CAR_Public/150820.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, August 20, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 166


                            Headlines


3D SYSTEMS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Suit
ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Suit
ALPHA GAS: Sued Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: Moved to Dismiss Securities Class Action
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Suit Alleges Airfare Price-Fixing

AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Warnock" Suit Alleges Airfare Price-Fixing
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Judge Disappointed with Counsel's Actions
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Suit
APPLE INC: "Backhaut" Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action
APPLE INC: Suit Over Lost Text Messages Can't Proceed as Class

ATHENAHEALTH INC: Answer to Third Amended Complaint Filed
AUTOLIV INC: Additional Deals Reached with Direct Purchasers
AUTOLIV INC: Faces Class Action Filed by Truck Dealers
AUTOLIV INC: No Class Certification Timeline in Canadian Suits
AXA EQUITABLE: 'Shadow Transaction' Class Suit Dismissed

BLUE CROSS: Faces "Conway" Suit Over Market Allocation Scheme
BLUE CROSS: Faces "Conway" 2nd Suit Over Market Allocation Scheme
BLUE CROSS: Faces "Conway" 3rd Suit Over Market Allocation Scheme
BRASKEM SA: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Suit
BRISTOL-MYERS: Still Defending Plavix Product Liability Suits

BRISTOL-MYERS: Still Defending Reglan Product Liability Suits
BRISTOL-MYERS: Defending 480 Lawsuits Related to Byetta
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Court Has Not Ruled on Motion to Exclude
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Motions Pending in Indirect Purchasers Case
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Motions by Non-Class Plaintiffs Still Pending

CHOBANI LLC: "Clay" Class Suit Moved to S.D. California
CIOTOLA SPRINKLER: Faces "Diaz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
COGGINS PRODUCE: Faces "Owen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces Second Classs Suit Over Data Breach
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Faces New Train Car Derailment Class Suit

CSX TRANSPORTATION: First Trial Date Set in Derailment Cases
CSX CORPORATION: Class Cert. Hearing Set for Early November 2015
CVS PHARMACY: Faces Suit for Overpricing Generic Medicines
DELTA DELI: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
EASTERN COMPANY: Barington Class Action Dismissed

EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Faces "Caldera" Suit Over Automated Calls
EFT HOLDINGS: Order to Show Cause Set for December 4
EHARMONY INC: Suit Alleges Unlawful Discrimination
FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: Fresh Attack on Profit Sweep in D. Del.
FEDEX CORPORATION: Limited Discovery Conducted in Oregon Cases

FGX INTERNATIONAL: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
FIFA: Hagens Berman Seeks Info on Youth Soccer Head Injuries
FLIGHT SERVICES: "Pointer" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
FLORIDA GARDENS: "Artigas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
FTD.COM INC: Settles "Substitution Policy" Class Suit

GENERAL MOTORS: Says 100 Consumer Suits Pending Thru July 20
GENERAL MOTORS: 21 Class Actions Pending in Canada
GENERAL MOTORS: 172 Class Actions Over Injuries Pending
GENERAL MOTORS: 204 Cases Transferred to MDL
GENERAL MOTORS: Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Case Still Pending

GENERAL MOTORS: Court Dismissed Plaintiff Dealers' Claim v. GMCL
GENERAL MOTORS: Wage Cases Pending in Korean Courts
GENERAL MOTORS: 2nd Circuit Denied Petition for Rehearing
GOOGLE: IndieGoGo Campaign Launched to Fund Class Suit
GRILL ON 2ND: "Rivera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

HAGGEN: Sued Over Disabled Employees' Unfair Lay Off
HANNAY REALTY: Faces "Silvernail" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
HERTZ GLOBAL: Brief Filed in Concession Fee Recoveries Action
HERTZ GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Securities Litigation
ICONIX BRAND: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Suit

IMMUNOMEDICS INC: "Nasyrova" 2nd Amended Complaint Dismissed
INDIANA SAFETY: Faces "Blake" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
J. CREW GROUP: Sued Over Failure to Design Blind-Accessible POS
KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Class Action Cases Dismissed

KRAFT FOODS: Removes "Appel" Class Suit to C.D. California
LA VIE: Faces "Ching" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
LAWRENCE D. BRUDY: Faces "Schneck" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
LENNOX INTERNATIONAL: Reached Tentative Class Action Settlement
LOUIS CRUISE: Class Suit Over Norovirus Outbreak Dismissed

LOUISIANA: LSBN Sued Over Grambling BSN Program Termination
MAPP CONSTRUCTION: "Reyes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
MAYER BROWN: Error in $1.5BB Loan to GM Yields 2 Class Suits
MDC PARTNERS: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit
MDC PARTNERS: Sued in NY Court for SEC Violations

MEN'S MEDICAL CLINIC: Probed Over Prescription Treatment
NETFLIX INC: Continues to Face Shareholder Class Actions
NPC INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Deal" Suit Claims
PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Class Action Still Pending
PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend "Michaeli" Lawsuit

PFIZER: Philips Pension to Share in $400MM Class Settlement
PHILIP MORRIS: Appeal in Class Action Pending in Quebec Court
PINTO TRANSFER: "Carrandi" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
PMFG INC: Bridges Files Amended Suit Over CECO Merger
PMFG INC: Terry and Georgia Brown File Class Action

PRO TRANSPORT: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Silva" Suit Claims
RENO HOUSING: Faces "Roces" Suit Over Failure to Pay All Wages
RESIDENTIAL ACCREDIT: Court Approves $335MM Class Settlement
SAYVILLE TOWN: "Ellsayed" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
SCHIFF NUTRITION: Sued in Cal. Over False Product Advertising

SCOTTS MIRACLE: Court Certifies EZ Seed(R) Labelling Suit
SIMS MUNICIPAL: Faces "Lugo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SIRIUSXM RADIO: Reaches $1.2-Mil. Settlement in Intern's Suit
SOLAZYME INC: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Suit
TENET HEALTHCARE: Faces "Selmon" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Drivers Overtime
UNITED CONTINENTAL: Anticipates Consolidation of Class Suits
UNIVITA HEALTH: Terminated Employees File Class Suit
V&J SUSHI: Sued Over "White Tuna"
V&J UNITED: Illegally Retains Drivers Gratuities, Suit Claims

VISA INC: 1,179 Merchants Want to Rejoin Cash Settlement Class
VISA INC: Appeals Filed in Consumer Interchange Litigation
VISA INC: Reached Deal With Some Merchants Over Payment Cards
VISA INC: Webloyalty.com, GameStop Seek to Dismiss Suit
VISION GUIDANCE: "Stanley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

VOLVO CARS: Faces "Jenner" Suit Over Defective Rdar Software
WCA MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
WCA WASTE: "Ordonez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
WIRELESS AND BEYOND: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
WOLVERINE CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Lane" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

XOMA CORP: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Suit
XUNLEI LIMITED: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
YELLOWJACKET OILFIELD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
ZIRTUAL INC: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice



                            *********


3D SYSTEMS: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of 3D Systems Corporation ("3D Systems") between October
29, 2013 and October 22, 2014.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
District of South Carolina. If you purchased or otherwise acquired
3D Systems Corporation shares between October 29, 2013 and October
22, 2014, your rights may be affected by this action. To get more
information go to http://zlk.9nl.com/3dsystemsor contact Joseph
E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at
(212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that the Company issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding: (a) the Company's ability to
increase the capacity of its metal printing business; (b) demand
for its consumer products; (c) the value of multiple companies it
was acquiring; and (d) the Company's expected earnings.

If you suffered a loss in 3D Systems you have until August 11,
2015to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

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

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


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. (NYSE:WMS) ("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.

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/


ALPHA GAS: Sued Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------
Shaun Zinck, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that a consumer
is suing a New York gas company, alleging it called individuals
soliciting services without prior consent.

Stewart Abramson, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
individuals, filed the class action lawsuit July 8 in U.S.
District Court Southern District of New York against Alpha Gas and
Electric, alleging the telemarketing calls violated the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, Abramson received a phone call from
the defendant on June 1 on his cellphone.

The lawsuit said federal law prohibits automated or prerecorded
telephone calls unless the other party gives consent to receive
the calls.

"The TCPA categorically bans persons and entities from initiating
telephone calls using an automated telephone dialing system [or
'autodialer'] to any telephone number assigned to a cellular
telephone service," the lawsuit said. "A telemarketer may use an
autodialer to call a telephone number assigned to a cellular
telephone service, however, the telemarketer must have the call
recipient's prior express written consent."

The lawsuit said consent must be given in writing with the phone
number owner's signature authorizing the calls.

The suit seeks class status for those who received an unsolicited
phone call from Alpha Gas within the last four years. The lawsuit
also seeks and unspecified amount in damages plus court costs.

Abramson is represented by attorneys Aytan Y. Bellin of Bellin &
Associates in White Plains, N.Y.; Edward A. Broderick and Anthony
Paronich of Broderick Law, in Boston; and Matthew P. McCue of The
Law Office of Matthew P. McCue in Natick, Mass.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York case
number 7:15-cv-05299.


ALTISOURCE PORTFOLIO: Moved to Dismiss Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Altisource Portfolio Solutions S.A. moved to dismiss the putative
securities class action filed by West Palm Beach Firefighter's
Pension Fund, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015.

On September 8, 2014, the West Palm Beach Firefighter's Pension
Fund filed a putative securities class action suit against
Altisource and certain of its officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 with regard to disclosures concerning pricing and
transactions with related parties that allegedly inflated
Altisource share prices. The court subsequently appointed the
Pension Fund of the International Union of Painters and Allied
Trades District Council 35 and the Annuity Fund of the
International Union of Painters and Allied Trades District Council
35 as Lead Plaintiffs.

On January 30, 2015, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint which adds Ocwen Financial Corporation as a defendant,
and seeks a determination that the action may be maintained as a
class action on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
between April 25, 2013 and December 21, 2014 and an unspecified
amount of damages. Altisource intends to vigorously defend this
lawsuit and moved to dismiss it on March 23, 2015.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Suit Alleges Airfare Price-Fixing
----------------------------------------------------
Shearson Publishing, and all others similarly-situated v. American
Airlines, Inc., American Airlines Group, Inc., Delta Air Lines,
Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., United Airlines, Inc., and United
Continental Holdings, Inc., Case No. 00:15-cv-03198 (D. Minn.,
August 3, 2015), seeks to recover treble damages, equitable
relief, costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees, arising
from the Defendants' alleged violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, under Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act.

American Airlines Group Inc. is a holding company and the parent
company of Defendant American Airlines, Inc.  Both American
Airlines Group, Inc. and American Airlines, Inc. are Delaware
corporations with their principal places of business located in
Fort Worth, Texas.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. Delta operates more
than 5,400 flights per day to 326 locations in 64 countries.

Southwest Airlines Co. is a Texas corporation with its principal
place of business located in Dallas, Texas. Southwest operates
more than 3,600 flights per day to 94 locations in the United
States and six additional countries.

United Continental Holdings, Inc. is a holding company and the
parent company of Defendant United Airlines, Inc. Both United
Continental Holdings, Inc. and United Airlines, Inc. are Delaware
corporations with their principal places of business located in
Chicago, Illinois. United offers service to more destinations than
any other airline in the world, operating more than 5,300 flights
per day to 369 locations across six continents.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
      GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
      Canadian Pacific Plaza
      120 South 6th Street, Ste 2600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Tel: (612) 333-8844
      Fax: (612) 339-6622
      E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com

          - and -

      Brett Cebulash, Esq.
      TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
      80 Maiden Lane, Ste 1204
      New York, NY 10038
      Tel: (212) 931-0704
      Fax: (212) 931-0703
      E-mail: bcebulash@tcllaw.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Warnock" Suit Alleges Airfare Price-Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Rose Warnock, and all others similarly-situated v.
American Airlines Group, Inc., American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air
Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., United Continental Holdings,
Inc., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-03194 (D. Minn.,
August 3, 2015), seeks to recover treble damages, injunctive
relief, costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees, arising
from the Defendants' alleged violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act, under Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act.

American Airlines Group Inc. is a holding company and the parent
company of Defendant American Airlines, Inc.  Both American
Airlines Group, Inc. and American Airlines, Inc. are Delaware
corporations with their principal places of business located in
Fort Worth, Texas.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. Delta operates more
than 5,400 flights per day to 326 locations in 64 countries.

Southwest Airlines Co. is a Texas corporation with its principal
place of business located in Dallas, Texas. Southwest operates
more than 3,600 flights per day to 94 locations in the United
States and six additional countries.

United Continental Holdings, Inc. is a holding company and the
parent company of Defendant United Airlines, Inc. Both United
Continental Holdings, Inc. and United Airlines, Inc. are Delaware
corporations with their principal places of business located in
Chicago, Illinois. United offers service to more destinations than
any other airline in the world, operating more than 5,300 flights
per day to 369 locations across six continents.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
      GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
      Canadian Pacific Plaza
      120 South 6th Street, Ste 2600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Tel: (612) 333-8844
      Fax: (612) 339-6622
      E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com

          - and -

      Daniel J. Mogin, Esq.
      THE MOGIN LAW FIRM, P.C.
      707 Broadway, Suite 1000
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 687-6611
      Fax: (619) 687-6610
      E-mail: dmogin@moginlaw.com


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Judge Disappointed with Counsel's Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nick Rummell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
tearing up the long-awaited settlement on August 4 between
American Express and major U.S. corporations, a federal judge
found that improper emails between the lead class counsel and an
attorney for MasterCard tainted the entire process.

The emails -- in which the two attorneys traded confidential
information and legal strategies -- were a clear conflict of
interest, and led to a settlement with worse terms for the class
than they might have secured otherwise.

Slamming the communications between the attorneys, U.S. District
Judge Nicholas Garaufis said "the improper and disappointing
conduct of co-lead class counsel Gary B. Friedman --
gfreidman@gss-law.com -- with Greenfield Stein & Senior, LLP, has
fatally tainted the settlement process."

"This smacks of blatant collusion," Garaufis wrote. "Have class
counsel lost sight of the fact that they purport to represent
merchants?"

As in a related enforcement action that the U.S. government and
attorneys generals of 17 states brought against AmEx in the same
court, the class action at hand challenged nondiscrimination
provisions of contracts that AmEx makes retailers sign to process
transactions involving its credit cards.

After a seven-week bench trial in the related case, a federal
judge agreed with the government that nondiscrimination policy
prevents the 3.4 million merchants that take AmEx credit cards
from steering customers to other methods of card payments, which
are typically less expensive.  Unlike the government, however, the
retailers expressly did not challenge the anti-surcharging rules
that the settlement reached in 2013 modified.

Objections from almost one-fifth of the class members -- two
groups led by 7-Eleven and Target -- failed to block tentative
approval of the settlement, which was expected to about $75
million in attorneys' fees for class counsel.

A number of the objections contended that the settlement benefited
only some class members and failed to boost competition between
credit cards.

Opponents of the deal found more ammunition when attorneys for
MasterCard at Willkie Farr & Gallagher discovered that one of
their lawyers, Keila Ravelo, had documents from the AmEx case
subject to a protective order though MasterCard was a not a party
to the action.

An investigation soon revealed Friedman had been communicating
about the case with Ravelo, his friend since 1992 when they were
associates at the same law firm.  The two vacationed also together
with their families, according to court documents.

Ravelo was arrested this past December on charges that she and her
husband, Melvin Feliz, had for over two years conspired to
overbill and defraud Willkie, MasterCard and the law firm of
Hunton & Williams of millions of dollars.

Judge Garaufis noted that the court relied partly on the "honesty
and integrity" of class counsel to determine the settlement's
appropriateness.

Precedent dictates that class counsel misconduct requires denial
of class certification.

The court's opinion, which contains several redactions, finds that
Friedman committed several "blatant violations" of protective
orders by sending dozens of emails to Ravelo containing American
Express' confidential information.

In one case, the attorney for the class sent Ravelo a copy of the
proposed settlement's material terms two weeks before it was
executed.  Friedman also asked Ravelo's advice on discovery
process, damages approaches and settlement strategy, the court
found.

One email shows Friedman telling Ravelo that an attorney for Amex
called the proposed settlement amount "a huge f'ing number that
made him 'gag,'" while Friedman confided in Ravelo in a different
email that the "Amex negotiation has gotten crazy."

At the end of many of the emails, Friedman wrote "burn after
reading."

Garaufis noted that the settlement Friedman reached was the same
"fantasy resolution" for AmEx he described in a November 2011
email to Ravelo: one that included parity surcharging, where
MasterCard and Visa were charged alongside American Express.

"Amex would be thrilled" by such a settlement, Friedman wrote.

Garaufis said he was "troubled" by the fact that it was Friedman
who signed the response to the allegations of impropriety between
him and Ravelo, and that the attorney remained co-lead counsel for
the plaintiff class on the date of his judgment.

Merchants objecting to the settlement say the emails show that
Friedman treated Ravelo as a "sounding board," but should not have
been talking so freely with counsel for MasterCard, which had
completely different interests than his clients had.

In a July brief, Friedman and co-counsel argued that Friedman had
sought Ravelo's expertise as a defense-side attorney, and that her
insight had helped benefit class members.

Saying that the objecting merchants "can point to nothing that
would remotely substantiate such a serious allegation," they
claimed that there was no basis for the allegations of impropriety
and an interattorney conspiracy to water down the Amex settlement.

Garaufis found that claim hard to swallow, ordering Friedman's
removal as co-lead counsel and calling on the other attorneys
involved in the case to prove why they should continue as interim
class counsel, given the fact that they allowed Friedman to remain
involved after the emails came to light.

Those attorneys have a Sept. 8, 2015, deadline to prove their
integrity.

"The court questions whether not only Friedman, but also the other
co-lead class counsel, have the independence, judgment, and
integrity necessary to serve as class counsel for a mandatory
class," Garaufis wrote.

American Express called the order disappointing. "We continue to
believe the agreement is fair to merchants, providing them with
additional flexibility while ensuring our card members are treated
fairly at the point of sale," the company said in a statement. "We
believe we have strong defenses against the merchants' claims and
will continue to fight our case in court."

Performance Labs initiated the class action against AmEx in 2006,
with companies like Rite Aid and Walgreen signing on over the
years.

American Express often tacks on an additional 1 percent or 2
percent processing surcharge on goods paid with by an American
Express credit card. Some stores prefer to "steer" consumers to
use other credit cards to avoid this surcharge.

Ravelo had defended MasterCard against similar claims in a class
action that ended in a $7.25 billion settlement in 2013


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Pomerantz LLP Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf of investors of
American Express Company ("American Express" or the "Company").
Such investors are advised to contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888-476-6529, ext. 9980.

The investigation concerns whether American Express and certain of
its officers and/or directors have violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On February 12, 2015, American Express announced that it had lost
the U.S. Costco co-branding relationship and that the financial
impact of the loss would be severe. The company disclosed that the
co-branding agreement had generated 8 percent of the company's
2014 revenues and accounted for the issuance of one in ten
American Express cards in the United States, and that 20 percent
of the company's outstanding loans had been made pursuant to that
agreement. American Express stated that the company's 2015 and
2016 profits would suffer and that the loss of the co-branding
agreement was a significant setback for the company's efforts to
increase earnings per share, which were unlikely to increase until
2017 at the very earliest.

On this adverse news, the price of American Express stock fell
7.87, more than 9%, to close at 77.55 on February 13, 2015.

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

Robert S. Willoughby, Esq.
Pomerantz LLP
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com
600 Third Avenue New York, NY 10016
Tel: 212.661.1100 or 1.888.4.POMLAW
Fax: 212.661.8665
http://pomerantzlawfirm.com/


APPLE INC: "Backhaut" Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
District Court Judge Lucy H. Koh denied the request of Adam
Backhaut and Kenneth Morris to pursue a class action lawsuit on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against Apple,
Inc.  The Plaintiffs allege that Apple violated the Wiretap Act,
18 U.S.C. Section 2510 and California's Unfair Competition Law,
Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200. First Am. Compl.  The gravamen
of Plaintiffs' FAC is that Apple wrongfully intercepts, stores,
and otherwise prevents former Apple device users from receiving
text messages sent to them from current Apple device users.  Apple
opposed the Plaintifffs' motion for class certification.

