CAR_Public/150817.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, August 17, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 163


                            Headlines


AECOM: Securities Class Action Remains Pending
AETNA HEALTH: Faces Class Suit Over Capped Plans on Autism
AGRO-JAL FARMING: Sued By Former Workers for Labor Violations
ALLIANCE ONE: Faces "Conner" Suit in Pa. Over FDCPA Violation
AMBASSADOR TRANSPORTATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Attard" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Larson" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN GREETINGS: Settlement Approval Hearing Held in "Smith"
AMERICAN GREETINGS: Faces "Michael Ackerman" Class Action
APEX ASSET: Faces "Vieira" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation

ARNULFO RODRIGUEZ: Sued in Texas Ct. Over Unpaid OT Wages
ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Kahn" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation
ASCENA RETAIL: Records $50MM Class Action-Related Pre-Tax Charge
AUDIOEYE INC: No Lead Plaintiff, Counsel in Shareholder Case
AVALANCHE BIOTECH: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Suit

BAC HOME: 6th Circ. Rejects Class Action Challenge
BARE ELEGANCE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages
BLUE DIAMOND: Sued Over False Almond Breeze Advertising
BRASKEM SA: August 31 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
BUMBLE BEE: Sued Over Packaged Seafood Products Price-Fixing

CANADA: Appeals Ruling Confirms Low Threshold on Certification
CANADA: CWB Class Suit Battle Continues Proceedings
CANADA DRY: Recalls Heinz Rice and Mott's Fruit Products
CARMAX INC: California Supreme Court Denied Petition for Review
CASY INDUSTRIES: Expands Gluten-free Corn Snax Product Recall

CATAMARAN CORP: Entered Into MOU With Class Action Plaintiffs
CELLULAR SALES: Faces "Slawson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CHILDREN'S PLACE: Recalls Varsity Jackets Due to Choking Hazard
COMPUTER SCIENCES: "Strauch" Case Has Conditional Certification
CONDE NAST: Faces Class Suit Over Sale of Customer Information

CORRECTIONS CORP: Faces Suit Seeking Recovery of Unpaid OT Wages
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Faces $5MM Class Suit Over Train Derailment
DAVE & BUSTER'S: Sued Over Unlawful Gift Card Redemption Policies
DEFENDER SECURITY: Faces "Wade" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
DELCATH SYSTEMS: Final Approval Hearing Set for October 19

DELTA AIR: Sued by Atlanta Lawyer for Ticket Overpricing
DEUTSCHE BANK: Securities Class Suit Sent Back for Review
DISNEY STORE: Recalls Pencil Cases Due to Perforation Hazard
DOTTY'S CASINO: Agreed to Pay $375K for Class Suit Settlement
ELETROBRAS: Rosen Firm Files Securities Class Suit

ENERGY TRANSFER: Plaintiffs' Motion to Expedite Discovery Denied
ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Mey" Suit Says
ERIC CONN: Former clients to Get Help From Legal Aid Groups
EXECUTIVE FIGHT: Faces Class Suit After Lemon Creek Incident
EXPERIAN: Faces Class Suit Over Selling Data to Identity Thieves

EZCORP INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
EZCORP INC: Sept. 18 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
EZCORP INC: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Suit
EZCORP INC: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Class Suit
FEDEX CORP: FedEx Ground Entered Into Class Action Settlement

FLOGREAT CORP: "Juarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 2011 Savanna & Express Models
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 2010 Chevrolet Models Due to Injury Risk
GOLD CLUB: Arb Agreement Found Unconscionable
GOLDMAN SACHS: Labaton Sucharow Files Nationwide Class Suit

GOLDMAN SACHS: Judge Cautions Lawyer During Suit Hearing
HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Has Final Order for "Frater" Settlement
HERTZ: Federal Judge Dismisses Class Suit
HHGREGG INC: Ex-Manager Wins Class Suit Over Bonuses
HIGHWAY EMERGENCY: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

HOT TOPIC: Oct. 26 Fairness Hearing on $14.9MM Class Suit Deal
HYDRO ONE: Faces $125MM Class Suit Over Improper Billing
ICONIX BRAND: August 24 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
IDI INC: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Suit
IDI INC:  Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit

JAGUAR LAND: Sued in N.J. Over Defective Electrical Systems
JEFFERSON COUNTY, TX: Class Suit Filed Over Home Classification
KAWASAKI KISEN: Settles in US Price Fixing Class Suit
KB HOME: Trial in "Edwards" Case to Occur in 2016 or Later
KEURIG GREEN: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Class Suit

KEURIG GREEN: August 18 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
KEYSTONE: Recalls 2014 Avalanche Models Due to Injury Risk
LIFELOCK INC: Tripp Levy Files Securities Class Suit
LOEWY ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice
MADISON COUNTY, IL: Petitions to Appeal Class Certification

MANHATTAN GROUP: Recalls Activity Toys Due to Choking Hazard
MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS: Faces "Carter" Suit Over Consumer Report
MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS: Faces "Carter" Suit Over Consumer Report
MICREL INC: Executed MOU to Settle California Action
MICRO BIRD: Recalls G5 School Bus Models Due to Injury Risk

MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Yossef" Suit in N.Y. Over FDCPA Violation
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Kahn" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation
MZB: Recalls Children's Flashing Digital Watches
NEIMAN MARCUS: Data Breach Class Suit Re-opened
NELSON WATSON: Faces "Maldonado" Suit Over FDCPA Violation

NEWCREST MINING: Ruling Provides Meaning, Effect of s33ZF
NISSAN: Recalls Armada 2015 Models Due to Injury Risk
NISSIN FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Misleading Label Suit Partially OK'd
OCEAN POWER: Court Appointed Five More as Lead Plaintiff
PAVER DAVE: Faces "Navas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

PMFG INC: Faces "Herre" Class Action in Del. Chancery Court
PUMA BIOTECH: Levi Korsinsky Files  Securities Class Suit
RECEPTOS INC: Morgan & Morgan Files Securities Class Suit
RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Faces "Gilmore" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Faces "Vieria" Suit Over FDCPA Violation

REULAND ELECTRIC: "Vasquez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
ROCCHIO TUNNEL: Faces "Holloway" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SAFEWAY GROCERY: Faces Class Suit Over Term and Conditions Notice
SANFORD HEALTH: Sued Over 'Grossly Excessive' ER Charges
SILVER WHEATON: Sept. 8 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline

SUSHI SAKE: "Ortiz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
TALTECH CONSTRUCTION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
TD BANK: Settles Suit for $20MM in Quality Investments Case
THORATEC CORPORATION: Sued in Cal. Over Proposed St. Jude Merger
TJ MAXX: 'Compare At' Prices Deceptive Retail Trick, Suit Says

TOSHIBA CORP: August 3 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
TOSHIBA CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Files Inventors Suit
TOSHIBA CORP: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Investors' Class Suit
UBER: Faces $400-Mil. Class Suit in Ontario
UCLA HEALTH: Class Suit Filed Over Data Breach

URANIUM ENERGY: August 28 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
VANDER-BEND MANUFACTURING: Sued Over Time Rounding Policies
VIKING RANGE: Expands Dishwasher Product Recall
VOLVO: Recalls 2016 XC90 Models Due to Defective Airbag
WASHINGTON: D.C. Judge Allows Some Forfeiture Claims to Proceed

* Workplace Discrimination Claims to Increase, Survey Says



                            *********


AECOM: Securities Class Action Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------
As disclosed in AECOM's prior periodic reports, in 2005 and 2006
AECOM's Australian subsidiary, AECOM Australia Pty Ltd ("AECOM
Australia"), performed a traffic forecast assignment for a tolled
motorway tunnel project in Australia that resulted in two separate
lender lawsuits filed in 2012 against AECOM Australia in the
Federal Court of Australia by RCM Services and Portigon AG.  In
addition, a separate securities class action lawsuit was also
filed in 2012 against AECOM Australia in the Federal Court of
Australia.

On July 10, 2015, AECOM Australia settled the two lender lawsuits
with RCM Services and Portigon AG for an amount that is not
expected to have a material impact to the financial results of
AECOM.  The settlement does not include the securities class
action lawsuit which remains pending, AECOM said in its Form 8-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
10, 2015.


AETNA HEALTH: Faces Class Suit Over Capped Plans on Autism
----------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Singh, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Aetna illegally caps policy benefits for the "only validated
treatment" for autism, a mother claims in a federal class action.

Anna M. Sanzone-Ortiz sued Aetna Health of California and its
corporate, on her own behalf and for her minor son.

She claims that Applied Behavioral Analysis is "the only validated
treatment for people with autism. The treatment approach began in
the 1950s. More than 550 peer-reviewed studies have demonstrated
the effectiveness of ABA treatment for people with autism. ABA is
endorsed by, among others, the U.S. Surgeon General, the National
Standards Project, and the National Professional Development
Center on Autism."

Aetna capped her policy benefits at 20 hours of treatment per week
though her son's treatment provider recommended 26 hours a week,
Sanzone says in the complaint.

She calls this limitation without regard for medical necessity
illegal under California and federal laws.

After Aetna denied her appeal, Sanzone appealed to the California
Department of Managed Health Care in April, which increased her
son's weekly coverage to 25 hours, Sanzone says.

She claims that Aetna's cap has no support in literature that
validates ABA treatment, which typically finds 30 hours a week the
minimum time needed to help patients. It also violates the federal
Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act provisions of ERISA
by having a separate treatment limitation applicable only in
regard to mental health, according to the complaint.

She seeks class certification and an injunction ordering Aetna to
cover all "medically necessary" ABA treatment without regard to
its arbitrary hour limit.

The 13-page lawsuit does not estimate the size of the prospective
class.

ABA is "the process of systematically applying interventions based
upon the principles of learning theory to improve socially
significant behaviors and to demonstrate that the interventions
employed are responsible for the improvement in behavior," the
complaint states, quoting the definition without citing a source.

Aetna employs almost 50,000 people and medically insures more than
23 million people, according to the complaint.

Sanzone is represented by Jordan Lewis, with Kelly Uustal, of Fort
Lauderdale, and Teresa Renaker, with Renaker Hasselman of San
Francisco, who could not reached for comment. Aetna did not
respond to a request for comment.

Autism, now called autism spectrum disorder, is a developmental
disorder that impairs the ability to communicate and interact. It
may include repetitive behaviors, though it manifests itself in an
extremely wide variety of ways, hence the name spectrum.

Many autistic people are high functioning, such as Temple Grandin,
a specialist in animal behavior who designs humane slaughterhouses
and has written several best-selling books. A recent development
is an autistic rights movement, which prefers the condition not be
called a disorder at all, but one of many ways of being human.


AGRO-JAL FARMING: Sued By Former Workers for Labor Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jono Kinkade, writing for New Times, reported that a prominent
Santa Maria Valley farming family is facing a class-action lawsuit
filed by former employees for allegedly violating several labor
laws.

The complaint alleges that the agricultural businesses Agro-Jal
Farming Enterprises Inc., Agro-Jal Farms Inc., Paloma Packing
Inc., and the companies' owners Abel Maldonado Sr., Abel Maldonado
Jr., and Frank Maldonado, violated several California labor laws
regulating wages, working hours, and working conditions. The
lawsuit was filed by Cipriano Ponce, employed by the defendants
from 1984 to 2014, and Carlos Faria, employed by the defendants
from 2008 to 2010.

"Plaintiffs allege that they have suffered injury and pecuniary
[monetary] loss as a result of Defendants' failure to comply with
labor law," according to the complaint filed July 15 in the San
Luis Obispo County Superior Court. Ponce and Faria worked for the
defendants in both SLO and Santa Barbara counties. The Maldonados'
operations are based in Santa Maria.

The complaint alleges that employees were required to report to
the company offices and then go to work, but were only paid for
the time they actually worked, rather than all hours they were on
the clock.

All in all, "plaintiffs worked approximately 13 hours per day, six
days a week and six hours on the seventh day."

The complaint also alleges that workers weren't given appropriate
break and meal periods, were denied overtime and double time, and
weren't reimbursed for work-related expenses such as mileage, gas,
tools, and equipment.

A class-action lawsuit is appropriate, the complaint argues,
"because defendants have implemented a scheme that is generally
applicable to the plaintiff class."

Allen Hutkin, the San Luis Obispo-based labor law attorney
representing Ponce and Faria told New Times that they believe
these practices harmed hundreds of employees, primarily field
workers.

The California Labor Workforce Development Agency will review the
complaint, and if it declines to pursue the matter, Hutkin and his
clients will continue the matter in court.

Frank Maldonado, president of Agro-Jal, couldn't be reached for
comment.

The Maldonados are a well-known agricultural family in the Santa
Maria Valley, in part because of the political career of Abel Jr.
He began as a Santa Maria City Council member before becoming the
city's mayor, and was then elected to the California Assembly and
the state Senate. In 2009, he was appointed by then-Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger to fill a vacant Lt. Governor seat. Abel Jr.
subsequently lost the seat in a failed 2010 re-election bid to
Gavin Newsom. Maldonado also unsuccessfully challenged U.S. Rep.
Lois Capps (D-Santa Barbara) in 2012.


ALLIANCE ONE: Faces "Conner" Suit in Pa. Over FDCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Beverly E. Conner, On Behalf Of Herself And All Others Similarly
Situated v. Alliance One Receivables Management, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-04261-JHS (E.D. Pa., August 3, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel A. Deliberty, Esq.
      THE DELIBERTY LAW FIRM
      2809 W. Chester Pike, Suite 100
      Broomall, PA 19008
      Telephone: (610) 353-0322
      E-mail: dan@delibertylaw.com


AMBASSADOR TRANSPORTATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Spencer, Nicole Gonzalez, and other similarly situated
individuals v. Ambassador Transportation Group, Inc. and Jessie F.
Fonseca, Case No. 2015-017792-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., August 4,
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 an airport transportation services
company in Miami Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Attard" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alexia Attard, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. American Airlines Group Inc., American Airlines, Inc.,
Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., United Continental
Holdings, Inc., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-03197-
DWF-BRT (D. Minn., August 3, 2015), arises from the Defendants'
alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix,
raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of domestic airfare in
the United States.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
      Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
      Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
      Joshua J. Rissman, Esq.
      GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
      Canadian Pacific Plaza
      120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 333-8844
      Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
      E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
              dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
              mlobby@gustafsongluek.com
              jrissman@gustafsongluek.com

         - and -

      Natasha A. Naraghi, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER M. SCHACK
      16870 W. Bernardo Drive, #400
      San Diego, CA 92128
      Telephone: (858) 485-6535
      Facsimile: (858) 485-0608
      E-mail: natashanaraghi@amslawoffice.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Larson" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Larson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. American Airlines Group Inc., American Airlines, Inc.
Delta Air Lines, Inc., United Continental
Holdings, Inc., United Airlines, Inc. and Southwest Airlines Co.,
Case No. 0:15-cv-03202-PJS-BRT (D. Minn., August 3, 2015), arises
from the Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and
conspiracy to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of
domestic airfare in the United States.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
      Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
      Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
      Joshua J. Rissman, Esq.
      GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
      Canadian Pacific Plaza
      120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 333-8844
      Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
      E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
              dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
              mlobby@gustafsongluek.com
              jrissman@gustafsongluek.com

         - and -

      Simon Bahne Paris, Esq.
      Patrick Howard, Esq.
      Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
      SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.
      One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor
      1650 Market Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 575-3986
      Facsimile: (215) 496-0999
      E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
              phoward@smbb.com
              ckocher@smbb.com


AMERICAN GREETINGS: Settlement Approval Hearing Held in "Smith"
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Greetings Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 10, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended May 29, 2015, that the court has held a
preliminary approval hearing of the settlement in the case, Al
Smith et al. v. American Greetings Corporation.

On June 4, 2014, Al Smith and Jeffrey Hourcade, former fixture
installation crew members for special projects, individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated, filed a putative class
action lawsuit against American Greetings Corporation in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division. Plaintiffs claim that the Corporation violated
certain rules under the Fair Labor Standards Act and California
law, including the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders. For themselves and the proposed classes,
plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of general and special
damages, including but not limited to minimum wages, agreed upon
wages and overtime wages, statutory liquidated damages, statutory
penalties (including penalties under the California Labor Code
Private Attorney General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"), unpaid benefits,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and interest). In addition,
plaintiffs request disgorgement of all funds the Corporation
acquired by means of any act or practice that constitutes unfair
competition and restoration of such funds to the plaintiffs and
the proposed classes.

On November 6, 2014, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint
to add claims for reimbursement of business expenses and failure
to provide meal periods in violation of California Law and on
December 12, 2014, amended their PAGA notice to include the newly
added claims.

On January 20, 2015, the parties reached a settlement in principle
that, if approved by the Court, will fully and finally resolve the
claims brought by Smith and Hourcade, as well as the classes they
seek to represent. The settlement was a product of extensive
negotiations and a private mediation, which was finalized and
memorialized in a Stipulation and Class Action Settlement
Agreement signed March 30, 2015.

The proposed settlement establishes a settlement fund of $4.0
million to pay claims from current and former employees who worked
at least one day for American Greetings Corporation and/or certain
of its subsidiaries in any hourly non-exempt position in
California between June 4, 2010 and the date of the Court's
preliminary approval of the settlement.

On March 31, 2015, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement. On April 30, 2015, plaintiffs
filed their Third Amended Complaint to which American Greetings
Corporation filed its answer on May 19, 2015.

On April 30, 2015, the Court held a preliminary approval hearing.
If the settlement is preliminarily approved, notice and claim
forms will be mailed to class members and class members will have
an opportunity to submit claims, to opt-out of the settlement,
and/or to object to the settlement.

As part of a Preliminary Approval Order, the Court will set a
Final Approval Hearing to occur after the notice process, at which
point the Court will consider the notice process and results, any
objections, and other relevant information. The Court will then
decide whether to finally approve the class settlement. If the
settlement is finally approved, American Greetings will fund the
settlement within twenty (20) days after passage of all appeal
periods. Thereafter, the settlement funds will be disbursed as
provided in the settlement agreement and the Court's orders.


AMERICAN GREETINGS: Faces "Michael Ackerman" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
American Greetings Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 10, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended May 29, 2015, that the Company faces
Michael Ackerman v. American Greetings Corporation, et al.

On March 6, 2015, plaintiff Michael Ackerman, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, filed a putative class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court of New Jersey alleging
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by
American Greetings Corporation and its subsidiary, AG Interactive,
Inc. The plaintiff claims that defendants (1) sent plaintiff an
unsolicited text message notifying plaintiff that he had received
an ecard; and (2) knowingly and/or willfully violated the TCPA,
which prohibits unsolicited automated or prerecorded telephone
calls, including faxes and text messages, sent to cellular
telephones. Plaintiff seeks to certify a nationwide class based on
unsolicited text messages sent by defendants during the period
February 8, 2011 through February 8, 2015. The plaintiff seeks
damages in the statutory amount of $500 for each and every
violation of the TCPA and $1,500 for each and every willful
violation of the TCPA. The Corporation believes the plaintiff's
allegations in this lawsuit are without merit and intends to
defend the action vigorously.

With respect to the Ackerman case, management is unable to
estimate a range of reasonably possible losses as (i) the
aggregate damages have not been specified, (ii) the proceeding is
in the early stages, (iii) there is uncertainty as to the outcome
of anticipated motions, and/or (iv) there are significant factual
issues to be resolved. However, management does not believe, based
on currently available information, that the outcome of this
proceeding will have a material adverse effect on the
Corporation's business, consolidated financial position or results
of operations, although the outcome could be material to the
Corporation's operating results for any particular period,
depending, in part, upon the operating results for such period.


APEX ASSET: Faces "Vieira" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Vieira, on hehalf of herself and those similarly
situated v. Apex Asset Management, LLC and John Doe 1 to 10, Case
No. 2:15-cv-05966-ES-MAH (D.N.J., August 3, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ARNULFO RODRIGUEZ: Sued in Texas Ct. Over Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Juan Mendoza Caballero and Arturo Rubio v. Arnulfo Rodriguez
Roofing Co., Inc., Arnulfo Rodriguez Construction LLC, arnulfo
Rodriguez and Maria Acevedo, Case No. 4:15-cv-02229 (S.D. Tex.,
August 3, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company with a
principal place of business at 6811 Theall Road, Suite A, Houston
Texas 77066.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef Franz Buenker, Esq.
      2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
      Houston, TX 77018
      Telephone: (713) 868-3388
      Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
      E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com


ARS NATIONAL: Faces "Kahn" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Kahn, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. ARS National Services, Inc. and John Does 1-25,
Case No. 2:15-cv-05967-KSH-CLW (D.N.J., August 3, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
      MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC
      1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
      Ocean, NJ 07712
      Telephone: (347) 526-4093
      Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
      E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


ASCENA RETAIL: Records $50MM Class Action-Related Pre-Tax Charge
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ascena Retail Group, Inc. said an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 10,
2015, that the Company expects to record a pre-tax charge of
approximately $50 million related to class action lawsuit.

The Company is a party to lawsuits related to pricing practices at
its Justice reporting unit.  In early July 2015, based on recent
developments in the cases, the Company determined that it is
required to record a reserve for the future settlement of the
Cases in accordance with Financial Accounting Standards Board
Accounting Standards Codification Topic 450-20-25. As a result,
the Company currently expects to record a pre-tax charge of
approximately $50 million during the fourth quarter of its fiscal
year ending July 25, 2015.


AUDIOEYE INC: No Lead Plaintiff, Counsel in Shareholder Case
------------------------------------------------------------
AudioEye, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 10, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that the court has not yet
appointed a lead plaintiff or lead counsel in the shareholder
class action lawsuits.

"In April 2015, two purported shareholder class action lawsuits
were filed against us and our officer Nathaniel Bradley and former
officer Edward O'Donnell in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona," the Company said. "The plaintiffs allege
various causes of action against the defendants arising from our
announcement that our previously issued financial results for the
first three quarters of 2014 and the guidance for the fourth
quarter of 2014 and the full year of 2014 could no longer be
relied upon.  The complaints seek, among other relief,
compensatory damages and plaintiff's counsel's fees and experts'
fees."

"The Court has not yet appointed a lead plaintiff or lead counsel,
and we have not yet responded to the complaints. We believe that
the lawsuits have no merit and intend to mount a vigorous defense.
Given the current stage of the proceedings in this case, our
management currently cannot assess the probability of losses, or
reasonably estimate the range of losses, related to these
matters."


AVALANCHE BIOTECH: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
tHE law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that
a shareholder class action has been filed against Avalanche
Biotechnologies, Inc. ("Avalanche" or "The Company") on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock between July 31, 2014 and
June 15, 2015  inclusive (the "Class Period").

Avalanche, a clinical-stage biotechnology company, focuses on
discovering and developing novel gene therapies for the treatment
of ophthalmic diseases based on its Ocular BioFactory platform.
The Company's lead product candidate is AVA-101, which was
undergoing a Phase 2a trial for the treatment of wet age-related
macular degeneration during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Avalanche and
certain of its executive officers made a series of materially
false and/or misleading statements to investors, and failed to
disclose that the Phase 2a study of AVA-101 had not been designed
to show statistical significance for the study's secondary
endpoints between the active and control study groups.

After the market closed on June 15, 2015, the Company issued a
press release entitled "Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc. Announces
Positive Top-Line Phase 2a Results for AVA-101 in Wet Age-Related
Macular Degeneration."  That press release disclosed that the
Phase 2a study was significantly more limited than investors were
previously lead to believe.

On this news, shares of the Company's stock fell $21.83 per share,
or over 56%, to close at $17.05 per share on June 16, 2015,
thereby damaging investors.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
(Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne O.
Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299 -- 7706 or (610) 667 -- 7706, or via e-
mail at info@ktmc.com.  The complaint in this action was not filed
by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check.  For additional information
about the lawsuit, or to request information about the action,
please visit http://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/avalanche-
biotechnologies-inc.

