CAR_Public/150819.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, August 19, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 165


                            Headlines


ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Suit
AFNI INC: Faces "Berkovits" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation
AK "N" ELI: "Ruiz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ALLTECH SYSTEMS: Texas Worker Sues for FLSA Violation

AMERICAN AIRLINES: "De La Garza" Suit Asserts Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Suit
ANTHONY MANCINI: Judge Nixes Move to Dismiss Class Action
BARRY FREUNDELS: Mikvah Victims' Suit Moved to DC Super. Court
BAYER: Reverse Payment Settlements Subject To Antitrust Challenge

BEST BUY: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Back Wages
BURNSVILLE, MN: Residents to File Suit Over Carports
CANADA: Federal Court Refuses to Certify "Rae" Tax Class Action
CANADA: Medical Pot Users' Class Suit Certified
CASH CONVERTERS: Faces Class Suit Over Huge Brokerage Fees

CHARMI LLC: "Conway" Suit in Ga. Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
CHICAGO, IL: Police Officers' OT Suit Heads to Trial
CHICAGO, IL: Judge Throws Out Challenge to Red Light Camera Suit
CHINA FINANCE: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Suit
CIGNA CORP: Faces "Copelli" Suit Over Proposed Anthem Merger

CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Sued Over Inaccurate Wages Statements
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
CRESTWOOD MISDTREAM: Faruqi LLP Files Securities Class Suit
CVS HEALTH: Sued for Alleged Scheme to Defraud Customers
DE CAPITAL: Faces "Negrin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

DIAGEO: Faces Class Suit Over Red Stripe Misleading Label
DIRECT DIGITAL: 7th Circ. Rejects 'Ascertainability' Framework
EAGLE ROCK: September 28 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
EBAY INC: Doesn't Timely Transmit Buyers' Money, "Chen" Suit Says
EFT HOLDINGS: Locke Lord Dismissed in Pyramid-Scheme Suit

ELETROBRAS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces "Arnold" Suit Over FCRA Violation
EVERBANK: Settles Nationwide Suit over Forced Insurance
EZCORP INC: Sued in Texas Over Misleading Financial Reports
FACEBOOK: Wins First Round in European Privacy Suit

FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces $5.2BB Suit Over Defective Cars in Canada
FIRST STEP: Faces "Fraylich" Suit in N.Y. Over FDCPA Violation
FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces "Gutman" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
FOOD COURT: Faces "Costa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
GC SERVICES: Faces "Kausar" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation

GENERAL MOTORS: JPMorgan Sued Over Mistake in Loan
HEALTH NET: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Suit
HERBALIFE LTD: Judge Dismisses 'Pyramid Scheme' Class Suit
HOUSTON AMERICAN: Texas Court Dismisses Shareholder Class Suit
ICONIX BRAND: Lieff Cabraser Files Securities Class Suit

JEFFERSON COUNTY, AL: Class Suit Filed Over One-Cent Sales Tax
KEYUAN PETROCHEMICALS: Oct. 9 Hearing on $2.6-Mil. Settlement
LENSINK AGENCY: Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Action Claims
LIFELOCK INC: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Suit
LIFELOCK INC: Lieff Cabraser Files Securities Class Suit

LUCA INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Misappropriation of Investor Funds
MAGNETEK INC: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Class Suit
MAKER'S MARK: Wins California Labeling Class Suit
MANDALAY BAY: To Pat $100K to Settle Suit Filed by Poker Dealers
MASSAGE ENVY: Objectors Want More Than Massages From Class Deal

MAXSMART INC: Faces "Garner" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MCCORMICK & COMPANY: Faces Suit Over Black Pepper Products
MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Sued Over Security Data Breach
MIAMI-DADE, FL: Sued Over Unlawful Credit Card Receipt Printing
MODERN HOSPITALITY: "Perez" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation

MONEYGRAM INT'L: GPM Files Securities Class Suit
NAT'L HOCKEY: Ordered to Turn Over Injury and Concussion Data
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit
NEW SOUTH WALES: Police Settles Illegal Detention Suit for $1.8MM
NISSAN: Altima Floorboard Rust Leads to Class Suit

OPTUMHEALTH BEHAVIORAL: Faces Suit Over Mental Health Insurance
OTP BANK: ANPC Wins Class Action Against Lender
PCI XII LINCOLN: Sued Over Failure to Repair Units' Defects
PEARCE & DURICK: Faces Class Suit Over Housing Investment Scam
PNC BANK: Appeals Court Clears Way for Class-Action Suit

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Elk River Joins Class Suit Over Flushable Wipes
QRX PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
SERVICESOURCE INT'L: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
SERVICESOURCE INT'L: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Suit
SHAW ENVIRONMENTAL: Faces "Wrobel" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

SIKH CENTER: Illegally Refuses Members' Enrollment, Suit Says
SILVER WHEATON: Sept. 8 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
SODEXO INC: Managers File Class Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
SRA ASSOCIATES: Faces "Yossef" Suit in N.Y. Over FDCPA Violation
STANDARD & POOR'S: Settlement Share Used for Other Purposes

TAURUS: Voluntarily Recalls Nearly 1MM Defective Firearms
TOSHIBA CORP: Glancy Prongray Files Securities Class Suit
TRANSALTA CORP: Energy Consultant Invites Biz to Join Class Suit
UBER: Sued Over App's Price Claims, Free Ride Vouchers
UCLA HEALTH: Faces "Brooks" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach

UNION COMMUNITY: Sued Over Patients With Physical Disabilities
UNIVITA HEALTH: "Olivier" Suit Alleges WARN Act Violation
US BANK: Faces "Bakal" Suit Over Alleged Breach of Fiduciary Duty
VASCO DATA: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
VASCO DATA: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit

VERMONT: Reach Up Cuts to Disabled Recipients Held Off for 2 Mos.
VISA INC: Merchants Challenge $6-Bil. Antitrust Suit Settlement
WAL-MART STORES: Sued Over Defective Flushable Wipes Design
WEINBERG & ASSOCIATES: Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Suit Says
XBOX360: Suit Over Design Moving Forward

XOMA CORP: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
YELLOWJACKET OILFIELD: "Juarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

* Securities Class Action Filings Remain Below Historical Average



                            *********


ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Rosen Law 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
Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., securities from September 5, 2014
through July 14, 2015, all dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Advanced Drainage Systems
investors under the federal securities laws.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements to investors
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Advanced Drainage Systems'
inventory values and cost of sales were misstated; (2) Advanced
Drainage Systems' transportation and equipment leases should be
recorded as capital leases; and (3) as a result, Advanced Drainage
Systems' 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 28, 2015. If you wish to join the litigation, go to
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-667.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.

CONTACT:

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
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
kchan@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com


ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, a national investor-rights law
firm, advises investors of the September 28, 2015 lead plaintiff
deadline in the securities fraud class action lawsuit filed
against Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. ("Advanced Drainage" or
"the Company"). If you have losses in Advanced Drainage securities
during the Class Period contact Hagens Berman Partner Reed
Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation, by calling
(510) 725-3000, emailing WMS@hbsslaw.com or visiting http://hb-
securities.com/investigations/WMS.

The lawsuit, pending in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, is filed on behalf of investors who
purchased Advanced Drainage securities between September 5, 2014
and July 14, 2015, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). No class has
been certified in this case.

Advanced Drainage designs, manufactures, and markets thermoplastic
corrugated pipes and related water management products for both
residential, commercial, and agriculture customers in the United
States and abroad.  According to the complaint, throughout the
Class Period defendants mislead investors and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) the Company's inventory values and cost of
sales were misstated; (2) Advanced Drainage's transportation and
equipment leases should be recorded as capital leases; and (3) as
a result, Advanced Drainage's financial statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

Investors learned the truth when on July 15, 2015, the Company
announced that it had delayed the filing of its Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015. In its
release, Advanced Drainage announced that any necessary
adjustments to its previously issued earnings release for the
fourth quarter and full fiscal year 2015 would be made with the
filing of its Form 10-K. As a result of this news, shares of
Advanced Drainage Systems fell $0.56 per share to close at $28.69
per share on July 15, 2015.

If you were negatively impacted by your investment in Advanced
Drainage between September 5, 2014 and July 14, 2015, and would
like to learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to
participate as a lead plaintiff, please contact us for your no-
cost evaluation.

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

                      About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is headquartered in Seattle, Washington with offices
in nine cities. The Firm represents investors, whistleblowers,
workers and consumers in complex litigation. More about the Firm
and its successes can be found at www.hbsslaw.com. Read the Firm's
Securities Newsletter at http://www.hb-securities.com/newsletter,
and visit the blog at www.meaningfuldisclosure.com. For the latest
news visit http://www.hbsslaw.com/newsroomor follow us on Twitter
at @hagensberman.

Reed Kathrein, Esq.
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
1918 Eighth Ave., Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101
Tel. (206) 623-7292
Fax. (206) 623-0594
http://www.hbsslaw.com/


AFNI INC: Faces "Berkovits" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Berkovits, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. AFNI, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-06003-MAS-TJB (D.N.J.,
August 4, 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


AK "N" ELI: "Ruiz" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anisis Ruiz v. AK "N" Eli, LLC d/b/a King of Diamonds and
Kodrenyc, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-22944-JAL (S.D. Fla., August 5,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a well-known Gentlemen's Club in
Miami, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALLTECH SYSTEMS: Texas Worker Sues for FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Carol Ostrow, writing for Southeast Texas Record, reported that a
Texas worker is bringing a class action lawsuit against a limited
partnership corporation for alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Texas labor law in an effort to collect unpaid
overtime wages and other damages.

Leslie McColgin filed a lawsuit individually and on behalf of a
putative class against AllTech Systems Inc. in the Galveston
Division of the Southern District of Texas on July 24, claiming
unlawful employment practices by the defendant in 2015.

According to the suit, McColgin et al. worked for the defendant, a
professional staffing firm, regularly logging many hours in excess
of 40 per week.

The complaint states that the plaintiff was provided with a
written contract stipulating how he would be paid; and that the
terms were clearly hourly rather than salary-based. As such, the
suit states, he and other workers were never paid any overtime for
hours regularly worked in excess of 40 in one workweek despite the
hours being documented on time sheets.

Documents indicate that the plaintiff seeks to collect the
difference between actual pay and overtime pay allegedly owed; and
that AllTech was aware of the discrepancy.

The plaintiff seeks all unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorney's fees,
expenses, and costs. The plaintiff is represented by Richard "Rex"
Burch of Bruckner Burch in Houston.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "De La Garza" Suit Asserts Ticket-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Guillermo De La Garza, Gail Wolfe, William B. Cottrell, Angelina
Chandler, Charles G. Dibrell, III, and Michael Ohlstein v.
American Airlines Group Inc., American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air
Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., United Continental Holdings,
Inc., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-06858 (N.D.
Ill., August 5, 2015), arises from the Defendants' alleged
unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix, raise,
maintain, or stabilize prices of airline tickets through signaling
one another how quickly they would add new flights, routes, and
extra seats in order to limit the capacity, and limiting access to
competitive fare information to keep the price of airfares
artificially high.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
      Tyler J. Story, Esq.
      WEXLERWALLACE LLP
      55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 346-2222
      Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
      E-mail: eaw@wexlerwallace.com
              tjs@wexlerwallace.com

         - and -

      John G. Emerson, Esq.
      EMERSON SCOTT LLP
      830 Apollo Lane
      Houston, TX 77058
      Telephone: (281) 488-8854
      Facsimile: (281) 488-8867
      E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com

         - and -

      David G. Scott, Esq.
      EMERSON SCOTT LLP
      1301 Scott Street
      Little Rock, AR 72202
      Telephone: (501) 907-2555
      Facsimile: (501) 907-2556
      E-mail: dscott@emersonfirm.com


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announced that a class action has
been commenced on behalf of an institutional investor in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
on behalf of purchasers of American Express Company ("AmEx")
(NYSE: AXP) common stock during the period between October 16,
2014 and February 11, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

The complaint charges AmEx and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
AmEx, together with its subsidiaries, provides charge and credit
payment card products and travel-related services to consumers and
businesses worldwide.  In addition to issuing its own proprietary
cards, AmEx has entered into a series of co-branding relationships
with travel providers and retailers.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
material adverse information regarding AmEx's business and
prospects, including the status of its negotiations with U.S.
Costco to renew its co-branding agreement, which was set to expire
on March 31, 2016, and the financial impact of that agreement on
AmEx's business.  As a result of these false and misleading
statements and/or omissions during the Class Period, AmEx stock
traded at artificially inflated prices, reaching a high of nearly
$95 per share on December 29, 2014.

Then on February 12, 2015, AmEx announced that it had lost the
U.S. Costco co-branding relationship and that the financial impact
of that loss would be severe.  AmEx disclosed that the U.S. Costco
co-branding agreement generated 8% of the Company's revenues in
2014, that one in ten U.S. AmEx cards had been issued pursuant to
the U.S. Costco co-branding arrangement and that 20% of its
outstanding loans had been made pursuant to that agreement.
Finally, as a result of the loss of the U.S. Costco co-branding
agreement, AmEx stated that the Company's 2015 and 2016 profits
would suffer and that the Company would not be able to make any
headway on its previous efforts to increase earnings per share
until 2017 at the very earliest.  In response to this
announcement, the price of AmEx common stock fell from a close of
$85.40 per share on February 11, 2015, to close at $77.53 per
share on February 13, 2015, a decline of nearly $8 per share.

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

Robbins Geller, with 200 lawyers in ten offices, represents U.S.
and international institutional investors in contingency-based
securities and corporate litigation.  The firm has obtained many
of the largest securities class action recoveries in history and
was ranked first in both the amount and number of shareholder
class action recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 report for 2014.
Please visit http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/amex/for more
information.

CONTACT:

Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
David A. Rosenfeld, 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
djr@rgrdlaw.com
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/


ANTHONY MANCINI: Judge Nixes Move to Dismiss Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reported that a
Chicago personal injury lawyer specializing in litigation
involving motor vehicle accidents will need to answer allegations
he violated federal privacy laws in allegedly using personal
information on police traffic accident reports to solicit
potential new clients, after a federal judge declined to dismiss a
class action lawsuit against him over the alleged business
practices.

Earlier, Antonio and Karen Pavone sued the Law Offices of Anthony
Mancini, of Chicago, alleging attorney Mancini and his firm had
violated the federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act.

The case centers on a letter the Pavones alleged they received
from Mancini about a week after they were involved in a traffic
accident in Schaumburg on Jan. 15, 2015. The letter, which asked
them to hire Mancini to represent them in any litigation or claims
surrounding the accident, allegedly included an unredacted copy of
the traffic crash report prepared by investigating police
officers. That report included their names and personal
information, as well as that of their minor son.

The Pavones said the letter, and in particular the report with the
personal information, left them "shocked and dismayed, very
concerned their personal information and that of their child had
been transmitted to someone they did not know and used to solicit
them for legal representation."

Initially, the Pavones brought the complaint individually.
However, in March it was made a class action, as the Pavones,
through their attorneys, alleged Mancini's actions in their case
was a standard part of his firm's strategy for landing new
clients. They alleged Mancini "obtains motor vehicle records . . .
on a daily or weekly basis . . . in bulk for a fee" to mail
advertisements and solicitation letters to people involved in the
crashes reported.

The complaint indicates the Pavones' attorneys believe the number
of people who might have received such solicitations numbers "in
the hundreds if not thousands."

The complaint requests damages of at least $2.500 per plaintiff
and class member, plus punitive damages.

The Pavones are represented in the action by attorney Roger
Zamparo Jr., of the Zamparo Law Group, of Rolling Meadows, and
attorneys James A. Francis and John Soumilas, of the firm of
Francis & Mailman, of Philadelphia.

In moving to dismiss the case, Mancini had argued the complaint
should fail "because crash reports do not constitute 'personal
information'" under the Driver's Privacy law. He further argued
crash reports are not "motor vehicle records," as mentioned in the
federal law.

U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly, however, disagreed,
saying, while the law may exempt information about crashes from
protection, it does not exempt "personal information" listed in
the crash reports. That information could include the names of
people involved in the crashes, as well as their addresses and
driver identification numbers.

The judge said precedent has held these requirements were put in
place to protect those involved in crashes and listed in crash
reports from stalkers, as well as to "protect against the states'
common practice of selling personal information to businesses
engaged in direct marketing and solicitation."

Kennelly conceded crash reports are not necessarily true "motor
vehicle records," akin to vehicle registrations and drivers
license records.

But he said the law protects information that is "obtained from a
motor vehicle record." In this case, the judge said, the Pavones
have "plausibly alleged that the information listed on the crash
reports came from motor vehicle records produced by (Illinois
Secretary of State Jesse White's office.)"

"Even if that information is not directly supplied by the
Secretary of State, it is plausible that officers who write the
crash reports copy the name, license number and address from the
driver's license, which is a motor vehicle record," Kennelly
wrote.

The judge ordered Mancini to reply to the Pavones' complaint by
Aug. 13. A status hearing has been scheduled on the matter for
Aug. 20.


BARRY FREUNDELS: Mikvah Victims' Suit Moved to DC Super. Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hundreds of Rabbi Barry Freundel's mikvah victims were able to
successfully have their class action lawsuits moved back to the
D.C. Superior Court, all against Freundel's wishes, according to a
report in Courthouse News. Freundel is serving six and a half
years in prison following his May 12 sentencing after he entered a
guilty plea that he video recorded as many as 150 women in the
mikvah since 2009.

The former spiritual leader of Kesher Israel in Washington, D.C.
for 25 years was arrested last October after a video recording
device was found hidden inside a clock radio at the National
Capital Mikvah. Freundel recorded women undressing and entering
and leaving the shower. Some of them were his students or
congregations members, others were not.

After his arrest, two groups of women filed class action suits
against the rabbi in D.C. Superior Court. The allegations of the
two groups overlapped, but the legality of the proposed class
action suits differed. One class action suit involved only women
who were video recorded while the other includes any and all women
who used the National Capital Mikvah during the rabbi's
stewardship, according to the Courthouse News Service.

It is expected that both suits will be combined. Freundel,
however, had successfully petitioned the court to move the class
actions to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act. That
was, however, overruled as lead plaintiffs in both class actions
asked that the case be moved to DC Superior Court. This decision
was based on the Class Action Fairness Act's "interest of justice
exception."  This means that the federal courts can refuse to
exercise jurisdiction over a dispute if that dispute is local and
if between one third and two thirds of the proposed class members
are citizens of the state where the suit was brought forward. In
this case, it would involve the District of Columbia.


BAYER: Reverse Payment Settlements Subject To Antitrust Challenge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rita Yoon, Esq. -- ryoon@mwe.com -- at McDermott Will & Emery, in
an article for Mondaq, reported that in a class action case
assessing the implications of antitrust law in a patent
infringement and validity settlement agreement, the Supreme Court
of California held that reverse payment settlements are not immune
from antitrust scrutiny under state law. In re Cipro Cases I & II,
No. S198616, 2015 WL 2125291 (Cal. May 7, 2015). The California
Supreme Court held that parties that engage in these reverse
payment settlements without legitimate justification illegally
restrain trade under California law.