The case is, ADAM BACKHAUT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. APPLE INC.,
Defendant, CASE NO. 14-CV-02285-LHK (C.D. Cal.).  A copy of the
Court's August 13, 2015 Order is avialable at http://is.gd/0U90OP
from Leagle.com.

The Plaintiffs are represented by William M. Audet, Audet &
Partners, LLP, Jonas Palmer Mann, Audet & Partners LLP, Joshua
Caleb Ezrin, Audet & Partners, LLP, Mark Etheredge Burton, Jr.,
Audet and Partners, LLP & Theodore H. Chase, Audet and Partners,
LLP.

Apple Inc., is represented by David Michael Walsh, Esq., Morrison
& Foerster, Kai Shields Bartolomeo, Morrison Foerster LLP &
Tiffany Cheung, Morrison & Foerster LLP.


APPLE INC: Suit Over Lost Text Messages Can't Proceed as Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
a federal judge denied class certification of a lawsuit against
Apple over lost text messages.

Adriene Moore sued Apple in 2014, claiming the tech giant failed
to warn iMessage users that messages would go undelivered if they
switched to a different brand of cellphone.

In November 2014, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh dismissed with
prejudice Moore's claims under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and
related unfair competition and unfair business practices claims.
But Koh left intact Moore's claims of a tortious interference with
contract claim and unfair competition claims related to the
tortious interference claims.

In her Aug. 4 ruling, Koh found Moore offered sufficient [proof]
that Apple device users, including her boss, sent her text
messages that were never delivered to her Samsung Galaxy S5,
establishing her own standing to file the complaint.  However, Koh
ruled that Moore's proposed class was too broad because it
included individuals that could not have been injured by Apple's
alleged wrongful conduct.

"While many wireless service agreements may include the
contractual right to send and receive text messages, plaintiff
does not and cannot contend that every proposed class member's
wireless service agreement included the right to receive text
messages," Koh wrote in the 26-page ruling.

Moore had argued that "virtually all" wireless service agreements
provide for text messaging and that an "overwhelming majority"
offer unlimited text messages.

Koh rejected Moore's argument, finding merit in Apple's contention
that several factors can cause a person not to receive text
messages, including their individual wireless plans, errors in the
cellular network, blocked senders, operating system bugs, and
applications that interfere with receiving messages.

The judge denied Moore's request for class certification, ruling
that the court would be forced to examine each situation of
undelivered text messages on an individual basis to determine if
Apple interfered with the proposed class members' contractual
right to send and receive text messages.

Moore's attorney, Roy Katriel -- rak@katriellaw.com -- of the
Katriel Law Firm in La Jolla, and Apple's attorney, David Walsh --
dwalsh@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster in Los Angeles, did not
immediately return requests for comment.


ATHENAHEALTH INC: Answer to Third Amended Complaint Filed
---------------------------------------------------------
athenahealth, Inc. filed its answer to the third amended complaint
denying the allegations in the class action lawsuit filed by
Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2015.

On March 1, 2013, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California captioned
Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit v.
Epocrates, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:13-cv-945, on behalf of a
putative class of Epocrates' stockholders against Epocrates and
its former officers and directors. The complaint asserted claims
under sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on
behalf of all stockholders that purchased Epocrates stock in its
initial public offering ("IPO") and claims under sections 10(b)
and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all
stockholders that purchased shares between February 2, 2011 (the
day after the IPO) and August 9, 2011.

On October 8, 2013, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
alleging only claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
voluntarily dismissing a number of the individual defendants.
Plaintiffs allege that Epocrates made false or misleading
statements with respect to the fact that Epocrates' pharmaceutical
clients were awaiting guidance from the Food and Drug
Administration on the use of advertising and social media, which
caused the clients to delay marketing and negatively impacted the
timing of Epocrates' sales and revenue growth. The complaint seeks
certification as a class action, compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount, plaintiffs' costs, attorneys' fees, and such
other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper.

On December 9, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On June 4, 2014, the court issued an order
dismissing the complaint and granting plaintiffs leave to amend
their complaint. On June 30, 2014, plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint, which asserts substantially similar claims as
those set forth in the first amended complaint.

On July 14, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint. On October 2, 2014, the court granted
plaintiffs leave to file a third amended complaint by October 23,
2014, and denied the motion to dismiss as moot.

Plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint on October 23,
2014, which asserts substantially similar claims on behalf of all
stockholders that purchased shares between February 1, 2011, and
August 9, 2011.

"We filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint on
November 10, 2014, and the court denied the motion on March 13,
2015. On April 27, 2015, we filed our answer to the third amended
complaint denying the allegations," the Company said.


AUTOLIV INC: Additional Deals Reached with Direct Purchasers
------------------------------------------------------------
Autoliv, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 17, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company has reached
agreements regarding additional settlements to resolve certain
direct purchasers' global (including U.S.) or non-U.S. antitrust
claims which were not covered by its U.S. direct purchaser
settlement. The total amount of these additional settlements was
$81 million.

The Company is subject to civil litigation alleging anti-
competitive conduct in the U.S. and Canada. Plaintiffs in these
civil antitrust class actions generally allege that the defendant
suppliers of occupant safety systems have engaged in long-running
global conspiracies to fix the prices of occupant safety systems
or components thereof in violation of various antitrust laws and
unfair or deceptive trade practice statutes. Plaintiffs in these
civil antitrust class actions make allegations that extend
significantly beyond the specific admissions of the Company's DOJ
plea. The Company denies these overly broad allegations.

Plaintiffs in the U.S. cases seek to represent purported classes
of direct purchasers, auto dealers and end-payors (i.e. consumers)
who purchased occupant safety systems or components either
directly from a defendant or indirectly through purchases or
leases of new vehicles containing such systems. Plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief, treble damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

Plaintiffs in the Canadian cases seek to represent purported
classes encompassing direct and indirect purchasers of such
products and seek similar relief under applicable Canadian laws.

Specifically, the Company, several of its subsidiaries and its
competitors are defendants in a total of nineteen purported
antitrust class action lawsuits filed between July 2012 and June
2015. Fifteen of these lawsuits were filed in the U.S. and have
been consolidated in the Occupant Safety Systems (OSS) segment of
the Automobile Parts Antitrust Litigation, a Multi-District
Litigation (MDL) proceeding in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan.

On May 30, 2014, the Company, without admitting any liability,
entered into separate settlement agreements with representatives
of each of the three classes of plaintiffs in the MDL, not
including the recent truck dealer class action, subject to final
approval by the MDL court following notice to the settlement
class, an opportunity to object or opt-out of the settlement, and
a fairness hearing. Pursuant to the settlement agreements, the
Company agreed to pay $40 million to the direct purchaser
settlement class, $6 million to the auto dealer settlement class,
and $19 million to the end-payor settlement class, for a total of
$65 million. This amount was expensed during the second quarter of
2014.

In exchange, the plaintiffs agreed that the plaintiffs and the
settlement classes would release Autoliv from all claims regarding
their U.S. purchases that were or could have been asserted on
behalf of the class in the MDL. In July 2014, the three
settlements received preliminary court approval. Following notice
to the direct purchaser settlement class and the receipt of opt-
out notices from members of that class, the class settlement
amount was by the terms of the settlement agreement reduced to
approximately $35.5 million.

Following a fairness hearing on December 3, 2014, the MDL court on
January 7, 2015 entered an order granting final approval to the
direct purchaser class settlement. Notices to the settlement
classes and the fairness hearings for the other two class
settlements have been deferred by the plaintiffs and the MDL court
for processing with additional, future settlements due to the cost
of giving notice to large settlement classes. The three class
settlements will not resolve any claims of settlement class
members who opt out of the settlements or the claims of any
purchasers of occupant safety systems who are not otherwise
included in a settlement class, such as states and municipalities.

In March 2015, Autoliv reached agreements regarding additional
settlements to resolve certain direct purchasers' global
(including U.S.) or non-U.S. antitrust claims which were not
covered by its U.S. direct purchaser settlement. The total amount
of these additional settlements was $81 million.

In entering into these agreements, Autoliv did not admit any
liability and settled for the purpose of avoiding the uncertainty,
risk, expense and distraction of potential litigation or other
adversarial proceedings and in the interest of maintaining
positive relationships with its customers.


AUTOLIV INC: Faces Class Action Filed by Truck Dealers
------------------------------------------------------
Autoliv, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 17, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in June 2015, a class
action lawsuit was filed against the Company in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan by truck
dealers seeking to represent a class of truck and equipment
dealers that directly or indirectly purchased occupant safety
products in the U.S.  Plaintiffs generally alleged that the
Company and its competitors who were also named as defendants have
engaged in long-running global conspiracies to fix the prices of
the subject products in violation of antitrust laws and unfair or
deceptive trade practice statues. Plaintiffs are seeking treble
damages for their direct purchases and for their indirect
purchases in states whose laws permit antitrust damages claims by
indirect purchasers. This lawsuit was assigned to the MDL court
and will be processed as part of the MDL.

The Company is currently unable to predict the duration or
ultimate outcome of this lawsuit and the Company cannot estimate
the financial impact this class action will have, including an
amount of loss or range of loss. No provision for a loss has been
recorded as of June 30, 2015.


AUTOLIV INC: No Class Certification Timeline in Canadian Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Autoliv, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 17, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that there is currently no
timeline for class certification or discovery in the Canadian
cases.

The remaining four antitrust class action lawsuits are pending in
Canada (Sheridan Chevrolet Cadillac Ltd. et al. v. Autoliv, Inc.
et al., filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on January
18, 2013; M. Serge Asselin v. Autoliv, Inc. et al., filed in the
Superior Court of Quebec on March 14, 2013; Ewert v. Autoliv, Inc.
et al., filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia on July 18,
2013; and Cindy Retallick and Jagjeet Singh Rajput v. Autoliv ASP,
Inc. et al., filed in the Queen's Bench of the Judicial Center of
Regina in the province of Saskatchewan on May 14, 2014). The
Canadian cases assert claims on behalf of putative classes of both
direct and indirect purchasers of occupant safety systems. The
Company denies the overly broad allegations of these lawsuits and
intends to defend itself in these cases. While it is probable that
the Company will incur losses as a result of these Canadian
antitrust cases, the duration or ultimate outcome of these cases
currently cannot be predicted or estimated and no provision for a
loss has been recorded as of June 30, 2015. There is currently no
timeline for class certification or discovery in the Canadian
cases. These class actions have been stayed pending proceedings in
certain earlier-filed auto parts cases.


AXA EQUITABLE: 'Shadow Transaction' Class Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Harris Martin Publishing, reported that a New York federal judge
has dismissed a class action lawsuit accusing AXA Equitable Life
Insurance Co. of violating New York insurance law by failing to
disclose its "shadow transactions" with its captive reinsurers,
finding the plaintiffs failed to allege an "actual or imminent
injury" sufficient to establish Article III standing.

In a July 21, Judge Jesse M. Furman of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York noted the plaintiffs failed to
allege that they were financially harmed by purchasing life
insurance from AXA.

Jonathan Ross and David Levin filed a putative class.


BLUE CROSS: Faces "Conway" Suit Over Market Allocation Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry L. Conway, et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama,
et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01345-RDP (D. Ariz., July 16, 2015),
arises out of the Defendants' alleged market allocation conspiracy
by entering into a price fixing and boycott conspiracy, to
significantly decreased competition in the markets for healthcare
financing including the markets for healthcare insurance and in
the health services.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama is the health insurance
company operating under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks
and trade names in Alabama.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Van Bunch, Esq.
      Kimberly C. Page, Esq.
      BONNETT, FAIRBOURN, FRIEDMAN & BALINT, P.C.
      2325 E. Camelback Road, Suite 300
      Phoenix, AZ 85016
      Telephone: (602) 274-1100
      E-mail: vbunch@bffb.com
              kpage@bffb.com

         - and -

      Joe R. Whatley Jr., Esq.
      W. Tucker Brown, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      2001 Park Place North
      1000 Park Place Tower
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 488-1200
      Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
      E-mail: tbrown@whatleykallas.com
              jwhatley@whatleykallas.com


BLUE CROSS: Faces "Conway" 2nd Suit Over Market Allocation Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry L. Conway, et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama,
et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01346-RDP (D. Kansas, August 11, 2015),
arises out of the Defendants' alleged market allocation conspiracy
by entering into a price fixing and boycott conspiracy, to
significantly decrease competition in the markets for healthcare
financing including the markets for healthcare insurance and in
the health services.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama is the health insurance
company operating under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks
and trade names in Alabama.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joe R. Whatley Jr., Esq.
      W. Tucker Brown, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      2001 Park Place North
      1000 Park Place Tower
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 488-1200
      Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
      E-mail: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com
              tbrown@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      Edith M. Kallas, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 447-7060
      Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
      E-mail: ekallas@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      60 State Street, 7th Floor
      Boston, MA 02109
      Telephone: (617) 573-5118
      Facsimile: (617) 371-2950
      E-mail: psheehan@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      Deborah J. Winegard, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      1068 Virginia Avenue, NE
      Atlanta, GA 30306
      Telephone: (404) 607-8222
      Facsimile: (404) 607-8451
      E-mail: dwinegard@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      Henry C. Quillen, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      159 Middle Street, Suite 2C
      Portsmouth, NH 03801
      Telephone: (603) 294-1591
      Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
      E-mail: hquillen@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      E. Kirk Wood Jr., Esq.
      WOOD LAW FIRM LLC
      P. O. Box 382434
      Birmingham, AL 35238
      Telephone: (205) 612-0243
      Facsimile: (205) 705-1223
      E-mail: ekirkwood1@bellsouth.net

         - and -

      Debra B. Hayes, Esq.
      Charles Clinton Hunter, Esq.
      THE HAYES LAW FIRM
      700 Rockmead, Suite 210
      Kingwood, TX 77339
      Telephone: (281) 815-4963
      Facsimile: (832) 575-4759
      E-mail: dhayes@dhayeslaw.com
              chunter@dhayeslaw.com

         - and -

      Aaron S. Podhurst, Esq.
      Peter Prieto, Esq.
      PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
      25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 358-2800
      Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
      E-mail: apodhurst@podhurst.com
              pprieto@podhurst.com

         - and -

      Dennis Pantazis, Esq.
      Brian Clark, Esq.
      WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER GOLDFARB
      The Kress Building
      301 Nineteenth Street North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 314-0500
      Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
      E-mail: dgp@wcqp.com
              bclark@wcqp.com

         - and -

      U.W. Clemon, Esq.
      J. Mark White, Esq.
      Augusta S. Dowd, Esq.
      Linda G. Flippo, Esq.
      WHITE ARNOLD & DOWD, P.C.
      The Massey Building
      2025 Third Avenue North, Suite 500
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 323-1888
      Facsimile: (205) 323-8907
      E-mail: uwclemon@whitearnolddowd.com
              adowd@whitearnolddowd.com
              mwhite@whitearnolddowd.com
              lflippo@whitearnolddowd.com


BLUE CROSS: Faces "Conway" 3rd Suit Over Market Allocation Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry L. Conway, et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama,
et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-01347-RDP (S.D. Miss., July 20, 2015),
arises out of the Defendants' alleged market allocation conspiracy
by entering into a price fixing and boycott conspiracy, to
significantly decreased competition in the markets for healthcare
financing including the markets for healthcare insurance and in
the health services.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Alabama is the health insurance
company operating under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks
and trade names in Alabama.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joe R. Whatley Jr., Esq.
      W. Tucker Brown, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      2001 Park Place North
      1000 Park Place Tower
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 488-1200
      Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
      E-mail: jwhatley@whatleykallas.com
              tbrown@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      Edith M. Kallas, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      1180 Avenue of the Americas, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 447-7060
      Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
      E-mail: ekallas@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      60 State Street, 7th Floor
      Boston, MA 02109
      Telephone: (617) 573-5118
      Facsimile: (617) 371-2950
      E-mail: psheehan@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      Deborah J. Winegard, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      1068 Virginia Avenue, NE
      Atlanta, GA 30306
      Telephone: (404) 607-8222
      Facsimile: (404) 607-8451
      E-mail: dwinegard@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      Henry C. Quillen, Esq.
      WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
      159 Middle Street, Suite 2C
      Portsmouth, NH 03801
      Telephone: (603) 294-1591
      Facsimile: (800) 922-4851
      E-mail: hquillen@whatleykallas.com

         - and -

      E. Kirk Wood Jr., Esq.
      WOOD LAW FIRM LLC
      P. O. Box 382434
      Birmingham, AL 35238
      Telephone: (205) 612-0243
      Facsimile: (205) 705-1223
      E-mail: ekirkwood1@bellsouth.net

         - and -

      Debra B. Hayes, Esq.
      Charles Clinton Hunter, Esq.
      THE HAYES LAW FIRM
      700 Rockmead, Suite 210
      Kingwood, TX 77339
      Telephone: (281) 815-4963
      Facsimile: (832) 575-4759
      E-mail: dhayes@dhayeslaw.com
              chunter@dhayeslaw.com

         - and -

      Aaron S. Podhurst, Esq.
      Peter Prieto, Esq.
      PODHURST ORSECK, P.A.
      25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 358-2800
      Facsimile: (305) 358-2382
      E-mail: apodhurst@podhurst.com
              pprieto@podhurst.com

         - and -

      Dennis Pantazis, Esq.
      Brian Clark, Esq.
      WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER GOLDFARB
      The Kress Building
      301 Nineteenth Street North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 314-0500
      Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
      E-mail: dgp@wcqp.com
              bclark@wcqp.com

         - and -

      U.W. Clemon, Esq.
      J. Mark White, Esq.
      Augusta S. Dowd, Esq.
      Linda G. Flippo, Esq.
      WHITE ARNOLD & DOWD, P.C.
      The Massey Building
      2025 Third Avenue North, Suite 500
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 323-1888
      Facsimile: (205) 323-8907
      E-mail: uwclemon@whitearnolddowd.com
              adowd@whitearnolddowd.com
              mwhite@whitearnolddowd.com
              lflippo@whitearnolddowd.com


BRASKEM SA: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, a national investor-rights law
firm, reminds investors of the upcoming August 31, 2015 lead
plaintiff deadline in the securities fraud class action lawsuit
filed against Braskem S.A. ("Braskem" or "the Company"). If you
have losses in BAK American Depository Receipts ("ADRs") during
the Class Period contact Hagens Berman Partner Reed Kathrein, who
is leading the firm's investigation, by calling (510) 725-3000,
emailing BAK@hbsslaw.com or visiting http://hb-
securities.com/investigations/BAK.

The lawsuit, pending in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, is filed on behalf of investors who
purchased Braskem ADRs between June 1, 2010 and March 11, 2015,
inclusive, (the "Class Period"). No class has been certified in
this case. The deadline to move for the position of lead plaintiff
in the case is August 31, 2015. You do not need to move for lead
plaintiff to be a member of the Class or to participate in any
recovery.

Braskem is a Brazilian petrochemical company and is Latin
America's largest petrochemical producer. A key ingredient for
Braskem's products is called naphtha, and during the Class Period,
Braskem purchased naphtha from Petroleo Brasileiro ("Petrobras")
under long-term agreements.  The complaint alleges that Braskem
was a player in a massive kickback scheme to line the pockets of
Petrobras executives.  As a result of this conduct, statements
made to investors about the Company's business, operational, and
compliance policies were allegedly false and misleading.

On March 11, 2015, a local newspaper implicated Braskem in the
corruption scandal unfolding around Petrobras.  The paper reported
that testimony from former Petrobras executives and others
demonstrated that between 2006 and 2012, Braskem paid Petrobras
representatives at least $5 million annually.  On this news,
Braskem's ADRs declined $1.80, or over 20%, to close on March 11,
2015 at $7.05.

If you were negatively impacted by your investment in Braskem ADRs
between June 1, 2010 and March 11, 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.