Members of the class may,no later than September 8, 2015, petition
the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the class.  A
lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of all
class members in directing the litigation.  In order to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must determine that the
class member's claim is typical of the claims of other class
members, and that the class member will adequately represent the
class in the action.  Your ability to share in any recovery is not
affected by the decision of whether or not to serve as a lead
plaintiff.  Any member of the purported 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.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state
and federal courts throughout the country.  Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and
has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and
individual investors from the United States and around the world.
The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers
(private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the
government and share in the recovery of government dollars).  For
more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, or for
additional information about participating in this action, please
visit www.ktmc.com


BAC HOME: 6th Circ. Rejects Class Action Challenge
--------------------------------------------------
Kentucky Business Entity Law reported that in the decision
authored by Judge Rogers, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
rejected a challenge to the MERS system and the assertion that
it's operation violated Kentucky law with respect to recording
mortgage assignments.

The Sixth Circuit held that, while the assignment of a mortgage
may, under Kentucky law, be required to be of record with the
county clerk, there is no parallel requirement for recording
assignments of the related promissory notes. Higgins v. BAC Home
Loan Servicing, LP, __F.3d __, 2015 WL 4289804 (6th Cir. July 16,
2015).

Under the MERS system, when a home is financed through a note and
mortgage, the lender on the note is identified as the issuing
bank. In turn, the mortgagee is identified as MERS, as nominee of
the mortgagee and its successors. When in turn the note and the
related mortgage are sold or resold, such as takes place during
securitization, no further recordation is made with the county
clerk. Rather, the note is transferred to the purchaser thereof,
and assuming they are a member of the MERS system the related
interest in the mortgage is assigned to the acquirers benefit.

Or at least that is how it was intended to operate. The plaintiffs
in this case alleged that the MERS system was improper in that it
violated KRS Section 382.360(3) which requires that "When a
mortgage is assigned to another person, the assignation will file
the assignment for recording with the county clerk within thirty
(30) days of the assignment." Certain penalties are imposed upon
an assignee who fails to make this required recording. In that the
assignment in the MERS system of the promissory notes carried with
it an interest in the related mortgage, the plaintiffs posited
that damages were owing because the transfers of those interests
in the mortgages were never recorded with the county clerk.

The trial court denied the motion for summary judgment filed by
the banks and other lending institutions named as defendants,
finding, inter alia, that the transfer of the notes which were
secured by the mortgages in effect constituted an assignment of
the underlying mortgage, and that assignment required a filing
with the County Clerk. The Sixth Circuit granted an interlocutory
appeal to that determination.

Coincidentally, the same day that the District Court (Judge
Caldwell) denied the motion for summary judgment, a near identical
challenge to the MERS system was considered and rejected in
Ellington v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, 13 F.Supp.3d
723 (W. D. Ky. 2014) (Judge McKinley). Much of the Sixth Circuit's
analysis in this case would "piggyback" on the Ellington decision.

The question came down to one of statutory interpretation. Parsing
the statute, the Sixth Circuit focused upon statutory distinctions
between the treatment of mortgage instruments and promissory
notes, particularly focusing on the fact that while assignment of
the former must be recorded, recordation of assignments of the
latter are merely permissive. Further:

   "Adopting plaintiffs' interpretation of the recording statutes
would also render the statutory scheme somewhat incoherent.
Plaintiffs concede that their interpretation would mandate
recording of note assignments. But Kentucky's recording statutes
pointedly distinguish between mortgage assignments -- which must
be recorded, see KRS 382.360(3) -- and note transfers -- for which
recording is optional, see KRS 382.290(2). If every note transfer
operated as a mortgage assignment, and every mortgage assignment
must be recorded, then every note transfer would have to be
recorded, albeit as a mortgage assignment. It would be strange for
Kentucky's legislature to require recording of note transfers as
mortgage assignments while elsewhere in the same statutes
providing the note transfers need not be recorded. 2015 WL
4289804,*4.

      Ultimately:

In sum, KRS 382.360(3) applies to those instances in which a
transferee fails to record a transfer of a mortgage deed. It does
not require recording of transfers of promissory notes. Because it
is undisputed that defendants transferred only promissory notes
and did not fail to record any transfers of mortgage deeds,
defendants did not violate KRS 382.360(3) and the district court
should have dismissed plaintiffs' action on that basis.


BARE ELEGANCE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Minimum & OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Ember Knight, and Haley Hyden-Soffer, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Bare Elegance Management, LLC,
and Does 1 to 10, Case No. 2:15-cv-05854 (C.D. Cal., August 3,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Bare Elegance Management, LLC owns and operates an adult
entertainment business located in Inglewood, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Morris Rose, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT STARR
      23277 Ventura Blvd
      Woodland Hills, CA 91364
      Telephone: (818) 225-9040
      Facsimile: (818) 225-9042
      E-mail: adam@starrlaw.com


BLUE DIAMOND: Sued Over False Almond Breeze Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------
Ed Cara, writing for Medical Daily, reported that a pair of brave
citizens are squaring off against Blue Diamond Growers, the
largest processor and marketer of almonds in the world (according
to their company website) in civil court. The plaintiffs, Tracy
Albert and Dimitrios Malaxianis, are claiming that Blue Diamond's
almond milk brand, Almond Breeze, has been fraudulently
advertising itself as primarily containing almonds, when in
actuality, it only contains about two percent.

According to the amended complaint, available to the public,
Albert and Malaxianis were avid almond milk lovers -- Albert even
residing in California, where Blue Diamond helps produce a
significant amount of the almonds grown in the U.S. every year.
However, they became shocked when they learned that their Almond
Breeze, according to nutritional information displayed by its UK
counterpart, only contained two percent real almond. No such
disclosure exists on the U.S. side of the almond milk aisle.

"Defendant is using its website to lead distributors, grocery
stores, restaurants, consumers and other buyers and resellers of
almond milk in the United States to believe that their almond milk
branded products are primarily made from almonds," read their
complaint. "Said information from Defendant's website has created
a false perception amongst the public that Defendant's almond milk
labeled products are premium products that are healthy for you
because they are primarily made from almonds."

Regardless of the outcome, the civil case, filed in New York
because of Malaxianis's residency there, is coming at a time when
almond milk has become incredibly popular. An article referenced
by the complaint notes that sales of almond milk cleared over $700
million, with Blue Diamond the top dog (the original suit also
named Whitewave Foods, which produces Silk, a brand that now
includes almond milk). According to research they conducted
online, the average amount of almond that should be found in
almond milk is around 25 to 35 percent.

The two, fighting on behalf of themselves and "all other persons
in the United States" who have ever purchased Almond Breeze, are
claiming the company has committed unfair and deceptive business
practices, false advertising, fraud, and unjust enrichment.

It's tough to say whether their effort will bear any fruit
(juice), but the debacle does seem fairly reminiscent of past
labeling battles, such as sugary cereal advertisements that
claimed health benefits and Coca Cola's attempt to market a juice
drink as filled with pomegranate and blueberry when it actually
only contained about 0.3 and 0.2 percent of each, respectively.

In the meantime, it's at least a piece of ammunition that you can
throw out in an argument about why you don't like almond milk.


BRASKEM SA: August 31 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
American Depositary Receipts of Braskem S.A. ("Braskem")
(NYSE:BAK) between June 1, 2010 and March 11, 2015.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the USDC for the Southern District of New York.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired Braskem ADRs between June
1, 2010 and March 11, 2015, your rights may be affected by this
action. To get more information go to http://zlk.9nl.com/braskem-
bak or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877)
363-5972. There is no cost or obligation to you.

On March 11, 2015, a report from the Sao Paulo newspaper Folha de
S. Paolo implicated Braskem in the corruption scandal surrounding
Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. -- Petrobras. The article alleges that
Braskem paid at least $5 million annually to Petrobras between
2006 and 2012 to acquire crude derivative contracts at cheaper
prices, according to testimony made by former Petrobras executive
Paulo Roberto Costa and self-confessed money launderer Alberto
Youssef.

If you suffered a loss in Braskem you have until August 31, 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.


BUMBLE BEE: Sued Over Packaged Seafood Products Price-Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
Olean Wholesale Grocery Cooperative, Inc., on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC,
Tri-Union Seafoods LLC, and Starkist Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-
01714-JLS-MDD (S.D. Cal., August 3, 2015), arises from the
Defendants' unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix,
raise, maintain, and stabilize prices for packaged seafood
products within the United States, its territories and the
District of Columbia.

The Defendants are the largest producers of packaged seafood
products in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
      Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
      Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 633-1908
      Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
      E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com
              bsweeney@hausfeld.com
              clebsock@hausfeld.com

         - and -

      Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
      James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
      Washington, DC 20006
      Telephone: (202) 540-7200
      Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
      E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
              jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com


CANADA: Appeals Ruling Confirms Low Threshold on Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gillian Scott, Esq. -- gscott@osler.com -- and Aislinn E. Reid,
Esq. -- areid@osler.com -- at Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, in an
article for Lexology, reported that we have previously commented
on the relatively low evidentiary threshold at the certification
stage of class actions in Canada. The Federal Court of Appeal's
decision in Condon v Canada, a privacy class action, continues
this theme as a recent example of Canadian courts' liberal and
purposive approach to class action certification.

Background: The Certification Requirement -- A Reasonable Cause of
Action

Among the criteria required to certify a class action is that the
pleadings must disclose a reasonable cause of action. While a
proposed plaintiff must provide sufficient evidence to show some
factual basis for each of the other certification requirements,
the same is not required to prove the existence of a cause of
action. Rather, a pleading will be found to disclose a cause of
action unless it is plain and obvious that no such claim exists.

Federal Court Partially Certifies Class Action

In July 2014, the Federal Court certified in part a class
proceeding for damages arising out of the loss by the Ministry of
Human Resources and Skills Development Canada of a hard drive
containing personal information of 583,000 student loan
recipients. Our post regarding the certification decision can be
found here.

At the certification stage, the class action was allowed to
proceed based on breach of contract and the tort of intrusion upon
seclusion. The certification judge denied certification of the
claims for breach of confidence and negligence, finding, based on
a "summary review of the evidence", that the plaintiff had not
suffered any compensable damages, and therefore negligence and
breach of confidence (both of which have damages as an essential
element) could not be certified.

Appeal Allowed: Reasonable Cause of Action Not Determined By
Evaluating Evidence on Certification Motion

Allowing the Appeal, the Federal Court of Appeal referred the
matter back to the Federal Court to determine the common issues in
the class action in relation to the claims for negligence and
breach of confidence. The Federal Court of Appeal held that the
certification judge erred in evaluating the affidavit evidence
filed by the parties to determine the merits of the claims for
negligence and breach of confidence. The Court reinforced that at
the certification stage of class actions, the determination of
whether pleadings disclose a reasonable cause of action is based
on an assumption that the facts as pleaded are true, not on a
review of evidence adduced in support of the motion.

Condon serves as a reminder of the proper purpose of evidence on
certification motions, and reaffirms that the certification stage
is not intended to be a test of the merits of a proposed class
action.


CANADA: CWB Class Suit Battle Continues Proceedings
---------------------------------------------------
Jocelyn Turner, writing for PR Record Gazette, reported that
Supporters of the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) are continuing their
court proceedings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


CANADA DRY: Recalls Heinz Rice and Mott's Fruit Products
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 7, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Non harmful (Quality/Spoilage)
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Canada Dry Mott's Inc., Heinz Canada
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9950

Industry is recalling Heinz Apple broccoli, pea & brown rice and
Mott's Fruitsations Fruit Rockets - Unsweetened Strawberry from
the marketplace due to potential loss of seal, causing spoilage.
Consumers should not consume the recalled products described
below.

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

If an infant or child has been fed the products described above,
discontinue use and monitor for symptoms. Consumption of spoiled
food may cause symptoms such as upset stomach, vomiting and
diarrhea. If you have any concerns, please seek medical attention.

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

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

  Brand name   Common name   Size     Code(s) on  UPC
  ----------   -----------   ----     product     ---
                                      ----------
  Heinz        Apple,        128 ml   2016 MR 03  0 57000 02990 6
               broccoli,              2016 MR 04
               pea & brown
               rice
  Mott's       Fruitsations  90 g     NO2615 G5   0 65912 00019 7
               Fruit Rockets
               - Unsweetened
               Strawberry -
               Apple
               Strawberry
               Fruit Blend
  Mott's       Fruitsations  4 x 90 g  NO2615     0 65912 00020 0
               Fruit Rockets
               - Unsweetened
               Strawberry -
               Apple
               Strawberry
               Fruit Blend
Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/2lI7r4


CARMAX INC: California Supreme Court Denied Petition for Review
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court has denied CarMax, Inc.'s petition
for review in the Fowler class action lawsuit, the Company said in
its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 8, 2015, for the quarterly period ended May 31,
2015.

On April 2, 2008, Mr. John Fowler filed a putative class action
lawsuit against CarMax Auto Superstores California, LLC and CarMax
Auto Superstores West Coast, Inc. in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles.  Subsequently, two other
lawsuits, Leena Areso et al. v.  CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC and Justin Weaver v. CarMax Auto Superstores
California, LLC, were consolidated as part of the Fowler case.
The allegations in the consolidated case involved: (1) failure to
provide meal and rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2)
failure to pay wages of terminated or resigned employees related
to meal and rest breaks and overtime; (3) failure to pay overtime;
(4) failure to comply with itemized employee wage statement
provisions; (5) unfair competition; and (6) California's Labor
Code Private Attorney General Act.  The putative class consisted
of sales consultants, sales managers, and other hourly employees
who worked for the company in California from April 2, 2004, to
the present.  On May 12, 2009, the court dismissed all of the
class claims with respect to the sales manager putative class.

On June 16, 2009, the court dismissed all claims related to the
failure to comply with the itemized employee wage statement
provisions.  The court also granted CarMax's motion for summary
adjudication with regard to CarMax's alleged failure to pay
overtime to the sales consultant putative class.

The claims currently remaining in the lawsuit regarding the sales
consultant putative class are: (1) failure to provide meal and
rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof; (2) failure to pay
wages of terminated or resigned employees related to meal and rest
breaks; (3) unfair competition; and (4) California's Labor Code
Private Attorney General Act.

On November 21, 2011, the court granted CarMax's motion to compel
the plaintiffs' remaining claims into arbitration on an individual
basis.  The plaintiffs appealed the court's ruling and on March
26, 2013, the California Court of Appeal reversed the trial
court's order granting CarMax's motion to compel arbitration.

On October 8, 2013, CarMax filed a petition for a writ of
certiorari seeking review in the United States Supreme Court.  On
February 24, 2014, the United States Supreme Court granted
CarMax's petition for certiorari, vacated the California Court of
Appeal decision and remanded the case to the California Court of
Appeal for further consideration.  The California Court of Appeal
determined that the plaintiffs' Labor Code Private Attorney
General Act claim is not subject to arbitration, but the remaining
claims are subject to arbitration on an individual basis.

CarMax appealed this decision on March 9, 2015 by filing a
petition for review with the California Supreme Court.  On April
22, 2015, the California Supreme Court denied the petition for
review.

The Fowler lawsuit seeks compensatory and special damages, wages,
interest, civil and statutory penalties, restitution, injunctive
relief and the recovery of attorneys' fees.

"We are unable to make a reasonable estimate of the amount or
range of loss that could result from an unfavorable outcome in
this matter," the Company said.


CASY INDUSTRIES: Expands Gluten-free Corn Snax Product Recall
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 5, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Tree Nut
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Casy Industries Ltd.
Distribution: Ontario, Possibly National, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 9973

The food recall warning issued on August 4, 2015 has been updated
to include additional allergens. This additional information was
identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA)
food safety investigation.

Casy Industries Ltd. is recalling Casy's Kwik brand Gluten-free
Corn Snax from the marketplace because they may contain hazelnut,
almond, cashew and pistachio which are not declared on the label.
People with an allergy to hazelnut, almond, cashew or pistachio
should not consume the recalled products described below.

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

If you have an allergy to almond, hazelnut, cashew or pistachio,
do not consume the recalled products as they may cause a serious
or life-threatening reaction.

There has been one reported reaction associated with the
consumption of these products.

Background
This recall was triggered by a consumer complaint. The CFIA is
conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the
recall of other products. If other high-risk products are
recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food
Recall Warnings.

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

  Brand name   Common name   Size      Code(s) on      UPC
  ----------   -----------   ----      product         ---
                                       ----------
  Casy's Kwik  Gluten-free   150 g     All codes       8 38222-
               Corn Snax     box       where almond,   00111 2
               with         (contains  hazelnut,
               Chocolate    12 x 2     cashew and
               Filling      stick      pistachio do
                            packages)  not appear on
                                       the label.

  Casy's Kwik  Gluten-free   12 g      All codes       8 38222-
               Corn Snax     (2        where almond,   00101 3
               with           sticks)  hazelnut,
               Chocolate               cashew and
               Filling                 pistachio do
                                       not appear on
                                       the label.
  Casy's Kwik  Gluten-free   150 g     All codes       8 38222-
               Corn Snax     box       where almond,   00112 9
               with         (contains  hazelnut,
               Vanilla      12 x 2     cashew and
               Filling      stick      pistachio do
                            packages)  not appear on
                                       the label.
  Casy's Kwik  Gluten-free   12 g      All codes       8 38222-
               Corn Snax     (2        where almond,   00102 0
               with          sticks)   hazelnut,
               Vanilla                 cashew and
               Filling                 pistachio do
                                       not appear on
                                       the label.

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


CATAMARAN CORP: Entered Into MOU With Class Action Plaintiffs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Catamaran Corporation, UnitedHealth Group and 1031387 B.C.
Unlimited Liability Company have entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the plaintiffs in the class action lawsuits
providing for the settlement of the litigation, Catamaran said in
its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 2, 2015.

On March 29, 2015, Catamaran (the "Company") entered into an
Arrangement Agreement (the "Arrangement Agreement") with
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, a corporation incorporated under
the laws of the State of Delaware, USA ("UnitedHealth Group"), and
1031387 B.C. Unlimited Liability Company, an unlimited liability
company incorporated under the laws of the Province of British
Columbia, Canada, and a wholly owned subsidiary of UnitedHealth
Group ("Purchaser").

The Arrangement Agreement provides, among other things, that, in
accordance with a Plan of Arrangement and the transactions
contemplated thereby, UnitedHealth Group will acquire, directly or
indirectly, all of the issued and outstanding common shares of the
Company pursuant to a statutory "arrangement" (the "Arrangement")
under Section 195 of the Business Corporations Act (Yukon),
resulting in the Company becoming an indirect, wholly owned
subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group.

Four purported common shareholders of the Company filed four
putative class action complaints in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, each on behalf of a purported class of common
shareholders. Subject to court approval, the parties in all four
lawsuits have agreed to consolidate the lawsuits in their entirety
in the Cook County Circuit Court in the State of Illinois (the
"State Litigation"). In addition, two purported common
shareholders of the Company filed putative class action complaints
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, each on behalf of a purported class of common
shareholders (the "Federal Litigation" and, together with the
State Litigation, the "Litigation").

On July 2, 2015, the Company, UnitedHealth Group and Purchaser
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the plaintiffs in
the Litigation providing for the settlement of the Litigation (the
"Memorandum of Understanding"). In the Memorandum of
Understanding, the Company agreed to make certain supplemental
disclosures to the definitive proxy circular and proxy statement
of the Company dated June 8, 2015 relating to the Arrangement (the
"Proxy Circular and Proxy Statement").

The Company believes that no additional disclosure is required to
supplement the Proxy Circular and Proxy Statement under applicable
laws. However, to avoid the risk that the Litigation may delay or
otherwise adversely affect the consummation of the Arrangement,
and to minimize the expense of defending the Litigation, the
Company has agreed, pursuant to the terms of the Memorandum of
Understanding, to make certain supplemental disclosures to the
Proxy Circular and Proxy Statement. The supplemental disclosures
to the Proxy Circular and Proxy Statement are set forth below. The
Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that, subject to
completion of certain confirmatory discovery by counsel to the
plaintiffs, the parties will enter into a stipulation of
settlement. The settlement contemplated by the parties will be
subject to customary conditions, including consummation of the
Arrangement, certification of the class, and court approval
following notice to the Company's shareholders. In the event that
the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will
be scheduled at which the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois
will consider the fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy of the
settlement. If the settlement is finally approved by the presiding
court, such settlement will resolve and release all claims that
were, or could have been, brought in any of the actions
challenging any aspect of the Arrangement, the Arrangement
Agreement, and any disclosure made in connection therewith (but
excluding claims for dissent rights made by shareholders of the
Company in accordance with the Arrangement Agreement and the
related Plan of Arrangement), pursuant to terms that will be
disclosed to shareholders of the Company prior to final approval
of the settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois will approve the settlement
even if the parties were to enter into such stipulation. If the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois does not approve the
settlement, such proposed settlement, as contemplated by the
Memorandum of Understanding, may be terminated.


CELLULAR SALES: Faces "Slawson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Slawson v. Cellular Sales of Knoxville, Inc., Case No. 2:15-
cv-03191 (E.D. La., August 3, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Cellular Sales of Knoxville, Inc. is an authorized retailer of
Verizon Wireless products and services, operating over 600 stores
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan F. Kansas, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ALAN KANSAS, LLC
      1801 Carol Sue Ave.
      Terrytown, LA 70056
      Telephone: (504) 210-1150
      E-mail: alan@alankansaslaw.com


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Recalls Varsity Jackets Due to Choking Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 6, 2015
Posting date: August 6, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products, Clothing and Accessories
Source of recall:  Health Canada
Issue: Choking Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54504

This voluntary recall involves boys knitted fleece varsity jacket.
The jacket is blue and grey in colour with a baseball and bats
embroidered on the front upper right side.

The recalled jackets can be identified by the following:

  Style Number   Vendor   PO Number   CA Number    Affected
  ------------   Number   ---------   ---------    Sizes
                 ------                            --------
  2033450       1408      158805      40465        6-24 months
                          158806                   2T to 5T
                          158807

The Style number can be found on a price ticket/hangtag. The
Vendor, PO and CA numbers can be found on sewn-in clothing tags at
the side seam.

The metal snaps on the jackets may detach when pulled, posing a
choking hazard.

Neither Health Canada nor The Children's Place (Canada) has
received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries in Canada.

In the United States, The Children's Place received one report of
the metal snap detaching. No injuries were reported.

Approximately 2,200 units were sold in Canada, and approximately
13,700 units were sold in the United States.

The recalled products were sold from December 2014 to July 2015
online and at various retail locations across Canada.

Manufactured in Pakistan.

Manufacturer: Masood Textile Mills Ltd.
              Faisalabad
              PAKISTAN

Distributor: The Children's Place (Canada) LP
             Mississauga
             Ontario
             CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled jackets and
contact The Children's Place (Canada) LP for a full refund.

For more information, consumers may contact The Children's Place
customer service toll-free at 1-877-827-7895, from 9 a.m. to 5
p.m. EST, Monday through Friday. Consumers may also visit The
Children's Place website and click on the 'Recall Information'
link at the bottom of the page.

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

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

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

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/SLWhJ9


COMPUTER SCIENCES: "Strauch" Case Has Conditional Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Sciences Government Services Inc. said in an exhibit to
its Form 10 Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 10, 2015, that the court has granted the
plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of the class of
system administrators in the case, Strauch et al. Fair Labor
Standards Act Class Action.