Bayer owns a patent on the active ingredient ciprofloxacin
hydrochloride in the antibiotic Cipro(R). It subsequently obtained
approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to
market the drug in the United States. In 1991, 12 years before the
expiration of the patent, defendant Barr Laboratories applied to
market a generic version of Cipro. In its abbreviated new drug
application (ANDA), Barr made a Paragraph IV certification that
Bayer's patent is invalid or will not be infringed. In its
certification, Barr contended that the patent was invalid double
patent, was the product of inequitable conduct, and was obvious in
light of prior art. Bayer responded with a patent infringement
suit, and Barr counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment of patent
invalidity.

In 1997, Bayer and Barr settled. As part of the settlement, Barr
agreed to postpone marketing the generic version of Cipro until
the patent expired and to a consent judgment affirming the
patent's validity. In return, Bayer agreed to pay significant sums
to Barr and to supply Cipro for licensed resale six months before
the patent expired. From 1997 to 2003, Bayer paid Barr $398.1
million. Bayer's profits from Cipro exceed $1 billion.

The settlement sparked numerous state and federal antitrust suits.
The plaintiffs here -- buyers of the drug -- alleged that the
settlement violated the Cartwright Act, unfair competition law and
common-law prohibition against monopolies. The California Court of
Appeals affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in
favor of Bayer. Since the settlement restrained Barr only within
the "scope of the patent," and the suit for its enforcement was
not objectively baseless, the district court and Court of Appeals
held the settlement lawful. This "scope of the patent" test
presumes a patent's validity unless it was procured by fraud. So
long as an agreement does not extend the patentee's monopoly
beyond what the patent grants, the court concluded, the agreement
survives antitrust scrutiny.

In reversing the lower courts' holding, the California Supreme
Court relied on the Supreme Court of the United States' decision
in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. In Actavis, the
Supreme Court rejected the "scope of the patent" test under
federal law. While a valid patent allows the patentee to exclude
others, "an invalidated patent carries with it no such right."
Thus, a settlement which cuts short the resolution of a patent's
validity should not establish that patent's legitimacy. The
Supreme Court concluded in Actavis that, even if the terms of the
reverse payment settlement falls within the patent's potential
exclusionary scope, the settlement is not immune from antitrust
attack.

While Actavis is not dispositive on state law matters, "patent law
is federal law." The Supreme Court is the "final arbiter" of
patent law matters and the extent to which antitrust law
interpretations and patent law requirements co-exist. Accordingly,
the California Supreme Court applied Actavis to similarly reject
the "scope of the patent" test under state law. The court also
extended principles of the Cartwright Act to the patent arena,
explaining "purchasing freedom from the possibility of
competition, whether done by a patentee or anyone else, is
illegal."

The court adopted the "quick look rule of reason analysis" to
assess reverse payment settlements. To establish a prima facie
case that a reverse payment patent settlement is anti-competitive
under California law, a plaintiff must show four elements: (1) The
settlement includes a limit on the settling generic challenger's
entry into the market; (2) the settlement includes cash or
equivalent financial consideration flowing from the brand to the
generic challenger; and the consideration exceeds (3) the value of
goods and services other than any delay in market entry provided
by the generic challenger to the brand, as well as (4) the brand's
expected remaining litigation costs absent settlement. The burden
then shifts to the defendant to offer legitimate justifications
that the settlement is pro-competitive. If the plaintiff can
dispel each justification, then the settlement is "condemned by
the Cartwright Act" and is "an unlawful restraint of trade."


BEST BUY: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Back Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Julio Cesar Lopez, and all others similarly-situated v. Best Buy
Stores, L.P. dba Best Buy, Case No. 1:15-cv-22876 (S.D. Fla. Aug
02, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid back wages, an additional equal
amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Best Buy Stores, L.P. is a specialty retailer of technology and
entertainment products and services. The company was founded in
2009 and is based in Richfield, Minnesota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Elliot Ari Kozolchyk, Esq.
      Koz Law, P.A.
      320 S.E. 9th street
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
      Tel: (786) 924-9929
      Fax: (786) 358-6071
      E-mail: ekoz@kozlawfirm.com


BURNSVILLE, MN: Residents to File Suit Over Carports
----------------------------------------------------
Pat Pheifer, writing for Star Tribune, reported that Don Paul and
his wife, Judy, have lived in the Rambush Estates mobile home park
in Burnsville for 13 years.

Paul, who retired three years ago after 54 years in the roofing
trade, keeps the small yard immaculate, festooned with garden
sculptures, flowers, plants and a small wooden fence. The metal-
roofed car port keeps their SUV out of the rain and snow and keeps
precipitation off the stairs and landing leading to their front
door.

On June 12, though, the city of Burnsville sent notices to the
Pauls and 21 other residents in the park who have carports saying
the structures have to go because they violate state building code
and city code. If residents don't comply within a certain number
of days, they face steep reinspection fees.

A few people have already removed their carports; some others are
fighting back, attorney Valerie Sims said.

Sims has served the city with a lawsuit, claiming, among other
things, that Rambush Estates is private property and Burnsville
does not have the authority to issue code violations there.

"Manufactured homes are a completely different animal," Sims said.

Minnesota law gives the state the "exclusive right" to do property
inspections in mobile home parks, she said. The park also has its
own extensive set of rules that govern what can and can't be on
the lots. Residents who run afoul of the park's rules can be fined
-- in the form of a rent increase -- or evicted.

The lawsuit said that resident Kathryn Eich is suing "on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated residents of [the park]."
The defendants, in addition to the city of Burnsville, are Ted
Oakland and Christopher Forslund, both code inspectors for the
city.

Sims said that her next step is to file the lawsuit in Dakota
County District Court and request a motion to certify it as a
class action.

Burnsville City Attorney Joel Jamnik said in an e-mail that the
"case has been forwarded to the city's insurance provider, the
League of Minnesota Cities Insurance Trust for review . . . and
possible assignment of defense counsel."

"Further comment at this time would be premature," he wrote.

Notice of violations

Eich, 69, has lived in Rambush Estates for the past 11 years. She
is a single mother with a disabled son and takes care of her 99-
year-old mother, Sims said.

She got permission from the owners of Rambush Estates to have the
carport installed. The large structure has room for at least two
vehicles and helps her manage the snow shoveling in the winter,
she said. Without it, she'd have to hire someone to plow her
driveway.

On May 22, Eich received a letter addressed to "Property Owner"
and signed by Oakland, citing three violations. The first said,
"An observation of your property noticed a nonconforming carport
on your lot," and "Please have the carport removed."

The second and third violations concerned a wheel barrow in the
yard -- Eich said she was using it to tend her garden -- and trash
cans in view.

Eich and the other residents of Rambush Estates do not own the
land their manufactured homes sit on -- the lot is rented from the
park owner.

Phone messages left with the management of Rambush Estates were
not returned.

On June 12, another letter came addressed to Eich and signed by
Forslund. It said residents must prove that their carports meet
the state building code and, if so, they may apply for a variance
from the city code. The variance application fee, the letter said,
is a nonrefundable $750, and a $1,000 escrow fund is required
along with the application.

Sims said Eich "lives on Social Security and pays half of that out
for rent. She takes pride in her property.

"She knows what's right is right. But she is very stressed out,"
the attorney said.

Enforcement questions

Sims said residents were never told what specific provision in the
building code they were violating or given any reason the carport
didn't comply. The lawsuit also said the city code violates
residents' right to due process because it doesn't contain any
process for the resident to fight it and the city codes conflict
with both the park's rules and the state's rules for manufactured
homes.

Burnsville building official Chris Faste said he couldn't comment
on pending litigation, but he said every property in the city must
follow state and city codes. It doesn't matter whether it's a
single-family home, a commercial property or a manufactured home
park, he said.

Don Paul, meanwhile, isn't sure what he's going to do with his
carport. He did all of the improvements to the property himself
and doesn't want to see them go, he said. When he built the
carport, he specifically asked Rambush Estates whether he needed
to pull a building permit and was told no, he said.


CANADA: Federal Court Refuses to Certify "Rae" Tax Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Paterson, Esq. -- mpaterson@osler.com and Catherine Gleason-
Mercier, Esq. -- cgleasonmercier@osler.com -- at Osler Hoskin &
Harcourt LLP, wrote that the Federal Court has recently reiterated
the importance of both a properly defined class and a proper
representative plaintiff at the certification stage. In Rae v
Minister of National Revenue, 2015 FC 707, Justice St-Louis
refused to certify a proposed class action on the basis that the
class was too narrowly defined and the representative plaintiff
would not fairly and adequately represent the interests of the
class.

The Proposed Class Action

In 2013, Ms. Rae, the proposed class representative, participated
in a widely-marketed gifting tax shelter called Pharma Gifts
International Inc. This gifting tax shelter was registered with
the Minister and in 2013 the CRA undertook an audit of the gifting
tax shelter.

The CRA audit of Pharma Gifts resulted in Ms. Rae not receiving a
Notice of Assessment for the 2013 taxation year. Moreover, Ms. Rae
was informed that her 2013 income tax and benefit return could not
be assessed until the audit was completed, which could take up to
two years. The only recourse to a more timely assessment would be
if Ms. Rae withdrew her donation claim and agreed to a proposed
waiver agreement under which she would waive any right of
objection or appeal related to the issue of her eligibility to the
claim for the 2013 taxation year.

Ms. Rae refused to agree to the waiver and instead brought a
motion to the Federal Court to certify a class proceeding. The
class proceeding sought a writ of mandamus requiring the Minister
to assess Ms. Rae and the other class members' 2013 tax returns
forthwith, issue a corresponding tax assessment and send a proper
Notice of Assessment.

The Certification Decision

The Federal Court, noting that Ontario and British Columbia
decisions may guide the Court in certifying class actions under
Rule 334.16(1) of the Federal Courts Rules in respect of class
actions, assessed each of the 5 criteria that must be satisfied in
order to certify a class action:

   (1) Reasonable Cause of Action

The parties submitted, and the Court agreed, that the threshold
under this criterion is very low, and was satisfied in the case at
bar.

   (2) Identifiable Class of Two or More Persons

The proposed class was defined as:

Any person who is not a non-resident of Canada, as defined by the
Income Tax Act, who participated in a widely-marketed gifting tax
shelter in 2013 and transmitted their 2013 income tax return to
the Minister. Excluded from the class would be any taxpayer who
otherwise meets the proposed definition but who has since accepted
and/or acted on any waiver offered by the Minster, and any
taxpayer who otherwise meets the proposed definition but who is
assessed before the hearing of the application on the merits.

The Court found that the proposed class was too narrowly defined.
While over or under-inclusion is not fatal to certification,
illogical or arbitrary class definitions are fatal. In this
instance, the Court found that the exclusion of taxpayers assessed
before the hearing of the merits is illogical or arbitrary since
these taxpayers share the same interest in the resolution of the
common issue regardless of whether or not they have received a
Notice of Assessment.

   (3) Common Question of Law or Fact

The Court found that the resolution of the common question --
receipt of a Notice of Assessment and a corresponding tax
assessment -- was necessary to the resolution of each class
members' claim, and each would benefit from the successful pursuit
of the class action.

   (4) Preferable Procedure

Since all taxpayers that would be affected by the common issue --
approximately 2,500 persons -- would have to bring this matter
before the Court individually, the Court found that a class action
would be the preferable procedure for the resolution of the common
issue.

   (5) Appropriateness of the Representative Plaintiff

The Court found that Ms. Rae's refusal to answer questions on
cross-examination with regards to third-party funding raised
concerns with regards to her appropriateness as representative
plaintiff. Moreover, both the litigation plan and the fee
arrangement submitted by Ms. Rae failed to satisfy the
requirements set out in the jurisprudence.

Going Forward

Though this decision is fact specific, there are some key points
that can be distilled:

In contrast with a number of cases in the class actions context,
the Court in Rae v Minister of National Revenue did not amend the
proposed class definition so that it would satisfy the
certification criteria. It will be interesting to monitor
subsequent decisions from the Federal Court, as well as from
various superior courts, to see if this refusal to re-draft a
proposed class definition becomes a trend.

It will also be interesting to monitor how third-party funding and
the information about such funding that courts require to be
disclosed impacts certification.

Given the paucity of class actions arising in the tax context,
this decision reminds potential representative plaintiffs of the
importance of satisfying the certification criteria and defining
the class appropriately. In what the court says is a highly
individual area of law, it remains unclear when the court would be
willing to certify a tax class action.


CANADA: Medical Pot Users' Class Suit Certified
-----------------------------------------------
Clare Mellor, writing for Hearald News, reported that the Federal
Court of Canada has certified a class action lawsuit by medical
marijuana users which alleges that Health Canada violated their
privacy rights.

Justice Michael Phelan heard the certification application in
Federal Court in Halifax in June.

The claim alleges that in November 2013, the federal department
sent letters to about 40,000 participants in the medical marijuana
access program in oversized envelopes that clearly stated they
were from the program.

Anyone seeing the envelopes would have known the recipient was
either licensed to possess or grow marijuana for medical purposes,
the claim alleges.

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

The Nova Scotia law firm is jointly representing plaintiffs, along
with three others law firms  --  two in Ontario, and one in
British Columbia.

Lawyers said about 1,800 people had registered with the class
action, however, it is not necessary to "opt in," in order to be
included.

The Privacy Commissioner of Canada investigated the alleged
privacy breach and ruled that Health Canada violated federal
privacy laws when it sent out the envelopes.


CASH CONVERTERS: Faces Class Suit Over Huge Brokerage Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Hatzakis, writing for ABC News, reported that law firm
Maurice Blackburn filed documents alleging the breaches happened
between July 30, 2009 and June 30, 2013, with special counsel
Miranda Nagy saying about 30,000 Queenslanders had been affected.

"People paid a lot more for their credit than they wanted to and
that they should have," Ms. Nagy said.

"But also it meant that many Cash Converters borrowers who were in
a very difficult financial situation were put in a worse position.

"Many of them who've spoken to us have told us that they ended up
essentially in a debt spiral, they ended up needing to get loan
after loan after loan, to repay the previous ones."

Sean Lynch is the lead plaintiff in the case.

"I went to Cash Converters because, like a lot of others doing it
tough, I needed some help," Mr. Lynch said.

"Instead of finding help I found I was left with huge fees that I
couldn't cover that meant [I] ended up having to borrow a lot more
just to cover my fee.

"It led only to further problems when what I really needed was
help."

Ms. Nagy said the case alleged Cash Converters breached Queensland
laws designed to protect consumers.

"In mid-2008 Queensland laws took effect that imposed a cap of 48
per cent per annum interest that was payable on consumer credit
loans," she said.

"In response to these legislative changes Cash Converters
introduced a new business model by which, in order to get access
to credit, Queensland borrowers were forced to appoint a broker
and were forced to pay quite substantial brokerage charges.

"For example on a $600 loan, the brokerage charge would be $210.

"The brokerage fees were required under these consumer credit laws
to be included in calculating the real interest rate that applied
to these contracts.

"So rather than 48 per cent, which was already a very steep
interest rate, the effect of these fees was to mean that the real
interest rate on these loans was over 160 per cent per annum."

Ms. Nagy said if the action was successful, damages could be up to
$30 million.

"In New South Wales, Maurice Blackburn has already settled two
class actions against Cash Converters over similar legislation
that operated in New South Wales," she said.

"We expect the Queensland class action against Cash Converters
will also demonstrate how Cash Converters tried to circumvent the
law to charge vulnerable people quite exorbitant interest rates.

"This Queensland class action does suggest that there have been
concerted efforts by Cash Converters to find a way to avoid laws
that were designed to bring down the cost of credit and to
introduce effective protections for very vulnerable consumers."


CHARMI LLC: "Conway" Suit in Ga. Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Conway and David Locke v. Charmi, LLC and Bahrat Patel,
Case No. 2:15-cv-00110-LGW-RSB (S.D. Ga., August 5, 2015), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid minimum wages,
declaratory relief, and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Defendants own and operate a Days Inn hotel in Camden County,
Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      29 North Orange Avenue
      Suite 1400
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
      E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com


CHICAGO, IL: Police Officers' OT Suit Heads to Trial
----------------------------------------------------
Alexia Elejalde-Ruiz, writing for The Columbus Dispatch, reported
that Jeffrey Allen would answer his work BlackBerry during
Thanksgiving dinner, during his son's soccer match, on any number.

"I just saw it as part of the job," said Allen, 51, a Chicago
police sergeant.

But it was not a part of the job he was paid for, Allen alleges in
a class-action lawsuit against the city of Chicago filed five
years ago that heads to trial. He and about 50 officers who have
joined the suit seek overtime pay for off-duty hours spent
monitoring and responding to work emails and phone calls on their
company-issued mobile devices.

Anyone familiar with the ping of a late-night email, a weekend
call from a boss or a mid-dinner glance at a text message has felt
the inescapability of work in the age of smartphones.

But while constant connectedness has become the norm, it has also
become a source of overtime litigation  --  and attorneys say that
could increase under a proposal from the Obama administration to
make millions more salaried Americans eligible for overtime,
including many in managerial positions.

The proposed overtime rulewould raise to $50,440 the minimum
salary an employee must make before he or she can be classified as
exempt from overtime, up from $23,660. The government estimates
that would extend overtime pay to nearly 5 million salaried
workers who currently are exempt under "white-collar" provisions.
The salary threshold doesn't affect certain workers, including
teachers, outside sales representatives and certain hourly
computer professionals.

The Labor Department plans to seek public comment on the use of
smartphones to work off hours and could propose a new rule or
guidance on the topic.


CHICAGO, IL: Judge Throws Out Challenge to Red Light Camera Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
ABC7 News reported that the legal challenge of Chicago's red light
cameras is moving forward despite the objections of city lawyers.

A Cook County Judge threw out a bid from the City of Chicago to
shut down a proposed class-action lawsuit over the city's red
light cameras.

A small group gathered outside Daley Plaza protesting the
controversial program.

Critics say the red light cameras don't have state approval.

A similar lawsuit was thrown out by the Illinois Supreme Court as
two justices recused themselves for unknown reasons.


CHINA FINANCE: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors of China
Finance Online, Co. ("China Finance" or the "Company") JRJC,
+0.00% who purchased shares of China Finance between May 6, 2014
through June 3, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and have
been damaged by the recent declines in the Company's stock price.
China Finance investors must file a motion by August 4, 2015 for
consideration as a class representative in this purported class
action.

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

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

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

CONTACT:

Howard G. Smith, Esq.
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
3070 Bristol Pike, Bensalem, PA 19020, United States
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com


CIGNA CORP: Faces "Copelli" Suit Over Proposed Anthem Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Copelli, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Cigna Corp., et al., Case No. 11373-CB (Del. Ch.,
August 6, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public
stockholders of Cigna Corp., to enjoin the proposed acquisition of
the publicly owned shares of Cigna by Anthem, Inc., through a
flawed process and inadequate consideration.

Cigna Corporation is a global health services organization
dedicated to a mission of helping individuals improve their
health, well-being and sense of security.

Anthem, Inc. is a health benefit company that offers a range of
network-based managed care plans to large and small employer,
individual, Medicaid and Medicare markets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Sued Over Inaccurate Wages Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bradley, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Continental Airlines, Inc. and Does 1-50 inclusive,
Case No. BC590491 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 6, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to comply with the wage
statement requirements of the California Labor Code.