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/


BRISTOL-MYERS: Still Defending Plavix Product Liability Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company and
certain affiliates of Sanofi are defendants in a number of
individual lawsuits in various state and federal courts claiming
personal injury damage allegedly sustained after using Plavix*.
Currently, over 5,200 claims involving injury plaintiffs as well
as claims by spouses and/or other beneficiaries, are filed in
state and federal courts in various states including California,
Illinois, New Jersey, Delaware and New York.

In February 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
granted the Company and Sanofi's motion to establish a
multidistrict litigation to coordinate Federal pretrial
proceedings in Plavix* product liability and related cases in New
Jersey Federal Court. It is not possible at this time to
reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits or the potential
impact on the Company.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Still Defending Reglan Product Liability Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company is one
of a number of defendants in numerous lawsuits, on behalf of
approximately 3,000 plaintiffs, including injury plaintiffs
claiming personal injury allegedly sustained after using Reglan*
or another brand of the generic drug metoclopramide, a product
indicated for gastroesophageal reflux and certain other
gastrointestinal disorders, as well as claims by spouses and/or
other beneficiaries. The Company, through its generic subsidiary,
Apothecon, Inc., distributed metoclopramide tablets manufactured
by another party between 1996 and 2000. It is not possible at this
time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits. The
resolution of these pending lawsuits, however, is not expected to
have a material impact on the Company.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Defending 480 Lawsuits Related to Byetta
-------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Amylin, a former
subsidiary of the Company, and Lilly are co-defendants in product
liability litigation related to Byetta*. To date, there are over
480 separate lawsuits pending on behalf of over 2,300 active
plaintiffs (including pending settlements), which include injury
plaintiffs as well as claims by spouses and/or other
beneficiaries, in various courts in the U.S.

The Company has agreed in principle to resolve over 510 of these
claims. The majority of these cases have been brought by
individuals who allege personal injury sustained after using
Byetta*, primarily pancreatic cancer and pancreatitis, and, in
some cases, claiming alleged wrongful death. The majority of cases
are pending in Federal Court in San Diego in a recently
established multidistrict litigation, with the next largest
contingent of cases pending in a coordinated proceeding in
California Superior Court in Los Angeles.

Amylin has product liability insurance covering a substantial
number of claims involving Byetta* and any additional liability to
Amylin with respect to Byetta* is expected to be shared between
the Company and AstraZeneca. It is not possible to reasonably
predict the outcome of any lawsuit, claim or proceeding or the
potential impact on the Company.


CAL-MAINE FOODS: Court Has Not Ruled on Motion to Exclude
---------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended May 30, 2015, that the Court has not ruled on
the motion filed by Kraft Foods Global, Inc., General Mills, Inc.,
Nestle USA, Inc., and The Kellogg Company either to exclude
themselves from the settlement between the direct purchaser
plaintiffs and the Company or to enlarge their time to opt-out of
the settlement between the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the
Company and modify the final judgment entered on November 25,
2014.

Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of
several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the
United States shell egg industry.  In some of these cases, the
named plaintiffs allege that they purchased eggs or egg products
directly from a defendant and have sued on behalf of themselves
and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated.
In other cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased
shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the
defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on
behalf of a putative class.  In the remaining cases, the named
plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they
purchased shell eggs indirectly from one or more of the defendants
-- that is, they purchased from retailers that had previously
purchased from defendants or other parties -- and have sued on
behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to
be similarly situated.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of
the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in
which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial
proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania court has organized the
putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers and
indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for the
named plaintiffs in each group.

The direct purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into
In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-
02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  On November 25, 2014, after approving
the parties' settlement of the case, the Court entered final
judgment dismissing all claims against the Company with prejudice
and dismissing the Company from this direct purchaser class
action.

On January 23, 2015, direct action plaintiffs Kraft Foods Global,
Inc., General Mills, Inc., Nestle USA, Inc., and The Kellogg
Company filed a motion either to exclude themselves from the
settlement between the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the Company
or to enlarge their time to opt-out of the settlement between the
direct purchaser plaintiffs and the Company and modify the final
judgment entered on November 25, 2014.  On February 13, 2015, the
Company filed its response in opposition.

On July 1, 2015, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on this
motion.  The Court has not ruled on this motion.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain other large
domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the domestic supply of
eggs in a concerted effort to raise the price of eggs to
artificially high levels.  In each case, plaintiffs allege that
all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic supply of eggs by:
(a) agreeing to limit production; (b) manipulating egg exports;
and (c) implementing industry-wide animal welfare guidelines that
reduced the number of hens and eggs.


CAL-MAINE FOODS: Motions Pending in Indirect Purchasers Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended May 30, 2015, that the Court has not indicated
when it will rule on the parties' respective motions for summary
judgment in the indirect purchaser putative class action.

Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of
several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the
United States shell egg industry.  In some of these cases, the
named plaintiffs allege that they purchased eggs or egg products
directly from a defendant and have sued on behalf of themselves
and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated.
In other cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased
shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the
defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on
behalf of a putative class.  In the remaining cases, the named
plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they
purchased shell eggs indirectly from one or more of the defendants
-- that is, they purchased from retailers that had previously
purchased from defendants or other parties -- and have sued on
behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to
be similarly situated.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of
the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in
which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial
proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania court has organized the
putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers and
indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for the
named plaintiffs in each group.

The indirect purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into
In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-
02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  The court granted with prejudice the
defendants' renewed motion to dismiss damages claims arising
outside the limitations period applicable to most causes of
action.

On April 20-21, 2015, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on the
indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Court has not ruled on that motion.

On July 2, 2015, the Company filed and joined several motions for
summary judgment that sought either dismissal of the entire case
or, in the alternative, dismissal of portions of the case.  On
July 2, 2015, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed motions for
summary judgment seeking dismissal of certain affirmative defenses
based on statutory immunities from federal and state antitrust
laws.

Briefing on the parties' respective motions for summary judgment
will continue over the next two months, and the Court has not
indicated when it will rule on these motions.

The named plaintiffs in the remaining indirect purchaser putative
class action seek treble damages and injunctive relief on behalf
of themselves and all other putative class members in the United
States.  Although plaintiffs allege a class period starting on
January 1, 2000 and running "through the present," the Court ruled
that the plaintiffs cannot recover damages allegedly incurred
outside the state-specific statute of limitations period
applicable to most causes of action asserted, with the precise
damages period determined on a state-by-state and claim-by-claim
basis.  The indirect purchaser putative class action seeks
injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and damages under certain
statutes and the common-law of various states.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain other large
domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the domestic supply of
eggs in a concerted effort to raise the price of eggs to
artificially high levels.  In each case, plaintiffs allege that
all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic supply of eggs by:
(a) agreeing to limit production; (b) manipulating egg exports;
and (c) implementing industry-wide animal welfare guidelines that
reduced the number of hens and eggs.


CAL-MAINE FOODS: Motions by Non-Class Plaintiffs Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended May 30, 2015, that six of the cases in which
plaintiffs do not seek to certify a class have been consolidated
with the putative class actions into In re: Processed Egg Products
Antitrust Litigation,  No. 2:08-md-02002-GP, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The
court granted with prejudice the defendants' renewed motion to
dismiss the non-class plaintiffs' claims for damages arising
before September 24, 2004.  The parties have completed nearly all
fact discovery related to these cases.

On July 2, 2015, the Company filed and joined several motions for
summary judgment that sought either dismissal of all of the claims
in all of these cases or, in the alternative, dismissal of
portions of these cases.  On July 2, 2015, the non-class
plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal
of certain affirmative defenses based on statutory immunities from
federal antitrust law.  Briefing on the parties' respective
motions for summary judgment will continue over the next two
months, and the Court has not indicated when it will rule on these
motions.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain other large
domestic egg producers conspired to reduce the domestic supply of
eggs in a concerted effort to raise the price of eggs to
artificially high levels.  In each case, plaintiffs allege that
all defendants agreed to reduce the domestic supply of eggs by:
(a) agreeing to limit production; (b) manipulating egg exports;
and (c) implementing industry-wide animal welfare guidelines that
reduced the number of hens and eggs.

Five of the original six non-class cases remain pending against
the Company.  In four of the remaining non-class cases, the
plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman
Act.  In the other remaining non-class case, the plaintiff seeks
damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act and the Ohio
antitrust act (known as the Valentine Act).

The Pennsylvania court has entered a series of orders related to
case management, discovery, class certification, and scheduling.
The Pennsylvania court has not set a trial date for any of the
Company's remaining consolidated cases (non-class and indirect
purchaser cases).

The Company intends to continue to defend the remaining cases as
vigorously as possible based on defenses which the Company
believes are meritorious and provable.  While management believes
that the likelihood of a material adverse outcome in the overall
egg antitrust litigation has been significantly reduced as a
result of the settlements described above, there is still a
reasonable possibility of a material adverse outcome in the
remaining egg antitrust litigation.  At the present time, however,
it is not possible to estimate the amount of monetary exposure, if
any, to the Company because of these cases.  Accordingly,
adjustments, if any, which might result from the resolution of
these remaining legal matters, have not been reflected in the
financial statements.


CHOBANI LLC: "Clay" Class Suit Moved to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
Chayla M. Clay removed the class action lawsuit entitled Chayla M.
Clay, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v.
Chobani LLC, Safeway Inc., The Vons Companies, Inc., and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 37-2014-00028267-CU-BT-CTL, from
the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego to the U.S.
District Court of California, Southern District. The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 14-cv-2258-BEN-DHB.

The Plaintiff asserts that the labels of forty-three varieties of
Chobani products are false and misleading.

The Defendant is represented by:

      Dale J. Giali, Esq.
      Michael L. Resch, Esq.
      MAYER BROWN LLP
      350 S. Grand Avenue, 25th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90071-1503
      Telephone: (212) 506-2828
      Facsimile: (213) 625-0248
      E-mail: dgiali@mayerbrown.com
              mresch@mayerbrown.com

         - and -

      Hannah Y.S. Chanoine, Esq.
      MAYER BROWN LLP
      1675 Broadway
      New York, NY 10019-5820
      Telephone: (212) 506-2828
      Facsimile: (212) 262-1910
      E-mail: hchanoine@mayerbrown.com


CIOTOLA SPRINKLER: Faces "Diaz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Ciotola Sprinkler Systems, Inc., d/b/a Evergreen
Irrigation, and Pietro Ciotola, Case No. (S.D.N.Y., 7:15-cv-06311,
August 11, 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 transportation services company
with its principal place of business located in Patterson, New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lee Nuwesra, Esq.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 1132
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 370-8707
      E-mail: lnuwesra@optonline.net


COGGINS PRODUCE: Faces "Owen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
William L. Owen III, and Rupert Whitehead, III, on behalf of
themselves and all those similarly-situated v. Coggins Produce
Georgia, LLC, Case No. (N.D. Ga., August 11, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Coggins Produce Georgia, LLC operates a farm in Lake Park,
Georgia, at which it grows and packs fruit and vegetables for
shipping throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      K. Prabhaker Reddy, Esq.
      THE REDDY LAW FIRM, P.C.
      1325 Satellite Boulevard, Suite 1506
      Suwanee, GA 30024
      Telephone: (678) 629-3246
      Facsimile: (678) 629-3247
      E-mail: kpr@reddylaw.net


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Faces Second Classs Suit Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alison Nash, writing for Business Journal, reported that a second
putative class-action lawsuit has been filed against Community
Health Systems related to its August 2014 data breach.

The Nashville Post reports the suit was filed July 28 on behalf of
16 former CHS patients who allege the company made no effort to
protect data after the Heartbleed computer virus was announced.

The suit seeks monetary damages and 25 years of credit/bank
monitoring and identity theft protection.


CSX TRANSPORTATION: Faces New Train Car Derailment Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
WBIR.com reported that three residents who say they were within an
evacuation zone when a CSX rail car derailed and burned July 1 in
Maryville filed a federal suit, alleging the railroad was
negligent in the incident.

Dedra Jones, Tracy L. Milani and Sarah K. Headrick seek $25
million in damages in the U.S. District Court in Knoxville action.
They also seek to have their complaint handled as a class action
suit.

The Louisiana law firm of Fayard and Honeycutt and the Bryant Law
Center, of Kentucky, filed the action on behalf of the plaintiffs.

Named as defendants are CSX and the Union Tank Car Company.

A car carrying acrylonitrile, a hazardous and potentially toxic
chemical, ruptured and caught fire near Old Mount Tabor Road,
forcing the evacuation or warning to leave of some 5,000 people
within about two miles of the surrounding area.

Jones, Milani and Headrick say they were among those who were
evacuated.

Jones alleges she was exposed to smoke and fumes and couldn't
return home until the evacuation was lifted. Milani alleges she
breathed smoke and fumes and suffered watery eyes and a burning
sensation in her mouth and throat.

Their lawsuit asserts claims of negligence, nuisance, economic
loss, trespass and also seeks medical monitoring for people
exposed to the toxic materials.

The CSX train had left Cincinnati and was bound for Waycross, Ga.

"When you regularly haul toxic chemicals past homes and
apartments, you hold a public trust to do that with the utmost
care," said Bryant.

Attorney Mark Bryant, working with Knoxville attorney Doug Nichol,
has visited the area and met with dozens of evacuees, including
about 150 at a public meeting.

The legal team said it has opened a field office in Maryville to
assist clients with paperwork and preparing claims.

Dozens of people reported injuries from exposure to air from the
burning car.

This is the second federal lawsuit to be filed as a result of the
fire. A Blount County Circuirt Court suit also has been filed.


CSX TRANSPORTATION: First Trial Date Set in Derailment Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Forand, writing for NJ.com, reported that a federal judge
has scheduled the first trial date for the civil cases regarding
the November 2012 Paulsboro train derailment for Sept. 8.

The derailment, in which seven tanker cars fell off the track over
Mantua Creek -- with four of them ending up in the water below --
leaked thousands of pounds of toxic vinyl chloride into the
borough's air, forcing more than 100 households to evacuate for
nearly two weeks.

Dozens of individuals sought medical attention immediately
following the accident and more than 2,000 people have filed suit.

The suits name Conrail, CSX and Norfolk Southern as defendants,
claiming the railroad companies were negligent in maintaining the
century-old swing bridge over Mantua Creek and in training
employees properly.

While a class action suit was denied by Judge Robert B. Kugler, he
has allowed the individual suits to continue, with many of them to
be heard simultaneously.

The first cases include multiple residents of Paulsboro, as well
as the Paulsboro Public School System, as plaintiffs.

In an order dated July 30, U.S. Magistrate Judge Karen Williams
stated the first case to proceed to trial will begin on Sept. 8
with the second case to begin on Sept. 28.

There are currently nine cases ready for trial, and a pretrial
conference for all of them is scheduled for Sept. 3.

The National Transportation Safety Board, which investigated the
accident, cited a failure in the bridge's locking mechanism as the
main cause of the accident, while also saying a lack of training
for Contrail employees and a lack of comprehensive safety
management programs were contributing factors to the derailment.


CSX CORPORATION: Class Cert. Hearing Set for Early November 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 15, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 26, 2015, that the District Court
remand proceedings are underway and a class certification hearing
has been scheduled for early November 2015 in the fuel surcharge
antitrust litigation.

In May 2007, class action lawsuits were filed against CSXT and
three other U.S.-based Class I railroads alleging that the
defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract and
unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in
violation of antitrust laws. In November 2007, the class action
lawsuits were consolidated in federal court in the District of
Columbia, where they are now pending. The suit seeks treble
damages allegedly sustained by purported class members as well as
attorneys' fees and other relief. Plaintiffs are expected to
allege damages at least equal to the fuel surcharges at issue.

In June 2012, the District Court certified the case as a class
action. The decision was not a ruling on the merits of plaintiffs'
claims, but rather a decision to allow the plaintiffs to seek to
prove the case as a class. The defendant railroads petitioned the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for permission to
appeal the District Court's class certification decision.

In August 2013, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision vacating the
class certification decision and remanded the case to the District
Court to reconsider its class certification decision.

The District Court remand proceedings are underway and a class
certification hearing has been scheduled for early November 2015.
The District Court has delayed proceedings on the merits of the
case pending the outcome of the class certification remand
proceedings.

CSXT believes that its fuel surcharge practices were arrived at
and applied lawfully and that the case is without merit.
Accordingly, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously.
However, penalties for violating antitrust laws can be severe, and
an unexpected adverse decision on the merits could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations or liquidity in that particular period or for the full
year.


CVS PHARMACY: Faces Suit for Overpricing Generic Medicines
----------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Singh, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal class action accuses CVS pharmacies of overcharging
customers for generic prescription drugs by as much as 400 percent
and submitting fraudulently inflated claims to insurers.

Christopher Corcoran is the lead plaintiff in the July 30
complaint against CVS over its so-called Health Savings Pass, "the
centerpiece of its fraud." Corcoran's case was the Top Download
for Courthouse News.

The Health Savings Pass "includes long-term maintenance
medications, which, in many instances, are prescribed to elderly
and disabled patients on a regular basis," the complaint states.

Customers claim that by law the co-pay that CVS takes from insured
customers "may not exceed CVS's usual and customary price, which
is generally defined as the cash price to the general public for
the same drug," but that a CVS co-pay often does exceed that
customary price -- and that CVS also bills the insurer for it.

The 48-count, 84-page lawsuit claims that CVS has overcharged
insured customers "in many cases by more than three or four times
the usual and customary price," since at least November 2008.

"CVS is a major pharmacy chain throughout the United States,"
plaintiffs' attorney Christopher Lebsock said. "Through this
litigation our clients hope to ensure that CVS lives by its
commitment to price drugs fairly to all of its customers. We look
forward to presenting our claims to the court as soon as
possible."

With 7,866 U.S. outlets, CVS is the nation's largest purchaser of
drugs, according to the complaint. Half of the population are
customers, and it fills or manages more than 1 billion
prescriptions a year -- nearly one-third of the prescriptions in
the nation, the complaint states. It reported net revenue of
$139.4 billion, $67 billion of it from its retail pharmacy
business, the class claims.

The plaintiffs claim that CVS charges cash-paying customers less
than it charges insured ones. They claim that CVS is required to
disclose its regular prices for every transaction when it submits
electronic claims to third-party payors, but it knowingly inflates
these prices.

"By submitting false and inflated usual and customary prices to
third-party payors, CVS knowingly and wrongfully overcharged plan
participants co-pay amounts that often exceeded the HSP drug
prices available to the general public for the same drugs," the
complaint states. "In essence, the unlawful scheme that CVS
designed allowed CVS to have its cake and eat it too: CVS could
maintain and increase its cash-paying customer base while also
maintaining higher reimbursement payments from third-party payors
and higher co-pays from plan participants who filled their
prescriptions at CVS pharmacies."

CVS did not respond to a request for comment.

Attorney Lebsock is with the Hausfeld firm in San Francisco.

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


DELTA DELI: Faces "Castillo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Castillo, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Delta Deli Ltd. d/b/a All American Deli, Jimmy
Saadany, Amr Saadany, and John Doe, Case No. 1:15-cv-06324
(S.D.N.Y., August 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per
week.

The Defendants own and operate a deli and restaurant located at 42
Water Street, New York, New York 10002.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EASTERN COMPANY: Barington Class Action Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
The Eastern Company said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 17, 2015, that a court
has approved a Stipulation and Order of Dismissal of the class
action lawsuit filed by Barington Companies Equity Partners, L.P.

On April 17, 2015, Barington Companies Equity Partners, L.P.
("Barington") filed a purported class action lawsuit (Barington
Companies Equity Partners, L.P. v. The Eastern Company, et. al.,
Case No. UWY-CV-15-026955-S (the "Action")) against The Eastern
Company (the "Company") and its board of directors (the "Board")
in the Superior Court of Waterbury, Connecticut (the "Court").
The Action alleged, among other things, that the Eastern Board
breached its fiduciary duties by amending the Company's bylaws to
allow the board to fill vacancies resulting from an expansion of
the number of board seats without shareholder approval.  The
Action also challenged the Board's announced intention to increase
the size of the Board and appoint a new director after the May 20,
2015 Annual Meeting without shareholder approval and sought, among
other things, injunctive relief preventing the Board from
nominating a new director to fill a vacancy that is the result of
an expansion of the number of board seats.