On July 1, 2014, plaintiffs filed Strauch and Colby v. Computer
Sciences Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut, a putative nationwide class action alleging that
CSC violated provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
with respect to system administrators who worked for CSC at any
time from June 1, 2011 to the present. Plaintiffs claim that CSC
improperly classified its system administrators as exempt from the
FLSA and that CSC therefore owes them overtime wages. Plaintiffs
have also asserted similar claims under state law. CSC's position
is that its system administrators have the job duties,
responsibilities, and salaries of exempt employees and are
properly classified as exempt from overtime compensation
requirements. CSC's Motion to Transfer Venue was denied in
February 2015.

On June 9, 2015, the Court entered an order granting the
plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification of the class of
system administrators. The Strauch putative class includes more
than 4,000 system administrators, of whom 1,865 are employed by us
and the remainder of whom are employed by CSC. Courts typically
undertake a two-stage review in determining whether a suit may
proceed as a class action under the FLSA. In its order, the Court
noted that, as a first step, the Court examines pleadings and
affidavits, and if it finds that proposed class members are
similarly situated, the class is conditionally certified.
Potential class members are then notified and given an opportunity
to opt in to the action. The second step of the class
certification analysis occurs upon completion of discovery. At
that point, the Court will examine all evidence then in the record
to determine whether there is a sufficient basis to conclude that
the proposed class members are similarly situated. If it is
determined that they are, the case will proceed to trial; if it is
determined they are not, the class is decertified and only the
individual claims of the purported class representatives proceed.


CONDE NAST: Faces Class Suit Over Sale of Customer Information
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against Advance
Magazine Publishers, Inc., d/b/a Conde Nast ("Conde Nast"),
alleging that the magazine publisher sells the personally
identifiable information ("PII") of its customers to third-party
"data miners" in violation of Michigan State law. Specifically,
the complaint alleges that Conde Nast has violated Michigan's
Video Rental Privacy Act ("VRPA") prohibition against companies
disclosing without permission any record or information concerning
a Michigan customer's purchase of written materials, if the record
contains PII. According to the complaint, Conde Nast sold lists
containing PII at a rate of approximately $180 per thousand
subscribers. The complaint seeks to certify a class of all
Michigan residents who had their PII disclosed to third parties by
Conde Nast without consent.

Does Selling PII Without Customer Consent Violate Michigan Law?

Conde Naste Sued for Selling Personally Identifiable Information

According to the complaint, the named plaintiff is a Conde Nast
magazine subscriber. The plaintiff alleges that he was never
provided with written notice that Conde Nast sells its customers'
PII and failed to provide a means of opting-out from such
practices. The complaint further alleges that "[c]onsumers can
sign up for Conde Nast subscriptions through numerous media
outlets . . . . Regardless of how the consumer subscribes, Conde
Nast never requires the individual to read or agree to any terms
of service, privacy policy, or information-sharing policy." This
practice, according to the complaint, violates Michigan's VRPA.

The VRPA, passed in or about 1988, states in part that: "a person,
or an employee or agent of the person, engaged in the business of
selling at retail, renting, or lending books or other written
materials . . . shall not disclose to any person, other than the
customer, a record or information concerning the purchase . . . of
those materials by a customer that indicates the identity of the
customer." The complaint seeks to enjoin Conde Nast from violating
that provision of the VRPA, as well as disgorgement of all profits
made by Conde Nast from the sale of customer PII or $5,000.00 per
class member, whichever is greater. Conde Nast must respond to the
complaint.

Protect Yourself

The class action complaint filed against Conde Nast alleges that
it sold customer PII without disclosing such practices in its
terms of service or privacy policy, and did not make an
information sharing policy available to prospective and existing
subscribers. While laws regulating the sale of PII may vary from
state to state, providing conspicuous disclosures and obtaining
consumer prior express informed consent before selling such data
is always a must.

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


CORRECTIONS CORP: Faces Suit Seeking Recovery of Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Willis Bowman, Danny Childers, Terry A. Fultz, Sammy Herald, Fred
Mularz, Archie Moore, Nathan Mullins, Thomas Reese, Roy Terry, and
Richard Woodward, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated v. Corrections Corporation of America, Case No.
5:15-cv-00223-KKC (E.D. Ky., August 3, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime and other compensation, interest thereon,
liquidated damages, costs of suit, and attorney's fees pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Corrections Corporation of America is a Maryland corporation with
headquarters in Nashville, Tennessee. CCA owns and manages private
prisons and detention centers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elizabeth Catesby Woodford, Esq.
      Thomas Walcutt Miller, Esq.
      MILLER, GRIFFIN & MARKS, P.S.C.
      271 W. Short Street
      Suite 600, Security Trust Building
      Lexington, KY 40507-1292
      Telephone: (859) 255-6676
      Facsimile: (859) 259-1562
      E-mail: ewoodford@kentuckylaw.com
              twm@kentuckylaw.com


CSX TRANSPORTATION: Faces $5MM Class Suit Over Train Derailment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wate.com, reported that a class action lawsuit seeking $5 million
has been filed naming four Maryville residents after the CSX train
derailment and fire earlier.

The suit was filed in federal court on behalf of Charles Tipton,
Billy Tipton, and husband and wife Travis and Elizabeth Pruett.
The plaintiffs are seeking $5 million from train operator CSX and
rail car owner Union Tank Car Company.

According to the suit, Charles Tipton was evacuated from his home
around 1 a.m. on July 2, shortly after the derailment. He was in
sight of the fire and inhaled smoke and fumes. He was unable to
return home until after the evacuation was lifted and according to
the suit, missed a day of work.

Billy Tipton, according to the suit, was evacuated from his home
around 2 a.m. and also breathed in smoke and fumes, complaining of
watery eyes and a burning sensation in his mouth and throat. The
suit also says Travis and Elisabeth Pruett were also evacuated
from their homes for more than 24 hours.

The suit does not say whether Charles Tipton or Billy Tipton
sought medical help.

The suit alleges all four suffered property damages, aggravation
and inconvenience, fear, anxiety and mental anguish and out-of-
pocket expenses. The suit says Charles Tipton also lost income.

The plaintiffs are represented by five separate law firms,
including Knoxville-based Hagood Moody Hodge and Kramer Rayson, as
well as Maryville-based Craig L. Garrett.

Another lawsuit was filed earlier by Kevin W. Shepherd naming
husband and wife Aaron and Kelli Johnson as plaintiffs. That suit
alleges CSX was "negligent and caused a nuisance resulting in
evacuation."

Around 5,000 people had to evacuate their homes for more than 24
hours when a train car containing toxic chemical acrylonitrile
derailed in the early morning hours of July 2. Residents were
allowed to return home in the afternoon of July 4, but concerns
continued about well water and the presence of the chemical in a
nearby creek.


DAVE & BUSTER'S: Sued Over Unlawful Gift Card Redemption Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Skinner, on behalf of himself, the General Public, and all
others similarly situated v. Dave & Buster's, Inc., Case No.
BC590241 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 4, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to provide cash to consumers wishing to
redeem a gift card with a cash value less than $10.00.

Dave & Buster's, Inc. owns and operates restaurants in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip R. Polinerm, Esq.
      FINEMAN & POLINER LLP
      155 North Riverview Drive
      Anaheim Hills, CA 92808
      Telephone: (714) 620-1125
      Facsimile: (714) 701-0155
      E-mail: phillip@finemanpoliner.com


DEFENDER SECURITY: Faces "Wade" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Iyon Wade, Vincent Espinoza, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Defender Security Co. and Does 1-100,
Case No. BC590356 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 4, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the California Labor Code.

Defender Security Co. is an Indiana corporation that provides
professional security guard, investigative, and security
consultation services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lonnie C. Blanchard III, Esq.
      THE BLANCHARD LAW GROUP, APC
      3311 East Pico Blvd
      Los Angeles, CA 90023
      Telephone: (213) 599-8255
      Facsimile: (213) 402-3949
      E-mail: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com


DELCATH SYSTEMS: Final Approval Hearing Set for October 19
----------------------------------------------------------
Delcath Systems, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 7, 2015, that the Court
granted Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
Action Settlement and set a Final Approval Hearing for October 19,
2015, in the case, In re Delcath Systems, Inc. Securities
Litigation, United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York (Case No. 13-cv-3116).

On May 8, 2013, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Bryan
Green, individually and on behalf of all others similar situated,
v. Delcath Systems, Inc., et al. ("Green"), Case No. 1:13-cv-
03116-LGS. On June 14, 2013, a substantially similar complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned Joseph Connico, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Delcath Systems,
Inc., et al. ("Connico"), Case No. 1:13-cv-04131-LGS.

The parties have reached a settlement in principle that, if
approved by the Court, will fully and finally resolve the claims
brought by Lead Plaintiff on behalf of the class it seeks to
represent. The proposed settlement establishes a settlement fund
of $8,500,000 in return for a release of all claims in this
litigation, which is not expected to result in any additional
expense in the Company's financial statements.

On June 24, 2015, the Court granted Lead Plaintiff filed a Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement and set a
Final Approval Hearing for October 19, 2015. Pursuant to the
Court's Preliminary Approval Order, notice and claim forms will be
mailed to class members and class members will have an opportunity
to submit claims, to opt-out of the settlement, and/or to object
to the settlement. At the Final Approval Hearing the Court will
consider the notice process and results, any objections, and other
relevant information. The Court will then decide whether to
finally approve the class settlement. If the settlement is finally
approved, the settlement funds will be disbursed as provided in
the settlement agreement and the Court's orders.


DELTA AIR: Sued by Atlanta Lawyer for Ticket Overpricing
--------------------------------------------------------
Judd Hickinbotham, writing for WSB, reported that an Atlanta
lawyer is the latest to file suit against several airlines,
accusing them of colluding to keep ticket prices sky high.

The class-action suit filed by attorney David Bain lists Delta,
American, Southwest, and United Airlines as defendants. He filed
it on behalf of a Massachusetts traveler.

The suit, filed in the Northern District of Georgia, says the
airlines conspired to fix, raise and maintain ticket prices.
A Delta spokesman, once again, denied the claims in a statement
released.

The Department of Justice is looking into the accusations.
Lawyers in other states have filed similar suits, with the goal of
a class-action case that would include millions of fliers. They
could consolidate the suits.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Securities Class Suit Sent Back for Review
---------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reported that the 2nd U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals sent a securities class action against
Deutsche Bank and several underwriters back to U.S. District Judge
Deborah Batts of Manhattan for reconsideration in light of the
U.S. Supreme Court's March 2015 decision in Omnicare v. Laborers
District Council. Judge Batts had tossed the case in 2013, ruling
that under 2nd Circuit precedent in Fait v. Regions Financial,
Deutsche Bank's estimation of its exposure to mortgage-backed
securities in offering materials for a stock issue was an opinion
that could not give rise to securities fraud liability. After
Omnicare, in which the Supreme Court set new rules for when
opinions are actionable, the Supreme Court remanded the Deutsche
Bank case to the 2nd Circuit, which, in turn, passed it to Judge
Batts.

The appeals court was apparently unpersuaded by the banks'
argument that it should just reaffirm the case's dismissal because
Omnicare is consistent with Fait. (As you may recall, the Supreme
Court took the Omnicare case to resolve a split between the 6th
Circuit, which had said opinions can be actionable if they contain
factual statements that turn out to have been false, and the 2nd
Circuit, which said in Fait that defendants can only be liable if
they didn't actually believe the opinion when they expressed it.)
The 2nd Circuit seems to want to hear from trial judges before it
weighs in on Omnicare and Fait; in May, it sent a class action
against ING Group to U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan of Manhattan
after the ING case, like the Deutsche Bank case, was remanded to
the 2nd Circuit by the Supreme Court.

The 2nd Circuit's remands made me curious about how much impact
Omnicare has had so far in the lower courts. Obviously, these are
early days: The Supreme Court decision is just four months old,
and according to Westlaw, it has been cited in only about 15
decisions. That said, it appears Omnicare has benefited both
securities plaintiffs and defendants -- but only a little bit.

For plaintiffs, the good news is that trial judges are applying
Omnicare not just in Securities Act cases but also in class
actions asserting fraud under the Exchange Act. In Omnicare, the
Supreme Court opened the door to investor claims based on
corporate statements of opinion that neglect to mention key
contrary facts. Two trial judges in federal court, one in a New
Jersey case against Merck and the other in Richmond, Virginia, in
a class action against Genworth Financial, used the same framework
to analyze defendants' fraudulent intent under Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act -- and both found scienter under the Omnicare
standard.

In another boon to plaintiffs, a Colorado federal judge ruled that
the FDIC can go ahead with a mortgage-backed securities case
against Morgan Stanley, holding that the agency had shown factual
underpinnings of the bank's "opinions" were false, so, under
Omnicare, "the general rule that statements of opinion are not
actionable does not bar the FDIC's claims."

But as the Supreme Court anticipated in the Omnicare opinion,
investors still face "no small task" to show defendants' opinions
are actionable. In a case against the Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority, for instance, a federal judge in
Harrisburg said Omnicare couldn't transform corporate puffery into
falsely stated opinions. A Massachusetts federal judge ruled
investors suing Sarepta Therapeutics couldn't meet the Omnicare
standard, as did the 10th Circuit in affirming the dismissal of a
claim against an executive of Delta Petroleum.

In Manhattan, U.S. District Judge Paul Crotty reconsidered his
dismissal of a securities class action against Tremor Video after
Omnicare came out but said the Supreme Court opinion just
"reaffirmed" his original conclusion that the defendants'
statements of opinion were not actionable.

The most thorough examination of Omnicare's impact came from U.S.
District Judge Alison Nathan in In re Bioscrip. After supplemental
briefing from both sides, Judge Nathan agreed that Omnicare seemed
to call the 2nd Circuit's Fait standard into question, "to the
extent Fait has been construed to mean that there is liability for
legal compliance opinions only in the context of statements
subjectively disbelieved when made, but not in instances where a
speaker's statement, although sincerely believed, failed to make
clear the factual basis for that statement."

She analyzed the Bioscrip defendants' allegedly false opinions
under the Omnicare framework and found them to fit the
hypothetical the Supreme Court posited, in which a company states
an "opinion" but fails to disclose important contrary information.
Judge Nathan said investors could sue over the misstatement under
Omnicare -- but she also held they could have sued even under the
2nd Circuit's old Fait standard.

I said when the Omnicare decision came out that the Supreme Court
seemed to be tinkering at the margins of securities law, not
making big changes. I've seen some commentary to the contrary, but
so far, in these early cases, judges haven't given me much reason
to reassess my initial reaction.


DISNEY STORE: Recalls Pencil Cases Due to Perforation Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 5, 2015
Posting date: August 5, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products, Toys
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Physical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54470

This recall involves the following themed pencil cases:

  --- Avengers: UPC 464592508298
  --- Multi-Princess: UPC 464592507956
  --- Miles from Tomorrowland: UPC 464592508038
  --- CARS: UPC 464592508113

The pencil cases have spring loaded compartments for scissors,
tape, ruler and erasers.

The lid is held closed by two magnets. These magnets can become
loose posing a perforation hazard to young children.

Neither Health Canada nor Disney Store has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of the product
in Canada. Additionally, no consumer incidents or injuries related
to the use of the product have been reported in the United States.

Approximately 16 units were sold in Canada and 300 units in the
United States at Disney Store locations.

The recall cases were sold between June 3, 2015 and June 12, 2015.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Disney Store USA, LLC
              Pasadena
              California
              UNITED STATES

Consumers should take the case away from children and return it to
a Disney Store for a full refund.

For more information, call the Disney Store at 1-866-902-2798,
8:30am to 5 pm PST Monday-Friday.

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

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

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

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

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


DOTTY'S CASINO: Agreed to Pay $375K for Class Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Law, writing for Portland Tribune, reported that the state's
largest lottery cafe chain has agreed to reimburse 700 of its
current and past employees for making them cover shortfalls in the
till at the end of their shifts.

Oregon Restaurant Services Inc., which owns Dotty's and other
lottery businesses, recently settled a class-action lawsuit filed
in 2013 by Portland attorney Paul Breed on behalf of the affected
employees.

Breed contends the practice meant Dotty's employees earned less
than minimum wage, and violated state law.

Nevada-based Oregon Restaurant Services agreed to pay $375,000
plus attorney fees, Breed says.

"We've had some class members get as much as $5, 000," he says.

Oregon Restaurant Services, while not acknowledging any
wrongdoing, agreed to reimburse the employees for 100 percent of
the money they paid out, plus 9 percent annual interest. Some also
received additional penalties. The minimum payment for each member
of the class is $100.

"We're just happy to see that a mutually agreeable resolution was
reached and we're happy that everybody can move on with their
lives and their business," says Will Rasmusssen, an attorney at
Portland's Miller Nash law firm who represents Oregon Restaurant
Services.

Jeff Chicoine, a Miller Nash colleague who also represents Oregon
Restaurant Services, previously maintained the company did nothing
illegal, because it didn't deduct the payments from workers' pay.
However, he said the company changed its policy in 2011 after a
lawsuit was filed by Breed on behalf of former employee Patrick
Burns.

Burns, who won $8,500 in an out-of-court settlement that preceded
Breed's class-action filing, said he would typically handle $8,500
to $13,500 in cash each day, He would unload money from the six
Oregon State Lottery machines, pay prize money to winners, and
sell alcohol, food, keno and scratch tickets and lots of cartons
of cigarettes.

"Anyone handling cash, you're human, you're going to make a
mistake one way or another," he said.

Burns said he didn't mind reimbursing the till for small
shortfalls, but complained when the company began charging him for
$50 or $100 shortfalls which he didn't think were his fault.

Oregon Restaurant Services pioneered bare-bones cafes in Oregon
that derive their profits from hosting six state lottery
terminals. Dotty's and similar outlets offer low-price cigarettes,
food and alcohol, to lure gamblers and comply with the Oregon
State Lottery requirement that they collect more than half their
gross revenues -- not profits -- from non-gambling business. If
they don't meet that threshold, the state maintains, they'd run
afoul of the Oregon Constitution's ban on non-tribal casinos.

Burns said he'd sometimes sell $1,000 worth of cigarettes per day,
including to other retailers who'd then take the cartons to their
stores and mark up the prices.

Oregon Restaurant Services also is the lead company in creating
"Lottery Row," a casino-style complex of small cafes and bars in a
Jantzen Beach strip retail center.

Chicoine, who represented Oregon Restaurant Services in the
dispute, was on vacation and could not be reached for comment on
the class-action settlement.

Earlier he argued that Dotty's employees were earning minimum wage
because they also get tips. However, tips don't count against
Oregon's minimum wage, now set at $9.25 an hour, under state law.

It took a couple years for the courts to certify the class of
employees entitled to benefits under the class-action suit. That
occurred several months ago.

"We went into settlement talks pretty soon after we got the class
certified," Breed says. In the settlement talks, he agreed to
lower the penalty payments class members would get, which could
have been up to 30 days' pay. That might have dragged the case on
several more years, Breed says, and the longer cases drag on in
class-action suits, the fewer people get reimbursed.

"To me, we accomplished everything we set out to," Breed says.

The final settlement was sealed in May and he began doling out
payments to employees.

His law firm still is holding a trust fund with nearly $100,000.
That money is due to class members who haven't responded to his
communications or moved and he has no new contact information.
Eligible employees must have worked for one or more of Oregon
Restaurant Services' 40 or so lottery outlets sometime between
Oct. 1, 2007 and Oct. 31, 2013. Workers who want to get their
payments are encouraged to contact Breed at 503-226-1403.

Any money that's left over after November will go to a nonprofit,
the Oregon Council on Problem Gambling.

"That actually was suggested by Dotty's," Breed says. "I didn't
have any problem with that. It's connected to the business that
they do."


ELETROBRAS: Rosen Firm Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces that
it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of
Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras S.A. ("Eletrobras") from February
10, 2014 through April 29, 2015, all dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Eletrobras
investors under the federal securities laws.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
issued materially false and misleading statements to investors
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's senior officials
were in non-compliance with the Company's corporate governance
directives and Code of Ethics; (2) as a result, the Company was
subject to investigation and disciplinary action by various
governmental and regulatory authorities; (3) the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading as they
contained direct references to the Company's Code of Ethics, and
statements regarding its compliance with regulations and internal
governance policies; (4) the Company lacked adequate internal and
financial controls; (5) the SOX certifications signed by
Eletrobras' senior management were materially false and misleading
as senior management was aware of "any fraud, whether or not
material"; and (6), as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
financial statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
September 21, 2015. If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-665.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip
Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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


ENERGY TRANSFER: Plaintiffs' Motion to Expedite Discovery Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 10, 2015, that
the court has denied plaintiffs' motion to expedite discovery in
the ETP Merger Shareholder Litigation.

Following the January 26, 2015 announcement of the definitive
merger agreement with ETP, purported Partnership unitholders filed
lawsuits in state and federal courts in Dallas, Texas asserting
claims relating to the proposed transaction.

On February 3, 2015, William Engel and Enno Seago, purported
Partnership unitholders, filed a class action petition on behalf
of the Partnership's common unitholders and a derivative suit on
behalf of the Partnership in the 162nd Judicial District Court of
Dallas County, Texas (the "Engel Lawsuit"). The lawsuit names as
defendants the General Partner, the members of the General
Partner's board of directors, ETP, ETP GP, ETE, and, as a nominal
party, the Partnership. The Engel Lawsuit alleges that (1) the
General Partner's directors breached duties to the Partnership and
the Partnership's unitholders by employing a conflicted and unfair
process and failing to maximize the merger consideration; (2) the
General Partner's directors breached the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing by engaging in a flawed merger process; and
(3) the non-director defendants aided and abetted in these claimed
breaches. The plaintiffs seek an injunction preventing the
defendants from closing the proposed transaction or an order
rescinding the transaction if it has already been completed. The
plaintiffs also seek money damages and court costs, including
attorney's fees.

On February 9, 2015, Stuart Yeager, a purported Partnership
unitholder, filed a class action petition on behalf of the
Partnership's common unitholders and a derivative suit on behalf
of the Partnership in the 134th Judicial District Court of Dallas
County, Texas (the "Yeager Lawsuit"). The allegations, claims, and
relief sought in the Yeager Lawsuit are nearly identical to those
in the Engel Lawsuit.

On February 10, 2015, Lucien Coggia a purported Partnership
unitholder, filed a class action petition on behalf of the
Partnership's common unitholders and a derivative suit on behalf
of the Partnership in the 192nd Judicial District Court of Dallas
County, Texas (the "Coggia Lawsuit"). The allegations, claims, and
relief sought in the Coggia Lawsuit are nearly identical to those
in the Engel Lawsuit.

On February 3, 2015, Linda Blankman, a purported Partnership
unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the
Partnership's common unitholders in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas (the "Blankman Lawsuit").
The allegations and claims in the Blankman Lawsuit are similar to
those in the Engel Lawsuit. However, the Blankman Lawsuit does not
allege any derivative claims and includes the Partnership as a
defendant rather than a nominal party. The lawsuit also omits one
of the General Partner's directors, Richard Brannon, who was named
in the Engel Lawsuit. The Blankman Lawsuit alleges that the
General Partner's directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
unitholders by failing to maximize the value of the Partnership,
failing to properly value the Partnership, and ignoring conflicts
of interest. The plaintiff also asserts a claim against the non-
director defendants for aiding and abetting the directors' alleged
breach of fiduciary duty. The Blankman Lawsuit seeks the same
relief that the plaintiffs seek in the Engel Lawsuit.

On February 6, 2015, Edwin Bazini, a purported Partnership
unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the
Partnership's common unitholders in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas (the "Bazini Lawsuit").
The allegations, claims, and relief sought in the Bazini Lawsuit
are nearly identical to those in the Blankman Lawsuit. On March
27, 2015, Plaintiff Bazini filed an amended complaint asserting
additional claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

On February 11, 2015, Mark Hinnau, a purported Partnership
unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the
Partnership's common unitholders in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas (the "Hinnau Lawsuit").
The allegations, claims, and relief sought in the Hinnau Lawsuit
are nearly identical to those in the Blankman Lawsuit.