Continental Airlines, Inc. owns and operates an airline company
that does business throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey C. Jackson, Esq.
      JACKSON HANSON, LLP
      2790 Truxtun Rd., Suite 140
      San Diego, CA 92106
      Telephone: (619) 523-9001
      Facsimile: (619) 523-9002
      E-mail: atty@JacksonHanson.com


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Faces "Thomas" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Litasha Thomas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Palisades Collection,
LLC, and Galaxy International Purchasing, LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-
01823-JSM-TGW (M.D. Fla., August 5, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Salvatore Giardina, Esq.
      Kimberly Hamel Wochholz, Esq.
      THE CONSUMER RIGHTS LAW GROUP, PLLC
      Suite 200, 3104 W Waters Ave
      Tampa, FL 33614-2877
      Telephone: (813) 413-5610
      Facsimile: (866) 535-7199
      E-mail: james@consumerrightslawgroup.com
              Kim@ConsumerRightsLawGroup.com


CRESTWOOD MISDTREAM: Faruqi LLP Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP has filed a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division, case no. 4:15-cv-2101, on behalf of unitholders
of Crestwood Midstream Partners LP ("Crestwood Midstream" or the
"Company") who held (and continue to hold) Crestwood Midstream
securities acquired on or before May 5, 2015.

On May 5, 2015, the Company entered into a Purchase Agreement and
Plan of Merger ("Merger Agreement") under which Crestwood Equity
Partners LP ("Crestwood Equity") will acquire all of the
outstanding units of Crestwood Midstream through a newly formed
subsidiary of Crestwood Equity. The unit-for-unit transaction is
valued at approximately $7.5 billion. The transaction and vote are
expected to occur in the third quarter of 2015.

The complaint charges Crestwood Midstream Partners LP, its Board
of Directors, Crestwood Equity Partners LP, and affiliated
corporate entities and individuals with violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, which was
unanimously approved by the Company's Board of Directors (the
"Board" or "Individual Defendants"), Crestwood Midstream
unitholders will receive a fixed exchange ratio of 2.75 units of
Crestwood Equity for each unit of Crestwood Midstream they own.
Crestwood Midstream and Crestwood Equity claim that this exchange
ratio amounts to a deal consideration of approximately $18.75 per
Crestwood Midstream common unit, based on Crestwood Equity's
closing price of $6.82 on May 5, 2015. However, Crestwood Equity
units are currently trading at significantly lower prices, closing
at $3.71 on July 28, 2015.

Furthermore, the Merger Agreement includes no protective collar on
the transaction's exchange ratio, and as a result, the implied
dollar value of the Merger Consideration is susceptible to
significant depreciation based upon the future performance of
Crestwood Equity's stock. Significantly, since the Proposed
Transaction was announced, Crestwood Equity's stock price has
dropped approximately 38%, from $6.82 on May 5, 2015, to $4.23 on
July 14, 2015. Thus, any premium Crestwood Midstream's unitholders
were supposedly receiving has vanished in light of the significant
decrease in the value of Crestwood Equity's stock price.

The complaint alleges that the S-4 Registration Statement (the "S-
4") filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on
June 17, 2015 provided materially incomplete and misleading
disclosures, thereby violating Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act. The Registration Statement denies Crestwood
Midstream's unitholders material information concerning the
financial and procedural fairness of the Merger. The complaint
also alleges that 2.75 units of Crestwood Equity for each unit of
Crestwood Midstream is an inadequate exchange ratio, as Crestwood
Midstream has experienced significant growth in recent months and
has consistently exceeded management's revenue and earnings
expectations. The offer price also fails to adequately value
Crestwood Midstream's prospects for future growth.

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

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

Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
369 Lexington Ave, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330
E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONTACT:

Hausfeld
165 Broadway Suite 2301 New York, NY 10006
646-357-1100
212-202-4322 fax
http://www.hausfeld.com/
info@hausfeld.com


DE CAPITAL: Faces "Negrin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Negrin and Ann Mondrone, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. De Capital Mortgage, LLC, Preferred
Empire Mortgage, Co., and Dottie Herman, Case No. 652754/2015
(N.Y. Sup Ct., August 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing mortgage banking
services to consumers in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Erik H. Langeland, Esq.
      ERIK H. LANGELAND, P.C.
      733 3rd Avenue, 15 Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 354-6270
      Facsimile: (212) 898-9086
      E-mail: elangeland@langelandlaw.com


DIAGEO: Faces Class Suit Over Red Stripe Misleading Label
---------------------------------------------------------
Don Bauder, writing for San Diego Reader, reported that the San
Diego law firm of Robbins Arroyo, representing two local
plaintiffs, filed a suit in federal court in San Diego against
Diageo, the big London alcoholic beverage firm. It is a putative
class action suit on behalf of all drinkers of Red Stripe beer.

The gist is that Red Stripe beer is not brewed in Jamaica. Diageo
uses clever phrasing in its promotion. Red Stripe is called a
"Jamaican Style Lager" that contains the "taste of Jamaica." For
80 years, "Red Stripe has embodied the spirit, rhythm and pulse of
Jamaica and its people." The bottle structure is short, squat, and
brown  --  closely associated with Jamaican beer bottles, says the
complaint.

However, on the border of the labels are these words: "Brewed &
Bottled by Red Stripe Beer Company, Latrobe, PA." The plaintiffs
contend that this disclaimer is in "obscure white text," and the
consumer can't see those words until after he or she has purchased
a six-pack or twelve-pack.

The suit, charging unfair and deceptive practices, was filed July
29


DIRECT DIGITAL: 7th Circ. Rejects 'Ascertainability' Framework
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reported that class action
lawyers may want to get up a petition to declare July 28 "Judge
David Hamilton Day" because they could not have asked for a
stronger defense of class actions -- and the existing federal
rules governing class certification -- than they received in
Hamilton's opinion for a three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals in Mullins v. Direct Digital. The 7th Circuit
scrutinized the 3rd Circuit's controversial requirement of a
"reliable and administratively feasible" way to ascertain class
membership -- and wholly rejected it. According to Judge Hamilton
and his panel colleagues, Judges William Bauer and Michael Kanne,
the 3rd Circuit's 2013 ruling in Carrera v. Bayer upset the
federal rules' carefully wrought framework for class
certification.

"The heightened ascertainability requirement," the opinion said,
"gives one factor in the balance absolute priority, with the
effect of barring class actions where class treatment is often
most needed: in cases involving relatively low-cost goods or
services, where consumers are unlikely to have documentary proof
of purchase."

The 7th Circuit's precedent, Judge Hamilton wrote, already
requires trial courts to deny certification to proposed classes
that are too vaguely defined, rely on subjective criteria such as
someone's state of mind, or contain "fail safe" provisions that
depend on the defendant's liability. And according to the 7th
Circuit, that's enough.

The court considered four policy justifications for a heightened
ascertainability requirement: administrative convenience,
unfairness to absent class members, unfairness to bona fide class
members, and due process for defendants. According to the 7th
Circuit, the procedural rules for class actions -- which don't
specifically address ascertainability -- already take care of
those concerns.

Moreover, the 7th Circuit said (quite sensibly), it doesn't make
any sense to refuse to certify classes to protect absent and bona
fide class members under the theory that they may not get the
recovery they're entitled to unless plaintiffs can show a way to
weed out unqualified class members. Without certification, Judge
Hamilton wrote, those class members will receive nothing.

"In general, we think imposing this stringent version of
ascertainability does not further any interest that is not already
adequately protected by the (federal) rule's explicit
requirements," the opinion said. "On the other side of the
balance, the costs of imposing the requirement are substantial."

Importantly, the 7th Circuit explicitly said affidavits from class
members are an acceptable way to ascertain who is in a class -- a
methodology the 3rd Circuit specifically ruled out in its Carrera
decision. Judge Hamilton said that as long as defendants have an
opportunity to challenge "self-serving affidavits from
plaintiffs," ascertaining class membership through plaintiffs'
testimony doesn't impinge on defendants' rights. After all, he
said, "we are aware of only one type of case in American law where
the testimony of one witness is legally insufficient to prove a
fact" -- and that's prosecution for treason. "There is no good
reason to extend that rule to consumer class actions," Hamilton
wrote.

The 7th Circuit said it agreed to consider Digital Direct's
interlocutory appeal because it wanted to address what it called
"the recent expansion of 'ascertainability.'" (The case involves
allegedly deceptive labeling of a joint relief supplement called
Instaflex.) The opinion meticulously traced that expansion, which
began with a 2012 decision from the 3rd Circuit in a case against
BMW and peaked in the 2013 Carrera decision, which a sharply
divided 3rd Circuit declined to rehear en banc. That appellate
court, as I've reported and the 7th Circuit has noted, seems to be
easing up a bit on ascertainability, as evidenced by its 2015
opinion in Byrd v. Aaron's. But in the meantime, a slew of trial
judges across the country, not only in the 3rd Circuit, have
refused to certify classes that could only be ascertained by
plaintiffs' affidavits.

The 7th Circuit is the first appellate court to dissect the 3rd
Circuit's ascertainability framework, which was previously cited
with approval but not really analyzed in an unpublished 11th
Circuit decision.  So this opinion is hugely important, said
Stewart Weltman of Boodell & Domanskis, who argued at the 7th
Circuit for the plaintiffs suing Direct Digital. "This is one of
the most thorough and intellectually honest opinions I've
encountered," Weltman said. "One hopes that from the strength of
this decision and its logic, the 3rd Circuit will realize it went
off the tracks."

Whenever one federal circuit decides another is flat-out wrong,
you wonder if the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually have to
resolve the split. I called and emailed Ari Rothman of Venable,
who argued for Digital Direct at the 7th Circuit, to ask whether
his client will seek Supreme Court review, but didn't hear back.


EAGLE ROCK: September 28 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
----------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky has filed a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf
of investors who owned Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.P. ("Eagle
Rock" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:EROC) common units on July 6,
2015.

The complaint alleges that the Eagle Rock board of directors
violated the federal securities laws and breached its fiduciary
duties to shareholders by engaging in a flawed and unfair sales
process in relation to the sale of the Company to Vanguard Natural
Resources, LLC (NASDAQ:VNR). The complaint also alleges that the
sales process ensures the sale of Eagle Rock without adequately
informing shareholders of material information necessary in
considering the approval of the sale of the Company. These
breaches of fiduciary duties, if not resolved, will effectuate the
sale of the Company to the detriment of public shareholder
interest.

If you suffered a loss in Eagle Rock you have until September 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 Joseph
E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at
(212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972, or visit
http://zlk.9nl.com/eagle-rock-energy.

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

CONTACT:

Joseph Levi, Esq.
Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
30 Broad Street - 24th Floor New York, NY 10004
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Toll Free:  (877) 363-5972
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com


EBAY INC: Doesn't Timely Transmit Buyers' Money, "Chen" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Theo Chen, et al. v. EBay, Inc. and PayPal, Inc., Case No.
RG15780778 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 5, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to timely transmit monies obtained from
buyers to their sellers.

EBay, Inc. is the world's largest online marketplace.

PayPal, Inc. provides online payment solutions for individuals and
businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony A. Ferrigno, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY A. GERRIGNO
      1116 Ingleside Avenue
      Athens, TN 37303
      Telephone: (423) 744-4041
      Facsimile: (925) 945-8792

         - and -

      J. David Franklin, Esq.
      FRANKLIN & FRANKLIN, APLC
      402 West Broadway, Suite 1140
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (858) 229-4441

         - and -

      Pamela E. Havird, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF PAMELA E. HA VIRD
      PO Box 375
      La Jolla, CA 92038
      Telephone: (619) 888-8090
      Facsimile: (858) 815-7778
      E-mail: pehavird@sbcglobal.net


EFT HOLDINGS: Locke Lord Dismissed in Pyramid-Scheme Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reported that a federal
judge booted Locke Lord off a federal pyramid scheme case,
troubled by the fact that the victims of the alleged scheme are
already suing the firm for malpractice in another court.

Locke Lord "is not adequate class counsel," wrote U.S. District
Judge Dale Fischer of the Central District of California. The firm
is fighting a lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court by alleged
scheme victims who say lawyers at Edwards Wildman Palmer -- which
merged with Locke Lord in January -- missed a crucial class
certification deadline. Those plaintiffs are demanding the return
of a $200,000 retainer and other damages.

Locke Lord says it shouldn't be penalized for a "lone misstep" by
lawyers no longer on the case. It also said that lawyers Ronie
Schmelz and Edwin Larkin, who were on the original pleadings, left
Edwards Wildman before the merger. But Fischer found the two
lawsuits create the appearance of divided loyalties.

"There may be an incentive for Locke Lord to downplay or attack
the viability of this class action in the state court case in an
attempt to show that the state court plaintiff there suffered no
harm from the failure to certify the class," Fischer wrote.

The Edwards Wildman lawyers sued nutritional product company EFT
Holdings Inc. in 2013. The lawyers claimed plaintiffs were victims
of a pyramid scheme, whereby they were recruited to sell
nutritional products but made money only by recruiting additional
salespeople. They also accused EFT Holdings of mislabeling its
products. In one case, plaintiffs said the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration sent the company a warning letter claiming at least
one of its products contained lead, "a poisonous or deleterious
substance," which was not indicated on the label.

Edwards Wildman filed the suit as a class action, but then failed
to move for class certification within the 90-day deadline. As a
result, Fischer struck plaintiffs' class claims and ordered the
lawyers to proceed with the case as an individual action. The
judge shot down plaintiffs' request for a second chance, ruling
that plaintiffs lawyers gave no good excuse for missing the
deadline, and, to make matters worse, let months go by without
seeking an extension. Different lawyers at Locke Lord, and their
co-counsel at Howarth & Smith, tried again in January, filing a
new class action complaint followed by a timely motion for class
certification.

In March, plaintiff Xiu Lin Wang sued Locke Lord in state court on
behalf of nearly 7,300 EFT members who claim they intended to be
part of the class action against the company and were harmed when
their lawyers missed the deadline and forfeited their class
claims. The members pooled their money to raise $200,475 toward
Edwards Wildman Palmer's retainer fee, and now they claim the
lawyers won't reimburse them.

Ruling is a win for EFT's lawyers, led by Winston & Strawn partner
Neal Marder, who argued there's a "grave ongoing conflict between
Locke Lord and the putative class."

Marder was out of the country and unavailable to comment. Winston
& Strawn associate Ali Rabbani said his team is pleased the court
found Locke Lord to be unfit as class counsel in this case.

Locke Lord partner Stephen Tuggy and Howarth & Smith partner
Suzelle Smith did not respond to calls or emails seeking comment.

Fischer granted EFT Holding's motion to dismiss plaintiffs'
claims, allowing plaintiffs to file an amended complaint by August
11.


ELETROBRAS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that a complaint has been filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the
American Depository Shares ("ADSs") of Centrais Eletricas
Brasileiras S.A. -- ELETROBRAS ("Eletrobras" or the "Company")
(NYSE: EBR) between February 10, 2014 and April 29, 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 ADSs of Eletrobras 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://www.rigrodskylong.com/investigations/centrais-eletricas-
brasileiras-sa-eletrobras-ebr.

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.  As a result of defendants' false and misleading
statements, the Company's stock traded at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.

According to the Complaint, on April 30, 2015, Eletrobras
announced to investors that due to news reports about bribery
taking place at its subsidiary, Eletrobras Termonuclear S.A. -
Eletronuclear, the Company would not be filing its Form 20-F on
time and needed the additional time to make sure the proper
auditing procedures were being followed.

On this news, ADSs in Eletrobras declined over 8%, closing at
$2.45 per share on April 30, 2015, on heavy trading volume.

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.  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.

CONTACT:

Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
Peter Allocco, Esq.
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
825 E Gate Blvd #300 Garden City, NY, United States
(888) 969-4242
(516) 683-3516
Fax: (302) 654-7530
info@rl-legal.com
http://www.rigrodskylong.com


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Faces "Arnold" Suit Over FCRA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Arnold and Joyce Ridgley, on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated individuals v. Equifax Information
Service, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-00460-REP (E.D. Va., August 5,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew James Erausquin, Esq.
      CONSUMER LITGATION ASSOCIATES PC
      1800 Diagonal Rd, Suite 600
      Alexandria, VA 22314
      Telephone: (703) 273-7770
      Facsimile: (888) 892-3513
      E-mail: matt@clalegal.com

         - and -

      Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq.
      CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
      763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
      Newport News, VA 23601
      Telephone: (757) 930-3660
      Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
      E-mail: srotkis@clalegal.com


EVERBANK: Settles Nationwide Suit over Forced Insurance
-------------------------------------------------------
Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reported that Florida-based
EverBank and units of insurance company Assurant Inc have agreed
to settle a nationwide class action accusing them of fraud for
allegedly overcharging homeowners for insurance they were forced
to buy, according to a court filing.

The preliminary settlement calls for companies to pay homeowners
12.5 percent of the premiums they were charged and to end
practices challenged in the lawsuit that allegedly raised
insurance costs. The lawsuit was filed by lawyers at Kozyak Tropin
& Throckmorton, Podhurst Orseck, and Harke Clasby & Bushman.


EZCORP INC: Sued in Texas Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wu Huang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Ezcorp, Inc., Stuart I. Grimshaw, and Mark E.
Kuchenrither, Case No. 1:15-cv-00677-SS (W.D. Tex., August 5,
2015), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Ezcorp, Inc. delivers cash solutions to customers across channels,
products, services and markets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sammy Ford IV, Esq.
      ABRAHAM, WATKINS, NICHOLS, SORRELS, AGOSTO & FRIEND
      800 Commerce Street
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 226-5157
      Facsimile: (713) 225-0827
      E-mail: sford@abrahamwatkins.com

         - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      POMERANTZ, LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
      E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
              ahood@pomlaw.com

         - and -

      Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 377-1181
      Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
      E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


FACEBOOK: Wins First Round in European Privacy Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Natasha Ahmed, Esq. -- nahmed@lockelord.com -- and Alan
Meneghetti, Esq. -- ameneghetti@lockelord.com -- at Locke Lord
LLP, in an article for JD Supra, wrote that Facebook has won its
latest class action case in a long-running legal battle involving
25,000 European Facebook users. The class action was led by
Austrian law student and privacy campaigner Max Schrems, and
alleged that Facebook breached European privacy laws. The Austrian
court held that they lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, which
sought EUR500 compensation for each claimant, totalling EUR12.5m.

Mr Schrems alleges that Facebook illegally tracked its users'
browsing habits via software installed on other web pages, and
provided information to U.S. intelligence agencies, amongst other
violations.

Facebook has welcomed the rejection with their statement: "This
litigation was unnecessary and we're pleased that the court has
roundly rejected these claims." Yet the ruling is an isolated
victory for the social network, which is facing lawsuits across
Europe over the way it handles its users' personal data.

Mr Schrems is undeterred by this ruling and plans to appeal
against the decision. In a statement by Schrems' lawyer, Wolfram
Proksch, he responded: "This finding by the court is really very
strange. Unfortunately it seems like the court wanted to forward
this hot potato to the higher courts."

The court has thrown the case out on procedural grounds rather
than on its material facts, referring it on to a higher tribunal.
A further 55,000 people have registered to take part in a second
round, if the lawsuit proceeds.


FIAT CHRYSLER: Faces $5.2BB Suit Over Defective Cars in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reported that Regina lawyer Tony Merchants' firm has
launched a class action lawsuit for $5.2 billion against Fiat
Chrysler.

Earlier, the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
fined the auto maker a record $105 million for poorly executing 23
vehicle safety recalls covering more than 11 million defective
vehicles over several years.