On July 13, 2015, the Court approved a Stipulation and Order of
Dismissal (the "Stipulation") entered into by the parties in
connection with the Action.  The Stipulation provides for, among
other things, the dismissal of the Action after the requisite
notice period to shareholders has expired.

Attorneys for Barington Companies Equity Partners, L.P.:

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
Jeroen van Kwawegen, Esq.
Christopher J. Orrico, Esq.
1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019
Tel: (212) 554-1400

     - and -

FITZPATRICK MARIANO SANTOS SOUSA P.C.
Edward G. Fitzpatrick
Alicia K. Perillo
203 Church Street
Naugatuck, CT 06770
Tel: (203) 729-4555

Attorneys for Defendants The Eastern Company, Leonard F. Leganza,
John W. Everets, Charles W. Henry, David C. Robinson and Donald S.
Tuttle, III:

CARMODY TORRANCE SANDAK & HENNESSY LLP
James K Robertson, Jr., Esq.
Ann H. Rubin, Esq.
50 Leavenworth Street, Esq.
Waterbury, CT 06721
Tel: (203) 573-1200

     - and -

WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
John A. Neuwirth, Esq.
Stefania D. Venezia, Esq.
Robert S. Ruff III, Esq.
Amanda K. Pooler, Esq.
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
Tel: (212) 310-8000

A copy of the Stipulation http://is.gd/eFzV3E


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Faces "Caldera" Suit Over Automated Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lucy Caldera, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Education Management Corporation, Case No. 2:15-cv-
06095-FMO-JPR (C.D. Cal., August 11, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of contacting consumers on the cellular
telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system or an
artificial or prerecorded voice.

Education Management Corporation provides satellite television
services and offers a variety of consumer and business related
satellite television services throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EFT HOLDINGS: Order to Show Cause Set for December 4
----------------------------------------------------
An order to show cause is set for December 4, 2015, in lawsuits
against EFT Holdings, Inc., the Company said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
14, 2015, for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2015.

On November 27, 2013, a class action entitled Li, et al. v. EFT
Holdings, Inc., et al. was filed on behalf of a putative class of
all purchasers of one or more of the Company's products against
the Company and Jack Qin in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California. A first amended complaint was
filed on July 11, 2014. On October 10, 2014, the Court dismissed
all class claims with prejudice. On November 19, 2014, the Court
denied Plaintiffs' Motion for Relief from the October 10, 2014
Order. On January 7, 2015, the Court entered an order dismissing
Plaintiffs' claims for breach of warranty with prejudice and all
claims against Jack Qin without prejudice, and clarified that
Plaintiff cannot seek disgorgement or state claims based on any
stock-related fraud.

On January 30, 2015, a second amended complaint was filed alleging
individual claims for unfair competition, false advertising and
fraud. The second amended complaint sought, among other things,
restitution, compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive
relief.  On April 29, 2015, the Court consolidated this action
with the Wang, et al. v. EFT Holdings, Inc., et al. action.  On
May 7, 2015, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the claims of the
individual plaintiffs without prejudice.

On November 27, 2013, a class action entitled Li, et al. v. Qin,
et al. was filed on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers
of the Company's products against the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California. A first
amended complaint was filed on July 11, 2014.

On October 10, 2014, the Court dismissed all class claims with
prejudice. On November 19, 2014, the Court denied Plaintiffs'
Motion for Relief from the October 10, 2014 Order. On January 6,
2015, the Court entered an order dismissing Plaintiffs' corporate
waste and gift claims, and Plaintiffs' Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act claims based on alleged corporate
looting and operation of a pump-and-dump scheme. The Court further
dismissed Plaintiffs' deception and common law fraud claims with
respect to all defendants except the Company and Jack Qin.

On January 30, 2015, a second amended complaint was filed alleging
individual claims for operation of an endless chain scheme,
deception and common law fraud, and RICO violations. The complaint
sought, among other things, compensatory, treble and punitive
damages.   On April 29, 2015, the Court consolidated this action
with the Wang, et al. v. EFT Holdings, Inc., et al. action.  On
May 7, 2015, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the claims of the
individual plaintiffs without prejudice.

On January 30, 2015, a class action entitled Wang, et al. v. EFT
Holdings, Inc., et al. was filed on behalf of a putative class of
all purchasers of the Company's products against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.  On April 14, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a first amended
complaint.  On April 29, 2015, the Court consolidated this action
with the Li, et al. v. Qin, et al. and Li, et al. v. EFT Holdings,
Inc., et al. actions.  On May 7, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion
for class certification, which is currently pending.

On May 11, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a second amended and
consolidated complaint, alleging claims for operation of an
endless chain scheme, deception and common law fraud, unfair
completion, false advertising, and RICO violations.

On May 29, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss and a
motion to strike the class allegations from the second amended and
consolidated complaint, which is currently pending.  The case is
currently pending.  The Company believes that the claims asserted
are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.

On December 6, 2013, the Company named George Curry (a former
director and officer of the Company) as one of the defendants in
the Superior Court of California, county of Los Angeles, with
reference to the CTX investment transaction, in which the Company
alleges, among other things, that Mr. Curry breached his fiduciary
duty and committed fraud and misrepresentation in respect of the
Company's investment in CTX Virtual Technologies, Inc. ("CTXV").

On April 18, 2014, George Curry filed a Notice of Removal for the
action above to be brought in the District Court of Claifornia,
Los Angeles (Western District). In the same action, he brought a
counterclaim against EFT Holdings, Inc., Jack Qin and Pyng Soon
and sought implied and equitable indemnity, declaratory relief and
apportionment of fault. On or around December 11, 2014 George
Curry filed a Motion for Summary Judgement against EFT and all
other Cross Defendants in the matter. The Motion was heard on
February 26, 2015, wherein the Court denied George Curry's Motion.
The final resolution of the entire matter is still pending..

On May 30, 2014, the Company filed a civil lawsuit in the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles -
East District against Meifu and others. alleging deceit,
conversion, breach of fiduciary duty and money had and received
against the defendants. Also named as defendants in this action
are TransGlobe, Peng Cheng-Hao (President of Meifu) and Thomas
Chen, a former director of EFTI.

On June 9, 2014, the arbitrators awarded in favor of Ezone, with
counterclaims of Excalibur dismissed by the arbitrators. After
taking into account the advice from the Company's solicitors, the
Company has decided not to appeal the arbitration award.

On March 4, 2015, the Company filed a civil lawsuit in the United
States District Court, Central District of California, against
CTX, Buckman, Buckman & Reid, Cliff Rhee and Peter Lau alleging
breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of
fiduciary duty, fraud, misrepresentation, concealment, negligent
misrepresentation and negligence.

On April 14, 2015, Defendant CTX filed a Motion to Dismiss.  On
May 28, 2015, the Court granted CTX's motion, in part, with leave
to amend.  The Company filed a First Amended Complaint on June 8,
2015, asserting causes of action for: (1) breach of covenant of
good faith and fair dealing; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; (3)
fraud-misrepresentation; and (4) fraud-concealment.  On June 24,
2015, CTX filed an answer to the First Amended Complaint.
Buckman, Buckman & Reid and Peter Lau filed an answer to the First
Amended Complaint on July 9, 2015.

On April 14, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint.  On
April 29, 2015, the Court consolidated this action with the Li, et
al. v. Qin, et al. and Li, et al. v. EFT Holdings, Inc., et al.
actions.  On May 11, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a second amended and
consolidated complaint, alleging claims for operation of an
endless chain scheme, deception and common law fraud, unfair
completion, false advertising, and RICO violations.

On May 29, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss and a
motion to strike the class allegations from the second amended and
consolidated complaint, which is currently pending.  The Company
believes that the claims asserted are without merit and intends to
defend against them vigorously.

On May 7, 2015, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the claims of the
individual plaintiffs without prejudice.

On June 4, 2015, the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles ruled that since the Company has its principal place of
business in California, the matter is stayed to allow the Company
time to file in the appropriate forum. The Court further ordered
that Taiwan is a suitable forum for the Company's complaint. An
order to show cause is set for December 4, 2015.


EHARMONY INC: Suit Alleges Unlawful Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------
Mary West, and all others similarly-situated v. eHarmony, Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-06080 (S.D.N.Y., August 3, 2015), seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief and minimum statutory damages
for Defendant's alleged unlawful discrimination under Title III of
the American with Disabilities Act, 42, U.S.C. section 12181, et
seq., and the New York State Human Rights Law.

The Plaintiff claimed that by failing to make its website
accessible to blind persons, eHarmony is violating basic equal
access requirements under both state and federal law.

The Defendant is an American for-profit corporation with principal
office in Santa Monica, California. eHarmony owns and operates an
online service that matches singles seeking relationships through
its website eHarmony.com.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th St., 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 465-1188
      Fax: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: Fresh Attack on Profit Sweep in D. Del.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Jacobs and Gary E. Hindes, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, and derivatively on behalf of the
Federal National Mortgatge Association and the Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation, sued the Federal Housing Finance Agency, as
conservator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the U.S. Treasury,
challenging the legality of the government's use of the profits of
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under what is known as the Third
Amendment Sweep, and makes the claim that the Net Worth Sweep is
an improper term for a preferred stock instrument under Sec. 151
of the Delaware General Corporation Law.

The complaint initiating was filed in Jacobs v. FHFA, Case No.
15-cv-00708 (D. Del.).  The legal arguments underpinning the
challenge based on Sec. 151 are detailed in an Amicus Brief filed
by the Center for Individual Freedom in support of Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac shareholders litigating in Perry v. Lew, No. 14-5243
(D.C. Cir.).  Messrs. Jacobs and Hindes and the Center are all
represented by Myron T. Steele at Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP.
Mr. Steele is former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of
Delaware, a Judge of the Superior Court, and a Vice Chancellor of
the Delaware Court of Chancery

An updated chart is available at no charge at:

     http://bankrupt.com/gselitigationsummary201508.pdf

to help organize information about the many lawsuits challenging
the Third Amendment and Net Worth Sweep, including the cases
challenging the sweep as a confiscation of private property for
public use by our government without just compensation in
violation of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution before
Judge Sweeney in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims; the proceedings
pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; and
Saxton v. FHFA, Case No. 15-cv-00047 (N.D. Iowa).

At this time, jurisdictional discovery is underway in Fairholme v.
U.S., Case No. 13-465 (Ct. Fed. Cl.), and (subject to further
extensions), jurisdictional discovery is currently scheduled to
wrap up by Sept. 4, 2015.  Completion of jurisdictional discovery
in Fairholme -- on whatever date it actually happens -- will
unleash a flurry of activity in Judge Sweeney's court including
Fairholme filing its response to the government's motion to
dismiss its complaint and other pre-trial filings by the
government and other aggrieved shareholders.

Briefing in the appellate proceedings before the D.C. Circuit have
been stayed pending resolution of a motion to supplement the
record based on newly discovered evidence the shareholders say
Judge Lamberth should have considered last year when he dismissed
lawsuits pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia.

FHFA and Treasury are planning to file their motions to dismiss
the Saxton lawsuit in Iowa by Sept. 4, 2015, and the Court is
looking for briefing on those motions to dismiss to be completed
by Nov. 23, 2015.


FEDEX CORPORATION: Limited Discovery Conducted in Oregon Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
FedEx Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 14, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended May 31, 2015, that parties have conducted only
very limited discovery into damages in the Oregon class action
cases.

FedEx Ground is involved in numerous class-action lawsuits
(including 25 that have been certified as class actions),
individual lawsuits and state tax and other administrative
proceedings that claim that the company's owner-operators should
be treated as employees, rather than independent contractors.

Most of the class-action lawsuits were consolidated for
administration of the pre-trial proceedings by a single federal
court, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana. The multidistrict litigation court granted class
certification in 28 cases and denied it in 14 cases.

On December 13, 2010, the court entered an opinion and order
addressing all outstanding motions for summary judgment on the
status of the owner-operators (i.e., independent contractor vs.
employee). In sum, the court ruled on our summary judgment motions
and entered judgment in favor of FedEx Ground on all claims in 20
of the 28 multidistrict litigation cases that had been certified
as class actions, finding that the owner-operators in those cases
were contractors as a matter of the law of 20 states. The
plaintiffs filed notices of appeal in all of these 20 cases.

The Seventh Circuit heard the appeal in the Kansas case in January
2012 and, in July 2012, issued an opinion that did not make a
determination with respect to the correctness of the district
court's decision and, instead, certified two questions to the
Kansas Supreme Court related to the classification of the
plaintiffs as independent contractors under the Kansas Wage
Payment Act. The other 19 cases that are before the Seventh
Circuit were stayed pending a decision of the Kansas Supreme
Court.

On October 3, 2014, the Kansas Supreme Court determined that a 20
factor right to control test applies to claims under the Kansas
Wage Payment Act and concluded that under that test, the class
members were employees, not independent contractors. The case was
subsequently transferred back to the Seventh Circuit, where both
parties made filings requesting the action necessary to complete
the resolution of the appeals. The parties also made
recommendations to the court regarding next steps for the other 19
cases that are before the Seventh Circuit.

FedEx Ground has requested that each of those cases be separately
briefed given the potential differences in the applicable state
law from that in Kansas.

"During the second quarter of 2015, we established an accrual for
the estimated probable loss in the Kansas case that was required
to be recognized pursuant to applicable accounting standards. This
amount was immaterial," the Company said.

On July 8, 2015, the Seventh Circuit issued an order and opinion
confirming the decision of the Kansas Supreme Court, concluding
that the class members are employees, not independent contractors.
Additionally, the Seventh Circuit referred the other 19 cases to a
representative of the court for purposes of setting a case
management conference to address briefing and argument for those
cases.

The multidistrict litigation court remanded the other eight
certified class actions back to the district courts where they
were originally filed because its summary judgment ruling did not
completely dispose of all of the claims in those lawsuits. Three
of these matters settled for immaterial amounts and have received
court approval.

One of the cases is currently pending in the Eastern District of
Arkansas. Another case was appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court
of Appeals where the court reversed the class-wide summary
judgment decision on May 28, 2015 and remanded the case for trial,
holding that there are disputed issues of fact as to whether the
class members are employees or independent contractors. Two cases
in Oregon and one in California were appealed to the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals, where the court reversed the district court
decisions and held that the plaintiffs in California and Oregon
were employees as a matter of law and remanded the cases to their
respective district courts for further proceedings.

"In the first quarter of 2015, we recognized an accrual for the
then-estimated probable loss in those cases that was required to
be recognized pursuant to applicable accounting standards. This
amount was immaterial," the Company said.

In June 2015, the parties in the California case engaged in
mediation and reached an agreement to settle the matter for $228
million, and the Company has increased the accrual to that amount.
The settlement agreement has been filed with the court for
approval.

In the Oregon cases, material exposure above the accrued amount is
reasonably possible. "We continue to evaluate what facts may arise
in the course of discovery and what legal rulings the courts may
render and how these facts and rulings might impact FedEx Ground's
loss," the Company said.

"For a number of reasons, we are not currently able to estimate a
range of reasonably possible loss in excess of the amount accrued.
The number and identities of plaintiffs in these lawsuits are
uncertain, as they are dependent on how the class of full-time
drivers is defined and how many individuals will qualify based on
whatever criteria may be established.

"In addition, the parties have conducted only very limited
discovery into damages, which could vary considerably from
plaintiff to plaintiff and be dependent on evidence pertaining to
individual plaintiffs, which has yet to be produced in the cases.
Further, the range of potential loss could be impacted
substantially by future rulings by the court, including on the
merits of the claims, on FedEx Ground's defenses, and on
evidentiary issues."

"With respect to the matters that are pending outside of Oregon,
it is reasonably possible that potential loss in some of these
lawsuits or changes to the independent contractor status of FedEx
Ground's owner-operators could be material. Similar to our
analysis of loss contingency in the Oregon cases, we continue to
evaluate what facts may arise in the course of discovery and what
legal rulings the courts may render and how these facts and
rulings might impact FedEx Ground's loss. As a consequence of many
of the same factors described above, as well as others that are
specific to these cases, we are not currently able to estimate a
range of reasonably possible loss. We do not believe that a
material loss is probable in these matters."


FGX INTERNATIONAL: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Thomason, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FGX International Inc., Case No. 4:15-cv-
03161-RBH (D.S.C., August 11, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to properly pay minimum wages, straight time
and overtime compensation.

FGX International Inc. is a Delaware Business Corporation that
designs and markets non-prescription reading glasses and
sunglasses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Scott Kozacki, Esq.
      WILLCOX, BUYCK & WILLIAMS, P.A.
      Post Office Box 1909
      Florence, SC 29503-1909
      Telephone No: (843) 622-3258
      Facsimile No: (843) 662-1342
      E-mail: skozacki@willcoxlaw.com


FIFA: Hagens Berman Seeks Info on Youth Soccer Head Injuries
------------------------------------------------------------
Business Wire reported that parents of children who have played
youth soccer or continue to play youth soccer and have sustained
head injuries during play are encouraged to contact Hagens Berman,
a national consumer-rights and sports litigation law firm that has
sued multiple soccer organizations for failing to protect players
from head injuries.

Hagens Berman filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of several
current and former soccer players against soccer's worldwide
governing body, FIFA, and affiliated soccer organizations in the
United States including U.S. Youth Soccer and American Youth
Soccer -- leagues responsible for over three million child and
adolescent soccer players in the United States -- for allegedly
failing to incorporate up-to-date guidelines into their concussion
policies.

The suit states that no rule limits headers in children's soccer,
and children are often taught to head the ball from the age of
three. A dedicated youth player might sustain 1,000 headers per
year, and a high school player more than 1,800 headers.

The lawsuit seeks the following:

   -- Require FIFA and its U.S. affiliates to implement up-to-date
guidelines for detection of head injuries and for return to play
after a concussion.

   -- Regulation of heading by players under 14 years old.
A rule change to permit substitution of players for medical
evaluation purposes.

The lawsuit alleges that these groups have failed to adopt
effective policies to evaluate and manage concussions, a common
occurrence at all levels of the game. They also claim that a lack
of effective policies poses a greater danger to women and children
players, who are more vulnerable to traumatic and long-lasting
brain injury.

Hagens Berman recently led a separate class action and settlement
that if approved by the court will reform concussion policies
across the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA).

Ashley Klann,Esq.
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
1918 Eighth Ave., Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98101
206-268-9363
ashleyk@hbsslaw.com


FLIGHT SERVICES: "Pointer" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rodney Pointer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Flight Services & Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-
03398 (E.D. La., August 11, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Flight Services & Systems, Inc. operates an airline services
company in Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher L. Williams, Esq.
      WILLIAMS LITIGATION, L.L.C.
      639 Loyola Ave., Suite 1850
      New Orleans, LA 70113
      Telephone: (504) 308-1438
      Facsimile: (504) 308-1446
      E-mail: chris@williamslitigation.com


FLORIDA GARDENS: "Artigas" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto A. Artigas, Silvia Cuellar, and other similarly situated
individuals v. Florida Gardens Thrift, Inc., Brandon S. Klien,
Jose A. Carrion, and Hilda Segal, Case No. 0:15-cv-61679-BB (S.D.
Fla., August 12, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a thrift store in Broward County,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      Anaeli C. Petisco, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com


FTD.COM INC: Settles "Substitution Policy" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Joe Van Acker, writing for Law360, reported that FTD.com Inc. has
settled a proposed class action filed in California court on,
which alleged that the company swaps subpar flowers into floral
arrangements under a "substitution policy" FTD has deliberately
concealed, a spokeswoman for the company confirmed.

Details of the settlement have not been disclosed, but FTD said in
a statement that it agreed to settle solely to avoid costly
litigation and expressed confidence that it would have won the
case, which the company said was "completely without merit."

"Due to our high-quality standards and the perishable nature of
flowers or local market conditions, substitution may be necessary
to ensure a customer's arrangement is fresh and delivered within
the requested timeframe," FTD said. "Our substitution policy is
clearly disclosed in multiple places on FTD.com for consumers to
review at the point of purchase."

