on plaintiffs who haven't suffered a
concrete injury but have been granted the right to bring private
actions for violations of federal statutes. As Spokeo's lawyers
from Mayer Brown discuss in their merits brief, dozens of federal
consumer statutes include such provisions, and plaintiffs lawyers
have become adept at turning one client's claim for small
statutory damages into class actions involving thousands or even
millions of class members.

Spokeo argued that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ignored
Supreme Court precedent on constitutional standing when it held in
2014 that a violation of name plaintiff Thomas Robins' statutory
rights under the Fair Credit Reporting Act was enough to satisfy
Article III's requirement that a plaintiff show injury in order to
sue in federal court.

Spokeo's brief also suggested that the Supreme Court can sidestep
the constitutional question by finding that Congress did not
clearly state in the FCRA that otherwise uninjured plaintiffs have
a right to sue. According to Spokeo -- and to amicus filings by
the Retail Litigation Center and by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce
and several other trade groups -- the Supreme Court should
interpret the FCRA to permit the recovery of statutory damages
only if a plaintiff can demonstrate a concrete injury from the
defendant's violation of the law.

The most interesting amicus briefs are by companies describing the
impact on their businesses of class actions based on statutory
damages. The tech industry, for instance, has been complaining for
years about cases brought under the Wiretap Act, the Stored
Communications Act, the Video Privacy Protection Act and the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act. In a joint Spokeo brief,
Facebook, Google, Netflix and other tech companies and trade
groups argue that the 9th Circuit's ruling in Spokeo puts them at
special risk because their "huge volume of daily interactions with
millions of different people renders them particularly vulnerable
to putative class actions that allege bare statutory violations
and claim statutory damages for enormous putative classes." (The
brief includes a long recounting of class actions tech companies
have supposedly been terrorized into settling by the threat of
crippling statutory damages to million-member classes.)

Banking groups claim in their Spokeo brief that they have been
victimized by opportunistic plaintiffs lawyers wielding statutory
damages claims for ATM notification and credit reporting
violations. And Time Inc and media trade groups assert in a Spokeo
amicus brief that privacy class actions against increasingly
diversified media businesses are threatening free speech. "The
fear of large civil damages awards, and the mere cost of waging a
defense against numerous specious claims, inhibits the development
of content by media companies, and thus indirectly chills speech,"
the brief said. "This is especially true in the case of statutes
such as the Video Privacy Protection Act, where the delivery of
content itself (digital video) may trigger a claim."

Robins, the class action plaintiff who triggered this fight over
constitutional standing and statutory claims, was represented at
the certiorari stage by Deepak Gupta of Gupta Wessler. Gupta has
now been replaced by Robins' original class action counsel from
Edelson, the Chicago plaintiffs firm. I spoke on with name partner
Jay Edelson, who is planning to argue the Spokeo case, about
Spokeo's amici. Edelson, who is known for his brash style and
ambitious legal theories, said he is neither surprised nor worried
that so many businesses have sided with Spokeo.

"This is a big issue for a lot of companies," he said. "They are
looking out for their own self-interest." Edelson said he is
expecting amicus support from a broad array of consumer, civil
rights and employment rights groups in August, after his firm
files Robins' brief on the merits. He also said the Justice
Department, which unsuccessfully argued against Supreme Court
review of the case, is expected to file an amicus brief, though he
declined to comment on what the solicitor general may say.

Edelson said his firm decided to handle the Supreme Court briefing
and argument itself because "we feel like we have a unique voice
and understand these issues deeply from litigating hundreds of
these cases over a decade." Among other points he intends to make
is that businesses are vastly exaggerating the existential threat
from class actions for statutory violations. Of all of the cases
mentioned by Spokeo's amicus supporters, he said, there's not a
single example of a verdict or settlement for hundreds of millions
of dollars.

"It's just not true that (plaintiffs) lawyers are flocking to
statutory damages cases," he said. "They're hard cases."