As part of that deal, Fiat Chrysler has been ordered to fix or buy
back 500,000 Ram pickup trucks and 1.5 million Jeeps that that
might be vulnerable in rear-end collisions.

However, Merchant said that fine and recall doesn't affect
vehicles in Canada.

"The Canadian government once again is not on top of protecting
consumers and Canadian car owners face the risk of Americans being
protected both in terms of safety and financial loss, while on
this side of the border, driving exactly the same vehicle, no
protection arises," Merchant said in a news release.

Ken Whitehurst, the executive director for Consumers Council of
Canada, said Canadians often assume consumer protections are
stronger here than in the more business-friendly U.S. in many
areas, including vehicle safety, but the opposite is true.

"Transport Canada doesn't have the powers to act forcefully the
way we see in the United States," he said.

"Canada depends quite a lot on companies for reciprocal action
when it comes to recalls."

Whitehurst said in the past, Canadian companies have mostly played
by the rules and maintained a culture of responsibility, but the
multinational corporations that play an increasingly important
role in the Canadian economy are indifferent.

A national class action has been issued regarding Chrysler Fiat
from the Merchant Law Group Montreal office. The firm will be
issuing claims in Ontario and B.C. and in Saskatchewan and Nova
Scotia.

There are 25 categories of vehicles listed in the statement of
claim, which contains allegations which have not been proven in
court.


FIRST STEP: Faces "Fraylich" Suit in N.Y. Over FDCPA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sevi Fraylich, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. First Step Group, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-
04597 (E.D.N.Y., August 5, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces "Gutman" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brana Gutman, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Firstsource Advantage, LLC, Case No. 1:15-
cv-04598 (E.D.N.Y., August 5, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FOOD COURT: Faces "Costa" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alberto Cerqueira De Araujo Costa and all others similarly
situated v. Food Court by Brazilian Depot, Inc., Denise V. De
Oliveira and Erlocio De Oliveira, Case No. 0:15-cv-61613-WJZ (S.D.
Fla., August 5, 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 restaurant in Miami 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


GC SERVICES: Faces "Kausar" Suit in N.J. Over FDCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rukhsana Kausar, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. GC Services Limited Partnership, Case No. 2:15-cv-
06027-ES-JAD (D.N.J., August 5, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan Leyland Gentile, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA PC
      110 Jericho Turnpike-Suite 100
      Floral Park, NY 11001
      Telephone: (201) 873-7675
      E-mail: rlg@lawgmf.com


GENERAL MOTORS: JPMorgan Sued Over Mistake in Loan
--------------------------------------------------
Ellen Rosen, writing for Bloomberg Business, reported that one of
the participants in a $1.5 billion term loan that JPMorgan Chase &
Co. made to General Motors Corp. before its bankruptcy is now
suing the bank and its lawyers at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.

The reason: a mistake in the recording of the security interest in
the loan, initially made by an associate at Mayer Brown LLP but
not caught by those reviewing the documents at both JPMorgan and
Simpson Thacher. That mistake eradicated the security interest
that would have paid the loan in full despite the carmaker's
bankruptcy in 2009.

The Employees' Retirement System of the City of Montgomery,
Alabama, filed a class action on July 30 in federal court in
Manhattan against the bank and Simpson Thacher. The pension fund
wants to represent what it says are 400 participants in the term
loan.

Because the lawsuit could run up against the statute of
limitations, the plaintiffs are saying that the bank hadn't
notified the participants about the error. The pension fund claims
it was unaware of the mistake until May, when it was served with a
lawsuit to recover payments made on the loan.

The retirement system is asserting claims for breach of contract
and gross negligence against the bank as agent on the loan, and is
suing Simpson Thacher for malpractice.

The bank didn't immediately return a call seeking comment on the
lawsuit. Simpson Thacher declined to comment. Mayer Brown wasn't
named as a defendant in the suit.

The lawsuit is Employees' Retirement System of the City of
Montgomery v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA, 15-6002, U.S. District
Court, Southern District of New York (Manhattan).


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

To: All Persons or Entities who purchased Health Net, Inc. stock
prior to July 2, 2015.

You are hereby notified that a class action has been commenced in
Delaware state court challenging the fairness of the sale of
Health Net, Inc. HNT, +0.57% to Centene Corporation CNC, +0.29%
for 0.622 shares of Centene common stock and $28.25 in cash for
each share of Health Net common stock 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.

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 lawsuits and have recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for aggrieved shareholders. For more information, please
feel free to contact any of the attorneys listed below. Attorney
advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT:

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
30 Broad St., 24th FL New York, NY 10004
Toll free. 877-363-5972
T. 212-363-7500
F. 212-363-7171
jlevi@zlk.com


HERBALIFE LTD: Judge Dismisses 'Pyramid Scheme' Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reported that a federal
judge has dismissed a lawsuit accusing Herbalife Ltd (HLF.N) and
its chief executive officer of misrepresenting the weight-loss and
nutritional products maker's sales practices as legitimate when
the company was "at its core" a pyramid scheme.

U.S. District Judge Dale Fischer in Los Angeles, who dismissed a
version of the complaint in March, said on the Oklahoma
Firefighters Pension and Retirement System did not show the
defendants defrauded shareholders by concealing the company's
inability to track retail sales.

The judge also said that CEO Michael Johnson's reducing his
Herbalife stake by a net 12 percent over roughly one year, while
"undeniably large," did not raise suspicions, nor did disclosures
that top executives expected "some form of disciplinary action"
over the company's business practices.

"Herbalife openly disclosed that it was susceptible to legal
challenge precisely because its practices occupy the gray area
between legitimate multi-level marketing company and illegal
pyramid scheme," Fischer wrote.

The lawsuit seeks class-action status from Feb. 23, 2011 and March
10, 2014. Fischer said the plaintiff may file an amended complaint
by Aug. 27.

"We are disappointed with the ruling and will determine our next
steps after consultation with the client," Maya Saxena, a lawyer
for the Oklahoma fund, said in an email.

Herbalife did not immediately respond to requests for comment
about the ruling. It has denied wrongdoing.

A pyramid scheme often occurs when participants earn more money by
recruiting others to sell products than by selling the products.

Billionaire hedge fund manager William Ackman has also accused
Herbalife of being a pyramid scheme. He said in December 2012 that
his firm, Pershing Square Capital Management LP, had made a $1
billion bet against Los Angeles-based Herbalife.

In May, another federal judge granted final approval to
Herbalife's $15 million settlement with distributors who said the
company misled them.

Herbalife shares added 0.1 percent to $50.66 in trading, and
remained above levels at the time Ackman revealed his short bet.

The case is In re: Herbalife Ltd Securities Litigation, U.S.
District Court, Central District of California, No. 14-02850.


HOUSTON AMERICAN: Texas Court Dismisses Shareholder Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Houston American Energy Corp. (NYSE MKT: HUSA) announced that the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
has rendered a Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with
Prejudice in the company's previously pending shareholder class
action lawsuit.

The judgment approved the previously announced settlement of the
suit pursuant to which the company's insurance company funded the
full cost of settling the claims comprising the class action
lawsuit.

               About Houston American Energy Corp.

Based in Houston, Texas, Houston American Energy Corp is an
independent energy company with interests in oil and natural gas
wells and prospects. The Company's business strategy includes a
property mix of producing and non-producing assets with a focus on
Colombia, Texas and Louisiana. Additional information can be
accessed by reviewing our Form 10-K and other periodic reports
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


ICONIX BRAND: Lieff Cabraser Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, reminds
investors of the upcoming deadline to move for appointment as lead
plaintiff in securities class litigation brought on behalf of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
Iconix Brand Group, Inc. ("Iconix" or the "Company")
(NasdaqGS:ICON) between February 20, 2013 and April 17, 2015,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Iconix securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead
plaintiff by no later than August 24, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the action
will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.

Iconix investors who wish to learn more about the action and how
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should contact Sharon M. Lee
of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358.

The actions allege that defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the
Company had underreported the cost basis of its brands; (2) 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 (3) as a result, the Company's earnings
and revenues were overstated.

After the market closed on March 30, 2015, the Company announced
that its Chief Financial Officer, Jeff Lupinacci, had resigned
effective that day. On this news, the price of Iconix shares fell
$2.72 per share, or 7.47%, to close at $33.67 per share on March
31, 2015, on elevated trading volume.

On April 20, 2015, Roth Capital Partners published an Equity
Research Note, criticizing the Company's alleged accounting
irregularities concerning free-cash flow accounting, organic
growth, and gains on licensing fees. On this news, the price of
Iconix shares declined $6.62 per share, or 20.67%, to close at
$25.41 per share on April 20, 2015, on extremely high trading
volume.

                      About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP is a nationally recognized
law firm committed to advancing investor rights and promoting
corporate responsibility.

For twelve years, the National Law Journal has selected Lieff
Cabraser as one of the top plaintiffs' law firms in the nation.
Best Lawyers and U.S. News have also named Lieff Cabraser as a
"Law Firm of the Year" each year the publications have given this
award to law firms, including in 2015.

For more information about Lieff Cabraser and the firm's
representation of investors, please visit
http://www.lieffcabraser.com.

CONTACT:

Sharon M. Lee, Esq.
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor San Francisco, CA
94111-3339
Phone: 415.956.1000
Fax: 415.956.1008
www.lieffcabraser.com/


JEFFERSON COUNTY, AL: Class Suit Filed Over One-Cent Sales Tax
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sherea Harris, writing for Fox6 WBRC, reported that some Alabama
lawmakers were blistering Jefferson County commissioners and
fellow lawmakers over the proposed extension of the county's one-
cent sales tax.

This whole fight is heading to court because of a new lawsuit
filed to try and stop the tax.

State Representative John Rogers says the county illegally signed
off on extending the one-cent sales tax. He says lawmakers should
have never approved it because it's unconstitutional.

The Committee to Save Jefferson County filed a class action
lawsuit to stop the county from passing the planned extension.

State Representatives John Rogers and Mary Moore held a news
conference on about the matter.

The 30 year extension of the sales tax would generate money for
county services but Rogers says by law the sales tax money can
only be used for public school purposes and he says that's what
makes the tax extension illegal.

"It's a shame," Rogers said. "I don't mind them doing it, but do
it right. It's wrong what they're doing. They put us back for 30
years. It's a whole new tax on the backs of the poor in Jefferson
County. Then on top of that the governor wants to raise taxes, all
the other taxes. It's wrong. We intend to stop them."

Rogers says voters should have decided on the sales tax extension.
He says the sewer tax on top of the new one-cent sales tax are
damaging to the Jefferson County economy.

Rogers says commissioners are desperate for money and they're
breaking laws to get it.


KEYUAN PETROCHEMICALS: Oct. 9 Hearing on $2.6-Mil. Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. announces that the United States District
Court Southern District of New York has approved the following
announcement of a proposed class action settlement that would
benefit purchasers of securities of Keyuan Petrochemical, Inc.
(OTCMKTS:KEYP):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED (A) KEYUAN PETROCHEMICALS, INC.
("KEYUAN") COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM AUGUST 16, 2010
THROUGH OCTOBER 7, 2011, INCLUSIVE AND/OR (B) KEYUAN SECURITIES
PURSUANT TO THE CONFIDENTIAL PRIVATE OFFERING MEMORANDUM DATED
MARCH 22, 2010 CONSISTING OF PURCHASERS IN THE FIRST TRANCHE THAT
CLOSED ON APRIL 22, 2010 AND THE SECOND TRANCHE THAT CLOSED ON MAY
18, 2010.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, that a
hearing will be held on October 9, 2015 at 10:00 a.m. before the
Honorable Paul A. Crotty, United States District Judge of the
Southern District of New York, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 14C,
New York, New York, 10007-1312 (the "Settlement Hearing") for the
purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement
consisting of the sum of $2,650,000 should be approved by the
Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) whether the proposed
plan to distribute the settlement proceeds is fair, reasonable,
and adequate; (3) whether the application for an award of
attorneys' fees of $883,333.33 or one-third of the Settlement
Amount and reimbursement of expenses of not more than $70,000 and
an incentive payment of no more than $20,000 to Lead Plaintiffs,
should be approved; and (4) whether the Litigation should be
dismissed with prejudice.

If you purchased (a) Keyuan common stock during the class period
from August 16, 2010 through and including October 7, 2011, and/or
(b) Keyuan securities pursuant to the confidential private
offering memorandum dated March 22, 2010 consisting of purchasers
in the first tranche that closed on April 22, 2010 and the second
tranche that closed on May 18, 2010, your rights may be affected
by the Settlement of this action. If you have not received a
detailed Notice of Pendency and Settlement of Class Action and a
copy of the Proof of Claim and Release, you may obtain copies by
writing to the Claims Administrator: Keyuan Petrochemicals, Inc.
Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N.
Jackson St., Ste. 3, Media, PA 19063 (866-274-4004 (Tel) 610-565-
7985 (Fax); info@strategicclaims.net), or going to the website,
www.strategicclaims.net. If you are a member of the Settlement
Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund, you must submit a Proof of Claim and Release postmarked no
later than September 28, 2015, establishing that you are entitled
to recovery to the Claims Administrator. Unless you submit a
written exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment
rendered in the Litigation whether or not you make a claim. If you
desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must submit a
request for exclusion received no later than September 9, 2015, in
the manner and form explained in the detailed Notice to the Claims
Administrator.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or the Lead
Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses must be in the manner and form explained
in the detailed Notice and received no later than September 19,
2015, to each of the following:

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel:

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


LENSINK AGENCY: Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Byer Clinic of Chiropractic, Ltd., an Illinois corporation,
individually and as the representative of a class of similarly-
situated persons v. Lensink Agency, Inc., Case No. 2015-CH-11752
(Ill. Cir. Ct., August 5, 2015), seeks to stop the Defendant's
practice of sending facsimiles without proper notice.

Lensink Agency, Inc. owns and operates an insurance company with
its principal place of business in Rolling Meadows, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
      David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
      ANDERSON + WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 368-1500
      Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
      E-mail: BWanca@andersonwanca.com
              Doppenheim@andersonwanca.com


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

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

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

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

CONTACT:

Howard G. Smith, Esq.
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com


LIFELOCK INC: Lieff Cabraser Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces
that class action litigation has been brought on behalf of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
LifeLock, Inc. ("LifeLock" or the "Company") between July 30, 2014
and July 20, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you purchased or otherwise acquired LifeLock securities during
the Class Period, you may move the Court for appointment as lead
plaintiff by no later than September 21, 2015. A lead plaintiff is
a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members
in directing the litigation. Your share of any recovery in the
action will not be affected by your decision of whether to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff. You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or
other attorneys, as your counsel in the action.

LifeLock investors who wish to learn more about the action and how
to seek appointment as lead plaintiff should contact Sharon M. Lee
of Lieff Cabraser toll-free at 1-800-541-7358.

Background on the LifeLock Securities Class Litigation

The action charges LifeLock and certain of is senior executives
with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. LifeLock purports to provide identity theft
protection services for consumers and fraud and risk solutions for
enterprises.

The action alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose to
investors: (1) that LifeLock 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 LifeLock falsely advertised
that it protected consumers' sensitive data with the same high-
level safeguards as financial institutions; (3) that LifeLock
failed to meet recordkeeping requirements of its 2010 settlement
with the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") and 35 state attorneys
general concerning LifeLock's allegedly deceptive claims about its
business and services; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,
LifeLock's statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

On July 21, 2015, the FTC announced that LifeLock had violated the
2010 settlement by "continuing to make deceptive claims about its
identity theft protection services, and by failing to take steps
required to protect its users' data." On this news, the price of
LifeLock common stock dropped $7.91 per share, or nearly 50%, from
its closing price on the previous trading day, to close at $8.15
per share on July 21, 2015, on extremely heavy trading volume.

About Lieff Cabraser

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, with offices in San
Francisco, New York, and Nashville, is a nationally recognized law
firm committed to advancing the rights of investors and promoting
corporate responsibility.

The National Law Journal has recognized Lieff Cabraser as one of
the nation's top plaintiffs' law firms for twelve years. In
compiling the list, the National Law Journal examines recent
verdicts and settlements and looked for firms "representing the
best qualities of the plaintiffs' bar and that demonstrated
unusual dedication and creativity." Best Lawyers and U.S. News
have also named Lieff Cabraser as a "Law Firm of the Year" each
year the publications have given this award to law firms,
including in 2015.

CONTACT:

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
Phone: 415.956.1000
Fax: 415.956.1008


LUCA INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Misappropriation of Investor Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jui Tsai Angel Wang, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Luca International Group, LLC, et al., Case
No. BC590537 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 6, 2015), is an action for
damages as a result of the Defendants' misappropriation of
investor funds for personal purposes.

Luca International Group, LLC is a California corporation that
provides management services including the identification of oil
and gas development prospects in exchange for management fees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Long Z. Liu, Esq.
      Yu Ching Tu, Esq.
      Tao Li, Esq.
      Paul P. Cheng, Esq.
      THE LIU LAW FIRM
      529 E. Valley Blvd., Suite 208-A
      San Gabriel, CA 91776
      Telephone: (626) 570-8820
      Facsimile: (815) 331-0657
      E-mail: office@theliulawfirm.com


MAGNETEK INC: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC announces that it is
investigating potential claims against the Board of Directors of
Magnetek, Inc. ("Magnetek" or "the Company") for possible breaches
of fiduciary duty and other violations of state law in connection
with the sale of the Company to Columbus Mckinon Corporation Inc.
("Columbus").

Under the terms of the transaction, Magnetek shareholders will
receive only $50.00 in cash for each share of Magnetek stock they
own. The investigation concerns whether the Board of  Magnetek
breached their fiduciary duties to shareholders and whether
Columbus is underpaying for Magnetek. The transaction may
undervalue the Company given Magnetek recently announced positive
financial results. Specifically, the Company announced for the
first quarter of 2015 net sales of $26.6 million, a 10% increases
year-over-year. It also reported improved gross margins and
earnings per share from continuing operations.

If you own shares of Magnetek and wish to discuss the legal
ramifications of   the investigation, or have any questions, you
may e-mail or call the law office of Brodsky & Smith, LLC who
will, without obligation or cost to you, attempt to answer your
questions. You may contact Jason L. Brodsky, Esquire or Evan J.
Smith, Esquire at Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510,
Bala Cynwyd, PA  19004, by visiting http://brodsky-smith.com/968-
mag-magnetek-inc.html, or calling toll  free 877-LEGAL-90.

Brodsky & Smith, LLC is a litigation law firm with extensive
expertise representing shareholders throughout the nation in
securities and class action lawsuits. The attorneys at Brodsky &
Smith have been appointed by numerous courts throughout the
country to serve as lead counsel in class actions and have
successfully recovered millions of dollars for our clients and
shareholders.

CONTACT:

Jason L. Brodsky, Esq.
Evan J. Smith, Esq.
Brodsky & Smith, LLC
Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510, Bala Cynwyd, PA  19004
toll  free 877-LEGAL-90
http://brodsky-smith.com


MAKER'S MARK: Wins California Labeling Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Shanken News Daily reported that Maker's Mark is toasting a
victory in federal court, after Judge John Houston dismissed a
class action case accusing the Beam Suntory Bourbon brand of false
advertising. Plaintiffs Safora Nowrouzi and Travis Williams had
charged that Maker's Mark's "handmade" label language was
misleading, because the brand uses machines in its production
process. Houston disagreed saying that no reasonable consumer
could have been misled by Maker's Mark's labeling, and that the
use of the term "handmade" does not mandate that no machines be
employed in the brand's production.