Plaintiff Rachelle Erratchu claimed that the details of FTD's
policy are only accessible via a hidden, linked disclaimer that
customers have to locate and click on during checkout, and said
that most customers will never realize they received different
flowers than the ones they ordered because they're sending
arrangements to other people.

The link to the policy is shown in the same font as a one-line
message regarding regional availability that also appears during
checkout, and only becomes underlined -- indicating that it's a
link -- if a user happens to move their mouse cursor over it,
according to Erratchu's complaint.

Erratchu said that she purchased two "Thinking of You" bouquets
through FTD's website in January 2014 for sisters whose uncle had
recently died, but the arrangements didn't look "remotely alike"
and neither looked like the bouquet pictured on FTD's website.

The plaintiff claimed that she didn't get the benefit of the
bargain because of FTD's "deceptive" policy, and that she had
counted on the company to deliver two identical bouquets so that
each sister felt like she was being treated equally.

"Every floral arrangement containing substitutions purchased by a
consumer that viewed the misleading pictures on FTD's website
results in unlawfully gained profits for FTD, as it acquired the
profits from the purchase of floral arrangements it would/may not
have received, had it not used the misleading pictures and hidden
its substitution policy on its website," Erratchu said.

The complaint included claims of unjust enrichment and negligent
misrepresentation, and also accused FTD of violating California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act as well as various provisions of the
state's business and professions code.

Counsel for the plaintiff didn't respond to a request for comment.

In a separate case, FTD and social networking site Classmates Inc.
agreed in May to pay $11 million to resolve allegations that they
had violated the Restore Shoppers' Confidence Act by sharing
customers' information with third parties and duped users into
auto-renewing memberships.

Erratchu is represented by:

         Shawn Westr, Esq.
         Kawahito Shraga & Westrick LLP
         1990 S Bundy Dr #280,
         Los Angeles, CA 90025
         Toll Free: +1 310-746-5300

FTD is represented by Christopher Lovrien of Jones Day.

The case is Rachel Erratchu v. FTD.com Inc., case no. BC859687, in
the California Superior Court for Los Angeles County.


GENERAL MOTORS: Says 100 Consumer Suits Pending Thru July 20
------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that through July 20, 2015,
the Company was aware of 100 putative class actions pending
against GM in various federal and state trial courts in the U.S.
alleging that consumers who purchased or leased vehicles
manufactured by GM or General Motors Corporation had been
economically harmed by one or more of the recalls announced in
2014 and/or the underlying vehicle conditions associated with
those recalls (economic-loss cases).

"In the year ended December 31, 2014 we announced various recalls
relating to safety, customer satisfaction and other matters. Those
recalls included recalls to repair ignition switches that could
under certain circumstances unintentionally move from the "run"
position to the "accessory" or "off" position with a corresponding
loss of power, which could in turn prevent airbags from deploying
in the event of a crash," the Company said.

"Through July 20, 2015 we were aware of 100 putative class actions
pending against GM in various federal and state trial courts in
the U.S. alleging that consumers who purchased or leased vehicles
manufactured by GM or General Motors Corporation had been
economically harmed by one or more of the recalls announced in
2014 and/or the underlying vehicle conditions associated with
those recalls (economic-loss cases).


GENERAL MOTORS: 21 Class Actions Pending in Canada
--------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that through July 20, 2015,
the Comopany was aware of 21 putative class actions pending in
various Provincial Courts in Canada seeking relief similar to that
sought in the economic-loss cases in the U.S. In the aggregate
these economic-loss cases seek recovery for purported compensatory
damages, such as alleged diminution in value of the vehicles, as
well as punitive damages and injunctive and other relief.


GENERAL MOTORS: 172 Class Actions Over Injuries Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that through July 20, 2015
we were aware of 172 actions pending in various federal and state
trial courts in the U.S. against GM alleging injury or death as a
result of defects that may be the subject of recalls announced in
2014 (personal injury cases). Additionally, through July 20, 2015,
we were aware of 9 actions pending in various Provincial Courts in
Canada seeking relief similar to that sought in the personal
injury cases in the U.S. In the aggregate these personal injury
cases seek recovery for purported compensatory damages, punitive
damages and other relief.


GENERAL MOTORS: 204 Cases Transferred to MDL
--------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that through July 20, 2015,
204 pending cases have been transferred to, and consolidated with,
the multidistrict litigation.

Since June 2014 the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation has issued orders from time to time directing that
certain pending economic-loss and personal injury federal lawsuits
involving alleged faulty ignition switches or other defects that
may be related to the recalls announced in the year ended December
31, 2014 be transferred to, and consolidated in, a single federal
court, the Southern District of New York (the multidistrict
litigation). Through July 20, 2015, 204 pending cases have been
transferred to, and consolidated with, the multidistrict
litigation. At the court's suggestion, the parties to the
multidistrict litigation engage from time to time in discussions
of possible mechanisms to resolve pending litigation.

"Because many of the plaintiffs in the actions are suing over the
conduct of General Motors Corporation or vehicles manufactured by
that entity for liabilities not expressly assumed by GM, we moved
to enforce the terms of the July 2009 Sale Order and Injunction
issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York (Bankruptcy Court) to preclude claims from
being asserted against us for, among other things, personal
injuries based on pre-sale accidents, any economic-loss claims
based on acts or conduct of General Motors Corporation and claims
asserting successor liability for obligations owed by General
Motors Corporation (successor liability claims)," the Company
said.

"On April 15, 2015 the Bankruptcy Court issued a Decision
precluding claims against us based upon pre-sale accidents, claims
based upon the acts or conduct by General Motors Corporation and
successor liability claims, except for claims asserting
liabilities that had been expressly assumed by us in the July 2009
Sale Agreement and claims that could be asserted against us only
if they were otherwise viable and arose solely out of our own
independent post-closing acts and did not in any way rely on acts
or conduct by General Motors Corporation. Plaintiffs have appealed
the Bankruptcy Court's decision. We have also filed a notice of
cross appeal to preserve our rights on appeal."


GENERAL MOTORS: Bid to Dismiss Shareholder Case Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Defendants' motion to
dismiss a shareholder class action is now fully briefed and
awaiting decision by the court.

In the putative shareholder class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the
court appointed the New York State Teachers' Retirement System as
the lead plaintiff. On January 15, 2015 New York State Teachers'
Retirement System filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint
against GM and several current and former officers and employees
(Defendants).

On behalf of purchasers of GM common stock from November 17, 2010
to July 24, 2014, the Consolidated Class Action Complaint alleges
that Defendants made material misstatements and omissions relating
to problems with the ignition switch and other matters in SEC
filings and other public statements.

On March 13, 2015 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss.
Defendants' motion to dismiss is now fully briefed and awaiting
decision by the court.


GENERAL MOTORS: Court Dismissed Plaintiff Dealers' Claim v. GMCL
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Ontario Superior
Court has dismissed the plaintiff dealers' claim against GMCL.

On February 12, 2010 a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice against GMCL on behalf of a purported class of
over 200 former GMCL dealers (the Plaintiff Dealers) which had
entered into wind-down agreements with GMCL. In May 2009 in the
context of the global restructuring of the business and the
possibility that GMCL might be required to initiate insolvency
proceedings, GMCL offered the Plaintiff Dealers the wind-down
agreements to assist with their exit from the GMCL dealer network
and to facilitate winding down their operations in an orderly
fashion by December 31, 2009 or such other date as GMCL approved
but no later than on October 31, 2010. The Plaintiff Dealers
allege that the Dealer Sales and Service Agreements were wrongly
terminated by GMCL and that GMCL failed to comply with certain
disclosure obligations, breached its statutory duty of fair
dealing and unlawfully interfered with the Plaintiff Dealers'
statutory right to associate in an attempt to coerce the Plaintiff
Dealers into accepting the wind-down agreements. The Plaintiff
Dealers seek damages and assert that the wind-down agreements are
rescindable. The Plaintiff Dealers' initial pleading makes
reference to a claim "not exceeding" CAD $750 million, without
explanation of any specific measure of damages.

On March 1, 2011 the court approved certification of a class for
the purpose of deciding a number of specifically defined issues
including: (1) whether GMCL breached its obligation of "good
faith" in offering the wind-down agreements; (2) whether GMCL
interfered with the Plaintiff Dealers' rights of free association;
(3) whether GMCL was obligated to provide a disclosure statement
and/or disclose more specific information regarding its
restructuring plans in connection with proffering the wind-down
agreements; and (4) whether the Plaintiff Dealers can recover
damages in the aggregate (as opposed to proving individual
damages).

A number of former dealers opted out of participation in the
litigation, leaving 181 dealers in the certified class. Trial of
the class issues was completed in the three months ended December
31, 2014.

On July 8, 2015 the Ontario Superior Court dismissed the Plaintiff
Dealers' claim against GMCL, holding that GMCL did not breach any
common law or statutory obligations toward the class members. The
court also dismissed GMCL's counterclaim against the Plaintiff
Dealers for repayment of the wind-down payments made to them by
GMCL as well as for other relief. The parties have the right to
appeal from this decision to the Ontario Court of Appeals once all
outstanding issues before the trial judge have been completed.


GENERAL MOTORS: Wage Cases Pending in Korean Courts
---------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the GM Korea Wage cases
are currently pending before various district courts in Korea and
the Supreme Court.

Commencing on or about September 29, 2010 current and former
hourly employees of GM Korea Company (GM Korea) filed eight
separate group actions in the Incheon District Court in Incheon,
Korea. The cases, which in aggregate involve more than 10,000
employees, allege that GM Korea failed to include bonuses and
certain allowances in its calculation of Ordinary Wages due under
the Presidential Decree of the Korean Labor Standards Act.

On November 23, 2012 the Seoul High Court (an intermediate level
appellate court) issued a decision affirming a decision of the
Incheon District Court in a case involving five GM Korea employees
which was contrary to GM Korea's position. GM Korea appealed to
the Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea (Supreme Court) and
initiated a constitutional challenge to the adverse interpretation
of the relevant statute.

In December 2013 the Supreme Court rendered a decision in a case
involving another company not affiliated with us which addressed
many of the issues presented in the cases pending against GM Korea
and resolved many of them in a manner which we believe is
favorable to GM Korea. In particular, while the Supreme Court held
that fixed bonuses should be included in the calculation of
Ordinary Wages, it also held that claims for retroactive
application of this rule would be barred under certain
circumstances.

On May 29, 2014 the Supreme Court rendered its decision with
respect to the case involving the five GM Korea employees and
remanded the case to the Seoul High Court consistent with its
December 2013 ruling.

In July 2014 GM Korea and its labor union agreed to include
bonuses and certain allowances in Ordinary Wages retroactively to
March 1, 2014.

"Therefore our accrual related to these cases was reclassified
from a contingent liability to the Pensions liability," the
Company said. "We estimate our reasonably possible loss, as
defined by ASC 450, "Contingencies," in excess of amounts accrued
to be 574 billion South Korean Won (equivalent to $515 million) at
June 30, 2015, which relates to periods before March 1, 2014. We
are also party to litigation with current and former salaried
employees over allegations relating to Ordinary Wages regulation.
At June 30, 2015 we have identified a reasonably possible loss in
excess of the amount of our accrual of 173 billion South Korean
Won (equivalent to $155 million)."

Both the scope of claims asserted and GM Korea's assessment of any
or all of the individual claim elements may change if new
information becomes available. These cases are currently pending
before various district courts in Korea and the Supreme Court.


GENERAL MOTORS: 2nd Circuit Denied Petition for Rehearing
---------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the case, Inventory
Management Securities Class Action, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit denied plaintiff's petition for
rehearing or, in the alternative, for rehearing en banc.

On June 29, 2012 a putative securities class action was filed
against us and a number of our past and current officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (George G. Scott v. General Motors Company et
al).

"Purporting to sue on behalf of owners of common stock deriving
from our 2010 initial public offering, plaintiff asserts non-fraud
prospectus based liability claims under various federal securities
statutes alleging that the Company has made false statements about
its vehicle inventory controls and production decisions,
particularly with respect to full-size trucks," the Company said.
The plaintiff's complaint requests compensatory damages,
rescission and litigation costs, fees and disbursements.

On November 21, 2012 the court appointed the Teamster's Local 710
Pension Fund as lead plaintiff in the matter. On February 1, 2013
the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On September 4, 2014 the
district court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, and
dismissed the case with prejudice. Plaintiff filed an appeal.

On May 28, 2015 the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit affirmed the dismissal by the district court. On July 9,
2015 the appeals court denied plaintiff's petition for rehearing
or, in the alternative, for rehearing en banc.


GOOGLE: IndieGoGo Campaign Launched to Fund Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Google and Microsoft's search engines post ads that general
billions of dollars in income each year.  Often, these ads are
placed alongside organic search results based on the keywords a
user inputs.  Costs for these ads are based on the popularity of
keyword searches and can run from five cents to double-digit
dollars.  Now, the giant companies have marked low-price keywords
"irrelevant" and have stopped offering ads based on these
keywords, creating artificial shortage and pushing ad prices to
the dollar range. $2 per click ads are even made part of the
organic listing tempting the unsuspected searcher to click on it
thinking it organic result.  Further, the two companies have
confiscated certain keywords to further generate artificial
shortages and push prices up.

All of these activities affect private entrepreneurs and small
businesses.

Now, a group has launched an IndieGoGo campaign to raise legal
fees to file a class action lawsuit against Microsoft and Google
for these practices.

The goal of the crowd funding resource is to generate half a
million dollars to pay for legal fees.  If successful, this
lawsuit would require Google and Microsoft to release banned and
"irrelevant" keywords to the public and compensate businesses for
their losses.

The originator of the class action lawsuit idea is also an active
high-tech entrepreneur who has created a cyber security program
known as "Magen-Malware Vigilance."  It can be downloaded to
protect personal identity as well as prevent computer hacking.


GRILL ON 2ND: "Rivera" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Saul Quizet Rivera, Angel Castillo, Francisco Sapon Baquiax, Ivan
Soto Garzon, Magdaleno Perez Gonzalez, Alfonso Leal,and Efren
Sanchez, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. Grill On 2nd LLC d/b/a Tuttles Bar and Grill, Garrett Patrick
Doyle, Patrick M. Brady, and Patrick Lane, Case No. 1:15-cv-06293
(S.D.N.Y., August 11, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a bar and restaurant located at 735
Second Avenue, New York, New York 10016.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HAGGEN: Sued Over Disabled Employees' Unfair Lay Off
----------------------------------------------------
Edhat reported that a class action discrimination lawsuit was
filed in Santa Barbara against Haggen asserting that
developmentally disabled courtesy clerks were unfairly laid off.

The lawsuit was filed on July 31 in Santa Barbara Superior Court
on behalf of 60-year-old William Morris, a developmentally
disabled man who worked at the Fairview Vons for over three years.
When Haggen Food & Pharmacy bought out several Vons and
Albertson's location, Morris and several other developmentally
disabled courtesy clerks were let go.


HANNAY REALTY: Faces "Silvernail" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Silvernail v. Hannay Realty Advisors, LP, an Arizona Limited
Partnership, R. Craig Hannay and Jane Doe Hannay, husband and
wife, Case No. 2:15-cv-01553-JAT (D. Ariz., August 12, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate an RV park in Mesa, Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillips Dayes, Esq.
      NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM
      A Professional Corporation
      3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500
      Phoenix, AZ 85012
      Telephone: (602) 288-1610 ext. 301
      E-mail: docket@phillipsdayeslaw.com


HERTZ GLOBAL: Brief Filed in Concession Fee Recoveries Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 16, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015, that the plaintiffs in
the Concession Fee Recoveries class action lawsuit filed their
answering brief and opening brief on their cross-appeal.

In October 2006, Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan, PhD. and Lydia Lee,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The
Hertz Corporation and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, or
"Enterprise," was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada (Enterprise became a defendant in a separate
action which they have now settled.) The Sobel case is a
nationwide class action on behalf of all persons who rented cars
from Hertz at airports in Nevada and were separately charged
airport concession recovery fees by Hertz as part of their rental
charges. The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, restitution of any charges found to be improper and an
injunction prohibiting Hertz from quoting or charging those
airport fees that are alleged not to be allowed by Nevada law. The
plaintiff also seeks attorneys' fees and costs. In 2010, the
parties engaged in mediation which resulted in a proposed
settlement.

Although the court tentatively approved the settlement in November
2010, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for final approval
of the proposed settlement in May 2011. Following additional
activity in the case, in March 2013, the court granted, in part,
the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment with respect
to restitution and granted the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification while denying the Company's motion for partial
summary judgment.

In October 2014, the court entered final judgment, merging all of
its prior rulings and directed Hertz to pay the class
approximately $42 million in restitution and $11 million in
prejudgment interest, and to pay attorney's fees of $3.1 million
with an additional $3.1 million to be paid from the restitution
fund.

In December 2014, Hertz timely filed an appeal of that final
judgment with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and
the plaintiffs cross appealed the court's judgment seeking to
challenge the lower court's ruling that Hertz did not deceive or
mislead the class members.

In April 2015, Hertz filed its opening brief. In June 2015, the
plaintiffs filed their answering brief and opening brief on their
cross-appeal. The Company continues to believe the outcome of this
case will not be material to its financial condition, results of
operations or cash flows.


HERTZ GLOBAL: Continues to Defend Securities Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. continues to defend the Hertz Global
Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, the Company said in its Form
10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
July 16, 2015, for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2015.

In November 2013, a purported shareholder class action, Pedro
Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming
Hertz Holdings and certain of its officers as defendants and
alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint
alleges that Hertz Holdings made material misrepresentations
and/or omissions of material fact in its public disclosures during
the period from February 25, 2013 through November 4, 2013, in
violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of monetary damages on
behalf of the purported class and an award of costs and expenses,
including counsel fees and expert fees.

In June 2014, Hertz Holdings responded to the amended complaint by
filing a motion to dismiss. In August 2014, the plaintiffs filed
their opposition to Hertz Holdings' motion to dismiss and also
filed a motion to strike certain exhibits which were included in
Hertz Holdings' motion to dismiss.

After a hearing in October 2014, the court granted Hertz Holdings'
motion to dismiss the complaint. The dismissal was without
prejudice and plaintiff was granted leave to file a second amended
complaint within 30 days of the order. The motion to strike was
dismissed as moot.

In November 2014, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint
which shortened the putative class period such that it is not
alleged to have commenced until May 18, 2013 and makes allegations
that are not substantively very different than the allegations in
the prior complaint.

In early 2015 this case was assigned to a new federal judge in the
District of New Jersey. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to Hertz
Holdings' motion to dismiss in January 2015. In February 2015,
Hertz Holdings filed its reply to Plaintiffs' opposition.

Hertz Holdings believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses
and it intends to vigorously defend against these allegations, but
litigation is subject to many uncertainties and the outcome of
this matter is not predictable with assurance. It is possible that
this matter could be decided unfavorably to Hertz Holdings,
however, Hertz Holdings is currently unable to estimate the range
of these possible losses, but they could be material.


ICONIX BRAND: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of investors who purchased Iconix Brand
Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:ICON) securities between February 20, 2013 and
April 17, 2015

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

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

If you suffered a loss in Iconix you have until August 24, 2015 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contact Vincent Wong,
Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephone at
212.425.1140, or visit http://docs.wongesq.com/ICON-Info-Request-
Form-798.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights. Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

Vincent Wong, Esq.
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880


IMMUNOMEDICS INC: "Nasyrova" 2nd Amended Complaint Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Immunomedics, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 16, 2015, that
a putative class action lawsuit has been dismissed.

As reported by Immunomedics, Inc. (the "Company") in its filings
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"), including
the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
March 31, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit, styled Nasyrova
v. Immunomedics, Inc. (the "Lawsuit"), was filed on February 27,
2014, in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey (the "District Court"). The Lawsuit alleged that the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors failed to disclose and/or made material misstatements in
the Company's public filings relating to the termination of the
Company's license agreement with Nycomed GmbH relating to the
Company's veltuzumab product candidate (the "Nycomed Agreement").