STARKIST CO: $12MM Settlement Gets Preliminary Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Radio New Zealand International reports that a federal court in
California has granted preliminary approval for a class action
settlement involving the parent company of Starkist Samoa on a
claim it under filled its canned tuna products.

The agreement is for Pittsburgh-based StarKist Co to pay US$S12
million dollar to settle the suit.

A California resident Patrick Hendricks filed a complaint against
StarKist, which he accused of among other things, negligent
misrepresentation, and violating California consumer laws, by
under-filling its canned tuna products.

StarKist rejected the suit and sought for its dismissal without
success.

But it wasn't until May this year, that both sides reached
preliminary settlement agreement, which required approval of the
federal court in San Francisco.

Under the order Starkist is to pay US$8 million dollars in cash
and US$4 million in vouchers for StarKist products.


STATE FARM: 5th Circ. Upholds Verdict in Whistleblower Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Caitlin Bronson, writing for Insurance Business US, reported that
a recent court decision favoring whistleblowers who sued State
Farm Fire and Casualty Co. for fraud in the aftermath of Hurricane
Katrina has opened the door for a potential class-action lawsuit
against the insurer, attorneys involved with the case say.

The 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a jury verdict in favor
of Cori and Kary Rigsby, two sisters that sued State Farm on
behalf of the government after witnessing the carrier attempt to
shift claims to the federal flood insurance program that should
have been paid by State Farm.

The sisters testified that they witnessed State Farm pressure
engineers to rule that damage to homes along the Mississippi Coast
following Katrina was caused by flood waters -- not wind. Their
statements were instrumental in securing a 2013 victory for the
Biloxi family, who won a fraud case against the insurer after
State Farm falsely denied claims for their damaged home.

Similar allegations were widespread during the aftermath of the
storm, the Associated Press reports, though with many homes
destroyed to the very foundation, proving a case against insurers
was difficult.

The decision allows the Rigsbys and the government to seek more
evidence of widespread fraud against the National Flood Insurance
Program.

"The Rigsbys' allegations and trial evidence -- which extend far
beyond the realm of the McIntosh claim -- entitle them to at least
some additional discovery," the judges in the case wrote.

That could mean additional litigation woes for State Farm, August
Matteis, a lawyer for the Rigsbys said.

"Because we won the bellwether McIntosh trial, we can now go
forward taking discovery to determine the full scope of State
Farm's fraud," Matteis told the AP. "We believe that this could
involve thousands of claims in Mississippi.

Under the court ruling, State Farm is required to pay $750,000 in
damages, with 30% going to the Rigsbys and the rest going to the
federal government. Matteis won $2.9 million in legal fees and
expenses.

State Farm reasserted its innocence and said it was disappointed
in the court's ruling. A spokesman for the company said the
insurer "acted responsibly" in handling claims stemming from
Katrina and "appropriately follow[ed] all government guidelines."


TEXAS: Judge Tosses Red-Light Camera Suits Against 53 Cities
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Welch, writing for Amarillo Globe News, reports that a
federal judge on July 29  not only again dismissed the case
against 53 Texas cities with red-light cameras and the companies
that operate them, but also denied a request to send the case back
to state court where it began.

Judge John McBryde said James Watson had no standing to pursue a
class-action case against the cities, including Amarillo, after
getting a ticket for his vehicle running a red light in the
Metroplex city of Southlake.  He left Watson free to pursue his
claims against Southlake, according to the July 29 order.

Mr. Watson's lawyers asserted a number of claims, including an
assertion that the cities' red-light ordinances and the Texas law
allowing the creation of those ordinances were unconstitutional.

They claimed the state and cities had "fleeced" owners of vehicles
photographed running red lights of more than $128 million, Judge
McBryde wrote in his ruling.

Mr. Watson wanted the state and cities to pay that back.

Amarillo has collected penalties of more than $1.5 million since
starting its program in 2007 and sent the same amount to the
state, according to city records.

The suit started in state court in April, but was transferred to
federal court in May because it contained claims of violations of
federal organized crime laws and the possibility it could gain
class action status.