On February 11, 2015, Stephen Weaver, a purported Partnership
unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the
Partnership's common unitholders in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas (the "Weaver Lawsuit").
The allegations, claims, and relief sought in the Weaver Lawsuit
are nearly identical to those in the Blankman Lawsuit.

On February 11, 2015, Adrian Dieckman, a purported Partnership
unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the
Partnership's common unitholders in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas (the "Dieckman Lawsuit").
The allegations, claims, and relief sought in the Dieckman Lawsuit
are similar to those in the Blankman Lawsuit, except that the
Dieckman Lawsuit does not assert an aiding and abetting claim.

On February 13, 2015, Irwin Berlin, a purported Partnership
unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the
Partnership's common unitholders in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas (the "Dieckman Lawsuit").
The allegations, claims, and relief sought in the Berlin Lawsuit
are similar to those in the Blankman Lawsuit.

On March 13, 2015, the Court in the 95th Judicial District Court
of Dallas County, Texas transferred and consolidated the Yeager
and Coggia Lawsuits into the Engel Lawsuit and captioned the
consolidated lawsuit as Engel v. Regency GP, LP, et al. (the
"Consolidated State Lawsuit").

On March 30, 2015, Leonard Cooperman, a purported Partnership
unitholder, filed a class action complaint on behalf of the
Partnership's common unitholders in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas (the "Cooperman
Lawsuit"). The allegations, claims, and relief sought in the
Cooperman Lawsuit are similar to those in the Blankman Lawsuit.

On March 31, 2015, the Court in United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas consolidated the Blankman, Bazini,
Hinnau, Weaver, Dieckman, and Berlin Lawsuits into a consolidated
lawsuit captioned Bazini v. Bradley, et al. (the "Consolidated
Federal Lawsuit").

On April 1, 2015, plaintiffs in the Consolidated Federal Lawsuit
filed an Emergency Motion to Expedite Discovery. On April 9, 2015,
by order of the Court, the parties submitted a joint submission
wherein defendants opposed plaintiffs request to expedite
discovery. On April 17, 2015, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion
to expedite discovery.

Each of these lawsuits is at a preliminary stage. The Partnership
cannot predict the outcome of these or any other lawsuits that
might be filed, nor can we predict the amount of time and expense
that will be required to resolve these lawsuits. The Partnership
and the other defendants named in the lawsuits intend to defend
vigorously against these and any other actions.


ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Mey" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Mey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Enterprise Financial Group, Inc. and National Repair
Protection, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00463-UA-MRM (M.D. Fla., August
3, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making
unsolicited calls to the telephones of consumers nationwide and to
obtain redress for all the persons injured by their conduct.

Enterprise Financial Group, Inc. is a company that sells a variety
of consumer-related products and services for automobile dealers
and manufacturers, credit unions, banks, and retailers.

National Repair Protection, LLC operates a call center that sells
Enterprise products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward A. Broderick, Esq.
      BRODERICK LAW, P.C.
      Suite 1030, 125 Summer Street
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 738-7080
      E-mail: edward@broderick-law.com

         - and -

      Matthew P. McCue, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. MCCUE
      Suite 3, 1 South Avenue
      Natick, MA 01760
      Telephone: (508) 655-1415
      Facsimile: (508) 319-3077
      E-mail: mmccue@massattorneys.net

         - and -

      Scott David Owens, Esq.
      SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
      3800 S Ocean Dr Ste 235
      Hollywood, FL 33019-2930
      Telephone: (954) 589-0588
      Facsimile: (954) 337-0666
      E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com


ERIC CONN: Former clients to Get Help From Legal Aid Groups
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sheldon Compton, writing for Hazard- Herald, reported that with
some of the 1,500 former clients of Eric C. Conn receiving letters
that their cases have been referred for hearings, the pressing
issue has become finding legal representation for all of them.

According to Ned Pillersdorf, though, there is recourse for many.

The Prestonsburg attorney said earlier that Legal Aid in
Prestonsburg and other legal aid groups have been pulling together
a list of those wishing to have a lawyer represent them during the
hearings to come.

But their claims must be justified, Pillersdorf says.

"The way we have been addressing this is that Legal Aid in
Prestonsburg and other legal aid groups have been assembling a
list of those who desire representation," Pillersdorf said. "Feel
free to contact other counsel. Also, if your claim for benefits is
not justified, we will not assist you. Don't ask."

The Social Security Administration (SSA) has continued to insist
on hearings, Pillersdorf has said. He has filed a motion for a
class action lawsuit on behalf of Conn's former clients who lost
their benefits for a time following an investigation in the
Stanville disability attorney for alleged fraud.

A conference has been scheduled in federal court on Aug. 10 in the
class action injunction motion asking that there be no hearings
until the SSA can certify that the hearing process will be fair,
Pillersdorf said, adding that under their own regulations, it
would seem they are to held to certain standards for hearings.

"It's complicated, but we do not believe the SSA has the right
under their own regulations to commence with 1,500 reevaluation
hearings, when there is no evidence the recipients engaged in any
wrongdoing," Pillersdorf said.

And the Prestonsburg attorney is not mincing words when it comes
to his view of the SSA as it pertains to the needs of his clients.

"In my view they (SSA) are an arrogant bureaucracy who are
indifferent to the pain and anguish they are causing in our
communities," he said.

The SSA has threatened, according to Pillersdorf, to file a motion
to dismiss the class action but have been ordered to first respond
to the motion for preliminary injunction before filing for a
dismissal.

Sheldon Compton is a staff writer at The Floyd County Times. He
can be reached at (606) 886-8506.


EXECUTIVE FIGHT: Faces Class Suit After Lemon Creek Incident
------------------------------------------------------------
Shelby Thom, writing for CKNW News, reported that another class-
action lawsuit has been filed against the company whose fuel
tanker truck overturned in Lemon Creek, spilling more than 30,000
litres of jet fuel and prompting thousands of evacuations two
years ago.

Slocan Park resident James Ross has launched a class action,
naming Executive Fight Centre Fuel Services, TransWest
Helicopters, driver Danny LaSante and the provincial government in
the suit.

The company was hired by the province to supply fuel to
helicopters battling a wildfire in the Slocan Valley, before the
driver lost control and dumped his load into the creek- prompting
the health authority to evacuate nearby homes.

Ross alleges the fuel exposure burned his eyes, throat and nose,
and he had difficulty breathing, as well as a headache.

He wants the class action certified to include his neighbours who
also allegedly suffered personal injury.

None of those allegations have been proven in court.


EXPERIAN: Faces Class Suit Over Selling Data to Identity Thieves
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Abel, writing for Consumer Affairs, reported that it's
been almost two years since word first leaked out that the massive
data broker Experian had, through a subsidiary known as Court
Ventures, allowed a Vietnamese identity thief to buy access to
databases containing the personal and confidential information on
up to 5 out of every 6 American adults -- 200 million people in
all.

The identity thief in question, Hieu Minh Ngo, was sentenced to 13
years in prison.

Law suit cites negligence

A couple days later, on July 17, three plaintiffs filed a federal
class action suit against Experian in California, alleging that
the company was negligent in allowing an identity thief to buy
access to its data for nearly 10 months.

Security expert Brian Krebs (who first broke word of the Experian
breach in October 2013) announced the lawsuit. The 38-page suit,
which is available as a .pdf here, seeks statutory damages for
alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, declaratory
and injunctive relief, and reimbursement of the plaintiffs' court
costs and litigation expenses.

The suit also claims that "Experian refuses to notify the victims
of Ngo's identity fraud operation or provide them with protection
even though Experian knows their identities, and its senior vice
president promised Congress [that] Experian would 'make sure
they're protected'."

Therefore, the plaintiffs have asked the court to force Experian
to notify all consumers who were affected by Ngo's actions.
They're also pushing for Experian to provide everyone who was
affected with free credit monitoring services.

Incidentally, in American English, the phrase "make a federal
case" is a common idiomatic phrase used to indicate that somebody
is overreacting: "Dude, he didn't intend to spill your drink!
There's no need to make a federal case out of this." But in other
contexts, it's not an idiom but a straightforward description, as
in "Apparently you do need to make a federal case out of it, if
you want Experian to notify the victims of its own negligence."


EZCORP INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors of
EZCORP, Inc. (NASDAQ:EZPW) securities from October 27, 2014
through July 16, 2015, all dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for EZCORP investors under
the federal securities laws.

To join the EZCORP class action, go to the firm's website at
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-340.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, defendants during the Class Period made
false and misleading statements and failed to divulge material
information, including with respect to the Company's accounting of
Grupo Finmart's structured asset sales. Consequently, on July 17,
2015, EZCORP announced that it will restate its financial
statements for fiscal year 2014 (including the interim periods
during that year) and the first quarter of fiscal year 2015. On
this news, shares of EZCORP fell $11.51 per share or over 24% to
close at $35.54 per share on July 17, 2015.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
September 18, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the class action and recover your
losses, go to the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-340.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip
Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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

The firm may reached at:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Kevin Chan, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
         pkim@rosenlegal.com
         kchan@rosenlegal.com


EZCORP INC: Sept. 18 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
------------------------------------------------
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP that a class action lawsuit has been filed in
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on
behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the common stock
of EZCORP, Inc. ("EZCORP" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: EZPW) between
October 27, 2014 and July 16, 2015, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

EZCORP shareholders may, no later than September 18, 2015, move
the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class. If you
purchased shares of EZCORP and would like to learn more about
these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or to
sign up online, visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/ezpw.

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

On April 30, 2015, EZCORP announced a delay in its earnings
release for the second quarter of fiscal 2015 due to an ongoing
review of the Company's Grupo Finmart loan portfolio. On this
news, shares of EZCORP fell from $9.20 to close at $8.41,
representing a decline of $0.79 per share, or 8.59%. Subsequently,
on May 20, 2015, the Company announced it had received a notice of
noncompliance with NASDAQ's listing requirements due to its
failure to timely file its 10Q, causing the stock price to fall
7.3% to close at $8.33 on May 21, 2015.

Then, on July 17, 2015, EZCORP announced it will restate its
financial statements for fiscal 2014 and the first quarter of
fiscal 2015. The restatement pertains to six structured asset
sales, pursuant to which a portion of the Grupo Finmart loan
portfolio was sold to a special purpose trust (the "Asset Sales").
Due to certain control rights that Grupo Finmart retained as
servicer of the loans, the trusts should have been accounted for
as "variable interest entities" and, thus, the Asset Sales should
not have been accounted for as sales. Approximately $40 million in
gain will be eliminated.  EZCORP also failed to adequately
identify out-of-payroll loans and to track the aging of non-
performing loans.  According to the Company, the foregoing issues
indicate material weaknesses in EZCORP's internal control over
financial reporting and deficiencies in the Company's disclosure
controls and procedures.  On this news, shares of EZCORP fell from
$6.72 to $6.48, representing a loss of $0.24 per share or
approximately 3.57%.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than September
18, 2015, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of
the class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members
may together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in
any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Ryan & Maniskas,
LLP or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.

For more information regarding this, please contact Ryan &
Maniskas, LLP (Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (877)
316-3218 or by email at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com or visit:
www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/ezpw.  For more information about class
action cases in general or to learn more about Ryan & Maniskas,
LLP, please visit our website: www.rmclasslaw.com.

Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is a national shareholder litigation firm.
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is devoted to protecting the interests of
individual and institutional investors in shareholder actions in
state and federal courts nationwide.

The firm may be reached at:

         Richard A. Maniskas, Esq
         RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
         995 Old Eagle School Rd., Suite 311
         Wayne, PA 19087
         484-588-5516
         877-316-3218
         Email: rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com


EZCORP INC: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP, a securities litigation firm representing
investors nationwide, announces that a class action case alleging
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 has been
commenced against EZCORP, Inc. ("EZCORP" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: EZPW) and two of its officers, who are also members of
the board of directors.  The case, which is pending in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Texas, has been
brought on behalf of investors who purchased EZCORP's securities
(the "Class") between October 27, 2014 and July 16, 2015 (the
"Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants made false and misleading statements and omitted to
disclose material information, including with respect to the
Company's accounting of Grupo Finmart's structured asset sales.
As a result, on July 17, 2015, the Company announced that it would
restate its financial statements for fiscal 2014 (including the
interim periods within that year) and the first quarter of fiscal
2015, and that the previously issued financial statements for
those periods should no longer be relied upon.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members.
If you are a shareholder who purchased securities of EZCORP during
the Class Period, you only have until September 18, 2015 to seek
appointment as a lead plaintiff in this action. Your ability to
share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision
whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

If you have questions about the lawsuit, possess information
relevant to this investigation, or seek information about any of
the foregoing, please contact attorney Steven Harte, at (617) 398-
5600 or email him at Steven@blockesq.com Block & Leviton is also
experienced at representing whistleblowers and encourages any
insiders with information about the allegations to contact them.
Confidentiality is assured.


EZCORP INC: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Texas against EZCORP, Inc.
(NASDAQ: EZPW). The complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of
issuing a series of material or false misrepresentations to the
market which had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price during the Class Period, which is October 27, 2014 through
July 16, 2015.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all EZCORP, Inc.
shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class Period
and are therefore a member of the Class as described above. You
may move the Court no later than, September 18, 2015 to serve as a
lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so,
you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

If you wish to discuss this action, obtain further information and
participate in this or any other securities litigation, or should
you have any questions or concerns regarding this notice or
preservation of your rights, please contact:


FEDEX CORP: FedEx Ground Entered Into Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 8, 2015, that on July
2, 2015, FedEx Ground Package System, Inc. ("FedEx Ground"), a
wholly owned subsidiary of FedEx Corporation, entered into a class
action settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in the lawsuit
entitled Dean Alexander, et al. v. FedEx Ground Package System,
Inc., Case No. 3:05-CV-38-EMC (the "Lawsuit"), currently pending
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "District Court"). In this action, a class was
certified consisting of approximately 2,300 persons who (1)
entered into an operating agreement with FedEx Ground between
November 17, 2000 and October 15, 2007 to perform pick-up and
delivery services, (2) drove a vehicle on a full-time basis and
(3) were dispatched out of a terminal in the state of California.

Plaintiffs allege that they were misclassified as independent
contractors and assert various claims on behalf of themselves and
the class, primarily arising under the California Labor Code and
the California Business and Professions Code. Plaintiffs seek to
recover business expenses, deductions from compensation, unpaid
overtime wages, penalties for late payment of wages, penalties
under the California Private Attorneys General Act and other
relief. The seventeen named plaintiffs also assert a claim for
failure to provide meal and rest breaks under the California Labor
Code.

Under the settlement agreement, FedEx Ground has agreed to pay
$228 million to resolve the Lawsuit and obtain a release of claims
that were asserted or could be asserted in the Lawsuit or that are
related to or arise from the employment classification of the
class members. The release of claims includes alleged damages
incurred from November 17, 2000 through the date of preliminary
approval by the District Court. Any attorneys' fees awarded by the
District Court and all costs of notice and claims administration
will be paid from the $228 million settlement fund. Each class
member's settlement payment will be determined by a formula based
on the dates and duration of contracting with FedEx Ground, the
hours and days of work, vehicles used and miles driven by those
vehicles and other relevant factors.

The settlement agreement is subject to approval by the District
Court. If the District Court preliminarily approves the
settlement, the agreement provides for a period of time during
which class members will be notified of the settlement and given
an opportunity to file a claim form to receive a settlement
payment, object to the settlement or do nothing. We expect that
the District Court will schedule a Fairness Hearing to occur after
the notice period, at which the parties will request final
approval of the settlement and at which any objectors to the
settlement will be heard. If the District Court gives final
approval to the settlement, the release will be effective as to
all class members regardless of whether they filed a claim form
and received a payment.


FLOGREAT CORP: "Juarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Juarez, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Flogreat Corp. d/b/a Rey's Pizzeria & Restaurant, Flomark
Corporation d/b/a Rey's Pizzeria & Restaurant, Reynaldo Flores,
and Luis Flores, Case No. 1:15-cv-04511 (E.D.N.Y., August 3,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate Rey's Pizza and Restaurant in New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Giustino Cilenti, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: jcilenti@jcpclaw.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 2011 Savanna & Express Models
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 5, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Truck & Van
Notification type: Safety TC
System: Brakes
Units affected: 442
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015352TC
ID number: 2015352
Manufacturer recall number: 15588

Certain vehicles equipped with a hinged left side rear door may
have a condition where inadequate clearance between the rear brake
lines and the lower fuel filler hose clamp may result in abrasion
to one or both rear brake lines. This condition could cause brake
fluid loss which could result in decreased brake line pressure,
increased brake pedal travel and increased stopping distance,
increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to
property. This condition could cause various warning lights to
illuminate in the instrument panel of the vehicle such the red
"BRAKE" telltale symbol; illumination of the Stabilitrak telltale
symbol; scrolling display of "Service Brake", "Service
Stabilitrak," and "Service Traction Control" messages in the
Driver Information Centre (DIC); and audible alerts/chimes.
Correction: Dealers will inspect the brake lines. If the clearance
is found to be below specification, the brake lines will be
replaced with a new part design that provides adequate clearance.

  Make        Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----       ----------------------
  GMC         SAVANA      2011
  CHEVROLET   EXPRESS     2011


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 2010 Chevrolet Models Due to Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 5, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Airbag
Units affected: 13950
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015354TC
ID number: 2015354
Manufacturer recall number: 15075

On certain vehicles, the side-impact sensor wire harness in the
driver-side front door may have been improperly routed. If the
wire harness was improperly routed, the window regulator could
contact the harness when the window is fully lowered and, over
time, chafe the harness insulation. If the regulator penetrates
the insulation, a short could occur in the side-impact sensor
circuit, which could prevent the driver-side roof-rail airbag from
deploying during a crash, potentially increasing the risk of
injury to the seat occupant. If this condition were present, the
vehicles airbag warning light would illuminate for the duration of
the ignition cycle. Correction: Dealers will inspect the side
impact sensor wiring in the front left doors. If the condition is
present, they will repair damaged wires, correct the clip
orientation, and correct the wire routing.

  Make        Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----       ----------------------
  CHEVROLET   COBALT      2010


GOLD CLUB: Arb Agreement Found Unconscionable
---------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, wrriting for The Legal Intellegencer, reported
that an arbitration agreement a stripper was allegedly told to
sign right before her shift started was unconscionable because it
barred her ability to bring her wage-and-hour collective and class
actions in the arbitration setting, a Pennsylvania federal judge
has ruled.

In determining whether the arbitration agreement signed by
plaintiff Jessica Herzfeld allowed for class and collective
arbitration, U.S. District Judge Mark A. Kearney of the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania had to rely on the thin amount of case
law available since the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit ruled in 2014 in Opalinski v. Robert Half International
that district courts must decide if arbitration clauses allow for
class arbitration.

"Due to Opalinski's recent vintage, we have minimal guidance in
deciding whether the 2013 agreement [Herzfeld signed] could be
interpreted to allow for collective FLSA or class arbitration,"
Kearney said in Herzfeld v. 1416 Chancellor. "As the Supreme Court
has not as yet required the arbitration agreement to expressly
recite an agreement to class arbitration, it is possible to find
an implicit agreement to authorize class arbitration but such an
agreement cannot be 'inferred solely from the fact of the parties'
agreement to arbitrate.'"

Kearney found the agreement Herzfeld signed with the Gold Club in
Philadelphia did not expressly or implicitly show an agreement to
allow for collective or class arbitration. The agreement refers
only to arbitration affecting "both parties," and does not mention
parties of any other type. Kearney found there was thus no meeting
of the minds on a "monumental change" to the agreement such as
allowing not just for individual arbitration but for class
arbitration or collective arbitration. He said a simple mention in
the arbitration agreement of the American Arbitration Association
rules and regulations also does not expand the agreement to
include class or collective actions.

After finding the arbitration agreement did not allow for
Herzfeld's collective action, Kearney looked to whether it was
unconscionable.

"Courts have viewed the loss of a statutory right to a collective
action permissible, but only in the context of a contractual
waiver," Kearney said, citing the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in
AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.

Kearney said Herzfeld did not waive her collective or class action
right, but rather lost it under operation of law because the
arbitration clause does not recite that right.

"Paradoxically, by not including language addressing a collective
or class action in arbitration, Gold Club is able to now argue
Herzfeld loses her statutory right to a collective action and
ability to bring her class claims in arbitration," Kearney said.

Because the arbitration agreement does not allow for class or
collective arbitration, an arbitrator would not be able to give
Herzfeld the full scope of Fair Labor Standards Act remedies, he
said.

"Consequently, we find the arbitration provision imposing an
involuntary, unknowing loss of FLSA collective action and class
action rights is substantively unconscionable," Kearney said.

Gold Club had argued Herzfeld ratified the arbitration clause when
she took it home for her "mother/attorney's" review and returned
to work for almost a year before filing the suit. But Kearney said
he was shown no case law that allowed for the ratification of an
unconscionable clause.

Kearney denied Gold Club's motion to compel arbitration in the
case.

Herzfeld sued Gold Club under the FLSA on behalf of herself and
those similarly situated. She is seeking unpaid minimum wages,
unpaid overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours a
week and liquidated damages. She also seeks to bring a class
action on behalf of all Gold Club dancers under the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection
Law.

Edwin Kilpela of Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela in Pittsburgh
represented Herzfeld and the putative class. Bradley J. Shafer and
Matthew Hoffer of Shafer & Associates in Lansing, Michigan, along
with Pasquale J. Colavita of Philadelphia, represented Gold Club.
None of the attorneys were immediately available for comment.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Labaton Sucharow Files Nationwide Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Sucharow LLP filed the first nationwide class action
alleging a conspiracy by prominent financial institutions,
including Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Deutsche Bank,
Merrill Lynch, and JPMorgan, among others, to manipulate auctions
for U.S. treasury bills, notes, and bonds (collectively, "treasury
securities").

Gregory Asciolla, Co-Chair of Firm's Antitrust & Competition
Litigation Practice, noted, "Treasury securities are the bedrock
of this nation's financial security. This is a cause for great
concern as investors worldwide are being injured and deceived."

Treasury securities -- debt instruments issued by the U.S.
Treasury Department -- are not only used to help finance U.S.
government operations, but are also used by state and local
municipalities, corporations, investment funds, hedge funds,
pension funds and individuals for investing and hedging purposes.
Interest rates set by auctions for treasury securities  are also
used as benchmarks for many other types of debt and debt-related
instruments, including student loan debt, bonds, interest rate
swaps, and exchange-traded treasury futures and options.

The plaintiff claims that the defendants employed a multi-pronged
scheme to effectively "sell high and buy low," colluding to induce
investors to pay high prices for debt securities purchased from
defendants in the pre-auction market, called the "when issued
market," and to depress the price of the securities that the
defendants themselves bought at auction to cover these sales,
pocketing the difference.

According to the complaint, the defendants manipulated the
treasury securities market by using chat rooms, instant messaging,
and other methods to exchange confidential customer information
and coordinate trading strategies.

"The defendants' scheme struck at the heart of the U.S. economy:
the ability of the government to efficiently raise capital via
Treasury auctions," said Labaton Sucharow partner Michael W.
Stocker. "This collusion not only robbed investors participating
in the 'when issued' market for these auction securities, but
imposed billions in additional costs on borrowers ranging from
students to municipalities."