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants failed to make timely
disclosure concerning a dispute relating to a delay in the
development of veltuzumab. The complaint alleged violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The lead plaintiff and lead counsel thereafter filed an Amended
Class Action Complaint on August 8, 2014. Defendants moved to
dismiss the complaint on September 22, 2014.

On January 29, 2015 the District Court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The District
Court's opinion concluded that the Company had no duty to disclose
issues raised with Nycomed GmbH prior to the termination of the
Nycomed Agreement. The District Court granted Plaintiffs thirty
days from the date of the opinion in order to file an amended
complaint.

On February 27, 2015, a second amended complaint (the "Second
Amended Complaint") was filed by the plaintiff alleging failure to
disclose information related to the status of the agreement. The
Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on
April 13, 2015.

On July 15, 2015, the District Court issued an Order and Opinion
dismissing with prejudice the Second Amended Complaint.


INDIANA SAFETY: Faces "Blake" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Blake, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Indiana Safety Co., Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00114-RLY-
WGH (S.D. Ind., August 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
and Standards Act.

Indiana Safety Co., Inc. is a supplier of safety and industrial
equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kyle F. Biesecker, Esq.
      Lauren E. Berger, Esq.
      BIESECKER DUTKANYCH & MACER, LLC
      411 Main Street
      Evansville, IN 47708
      Telephone: (812) 424-1000
      Facsimile: (812) 424-1005
      E-mail: kfb@bdlegal.com
              lberger@bdlegal.com


INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christine M. Bernacchi, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Investment Technology Group, Inc., Robert C.
Gasser, Steven R. Vigliotti, and Mats Goebels, Case No. 1:15-cv-
06369 (S.D.N.Y., August 12, 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.

Investment Technology Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that
operates a brokerage and financial markets technology firm,
located at 165 Broadway, New York, New York 10006.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
      Donald R. Hall, Esq.
      Jeffery P. Campisi, Esq.
      Joshua H. Saltzman, Esq.
      KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
      850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 687-1980
      Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
      E-mail: ffox@kaplanfox.com
              dhall@kaplanfox.com
              jcampisi@kaplanfox.com
              jsaltzman@kaplanfox.com

         - and -

      Marc A. Wites, Esq.
      WITES & KAPETAN, P.A.
      4400 North Federal Highway
      Lighthouse Point, FL 33064
      Telephone: (954) 570-8989
      Facsimile: (954) 354-0205
      E-mail: mwites@wklawyers.com


J. CREW GROUP: Sued Over Failure to Design Blind-Accessible POS
---------------------------------------------------------------
National Federation of the Blind, Colorado Cross-Disability
Coalition, Arthur Jacobs, Dishon Spears, Richard King, Stacy
Cervenka, and Jeanine Lineback, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. J. Crew Group, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-06337 (S.D.N.Y. August 11, 2015), arises out of the Defendant's
point-of-sale devices that use a visual, touchscreen interface
that is not accessible to the blind.

J.Crew Group, Inc. operates approximately 42 retail stores in New
York and is headquartered in New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jana Eisinger, Esq.
      MARTINEZ LAW GROUP, P.C.
      244 5th Avenue, #E208
      New York, NY 10001-7604
      Telephone: (212) 726-1079
      E-mail: eisinger@mlgrouppc.com

         - and -

      Azra Z. Mehdi, Esq.
      THE MEHDI FIRM, PC
      One Market
      Spear Tower, Suite 3600
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 293-8039
      Facsimile: (415) 293-801
      E-mail: azram@themehdifirm.com

         - and -

      Scott C. LaBarre, Esq.
      LABARRE LAW OFFICES, P.C.
      1660 South Albion Street, Suite 918
      Denver, CO 80222
      Telephone: (303) 504-5979
      E-mail: slabarre@labarrelaw.com

         - and -

      Kevin W. Williams, Esq.
      COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION LEGAL PROGRAM
      655 Broadway, Suite 775
      Denver, CO 80203
      Telephone: (720) 336-3584
      E-mail: kwilliams@ccdconline.org


KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN: Class Action Cases Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
Kansas City Southern said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 17, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that pursuant to a joint
agreement between the parties, class action cases were dismissed
by the District Court on June 30, 2015.

On April 15, 2014, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Missouri against the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors. The securities class action is
styled as Gross v. Kansas City Southern, et al., 4:14-cv-00345-
BCW.

On April 16, 2014, the first of two shareholder derivative actions
purportedly brought on behalf of the Company (which is named as a
"nominal defendant") was filed in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Missouri against certain of the
Company's current and former directors and officers. The first
derivative action is styled as Webster v. Starling, et al., 4:14-
cv-00349-BCW. The second derivative action was filed on June 6,
2014, and is styled as Lerner v. Starling, et al., 4:14-cv-00509-
BCW.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the Company made
misrepresentations or omitted to disclose certain facts in
connection with its volume guidance for fiscal year 2013.

Pursuant to a joint agreement between the parties, these cases
were dismissed by the District Court on June 30, 2015. These
disputes were resolved without payment by the Company.


KRAFT FOODS: Removes "Appel" Class Suit to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Lawrence Appel, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Kraft Foods Group,
Inc. and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC587662, was
removed from the Superior Court in the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:15-cv-06081-AB-FFM to the proceeding.

The Complaint alleges that the package labeling of "Knudsen
Hampshire Sour Cream" is false, misleading, or misbranded because
it inaccurately states the amount of calories, saturated fat,
sodium, and sugar contained in a one-half cup serving.

The Defendant is represented by:

      Kenneth K. Lee, Esq.
      Daniel D. Welsh, Esq.
      JENNER & BLOCK LLP
      633 West 5th Street, Suite 3600
      Los Angeles, CA 90071-2054
      Telephone: (213) 239-5100
      Facsimile: (213) 239-5199
      E-mail: klee@jenner.com
              dwelsh@jenner.com

         - and -

      Dean N. Panos, Esq.
      JENNER & BLOCK LLP
      353 N. Clark Street
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 222-9350
      Facsimile: (312) 527-0484
      E-mail: dpanos@jenner.com


LA VIE: Faces "Ching" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chu Kwan Ching, on behalf of himself and similarly situated v.
La Vie En Szechuan Restaurant Corp., d/b/a La Vie En Szechuan,
Savour Sichuan Inc. d/b/a Savour Sichuan, Yi Zhang and Suk wun
Fung, Case No. 1:15-cv-06313 (S.D.N.Y., August 11, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate a Chinese restaurant enterprise in New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
              cklee@leelitigation.com


LAWRENCE D. BRUDY: Faces "Schneck" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julie L. Schneck, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated v. Lawrence D. Brudy & Associates, Inc., Case
No. 2:15-cv-01058-RCM (S.D. Pa., August 11, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Lawrence D. Brudy & Associates, Inc. is a law firm that operates
throughout Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth J. Hardin II, Esq.
      HARDIN THOMPSON, P.C.
      The Frick Building
      437 Grant Street, Suite 620
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 315-7195
      Facsimile: (412) 315-7386


LENNOX INTERNATIONAL: Reached Tentative Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lennox International Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company is a
defendant in an attempted class action lawsuit alleging evaporator
coils in the Company's residential air conditioning products are
susceptible to a type of corrosion that can result in coil leaks.

"We dispute the allegations in the lawsuit.  We have reached
tentative settlement terms, preliminarily approved by the court,
and recorded a liability of $2.4 million in Accrued expenses on
the Consolidated Balance Sheet. Any additional liability resulting
from the proposed settlement is not currently reasonably
estimable, but we do not expect the proposed settlement to have a
material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of
operations," the Company said.


LOUIS CRUISE: Class Suit Over Norovirus Outbreak Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
Phil Davies, writing for Travel Weekly, reported that a UK class
action case involving a norovirus outbreak onboard a cruise ship
has been successfully defended in what is being seen as a landmark
decision.

The case involved an outbreak of gastroenteritis on board the
Thomson Spirit, chartered from Louis Cruise Lines.

The class action involved 43 passengers, 28 who alleged they
suffered from bacterial illness with the balance claiming breach
of contract.

Lawyers acting for the claimants had alleged that the outbreak was
bacterial, caused by negligence on the part of the cruise line and
poor adherence by the crew to the ship's established outbreak
response plan.

Judge David Mitchell, sitting in the Central London County Court,
found in favour of the cruise line, saying that it was a very
well-controlled outbreak and that the company applied and
implemented its systems well and that the cruise line was not
negligent.

In coming to his decision, the judge took into account not only
the evidence taken from the ship but also evidence from
passengers.

This included complaints about not being able to have self-service
food, being given paper napkins and being confined to their
cabins.

However, the judge found that these complaints were deemed to be
evidence of compliance with the ship's outbreak plan.

He ruled the ship was not contaminated when the claimants
commenced their cruise.

Maria Pittordis, head of marine, trade and energy and a partner at
law firm Hill Dickinson, said: "The court accepted that the
systems onboard had been fully implemented by the officers and the
crew to bring the virus under control and was influenced by the
documentation produced to support the case, the fact that Louis
tested for pathogens and the deployment of systems beyond the
levels that were required for the numbers of illness.

"This was a great example of team work between owners, charterers,
external health hygiene auditors, the authorities and lawyers."

She added: "The judgment is the first claim of its type to be
successfully defended at trial in the UK.

"It is of great importance to the cruise industry in recognising
that norovirus is not caused by the ship and that even with high
levels of implementation of industry procedures, outbreaks of
norovirus do occur."


LOUISIANA: LSBN Sued Over Grambling BSN Program Termination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kourtney Shari Rodgers v. The Louisiana State Board of Nursing,
Case No. 3:15-cv-02176 (W.D. La., August 12, 2015), is an action
for damages as a result of the Defendant's unlawful conspiracy to
exclude the Grambling State University Baccalaureate Science of
Nursing Program from recognition as an accredited or compensable
educational provider of Baccalaureate Nursing Studies in the State
of Louisiana.

The Louisiana State Board of Nursing is an appointed regulatory
board of private citizens vested with regulatory responsibilities
for the practice of nursing in the State of Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William T. Hughey, Esq.
      THE HUGHEY LAW FIRM P.L.L.C.
      P.O. Box 2012
      Marshall, TX 75670
      Telephone: (903) 935-5550
      Facsimile: (866) 823-7185
      E-mail: Hugheylaw@sbcglobal.net

         - and -

      Dianne Hill, Esq.
      HILL LAW OFFICE
      1401 Hudson Lane Suite 137
      Monroe, LA 71201
      Telephone: (318) 325-6398
      Facsimile: (318)) 325-6399
      E-mail: D9hill@yahoo.com


MAPP CONSTRUCTION: "Reyes" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Salvador Reyes, Jorge Guillen, and Elin Javier Zelaya Funez,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v.
MAPP Construction, LLC and JC Works Construction Solutions, LLC,
Case No. 4:15-cv-02328(S.D. Tex., August 12, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company doing
business in Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
      THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
      2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
      Houston, TX 77018
      Telephone: (713) 868-3388
      Facsimile: (713) 683-9940


MAYER BROWN: Error in $1.5BB Loan to GM Yields 2 Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
Claire Bushey, writing for Crain's Chicago Business, reported that
a law firm error that hurt creditors holding a $1.5 billion loan
to General Motors has yielded two class-action federal lawsuits
against Mayer Brown alleging negligence and malpractice.

The suits, filed July 31 in U.S. District Court by municipal
pension funds in Alabama and California, seek unspecified damages.
The Employees' Retirement System of Montgomery, Ala., and the
Oakland, Calif., Police and Fire Retirement System belonged to a
group of more than 400 lenders that in 2006 issued through New
York bank JPMorgan Chase a $1.5 billion term loan to GM, secured
by company assets, according to the lawsuits.

But two years later, Mayer Brown played a role in erasing that
secured interest, the lawsuits say. Now unsecured creditors are
seeking to claw back payments made during GM's bankruptcy to the
two pension funds and others holding slices of the $1.5 billion
loan, saying that as fellow unsecured creditors, the funds weren't
entitled to them.

"I've never seen an error of this kind with this consequence,"
said Edward Haber, a partner at Boston firm Shapiro Haber & Urmy
who is representing the Montgomery pension fund. "We regret that
we have to bring this action against a very respected law firm,
but the damage was done, and it needs to be remedied."

In 2008, GM wanted to pay off a debt, separate from the $1.5
billion loan, that was also administered by JPMorgan. While
preparing documentation for that transaction, a Mayer Brown
paralegal included paperwork terminating the agreement to secure
creditors' claims to the 2006 loan. The work passed to an
associate, who forwarded it to an attorney at JPMorgan's outside
law firm, New York-based Simpson Thacher & Bartlett. Both signed
off on it.

The Mayer Brown partner responsible for overseeing the associate
who did the work never asked any questions about the erroneous
termination agreement, the Oakland pension fund's lawsuit says.
The mistake wasn't discovered until GM filed for bankruptcy in
2009.

A Mayer Brown spokesman declined to comment.

The pension funds also filed lawsuits July 30 in the U.S. Southern
District of New York against JPMorgan and Simpson Thacher.

Haber said it is likely the two suits against Mayer Brown
eventually will be combined.


MDC PARTNERS: Bronstein Gewirtz Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC reminds investors that a
securities class action has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
those who purchased shares of MDC Partners, Inc. ("MDC Partners"
or the "Company") (NasdaqGS: MDCA), during the period between
September 24, 2013 and April 27, 2015 inclusive. (the "Class
Period").

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

On April 27, 2015, the Company announced in press release its
financial results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2015.
Additionally, the Company disclosed that: (a) since October 5,
2014, the Company has been actively cooperating with an SEC
investigation relating to the reimbursement of expenses incurred
by the CEO, Miles Nadal; (b) Mr. Nadal agreed to reimburse the
Company $8.6 million which the Company had sought for
reimbursement; (c) During the quarter ended March 31, 2015, the
Company incurred approximately $5.8 million in legal fees and
other related expenses relating to the SEC inquiry; and (d) the
Company reassigned its Chief Accounting Officer, Michael Sabatino
to Senior Vice President, Special Projects.

Following this news, shares of MDC Partners has fallen as much as
$9.34 per share, or 33.38%, during intraday trading to trade at
$18.64 on April 28, 2015.

No Class has yet been certified in the above action. If you wish
to review a copy of the Complaint, to discuss this action, or have
any questions, please contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his
Investor Relations Coordinator Eitan Kimelman of Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or via email
info@bgandg.com. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address and telephone number.  If you
suffered a loss in MDC Partners you have until September 29, 2015
to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

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

Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
Eitan Kimelman, Esq.
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC
144 N Beverwyck Rd, Lake Hiawatha, NJ 07034
212-697-6484
info@bgandg.com


MDC PARTNERS: Sued in NY Court for SEC Violations
-------------------------------------------------
Steve McClellan, writing for Media Post, reported that MDC
Partners has been sued in New York federal court for multiple
counts of U.S. Securities and Exchange violations, including
numerous "false and misleading statements" about its financial
condition and the level of compensation received by former company
CEO Miles Nadal.

The suit, which seeks class action status, also cited the
company's failure to disclose certain facts -- like an ongoing SEC
investigation of the company -- which if known publicly, would
have dissuaded investors from buying up company shares, traded on
the NASDAQ Exchange.

The suit, filed by a firefighters' pension plan, also named Nadal
as a defendant. He resigned under fire from the company on July
20, and has already agreed to pay back to the company some $20
million in improperly expensed items and retention bonuses that he
did not earn.

Company CFO David Doft was also been named in the suit along with
former Chief Accounting Officer Michael Sabatino, who was relieved
of his duties in April and left the company around the same time
as Nadal.

The suit claims that the violations took place between September
24th of 2013 and April 27th of (the so-called "class period") when
the company disclosed that it was being investigated by the SEC
for trading and accounting irregularities, including the sketchy
expense items claimed by Nadal.

The suit cites numerous "false and misleading statements" in
company SEC filings and other public statements during the class
period.

Nadal, CFO David Doft and Sabatino, the suit alleged, "are liable
as participants in a fraudulent scheme and course of conduct that
operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of MDC common stock by
disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or
concealing materially false and material facts."

That scheme misled investors about MDC's business, operations and
management and the "intrinsic value of MDC common stock," per the
complaint.

The alleged deceptions enabled Nadal, Doft, Sabatino and other
company insiders to collectively sell their personally held MDC
common stock for proceeds in excess of $163.7 million according to
the suit, while plaintiff and other shareholders were induced to
purchase company shares at "artificially inflated prices."

Plaintiff and other shareholders outside the company would have
avoided the stock, at least at the prices they paid, "if they had
been aware that the market prices had been artificially and
falsely inflated by Defendants' misleading statements."

Most of the insider gains during the class period were received by
Nadal. During that time, Nadal sold 5.6 million MDC common shares
for proceeds totaling approximately $146.2 million, per the suit.

When MDC finally disclosed the ongoing SEC investigation in late
April -- about seven months after it began -- the stock plummeted
by nearly a third. The stock has continued to drift downward and
is now about 40% down from its high. The shareholder suit was
filed after the close of the stock markets. MDC Partners is down
about 3% in midday trading to $17.06.


MEN'S MEDICAL CLINIC: Probed Over Prescription Treatment
--------------------------------------------------------
WFTV.com reported that an Orange County man claims an impotence
clinic charged him thousands for prescription treatments that
failed.

The Men's Medical Clinic has dozens of complaints against it, and
it was just sued by the Massachusetts attorney general for
deceptive sales.

Action 9's Todd Ulrich found the clinic's founder has been in
trouble with Florida regulators before.

An advertisement for Men's Medical Clinic claimed it offers 180
different prescription blends for erectile dysfunction.

An Orange County man who wants to remain anonymous told Ulrich
that he responded to the ad because other prescriptions had not
been successful.

"I was hoping they could help me because all the pills and stuff
didn't help," the man said.

He said the drug injection treatment at the company's Orange
County clinic worked. Then, within minutes, someone had him sign a
$4,200 contract to cover prescription injections.

He claims it never worked again.

"I thought I could get my money back, but they kept giving me more
shots that didn't work either," the man said.

Men's Medical Clinic is based in Orlando and has 11 locations. The
company, founded by Dr. Kevin Hornsby, is rated F by the Better
Business Bureau. There are more than 66 complaints, and most
customers had issues with the product and how it's sold.
Glenn Hunt said that after prostate cancer surgery, the drug
triggered severe pain. He said he could not use it and could not
get his $3,000 back.

"I'll harass you guys to death -- call everybody I can. I'll go to
small claims court," Hunt said.

Massachusetts attorney general sued Men's Medical Clinic, which
had a Boston office, and charged that it used deceptive tactics,
including high-pressure sales and exaggerated claims.

Twenty-three consumers complained to the Florida attorney general.

In South Florida an uncertified class-action lawsuit claimed the
company's sales tactics were deceptive, according to the lawsuit's
attorney, Tony Marino.
"There are not 180 unique blends. It is not unique to each
patient. There is a lot of misinformation," Marino said.

Men's Medical Clinic representatives canceled a scheduled
interview with Ulrich.

In a written response, company representatives said each clinic's
doctor oversees individual care.  Out of 33,000 patients only 66
complained to the BBB, and the company said the vast majority is
satisfied, and it has challenged the bureau's rating. It blamed
the state lawsuit on a former partner with a recently discovered
criminal record. Men's Medical Clinic representatives also
dismissed the class-action lawsuit as a frivolous action based on
one patient.

Florida's Department of Health found that Hornsby has prescribed
testosterone without lab testing. He paid a $20,000 fine and has
been banned from prescribing testosterone.

The company said it stopped testosterone treatments four years
ago.


NETFLIX INC: Continues to Face Shareholder Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------
Netflix, Inc. continues to face shareholder class action lawsuits,
the Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 17, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2015.

On January 13, 2012, the first of three purported shareholder
class action lawsuits was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company
and certain of its officers and directors. Two additional
purported shareholder class action lawsuits were filed in the same
court on January 27, 2012 and February 29, 2012 alleging
substantially similar claims.  These lawsuits were consolidated
into In re Netflix, Inc., Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:12-cv-
00225-SC, and the Court selected lead plaintiffs.