Even though Watson dropped the federal claims, Judge McBryde said
he had discretion to rule on whether the case could proceed,
citing a recent Fifth Circuit ruling.

"It is this court's established precedent that once a case is
properly removed (to federal district court), the district court
retains jurisdiction even if the federal claims are later dropped
or dismissed," the Fifth Circuit ruling states.

Judge McBryde tentatively granted the motions on July 6 and 9 of
the cities to dismiss the case against them, but Watson asked him
to amend that ruling.

Judge McBryde also said Mr. Watson appeared to be shopping for the
most favorable court by filing a case in state court that had
elements almost guaranteeing it would end up in federal court and
then removing those elements to get it sent back to state court
when the case wasn't going well for Watson.

"Moreover, there is no question but that if the action is remanded
(to state court), plaintiff will attempt to retry the issues this
court has already decided, thus causing an unnecessary duplication
of effort by the state court and the parties," the July 29 order
states.

Mr. Watson filed a notice of appeal on July 29 after Judge McBryde
filed his order.


TOP HANDS: "Frisco" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Frisco, and others similarly-situated v. Top Hands Oilfield
Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00318 (S.D. Tex., July 27, 2015),
seeks to recover compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant provides oilfield services to oil and gas
exploration companies throughout South Texas and Eagle Ford Shale
area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Clifton Alexander, Esq.
      SICO WHITE HOELSCHER & BRAUGH LLP
      900 Frost Bank Plaza
      802 N Carancahua Ste 900
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Tel: (361) 653-3300
      Fax: (361) 653-3333
      E-mail: calexander@swhhb.com


UBER: Faces Class Suit Over False Advertising
---------------------------------------------
Matt Reynolds, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a class action accuses Uber of falsely advertising that it is
cheaper than traditional cab companies.

Sennett Devermont used San Francisco-based Uber Technologies in
Superior Court alleging violation of California's unfair
competition law. The case was the Top Download for Courthouse
News.

"Plaintiff has received advertisements from Uber and viewed
advertisements provided to the general public regarding claims
that Uber is 30 percent cheaper than a cab for specific routes.
Based on his use of Uber, Uber's statements are not true during
certain peak times," the eight-page complaint states.

Nor does Uber make clear that credits for customers who refer new
business have an expiration date, Devermont says. It discloses
that only after getting the referral.

A state administrative law judge on recommended that Uber be fined
$7.3 million for violating state laws and have its license
suspended , pending an appeal or a California Public Utilities
commissioner review.

State prosecutors are scrutinizing Uber and its competitor Lyft,
both of which use crowd-sourced drivers who do not need a
commercial license to drive for the companies.

Several class-action employment lawsuits are pending against the
companies, and some cities in the United States and Europe have
barred them as unfair competitors.
start-ups.

Smartphone users can submit a trip request to an Uber driver, and
pay with a credit card on the app.

The California Labor Commissioner in June challenged Uber's
business model by awarding driver Barbara Berwick $4,152 in
reimbursable business expenses and interest, finding she was an
Uber "employee" rather than independent contractor. Class action
lawsuits quickly followed.

Devermont seeks class certification, a preliminary and permanent
injunction, disgorgement of profits, and general, special and
consequential damages.

He is represented by Heath McKeon of Cohen McKeon.

Uber did not immediately respond to an emailed request for
comment.


UCLA HEALTH: Faces "Ortiz" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Ortiz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. UCLA Health System, UCLA Medical Sciences, The Regents
of the University of California, and DOES 1-100 inclusive, Case
No. BC589327 (Cal. Super. Ct., July 29, 2015), arises from the
Defendants' failure to adequately secure the  private, personal
financial information of the Plaintiff and all other persons
similarly situated from being stolen by cyber thieves.