The thwarted challenge to Maker's marketing comes amidst a steady
stream of class action labeling suits, in which spirits brands
like Tito's, Templeton Rye and Maker's Mark portfolio mate Jim
Beam have also been targeted. In May, Maker's beat back a similar
case in Florida. Templeton agreed to settle a number of class-
action suits questioning its "Iowa-made" positioning.


MANDALAY BAY: To Pat $100K to Settle Suit Filed by Poker Dealers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Pempus, writing for Card Player, reported that the Mandalay
Bay Resort & Casino on the Las Vegas Strip has agreed to pay
$100,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by a group of poker dealers.
The lawsuit stemmed from the dealers not getting paid for
attending meetings and picking up and dropping off uniforms before
and after work, according to reporting from Courthouse News
Service.

A total of 66 poker dealers will be compensated, according to the
settlement.

The casino didn't admit to any wrongdoing in the matter.


MASSAGE ENVY: Objectors Want More Than Massages From Class Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that a proposed
class action settlement that provides massages to class members
and nearly $8 million to attorneys is facing resistance.

On June 29, 16 objections were filed in a 2012 case brought by
plaintiffs Gail Hahn, Chaille Duncan and Alexis Hernandez against
Massage Envy. The suit, filed in San Diego federal court, alleges
the company wrongly would not honor monthly 50-minute massages
that customers did not use before they cancelled their membership.

Former members of Massage Envy would receive a six-month
reinstatement of approximately 75 percent of the unused massages.

One objector is Fumiko Robinson, who filed her own class action
lawsuit against the company in late 2014 in Florida. Her lawsuit
has been stayed while the court ponders the Hahn settlement.

Robinson, who says she has five massages owed to her, is upset
that there is no monetary relief for class members in the proposed
settlement.

"Class members should be entitled to reimbursement of their
purchase price for all forfeited massages," wrote Robinson's
attorneys, Benjamin Lopatin and Joshua Eggnatz of Eggnatz, Lopatin
& Pascucci.

"At the time the Hahn settlement was reached, there was a
potential for monetary recovery -- as a result of the settlement,
there is not. If the Hahn settlement is approved, it may
eviscerate class members' rights nationwide to obtain financial
relief."

Class members should at least be able to choose a refund or the
massages, Robinson feels. Her attorneys also wrote that 100
percent -- not 75 -- of the forfeited massages should be
reinstated, and that class members should have seven -- not six --
months to use them.

Robinson also objects to a provision that requires Massage Envy to
make certain disclosures for two years.

"There is no legitimate reason to agree for Massage Envy to be
able to resume its unfair business practice that this Court has
already granted summary judgment against after two years,"
Robinson's attorneys wrote.

Another objector took issue with the amount of attorneys fees
requested by the plaintiffs' counsel.

Clifford Hardwick also filed his objection on June 29. He called
it a "coupon settlement" that will disenfranchise Massage Envy
clients who no longer want to transact any business with the
company.

"(T)he proposed settlement is not fair nor reasonable in that
class members such as Mr. Hardwick who no longer wish to utilize
the services of Massage Envy will get no benefit," wrote
Hardwick's attorney, Steve Miller of Denver.

Hardwick argues that the attorneys fees request of $7.8 million
should be rejected because it isn't based on the number of
vouchers that will actually be redeemed.

The class action attorneys are claiming the value of the
settlement is between $179 million and $225 million, which assumes
nearly 100 percent of the vouchers are redeemed, Hardwick claims.

"Class counsel boasts that its fee is less than three percent of
the value of the settlement to the class," Hardwick's objection
says.

"Class counsel further argues that the percentage it seeks as fees
is well below the 25 percent benchmark used in this circuit.

"However, without actual data as to the percentage of former
members who not only request reinstatement of unutilized massages
but who also actually go into a Massage Envy location to take
advantage of the reinstated massage, class counsel's valuation is
nothing more than voodoo economics."

Attorneys for the Hahn class -- Jeffrey Krinsk, Mark Knutson and
William Restis - filed a response on Friday. Their response says
there were 32 objectors out of 2.68 million class members who were
provided notice of the proposed settlement.

Their response says Hardwick's attorney is "a recognized serial
objector."

"Hardwick's objections boil down to a disagreement over the value
of the class claims and the bona fides of the requested attorneys'
fees," the response says.

According to a website created by the class action firm Anderson +
Wanca, Miller has objected to nine class action settlements as an
attorney.

The response of Krinsk and his colleagues also addressed
Robinson's objections, claiming the settlement is fair and
reasonable.

"Here, despite claiming that the Representatives could have done
better, none of the objectors state that the ability to redeem
prepaid massages, three-fourths of which were previously forfeited
to Massage Envy, is not a real and substantial benefit," the
response says.

"Indeed, this settlement provides former Massage Envy members with
exactly what they paid for but failed to receive."

The plaintiffs attorneys also filed a supplemental brief
addressing the valuation of the settlement that defends its fees
request. It says their approach to calculating their fees mirrors
what is done in an ordinary common fund case.

According to court records, Hahn recently passed away.


MAXSMART INC: Faces "Garner" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Garner v. Maxsmart, Inc., d/b/a Premiere Event, Michael
David Palance and Melanie Palance, Case No. 2:15-cv-01504-DKD (D.
Ariz., August 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants operate Premiere Event, a weeklong child talent
showcase which allows children the opportunity to meet directly
with talent agents, managers, and industry professionals who
specialize in children's programming.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MCCORMICK & COMPANY: Faces Suit Over Black Pepper Products
----------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Esparza, and all others similarly-situated v. McCormick &
Company, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-05823 (C.D. Cal., August 1, 2015),
is brought against the Defendant in violation of California Unfair
Competition Law, Business and Professions Code section 17200, et
seq. and California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Civil
Code sections 1750, et seq.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff purchased a tin of
McCormick Pure Ground Black Pepper, believing it was substantially
filled to capacity. She subsequently learned that the product
actually contained only approximately 3 ounces net weight of
ground black pepper. The Plaintiff said she would not have
purchased, or would not have paid what she did for the product,
had she known that it was substantially underfilled.

Headquartered in Sparks, Maryland, McCormick & Company, Inc.
manufactures, markets, and distributes spices, seasoning mixes,
condiments, and other flavor products to the entire food industry,
including retail outlets, food manufacturers, and food services
businesses.  McCormick manufactures, supplies, markets, and
distributes the pepper products at issue in the lawsuit.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher P. Ridout, Esq.
      RIDOUT MARKER & OTTOSON LLP
      555 East Ocean Blvd., Ste. 500
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Tel: (877) 500-8780
      Fax: (877) 500-8781
      E-mail: cpr@ridoutmarker.com

          - and -

      Bradley C. Burhow, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN REED, PLLP
      14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Ste. 145
      Scottsdale, AZ 85254
      Tel: (480) 348-6400
      Fax: (480) 348-6415
      E-mail: brad.buhrow@zimmreed.com


MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Sued Over Security Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------
News Sentinel reported that an Indianapolis man filed a class
action suit in U.S. District Court against a medical information
storage company whose data was breached in May, according to court
documents filed in the case.

James Young is suing on behalf of himself and all others affected
by a security breach of medical information from Medical
Informatics Engineering (MIE), an electronic health records
company headquartered in Fort Wayne, responsible for storing
personal and financial information of their clients' patients.

The breach took place between May 7 and 26, but MIE waited until
June 10 to announce that it was the victim of a breach, and
letters only were mailed within the and a half.

Hackers received patients' personal information, such as mailing
addresses, telephone numbers, usernames, hashed passwords, spousal
information, date of birth and Social Security numbers. Medical
information that was hacked included lab results, health insurance
police information, diagnoses, disability codes, doctor's names,
medical conditions, children's names and birth statistics.

Young contends in the lawsuit that MIE failed to protect its data
systems, failed to prevent and stop the breach from happening,
failed to disclose to its customers the material facts that it did
not have adequate security practices, and failed to provide timely
notice of the breach, which has caused substantial consumer harm
and injuries to consumers by exposing them to fraud and identity
theft.

Young also contends the lawsuit falls under the Class Action
Fairness Act because more than 100 class members are involved and
the amount of the controversy exceeds $5 million and man members
of the class reside in different states from MIE.


MIAMI-DADE, FL: Sued Over Unlawful Credit Card Receipt Printing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nataly Cano Lopez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Miami-Dade County and System Innovators, Inc., Case
No. 1:15-cv-22943-MGC (S.D. Fla., August 5, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the Fair and Accurate
Credit Transactions Act, specifically by printing more than the
last five digits of the credit/debt card number or the expiration
dates on receipts provided to all cardholders.

Miami-Dade County is a government entity located within the State
of Florida.

System Innovators, Inc. develops and implements online cashiering
and collections systems for local government agencies and utility
companies across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David P. Milian, Esq.
      Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
      1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 372-7474
      Facsimile: (305) 372-7475
      E-mail: dmilian@careyrodriguez.com
              fhedin@careyrodriguez.com


MODERN HOSPITALITY: "Perez" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Armando Martinez Perez, and all others similarly-situated v.
Modern Hospitality Group Corp. dba Jax Inn Diner, Peter
Giannopoulos, Anastasios Giannopoulos, Antonios Giannopoulos, and
John Does #1-10, Case No. 1:15-cv-04469 (E.D.N.Y., July 31, 2015),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a casual diner located in Jackson
Heights, New York doing business as Jax Inn Diner.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Stein, Esq.
      SAMUEL & STEIN
      38 West 32nd St., Ste 1110
      New York, NY 10001
      Tel: (212) 563-9884
      E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com


MONEYGRAM INT'L: GPM Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces that a class action
has been filed on behalf of investors of MoneyGram International
Inc. (NASDAQ:MGI) ("MoneyGram" or "the Company") concerning the
Company's and its officers' possible violations of federal
securities laws.

According to the lawsuit, the Company violated federal securities
laws by misleading investors regarding its critical partner's,
Wal-Mart Stores, decision to introduce a competing money transfer
and financial services provider in all of its current wire
transfer locations across the United States. On April 17, 2014,
shortly after completing a secondary offering of MoneyGram shares,
MoneyGram disclosed for the first time the decision by Wal-Mart to
introduce competing products across the U.S., causing the value of
MoneyGram shares to decline in one day by almost 30% to close on
April 17, 2014 at $12.58 per share.

If you purchased shares of MoneyGram pursuant to the Company's
Secondary Offering on or around March 27, 2014, have information
or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact Casey Sadler, of
Glancy Prongay & Murray, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los
Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-
9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website
at http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email please
include your mailing address, telephone number and number of
shares purchased.

CONTACT:

Lesley Portnoy, Esq
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
1925 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 201-9150
Toll-free: (888) 773-9224
Fax: (310) 432-1495
info@glancylaw.com


NAT'L HOCKEY: Ordered to Turn Over Injury and Concussion Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rick Westhead, writing for TSN, reported that the National Hockey
League has been ordered by a judge to turn over reams of data
about player injuries and concussions to lawyers representing
former NHL players who are suing the league.

The roughly 80 former players who are suing the NHL, including
Bernie Nicholls, Gary Leeman and Butch Goring, allege NHL and team
executives knew or ought to have known about the links between
head trauma and long-term cognitive problems but failed to do
enough to protect players, all the while profiting from the
violence of hockey.

The NHL has argued interested players could have read medical
research and news reports on their own and put "two and two
together" about the dangers of repeated head hits and concussions.

In an order, U.S. Federal Court judge Susan Nelson agreed to some
but not all of the requests for discovery filed by the former
players' lawyers.

"The Court finds that the (NHL's) blanket application of the
physician-patient privilege -- protecting all medical data from
disclosure -- is inapplicable here," the judge wrote in her
ruling.

"The clubs are ordered to produce any internal reports, studies,
analyses and databases in their possession (whether initiated by
the U.S. clubs, NHL, or retained researchers) for the purpose of
studying concussions in de-identified form. The U.S. clubs shall
produce any responsive correspondence and/or emails between
themselves, themselves and the NHL, or with any research or other
professional about the study of concussions."

Players' names will be redacted from any data disclosed and
lawyers for the former players have been ordered not to re-
identify or "reverse engineer" any data to try to discern the
identity of players.

Since 2006, the NHL has maintained a so-called video analysis
spreadsheet that includes video footage of particular players
sustaining hits to the head.

The NHL had argued the video clips should be privileged and not
included in the data the league will have to turn over.

"The Court disagrees that the video clips are privileged," the
judge wrote. "They are several steps removed from the physician-
patient privilege and statutory privileges."

The former NHL players filed the suit in November 2013 after a
group of nearly 4,500 former NFL players reached a settlement with
the NFL over similar concussion-related complaints. The NHL case
is being heard in Minnesota.

The hockey lawsuit has not been certified as a class action. If a
judge does grant the case class-action status, which some lawyers
say is uncertain, the case could involve several thousand former
NHL players, unless they opt out.

Earlier, lawyers for the former players suing the NHL asked that
the league be forced to turn over any records -- whether they be
emails, reports, telegrams or phonographs -- that relate to head
trauma records since 1967.

In court filings, the players claim they are not seeking the
"wholesale discovery of player medical files, but rather documents
that simply relate to player concussions including data
compilations, data analyses, internal memos, policies and emails
between non-medical personnel. These documents, by nature, do not
constitute private medical records."

The NHL had earlier written in its own submissions that disclosing
players' medical information would amount to a privacy violation.
The league also said any disclosures might have a chilling effect
on players' participation in the league's concussion program, and
said players might be reluctant to disclose medical information to
doctors if information were disclosed.

The NHL has said even if a judge ordered the league to produce all
of the relevant documents, compliance would be extremely difficult
and expensive, totaling about $13.5 million for the 23 U.S.-based
clubs involved with the court motion.

The judge's ruling also detailed how contentious the legal battle
between the NHL and its former employees has become - the two
sides even battled over whether a player's native language and
playing position should be disclosed or redacted in the concussion
data turned over by the league and its teams.

"Regarding language, the NHL likewise argues that because English
and French are the most common language spoken by the players, a
player's identity could be determined by revealing a specific
language other than English or French," the judge wrote, adding
that the NHL "therefore proposes to de-identify language data as
'other' for those languages in which there are fewer than 100
database entries. The Court orders that a player's position is not
sufficiently 'identifying' to warrant redaction. With respect to
language spoken, (the NHL's) proposal is acceptable."

NHL commissioner Gary Bettman was deposed for eight hours in New
York as part of the lawsuit. Stephen Grygiel, a Baltimore lawyer
who also worked on the NFL concussion litigation, questioned him.
Bettman's sworn testimony is under seal for now.


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP filed a class action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of
shareholders (the "Class") who purchased shares of Nationstar
Mortgage Holdings, Inc. ("Nationstar" or the "Company") common
stock (the "Class") between February 27, 2014 and May 4, 2015 (the
"Class Period").

The complaint charges Nationstar and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Nationstar is the nation's second largest non-bank subprime
mortgage servicer. Nationstar began to grow its portfolio in early
2014 by purchasing mortgage servicing rights ("MSRs") from other
non-bank sub-prime mortgage servicers and from bank entities who
no longer wanted to service their own portfolios due to increased
regulatory scrutiny.

Nationstar failed to disclose deficiencies in management control
and supervision necessary to ensure the Company's compliance with
applicable laws and regulations in connection with the servicing
of MSRs, and that Nationstar had been gouging mortgagors and
illegally enhancing its profits through illicit practices, such as
charging for repeated, unnecessary inspections, which resulted in
additional late payment fees, and pressuring mortgagors to carry
out expensive modifications and refinances on their mortgages.

The complaint alleges that due to a series of partial disclosures
starting in late 2014, the price of Nationstar common stock began
to decline as the truth about the Company was slowly revealed to
the market. Tellingly, Nationstar completed a $500 million stock
offering in late March 2015 -- only weeks before the Company's
stock imploded on May 5, 2015. On that day, Nationstar reported
poor first quarter 2015 financial results -- caused largely by a
$110 million ($0.77 per share) write-down on the value of the
Company's MSRs. As a result, Nationstar stock plummeted from a May
4, 2015 close of $26.17 to close on May 5, 2015 at only $19.51.
Investors lost millions of dollars as a result.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members
who invested in Nationstar common stock during the Class Period.
If you invested in Nationstar common stock as described above and
lost money 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 Nationstar
shareholder and/or have information relating to the matter, please
contact Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. at (877) 779-1414 or
seidman@bernlieb.com.

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.

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

CONTACT:

Joseph R. Seidman, Jr. Esq.
Bernstein Liebhard LLP
10 East 40th Street New York, NY 10016
Tel. 212.779.1414
Fax 212.779.3218
Toll Free 877.779.1414
www.bernlieb.com


NEW SOUTH WALES: Police Settles Illegal Detention Suit for $1.8MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Bibby, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reported that
the New South Wales police force has agreed to pay a total of
$1.85 million to scores of young people across the state who have
been wrongfully arrested, imprisoned and in some cases strip-
searched due to errors in the police database.

More than four years after a class action was launched in the NSW
Supreme Court on behalf of the youths, lawyers for the police
agreed to an in-principle settlement under which each person
receives compensation according to the harm they have suffered.

"It's been absolutely crystal clear that there was a major problem
in the COPS database and that young people were being very, very
badly affected by it," said Edward Santow, the CEO of the Public
Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) which helped run the case.

"There was both a moral and a legal obligation to resolve the
problem and to assist those young people who were badly affected."

As many as 100 people were victims of basic errors in the Computer
Operational Policing System (COPS) in relation to bail status and
conditions.

The errors occurred when bail conditions were either dropped
because a case was finalised, or varied to allow for work, study
or family commitments, but this change was not added to the
database.

As a result the young people involved were wrongly arrested for
breaching bail.

One person involved in the class action, Musa Konneh, was wrongly
arrested, handcuffed and then driven to the Penrith court cells
where he was strip-searched and kept overnight.

The next day the court was forced to apologise and immediately
release him.

"It certainly has made him fearful of the police, but it has also
made it very hard for him to settle into a conventional life --
furthering his education, getting a job," Mr Santow said.

"Given that his initial offence was riding on the train without a
ticket it's a very unfortunate outcome."

Criminology expert Melanie Schwartz said there was strong evidence
to show that being wrongfully detained had a significant negative
impact on how young people viewed the law and authority figures.

"Generally a person will grow out of offending behaviour, but when
there's an injustice bound up with their contact there can be an
increase in tension between the young person and police which is
ongoing," said Ms Schwartz, a senior lecturer at the University of
NSW law school.

During the class action the court heard that problems with COPS
dated back to at least 2008.

Numerous representations were made to the highest levels of the
NSW government in an attempt to resolve the issues before the
class action was launched in 2010 by PIAC and Sydney law firm
Maurice Blackburn.

The police have now accepted liability for the wrongful detention
of many but not all the youth involved.

While PIAC welcomed settlement, it expressed concern at the amount
of time it had taken for the legal action to be resolved.

"To allow the problem to fester for so many years has been
devastating," Mr Santow said.

"Working with the clients we've seen those negative effects
accumulated."