On June 26, 2012, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
which alleged violations of the federal securities laws. The Court
dismissed the consolidated complaint with leave to amend on
February 13, 2013.

Lead plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated complaint on
March 22, 2013. The Court dismissed the first amended consolidated
complaint with prejudice on August 20, 2013, and judgment was
entered on September 27, 2013.

Lead plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment and
requested leave to file a second amended complaint on October 25,
2013. On January 17, 2014, the Court denied that motion.

On February 18, 2014, lead plaintiffs appealed that decision to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Management has determined a potential loss is reasonably possible
however, based on its current knowledge, management does not
believe that the amount of such possible loss or a range of
potential loss is reasonably estimable


NPC INTERNATIONAL: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Deal" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsie Deal, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. NPC International, Inc. and NPC Quality Burgers, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-09206 (D. Kan., August 11, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for all
hours worked exceeding 40 in a workweek.

The Defendants operate over 1,250 Pizza Hut units in 28 states and
over 140 Wendy's units in 5 states throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.
      ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC
      10601 Mission Rd., Suite 100
      Leawood, KA 66206
      Telephone: (913) 766-5585
      Facsimile: (816) 875-5069
      E-mail: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com
              www.rmlegalgroup.com

         - and -

      Tracey F. George, Esq.
      DAVIS GEORGE MOOK LLC
      1600 Genessee, Suite 328
      Kansas City, MO 64102
      Telephone: (816) 569-2629
      Facsimile: (816) 447-3939
      E-mail: tracey@davisgeorge.com


PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Class Action Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. continues to defend a securities
related class action lawsuit, the Company said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
14, 2015, for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2015.

On September 28, 2012, three complaints were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California against us
and certain of the Company's executive officers and one consultant
(collectively, the "Defendants") on behalf of certain purchasers
of the Company's common stock. The complaints have been brought as
purported stockholder class actions, and, in general, include
allegations that Defendants violated (i) Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and (ii)
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by making materially false and
misleading statements regarding the interim results of the
Company's bavituximab Phase II second-line NSCLC trial, thereby
artificially inflating the price of the Company's common stock.
The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.

On February 5, 2013, the court consolidated the related actions
with the low-numbered case (captioned Anderson v. Peregrine
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 12-cv-1647-PSG (FMOx)).
After the court issued two separate orders granting the
Defendants' two separate motions to dismiss, on May 1, 2014, the
court issued a third order granting Defendants' motion to dismiss
the plaintiff's amended complaint with prejudice.

On May 29, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with
respect to the court's order granting Defendants' motion to
dismiss. Lead plaintiff's opening brief with respect to the appeal
was filed on December 15, 2014 and the Defendants' answering brief
was filed on January 30, 2015. Lead plaintiff filed a reply brief
on February 27, 2015.

"We believe that the class action lawsuit is without merit and
intend to vigorously defend the action," the Company said.


PEREGRINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Defend "Michaeli" Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peregrine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. continues to defend a lawsuit
filed by Michaeli v. Steven W. King, et al., the Company said in
its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 14, 2015, for the fiscal year ended April 30,
2015.

"On October 10, 2013, a derivative/class action complaint,
captioned Michaeli v. Steven W. King, et al., C.A. No. 8994-VCL,
was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
against certain of our executive officers and directors," the
Company said. "The complaint alleges that our directors and
executives breached their respective fiduciary duties in
connection with certain purportedly improper compensation
decisions made by our Board of Directors during the past three
fiscal years, including: (i) the grant of a stock option to Mr.
King on May 4, 2012; (ii) the non-routine broad-based stock option
grant to our directors, executives, all other employees and
certain consultants on December 27, 2012; and (iii) the payment,
during the past three fiscal years, of compensation to our non-
employee directors."

"In addition, the complaint alleges that our directors breached
their fiduciary duty of candor by filing and seeking stockholder
action on the basis of an allegedly materially false and
misleading proxy statement for our 2013 annual meeting of
stockholders. The plaintiff is seeking recession of a portion of
the stock option grant to Mr. King on May 4, 2012 and the stock
options granted to the defendants on December 27, 2012, as well as
disgorgement of any excessive compensation paid to our non-
employee directors during the three fiscal years prior to the
filing of the complaint and other monetary relief for our benefit.
The defendants filed their answer to the complaint on February 5,
2014. We believe that the derivative/class action complaint are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action."


PFIZER: Philips Pension to Share in $400MM Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gail Moss, writing for IPE, reported that Philips Pensioenfonds,
the EUR17.8bn pension scheme of the Dutch electronics giant, will
share in a total payout of $400m (EUR365m) to be made by Pfizer,
after the US pharmaceutical company settled a securities fraud
class action by investors who claimed it made false statements to
them.

After nearly five years of litigation, both sides reached a
tentative agreement last January to settle the case for $400m plus
accrued interest.

The deal was finally approved by the district court for the
Southern District of New York.

Claims from class members are still being processed, so the
precise amounts to be allocated to investors are not yet known.

But Philips Pensioenfonds, as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, is
likely to be one of the biggest beneficiaries.

In a class action in the US, the lead plaintiff is appointed by
the court, which generally chooses the party that has suffered the
greatest economic loss.

And, according to Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd (RGRD), lead
counsel for the class of Pfizer investors, not all class members
are likely to claim, resulting in higher per-share distributions.

In the lawsuit, investors alleged that Pfizer had illegally
promoted Bextra, an anti-inflammatory drug, and several other
drugs 'off label' to boost sales.

Off-label marketing is the promotion of pharmaceutical products
for uses unapproved by the US Food and Drug Administration.

Pfizer and its officers were alleged to have concealed from
investors that the company was earning substantial revenue from
this illegal promotion, and was subject to an extensive government
investigation.

Materially false and misleading statements were claimed to have
been made to investors between January 2006 and January 2009 (the
'class period').

Furthermore, investors claimed that false financial results and
reports were filed with the US Securities and Exchange Commission
that did not sufficiently account for, or disclose, probable loss
contingencies resulting from Pfizer's off-label marketing, as
required by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

Three days after the end of the class period, Pfizer announced it
had agreed to pay $2.3bn to settle allegations by the US
Department of Justice that it had engaged in off-label marketing.

That day, Pfizer's share price dropped from $17.45 to $15.65.

Mike Dowd, partner at RGRD, said: "We are very pleased the court
approved the settlement providing a $400m recovery for Pfizer
investors.

"In granting the approval, the court found that the settlement and
the plan of allocation -- i.e. the formula for how the recovery
will be shared among the class of Pfizer investors -- was fair and
reasonable."

The precise allocation to class members will be determined.


PHILIP MORRIS: Appeal in Class Action Pending in Quebec Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris International Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form
8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
July 16, 2015, that the Quebec Court of Appeal has yet to issue
its decision regarding a motion, heard by the court on July 9,
2015, to cancel the order of the Superior Court of the District of
Montreal, issued on May 27, 2015, that PMI's Canadian affiliate,
Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc. ("RBH"), pay an initial deposit of
approximately CAD 246 million into a trust account pending the
merits appeal of the Quebec class actions judgment.

The trial court had ordered, as part of its judgment, that RBH and
the other defendants make initial deposits of a portion of the
damages award within 60 days.

Should the Court of Appeal deny the motion for cancellation of the
order, PMI expects to incur a pre-tax charge of approximately CAD
246 million (approximately $199 million), or an after-tax charge
of $0.09 per share. Depending on developments, this charge would
likely be recorded as tobacco litigation-related expenses in the
second quarter of 2015.

In the event of a denial of the motion for cancellation by the
court, revised Schedules and any other relevant information will
be furnished promptly in a filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, to the extent relevant.

The cases are Cecilia Letourneau v. JTI-Macdonald Corp., Imperial
Tobacco Canada Ltd., Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., and Conseil
Quebecois sur le Tabac et la Sante and Jean-Yves Blais v. JTI-
Macdonald Corp., Imperial Tobacco Canada Ltd., Rothmans, Benson &
Hedges Inc. (Superior Court of the District of Montreal, Province
of Quebec).


PINTO TRANSFER: "Carrandi" Suit Alleges FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
Diandra Dian Carrandi, and all others similarly-situated v. Pinto
Transfer & Packing Corp., Jenny Baez and Delse Perez, Case No.
1:15-cv-22879 (S.D. Fla., August 3, 2015), seeks to recover
monetary damages, liquidated damages, interests, costs and
attorney's fees for the Defendants' violations of overtime pay
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a freight shipping and trucking company,
running freight hauling business from Miami, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
      DANIEL T FELD P.A.
      20801 Biscayne Boulevard, Ste 403
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Tel: (786) 923-5899
      E-mail: danielfeld.esq@gmail.com

          - and -

      Isaac Jackie Mamane, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ISAAC MAMANE
      1150 Kane Concourse, Floor 2
      Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
      Tel: (305) 448-9292
      Fax: (305) 448-9477
      E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


PMFG INC: Bridges Files Amended Suit Over CECO Merger
-----------------------------------------------------
Robert M. Bridges ("Bridges"), individually and on behalf of
similarly situated shareholders of PMFG, Inc. ("PMFG") and
derivatively on behalf of PMFG, on May 19, 2015, commenced an
action in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas (the "Texas
Action"). CECO Environmental Corp. ("CECO"), Top Gear Acquisition,
Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of CECO), Top Gear Acquisition II
LLC (a wholly-owned subsidiary of CECO) and each of the members of
the board of directors of PMFG were named as defendants in the
Texas Action. On July 10, 2015, Bridges filed an amended petition
in connection with the Texas Action, PMFG, Inc. said in its Form
8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
July 13, 2015.

Among others, the lawsuit alleges that, "Unfortunately for PMFG's
public stockholders, the Proposed Acquisition was a product of a
hopelessly flawed and unfair process that was driven by one of the
Company's largest stockholders, Cannell Capital LLC ("Cannell").
Cannell is an activist hedge fund that specializes in making
investments in public companies that it deems to be
underperforming or undervalued. Upon acquiring a substantial
position in a target company, Cannell will utilize proxy contests
and public castigation of the company's officers and directors in
order to induce its desired course of action for that company."

He is represented by:

Joe Kendall, Esq.
Jamie J. McKey, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, LLP
3232 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75204
Telephone: 214/744-3000
Facsimile: 214/744-3015
E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
        jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com

     - and -

David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
Edward M. Gergosian, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 619/231-1058
Facsimile: 619/231-7423

     - and -

Hamilton P. Lindley, Esq.
DUNNAM DUNNAM HARMON WEST LINDLEY & RYAN LLP
State Bar No. 24044838
4125 W. Waco Drive
Waco, TX 76710
Telephone: 254/753-6437
Facsimile: 254/753-7434

A copy of the amended petition in the Texas Action is available at
http://is.gd/sBhEYG


PMFG INC: Terry and Georgia Brown File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
PMFG, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 13, 2015, that Terry and Georgia
Brown, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated shareholders
of PMFG, Inc. ("PMFG"), on July 17, 2015, commenced an action in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Delaware
Action"). CECO Environmental Corp. ("CECO"), Top Gear Acquisition,
Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of CECO), Top Gear Acquisition II
LLC (a wholly-owned subsidiary of CECO) and each of the members of
the board of directors of PMFG were named as defendants in the
Delaware Action.

A copy of the verified class action complaint in the Delaware
Action is available at http://is.gd/ljwYvx

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

     - and -

BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
Evan J. Smith, Esq.
Marc L. Ackerman, Esq.
Two Bala Plaza, Suite 510
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Tel: (610) 667-6200


PRO TRANSPORT: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Silva" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julio Antonio Silva, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Pro Transport, Inc., Oscar Acharandio, and Tony
Menendez, Case No. 1:15-cv-23028-RNS (S.D. Fla., August 12, 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 Florida-based transportation
company that provides logistic solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RENO HOUSING: Faces "Roces" Suit Over Failure to Pay All Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joaquin Roces, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Reno Housing Authority and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 3:2015-cv-00408 (D. Nev., August 11, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to properly pay all
wages due in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Reno Housing Authority a municipal corporation under Chapter 315
Nevada Revised Statute.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
      Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
      Leah L. Jones, Esq.
      THIERMAN BUCK LLP
      7287 Lakeside Drive
      Reno, NV 89511
      Telephone: (775) 284-1500
      Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
      E-mail: mark@thiermanbuck.com
              josh@thiermanbuck.com
              leah@thiermanbuck.com


RESIDENTIAL ACCREDIT: Court Approves $335MM Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
A Federal Court has finalized a $335 million global settlement of
a class action lawsuit brought by New Jersey Carpenters Health
Fund on behalf of purchasers of mortgage-backed securities (MBS)
issued by Residential Accredit Loans, Inc., (RALI). Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC served as lead counsel in the consolidated
class action.

On July 31, 2015, Judge Katherine Failla, of the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, gave final approval
to a $235 million settlement with underwriters Citigroup Global
Markets Inc., Goldman Sachs & Co., and UBS Securities LLC. She
also approved a plan for distribution to investors of those funds
as well as the previously approved $100 million settlement with
RALI, its affiliates, and the individual Defendants that was
reached in in 2013.

This global settlement marks an end to a long and complicated
class action over MBS offerings that RALI and certain of its
affiliates issued and sold to the New Jersey Carpenters Health
Fund and other investors from 2006 through 2007. The case took
seven years of intense litigation to resolve.

In terms of investor recovery, lead counsel for the Plaintiffs,
Joel P. Laitman, of Cohen Milstein, termed the settlement
"exceptional in that a meaningful recovery to investors was
achieved despite enormous obstacles -- including the initial
denial of class certification by the District Court and the
affirmance of the denial of class certification by the federal
appeals court."

According to Cohen Milstein Managing Partner Steven J. Toll, "This
settlement brings closure and substantial monetary relief to
investors who suffered losses in connection with these RALI
mortgage-backed securities. Our litigation team persevered against
all odds to achieve this long-awaited settlement for this Class of
investors."

The case involved allegations that RALI and its affiliates
committed Securities Act violations in connection with the public
offerings of the MBS and systematically disregarded the applicable
underwriting guidelines when originating the mortgage loans
underlying the securities at issue. Despite RALI and its
affiliates seeking voluntary Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, the Plaintiffs
in 2013 secured a $100 million settlement from RALI and its
affiliates that is part of the $335 million total settlement.

In addition to Laitman and Toll, the Lead Plaintiffs are
represented by attorneys Christopher Lometti, Michael Eisenkraft,
Julie G. Reiser, Daniel B. Rehns, Kenneth M. Rehns, and S. Douglas
Bunch, all of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC.

Founded in 1969, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC is a national
leader in plaintiff class action lawsuits and litigation. As one
of the premier firms in the country handling major complex cases,
including securities fraud actions, Cohen Milstein, with over 80
attorneys, has offices in Washington, D.C., New York,
Philadelphia, Chicago, Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., and Denver, Colo.
For more information, visit http://www.cohenmilstein.comor call
(202) 408-4600.

Christopher Lometti,Esq.
Michael Eisenkraft, Esq.
Julie G. Reiser, Esq.
Daniel B. Rehns, Esq.
Kenneth M. Rehns,Esq.
S. Douglas Bunch, Esq.
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
1100 New York Ave NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20005
t: 202 408 4600
f: 202 408 4699
http://www.cohenmilstein.com/


SAYVILLE TOWN: "Ellsayed" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Ellsayed, and all others similarly-situated v. Sayville Town
House, Inc. dba Moriches Bay Diner, George Nikolopoulos, and Spiro
Nikolopoulos, Case No. 2:15-cv-04506 (E.D.N.Y., August 3, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages and reasonable attorneys' fees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate a diner operating as Moriches Bay
Diner in Moriches, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Albert Adam Breud, II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ALBERT ADAM BREUD, PLLC
      356 Veterans Memorial Highway, Ste. 3
      Commack, NY 11725
      Tel: (631) 543-3030
      Fax: (631) 543-2888
      E-mail: breudlaw@optonline.net


SCHIFF NUTRITION: Sued in Cal. Over False Product Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Johnston, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Schiff Nutrition International, Inc. and
Reckitt Benckiser LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-03669-EDL (N.D. Cal.,
August 11, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' alleged false and
fraudulent advertising of MegaRed Omega-3 Krill Oil supplements in
300 mg, 500 mg, and 1000 mg strengths.

The Defendants are manufacturers of household, cleaning, and food
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey L. Fazio, Esq.
      Dina E. Micheletti, Esq.
      FAZIO | MICHELETTI LLP
      2410 Camino Ramon, Suite 315
      San Ramon, CA 94583
      Telephone: 925-543-2555
      Facsimile: 925-369-0344
      E-mail: jlf@fazmiclaw.com
              dem@fazmiclaw.com

         - and -

      Thomas J. Misny, Esq.
      THOMAS J. MISNY, M.D., INC.
      7319 Eagle Mills Road
      Waite Hill, OH 44094
      Telephone: (440) 256-1950
      Facsimile: (440) 256-1950
      E-mail: misnynt@netscape.net


SCOTTS MIRACLE: Court Certifies EZ Seed(R) Labelling Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The following statement regarding In re Scotts EZ Seed Litigation,
Case No. 12-cv-4727, is being issued by Bursor & Fisher, P.A. and
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP and was authorized by a federal court. This
is not a solicitation from a lawyer.

You may be affected by a class action lawsuit alleging fraud-
based, warranty, contract, and unjust enrichment claims against
The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, Inc. and The Scotts Company LLC
(collectively "Scotts") alleging that EZ Seed(R) does not grow
grass at all or, in the alternative does not grow grass "50%
Thicker With Half the Water* *Versus ordinary seed when each was
watered at half the recommended rate. Results may vary," as
advertised.

The lawsuit is called In re Scotts EZ Seed Litigation, Case No.
12-cv-4727, and is in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The Court decided this lawsuit
should be a class action on behalf of a "Class," or group of
people, that could include you. This notice summarizes your rights
and options. More information is in a detailed Notice available at
the website below. If you're included, you have to decide whether
to stay in the Class and be bound by the results, or ask to be
excluded and keep your right to sue Scotts. The validity of the
claims has not been proven. There is no money available now and no
guarantee that there will be.

Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP
369 Lexington Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY 10017
Toll Free: (877) 247-4292
Phone:    (212) 983-9330
jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com

Bursor & Fisher, P.A
888 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019
NY Office: 646-837-7150
CA Office: 925-300-4455
Email: info@bursor.com


SIMS MUNICIPAL: Faces "Lugo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Lugo and others similarly situated v. Sims Municipal Recycling
of NY LLC, Simsmetal East LLC d/b/a Sims metal
Management, Case No. 1:15-cv-06336 (S.D.N.Y., August 11, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a metal recycling company that
buys, processes and sells ferrous and non-ferrous recycled metals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory Antollino, Esq.
      275 7th Avenue, Suite 705
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (2120 332-7397
      Facsimile: (212) 334-7399
      E-mail: Gantollino@nyc.rr.com

         - and -

      Trang Q. Tran, Esq.
      TRAN LAW FIRM L.L.P.
      9801 Westheimer Road, Suite 302
      Houston, TX 77042
      Telephone: (713) 223-8855
      Facsimile: (713) 489-7124
      E-mail: Ttran@tranlawllp.com


SIRIUSXM RADIO: Reaches $1.2-Mil. Settlement in Intern's Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
All Access reported that a motion for settlement has been filed in
an intern's class action lawsuit against SIRIUSXM RADIO alleging
that the company should have paid its interns but did not. SIRIUS
will pay $1,297,350 into a settlement fund to settle the suit,
covering awards to claimants, attorney's fees, and other fees.

The motion was filed jointly on by the attorneys for plaintiffs
JUSTIN VITETTA (who replaced MELISSA TIERNEY as named plaintiff)
and DANIEL MILLER and attorneys for SIRIUSXM in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of NEW YORK.

The suit claimed that SIRIUSXM interns "routinely  performed the
most mundane and repetitive tasks that were nonetheless essential
to SIRIUSXM's operations, and thus undeniably reduced the need for
additional paid employees and greatly benefitted SIRIUS" but that
"interns were not provided any training similar to an educational
environment."