The Defendants operate a medical and surgical hospital with its
headquarters and principal place of business located at 10833 Le
Conte Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90095-7131.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


VASCO DATA: Sued in Illinois Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Linda J. Rossbach, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Vasco Data Security International, Inc., T.
Kendall Hunt, and Clifford K. Bown, Case No. 1:15-cv-06605 (N.D.
Ill., July 28, 2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

Vasco Data Security International, Inc. designs, develops,
markets, and supports hardware and software security systems that
manage and secure access to information assets worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Carey Ludwig, Esq.
      Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      E-mail: lcludwig@pomlaw.com
              pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, New York 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
              jahood@pomlaw.com


W2007 GRACE: Awaits Final Approval of Class Action Stipulation
--------------------------------------------------------------
W2007 Grace Acquisition I, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 30, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the stipulation in
a class action lawsuit has been preliminarily approved by the
federal court and remains subject to final approval.

In September 2013, a putative class action lawsuit (the Johnson
Lawsuit) was filed in the Chancery Court of Shelby County,
Tennessee (the Chancery Court) by several current and former
shareholders of the Series B and C preferred shares of Grace
Acquisition I.  The complaint, which alleges, among other things,
breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty that resulted in
the loss of Series B and Series C preferred share value, names
Grace Acquisition I, members of Grace Acquisition I's board of
directors, PFD Holdings, LLC (PFD Holdings), GS Group, Whitehall,
Goldman Sachs Realty Management, L.P. and Grace I as defendants.

On October 4, 2013, the defendants removed the case to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (the
Federal Court).  In November 2013, the plaintiffs filed a motion
to remand the case back to the Chancery Court, which the
defendants opposed.

On July 28, 2014, the Federal Court denied the plaintiffs' motion
to remand.  In addition, in January 2014, the defendants also
filed a motion to dismiss the Johnson Lawsuit and the motion was
fully briefed on April 24, 2014.

In October 2013, a similar lawsuit was filed by another plaintiff
in the same Chancery Court (the Dent Lawsuit), alleging similar
breaches against several of the same defendants named in the
Johnson Lawsuit, in addition to a former member of the Company's
board of directors.  In January 2014, the plaintiffs and
defendants in the Dent Lawsuit agreed to stay that case until the
motion to remand in the Johnson Lawsuit was decided.  As
stipulated by the parties, plaintiff must file any response to
defendants' motion to stay within ten business days after notice
of the Federal Court decision denying the remand motion.
Defendants notified plaintiff of the resolution of the remand
motion in the Johnson Lawsuit, and plaintiff has not filed a
response to the motion to stay.

In August 2014, the Company and the other defendants entered into
a non-binding memorandum of understanding with respect to a
settlement of the claims raised in the Johnson Lawsuit.  On August
22, 2014, the parties notified the Federal Court of the proposed
settlement, and the Federal Court agreed that the parties would no
longer be subject to pending deadlines in the current scheduling
order.

On September 2, 2014, in light of the proposed settlement,
defendants filed a motion to withdraw their motion to dismiss
without prejudice to renew that motion if the proposed settlement
of the Johnson Lawsuit does not become final.  The Federal Court
granted the motion.  The parties submitted the proposed settlement
stipulation and related papers to the Federal Court for approval
on October 9, 2014, and filed additional papers in support of
settlement on December 4, 2014 and March 20, 2015.

The stipulation was preliminarily approved by the Federal Court on
April 30, 2015 and remains subject to final approval by the
Federal Court. The stipulation of settlement would settle claims
with respect to two classes described in the Johnson Lawsuit: (1)
the "Holder Class" consisting of any and all persons who, as of
August 22, 2014 and through the effective time of the merger
contemplated by the stipulation, hold the preferred stock,
excluding defendants and their affiliates, persons who opt out of
the Holder Class and holders of dissenting shares and (2) the
"Seller Class" consisting of all persons who sold some or all of
their shares of preferred stock between October 25, 2007 and
October 8, 2014, inclusive, and suffered a loss, excluding the
defendants, their affiliates and persons who sold shares to PFD
Holdings, and persons who opt out of the Seller Class.