He also said the organisation was continuing to receive reports of
issues with the database system and that it had seen "nothing
indicating that it has been fixed".

A spokesman for NSW police said that since the issues with COPS
had first been identified significant work had been done to
correct the central cause of the problem, namely the automatic
transfer of bail variation details from the courts database to
that of the police.

It is understood that, in addition to the $1.85 million settlement
pay out, NSW Police is also facing millions of dollars in legal
bills.

The number of young people entitled to compensation is also likely
to increase in the coming months. They have until October 9 to
register for the membership of the class action on the PIAC
website.


NISSAN: Altima Floorboard Rust Leads to Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Carlson, writing for ABC7 WXYZ, reported that
investigators have learned there are hundreds of complaints with
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration or NHTSA from
Nissan Altima owners concerned about rusting in their cars'
floorboards.

Some owners have had it so bad, they could see pavement.

It's affected primarily 2002 to 2006 models.

Now we've learned, a handful of class action lawsuits have been
filed.

"It's all up under here," says Brian Rayburn. He is just one of
the drivers who has joined the suit, after noticing the damage to
his 2005 Altima.

He now faces thousands in repairs. Other face a similar fate.

Despite complaints, NHTSA says the issue is not a safety hazard.
There have been no deaths, so legal action seems to be the only
remedy for folks with the corrosion.

Auto safety expert Bill Williams sees things a little differently.

"Putting their foot through the floor board, getting cut or stuck,
not being able to apply the brake, there's carbon monoxide
concerns," says Williams.

"If you're getting into a frontal or rear collision you could
potentially have your seat not supported properly, so there's a
number of different safety concerns involved with this defect."

"Although these vehicles are 10 to 14 years old, Nissan consumer
affairs will review requests for repair on a case-by-case basis,
considering a number of factors when deciding whether or not to
compensate owners with goodwill payments."

Experts recommend taking your older Altima to a trusted mechanic
for an inspection to see if you have the problem and if so, just
how bad it is.


OPTUMHEALTH BEHAVIORAL: Faces Suit Over Mental Health Insurance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Gold, writing for Kitsap Sun, reported that when Michael
Kamins opened the letter from his insurer, he was enraged.

His 20-year old son recently had been hospitalized twice with
bipolar disorder and rescued from the brink of suicide, he said.
Now, the insurer said he had improved and it was no longer
medically necessary for the young man to see his psychiatrist two
times a week. The company would pay for two visits per month.

"There was steam coming out of my ears," Kamins recalled, his face
reddening at the memory of that day in June 2012. "This is my
kid's life!"

His son again became suicidal and violent, causing him to be
rehospitalized eight months later, said Kamins, a marketing
professor at the State University of New York, Stony Brook. Kamins
is suing the insurer, OptumHealth Behavioral Solutions, which
disputes his version of events and denies that it left the young
man without sufficient care.

Seven years after Congress passed a landmark law banning
discrimination in the treatment of mentally ill people, many
families and their advocates complain it stubbornly persists,
largely because insurers are subverting the law in subtle ways and
the government is not aggressively enforcing it.

The so-called parity law, which was intended to equalize coverage
of mental and other medical conditions, has gone a long way toward
eliminating obvious discrepancies in insurance coverage. Research
shows, for instance, that most insurers have dropped annual limits
on the therapy visits that they will cover. Higher copayments and
separate mental health deductibles have become less of a problem.

But many insurers have continued to limit treatment through other
strategies that are harder to track, according to researchers,
attorneys and other critics. Among the more murky areas is
"medical necessity" review - in which insurers decide whether a
patient requires a certain treatment and at what frequency.

Kamins is among a small group of people around the country to file
lawsuits alleging federal or state parity laws were violated when
patients with mental illness were held to a stricter "medical
necessity" standard than those with other medical conditions.

"'Medical necessity' is the insurers' last hurrah," said Meiram
Bendat, Kamins' attorney, who filed the lawsuit in New York State
court.

Bendat, who is seeking class-action status in the Kamins case and
has filed other parity suits in New York, Illinois and California,
said attorneys are acting because the government won't.

Enforcement of parity laws is lax, he said, and companies are
getting away with skirting their requirements.

In fact, only a handful of states have dug into whether insurers
are complying with parity laws. And in the seven years since the
federal law was passed, the U.S. government has not taken a single
public enforcement action against an insurer or employer for
violating the law.

Clare Krusing, a spokesperson for America's Health Insurance
Plans, the industry's main trade group, said it is "a
misperception" that enforcement has been weak. Insurers are
working closely with federal and state governments, she said, and
"have taken tremendous steps to implement these changes and
requirements in a way that is affordable to patients."

Ensuring that mental health and other medical treatments are
exactly on par is challenging, she said.

"A treatment plan for diabetes or a chronic heart disease is very
different from a treatment plan for a patient that's seeking care
for depression or another mental illness," she said. "It's not a
math formula."

But Henry Harbin, former CEO of Magellan Health, a managed
behavioral health care company, said insurers are taking advantage
of minimal oversight.

"They can micromanage care down to almost nothing," said Harbin,
who also served as Maryland's mental health director before
becoming a consultant. "The enforcement in this area is a joke."

Great Expectations

When it passed in 2008, the federal mental health parity law was
seen as a major achievement for Americans with mental illnesses.

Though some states already had their own parity laws on the books,
there were serious gaps in the protections they offered. This law
was to force insurers across the country to provide the same
access to treatment as they do for cancer, diabetes and other
conditions.

At the time, Sen. Edward Kennedy called the law "historic," and
praised his colleagues for finally ending "the senseless
discrimination in health insurance coverage that plagues persons
living with mental illness."

But enforcement was not assigned to any one agency. Instead, it
fell to the departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and
Treasury, as well as state insurance commissioners.

The Department of Labor, which is responsible for monitoring
health insurance offered by large employers, set up a complaint
line for consumers. Still, advocates say, most consumers don't
know they have new rights, and those that do often don't know
where to turn.

"It gets very complicated for the average person," said Carol
McDaid, who runs the Parity Implementation Coalition, an advocacy
group created to make sure parity laws were properly enforced.

"They're already in a [mental health] crisis, looking for help,
and they don't know if they should write and complain to their
state insurance commissioner, the Department of Labor, the health
department. It gets very difficult."

Since 2010, just 867 of the 1.5 million total health insurance
inquiries made to the Department of Labor had to do with the
parity law, most of which were not complaints, a spokesman for the
department said in May. A total of 140 cases of alleged parity law
violations were found, and they were resolved through "voluntary
compliance," in which the employer agreed to pay for the patient's
services, the spokesman said. He said that the investigators also
requested that the insurers change their broader policies, when
appropriate.

Separately, HHS found 196 possible violations of parity law by
insurers from September 2013 through September 2014, a spokeswoman
said. In each case, she said, plans voluntarily made changes or
told the agency they believed their plan was in compliance with
the law.

No action by a federal agency, however, resulted in a lawsuit,
fine or public announcement.

"Our problem is that these investigations are all kept secret,"
McDaid said. That means the decisions have no effect on what other
employers or insurers do, and consumers don't learn what to look
out for, she said.

Former congressman Patrick Kennedy, one of the authors of the
parity law, said timing was partly to blame for the
administration's sparse enforcement record.

"Parity got kicked down the track until the Obama administration
could get the Affordable Care Act on track," he said. It took five
years for the government to issue final rules explaining exactly
what insurers had to do to comply.

Enforcing laws against insurance companies, he added, was also a
delicate undertaking.

"Insurance companies were part of the coalition that helped bring
the ACA to life, and the administration feels an enormous debt of
gratitude," he said. "It's a challenge politically to then step on
the toes of those that brought them to the dance."

Meanwhile, research points to some continuing inequities in
coverage.

Data compiled on health plans in 2010, the first year of the
national parity law's implementation, found that insurers
frequently reviewed mental health treatment more strictly than
other care. For instance, they more often required
"preauthorization" for doctor visits or made patients "fail first"
at one level of care before getting approval for another.

A study from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
found that a quarter of the plans sold on two state Obamacare
exchanges appeared to violate the federal parity law in various
ways, including requiring higher cost-sharing for mental health.
The states, one large and one small, were not named.

In a 2015 survey by the National Alliance on Mental Illness, an
advocacy group for mentally ill people and their families,
patients said they were denied payment because treatment was
deemed "not medically necessary" twice as often for mental health
as for other medical conditions.

Without strong government enforcement, patients and families say
they are left to their own devices.

But demonstrating that an insurer has violated parity rules
requires a detailed analysis of a plan's mental health and medical
benefits. And though the law requires that insurers disclose those
documents, critics say they often are not complying.

The Parity Implementation Coalition in Washington D.C., has
received hundreds of consumer complaints to its helpline, but
McDaid said virtually none of the health plans have been willing
to release the necessary documents to demonstrate that there has
been a parity violation, she said.

Krusing of the insurers' association insisted that documents are
being made available to patients and providers. "Plans are
committed to being transparent about their coverage decisions,"
she said. Decisions to deny treatment, she said, are based on
ensuring that patients receive care based on the best medical
evidence.

"We are still at a point in the health system where patients face
wide variation in the type of care they're receiving," she said.
"Oftentimes we see tests and procedures done that are costly and
unnecessary for the type of care that they're seeking or even help
or benefit their condition."

The federal government is considering whether to tighten
disclosure rules for insurers. In the meantime, some consumers,
including the Kamins family, are turning to the courts.

Debating What's 'Medically Necessary'

Kamins' son had always been a star, according to his father, who
holds his power of attorney and asked that the young man's first
name be withheld for privacy reasons.

As a boy, he was a quiet but quick-witted jokester, who graduated
fifth in his high school class in 2010, Kamins said.

A few months after heading to an Ivy League college, however, he
was overcome by depression, his father said. His grades slipped.
He began experimenting with drugs. Then, in the spring of 2011, he
tried to kill himself, according to Kamins and the lawsuit.

His parents brought him home to Los Angeles, where the family
lives while Kamins commutes back and forth to New York. The family
has insurance through Kamins' job.

But Kamins said OptumHealth Behavioral Solutions would not cover
inpatient care before his son had tried an outpatient program that
focused on drug addiction.

That marked the first of several violations of parity law,
according to Kamins' lawsuit, which seeks a change in Optum's
policy and reimbursement for benefits denied, plus attorneys'
fees. By requiring the young man to "fail first" at a lower level
of care before paying for more expensive residential treatment,
Optum, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, had created an illegal
obstacle to mental health treatment, the lawsuit alleges.

"Imagine someone going to a hospital and being told you can't get
open-heart surgery in the midst of a heart attack because you
haven't tried aspirin or nitroglycerin first. That's the absurdity
of it," said Bendat, Kamins' lawyer. "It's just a way to
discourage higher levels of care that we would never tolerate in
the non-psychiatric context."

After the addiction program, Optum paid for the young man to see a
psychiatrist a few times a week. His father said he began showing
signs of improvement and seemed on track to return to school back
East.

But in June 2012 - four months after the young man was
hospitalized during a manic episode - the insurer's letter arrived
saying it was no longer "medically necessary" for him to see his
psychiatrist so frequently.

That fall, the suit alleges, Kamins' son tried to return to his
Ivy League school. He found a psychiatrist and began going twice a
month as he had been authorized to do in the letter, Bendat said.
Kamins said he tapped into his retirement fund to pay for extra
visits, but his son spiraled downward.

In court documents, Optum alleges that Kamins' son actually was
entitled to more frequent visits with a new mental health
provider, suggesting that the limitation on visits applied only to
the psychiatrist he had been seeing in California. The insurer
argues that his subsequent hospitalization in February had nothing
to do with limitations put on visits in California.

In a written statement, Optum officials said they "take the mental
health needs of each of our members very seriously, and we are
committed to helping them get care that has shown to be most
effective in helping people overcome and live better with mental
and emotional challenges."

Kamins said that was not his experience.

"The irony in all this is that Optum fights tooth and nail to dole
out care for my son. But had they allowed him upfront to get the
care he needed, he might not have ended up back in the hospital,
which they had to pay for," he said.

As for Kamins' son, he returned to college in the fall of 2013.
His father's employer contracted with a new insurer, which Kamins
said gave the young man greater access to care and helped him
stabilize.

Now 23, he is scheduled to graduate.

Kaiser Health News (KHN) is a national health policy news service.
It is an editorially independent program of the Henry J. Kaiser
Family Foundation.


OTP BANK: ANPC Wins Class Action Against Lender
-----------------------------------------------
Romania's National Consumer Protection Authority - ANPC has won a
class action against local lender OTP Bank, in which the bank's
customers claimed unfair terms in two type of loan contracts.

The lawsuit was initiated by ANPC on behalf of five of the bank's
customers, reports local Agerpres.

The decision is not final, but if another court rules a final
decision deeming the terms are unfair, they will be removed from
all of the bank's similar contracts, in Romanian currency lei,
Swiss franc or euro, according to ANPC.

One of the controversial terms included in the contracts allows
the bank to periodically revise the interest rate in accordance
with its policy, for personal loans guaranteed by mortgages and
mortgage loans, without notifying the customer.


PCI XII LINCOLN: Sued Over Failure to Repair Units' Defects
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Slater v. PCI XII Lincoln Associates, Gallagher & Lindsey,
LLC, Joseph Snell and Does 1-30, Case No. RG15780859 (Cal. Super.
Ct., August 6, 2015), is brought on behalf of the tenants who
suffered emotional distress, physical injury, over-payment of
rent, and out-of-pocket expenses as a result of the Defendants'
failure and refusal to make repairs of the habitability defects to
the subject premises.

The Defendants own and operate a real estate agency doing business
in the County of Alameda, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Wolff, Esq.
      Chris Beatty, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC
      1970 Broadway, Ste. 210
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 834-3300
      Facsimile: (510) 834-3377
      E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com
              chris@awolfflaw.com


PEARCE & DURICK: Faces Class Suit Over Housing Investment Scam
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Dalrymple, writing for Grand Forks Herald, reported that a
second class-action lawsuit alleges that a Bismarck law firm
shares liability for a Bakken housing Ponzi scheme that cost
investors $62 million.

The latest complaint against Pearce & Durick filed in U.S.
District Court names about 10 plaintiffs from various countries
and alleges that the firm actively assisted North Dakota
Developments in offering unregistered securities to the public.

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

Pearce & Durick, the escrow agent for North Dakota Developments,
distributed money from investors to developers according to stages
outlined in an agreement.

The court complaint says the firm dispersed money early without
verifying that the milestones, such as the manufacturing or
installation of modular units, had been met.

"I think Pearce & Durick is fooling themselves if they think they
have no liability," said attorney Joshua Kons of Connecticut, one
of the attorneys representing investors. "They were negligent,
they breached their fiduciary duties and they definitely
participated in these transactions."

Richard Thomas, an Arden Hills, Minn., attorney representing the
Bismarck firm, said the firm denies that it did anything improper.

"Pearce & Durick has been victimized by these same developers who
were victimizing these investors," Thomas said. "Everything that
is alleged in the complaint results from the fact that developers
were misleading us and misinforming us about the status of events,
upon which we relied."

The complaint names about 10 plaintiffs from countries including
the United Kingdom and Australia, but Kons said the case could
cover everyone who invested with North Dakota Developments.

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

"Many of these people were lured in through various online
marketing websites and portals which touted the virtues of
investing in these man camps and how they offered very high
returns for low risk," Kons said.

A separate class action complaint filed makes similar allegations
but defines the plaintiffs as investors who paid legal fees to
Pearce & Durick.

Thomas said it will be up to a judge to decide how to proceed with
the two cases, but typically a judge would want the plaintiffs'
attorneys "to decide who's going to sail the ship."

"You can't have two competing class actions at the same time. It
doesn't make any sense," Thomas said.

Both cases are assigned to U.S. District Court Judge Ralph
Erickson.


PNC BANK: Appeals Court Clears Way for Class-Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bowling, writing for Triblive, reported that an apparently
weary appeals court upheld a federal judge's 2013 decision that
about 22,000 borrowers can pursue a class-action claim of more
than $1 billion against PNC Bank.

The case centers on the dealings of Community Bank of Northern
Virginia, which was based in Sterling, Va. PNC assumed the
liability for the class-action lawsuit when it bought Mercantile
Bankshares Corp. in 2006, a year after that Baltimore-based bank
bought Community Bank.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2005 and 2010 overturned
proposed settlements in the case based on objections from a
substantial number of the affected borrowers.

U.S. District Judge Arthur Schwab in 2013 certified the class of
borrowers who can take their claims to trial. PNC appealed that
decision to the 3rd Circuit, which denied the appeal.

"Thus ends the third and, one hopes, the last quinquennial
presentation of class certification questions to this court in
this case," appellate Judge Kent A. Jordan wrote at the end of the
62-page opinion.

A PNC representative couldn't be reached for comment.

The plaintiffs claim that Community Bank conspired with a mortgage
brokerage firm that sent out direct mailings seeking people who
wanted to take out a second mortgage. The firm referred the
borrowers to the bank, the lawsuit says.

The bank acted as if it handled the loans, but it kicked back most
of the loan-related fees to the brokerage firm, the lawsuit says.
The bank charged the borrowers excessive fees and, in some cases,
fees for services it didn't provide, the lawsuit says.


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Elk River Joins Class Suit Over Flushable Wipes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joni Astrup, writing for Star News, reported that the city of Elk
River has joined other cities in a class action lawsuit against
the makers of flushable wet wipes.

The Elk River City Council agreed July 20 to join the suit. The
city of Wyoming had filed the federal class action lawsuit in
April against the makers of several kinds of wet wipes, alleging
that wipes billed as "flushable" were clogging the city's sewer
system.

Mayor John Dietz asked what the cost of joining the lawsuit would
be to the city.

Garrett Blanchfield of Reinhardt, Wendorf and Blanchfield in St.
Paul, one of the firms involved in the litigation, said there is
no cost to the city.

"We bring these on a contingent fee basis," Blanchfield said. "So
at the end of the day, if we're successful and we get a pot of
money for all the cities that have been injured or damaged, we
would go to the court and say we would like a percent of that
amount."

The suit also seeks a declaration that the wipes in question are
not flushable and an order for the companies to stop advertising
the wipes as flushable.

Elk River is one of a number of area cities to join the class
action suit. Among the others in addition to Wyoming are
Princeton, Fergus Falls, Mankato and Perham in Minnesota and
Holmen in Wisconsin.


QRX PHARMA: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
that the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers
of QRx Pharma, Ltd. (OTC:QRXPY) (OTC:QRXPF) American Depository
Shares from January 24, 2011 through April 23, 2014, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for QRx Pharma investors under the federal securities
laws.

To join the QRx Pharma class action, go to the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-654.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 the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

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, the Company made false and/or misleading
statements concerning the commercial prospects for its
experimental drug Moxduo. Specifically, the Company failed to
disclose that it received a "no agreement letter" from the FDA
regarding its trials for Moxduo. When the true details entered the
market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
August 24, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-654.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.

CONTACT:

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
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
pkim@rosenlegal.com
kchan@rosenlegal.com


SERVICESOURCE INT'L: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, announces that
a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of
ServiceSource International, Inc. securities during the period
from January 22, 2014 through May 1, 2014. The lawsuit seeks to
recover damages for ServiceSource investors under the federal
securities laws.