The firm may be reached at:

         LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
         140 Broadway
         New York, NY 10005
         Tel: 212-907-0700
         Fax: 212-818-0477
         Email: info@labaton.com
         Settlement Helpline: 888-219-6877
          settlementquestions@labaton.com


GOLDMAN SACHS: Judge Cautions Lawyer During Suit Hearing
--------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Dugon, writing for New York Post, reported that Goldman
Sachs is good at getting what it wants -- but it may backfire this
time.

A federal magistrate judge warned a Goldman lawyer to "be careful
what you wish for" during a hearing on an explosive sexual
discrimination lawsuit, since trying to prevent a class action
could lead to more litigation.

The hearing was the latest twist in a five-year-old suit that
alleges a "boys club" atmosphere rife with client meetings at
strip clubs, golf outings that excluded women execs, and female
associates and vice presidents getting paid less than their male
colleagues.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs are seeking to add two women to the
lawsuit -- Allison Gamba, a former VP in the securities division,
and Mary De Luis, who's currently in investment management -- in
order to satisfy a rule for class-action certification that one of
the plaintiffs is currently an employee.

The original plaintiffs, Cristina Chen-Oster, a former VP, and
Shanna Orlich, who was an associate, are seeking unspecified
damages and an order requiring the bank to fix its alleged frat-
house culture.

Goldman has denied the allegations. Its lawyer, Robert Giuffra,
said during the latest hearing that the court should deny the
class-action certification in part because Gamba knew about the
case since at least 2012 and only sought to join it after the
judge had ruled against certification in March.

Giuffra cited a sexual discrimination case against Walmart where a
West Coast appeals court ruled said that 1.6 million women didn't
make up a class.

Goldman is seeking to have Gamba and De Luis file separate
lawsuits in the same court.

But while Judge James Francis seemed to lean toward ruling in
Goldman's favor, he warned the bank of its consequences.

"Be careful what you wish for," Francis said.

"I'm not sure Walmart did the right thing," he said, adding the
decision ended up "spawning" multiple lawsuits.


HEMISPHERX BIOPHARMA: Has Final Order for "Frater" Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hemispherx Biopharma (NYSE: HEB) announced that the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has issued
an order granting final approval of a settlement of the securities
class action, Frater v. Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. A final
settlement hearing was conducted on July 22, 2015. No Company
funds were used to pay the settlement, the settlement was funded
by the insurance company for Hemispherx. The settlement expressly
is not an admission of fault or wrongdoing by Hemispherx or any of
the individual defendants.

Thomas K. Equels, General Counsel, stated: "Our team will be glad
to have this class action behind us so that we can focus our time
and resources on the important work of new drug development
related to Ampligen(R) and the manufacturing and marketing of our
FDA approved anti-viral Alferon(R)."


HERTZ: Federal Judge Dismisses Class Suit
-----------------------------------------
Laura Layden, writing for Naples Daily News, reported that a
class-action lawsuit accusing Hertz and two of its former
executives of misleading investors has been tossed out -- again.

In an order dated July 22, a federal judge in New Jersey granted
Hertz's motion to dismiss the complaint.

A Hertz spokesman declined to comment.

The original lawsuit, filed in November 2013, was thrown out by
another federal judge late last year after Hertz argued the
plaintiffs took a "kitchen sink" approach in their pleadings and
their claims were based on "legally flawed criticisms."

After dismissing the first complaint, U.S. District Judge Stanley
Chesler gave the plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended lawsuit if
they wanted to continue their battle -- and they did.

Following a second complaint filed in November of last year, Hertz
argued the plaintiffs had "resubmitted essentially the same
allegations that the court already dismissed," and once again
failed to support their claims for securities fraud.

The original lawsuit came after Hertz reported disappointing
third-quarter earnings in the fall of 2013, which it partly
attributed to weaker demand for car rentals at U.S. airports. The
company's stock price fell by more than $4 a share on the news.

In her ruling, U.S. Circuit Court Judge Madeline Cox Arleo, found
the allegations in the amended suit were insufficient and failed
"on a number of grounds" to demonstrate that Hertz, its former
CEO, Mark Frissora, and a former chief financial officer, Elyse
Douglas, gave investors financial information "with actual
knowledge of its falsity."

The judge said she was convinced Hertz adequately cautioned
investors about the potential risks it faced due to a government
sequester, its Dollar Thrifty acquisition, declining market values
for its rental cars and its ability to manage its fleet size. She
also said the allegations failed to show evidence of "conscious
misbehavior and recklessness," or "fraudulent intent."

Pedro Ramirez Jr., who lives in Riverside, Connecticut, was the
first to sue, though he was just a small investor. His case was
later combined with a similar one and the Sheet Metal Workers
Local No. 80 became the lead plaintiff. According to court
documents, the trust fund purchased tens of thousands of Hertz
shares during the months covered by the complaint.

An attorney for the plaintiffs could not be reached for comment.

In her order, Judge Arleo gave the plaintiffs until Aug. 22 to
file an amended complaint, or the case will be dismissed.


HHGREGG INC: Ex-Manager Wins Class Suit Over Bonuses
----------------------------------------------------
Scott Olson, writing for IBJ.com, reported that a former HHGregg
Inc. manager has won his lawsuit charging that the company failed
to pay incentive bonuses after reaching certain financial goals,
potentially leading to millions of dollars in damages.

Marion Superior Court Judge Robert R. Altice Jr. issued his ruling
and set a Nov. 12 hearing to determine damages. The judge granted
the suit class-action status in 2014.

Former accounting manager Dwain Underwood filed his complaint in
March 2013, claiming that the Indianapolis-based appliance and
electronics retailer failed to factor a $40 million payout into
the calculation used to determine whether employees were entitled
to incentive bonuses.

The company collected the $40 million life insurance payout after
Executive Chairman Jerry Throgmartin died in 2012.

Underwood claimed HHGregg should have paid him a $25,000 bonus
based on the company's fiscal 2012 earnings before interest,
taxes, depreciation and amortization, or EBITA, of $144.4 million.

Instead, HHGregg based bonuses on "adjusted EBITA," which excluded
the life insurance payout.

"Nowhere in the statement does HHGregg reserve the right to only
issue a bonus in its discretion; rather, HHGregg is offering a
performance-based bonus, which is to be paid if certain financial
standards are met in a fiscal year," Altice wrote in his decision.

Eric Pavlack, attorney for the approximately 50 current and former
HHGregg employees in the class action, said the judge's decision
supported their argument that they should have been paid the
bonuses.

"We're extremely pleased with the results and think it's the right
decision," he said.

Counting pre-judgment interest, total damages could exceed $3
million, Pavlack said.

An HHGregg official told IBJ on that the company was disappointed
by the ruling.

"We are committed to always acting with integrity and conducting
business in an ethical and legal manner," said Heather Greenawald,
vice president and general counsel. "We are disappointed with the
decision and will explore all legal avenues at our disposal in
response. We remain proud of our employment record and our
position as an employer of choice in Indianapolis and across the
U.S."

Underwood voluntarily left the company in January 2013, two months
before he filed suit. He sued the company for breach of contract
and unjust enrichment.


HIGHWAY EMERGENCY: Faces "Williams" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Williams, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Highway Emergency Local Patrol, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-
02742-MHC (N.D. Ga., August 3, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Highway Emergency Local Patrol, LLC provides emergency roadside
services to its customers in the State of Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amanda A. Farahany, Esq.
      Victor Severin Roberts, Esq.
      BARRETT & FARAHANY, LLP
      1100 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 500
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (404) 214-0120
      Facsimile: (404) 214-0125
      E-mail: amanda@bf-llp.com
              vsroberts@bf-llp.com


HOT TOPIC: Oct. 26 Fairness Hearing on $14.9MM Class Suit Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP regarding the Hot Topic, Inc. Securities Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION

In re HOT TOPIC, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

This Document Relates To:

ALL ACTIONS.

Lead Case No. 2:13-cv-02939-SJO(JCx)

CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT

IF YOU HELD HOT TOPIC, INC. ("HOT TOPIC") COMMON STOCK ON THE
RECORD DATE, MAY 3, 2013, AND WERE DAMAGED THEREBY (THE "CLASS"),
YOU COULD RECEIVE A PAYMENT FROM A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT.
CERTAIN PERSONS ARE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF THE CLASS AS
SET FORTH IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT.

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

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and Order of the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Litigation") has been certified as a class action
and that a Settlement has been proposed for $14,900,000 in cash.
A hearing will be held on October 26, 2015, at 10:00 a.m., before
the Honorable S. James Otero at the United States Courthouse, 312
North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA  90012, for the purpose of
determining whether: (1) the proposed Settlement should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; and (2)
the application of Lead Plaintiff's counsel for the payment of
attorneys' fees and expenses, including Lead Plaintiff's expenses
incurred in connection with the Litigation, should be approved.

If you are a Class Member described above, your rights may be
affected by the Settlement of the Litigation and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund.  If you have not
received a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
Class Action ("Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and
Release, you may obtain a copy of these documents by contacting
the Claims Administrator: Hot Topic, Inc. Securities Litigation,
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC, P.O. Box 8040, San Rafael, CA 94912-8040,
1-877-203-8900.  You may also obtain copies of the Stipulation of
Settlement, Notice and Proof of Claim and Release at
www.hottopicsecuritiessettlement.com.

If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof
of Claim and Release postmarked no later than October 12, 2015.
If you are a Class Member and do not submit a valid Proof of Claim
and Release, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution
of the Net Settlement Fund but you will still be bound by any
judgment entered by the Court in this Litigation (including the
releases provided for therein).

To exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written
request for exclusion postmarked by September 7, 2015, and in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If you
are a Class Member and do not exclude yourself from the Class, you
will be bound by any judgment entered by the Court in this
Litigation (including the releases provided for therein), whether
or not you submit a Proof of Claim and Release.  If you submit a
written request for exclusion, you will have no right to recover
money pursuant to the Settlement.

Any objection to the proposed Settlement or the request for
attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed with the Court and
delivered such that it is received by each of the following no
later than September 7, 2015:
         Danielle S. Myers, Esq
         Ellen Gusikoff Stewart, Esq.
         ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
         655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA  92101
         T: (619) 231-1058 or (800) 449-4900
         F: (619) 231-7423

            -- and --

         Meryl L. Young, Esq
         GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
         3161 Michelson Drive
         Irvine, CA  92612
         Email: myoung@gibsondunn.com


HYDRO ONE: Faces $125MM Class Suit Over Improper Billing
--------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reported that a $125 million class action lawsuit has
been filed against Hydro One over alleged improper billing and
account management practices.

Koskie Minsky LLP and Lax O'Sullivan Scott Lisus LLP filed the
suit against Hydro One, as well as four of its subsidiaries, on at
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The law firms say the claim is being brought on behalf of all
Hydro One customers who have used the service since May of 2013.
Hydro One customer Paul Foster is set to be the representative
plaintiff in the case.

Ontario's Ombudsman Andre Marin blasted Hydro One in a May report
that found some 100,000 households had massive billing errors,
which were attributed to a new billing system. Marin said his
office received more than 10,000 complaints from Hydro One
customers about over-billing.

The class action lawsuit focuses on the problems surrounding the
rollout of the new billing system. The lawsuit alleges:

Thousands of customers stopped receiving bills.

Others received bills based on estimates, then later received
"massive 'catch-up' bills."

Hydro One automatically withdrew large quantities of money from
customers' accounts without notice or explanation.

Thousands of customers dealt with billing and administrative
errors, including "bills that did not reflect the electricity
actually consumed."

"Hydro One customers are particularly vulnerable to Hydro One's
administration and billing abuses as a result of its near
monopolistic nature and the importance of the services it renders
to customers," said Kirk M. Baert, a partner at Koskie Minsky LLP,
in a news release about the court filing.

Eric R. Hoaken, a partner at Lax O'Sullivan Scott Lisus LLP said,
in the same release, "It's time that Hydro One accounted for the
billing abuses it has perpetrated on its customers."

In the wake of the ombudsman's report, Hydro One officials said
the utility has fixed its billing issues and said the company is
working to improve its customer service.


ICONIX BRAND: August 24 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
---------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. If you purchased or otherwise
acquired Iconix shares between February 20, 2013 and April 17,
2015, your rights may be affected by this action. To get more
information go to http://zlk.9nl.com/iconix-brand-iconor contact
Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by
telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is
no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that the Company made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the
Company had underreported the cost basis of its brands; (b) the
Company engaged in irregular accounting practices related to the
booking of its joint venture revenues and profits, free-cash flow,
and organic growth; and (c) as a result of the aforementioned, the
Company's earnings and revenues were overstated.

On April 17, 2015, Iconix announced that the Company's Chief
Operating Officer had resigned. Then on April 20, 2015, Roth
Capital Partners published an Equity Research Note criticizing the
Company's alleged accounting irregularities.

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

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New
Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have
extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving
financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in
securities and shareholder lawsuits.


IDI INC: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased IDI, Inc. ("IDI" or the "Company") (NYSE:IDI)
securities between April 30, 2015 and July 21, 2015, inclusive
("Class Period"), alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and
certain of its officers (the "Complaint").

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants issued materially false and misleading statements to
investors and/or failed to disclose that: (a) Chairman Michael
Brauser was named as a defendant in multiple civil fraud
litigations; (b) Chairman Michael Brauser was co-owner of a
company that filed for bankruptcy and was sued as an adversary in
that bankruptcy proceeding; and (c) the lawsuit filed by
Transunion against the Company over intellectual property rights
could render IDI's stock worthless.  When the true details entered
the market, the Complaint alleges that the stock dropped 46% and
caused damage to investors.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 21, 2015.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or
to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action,
please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston,
Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail
at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com


IDI INC:  Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers
of IDI, Inc. (IDI) securities from April 30, 2015 through July 21,
2015, all dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks
to recover damages for IDI investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the IDI class action, go to the website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-672.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action. The lawsuit is pending in U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements to investors
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Chairman Michael Brauser was
named as a defendant in multiple civil fraud litigation; (2)
Chairman Michael Brauser was co-owner of a company that filed for
bankruptcy and was sued as an adversary in that bankruptcy
proceeding; and (3) IDI's Transunion lawsuit could render IDI's
stock worthless. When the true details entered the market, the
lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
September 21, 2015. If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-672.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip
Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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

The firm may be reached at:

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Kevin Chan, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: 212-686-1060
         Fax: 212-202-3827
         Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                pkim@rosenlegal.com
                kchan@rosenlegal.com


JAGUAR LAND: Sued in N.J. Over Defective Electrical Systems
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amy Block, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, Case No. 2:15-
cv-05957-SRC-CLW (D.N.J., August 3, 2015), is brought on behalf of
all the individuals and entities who own or have owned Land Rover
LR2 vehicles manufactured and sold by the Defendant, containing
defective electrical systems which cause the battery to drain and
cause the vehicle to have starting problems.

Headquartered in Mahwah, New Jersey, Jaguar Land Rover North
America, LLC, distributes, markets, sells, and services luxury
cars and sport utility vehicles, and related parts and accessories
in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce H. Nagel, Esq.
      NAGEL RICE, LLP
      103 Eisenhower Parkway
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: (973) 618-0400
      E-mail: bnagel@nagelrice.com


JEFFERSON COUNTY, TX: Class Suit Filed Over Home Classification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Heath, writing for Beaumont Enterprise, reported that a
class action suit filed alleges the Jefferson County Appraisal
District and its chief appraiser "unilaterally and fraudulently"
reclassified almost 8,000 homes from one-and-half stories to two
stories for the purpose of increasing tax revenue.

The lawsuit asserts that the homeowners were unaware of any change
in classification of their homes by Chief Appraiser Angela
Bellard.

Beaumont Homeowner Elaine Henderson filed the lawsuit on behalf of
herself and the other homeowners.

The filing also asks the court to temporarily prevent the
appraisal district from sending the new, higher values to the
Jefferson County Tax Office, said Bailey Wingate, who is
representing Henderson along with Beaumont attorney Brent Coon.

The lawsuit contends that Bellard did not notify the homeowners or
the appraisal district's board of directors when the market value
was raised.

Bellard "took it upon herself to combine the one and one half
story classification with the two story classification," according
to the lawsuit.

The homeowners learned of the change when they received a tax
notice in April, Wingate said.

According to the lawsuit, "long-time distinctions" between one-
and-half and two-story houses "were eviscerated for nearly 8,000
homeowners by the unilateral change."

Bellard said a change in price per square foot was made for one-
and-half story houses, but no "reclassifiication" was done.

"We were noticing that sales were indicating the same price per
square foot in a one-and-a-half story as a two-story," Bellard
said.

The appraisal district changed the price per square foot in one-
and-a-half story homes to reflect the market value, she said.

"It's not different than anything we've done before," she said.
"It could change -- it just depends on what the sales reflect."

Henderson was denied relief at a JCAD protest hearing on.

Coon also filed a protest because he saw that his market value had
increased.

After the hearing, Coon and Wingate became partners in Henderson's
case and spoke to the JCAD board at meeting.

The board told the attorneys that the matter would be
investigated.

Wingate said he would like to settle the matter out of court and
filed the lawsuit as a "backup."

Bellard believes there's a "misunderstanding" since she says the
classification of homes never changed.

"I think there could be a misconception about what our office is
charged with," she said.


KAWASAKI KISEN: Settles in US Price Fixing Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Marcus hand, writing for Seatrade Maritime News, reported that
Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha (K-Line) has reached a settlement in a class
action suit in the US over price fixing in the car carrier
business.

K-Line is the first to settle in the class action suit brought by
a group of consumers and auto and truck and equipment dealerships
in antitrust claims against more than 12 international shipping
firms.

"We are delighted to announce the first major settlement in the
vehicle carriers case with K-Line," said attorney Warren T. Burns
of Burns Charest, interim co-lead counsel for the end-payor
plaintiffs. "This is a very significant and substantial first step
to assure that American consumers are compensated for the
conspiracy to fix the price of international car-shipping
services. We expect to make the dollar amount public very soon as
we file for preliminary approval of the class settlement."

Details of the settlement were not released.

Among the other shipping companies involved in the class action
suit are Nippon Yusen Kaisha (NYK) and CSAV.


KB HOME: Trial in "Edwards" Case to Occur in 2016 or Later
----------------------------------------------------------
KB Home said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 2, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended May 31, 2015, that a trial, or trials, involving other
plaintiffs in the Edwards class action is (are) expected to be
scheduled to occur in 2016 or later.

"We, together with certain of our subsidiaries, are a defendant in
lawsuits that allege violations of federal and state wage and hour
statutes," the Company said. "In May 2011, a group of current and
former sales representatives filed a collective action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, Houston Division entitled Edwards, K. v. KB Home. The
lawsuit alleges that we misclassified sales representatives and
failed to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. Sections 206-07). In September
2012, the Edwards court conditionally certified a nationwide class
that, as of the date of this report, consists of 409 plaintiffs.
On May 21, 2015, the Edwards court scheduled an initial trial
involving a portion of the plaintiffs in that case for December
2015. A trial, or trials, involving other plaintiffs in the
Edwards case is (are) expected to be scheduled to occur in 2016 or
later."

"In September 2013, 11 of the plaintiffs in the Edwards case filed
a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court entitled Andrea L.
Bejenaru, et al. v. KB Home, et al. The lawsuit alleges violations
of California laws relating to overtime, meal period and rest
break pay, itemized wage statements, waiting time penalties and
unfair business practices for a class of sales representatives.

"As of the date of this report, the putative class consists of 241
members, some of whom are plaintiffs in the Edwards case, who were
sales representatives from September 2009 to the present. The
Bejenaru court has not certified the case as a class action.
Depending on the Bejenaru court's decisions in the matter, the
putative class could increase in size and include other
individuals, and the case could be certified as a class action.

"In the second quarter of 2015, plaintiffs in the Edwards case and
the Bejenaru case claimed $66 million in compensatory damages,
penalties and interest, as well as injunctive relief, attorneys'
fees and costs for both matters. We deny the allegations in the
lawsuits and intend to defend ourselves vigorously. The ultimate
outcome of these matters is uncertain and we are unable to
estimate the amount or the range of reasonably possible loss, if
any. However, we believe we have meritorious defenses to the
plaintiffs' claims."


KEURIG GREEN: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. ("Keurig" or the "Company")
and certain of its officers. The class action, filed in United
States District Court, Northern District of California, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased Keurig securities between February 4, 2015 and May 14,
2015 inclusive (the "Class Period"). This class action seeks to
recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Keurig securities during
the Class Period, you have until August 18, 2015 to ask the Court
to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980. Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

Keurig produces and sells specialty coffee, coffeemakers, teas,
and other beverages in the United States and Canada. It sources,
produces, and sells coffee, hot cocoa, teas, and other beverages
under various brands in K-Cup, Vue, Rivo, K-Carafe, and Bolt
portion packs brands; and coffee in traditional packaging,
including bags and fractional packs, as well as offers whole bean
and ground coffee in bags, fractional packages, and cans.

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 that: (1)
Defendants' projections for sales were unrealistic and
unattainable given the continuing consumer confusion over the
Company's Keurig 2.0 brewing system; (2) the retail distribution
of Company's new cold brewing system, Keurig Kold, would be
delayed; and (3) as a result, Defendants' statements about
Keurig's business, operations, and prospects were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On May 6, 2015, the Company issued a press release aftermarket
announcing its financial results for the fiscal second quarter of
2015. The press release revealed that the Company's sales growth
for the quarter fell below its previously stated expectations. On
that same day, Bloomberg Business published an article concerning
the slow sales of the Keurig 2.0 brewing system for the quarter.

On this news, shares of Keurig fell $9.92 per share, or over 9%,
to close at $98.16 per share on May 7, 2015.

On May 14, 2015, the Company held a webcast aftermarket concerning
Keurig Kold. During the webcast, Defendant Kelley revealed Keurig
Kold will be sold online and in certain stores starting this fall,
but won't be available in all its retail outlets until.

On this news, shares of Keurig fell $8.82 per share, or over 8%,
to close at $94.26 per share on May 15, 2015, damaging investors.

The Pomerantz Firm, with offices in New York, Chicago, Florida,
and Los Angeles, is acknowledged as one of the premier firms in
the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered the
field of securities class actions. More than 70 years later, the
Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he established, fighting
for the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on behalf of class
members.

The firm may be reached at:

         Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
         POMERANTZ LLP
         600 Third Avenue
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: 212.661.1100
         Fax: 212.661.8665
         Email: rswilloughby@pomlaw.com


KEURIG GREEN: August 18 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
---------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. ("Keurig") (nasdaqgs:GMCR)
between February 4, 2015 and May 14, 2015.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California. If you purchased or otherwise
acquired Keurig shares between February 4, 2015 and May 14, 2015,
your rights may be affected by this action. To get more
information go to http://zlk.9nl.com/keurig-green-mountain-gmcror
contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or
by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There
is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that the Company made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a)
projections for sales were unrealistic and unattainable given the
continuing consumer confusion over Keurig's 2.0 brewing system;
(b) retail distribution of the new cold brewing system Keurig Kold
would be delayed; and (c) as a result, statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you suffered a loss in Keurig you have until August 18, 2015to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New
Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have
extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving
financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in
securities and shareholder lawsuits.


KEYSTONE: Recalls 2014 Avalanche Models Due to Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 5, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Travel Trailer
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Structure
Units affected: 19
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015353TC
ID number: 2015353
Manufacturer recall number: 15-233

On certain travel trailers, windows which are identified as
emergency exits may not be designed for this purpose, or may be
blocked by rear roof access ladders. This could prevent egress
from the vehicle in an emergency situation, increasing the risk of
injury. Correction: Owners will be given instructions on how to
remove the labels.