The stipulation of settlement generally provides for the
following: (1) the effectuation of a merger that will result in
the exchange of $26.00 in cash for each share of Series B and C
preferred stock outstanding; (2) the establishment of a $6 million
fund to be distributed pursuant to a plan of allocation to members
of the Seller Class; and (3) an award of $4 million in counsel
fees, subject to approval by the Federal Court.  Therefore, during
the second quarter of 2014, the Company accrued $24.25 million
related to the agreement which is included in accounts payable and
accrued liabilities in the accompanying condensed consolidated
balance sheets and in contingent loss on litigation settlement in
the condensed consolidated statements of operations and
comprehensive loss.

The Company anticipates funding the settlement with cash on hand
or, if necessary, funding from Whitehall.  The proposed settlement
in the Johnson Lawsuit purports to encompass the claims asserted
in the Dent Lawsuit.  Ongoing defense costs will be expensed as
incurred.


WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Reached Settlement in "Freedman" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weatherford International public limited company said in its Form
8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
July 1, 2015, that on June 30, 2015, the Company, together with
certain current and former officers, has resolved a purported
securities class action lawsuit previously disclosed in the
Company's public filings.

The lawsuit, captioned Freedman v. Weatherford International Ltd.,
et al., No. 1:12-cv-02121-LAK (SDNY), related to the Company's
restatement of its historical financial statements announced on
February 21, 2012 and July 24, 2012.  The settlement is subject to
notice to the class, approval by the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York and other conditions.

Pursuant to the settlement, the Company will pay $120,000,000 in
exchange for dismissal with prejudice of the litigation and the
unconditional release of all claims, known or unknown, that
settlement class members brought or could have brought against the
Company and individual defendants related to the facts and
allegations in the litigation. As part of the settlement, the
Company and the other defendants deny any liability or wrongdoing
related to the allegations in the litigation.

The Company believes the settlement of this litigation is a
further step towards resolving historical issues associated with
the Company's financial statement restatements related to the
material weakness over accounting for income taxes. The Company
successfully completed the remediation of this material weakness
in 2013.


WILLOWTOWN INC: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Garcia and Romualdo Gomez Perez, on behalf of themselves,
and others similarly situated v. Willowtown Inc., et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-04424 (E.D.N.Y., July 29, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Willowtown Inc. operates a gourmet market and cafe in Brooklyn,
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Hans Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue, 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com


UNITED STATES: Oklahoma Schools Lose Contraception Coverage Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Examiner Enterprise reported that Oklahoma Wesleyan University and
three other Christian universities in Oklahoma lost a religious
freedom case on when a federal appellate court overturned a lower
court's ruling. In 2013, a district court had temporarily halted
enforcement of the Obama administration's abortion-pill mandate
after the schools objected to it.

In a statement issued morning, OKWU President Dr. Everett Piper
expressed his disappointment in the 2-1 decision by the 10th
Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, Colo.

"We see this ruling as an arrogant disregard for women. It is
condescending and anti-choice," Piper said.

The Little Sisters of the Poor homes in Denver and Baltimore were
lead plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit, filed in federal
court on behalf of Little Sisters and about 400 other
organizations  --  including the four Oklahoma schools and other
Christian-aligned universities and colleges.

"The federal government is literally telling the 70-year-old nuns
at the Little Sisters of the Poor, as well as, all the female
employees of Oklahoma Wesleyan University, that they are not
intelligent enough to choose what contraception should or should
not be included in their personal health insurance," Piper said.
"How can we stand for such disrespect for women? At OKWU, we
believe our female employees should be able to make their own
decisions on such personal matters and we will continue to fight
any government hubris to the contrary."

The Affordable Care Act, passed by Congress in 2010, requires
group health plans and insurance issuers to provide coverage for
several preventive services for women.

A year later, the Department of Health and Human Services issued a
rule mandating that those services include "all FDA-approved
contraception methods, sterilization procedures, and patient
education and counseling for all women with reproductive
capacity."

In 2013, HHS added an accommodation meant to alleviate such
concerns. The new rules included an exemption for churches and
some other religious employers.