According the suit, ServiceSource made false and/or misleading
statements concerning ServiceSource's true business condition
enabling certain insiders to sell their ServiceSource shares at
artificially-elevated prices. The suit claims that Mike Smerklo,
President and CEO of ServiceSource, received millions of dollars
in cash bonuses and other benefits as a consequence of this fraud.
When these adverse facts were learned by the market, the complaint
alleges that ServiceSource 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 8, 2015. If you wish to join the class action and
recover your losses, go to the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-680.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.

CONTACT:

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
Toll Free: 866-767-3653
Fax: 212-202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
kchan@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com


SERVICESOURCE INT'L: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of ServiceSource International, Inc. ("ServiceSource")
(NASDAQ:SREV) between January 22, 2014 and May 1, 2014.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
commenced in the USDC for the Northern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of ServiceSource securities between January
22, 2014 and May 1, 2014, your rights may be affected by this
action. To get more information go
tohttp://zlk.9nl.com/servicesource-international-srevor 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 throughout the Class Period defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and management which caused the
stock price to inflate, allowing certain insiders to sell their
ServiceSource stock at artificially-inflated prices and allowing
Defendant Mike Smerklo, President and CEO of ServiceSource, to
obtain millions of dollars in cash bonuses and other perks.

If you suffered a loss in ServiceSource you have until September
8, 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.

CONTACT:

Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
30 Broad St., 24th FL New York, NY 10004
Toll free. 877-363-5972
T. 212-363-7500
F. 212-363-7171
jlevi@zlk.com


SHAW ENVIRONMENTAL: Faces "Wrobel" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Piotr Wrobel and Tomasz Stankiewicz, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. Shaw Environmental &
Infrastructure Engineering of New York, P.C., Biltmore General
Contractors, Inc. and PMJ Electrical Corp., Case No. 652382/2015
(N.Y. Sup Ct., August 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the New York
State Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
      Jack Newhouse, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad St, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com
              jnewhouse@vandallp.com


SIKH CENTER: Illegally Refuses Members' Enrollment, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mohinder Singh, et al. v. Sikh Center of New York, Inc., Hardev
Singh Padda and Tirath Singh, Case No. 9566/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct.,
August 6, 2015), seeks to restrain and enjoin the Defendants from
engaging in an unauthorized termination or refusal to enroll
members and qualified worshipers of Sikh Center of New York, Inc.

Sikh Center of New York, Inc. operates the Hindu Temple Society of
North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael R. Curran, Esq.
      98-120 Queens Blvd Suite 1C
      Rego Park, NY 11374
      Telephone: (718) 830-7741


SILVER WHEATON: Sept. 8 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
---------------------------------------------------
Morgan & Morgan reminds investors that securities class actions
have been filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of Silver
Wheaton Corp. ("Silver Wheaton" or the "Company") (NYSE:SLW)
securities from March 30, 2011 through July 6, 2015, all dates
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover
damages for Silver Wheaton investors under the federal securities
laws.

If you purchased Silver Wheaton securities during the Class
Period, you may, no later than September 8, 2015, request that the
Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the proposed class. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party that acts on behalf of all
class members in directing the litigation. 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.

If you want more information about the Silver Wheaton Securities
Class Action, contact Morgan & Morgan at 1(800) 732-5200 or email
info@morgansecuritieslaw.com

The complaints allege that the Company and its executives violated
federal securities laws by failing to disclose that Silver Wheaton
lacked adequate internal accounting controls over its financial
reporting. Due to these inadequacies, the Company's financial
statements contained errors concerning income tax owed from the
income generated by its foreign subsidiaries.

On July 6, 2015, the Company reported that it would be audited by
the Canada Revenue Agency to reassess its earnings from foreign
subsidiaries. The Company expects to pay approximately $150
million in taxes and another $57 million in penalties after the
Agency has estimated that the Company's reported income from its
foreign subsidiaries should have been $567 million higher for
fiscal years 2005 through 2010.

Following this announcement, the Company's share price dropped
$2.08 per share, an 11.8% decline on heavy volume, to close at
$15.46 per share on July 7, 2015.

                     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."

CONTACT:

Peter Safirstein, Esq.
Morgan & Morgan
28 West 44th Street Suite 2001 New York, NY  10036
1-800-732-5200
info@morgansecuritieslaw.com


SODEXO INC: Managers File Class Suit Over Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------
The Sacramento employment law lawyers at Blumenthal Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik filed a putative class action lawsuit against Sodexo, Inc.
alleging the company failed to pay their Clinical Nutrition
Managers overtime wages for their time worked in excess of eight
hours (8) in a workday and/or forty (40) hours in a workweek. The
Sodexo class action lawsuit Case No. 39-2015-00324813-CU-OE-STK is
currently pending in the San Joaquin Superior Court for the State
of California.

The putative class action lawsuit claims that the Plaintiff, who
worked as a Clinical Nutrition Manager, spent most of her workday
allegedly engaged in non-exempt work tasks, meaning tasks that
allegedly should have entitled Plaintiff to overtime wages.
According to the Complaint, Plaintiff and other Clinical Nutrition
Managers engaged in the non-exempt tasks of providing day-to-day
routine planning and development of patient diets in accordance
with the attending physician's prescribed techniques, procedures,
and specified standards. Additionally, the Complaint claims that
the Plaintiff and other Clinical Nutrition Managers spent a vast
majority of their day filling in pre-formatted checklists called
"Gold Checks" and other templates that were provided by Sodexo. As
a result, the Sodexo class action lawsuit alleges that the
Plaintiff did not manage other employees and was therefore a
"manager" in name only because she did not have managerial duties
and should therefore have been paid overtime wages and provided
with meal and rest periods in accordance with California law.

According to the Complaint, Sodexo, Inc. is the largest private
employer of dietitians and the leading food and facilities
management service company in North America.

The Sacramento labor law attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug &
Bhowmik are dedicated to representing employees of large
corporations in various lawsuits that include claims for unpaid
overtime, missed meal and rest breaks, minimum wage violations,
unpaid commissions, and wrongful termination. The firm has offices
located in San Diego, San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles and
Riverside. Contact one of their experienced attorneys now for free
California employment law advice by calling (866) 771-7099


SRA ASSOCIATES: Faces "Yossef" Suit in N.Y. Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Benzion Yossef, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. SRA Associates, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-04599
(E.D.N.Y., August 5, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STANDARD & POOR'S: Settlement Share Used for Other Purposes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rick Brundrett, writing for The Nerve Center, reported that a
nearly $1.4 billion settlement over alleged investor fraud
involving the national credit-rating agency Standard & Poor's
allowed South Carolina to use its $21.5 million share of the
proceeds for consumer protection and education programs.

But S.C. lawmakers didn't designate that money for any of those
purposes in adopting a $24.9 billion state budget for the fiscal
year that stated July 1. Instead, they appropriated $27.8 million
in the state's "Litigation Recovery Account" with another $88.5
million in non-recurring funds through a budget proviso (118.14)
for such things as:

   * $4 million toward paying off vendor debt at the financially
troubled S.C. State University;

   * $3 million to the S.C. Department of Commerce's "closing"
fund -- typically used to lure big companies to locate or expand
in the state, and which grew by more than 800 percent from when
Gov. Nikki Haley took office in 2011 through last fiscal year; and

   * $2 million to the state Department of Agriculture's
"Certified SC" marketing program.

It's not the first time that lawmakers have grabbed millions from
lawsuit settlements involving the state for purposes not related
to those suits. For fiscal 2013, for example, the Legislature
earmarked $10 million from a national mortgage settlement for
Commerce's closing fund -- a move criticized publicly by housing
advocates.

Contacted, Mark Powell, spokesman for S.C. Attorney General Alan
Wilson, told The Nerve that while the Attorney General's Office is
involved with settlements involving the state, lawmakers decide
how the proceeds are spent.

"The Attorney General's Office sends funds received from fees,
fines, recoveries and other cases to the general fund, or as
specifically directed," Powell said in a written response. "The
Attorney General's Office is the state's Chief Prosecutor, Chief
Legal Officer, and Chief Securities officer. It is prohibited by
the state constitution from handling the appropriation process.
The General Assembly handles that, and does so with a balanced
budget each and every year."

For this fiscal year, legislators had a total of $27.8 million
from the "Litigation Recovery Account" to allocate -- more than
the total ratified budgets of at least 50 state agencies and
divisions, including the Attorney General's Office, a review by
The Nerve found.

Powell said five defendant companies were involved in separate
settlements last fiscal year totaling $27.8 million: Standard &
Poor's, drug producers GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis, and liquid-
crystal display manufacturers Chi Mei and Samsung.

Powell couldn't immediately provide details of the individual
cases, including the settlement amounts. The settlements are not
listed on the attorney general's website.

A review by The Nerve of court documents, media reports and other
records found that since, South Carolina participated in multi-
state settlements in at least three cases.

The Palmetto State, for example, was part of a $177 million,
seven-state settlement involving GlaxoSmithKline over allegations
of deceptive advertising involving the diabetes drug Avandia,
according to a press release from the Dallas-based law firm of
Baron and Budd, which said it worked with attorneys general in the
participating states.

In the Novartis case, South Carolina was among six states that
joined federal authorities in a $15 million settlement with
BioScrip Inc., a provider of prescription drugs to Medicaid
patients nationwide, the Washington State Attorney General's
Office said in a press release. BioScrip allegedly received
kickbacks from Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. to promote a
Novartis drug known as Exjade, which was used to treat chronic
iron problems resulting from blood transfusions, according to the
release.

Chi Mei and Samsung were among defendants in a group of class-
action cases nationwide alleging that consumers who purchased
flat-panel, electronic devices with liquid-crystal displays were
victims of price fixing, according to media reports, which put the
combined total settlement amount at more than $1 billion. The two
companies also were named as defendants in a 2012 state lawsuit
involving Wilson's office, court records show.

In the case of Standard & Poor's Financial Services, the U.S.
Department of Justice in a February press release said the
national credit-rating agency "played a central role that
devastated our economy by giving AAA ratings to mortgage-backed
securities that turned out to be little better than junk."

The total settlement between the agency, its parent company,
McGraw Hill Financial Inc., and the federal government, 19 states
-- including South Carolina -- and the District of Columbia, was
$1.375 billion, half of which was a penalty to be paid to the
federal government and the remainder to be divided among the
participating states and the District of Columbia, records show.

Under the settlement agreement reviewed by The Nerve, the state
"may allocate such payment in the South Carolina Attorney
General's sole discretion and in accordance with any and all
obligations imposed by law for purposes including, but not limited
to, a consumer protection enforcement fund, consumer education
fund, consumer litigation fund, local consumer aid fund, or
revolving fund . . . "

But the agreement doesn't require the $21.5 million in proceeds to
be used for those purposes, leaving S.C. lawmakers free to spend
the money as they wish.


TAURUS: Voluntarily Recalls Nearly 1MM Defective Firearms
---------------------------------------------------------
Kent Faulk, writing for Al.com, reported that firearms
manufacturer Taurus has agreed to a voluntary recall of nearly 1
million pistols as part of the settlement of a lawsuit that
alleges nine handgun models had defects, including one that caused
some to inadvertently fire when dropped.

"This is not an anti-firearms lawsuit. This is a defective product
lawsuit," said Birmingham attorney Todd Wheeles, co-lead counsel
representing plaintiffs in the 2013 federal lawsuit. "This
hopefully will help save lives by taking defective firearms off
the street."

The settlement affects customers who bought the following models
sold between 1997 and 2013 in the U.S., Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin
Islands and Guam:  PT-111 Millennium; PT-132 Millennium; PT-138-
Millennium; PT-140 Millennium; PT-145 Millennium; PT-745
Millennium; PT-609; PT-640; and PT-24/7.

Despite the voluntary recall, Taurus denied in a statement night
that there are any design defects in the models.

"Neither the settlement nor the allegations in the case include
any of the popular Taurus G2 model pistols," according to the
Taurus statement.

Details concerning the nine pistols and how and when to submit a
claim will be provided in the near future, according to the Taurus
statement. "Claims will be handled by a Third Party Claims
Administrator (TPA). Once the Claims Period opens, the Taurus
Companies will provide notice through digital and print outlets.
All claims should be made through the TPA."

As of early 2013 the nine models were no longer manufactured and
distributed in the United States. The company is headquartered in
Brazil, but it has operations in Miami.

A federal judge in Miami on preliminarily approved the settlement
that calls basically for Taurus to do three things for customers:

Provide an enhanced warranty to allow any owner -- even if it
isn't the original owner and for the life of the pistol -- to
submit the handgun for inspection and repair, if possible. If the
defects can't be repaired Taurus will offer to replace the pistol
with a similar new one. Normal inspection and shipping fees and
labor costs will be waived.

Produce on-line safety training videos for those customers who
bought the pistols to show them how to handle and carry the
pistols to avoid dropping them and how to ship them for warranty
repairs.

Allow customers who bought the pistols to send their pistols back
for cash payments. The payments will vary up to $200, depending on
how many pistols are returned.

The lawsuit alleges that there were safety defects in the nine
models that caused them to fire when the trigger is pulled even
though the safety in the "on" or "safe" position and others when
dropped or bumped, a notice that will be published and sent to
customers states. The alleged defects are attributable to the lack
of a "trigger safety blade" within the semi-automatic pistols, the
lawsuit claims.

Under the settlement total cash payments are capped at $30
million. According to court documents, the plaintiffs' attorneys
also are seeking up to $9 million for fees, costs and expenses.

The federal judge is to hold a hearing in January to determine
whether to give final approval to the settlement. In the meantime
the judge has set out deadlines for the company to publish notices
and the safety videos.


TOSHIBA CORP: Glancy Prongray Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the class
action on behalf of investors of Toshiba Corporation ("Toshiba" or
the "Company") (OTC: TOSYY) (OTC: TOSBF) who purchased securities
between May 8, 2012 and May 7, 2015, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Investors have until August 3, 2015 to file a motion to
be appointed as a lead plaintiff in this class action lawsuit.

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

The Complaint alleges that Toshiba committed securities fraud by
misleading 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. The Complaint seeks to recover
the damages caused to investors by the sharp decline in the stock
price.

If you purchased Toshiba shares prior to May 8, 2015, have
information or would like to learn more about these claims, or
have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Casey
Sadler of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles,
California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by
email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com.If you inquire by email please include
your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares
purchased.

CONTACT:

Lesley Portnoy, Esq
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
1925 Century Park East Suite 2100 Los Angeles,
CA 90067
Phone: (310) 201-9150
Toll-free: (888) 773-9224
Fax: (310) 432-1495
info@glancylaw.com


TRANSALTA CORP: Energy Consultant Invites Biz to Join Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Businesses are being invited by an Alberta electricity consultant
to join a class-action lawsuit that he is organizing against
TransAlta.

David Gray, an electricity consultant in Edmonton and former
director of Alberta's Utilities Consumer Advocate, is organizing
the court action, but has not yet hired legal representation.

He hopes to file the lawsuit by the end of August. He says he has
already had in from more than 200 businesses interested in joining
the lawsuit.

"Basically anybody who was on the default commercial rate, they're
all affected. Anybody who was on a flow-through rate through a
retailer was affected," Gray said. "So we've got everybody from
mom and pop shops up to manufacturing installations."

The Alberta Utilities Commission released a report earlier this
week that concluded TransAlta deliberately timed power outages at
power plants at peak times in order to drive up electricity
prices.

"That hard part is already done. The part we are about to do now
is account for each particular customer and go seeking some
restitution," Gray said.

The provincial regulator ruled TransAlta manipulated power prices
during the winter of 2010 to 2011. The shutdowns by Canada's
largest investor-owned power producer and wholesale marketer, cost
consumers anywhere from 10 to 60 per cent more during this time.

TransAlta timed power outages to drive up prices, says commission
Gray estimates that depending on how much electricity was actually
used, medium-sized businesses paid between $2,000 and $5,000
dollars more than they normally would have. A utilities commission
report estimates that $100 million worth of damage was done, he
said.

"The real issue is the amount of damage they did to everyone who
was buying from the market," he said. "Most directly [impacted]
are commercial or industrial customers. Many of them are either on
the default supply rate or on a rate that is whole or in part
market based."

Gray is hoping to get 20,000 companies involved in the lawsuit.


UBER: Sued Over App's Price Claims, Free Ride Vouchers
------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Rice and John Cadiz Klemack, writing for NBC, reported
that a Southern California man has filed a lawsuit against Uber
for the ride-sharing app's price claims and regulation of free
ride vouchers, which he hopes to make a class-action lawsuit.

Sennett Devermont is the creator of Mr. Checkpoint, an app that
notifies its users of DUI checkpoint locations. He said he has
taken nearly 500 rides with Uber in the last two years, and
regularly recommends the service through his app to encourage
drunken drivers to get home safely.

"I personally use Uber every day. I think it's a good service that
can benefit people," Devermont said. "They just need to not
mislead people and do what they promise."

Devermont doesn't believe Uber's claim on their website that UBERx
rides are cheaper than they would be in a taxicab. He has filed a
lawsuit against the company that he and his attorney Michael Cohen
hope will become a class-action lawsuit.

The Uber Android app reads, "It's easier than a taxi and often
cheaper!" while the iPhone app doesn't mention the price
difference. Yet, Uber's website describes UBERx as, "Better,
faster, and cheaper than a taxi."

"If they tell me it's going to be cheaper than a cab, that is what
needs to occur," Devermont said.

Devermont has also found issue with the "free ride" vouchers
granted for referring a new Uber user to the app, because he
claims the app failed to notify users that the voucher expired in
three months.

Uber allegedly only notified the user that the voucher, for up to
$20 toward a free Uber ride, could not be used for Uber Taxi, he
said.

"Lots of people tell their friends about Uber and share with their
family for the free rides," Devermont said. "I don't think they
know the rides expire."

Devermont said he used to stock up on vouchers from his referrals
because the emails containing his vouchers said nothing about an
expiration date. But the emails he gets now include that the
vouchers expire, he added.

"If they say they're giving me a credit for getting a user, let me
keep that credit," Devermont added. "If you're saying I'm going to
get home cheaper than a cab, make sure I'm getting home cheaper
than a cab."

Devermont's attorney said their goal is to return money to other
people who feel they have been cheated in a way similar to
Devermont.

"But ultimately the court will have to decide if it can be a class
action," Cohen said.

Until then, they are hoping more people will come forward so they
can gather evidence toward the lawsuit. Whether or not it can be a
class-action lawsuit will likely be decided on by the Los Angeles
Superior Court in the next few months.

"We've already had people come forward saying they've had the same
experience as Mr. Devermont. And we'd like to have more," Cohen
said.

Uber officials said they don't comment on pending litigation.


UCLA HEALTH: Faces "Brooks" Suit in Cal. Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Brooks, Michael Rhames, individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated v. UCLA Health, The Regents of the University
of California, and Does 1-50 inclusive, Case No. BC590534 (Cal.
Super. Ct., August 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to keep safe their  patients' sensitive private,
financial, medical, and personal information safe from intrusion
and for failure to timely notify customers that their sensitive
and private information had been breached within a reasonable
time.

UCLA Health is made up of the following hospitals and medical
centers: Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, UCLA Medical Center,
Santa Monica, Resnick Neuropsychiatric Hospital at UCLA, Mattel
Children's Hospital UCLA, the UCLA Medical Group, the Harbor-UCLA
Medical Center, and the Olive View-UCLA Medical Center.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNION COMMUNITY: Sued Over Patients With Physical Disabilities
--------------------------------------------------------------
Winnie Hu, writing for The New York Times, reported that a Bronx
health center that serves many poor and minority patients was
accused of discriminating against another group that often faces
barriers to medical care: those with physical disabilities.