  Make        Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----       ----------------------
  KEYSTONE    AVALANCHE   2014


LIFELOCK INC: Tripp Levy Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Tripp Levy PLLC, a leading national securities law firm, announces
that a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of a class
(the "Class") of purchasers of the securities LifeLock, Inc.
("LifeLock" or the "Company") between July 30, 2014 and July 20,
2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

If you purchased shares of LifeLock during the Class Period and
have suffered a loss in excess of $100,000 from your investment in
LifeLock common stock and would like to learn more about this
lawsuit, including your ability to potentially recover your
losses, please contact us either by email at contact@tripplevy.com
or by telephone at (800) 511-7037 or visit our website at
www.tripplevy.com.  In addition, if you wish to serve as lead
plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than 60 days from the
date of this notice. If you are a member of this class you can
join this class action to potentially recover your losses by
contacting us.

Tripp Levy PLLC is a leading national securities and shareholder
rights law firm representing both individual and institutional
shareholders and, along with its affiliate, have recovered
billions of dollars for shareholders.   Tripp Levy PLLC is
affiliated with Milberg LLP.  The National Law Journal has named
Milberg one of the "50 Elite Trial Lawyer Firms" and one of the
"50 Leading Plaintiff Firms in America."

The firm may be reached at:

Tripp Levy PLLC
125 East 82nd Street, 9th Floor New York, NY 10028
Toll Free: 800-511-7037
International: 602-241-2841
Facsimile: 212-273-4496
Email: contact@tripplevy.com


LOEWY ENTERPRISES: Sued Over Failure to Provide Layoff Notice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Guadalupe Gomez, Silvia Rosales, Irma Rivera, as individuals and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Loewy Enterprises,
Sunrise Fresh Cuts, LLC, and Does 1-100, Case No. BC590124 (Cal.
Super. Ct., August 4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to provide at least 60 days' written notice of a mass
layoff and termination in violation of the California Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

The Defendants are wholesalers of fresh fruits and vegetables in
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul K. Haines, Esq.
      BOREN, OSHER & LUFTMAN LLP
      222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 2222
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (310) 322-2220
      Facsimile: (310) 322-2228
      E-mail: phaines@bollaw.com


MADISON COUNTY, IL: Petitions to Appeal Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Madison Record, reported
that roughly one month after visiting judge William Becker filed
an official order granting class certification in a Madison County
class action, defendants accused of participating in the alleged
bid rigging scheme filed petitions to appeal the order, saying the
order was rushed.

Defendant Madison County and tax buyer James Foley filed separate
petitions for leave to appeal to the Fifth District Appellate
Court through attorney Craig Unrath of Heyl Royster on July 13.

They argue that Becker hastily approved class certification before
having answers on heavily-debated issues, such as how to calculate
damages and whether every class member's property was a delinquent
sale.

"The trial court chose to take a 'we'll figure it out later'
approach," both petitions state

"Such an approach is not supported by class action jurisprudence."

"Neither plaintiffs nor the trial court, however, have provided
any analysis of how this action raising numerous counts against
over 20 different defendants could be conducted on a class-wide
basis," the petitions state. "There is no discussion of how a
trial can be conducted on different theories against different
defendants. There is no discussion of what damages methodology can
be used. Punting these issues for resolution down the road is not
appropriate."

The class consists of anyone who owned a parcel of property that
was sold at a Madison County tax sale auction from 2005 to 2008 at
a penalty rate of 12 percent or higher.

Becker, a Clinton County associate judge, was appointed to preside
over the case to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest.

Federal prosecutors, who brought down former Madison County
treasurer Fred Bathon and tax buyers, say that between 2005 and
2009, tax buyers engaged in price fixing by only bidding the
statutory maximum interest rate of 18 percent. The rigging was so
pervasive that distressed homeowners were charged the maximum rate
on nearly every property tax lien sold during that period.

Bathon was convicted of structuring property tax sales in a way
that eliminated competitive bidding and increased interest rates
for the tax buyers in exchange for campaign contributions.

He and tax buyers Barret Rochman, Scott McLean and John Vassen
pleaded guilty to antitrust violations in 2013.

Bathon was sentenced to 30 months in prison, but only had to serve
18 months. He was released on June 25.

In their petitions, the defendants argue that the trial court
abused its discretion when it certified the class action, by
failing to consider the following:

   * Plaintiffs bear the burden of proof in establishing all of
the elements for class certification and must do more than rely on
the mere allegations in their complaint;

   * Plaintiffs must possess a valid cause of action against the
defendants before a class can be certified;

   * Individual issues predominate, particularly with respect to
damages, making class certification improper;

   * Plaintiffs are not adequate class representatives as they
have competing interests and did not purchase taxes in all of the
tax years in question from all of the defendants; and

   * A class action is not appropriate for the fair and efficient
adjudication of this case.

In addition to an order reversing Becker's class certification,
Madison County requests the appellate court to dismiss the claims
made against it.

Unrath noted that all but two claims against Madison County have
been dismissed -- claims for sales in error and money had and
received. The defendant argues that these claims are not viable
and class certification, let alone the allegations themselves, are
improper.

In the petition, Unrath wrote that the Sales in Error statute is
"designed to benefit the tax buyer, not the delinquent tax payer."

"By the precise language of the statute, the class representatives
lack standing to pursue a claim for Sale in Error as they are not
alleged to be tax buyers and have not shown that they are tax
buyers," he wrote.

Reiterating that the class representatives do not have standing to
pursue a Sale in Error claim, Unrath adds that a class action
claim for sale in error requires consideration of individualized
issues for each parcel of property, making class certification
inappropriate.

"When the statutory factors are reviewed, it becomes apparent that
successful adjudication of one plaintiff's claim will not
establish a right of recovery in any other class member.

"Class action precedent mandates that a judgment in favor of the
class members should decisively settle the entire controversy, and
all that should remain is for other members of the class to file
proof of their claim," the petition states.

As for the money had and received claim, Unrath argues that the
plaintiffs failed to allege any facts suggesting Madison County
retained any money as a result of Bathon's tax-buying system.

"Put simply, no money was 'had,' nor was any 'received,'" he wrote

Madison County asserts that it received no benefits from Bathon's
conduct.

"For each putative class member, a determination of Madison
County's liability for money had and received cannot be made
without an evaluation of whether Madison County retained funds
from the individual absent class member's payment of allegedly
excessive penalty rates," Unrath wrote.

"This is especially true in this case where, as a matter of
practice and as plaintiffs concede, Madison County did not retain
money paid due to the allegedly excessive penalty rates but would
have simply passed that money on to the tax buyers."

Both defendants contend class representatives Scott Bueker, Virgil
Straeter and Richeson Real Estate bore the burden of demonstrating
that class certification was proper, which they failed to do, the
petitions state.

"Plaintiffs neglected to provide any discussion or analysis as to
how damages could be tried or determined. The reason for this
oversight is readily apparent -- the individualized nature of
damages so predominates over any common issues that class
certification is improper," Unrath wrote.

The defendants reiterate that in order to determine damages and
causation, the court would have to conduct an "extensive" analysis
into every single parcel of land and every single tax sale.

"Plaintiffs neglected to provide any discussion or analysis as to
how damages could be tried or determined and the trial court could
not come up with a plan on its own

Instead, it said it is satisfied that an appropriate method can be
reached. If this class is to be certified, litigants have a right
to know how damages will be calculated," Foley's petition states.

Additionally, they accuse the three plaintiffs of being inadequate
class representatives, arguing that none of them had delinquent
taxes for all of the appropriate years and did not have taxes
purchased by all of the named defendants.

"Moreover, as part of this action, Straeter wants to challenge his
property tax assessments and recover some of the underlying
property taxes he paid on his property," the petitions state.
"This makes Straeter's claim significantly different from those of
absent class members."

Because Foley is accused as a tax buyer participating in Bathon's
scheme, his petition specifically argues that claims against him
cannot be proven on a class-wide basis, meaning class
certification should not have been approved.

"As a consequence, allowing certification of the claims against
Mr. Foley without this primary showing (and exposing Mr. Foley to
the burdens and expenses associated with a certified class)
violates basic notions of fairness and justice," Unrath wrote.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Manufactured in China.

Distributor: Manhattan Group LLC
             Minneapolis
             Minnesota
             UNITED STATES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS: Faces "Carter" Suit Over Consumer Report
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Wesley Carter, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons v. McDonald's Restaurants and
Backgroundchecks.Com, Case No. 2 5:15-cv-01531 (C.D. Cal., July
29, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
provide a clear and conspicuous disclosure that a consumer report
may be obtained for employment purposes.

McDonald's Restaurants is a franchisee of McDonald's USA, LLC,
with offices located at 77848 Wolf Road, Suite 200, Palm Desert
92211. It owns and operates numerous McDonald's franchises in
California.

Backgroundchecks.Com maintains and operates a national database of
public records and related employment histories as a nationwide
consumer reporting agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephanie R. Tatar, Esq.
      TATAR LAW FIRM, APC
      3500 West Olive Avenue, Suite 300
      Burbank, CA 91505
      Telephone: (323) 744-1146
      Facsimile: (888) 778-5695
      E-mail: Stephanie@thetatarlawfirm.com


MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS: Faces "Carter" Suit Over Consumer Report
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Wesley Carter, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons v. McDonald's Restaurants and
Backgroundchecks.Com, Case No 2:15-cv-05728 (C.D. Cal., July 29,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide a
clear and conspicuous disclosure that a consumer report may be
obtained for employment purposes.

McDonald's Restaurants is a franchisee of McDonald's USA, LLC,
with offices located at 77848 Wolf Road, Suite 200, Palm Desert
92211. It owns and operates numerous McDonald's franchises in
California.

Backgroundchecks.Com maintains and operates a national database of
public records and related employment histories as a nationwide
consumer reporting agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephanie R. Tatar, Esq.
      TATAR LAW FIRM, APC
      3500 West Olive Avenue, Suite 300
      Burbank, CA 91505
      Telephone: (323) 744-1146
      Facsimile: (888) 778-5695
      E-mail: Stephanie@thetatarlawfirm.com


MICREL INC: Executed MOU to Settle California Action
----------------------------------------------------
Micrel, Incorporated, said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 7, 2015, that the
Company has executed a memorandum of understanding (the
"Memorandum of Understanding) to settle the California Action,
which would include the dismissal with prejudice of all claims
against all defendants.

On May 7, 2015, Micrel, Incorporated (the "Company"), entered into
an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with
Microchip Technology Incorporated, a Delaware corporation
("Microchip"), Mambo Acquisition Corp., a California corporation
and a wholly owned subsidiary of Microchip ("Merger Sub"), and
Mambo Acquisition LLC, a California limited liability company and
a wholly owned subsidiary of Microchip ("Merger Sub LLC"). The
Merger Agreement provides for the acquisition of the Company by
Microchip by means of a first step merger of Merger Sub with and
into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company surviving the
Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Microchip (the "Interim
Surviving Company"), and a second step merger of the Interim
Surviving Company into Merger Sub LLC, with Merger Sub LLC
surviving the second step merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of
Microchip.

Between May 15, 2015 and May 29, 2015, four class action lawsuits
were filed in Superior Court of the State of California by alleged
shareholders of the Company against the Company, the individual
directors of the Company, Microchip, Merger Sub and Merger Sub
LLC, which have been consolidated by order of the Court as Allan
v. Micrel, Incorporated, et al., Lead Case No. 1-15-cv-280762 on
June 5, 2015 (the "California Action").

On June 30, 2015, the Company executed a memorandum of
understanding (the "Memorandum of Understanding) to settle the
California Action, which would include the dismissal with
prejudice of all claims against all defendants. The parties
anticipate filing a stipulation of settlement with the Court after
the consummation of the merger. The proposed settlement is
conditioned upon, among other things, consummation of the merger
and final approval of the proposed settlement by the court. In
addition, in connection with the settlement and as provided in the
Memorandum of Understanding, the parties contemplate that
plaintiffs' counsel will seek an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses as part of the settlement. There can be no assurance that
the merger will be consummated or that the court will approve the
settlement. In such event, the proposed settlement contemplated by
the Memorandum of Understanding may be terminated. The settlement
will not affect the amount of merger consideration the Company's
shareholders are entitled to receive in the Merger.

As part of the settlement, the defendants agreed to make certain
supplemental disclosures related to the proposed Merger, which
were included in the amended Form S-4 Proxy Statement/Prospectus
deemed filed on June 26, 2015 with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC").

The Company and its Board of Directors believe that the claims in
the California Action are entirely without merit and, in the event
the settlement does not resolve them, intend to vigorously defend
this action.


MICRO BIRD: Recalls G5 School Bus Models Due to Injury Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 5, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: School Bus
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Electrical
Units affected: 14
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015350TC
ID number: 2015350
Manufacturer recall number: 15-060-BCS

On certain school buses, bolts securing the battery box to the bus
body may be missing, causing the number of fasteners securing the
battery box to be inadequate. In addition, battery terminal
shields were also omitted, contributing to corrosion. This could
result in the battery box separating from the vehicle and increase
the risk of a fire and/or crash causing injury and/or damage to
property. Correction: Dealers will replace corroded components,
add shields and replace missing bolts.

  Make        Model            Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----            ----------------------
  GIRARDIN    G5 SCHOOL BUS    2013


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Yossef" Suit in N.Y. Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Benzion Yossef, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland
Funding, LLC, and Encore Capital Group, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-
04526 (E.D.N.Y., August 3, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maxim Maximov
      MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
      1701 Avenue P
      Brooklyn, NY 11229
      Telephone: (718) 395-3459
      Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
      E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Kahn" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Kahn, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
05968-MCA-MAH (D.N.J., August 3, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
      MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC
      1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
      Ocean, NJ 07712
      Telephone: (347) 526-4093
      Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
      E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


MZB: Recalls Children's Flashing Digital Watches
------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 5, 2015
Posting date: August 5, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Physical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54404

This recall involves select styles of flashing light-up digital
watches for children, except for one style which is analog.

The round watches (21.5cm length x 3.5cm width) have multi-
coloured silicone straps and Flashing Light-Up LCD.  The various
designs include Hello Kitty, My Little Pony, Spiderman, Teenage
Mutant Ninja Turtles, Transformers, Star Wars, Disney Princess,
Minnie Mouse, Mickey Mouse, Monster High, Lalaloopsy, Guardians of
the Galaxy, Frozen, Ever After, Dora the Explorer, Despicable Me
2, and Avengers Movie 2.

The watch's package and warranty information contain the
manufacturer's information. The SKU/Style number and
manufacturer's name appear on the case-back of all watches.

The following styles are sold in Canada:

  Description                         Style
  -----------                         -----
  Amazing Spider-Man 2 Analog         ASM2KQ001C
  Amazing Spider-Man 2 Flashing       ASM2KD012FLC
  Amazing Spider-Man 2 Flashing       ASM2KD031FLC
  Amazing Spider-Man 2 Flashing       ASMKD085FLC
  Amazing Spider-Man LCD Light-Up     ASMKD054C
  Amazing Spider-Man LCD              ASMKD081E14C
  Avengers Movie 2 flashing           AVGKQ129C
  Despicable Me 2 Flashing            DMEKD022FLC
  Despicable Me 2 Flashing            DMEKD022FLWC
  Disney Princess LCD w/ Dark         PRSKD759E14C
  Disney Princess LCD w/ Silver       PRSKD793FLC
  Dora The Explorer Flashing          DTEKD1113FLC
  Ever After High Flashing            EAHKD004FLC
  Frozen Girl's LCD                   FNFKD022FLC
  Frozen Flashing Light LCD watch     FNFKD108FLC
  Guardians of the Galaxy Boy's       GOGKD001FLC
  Hello Kitty Flashing Light-Up       HKKD5599C
  Hello Kitty Flashing Light-Up       HKKD5588FLC
  Hello Kitty Flashing Light-Up       HKKD5773FLC
  Hello Kitty Flashing Light-Up       HKKD5599C
  Hello Kitty LCD Light-Up w/clr      HKKD2686C
  Hello Kitty LCD w/ Lavender         HKKD5431E14C
  Hello Kitty LCD w/ Silver mtl       HKKD5376H13C
  Lalaloopsy Kid's LCD w/Fuschia      LLLKD023E14C
  Mickey Mouse LCD w/ Silver          MCKKD1399H13C
  Minnie Mouse LCD w/ Dark Pink       MINKD507E14C
  Minnie Mouse LCD w/ Silver          MINKD449H13C
  Monster High Flashing Light-Up      MHKD191C
  Monster High Flashing Light-Up      MHKD178FLC
  Monster High Flashing Light-Up      MHKD185FLC
  Monster High LCD w/ Silver          MHKD107H13C
  Monster High LCD w/Slv & Purpl      MHKD148E14C
  My Little Pony Flashing             MLPKD129FLC
  My Little Pony Flashing light       MLPKD078C
  My Little Pony Light-Up LCD w/      MLPKD089FLC
  Skylander's Giants Boy's LCD        SKYKD041E14C
  Star Wars Classic Boy's             SWCKD013FLC
  Star Wars Rebels Boy's flashing     SWRKD012FLC
  Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle         TURKQ065C
  Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles        TURKD062E14C
  Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles        TURKD074FLC
  Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles        TURKD087FLC
  Transformers 4 Boy's Flashing       TF4KD009FLC
  Ultimate Spider-Man Analog          SPMKQ449C
  Ultimate Spider-Man LCD             SPMKD459H13C

The case-backs may become separated from the watch case exposing
the module to water, potentially causing a skin irritation.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of this product.

MZB has received 10 reports, including 1 in Canada, of consumer
incidents involving skin irritations or chemical burns.

Approximately 2 million of the watches were distributed in Canada
and in the United States,  58,800 of which were distributed in
Canada. They were sold at Winners Merchants International LP,
Walmart Canada, Sears Canada Inc. and Target.

The affected watches were sold in Canada from August 2012 to June
2015.

Manufactured in China.

Distributor: MZB
             Long Island City
             New York
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should stop using the recalled product and return it to
their nearest retail location for a full refund or store credit.

Consumers may also contact MZB directly for a refund by calling 1-
888-770-7085. For more information, see MZB's website.

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

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

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


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

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


NEIMAN MARCUS: Data Breach Class Suit Re-opened
-----------------------------------------------
Robert Abel, writing for SC Magazine, reported that a federal
appeals court revived a class action lawsuit against Neiman Marcus
over the data breach it experienced in 2013, noting in its ruling
that 350,000 payment cards were compromised and 9,200 were used
fraudulently.

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals said a lower court judge made
an error by dismissing the case too soon, at the request of the
luxury retailer, on the grounds that anyone whose information was
used maliciously had already been compensated. The lawsuit alleged
that victims who didn't immediately suffer after the breach still
faced an increased risk for future criminal use of their data.

Chief Judge Diane Wood said those affected "should not have to
wait until hackers commit identity theft or credit-card fraud in
order to give the class standing," according to a release, and
added there is an "objective reasonable likelihood' that such an
injury will occur."


NELSON WATSON: Faces "Maldonado" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Alfredo Maldonado, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated v. Nelson, Watson & Associates, LLC, CBE Group and John
Doe 1 to 10, Case No. 2:15-cv-05940-ES-MAH (D.N.J., August 3,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEWCREST MINING: Ruling Provides Meaning, Effect of s33ZF
---------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Wearne, Esq. -- nicole.wearne@nortonrosefulbright.com -- at
Norton Rose Fulbright Australia, in an article for Lexology, wrote
that there have been a number of decisions in both the Federal
Court of Australia and the Supreme Court of Victoria where the
Court has been prepared to require that non party class members
produce information to the parties and the court to assist in the
determination of issues. Principle to the court's consideration as
to the ambit of its power to order group members to take a more
active role in the litigation is s33ZF found in Part IVA of the
various Court Acts. It provides:

In any proceeding (including an appeal) conducted under this Part,
the Court may, of its own motion or on application by a party or a
group member, make any order the Court thinks appropriate or
necessary to ensure that justice is done in the proceeding.

In Earglow Pty Ltd v Newcrest Mining Ltd [2015] FCA 328, Beach J
provides clear analysis of the meaning and effect of s33ZF and
when it can be utilised.

Background

In 2013 and 2014 the Australian Securities and Investments
Commission investigated conduct of Newcrest, which resulted in the
imposition of pecuniary penalties. In legal proceedings ASIC
alleged that Newcrest had engaged in two contraventions of s674(2)
of the Corporations Act 2001 relating to disclosure to the ASX of
Newcrest's total gold production and capital expenditure for the
2014 financial year. ASIC prosecuted Newcrest in respect of the
alleged contraventions and Newcrest admitted each contravention
and consented to various declarations being made and penalties
imposed for the purpose of the ASIC proceedings.

The applicant commenced a class action on its behalf and on behalf
of certain investors who had signed a litigation funding agreement
with Comprehensive Funding Legal LLC, alleging various breaches by
Newcrest of its continuous disclosure obligations between 2012 and
2013, and misleading and deceptive conduct in contravention of s
1041H Corporations Act and s12DA of the Australian Securities and
Investments Commission Act 2001. The applicant represents those
persons who:

   -- at any time during the period from 13 August 2012 until the
close of trading of the ASX on 6 June 2013 (the class period)
acquired an interest in securities traded of the ASX under the
designation "NCM" (Newcrest shares); and

   -- suffered loss or damage by or resulting from the conduct of
Newcrest pleaded in the ASOC.

The applicant is a small investor and the trustee of two trusts: a
family trust and a self managed superannuation fund. The trustee
held Newcrest securities on behalf of the family trust at the
beginning of the class period, purchased securities for the
superannuation fund in late May 2013 and sold all of the shares it
held for both trusts on 25 June 2013. The total shareholding was
around 9,400 shares.

The Application

Newcrest applied to the court for an order that the individual
claims of two institutional shareholder group members, who were
among Newcrest's top 20 shareholders at the relevant time, be
tried at the first stage trial of the proceeding involving the
applicant's individual claim and the common issues. Newcrest
emphasised the evidentiary benefits and assistance for settlement.
Newcrest relied on the broad power of the court to make an order
in the proceeding as provided for by s33ZF. It contended that the
applicant's claim provided limited cover of issues in the
proceeding and was not truly representative of investors in
Newcrest.

The applicant accepted that s33ZF empowered the court to make the
type of order being sought by Newcrest, providing that the
statutory test was satisfied and that it was an appropriate
exercise of discretion, both of which the applicant submitted had
not been established.

The Decision

His Honour considered the concluding words of the statute and
interpreted s33ZF as requiring him to consider whether he thought
that the order sought by Newcrest is appropriate, to ensure that
justice is done in the proceeding. He noted it was not sufficient
for him to think it "merely convenient" nor was it a "licence to
permit His Honour to impose his own expansive case management
philosophy". Rather the court must be satisfied that any order
made ensures that justice is done in the proceeding to satisfy the
statutory test.

In coming to his decision to refuse the application, His Honour
accepted that other courts had made orders requiring group members
to take an active role. That conduct included compelling discovery
and the delivery of particulars of loss, provision of contribution
towards security for costs and provision of group member
identities. But the context of the examples was important and the
mere fact that it was possible and justifiable to make such an
order, did not support the proposition that whenever the court
considered it was convenient to do so that it should.

In submitting that the group members already accepted that they
could be required to be a more active participant in the
litigation, Newcrest relied on the terms of the funding agreement
between the group members and the funder, which required them to
cooperate in the litigation if given a direction by Slater &
Gordon. His Honour while accepting that the provisions of the
funding agreement may facilitate a more active role did not
consider that the terms added anything to the statutory test of
ensuring justice is done in the proceeding.