For those the rules did not exempt  --  including universities
operated by religious orders and denominations, and nonprofits
such as the Little Sisters  --  they introduced a new protocol:
employers were to inform the government of their religious
objections, and the government would require a third party, such
as the employer's insurer, to provide the coverage to employees
free of charge.

Officials said the new rules would "balance our commitment to
helping ensure women have continued access to coverage for
preventative services important to their health, with the
administration's goal of respecting religious beliefs."

The Little Sisters and other organizations disagreed. Signing the
form that allows a third party to provide the services would
violate their beliefs, they said.

In September 2013, Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys filed a
federal lawsuit against the Obama administration on behalf of the
four universities, challenging the Affordable Care Act mandate
that forces employers, regardless of their religious or moral
convictions, to provide insurance coverage for abortion-inducing
drugs, sterilization and contraception under threat of heavy
penalties.

The lawsuit -- in which the schools specifically object to
providing coverage for abortions -- was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma under the title,
Southern Nazarene University v. Sebelius. Kathleen Sebelius is the
secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
which administers enactment and compliance with the Affordable
Care Act.

The lawsuit argued that the mandate violates the Religious Freedom
Restoration Act as well as the First and Fifth amendments to the
U.S. Constitution.

The suit claimed that the federal government continues "to treat
entities like the universities as second-class religious
organizations, not entitled to the same religious freedom rights
as substantially similar entities that qualify for the exemption"
to the mandate, and that the "rationale for entirely exempting
churches and integrated auxiliaries from the regulations  --
their employees are likely to share their religious convictions  -
-  applies equally to the Universities."

In December 2013, U.S. District Judge Stephen P. Friot ruled that
the four universities were exempt from including such
contraceptives in their insurance coverage to their employees
while their lawsuit challenging the mandate is pending. The
mandate requires that emergency birth control methods be covered
by health insurance policies.

In his ruling, Friot explained that the schools are "Christ-
centered institutions" that believe it would be wrong and sinful
for them to provide these birth control methods. He said the
schools do not oppose any of the other mandated products.

The Denver court overturned that ruling on, saying it's the
insurance companies that provide the contraception not the
universities. The judges ruled that the government's accommodation
offer provides sufficient relief.

"Although we recognize and respect the sincerity of plaintiffs'
beliefs and arguments, we conclude the accommodation scheme
relieves plaintiffs of their obligations under the mandate and
does not substantially burden their religious exercise . . . or
infringe upon their First Amendment rights," Circuit Judge Scott
M. Matheson Jr., wrote in the ruling.


VICTORIA, AU: 2013 Bushfire Victims File Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
NineNews.com reported that victims of a Victorian bushfire which
destroyed nine houses and injured 12 people have launched a class
action against a man they say negligently started the 2013 fire.

The January 8 fire burnt 1300 hectares in Snake Valley, near
Ballarat, and destroyed the historic Carngham station.

The class action is being driven by at least seven people affected
by the fire.

In a writ provided to the Supreme Court of Victoria in Ballarat,
lead plaintiff Valerie Jackson claims a local farmer, who is now
deceased, ignited the fire by driving his tractor.

Family members, acting as executors for the farmer, need to
respond to the writ within 10 days.


X-L FOODS: Settlement Worked Out in 2012 E. Coli Outbreak Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Press reported that a deal has been worked out in a
class-action lawsuit filed over an E. coli outbreak and the
largest meat recall in Canadian history.

The lawsuit is against X-L Foods, which operated a meat-packing
plant in Brooks, Alberta during the tainted beef recall in 2012.

Calgary lawyer Clint Docken says a four-million-dollar agreement
has been reached subject to court approval this fall.

X-L Foods recalled more than 1.8 million kilograms of beef in
Canada and the United States in 2012.

Docken says the majority of the settlement will be set aside for
individuals who became ill from E. coli.

Provincial health-care providers will get some money to cover the
cost of looking after people who became ill.

Consumers who were forced to throw away meat after the recall are
also to be compensated.






                            *********

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  * * *