Union Community Health Center, which serves about 37,000 patients
at five locations in the Bronx, has repeatedly turned away people
with disabilities seeking treatment at one of those sites, 2021
Grand Concourse, and failed to make numerous accommodations there
that are required by federal, state and city disability laws,
according to a class-action federal lawsuit filed in the Southern
District of New York.

The lawsuit was brought by Bronx Independent Living Services, a
nonprofit group that works on behalf of people with disabilities
and provides support services, and three of its employees
including the executive director, Brett Eisenberg. The lawsuit
stated that Union Community Health, 25 years after the federal
Americans With Disabilities Act, "is still turning away many
patients with disabilities and providing inferior care and
treatment to those who make it in the door."

The lawsuit contends that the center is "riddled with physical
access barriers," including doorways and hallways too narrow for
wheelchairs; an on-site pharmacy reachable only by climbing
stairs; and a lack of medical equipment such as height-adjustable
examination tables. It also stated the center failed to provide
sign-language interpreters for deaf patients and did not make
written materials accessible for those who are visually impaired.

The lawsuit also names St. Barnabas Hospital in the Bronx, which
has provided some funding and support services to Union Community
Health, although the two are separate organizations.

Michelle Caiola, the managing attorney for the New York office of
Disability Rights Advocates, a nonprofit group that represents the
plaintiffs, said that while disabled patients faced barriers at
many hospitals and health centers, this particular Bronx health
center had "numerous barriers of every kind affecting individuals
with mobility, vision and hearing disabilities."

In a statement, Union Community Health said that its lawyers had
not yet fully reviewed the complaint, but that "we are confident
that our services fully comply with all state, federal, and local
laws and regulations.

"Union Community Health Center has a long standing history of
serving the entire Bronx community including people with a wide
variety of disabilities."

Mr. Eisenberg, 34, said in an interview that his group began
receiving complaints in 2010 that Union Community Health's site on
the Grand Concourse was not accessible to disabled patients. Mr.
Eisenberg, who uses a wheelchair because of a brittle bone
condition, said he would have liked the option to seek treatment
himself at that center, which is near his office.

"As a person with a significant physical disability myself, it's
always troubling for me when we can't go to a health care
facility, or any facility, and be treated equally and access the
same services at the same level of care."

Mr. Eisenberg said he and his staff members tried repeatedly to
work with Union Community Health since 2010 to address these
complaints, before finally seeking help from Disability Rights
Advocates in the past year.

Rodolfo Diaz, 32, a benefits adviser for Bronx Independent Living
Services, who also uses a wheelchair, said in an interview that he
had gone to the health center last fall to make a medical
appointment and was told by a receptionist that he would have to
return with someone who could assist in getting him into an
examination bed.

"I was frustrated because I'm used to being independent," said Mr.
Diaz, adding that he did not return. "I've made other appointments
in clinics. I never had that experience."


UNIVITA HEALTH: "Olivier" Suit Alleges WARN Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Omar M. Olivier, and all others similarly-situated v. Univita
Health, Inc. and Univita of Florida Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00671
(D. Del. Aug 02, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to serve a 60-day written notice of termination as
required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

The Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees seek to recover
60 days wages and benefits, pursuant to the WARN Act, from
Defendants.

Univita Health, Inc. provides home healthcare solutions to
patients in the United States. It offers services in the areas of
in-home care, wound care, infusion pharmacy, medical equipment,
and re-admission reduction solutions. The company was founded in
2008 and is based in Miramar, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher D. Loizides, Esq.
      LOIZIDES & ASSOCIATES
      Legal Arts Building
      1225 King Street, Ste 800
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 654-0248
      E-mail: loizides@loizides.com

          - and -

      Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 245-1000


US BANK: Faces "Bakal" Suit Over Alleged Breach of Fiduciary Duty
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Bakal, David and Sandra Visher, and ESM Fund I, L.P., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. U.S.
Bank National Association, Case No. 652727/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct.,
August 5, 2015), alleges that the Defendant breached its fiduciary
obligations by failing to act prudently, or in the best interests
of the Trust and Certificate-holders.

Based in St. Paul, Minnesota, U.S. Bank National Association
operates one of the largest banks in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Karin E. Fisch, Esq.
      ABBEY SPANIER, LLP
      212 East 39" Street
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 889-3700
      Facsimile: (212)684-5191
      E-mail: kfisch@abbeyspanier.com

         - and -

      Deborah R. Gross, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES BERNARD M GROSS, P.C.
      100 Penn Square East, Suite 450
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 561-3600
      Facsimile: (215) 561-3000
      E-mail: debbie@bernardmgross.com


VASCO DATA: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that a complaint has been filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the
common stock of VASCO Data Security International, Inc. ("VASCO"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ CM: VDSI) between February 18, 2014 and
July 21, 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 VASCO during the Class Period, or
purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold VASCO,
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/vasco-data-security-
international-inc-vdsi.

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.  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 21, 2015, the Company filed a
FORM 8-K with the SEC announcing "that certain of its products
which were sold by a VASCO European subsidiary to a third-party
distributor may have been resold by the distributor to parties in
Iran, potentially including parties" subject to U.S. economic
sanctions.

On this news, shares in VASCO dropped over 3%, closing at $25.83
per share on July 22, 2015, on heavy trading volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 28, 2015.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  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.

CONTACT:

Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
Peter Allocco, Esq.
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
825 E Gate Blvd #300 Garden City, NY, United States
(888) 969-4242
(516) 683-3516
Fax: (302) 654-7530
info@rl-legal.com
http://www.rigrodskylong.com


VASCO DATA: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, announces that
a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of
VASCO Data Security International, Inc. securities during the
period from February 18, 2013 through July 21, 2015. The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for VASCO investors under the federal
securities laws.

The lawsuit alleges that defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) VASCO's products
were illegally sold to parties in Iran in violation of federal
laws banning such transactions; (2) VASCO lacked sufficient
internal controls; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, VASCO's
public statements were materially false and misleading at all
relevant times. On July 21, 2015, after the market closed for
trading, VASCO filed a Form 8-K with the SEC revealing "that
certain of its products which were sold by a VASCO European
subsidiary to a third party distributor may have been resold by
the distributor to parties in Iran, potentially including parties"
governed by U.S. economic sanctions. The suit claims investors
were damaged when this adverse news entered the market.

CONTACT:

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
Toll Free: 866-767-3653
Fax: 212-202-3827
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
kchan@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com


VERMONT: Reach Up Cuts to Disabled Recipients Held Off for 2 Mos.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Galloway, writing for VTDigger.org, reported that the state
will continue benefits for disabled Vermonters for 60 days while
lawyers prepare for arguments in a discrimination case.

The class-action lawsuit filed by Vermont Legal Aid on July 23
alleges that the reduction, which the Legislature approved in the
fiscal year 2016 state budget, is unconstitutional and that it
discriminates against households with family members with a
disability.

Sandy Paritz, Poverty Law Project director at Vermont Legal Aid,
said cuts that were already made for the Aug. 1 distribution of
benefits would be restored by the state.

"These families are already experiencing severe economic distress
and cannot afford to lose a dime," Paritz said in a statement.
"The state did the right thing to continue their benefits."

Christopher Curtis and Paritz, attorneys with the nonprofit legal
group, are seeking to halt implementation of a $125 reduction in
the monthly Reach Up benefit for 860 Vermont households with an
adult who receives a monthly Supplemental Security Income benefit.
The reduction, which Curtis has dubbed "a poor tax" would impact
more than 15 percent of the homes that receive the program's cash
benefits.

The lawsuit is based primarily on federal laws and benefits,
including the Americans with Disabilities Act and Social Security
policy.

According to a statement issued by Legal Aid, courts have halted
similar cuts to Temporary Assistance for Needy Families grant
programs in other states. Reach Up, Vermont's TANF program, helps
some 5,200 households statewide. Funded partially by the state and
partially by the federal government, the program aims to help
families with children meet basic needs and services, the state
website says. It includes a work requirement.

Federal courts issued injunctions against policies in Washington
and West Virginia that would have counted the SSI benefits of
children as income, thereby reducing their TANF benefit. Vermont's
law only counts the SSI benefits of adults, not children.

The Vermont Attorney General's Office is handling the case for the
Vermont Agency of Human Services.

The two parties will return to court in early September.


VISA INC: Merchants Challenge $6-Bil. Antitrust Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robin Sidel, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reported that
lawyers representing roughly 100 merchants late night formally
notified MasterCard Inc. and Visa Inc. that they believe a $6
billion class-action antitrust settlement should be thrown out due
to the discovery that opposing lawyers in the case exchanged
confidential information, according to people familiar with the
matter.

The lawyers served the card networks with legal papers outlining
their plans, setting in motion a process to potentially unravel
the pact that was approved by a federal judge in late 2013. The
Wall Street Journal reported on that merchants were hoping to
scuttle the pact due to the lawyers' alleged conduct.

According to court procedures, the papers served to the card
networks won't be filed in court until the networks respond. The
documents are expected to be filed under seal at that point,
meaning they won't be available to the public.

The challenge stems from communications discovered after Keila
Ravelo, who represented MasterCard in the antitrust case when she
was a partner at Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, resigned from the
firm in November. Shortly after she resigned, Ms. Ravelo and her
husband, Melvin Feliz, were charged by the U.S. attorney's office
in New Jersey with conspiracy to commit wire fraud by setting up
two dummy companies to fraudulently obtain more than $5 million
from Willkie Farr, law firm Hunton & Williams LLP -- where Ms.
Ravelo also had worked -- and MasterCard, according to authorities
and court filings.

While investigating the alleged theft, Willkie Farr discovered
emails and documents that were exchanged between Ms. Ravelo and
Gary Friedman, who represented merchants through his own law firm
Friedman Law Group LLC.

Steve Sadow, a lawyer representing Ms. Ravelo, said "I'm not in a
position to comment at this time" because he hasn't seen the legal
papers.

Samuel Issacharoff, a lawyer representing Mr. Friedman, said "we
think the court papers speak for themselves." He declined further
comment.

In a conference call to discuss second-quarter earnings,
MasterCard Chief Executive Ajay Banga on reiterated the company's
position filed in previous court papers that it believes the
conduct of the lawyers shouldn't affect the outcome in the case.

Mr. Banga said the conduct exhibited by the lawyers was
"disappointing," but also said they didn't play principal roles in
the case. "We're pretty confident that the settlement will stand.
We'll see how it goes," he said.

A spokesman for Visa declined to comment.

The case dates back to 2005 when large retailers, including Kroger
Co., Safeway Inc. and Walgreen Co., began filing price-fixing
suits against Visa and MasterCard. The lawsuits challenged Visa's
and MasterCard's long-standing rules that prohibited merchants
from charging customers more when they used a credit card over
other forms of payment.

Lawyers representing the merchants are also seeking to upend a
pending $79 million similar settlement with American Express. In a
court filing made, AmEx said that none of the communications
between the lawyers "detracts from the conclusion that this
settlement represents the best feasible settlement for the
merchant class, and is fair and adequate by any measure."


WAL-MART STORES: Sued Over Defective Flushable Wipes Design
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eugene and Victoria Richard, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Rockline
Industries, Case No. 1:15-cv-00677-SS (W.D. Tex., August 5, 2015),
arises out of the Defendants' deceptive, improper or unlawful
conduct in the design, marketing, manufacturing, distribution, and
sale of flushable wipes.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a retail
business offering a range of merchandise categories.

Rockline Industries, a Wisconsin corporation, together with its
subsidiaries and affiliates, designs, manufactures, markets, and
distributes numerous consumer products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      Mark S. Reich, Esq.
      Sean T. Masson
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
      E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
              mreich@rgrdlaw.com
              smasson@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
      Mark Dearman, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 750-3000
      Facsimile: (561) 750-3364
      E-mail: sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com
              mdearman@rgrdlaw.com


WEINBERG & ASSOCIATES: Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
JT's Frames, Inc., an Illinois corporation, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v.
Weinberg & Associates, Inc., et al., Case No. 2015-CH-11746 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., August 5, 2015), seeks to put an end on the Defendants'
practice of sending unsolicited facsimiles.

Weinberg & Associates, Inc. is an Illinois corporation that
provides accounting, tax, and financial management services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
      Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
      ANDERSON + WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 368-1500
      Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
      E-mail: BWanca@andersonwanca.com
              Rkelly@andersonwanca.com


XBOX360: Suit Over Design Moving Forward
----------------------------------------
Sheldon Jones, writing for GamesPresso, reported that most people
with an Xbox 360 know the fear of bumping into the console while a
disc is spinning. You cringe at the rattling of the disc, and pray
to whatever god or gods you worship that you'll not need to make
another trip to Best Buy or order another copy of the game from
Amazon. This design flaw, in which the console can cause the disc
to become scratched to the point of being unplayable, has been
brought to court.

Ars Technica reported that the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals set
the table for Microsoft to potentially face a class-action lawsuit
over the issues. Microsoft claims that the issue is only apparent
in 0.4% of their consoles, and that the issue is not nearly
widespread enough to warrant a court case.

While the case has been pushed forward in court, this is not the
first time the Xbox 360 has had hardware issues. In 2005,
Microsoft was sued over a heating issue with the console. As well,
the Xbox 360 had its Red Ring of Death issue that already cost
Microsoft over $1 billion to fix. With the console selling over 86
million copies as of, however, it's hard to say whether these
hardware issues had held back the system from being a strong
competitor in the console market.


XOMA CORP: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., announces that a complaint has been filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the
common stock of XOMA Corporation ("XOMA" or the "Company") (NASDAQ
GM: XOMA) between November 6, 2014 and July 21, 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 XOMA during the Class Period, or
purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold XOMA,
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/xoma-corporation-xoma.

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.  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 22, 2015, the Company revealed
that the EYEGUARD-B study for its lead product candidate,
gevokizumab, did not meet the primary endpoint of first acute
ocular exacerbation.  This revelation contradicted earlier
statements from the Company that gevokizumab was "one exacerbation
away from being able to close the EYEGUARD-B study database."

On this news, shares in XOMA plummeted over 77%, closing at $1.00
per share on July 22, 2014, on heavy trading volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 22, 2015.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  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.

CONTACT:

Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
Peter Allocco, Esq.
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
825 E Gate Blvd #300 Garden City, NY, United States
(888) 969-4242
(516) 683-3516
Fax: (302) 654-7530
info@rl-legal.com
http://www.rigrodskylong.com


YELLOWJACKET OILFIELD: "Juarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnathan Juarez, and all others similarly-situated v.
Yellowjacket Oilfield Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00329 (S.D.
Tex., July 31, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant is an oilfield services company providing a variety
of services to the oilfield, including pressure control services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


* Securities Class Action Filings Remain Below Historical Average
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs brought 85 new federal class action securities cases in
the first half of 2015, according to Securities Class Action
Filings -- 2015 Midyear Assessment, a report compiled by
Cornerstone Research and the Stanford Law School Securities Class
Action Clearinghouse. This represents a decrease from the second
half of 2014, when plaintiffs filed 92 securities class actions.
The number of filings in the first six months of 2015 remains 10
percent below the semiannual average of 94 observed between 1997
and 2014 -- the seventh consecutive semiannual period below the
historical average.

Despite this period of little overall change in filing activity,
securities class actions against companies headquartered outside
the United States increased in the first half of 2015. Twenty
filings, or 24 percent of the total, targeted foreign firms. Asian
firms were named in more than half of these cases.

"Securities class actions continue to percolate at a relatively
low level, whether measured by the number of cases filed or the
dollar amounts at stake," observed Professor Joseph Grundfest,
director of the Stanford Law School Securities Class Action
Clearinghouse and a former SEC Commissioner. "The interesting
question is 'why?' Some observers point to high stock price
valuations and the lack of volatility in equity markets. Others
point to the fact that many of the major accounting scandals now
appear to be happening abroad. A combination of both factors could
well be at work."

"Aggregate market capitalization losses in securities class
actions continued to dip below historical averages in the first
two quarters of 2015," said Dr. John Gould, senior vice president
of Cornerstone Research. "Mega filings remained relatively rare,
and on an annualized basis only 2.5 percent of S&P 500 company
market capitalization was targeted by new filings during this
period."

Another notable development in the first half of 2015 was the
surge in class actions in the Ninth Circuit, driven primarily by
an increase in the Technology and Industrial sectors. Filings in
the Ninth Circuit (much of the western United States) represented
a 90 percent increase over the last six months of 2014. In the
Second Circuit (Connecticut, New York, and Vermont) filings fell
by one-third in comparison with the second half of 2014. This was
due in strong part to the decline in suits related to financial,
energy, and biotechnology and pharmaceutical firms.

Key Trends

   * The total Disclosure Dollar Loss (DDL), which calculates
investor losses at the time that an alleged fraud is disclosed,
remained at low levels. Aggregate DDL was $34 billion in the first
half of 2015, 43 percent below the historical semiannual average
of $60 billion.

   * The total Maximum Dollar Loss (MDL), a measure of the largest
amount that plaintiffs might seek to recover, was $105 billion, an
amount 65 percent below the historical semiannual average MDL of
$304 billion.

   * Filing activity against companies with large market
capitalizations, as represented by firms in the S&P 500, remained
well below average. Only 1.6 percent of S&P 500 firms were the
subject of class actions in the first half of 2015.

   * The median lag between the end of the alleged class period
and the filing of the lawsuit declined to 11 days, the third
lowest on record, suggesting intensifying competition for filings
by the plaintiff bar.

   * Dismissals within the first three years of the filing of a
class action peaked for 2010 and 2011 filing cohorts. In filing
cohort years 2012, 2013, and 2014, early dismissals (those within
the first year) have declined relative to 2010 and 2011 cohorts.

   * Reversing trends noted at year-end 2014, filing activity
against Industrial and Technology firms increased to levels more
consistent with historical averages, while filings against Energy
companies declined to average historical levels.

   * Biotechnology, healthcare, and pharmaceutical companies
(included in the Consumer Non-Cyclical sector) together accounted
for 19 percent of total filings in the first half of 2015. Within
this group, filings against pharmaceutical firms were the most
common class action.

                About Cornerstone Research

Cornerstone Research provides economic and financial consulting
and expert testimony in all phases of complex litigation and
regulatory proceedings. The firm works with an extensive network
of prominent faculty and industry practitioners to identify the
best-qualified expert for each assignment. Cornerstone Research
has earned a reputation for consistent high quality and
effectiveness by delivering rigorous, state-of-the-art analysis
for over 25 years. The firm has more than 500 staff and offices in
Boston, Chicago, London, Los Angeles, Menlo Park, New York, San
Francisco, and Washington.  http://www.cornerstone.com

           About the Stanford Law School Securities
                 Class Action Clearinghouse

The Securities Class Action Clearinghouse (SCAC) is an
authoritative source of data and analysis on the financial and
economic characteristics of federal securities fraud class action
litigation. The SCAC maintains a database of more than 3,900
securities class action lawsuits filed since passage of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The database
also contains copies of more than 44,000 complaints, briefs,
filings, and other litigation-related materials filed in these
cases. http://securities.stanford.edu



                            *********

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  * * *