His Honour also accepted that the role and behaviour of the
institutional investor was relevant to the dispute and common
questions and his reasons provide a detailed analysis in support
of why the evidence is important in a shareholder class action.
However, he considered that it might be possible for the court to
determine issues in the case without the evidence of institutional
investors and if it was necessary then the applicant would need to
lead the relevant evidence, or both it and the group would be
detrimentally affected. It was not for the court to impose nor for
Newcrest to seek to compel.

Beach J noted that the applicant had proposed a particular
approach to the expert evidence relevant to a quantitative
assessment of the impact of the relevant representations and non-
disclosure contraventions and a qualitative assessment of the
material information to the Newcrest market of investors. Whether
the applicant's forensic choice was sound was not for the court to
say and His Honour accepted that the choices of evidence to be
called and risks assessments to be made was a decision for the
parties and not the Court. Such matters are "not for the Court to
impose in form or to conduce in substance if not in form. They are
certainly not for one party to impose on the other directly or
indirectly via the s 33ZF mechanism or through the likely effect
of any order that might be made under s 33ZF."

While accepting that evidence from institutional investors is
relevant to the common issues, such evidence was not necessary to
establish the applicant's individual claim or one or more of the
common issues.

His Honour was not convinced of the Newcrest submission that the
provision of institutional sample investors could potentially
facilitate earlier settlement after the first stage trial. He was
persuaded that whatever the perceived advantages of adjudicating
on a range of individual cases to facilitate a post first stage
trial mediation process, that was not sufficient to justify the
requested exercise of power under s 33ZF. His Honour also
considered that the sample of two institutional investors was not
sufficiently diverse to adjudicate on. Beach J distinguished this
scenario from those proceedings where discovery and particulars
has been ordered of individual group members' claims prior to the
first stage trial in order to achieve an overall settlement before
trial (Thomas v Powercor and Regent Holdings v State of Victoria).
He considered such pre-trial disclosure of sufficient individual
data to facilitate an overall pre-trial settlement is a different
context than what was proposed by Newcrest with two institutional
investors at the first stage trial to facilitate
settlementthereafter.

Ultimately His Honour considered that there was not substantial
prejudice to Newcrest in refusing the orders but rather considered
that if there was a lack of institutional investor participation,
it was more likely to prejudice the applicant than Newcrest.

Finally His Honour noted that even if he did think it appropriate
to make such an order he would not do so until after the opt out
date had passed because only then could the parties know which
institutional investors were part of the group. Were such an
application to be made at that time, His Honour considered it
would be appropriate to permit the particular investor an
opportunity to be heard before making final orders, against their
will.

Conclusion

Beach J's decision is particularly helpful for practitioners
advising their clients on the circumstances which need to be
satisfied before the court will make an order under s33ZF. Where
the parties do not agree to the appointment of sample group
members to determine particular issues, it is less likely that the
court will impose an additional cost burden on the group members,
where the applicant has adopted a particular forensic approach.
Rather the court has made it clear that the forensic and strategic
decision as to the evidence is for the legal advisers and the
applicant. If their approach turns out to be incorrect, then the
representatives and group members may suffer prejudice but that is
not for the courts to pre-judge.


NISSAN: Recalls Armada 2015 Models Due to Injury Risk
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 6, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Compliance Mfr
System: Seats And Restraints
Units affected: 0
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015356TC
ID number: 2015356

Certain vehicles may not comply with Canada Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard 209 - Seat Belt Assemblies. Incorrect driver and
passenger front seat belt buckles may have been installed at time
of vehicle assembly. This could result in the buckles failing to
unlatch when the unlatch button is depressed, or not properly
latch, failing to meet the requirements of the standard. This
could increase the risk of injury and/or damage to property in a
crash. Correction: Dealers will inspect the seat belt buckles and
replace as necessary.

  Make        Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----       ----------------------
  NISSAN      ARMADA      2015


NISSIN FOODS: Bid to Dismiss Misleading Label Suit Partially OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carolyn Davis, Esq., at Weil Gotshal Manges LLP, in an article for
Lexology, reported that courts across the United States have seen
an ever-growing number of food labeling class actions over the
past few years.  A recent decision in the Northern District of
California granting in part and denying in part a motion to
dismiss concerns yet another case in this category, Guttmann v.
Nissin Foods (U.S.A.) Company, Inc., No. 3:15-cv-00567.  The
plaintiff, a repeat player in litigation regarding artificial
trans-fat, claims that Cup Noodles products manufactured by
defendant Nissin Foods (U.S.A.) Company, Inc. ("Nissin") contained
trans-fats despite misleading claims on product labels.

At issue was the fact that although all of the noodle products
contained partially-hydrogenated oils (and listed those oils among
the ingredients), the nutrition-facts panel on each of the product
labels included the indication "Trans Fat: 0g."  Several of the
products also included icons on the front labels that described
the product as containing "0g Trans Fat."  Order at 2.  Plaintiff
claimed that the "0g Trans Fat" icon on the product's front label
was misleading and violated California laws.  Nissin moved to
dismiss and argued that plaintiff's mislabeling claims were
preempted by federal regulation.

As the court explained, "nutrition facts," statements about a food
product's nutrient contents in the nutrition-facts panel, and
"nutrient-content claims," statements about a food product's
nutrient contents outside of the nutrition-facts panel, are both
regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA").
Pursuant to those regulations, if a manufacturer chooses to
declare trans-fat content in the nutrition-facts panel, for a
serving size that contains less than 0.5 grams of trans-fat, the
content must be expressed as zero.  21 C.F.R. 101.9(c)(2)(ii).
"Express" nutrient-content claims are permitted by regulation
provided they are "not false or misleading in any respect." 21
C.F.R. 101.13(i) (3).

Plaintiff argued that his state law claims based on labeling were
not preempted by federal regulation because Nissin's nutrient-
content claim on the product's front label was misleading.  The
court disagreed, citing as precedent Chacanaca v. Quaker Oats Co.,
752 F. Supp. 2d 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2010), where it was held that,
because the FDA had already determined that "there is no
nutritional difference between rounded and unrounded values of a
nutrient in a food" (58 Fed. Reg. 44020-01 at 44024 (Aug. 18,
1993)), "use of the unrounded value could not be misleading when
used as an express nutrient-content claim."  Order at 4.

As further justification for preemption, the court reasoned that
finding the "0g Trans Fat" icon on the product's front label
misleading while federal regulation requires Nissin to declare the
product's trans-fat content as zero in the nutrition-facts panel
would lead to trans-fat content being expressed in two different
ways on the same product, a confusing situation for the average
consumer.  As the court stated, "[t]o permit state-law claims
based on a "0g Trans Fat" nutrient-content claim while the FDA
required trans-fat to be declared as zero in the nutrition-facts
panel would compel such a discrepancy."  Order at 5.

Notably, although plaintiff's mislabeling claims were preempted,
his health claims based on California Unfair Competition Law and
breach of implied warranty of merchantability survived the motion
to dismiss.  Adding to the intrigue, while the motion was pending,
the FDA issued a final determination that partially-hydrogenated
oils are no longer "generally recognized as safe" and giving
manufacturers three years to remove partially-hydrogenated oils
from their products.  80 Fed. Reg. 34650 (June 17, 2015).
Nonetheless, this decision represents a logical application of the
federal preemption doctrine in the food labeling arena.  We will
continue to monitor for important developments.


OCEAN POWER: Court Appointed Five More as Lead Plaintiff
--------------------------------------------------------
Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 6, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended April 30, 2015, that the Company and its
former Chief Executive Officer Charles Dunleavy are defendants in
consolidated securities class action lawsuits pending in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
captioned In Re: Ocean Power Technologies, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 14-3799 (FLW) (LHG). The consolidated
actions are Roby v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:14-cv-03799-FLW-LHG; Chew, et al. v. Ocean Power
Technologies, Inc. et. al., Case No 3:14-cv-03815; Konstantinidis
v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-04015;
and Turner v. Ocean Power Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No.
3:14-cv-04592.

On March 17, 2015, the court entered an order appointing Five More
Special Situation Fund Ltd. as the lead plaintiff. On May 18, 2015
lead plaintiff filed an amended class action complaint.

The amended class action complaint alleges claims for violations
of sections 12(a) (2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and for
violations of Sec. 10(b) and Sec. 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 arising out of public statements relating to a now
terminated agreement between Victorian Wave Partners Pty. Ltd.
(VWP) and the Australian Renewable Energy Agency (ARENA) for the
development of a wave power station (the "VWP Project"). The
amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.

The case is still in its preliminary stage and defendants have not
yet responded to the amended complaint.


PAVER DAVE: Faces "Navas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julio C. Pena Navas and Pablo Irineo Coto Mendoza, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Paver Dave, Inc.,
and David E. Keller, Case No. 1:15-cv-22881-KMW (S.D. Fla., August
3, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PMFG INC: Faces "Herre" Class Action in Del. Chancery Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
PMFG, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 10, 2015, that C. Jeffrey Herre,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated PMFG
shareholders, has commenced an action in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware (the "Delaware Action"). CECO Environmental
Corp. ("CECO"), Top Gear Acquisition, Inc. (a wholly-owned
subsidiary of CECO), Top Gear Acquisition II LLC (a wholly-owned
subsidiary of CECO), PMFG and each of the members of the board of
directors of PMFG were named as defendants in the Delaware Action.

The case is, C. JEFFREY HERRE, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PETER J. BURLAGE, CHARLES
M. GILLMAN, KENNETH R. HANKS, ROBERT MCCASHIN, R. CLAYTON MULFORD,
KENNETH H. SHUBIN STEIN, HOWARD G. WESTERMAN, JR., PMFG, INC.,
CECO ENVIRONMENTAL CORP., TOP GEAR ACQUISITION INC., and TOP GEAR
ACQUISITION II LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 11223 (Del. Ch.).
A copy of the Complaint is available at http://is.gd/GF6m2X

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
     Brian D. Long, Esq.
     Gina M. Serra, Esq.
     Jeremy J. Riley, Esq.
     2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
     Wilmington, DE 19803
     Tel: (302) 295-5310

          - and -


     LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
     Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
     Sebastiano Tornatore
     733 Summer Street, Suite 304
     Stamford, CT 06901
     Tel: (212) 363-7500


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

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Puma Biotechnology Inc. ("Puma Biotechnology")
between July 23, 2014 and May 13, 2015.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. If you purchased or otherwise acquired
Puma Biotechnology shares between July 23, 2014 and May 13, 2015,
your rights may be affected by this action. To get more
information go to http://zlk.9nl.com/pumabiotechnologyor contact
Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by
telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is
no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the Company's New
Drug Application filing would be for a positive early stage breast
cancer indication, rather than the previously announced metastatic
breast cancer; (b) Puma would need to submit additional safety
data from preclinical carcinogenicity studies with its NDA filing,
which Puma did not have; (c) the additional studies required would
push the timelines for filing the NDA; and (d) the Company
overstated results from its Phase III ExteNET Trial.

If you suffered a loss in Puma Biotechnology you have until August
3, 2015to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York, New
Jersey, Connecticut and Washington D.C. The firm's attorneys have
extensive expertise in prosecuting securities litigation involving
financial fraud, representing investors throughout the nation in
securities and shareholder lawsuits.


RECEPTOS INC: Morgan & Morgan Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Morgan & Morgan announces that a shareholder class action has been
filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Board of
Directors of Receptos, Inc. ("Receptos" or "the Company") for
possible breaches of fiduciary duty and other violations of state
law in connection with the sale of the Company to Celgene
Corporation ("Celgene").

If you own shares of Receptos and would like to learn more about
the Receptos shareholder investigation, you may contact Morgan &
Morgan at 1(800) 732-5200 or email info@morgansecuritieslaw.com.

Under the terms of the transaction, Receptos shareholders will
receive only $232.00 in cash for each share of Receptos stock they
own. The proposed transaction is valued at approximately $7.2
billion. The complaint alleges that the Board of Receptos breached
their fiduciary duties to shareholders by agreeing to the proposed
transaction for inadequate consideration. The transaction may
undervalue the Company given Receptos has a strong pipeline which
includes drug candidates for immune diseases.

                     About Morgan & Morgan

Morgan & Morgan is one of the nation's largest 200 law firms.  In
addition to shareholder rights, the firm also practices in the
areas of antitrust, personal injury, consumer protection,
overtime, and product liability.  All of the Firm's legal
endeavors are rooted in its core mission: provide investor and
consumer protection and always fight "for the people."


RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Faces "Gilmore" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Delores Gilmore, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
consumers v. Retrieval Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. d/b/a
American Medical Collection Agency, Case No. 3:15-cv-05959-FLW-LHG
(D.N.J., August 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew Taylor Sheffield, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL LUPOLOVER
      120 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 300
      Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
      Telephone: (201) 461-0059
      E-mail: matthew@lupoloverlaw.com


RETRIEVAL MASTERS: Faces "Vieria" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Vieria, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated v. Retrieval Masters Creditors Bureau, Inc. d/b/a
American Medical Collection Agency and John Does 1 to 10, Case No.
2:15-cv-05937-SDW-SCM (D.N.J., August 3, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


REULAND ELECTRIC: "Vasquez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Vasquez, an individual and on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Reuland Electric Co., Case No.
BC590125 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 4, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid wages and penalties in violation of the California Labor
Code.

Reuland Elec. Co. is in the business of manufacturing electric
motors, motor brakes, and other related products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul K. Haines, Esq.
      BOREN, OSHER & LUFTMAN, LLP
      222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 2222
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (310) 322-2220
      Facsimile: (310) 322-2228
      E-mail: phaines@bollaw.com


ROCCHIO TUNNEL: Faces "Holloway" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Holloway, individually and on behalf all other similarly
situated v.  Rocchio Tunnel Marketplace Enterprises, LLC d/b/a
Valentino Cucina Italiana, and Giovanni Rocchio, 0:15-cv-61586-JIC
(S.D. Fla., August 3, 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 the Valentino Cucina Italiana
restaurant in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Robert Amlong, Esq.
      Jennifer E. Daley, Esq.
      AMLONG & AMLONG
      500 NE 4th Street, 2nd Floor
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-1154
      Telephone: (954) 462-1983
      Facsimile: 523-3192
      E-mail: wramlong@theamlongfirm.com
              jdaley@theamlongfirm.com


SAFEWAY GROCERY: Faces Class Suit Over Term and Conditions Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Greiner, writing for Enquirer Media, reported that the
Safeway Grocery store chain recently learned a valuable lesson
about changing online terms and conditions. Those terms aren't
binding on customers who do not receive notice of the changes.
That's the recent ruling from a California-based federal court.

A Safeway customer named Michael Rodman brought a class-action
complaint against Safeway. Rodman claimed Safeway raised prices on
its Safeway.com site, despite representing in its 2011
registration terms that online prices would match prices at its
physical stores.

Safeway argued the price hike was set out in amended online terms.
Safeway essentially argued its arbitrary decision to change the
deal terms was all that was needed to effect those changes. In
Safeway's view, the fact that Safeway customers weren't aware of
the changes didn't matter. Safeway based this argument on a notice
appearing on its website stating that users agreed to whatever
terms appeared on the website at the time customers made the
purchases.

The court, however, disagreed. It noted first that customers could
not agree in advance to future unknown terms. It also noted that
"settled law" required website operators to give advance notice of
charges "to put users on notice of the terms to which they wish to
bind consumers."

As a result, the court ruled the amendment was not effective in
the absence of evidence that Safeway gave customers advance notice
of the changes. It is like the proverbial tree falling in an empty
forest -- the change is ineffective if no one hears about it.


SANFORD HEALTH: Sued Over 'Grossly Excessive' ER Charges
--------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Springer, writing for Inforum, reported that a lawsuit
accusing Sanford Health of "grossly excessive" charges for
emergency room services is part of a litigation boom by trial
lawyers whose cases are overwhelmingly thrown out by judges,
Sanford executives said.

A lawsuit seeking class-action status filed earlier in Cass County
District Court is almost identical to lawsuits filed in 2006
against three of South Dakota's largest hospitals, said Cindy
Morrison, a Sanford vice president for marketing and public
policy.

In all three cases -- including one against Sioux Valley Hospital
in Sioux Falls, now Sanford Health -- judges dismissed the
lawsuits, saying they failed to make a valid legal claim, and the
dismissals were unanimously upheld by the South Dakota Supreme
Court, she told The Forum Editorial Board.

Sanford has yet to file an answer to the Fargo lawsuit, but
Morrison and Paul Richard, president of Sanford Medical Center in
Fargo and the health system's former chief counsel, said the
hospital's billing and charging practices are consistent and
follow both the law and federal regulations.

The South Dakota lawsuits were part of a pattern that first
surfaced after large class-action settlements with the tobacco
industry, Morrison said, and some lawyers thought hospitals made a
ripe target for similar payouts.

"They are almost a mirror image of what happened a decade ago,"
she said of the South Dakota cases. "I think the court has spoken
on this. I think this is a reiteration of something that happened
10 years ago."

Lawyers who look for plaintiffs in cases they seek to have
certified as class actions often rely on news reports, which can
attract potential clients. "I hate to say it," Morrison said, "but
that's a way to troll."

Barry L. Kramer, a lawyer formerly from California and now in Las
Vegas, drafted the lawsuit against Sanford. He said he was
motivated to take such cases after a client walked into his office
with a $15,000 bill for an overnight hospital stay.

A solo practitioner, Kramer's office maintains a website
announcing that he is "investigating excessive hospital fees," and
providing a way for people to contact him if they have visited a
hospital or emergency room while uninsured.

Kramer's website invites people to submit information under the
heading "Hospital Overcharges Class Actions" and says that about 1
million patients have received refunds or adjustments to their
hospital bills as a result of class-action settlements that have
resulted in payments totaling almost $1 billion from hospitals to
patients who he said were overcharged.

Class-action lawsuits alleging hospital overcharges are pending in
at least four states, including California, New Jersey, West
Virginia and Washington.

"Just because you get class certification doesn't mean you're
going to win the case on the merits of the law or facts," Richard
said, adding that there are "lots of hoops" to be granted class-
action status.

The lawsuit against Sanford was brought on behalf of Dustin
Limberg of Fargo. His complaint said he went in January to the
emergency room at Sanford, where he signed a contract agreeing he
was responsible for all charges for services provided by the
hospital.

Those charges, Limberg's lawsuit said, are based on "chargemaster"
rates, a list of costs for services the hospital maintains to
negotiate with public and private health insurers for all services
provided.

But patients without insurance don't benefit from negotiated
rates. In Limberg's case, he received a $2,062 bill for his ER
visit, an amount the lawsuit contends is "grossly excessive,
unfair and unconscionable for the services provided."

Hospital emergency rooms are barred by federal law from discussing
their charges or asking patients about their ability to pay,
Richard said. Charges are universal, but rates are negotiated, he
said.

Patients, even those with insurance, can apply for financial
assistance. If they are able to demonstrate financial need, they
can have part or all of their bill waived.
Sanford provided $323 million in charity care, including $83
million in Fargo, Richard said. "So it's a big number."

The issue isn't whether the charges are unfair, Richard said, it's
whether they're illegal. The Affordable Care Act is allowing more
people to obtain health insurance.

"You're asking judges and juries to decide a charge for each and
every patient," Morrison said, referring to the wave of class-
action lawsuits against hospitals. "That doesn't make sense."

Hospitals usually settle cases like those brought by Limberg, said
his attorney, Kramer.

"The hospitals don't want to take these losing cases to trial
they're certain to lose," he said, adding that he has been
successful in overcoming motions to dismiss cases. He did not say
how much money he has recovered for his clients.

For the past six or seven years, Kramer said, "I've worked on
nothing but these cases."


SILVER WHEATON: Sept. 8 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
---------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., including former Special Assistant United
States Attorney, Timothy J. MacFall, announces that a complaint
has been filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased the common stock of Silver Wheaton Corp. ("SLW" or the
"Company") (NYSE: SLW) between March 30, 2011 and July 6, 2015,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of
its officers (the "Complaint").

If you purchased shares of SLW during the Class Period, and wish
to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this
notice or your rights or interests, please contact Timothy J.
MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., 2
Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803 at (888) 969-
4242; by e-mail to info@rl-legal.com; or at:
http://rigrodskylong.com/investigations/silver-wheaton-corp-slw.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted
materially adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations
and prospects.  Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
defendants concealed from the investing public that: (1) SLW's
financial statements contained errors concerning income tax owed
from the income generated by its foreign subsidiaries; (2) the
Company lacked adequate controls over its financial reporting; and
(3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.  As a result of defendants' alleged false and misleading
statements, the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.

According to the Complaint, on July 6, 2015, the Company issued a
press release, announcing, among other things, that the Canada
Revenue Agency is taking the position that the transfer pricing
provisions of the Income Tax Act (Canada) relating to income
earned by foreign subsidiaries outside of Canada should be applied
such that SLW's taxable income should be increased approximately
$567 million for the period between 2005 and 2010.

On this news, shares in CorMedix dropped over 11%, closing at
$15.46 per share on July 7, 2015, on heavy trading volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 8, 2015.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the
class member will adequately represent the class.  Your ability to
share in any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision
whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  Any member of the
proposed 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.

While Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. did not file the Complaint in this
matter, the firm, with offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Garden
City, New York, regularly litigates securities class, derivative
and direct actions, shareholder rights litigation and corporate
governance litigation, including claims for breach of fiduciary
duty and proxy violations in the Delaware Court of Chancery and in
state and federal courts throughout the United States.

The firm may be reached at:

         Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
         Peter Allocco, Esq.
         RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
         2 Righter Parkway Suite 120
         Wilmington, DE 19803
         Tel: (516) 683-3516
         Fax: (302) 654-7530
         Email: info@rl-legal.com


SUSHI SAKE: "Ortiz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Ortiz and other similarly-situated individuals v. Sushi Sake
NMB, Inc. and Rene Diaz, Case No. 15-cv-22888-KMM (S.D. Fla.,
August 3, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate several Japanese restaurants in the Miami,
Florida area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TALTECH CONSTRUCTION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Espinosa, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Taltech Construction, Inc., Mega Commercial
Construction, Inc., and Does 1-10 inclusive, Case No. BC590176
(Cal. Super. Ct., August 4, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company in Los
Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth S. Gaines, Esq.
      GAINES & GAINES, APLC
      27200 Agoura Road, Suite 101
      Calabasas, CA 91301
      Telephone: (818) 703-8985
      Facsimile: (818) 703-8984
      E-mail: ken@gaineslawfirm.com


TD BANK: Settles Suit for $20MM in Quality Investments Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Donna Horowtz, writing for The Street, reported that TD Bank has
agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit for $20 million with
European investors who lost more than $223 million in Dutch life
settlement company Quality Investments.

The bank signed an agreement to settle the suit, which is expected
to get preliminary court approval in a few weeks, according to the
plaintiffs' attorney. A notice of the settlement was filed, July
16, with the U.S. District Court in Miami.

In their February 2014 lawsuit, five investors accused the bank of
aiding a Ponzi scheme that allegedly bilked more than 1,000
investors in fractional interests in life settlements.

"I think it's an excellent settlement, particularly in light of
how challenging these cases are, and we look forward to continuing
to work to recover more funds for these investors," said David
Buckner, an attorney with the Grossman Roth law firm in Miami.
"Our argument was that the bank had sufficient knowledge to be
held liable here."

TD Bank spokeswoman Kate Toy said in an e-mail that the bank was
pleased that the matter was close to resolution. TD Bank, with
executive offices in Cherry Hill, N.J., and a principal place of
business in Portland, Maine, is a unit of Toronto-Dominion Bank.

Plaintiffs say class members lost more than $223 million due to
numerous breaches of fiduciary duty, acts of legal malpractice,
negligent acts and aiding and abetting such violations and other
misconduct.