SOLAZYME INC: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of investors who
purchased Solazyme, Inc. ("Solazyme" or the "Company") securities
between February 27, 2014 and November 5, 2014.

The complaint alleges that the Company made materially false
and/or misleading statements and omitted material information
concerning the production capacity of its oil producing facility
in Moema, Brazil. In particular, it is alleged that Solazyme
improperly concealed ongoing construction delays caused by
inadequate access to electricity and steam utility services.

If you suffered a loss in Solazyme you have until August 24, 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
lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contact Vincent
Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephone at
212.425.1140, or visit http://docs.wongesq.com/SZYM-Info-Request-
Form-835.

Vincent Wong, Esq.
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: www.wongesq.com/


TENET HEALTHCARE: Faces "Selmon" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Selmon, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation d/b/a Abrazo Health Care,
Vanguard Health Systems, Inc., d/b/a Abrazo Health Care, VHS of
Arrowhead, Inc., d/b/a Arrowhead Hospital, Case No. 2:15-cv-01549-
DMF (D. Ariz., August 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants operate several hospitals under the name Abrazo
Healthcare in Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel Bonnett, Esq.
      Ravi Patel, Esq.
      MARTIN & BONNETT, P.L.L.C.
      1850 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2010
      Phoenix, AZ 85004
      Telephone: (602) 240-6900
      E-mail: dbonnett@martinebonnett.com
              rpatel@martinbonnett.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Failure to Pay Drivers Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Del Rio, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier-CA, LLC, and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:15-cv-03667-MEJ (N.D. Cal.,
August 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate the Uber ride sharing service.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher J. Hamner, Esq.
      Amy T. Wootton, Esq.
      Evelina Serafini, Esq.
      HAMNER LAW OFFICES, APC
      555 W. 5th Street, 31st Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90013
      Telephone: (213) 533-4160
      Facsimile: (213) 533-4167
      E-mail: chamner@hamnerlaw.com
              awootton@hamnerlaw.com
              eserafini@hamnerlaw.com


UNITED CONTINENTAL: Anticipates Consolidation of Class Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
United Continental Holdings, Inc. anticipates the class action
lawsuits that asserted claims under the Sherman Antitrust Act will
be consolidated into multi-district litigation, the Company said
in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June
30, 2015.

On June 30, 2015, UAL received a Civil Investigative Demand
("CID") from the Antitrust Division of the United States
Department of Justice ("DOJ") seeking documents and information
from the Company in connection with a DOJ investigation related to
statements and decisions about airline capacity.

"We are working with the DOJ to provide the requested documents
and information. We are not able to predict what action, if any,
might be taken in the future by the DOJ or other governmental
authorities as a result of the investigation," the Company said.

Beginning on July 1, 2015, subsequent to the announcement of the
CID, UAL and United were named as defendants in multiple class
action lawsuits that asserted claims under the Sherman Antitrust
Act, which lawsuits the Company anticipates will be consolidated
into multi-district litigation. The complaints generally allege
collusion among U.S. airlines on capacity impacting airfares and
seek treble damages. The Company intends to vigorously defend
against the class action lawsuits.


UNIVITA HEALTH: Terminated Employees File Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Nina Lincoff, writing for Business Journal, reproted that a
class action complaint was filed on behalf of about 1,000
terminated Univita Health employees in Delaware District Court.

The Miramar-based home health care company allegedly terminated
the employees on July 28, the day the company abruptly lost all of
its HMO contracts to provide products and services to Medicaid
patients in Florida.

A representative for Univita did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.

The lead plaintiff in the case is Omar M. Olivier, a former
employee at Univita's 15800 S.W. 25th St. facility in Miramar. He
was one of about 1,000 employees who worked at or reported to the
facility who received a termination letter on July 28 stating that
they were terminated that day, according to the complaint.

The problem is that the employees were not provided the 60 days'
advanced written notice of their termination, according to the
complaint.

The complaint seeks to recover 60 days' worth wages and benefits
for the terminated employees, as required by the Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act.

New York-based Outten & Golden LLP and Delaware-based Loizides,
P.A. filed the complaint on behalf of the plaintiffs.

Univita was previously based in Minnesota, but moved to South
Florida in 2014.


V&J SUSHI: Sued Over "White Tuna"
---------------------------------
Jonny Bonner, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
in a sushi class action, a diner claims a Southern California
restaurant's "white tuna" is actually escolar, a "succulent" fish
that induces diarrhea.

Lead plaintiff Cyntia Erickson sued V&J Sushi dba Maki Yaki Costa
Mesa and its owner In Won Ko, in Orange County Court.

Erickson claims that in October 2014 she "ordered certain items
off the restaurant menu including fish labeled 'white tuna.'
Plaintiff discovered through a species identification test that
the 'white tuna' was actually escolar, a completely different
family of fish."

Escolar, a type of snake mackerel found in deep tropical waters
worldwide, cannot metabolize wax esters found in its natural diet.
A leading flavor chemist told Courthouse News that many esters are
flavorful compounds that lend food a rich, fatty taste, of the
sort that humans crave.

The esters the escolar cannot metabolize build up in its flesh.
The resulting oily substance, gempylotoxin, in named after the
fish's family, Gempylidae, and is similar to castor or mineral
oil. Escolar flesh carries an oil content of around 25 percent,
which acts like a natural laxative.

Reports of illness related to the fish include cramping, nausea,
diarrhea and other abdominal pains.

Gempylotoxin, while indigestible, is not toxic to humans.

Food writer Harold McGee described escolar's ill effects in "On
Food and Cooking."

"The wax esters therefore pass intact, their lubricating
properties undiminished, from the small intestine into the colon,
where a sufficient quantity will defeat our normal control over
the ultimate disposition of food residues," McGee wrote.

Aficionados call the firm, white fleshed fish "buttery" and
"balanced," and suggest limiting portions to 6 ounces or less.

The late chef Charlie Trotter, in ''Charlie Trotter's Seafood,"
called escolar "wonderfully succulent.''

"A spoon is all you really need,'' Trotter wrote.

Trotter paired the fish with braised endive, fava beans and a veal
stock reduction.

Oceana, an environmental group, tested 114 samples of "tuna" from
2010 to 2013, and found that 84 percent of them were actually
escolar.

In her July 29 lawsuit, Erickson claims: "In Won Ko intentionally
participated in the deceptive mislabeling of escolar by the
combination of: (1) ratifying the restaurant menu that omits the
word escolar and (2) approving purchases of escolar with knowledge
that the restaurant menu omitted the word escolar and called it
'white tuna.'"

Escolar and its West Coast cousin, walu, are often fraudulently
sold as butterfish, super white tuna, oil fish or bincyo.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration, after receiving complaints
over diarrhea related to escolar consumption, issued a bulletin
recommending against importation of the fish in the early 1990s.

Italy and Japan banned the sale of escolar due to its side
effects.

Canada, Sweden and Denmark all require that all escolar come with
warning labels.

The Canadian Food Inspection Agency suggests grilling the fish to
remove as much oil as possible.

"Defendants' practice of bait and switch sale of seafood
constitutes a violation of Civil Code section 1750 et seq.,"
Erickson's lawsuit states.

Erickson's proposed class includes California residents who
purchased white tuna from the defendants in the past 4 years, and
"without their knowledge" were served escolar.

She seeks class certification and punitive damages for deceptive
advertising, unfair business practices and consumer law
violations.

She is represented by Wade Miller of Long Beach, who could not be
reached for comment. A phone call to the restaurant was not
answered.


V&J UNITED: Illegally Retains Drivers Gratuities, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Crawford, William Lewis, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated v. V & J United Enterprise,
LLC, V & J National Enterprise, LLC, and Pizza Hut of America,
LLC, Case No.  5:15-cv-0098-GTS-TWD (N.D.N.Y., August 12, 2015),
arises out of the Defendant's alleged retention of delivery
drivers' gratuities.

The Defendants are Pizza Hut franchisees and operates multiple
Pizza Hut restaurants in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas Lipsky, Esq.
      BRONSON LIPSKY LLP
      630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
      New York, NY 10017-6705
      Telephone: (212) 392-4772
      E-mail: dl@bronsonlipsky.com

         - and -

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


VISA INC: 1,179 Merchants Want to Rejoin Cash Settlement Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2015, that in the Interchange Multidistrict
Litigation (MDL), on January 14, 2015, following a court-approved
process to give class members who previously opted out of the
damages portion of the class settlement an option to rejoin it,
the class administrator submitted a report stating that it had
received 1,179 requests by merchants to rejoin the cash settlement
class, some of which may include multiple merchants.


VISA INC: Appeals Filed in Consumer Interchange Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
On November 26, 2014, in the putative class action filed on behalf
of an alleged class of Visa and MasterCard payment cardholders,
the court dismissed plaintiffs' federal law claim and declined to
exercise jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state law claim. Both sides
have asked the court to reconsider aspects of its decision, and
have filed notices of appeal.

No updates were provided in the Consumer Interchange Litigation in
Visa Inc.'s Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2015.


VISA INC: Reached Deal With Some Merchants Over Payment Cards
-------------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2015, that as of the date of filing this quarterly
report, Visa has reached settlement agreements with a number of
merchants representing approximately 27% of the Visa-branded
payment card sales volume of merchants who opted out in the
Interchange Opt-out Litigation.

Beginning in May 2013, more than 45 opt-out cases have been filed
by hundreds of merchants in various federal district courts,
generally pursuing damages claims on allegations similar to those
raised in MDL 1720. A number of the cases also include allegations
that Visa has monopolized, attempted to monopolize, and/or
conspired to monopolize debit card-related market segments, and
one of the cases seeks an injunction against the fixed acquirer
network fee. The cases name as defendants Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A.,
Visa International, MasterCard Incorporated, and MasterCard
International Incorporated, although some also include certain
U.S. financial institutions as defendants.

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. and its subsidiaries filed an opt-out
complaint that also added Visa Europe Limited and Visa Europe
Services Inc. as defendants. Visa Europe Limited and Visa Europe
Services Inc. filed a motion to dismiss Wal-Mart's claims against
them.

As of the date of filing this quarterly report, Visa has reached
settlement agreements with a number of merchants representing
approximately 27% of the Visa-branded payment card sales volume of
merchants who opted out.

On December 23, 2014, a similar case was filed in New Mexico state
court by New Mexico's attorney general on behalf of the state,
state agencies, and citizens of the state, generally pursuing
claims on allegations similar to those raised in MDL 1720. On May
15, 2015, defendants filed a partial motion to dismiss. If this
case is transferred to or otherwise included in MDL 1720, it will
be covered litigation for purposes of the retrospective
responsibility plan.

In the Texas state court case filed by merchants, which generally
pursues claims on allegations similar to those raised in MDL 1720,
the parties entered into a settlement agreement, and, on May 19,
2015, the court entered an agreed final judgment.


VISA INC: Webloyalty.com, GameStop Seek to Dismiss Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Visa Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 23, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2015, that on January 9, 2015, Webloyalty.com,
GameStop, and Visa each filed motions to dismiss the second
amended class action complaint in the Data Pass Litigation.


VISION GUIDANCE: "Stanley" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matlock Stanley, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Vision Guidance Services, L.P., Case No.
4:15-cv-02315 (S.D. Tex., August 11, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants operate a Texas-based oilfield service company with
significant operations in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
      Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
      Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
              litkin@fibichlaw.com
              adunlap@fibichlaw.com
              jbresler@fibichlaw.com

         - and -

      Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


VOLVO CARS: Faces "Jenner" Suit Over Defective Rdar Software
------------------------------------------------------------
Theresa Jenner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-
06152-CCC-JBC (D.N.J., August 12, 2015), is brought on behalf of
all the current or former owners of a Volvo-branded car, with
defect in the "rdar" software for the satellite receiver.

Volvo Cars of North America, LLC conducts substantial business
within New Jersey and throughout the United States through the
marketing, distribution, and sale of Volvo-branded vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Alan Venti, Esq.
      WILLIAMS CUKER BEREZOFSKY, LLC
      Woodland Falls Corporate Center
      210 Lake Drive East, Suite 101
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08002-1163
      Telephone: (856) 667-0500
      Facsimile: (856) 667-513
      E-mail: joeventi@wcblegal.com

         - and -

      Michael J. Quirk, Esq.
      WILLIAMS CUKER BEREZOFSKY, LLC
      1515 Market Street, Suite 1300
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215) 557-0099
      Facsimile: (215) 557-0673
      E-mail: mquirk@wcblegal.com

         - and -

      Marc R. Stanley, Esq.
      Martin Woodward, Esq.
      STANLEY LAW GROUP
      6116 N. Central Expressway., Suite 1500
      Dallas, TX 75206
      Telephone: (214) 443-4300
      Facsimile: (214) 443-0358
      E-mail: marcstanley@mac.com
              mwoodward@stanleylawgroup.com

         - and -

      Andrew S. Kierstead, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ANDREW KIERSTEAD
      1001 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 1100
      Portland, OR 97204
      Telephone: (508) 224-6246
      Facsimile: (508) 224-4356
      E-mail: ajkier@aol.com

         - and -

      Peter N. Wasylyk, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF PETER N.WASYLYK
      1307 Chalkstone Avenue
      Providence, RI 02908
      Telephone: (401) 831-7730
      Facsimile: (401) 861-6064
      E-mail: pnwlaw@aol.com


WCA MANAGEMENT: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Velasquez and Jose Ortiz, individually and behalf of all
others similarly situated v. WCA Management Company L.P., Case No.
4:15-cv-02329 (S.D. Tex., August 12, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, lost wages, liquidated damages, and
attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

WCA Management Company L.P. is a Houston-based non-hazardous solid
waste management company providing waste collection, transfer,
material processing and disposal services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Terrence B. Robinson, Esq.
      Michelle Mishoe Miller, Esq.
      KENNARD, BLANKENSHIP, ROBINSON, PC
      2603 Augusta Dr., Ste. 1450
      Houston, TX 77057
      Telephone: (713) 742-0900
      Facsimile: (713) 742-0951
      E-mail: terrence.robinson@kennardlaw.com
              michelle.miller@kennardlaw.com


WCA WASTE: "Ordonez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fredy Ordonez, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons v. WCA Waste Corporation, Manbro Contracting,
LLC, Aurelio AlonsO, and Melissa Alonso, Case No. 4:15-cv-02312
(S.D. Tex., August 11, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operates a non-hazardous solid waste
management company providing waste collection, transfer, and
material processing and disposal services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
      2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
      Houston, TX 77018
      Telephone: (713) 868-3388
      Facsimile: (713) 683-9940


WIRELESS AND BEYOND: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Sincere E. Coles and Kevin Ventura v. Wireless and Beyond Dallas
LLC, Case No. 8:15-cv-02374-RTW (S.D. Md., August 11, 2015), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Wireless and Beyond Dallas LLC operates authorized cricket
wireless retail stores, with its corporate head office located at
609 Fairway Lakes Dr., Garland, Texas 75044

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Nyombi, Esq.
      Ikechukwu K. Emejuru, Esq.
      EMEJURU & NYOMBI L.L.C
      8403 Colesville Road, Suite 1100
      Silver Spring, MD 20910
      Telephone: (240) 638-278
      Facsimile: (800) 250 7923
      E-mail: anyombi@enylaw.com
              imejuru@enylaw.com


WOLVERINE CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Lane" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Lane and Eric C. Zamora v. Wolverine Construction, Inc. and
Cesar Rivera, Case No. 5:15-cv-00679-DAE (W.D. Tex., August 12,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate an oilfield construction and well-
site services company operating in South Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Portia J. Bott, Esq.
      WATT, JONES & BOTT
      224 W. Main Street
      Kenedy, TX 78119
      Telephone: (830) 583-7019
      Facsimile: (830) 583-0856
      E-mail: lawyerbott@gmail.com


XOMA CORP: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP announces that a
securities fraud class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California.  The
complaint alleges that officers and directors of XOMA Corporation
(NASDAQGM: XOMA) violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
between November 6, 2014 and July 21, 2015, by making materially
false and misleading statements about XOMA's business prospects.
XOMA discovers and develops antibody-based therapeutics in the
United States, Europe, and the Asia Pacific.  The company
developed gevokizumab, a drug believed to have the potential to
address the inflammatory causes of a wide range of diseases with
unmet medical needs.

XOMA Misrepresents its Drug Trial

According to the complaint, XOMA initiated three clinical trials
to evaluate gevokizumab for the treatment of, among other things,
Behcet's disease uveitis, a multisystem inflammatory disorder most
commonly involving the eyes which could lead to blindness.  Among
the three trials is the Phase 3 EYEGUARD-B study for patients with
Behcet's decease uveitis outside of the United States.  The
complaint alleges that the company repeatedly made material
representations concerning the imminent commercialization of
gevokizumab, which in turn artificially inflated the prices of
XOMA's securities.  Specifically, the company led investors to
believe that the Phase 3 study would be concluded successfully and
that approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration would
then be sought.

On May 28, 2015, XOMA informed the market that it had reached its
target exacerbation event as specified in the gevokizumab study,
causing an increase in trading and leading to nearly an 8% jump in
its share price on the day of the news.  However, on July 22,
2015, XOMA revealed that the study did not meet the primary
endpoint of first acute ocular exacerbation.  On this news, XOMA
stock fell $3.48, or over 79%, to open at $0.91 per share on July
22, 2015 on extremely high volume.

XOMA Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Darnell R.
Donahue at (800) 350-6003, DDonahue@robbinsarroyo.com, or via the
shareholder information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP is a nationally recognized leader in
shareholder rights law.  The firm represents individual and
institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities
class action lawsuits, and has helped its clients realize more
than $1 billion of value for themselves and the companies in which
they have invested.

Darnell R. Donahue, Esq.
Robbins Arroyo LLP
600 B Street, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101
DDonahue@robbinsarroyo.com
Phone: (619) 525-3990
Toll Free (800) 350-6003
www.robbinsarroyo.com


XUNLEI LIMITED: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
upcoming deadline in the class action filed on behalf of investors
of Xunlei Limited ("Xunlei" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: XNET).
Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares between June
24, 2014 and May 20, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"), have
until August 7, 2015, to serve as lead plaintiff in the class
action.

According to the lawsuit, Xunlei operates an internet platform in
China based on cloud computing to provide users with quick and
easy access to digital media content through its core products and
services. One of the company's premier products was Xunlei Kankan,
a video-on-demand service permitting users to view content on a
variety of devices. On June 24, 2014, Xunlei completed its IPO of
7,315,000 American depositary shares ("ADS"), at a price of $12.00
per ADS, indicating to investors strong potential growth in the
areas of content distribution, especially the growth of its Kankan
video-on-demand service.

Then, on May 21, 2015, the Company issued a press release
announcing the unaudited financial results for the first quarter
ended March 31, 2015. Therein, the Company stated in relevant part
that revenues had decreased 8.4% from the corresponding period of,
and a 14.9% decrease from the previous quarter. The Company also
reported an operating loss of $1.4 million, and attributed the
poor financial results to, "transition to mobile internet," and
the divestiture of Xunlei's Kankan service. On this news, ADSs of
Xunlei declined $1.69 per share, or nearly 15%, to close on May
21, 2015 at $9.71 per share, on unusually heavy volume.

If you purchased shares of Xunlei prior to May 20, 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.

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


YELLOWJACKET OILFIELD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Hutchison, Eduardo Luna, Jose Luna, Chris Debroeck and Erasmo
Nava, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons
v. YellowJacket Oilfield Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00343
(S.D. Tex., August 11, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

YellowJacket Oilfield Services, LLC is a Texas limited liability
company that provides services to oil and gas production
facilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
      2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
      Houston, TX 77018
      Telephone: (713) 868-3388
      Facsimile: (713) 683-9940


ZIRTUAL INC: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice
------------------------------------------------------------
Felice Martin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Zirtual Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00701-UNA (D. Del.,
August 11, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
provide 60 days advance written notice of termination in violation
of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

Zirtual Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher D. Loizides, Esq.
      LOIZIDES, P.A.
      1225 King Street, Suite 800
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Telephone: (302) 654-0248
      Facsimile: (302) 364-0728
      E-mail: loizides@loizides.com

         - and -

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


                            *********

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  * * *