Four of the plaintiffs are individuals who live in the Netherlands
and say they invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in the
scheme: Francois Robert Gevaerts, Paul Christian Holstein
Gevaerts, Alexander Casper Holstein Gevaerts and Pieter Schaffels.
The fifth plaintiff is Schaffels Beheer, a Dutch company, which
similarly invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in Quality
Investments.

In addition to the bank, the lawsuit named Deborah Peck, Dennis
Moens, Simon Franciscus Wilhelmus Laan, Watershed, Zilwood,
Crystal Life Capital, Running2, Best Invest Europe Ltd., Jennifer
J. Hume and Jennifer J. Hume.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants sought investors to buy
interests in life settlement policies that were put in Florida
trusts formed and managed by Peck. Peck, an attorney who was
acting as the trustee for the investment, was disbarred in
December, according to the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics.

Each investment sold at Laan's direction through Quality
Investments was a beneficial interest in a trust formed to hold
and maintain a policy.

THORATEC CORPORATION: Sued in Cal. Over Proposed St. Jude Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Larkin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Thoratec Corporation, et al., Case No. RG15780585
(Cal. Super. Ct., August 4, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the
stockholders of Thoratec Corporation to enjoin the proposed
acquisition of the publicly owned shares of Thoratec by St. Jude
Medical, Inc. through a flawed process and for an inadequate
consideration.

Thoratec Corporation offers therapies addressing advanced-stage
heart failure.

St. Jude Medical, Inc. is a global medical device manufacturer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David E. Bower, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
      Los Angeles, CA 90024
      Telephone: (424) 256-2884
      Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
      E-mail: dbower@faruqilaw.com


TJ MAXX: 'Compare At' Prices Deceptive Retail Trick, Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Mabry, writing for CBS News, reported that a new class-action
lawsuit against T.J. Maxx may give bargain hunters buyer's remorse
when they learn the retailer's oft-touted 'compare at' prices are
"staff estimates," not real prices at luxury department stores.
T.J. Maxx regularly advertises their name brand products are "up
to 60% off department store prices," and uses the 'compare at'
price tags to convince shoppers they are getting designer goods at
bargain prices.

The lawsuit was brought by two shoppers who purchased items at the
retailer with a price tag showing a "compare at" price that was
significantly higher than the sale price.

Plaintiffs, Staci Chester and Daniel Friedman said they thought
'compare at' meant that was the price "they would expect to pay
for those same items at other retailers in their general area."

According to T.J. Maxx, the 'compare at' price is "buying staff's
estimate of the regular, retail price at which a comparable item
in finer catalogs, specialty or department stores may have been
sold."

The retailer posts this on its website and invites consumers to do
their "own comparison shopping" to see the value of their
purchases.

The lawsuit says T.J. Maxx's 'compare at' policy is not explained
on the actual price tags or in the price advertising and therefore
"they are not true, bona fide comparative prices." It says the
retailer "tricks shoppers into thinking they are saving a specific
amount" on their purchases.

The suit, Chester et al. v. The TJX Cos. Inc., charges T.J. Maxx
with "unfair business practices, fraudulent business practices,
unlawful business practices, false advertising, and with violating
California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act." Details of the lawsuit
were published on the website, Top Class Actions.

T.J. Maxx issued a statement to the Huffington Post in its
defense:

     "We tell our customers what we mean by 'compare at' prices,
both through signage in our stores as well as language on our T.J.
Maxx website. Transparency is important to us and integrity is
ingrained in our culture. Beyond that, we do not comment on
pending litigation."

There are some 25 T.J. Maxx stores in the Bay Area.


TOSHIBA CORP: August 3 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
--------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Toshiba Corporation ("Toshiba") (OTC: TOSYY & TOSBF)
between May 8, 2012 and May 7, 2015.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. If you purchased or otherwise acquired
Toshiba shares between May 8, 2012 and May 7, 2015, your rights
may be affected by this action. To get more information go to:

http://zlk.9nl.com/toshiba-corporation

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com
or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that Toshiba misled investors regarding the
total amounts of costs for certain infrastructure projects,
thereby manipulating the profits and losses for these projects, as
well as misleading investors regarding the timing in which such
contract losses and provisions for contract losses were recorded.

On May 8, 2015, the Company announced it is withdrawing its
earnings forecasts and will not pay a year-end dividend after
finding improper accounting on infrastructure projects. The
Company announced that an independent committee has been formed to
investigate the accounting problems.

If you suffered a loss in Toshiba 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.

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.


TOSHIBA CORP: Bernstein Liebhard Files Inventors Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP investors had until August 3, 2015, to file
a motion for lead plaintiff in a class action against Toshiba
Corporation ("Toshiba" or the "Company") (OTC: TOSYY and TOSBF)
pending in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. The action alleges claims on behalf of
purchasers (the "Class") of Toshiba securities during the period
of May 8, 2012 and May 7, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that the Company violated federal securities
laws by making materially false and misleading statements and
omissions regarding Toshiba's financial performance, business
prospects, and true financial condition.

On May 8, 2015, Toshiba disclosed that, in the course of an
investigation, a Special Investigation Committee had identified
several instances in which the Company used a percentage-of-
completion method of accounting, wherein contract costs for
certain infrastructure projects were undervalued and contract
losses (including provisions for contract loss) were recorded in
an untimely manner. Further, the Company announced that a new
committee -- the Independent Investigation Committee, consisting
of legal and accounting experts -- would be taking over the
investigation.

On this news, Toshiba's stock price fell $5.75 per share, or over
23% over the next two days to close at $18.33 per share on May 11,
2015.

On July 21, 2015, Toshiba's CEO Hisao Tanaka, as well as eight of
16 board members, resigned following the publication of the
Independent Investigation Committee's report, which revealed that
the three most recent CEOs played active roles in inflating
Toshiba's earnings by $1.22 billion over the last seven years.
Moreover, they "deliberately provided insufficient explanations to
auditors, with the intention of carrying out a systematic cover-
up." Tanaka assumed responsibility for the accounting scandal.
Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members
who purchased shares of Toshiba during the Class Period. If you
purchased Toshiba securities as described above, and lost over
$100,000 (whether realized losses or unrealized losses on stock
you still hold) on the transactions, you may wish to join in this
action to serve as lead plaintiff. In order to do so, you must
meet certain requirements set forth in the applicable law and file
appropriate papers no later than August 3, 2015.

A "lead plaintiff" is a representative party that acts on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. In order to be
appointed lead plaintiff, the court must determine that the class
member's claim is typical of the claims of other class members,
and that the class member will adequately represent the class.
Under certain circumstances, one or more class members may
together serve as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or not
to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Bernstein Liebhard
LLP, or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.

If you are interested in discussing your rights as a Toshiba
shareholder and/or have information relating to the matter, please
contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. at (877) 779-1414 or
seidman@bernlieb.com.

You can obtain a copy of the complaint from the clerk of the court
for the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

Bernstein Liebhard LLP has pursued hundreds of securities,
consumer and shareholder rights cases and recovered over $3
billion for its clients. The National Law Journal has recognized
Bernstein Liebhard for twelve consecutive years as one of the top
plaintiffs' firms in the country.

         Bernstein Liebhard LLP
         10 East 40th Street
         New York, NY 10016
         Tel: (212) 779-1414


TOSHIBA CORP: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Investors' Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a
securities class action has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
those who purchased shares of Toshiba Corporation. ("Toshiba" or
the "Company") (OTC: TOSYY, TOSBF), during the period between May
8, 2012 and May 7, 2015 inclusive. (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements about the
Company's business, future revenues, operating results and
financial prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false and/ or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: the company
misled investors regarding the total amounts of costs for certain
infrastructure projects; thereby manipulating the profits and
losses for these infrastructure projects as well as misguiding
investors regarding the timing in which such contract losses and
provisions for contract losses were recorded; as a result,
Toshiba's financial statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

On April 3, 2015, Toshiba issued a press release announcing the
establishment of a special investigation committee concerning the
accounting of certain infrastructure projects.

On this adverse news, shares of TOSYY fell $1.23 per share, or
over 4%, from its previous closing price to close at $24.56 per
share on April 6, 2015, and shares of TOSBF fell $0.16 per share
or over 3% from its previous closing price to close at $4.13 per
share on April 6, 2015.

On May 8, 2015, Toshiba issued a press release announcing the
establishment of an independent investigation committee concerning
the accounting of certain infrastructure projects and the possible
revision of earnings for prior years.

On May 10, 2015, BARRON'S ASIA published a report which stated
that Toshiba "[f]ell 16.7% on Tokyo after the electronics maker
launched an accounting probe into its infrastructure business
division and withdrew its 2014 earnings forecast. Toshiba also
said it would not pay dividend."

Until now, the accounting investigation has focused on power
systems, social infrastructure and community solution units in
Japan and overseas. "Several construction projects have
understated costs," according to a spokesperson from Toshiba.
"Toshiba earned about 11% of its operating income from its power
and social infrastructure business in 2013."

On this news, shares of TOSYY fell $5.75 per share, or over 23%,
over the next two days to close at $18.33 per share on May 11,
2015 and shares of TOSBF fell $0.88 per share or over 22% over the
next two days to close at $3.09 per share on May 11, 2015.

Then on July 21, 2015, Toshiba's CEO Hisao Tanaka and eight other
executives resigned, and acknowledged a cover up that began in
2008.  Those resigning took responsibility for doctored books that
inflated profits by $1.2 billion over several years.

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

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


UBER: Faces $400-Mil. Class Suit in Ontario
-------------------------------------------
Daniel Tencer, writing for The Huffington Post, reported that on
the same day that Uber announced a major expansion of its UberX
ride service in Ontario, a Toronto-area cabbie has launched a
class-action lawsuit against the service, seeking $400 million in
damages over lost income.

Lawyers for Dominik Konjevic, a licensed taxi driver in
Mississauga, say the claim is being made "on behalf of all taxicab
owners, taxicab drivers, taxicab brokers, limousine owners,
limousine drivers and limousine service companies licensed,
permitted or authorized to operate in the Province of Ontario."

The lawsuit alleges that Uber and drivers for its UberX service
"conspired to provide unlawful transport for compensation." It
says Uber violated the section of the provincial Highway Traffic
Act that forbids drivers from picking up passengers for
compensation without a licence.

In doing so, UberX "divert[ed] millions of dollars of revenue away
from licensed taxicab, limousine owners and drivers in Ontario and
injur[ed] their ongoing legitimate business interests," law firm
Sutts, Strosberg LLP said in a statement.

Typically, a court has to certify a class-action lawsuit before
eligible members of the public -- in this case taxi and limousine
drivers -- are allowed to join.

Uber on announced it is expanding its UberX ride service to four
more cities in Ontario -- Guelph, Hamilton, Kitchener-Waterloo and
London.

Residents of these cities will be able to book Uber cars as of
2:00 p.m., and the company has a promotion running -- up to four
free rides between now.

Relations between Uber, the city and taxi drivers have been
increasingly tense, with some cab drivers threatening to shut down
Toronto, in an echo of the Uber riots in Paris, if the city
doesn't crack down on the ride service.

The city of Toronto recently took Uber to court, seeking an
injunction preventing the service from operating, arguing it
violates Ontario traffic laws. The court denied the city's
request, indicating it is a matter for legislators.

One city councillor, former Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis, issued a
statement warning Pan Am Games visitors to the city that they
could be fined up to $20,000 for using UberX.

But city officials indicated that fines rarely reach those levels,
and Uber has said it knows of no riders who have been charged with
violating traffic laws. It argues the Highway Traffic Act applies
only to vehicle drivers, not passengers.


UCLA HEALTH: Class Suit Filed Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------
Jordan T. Cohen, Esq. -- JTCohen@mintz.com -- at Mintz, Levin,
Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., in an article for The
National Law Review, reported that in yet another data breach
affecting millions of individuals, UCLA Health System ("UCLA")
reported on July 17, 2015, that hackers had accessed portions of
its health network that contained personal information, including
names, addresses, dates of birth, social security numbers, medical
record numbers, Medicare or health plan ID numbers, and some
medical information (including medical conditions, medications,
procedures, and test results).  Affected individuals include
UCLA's patients as well as providers that sought privileges at the
health system.

On July 21, 2015, UCLA became a defendant in a class action
lawsuit after plaintiff Michael Allen filed the action in
California federal court. The complaint alleges a number of
violations related to the breach, including violation of
California's Confidential Medical Information Act.

According to its press release, UCLA determined on May 1, 2015,
that the attackers had accessed UCLA's network. Interestingly,
UCLA notes that it had detected suspicious activity on its network
in October of 2014, at which time it began working with the FBI to
investigate the breach. At the time, UCLA did not believe that the
attackers had access to the part of its network that contained
personal information. However, as of May 5, 2015, UCLA concluded
that the hackers may have had access to personal information as
far back as September of 2014.  UCLA has made identity protection
and credit monitoring services available to potentially impacted
individuals.

The class action claims that the breach was a direct result of
UCLA's failure to take "basic steps" to safeguard the sensitive
information. One of these "basic steps", the plaintiff argues, is
the encryption of UCLA's patient information.

However, it is unclear at this point the role that encryption
would have played in preventing such an attack. If the hackers
obtained access to UCLA's internal network, it is possible that
the data would have been accessible regardless of whether it was
encrypted. As discussed in the MIT Technology Review following
Anthem's massive breach, "encryption is just one part of the
arsenal that organizations need to deploy to secure sensitive
data. Encryption is great for securing data in transit and at
rest, but if the credentials and keys are compromised it does
little to protect the data."

The UCLA breach illustrates another area of concern: the ability
of entities to effectively investigate potential breaches. While
Anthem's breach was an order of magnitude greater in terms of the
number of individuals affected, the company publicly disclosed its
breach less than one week after it detected the intrusion. UCLA's
investigation spanned a number of months, giving the hackers more
time to nefariously use the information before countermeasures
could be taken. This point was not lost on the plaintiff in the
class action, with the complaint describing UCLA's response as
"dilatory" and accusing the system of delaying its notification to
individual consumers. For its part, a UCLA representative told CNN
that "the process of addressing the technological issues
surrounding this incident and the logistics of identifying and
notifying the potentially affected individuals was time-
consuming."

Regardless of how the class action suit is resolved in court, the
UCLA breach is further evidence of the significant headwinds
facing the health care sector, both in preventing and responding
to data breaches.


URANIUM ENERGY: August 28 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Southern District
of Texas on behalf of investors who purchased Uranium Energy Corp.
(NYSE:UEC) securities between October 14, 2014 and June 17, 2015.

The complaint alleges that Uranium Energy achieved an
unsustainable valuation by using paid stock promoters, yet failed
to disclose the use of such promoters in its regulatory filings.

If you suffered a loss in Uranium Energy you have until August 28,
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/UEC-Info-
Request-Form-820.

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


VANDER-BEND MANUFACTURING: Sued Over Time Rounding Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------
Raul Espinoza and abelina rlvera, individually and on behalf of
themselves all others similarly situated v. Vander-Bend
Manufacturing, LLC and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 1-15-CV-
283929 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 4, 2015), arises out of the
Defendants' alleged unlawful policies and practices regarding the
rounding of employee time records.

Vander-Bend Manufacturing, LLC owns and operates a manufacturing
facility located at 2701 Orchard Parkway, San Jose, California
95134.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raymond P. Boucher, Esq.
      Shehnaz M. Bhujwala, Esq.
      Brandon K. Brouillette, Esq.
      BOUCHER LLP
      21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367-4903
      Telephone: (818) 340-5400
      Facsimile: (818)340-5401
      E-mail: ray@buucher.la
              hhujwala@boucher.la
              brouillette@boucherr.la

         - and -

      Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
      18250 Ventura Boulevard
      Tarzana, CA 91356
      Telephone: (818) 609-0H07
      Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
      E-mail: sa.hagii@aol.com


VIKING RANGE: Expands Dishwasher Product Recall
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 6, 2015
Posting date: August 6, 2015
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Appliances
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-54500

The recall includes Viking Professional, Designer and Custom Panel
dishwashers. The recalled dishwashers are 24 inches wide and were
sold in various colours. The name Viking appears on the control
panel at the top of the door.

The following model numbers and manufacture dates are included in
this recall:

  Model Numbers Starting With:     Date Codes -first six digits
  ----------------------------     of serial number:
                                   ----------------------------
  DDB200, FDB200, VDB200,          All date codes before 120110
  DFB450 or VDB450
  VDB325 or DDB325                 All date codes before 040111

The model and serial number are located on the identification
plate mounted on the inside on the left side of the dishwasher
door opening. The first six numbers in the serial number are the
manufacture date in MMDDYY format, e.g., serial number 052610 was
manufactured on May 26, 2010.

An electrical component in the dishwasher can overheat, posing a
fire hazard.

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

Viking Range, LLC has received 8 reports of dishwashers
overheating in Canada that were not subject to the original
recall, including 2 fires resulting in property damage. Viking
Range, LLC has received 128 reports in the United States,
including 19 reports of fire resulting in property damage
involving dishwashers not subject to the original recall.

Approximately 1300 units were sold in Canada, of which 300 were
included in the previous recall. Approximately 17,300 units were
sold in the United States, of which 2000 were involved in the
previous recall.

Affected products were sold July 2008 to March 2012 in Canada and
the United States.

Manufactured in the United States.

Manufacturer: Viking Range LLC
              Greenwood
              Mississippi
              UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled dishwashers
and contact Viking Range, LLC for a free in home repair.

For more information, consumers may contact Viking toll-free at 1-
800-241-7239 from 8:00 a.m to 5:00 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday
or visit the firm's website click on Safety Recall Information at
the bottom right of the home page.

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

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

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

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

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


VOLVO: Recalls 2016 XC90 Models Due to Defective Airbag
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: August 5, 2015
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Airbag
Units affected: 511
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2015355TC
ID number: 2015355

On certain vehicles equipped with seven seats, the Inflatable
Curtain (IC) air bag may not deploy as intended for third row
passengers. In the event of a collision that warrants a deployment
of the Inflatable Curtain, the interior trim panel on the D-
pillar(s) could obstruct the IC from inflating fully. If this were
to occur, it could increase the risk of injury to third row seat
occupant(s) in certain types of crashes. Correction: To be
determined.

  Make        Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----       ----------------------
  VOLVO       XC90        2016


WASHINGTON: D.C. Judge Allows Some Forfeiture Claims to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Happy Carlock, writing for LegalTimes, reported that a federal
judge will allow a challenge to Washington's seizure and
forfeiture law to move forward as lawsuits mount across the
country over the constitutionality of the taking of property
without criminal charges.

"Civil asset forfeiture laws -- which enable law enforcement
agencies to seize property they believe has been involved in
criminal activity -- have generated considerable controversy in
recent years," U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper in
Washington wrote on.

Judge Cooper dismissed some claims in a putative class action by
22 residents who alleged District officials improperly seized and
retained cars or money. The judge, however, kept alive certain
claims that address the secrecy of proceedings and the timely
ability to challenge a seizure.

Judge Cooper ruled the D.C. government must give owners of seized
vehicles "a prompt opportunity" to challenge the reasonableness of
a seizure of a vehicle. The court concluded due process doesn't
require a preliminary hearing after the government seizes cash.
Cooper said the government has a greater interest in retaining
seized money than cars "because there are fewer means to prevent a
claimant from dissipating the value of cash by simply spending it
before the conclusion of the forfeiture proceedings."

The judge also found that in some of the plaintiffs' cases, the
Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) did not issue notices in a
manner "reasonably calculated to reach claimants." And Cooper said
some plaintiffs had alleged sufficient allegations to contest
"secret" forfeiture proceedings.

"I think [the D.C. District Court's opinion] is very significant
because it follows the trend of the other circuits that say if the
government takes your car, they have to give you a hearing,"
William Claiborne, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, told the NLJ on.

A spokesman for the D.C. Office of the Attorney General declined
to comment on the ruling.

In the opinion, Cooper cites a Washington Post investigation,
"Stop and Seize," to highlight the national debate over civil
asset forfeiture. Numerous lawsuits are pending around the
country. The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit against
Arizona's asset forfeiture laws.

Critics argue that police are using search and seizure laws to
generate revenue for their departments at the expense of innocent
property owners. Proponents contend the seizure of money and
property disrupts and deters criminal activity.

Kimberly Brown, the lead plaintiff in the Washington case, filed
suit in 2013 after police seized her car and required her to pay
$250 to prevent forfeiture. Brown said she had lent her car to her
friend, who used it to transport marijuana, unbeknownst to Brown,
according to court records.

Brown's complaint alleges the District did not allow her an
opportunity to challenge the seizure or provide a prompt
postseizure hearing. "In fact the District's forfeiture statute
does not provide for such a hearing or notice of such a hearing
nor does the District provide adequate notice and such hearings
informally," according to the lawsuit.

"The District's civil forfeiture scheme has a certain built-in
unfairness to citizens because the District and the MPD have
financial incentives to seize property and the District has
delegated the authority to make ex parte determinations about
whether seizures are legal to an MPD property clerk whose
determinations in favor of the District financially benefit his
department and the District," the lawsuit said.

The D.C. Council adopted changes to the city's asset forfeiture
statute in February. The allegations in Brown's case relate to the
old version of the law.

"This lawsuit and other lawsuits made City Council aware of
problems, so City Council changed the law so that when the police
take your car, you have a right to go before a judge," Claiborne
said.


* Workplace Discrimination Claims to Increase, Survey Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Kitroeff, writing for Bloomberg Business, reported that
U.S. employers are anticipating a rise in workplace discrimination
claims based on their own hiring policies, a survey released
shows.

In the study, employment law firm Littler Mendelson asked 500
representatives of companies with both small and large market
capitalizations about their deepest legal anxieties. Fifty-seven
percent said they expected an increase in discrimination claims
because of their interest in an applicant's criminal history --
the companies' top concern when asked about the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission's enforcement efforts.

A growing number of states have adopted laws that prevent
employers from asking on job applications whether applicants have
a criminal record. Thirty percent of the employers surveyed by
Littler Mendelson said they had removed such questions from their
applications. An additional 40 percent said they are hiring
contractors to do background checks for them. The report suggested
that this strategy may be risky because people are filing a
growing number of lawsuits tied to third-party investigations of
criminal history and seeking class action status. "This trend will
not slow down soon," the report said.

Still, respondents were less likely than  to say that they expect
an increase in over discrimination claims.

The employers' second-biggest concern is potential claims over
equal pay and the treatment of workers based on their sexuality,
age, and disabilities. Employers seemed especially confused as to
how to run employee wellness programs without getting into trouble
for discriminating against disabled people.

The programs generally offer incentives to employees who hit
health or fitness benchmarks and are encouraged by the Affordable
Care Act. Recently, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
sued several companies for programs that it charged were unfair to
workers with disabilities. Overall, companies said they were
having fewer problems with the new health-care law than in
previous years; one-third said they were anxious about
implementing Obamacare, down from 64 percent in 2012.

The timing of the survey may have played a role in employers'
concerns. The poll was conducted in April and May, when the
Supreme Court hadn't yet ruled in favor of gay marriage. Forty-
seven percent of companies said they already had rules protecting
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender workers, but 20 percent
said they were either waiting on the court's decision to expand
their regulations or had no policies in place.

Getting nailed by the National Labor Relations Board for the
working conditions of subcontractors is a further concern. As
federal and state authorities continue to scrutinize company
decisions as to who counts as an employee, most employers surveyed
said they had taken some action to mitigate potential legal
challenges, such as auditing independent contractors. Thirty
percent said they had made no changes to policies.

A growing share of C-suite executives and human resources
professionals -- 17 percent -- said they expected to "hire
aggressively". Compared with previous years, companies were also
less likely to say they had unhappy employees staying in their
jobs because there were no alternatives, or that people were stuck
in jobs that didn't make good use of their skills.



                            *********

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  * * *