CAR_Public/150826.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, August 26, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 170


                            Headlines


013 NETVISION: Faces Class Suit Over Sale of Customer Data
21ST CENTURY: Judge Report Clears Hurdle in Suit v. Auto Insurers
3D SYSTEMS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
ALABAMA ELECTRIC COOP: Parties Must File Supplemental Briefs
ALLEN, TX: "Watson" Red Light Camera Suit Stays in N.D. Tex.

ANGIE'S LIST: Must Face Suit Over Suppressed Negative Reviews
ANTHEM INC: 4 Indiana Suits Included in Data Security Breach MDL
ANTHEM INC: "McKinley" Suit Included in Data Security Breach MDL
ANTHEM INC: Six Calif. Suits Included in Data Security Breach MDL
APPLE: Calif. Court Grants Class Status to Bag Search Suit

ARGENTINA: 2nd Circ. Reverses Bondholder Class Status Ruling
ATLANTIC CENTRAL: "Alegre" Overtime Suit Stays in Federal Court
ATP OIL: Court Tosses 2nd Amended Complaint in Suit v. D&Os
BABCOCK & WILCOX: Judgment in Insurance Row Reinstated
BANK OF NEW YORK: Oct. 20 Fairness Hearing on $180MM Settlement

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE: Faces Class Suit Over Body Part Trafficking
BLUECREST CAPITAL: Sued in US Over LIBOR Rigging
BP LLC: Brent Coon Wants Cases Moved to State Court
CELLADON CORP: Vincent Wong Firm Files Securities Class Suit
CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces "Mbaku" Discrimination Suit in Colorado

COMENITY BANK: Faces Class Suit Over Robocalls
CONTRA COSTA: Deal Has Conditional OK; Fairness Hearing Nov. 12
DISH ONE: Accused of Violating TCPA in "Couser" Suit
DOCTORS DIRECT INSURANCE: CA Affirms Ruling in TCPA Suit
DOLLAR TREE: Class Suit Deal Stopped Over "Lavish" Atty. Fees

DUALSTAR ENTERTAINMENT: Interns File Class Suit Over Wage Theft
DYNAMIC PET: Court Narrows Claims in Pet Food Class Action
ELECTRONIC GAME: Court Grants Class Certification in "Petrie"
ETHICON INC: Faces Suit Over Physiomesh(R) Mesh-Related Injuries
GREEN TREE: Sued in Penn. for Violating Telecommunications Act

ICONIX BRAND: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Suit
INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: Oct. 5 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
JAMES HARDIE: Faces Class Suit Over Harditex Building Products
JAMES HARDIE: CA Affirms Summary Judgment Ruling in "Coe" Suit
KIMBERLY-CLARK: Faces Class Suit Over Huggies Advertising

LIFELOCK INC: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Suit
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Martin" Suit Added to Chinese Flooring MDL
MDC PARTNERS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
MOBILE IRON: Faces Class Suit Over 2014 Data Breach
MITSUBISHI FUSO: Suit Over BlueTec Emissions Allowed to Proceed

MULTICARE HEALTH SYSTEM: Tousley Brain Appointed as Class Counsel
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Class Cert. Denied in "Alhassid" Suit
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Judge Seeks Guidance From Wash. High Court
NEW YORK: Court Narrows Suit Against Housing Authority
NEW YORK: Court Trims Lawsuit Against Health Department

NORDSTROM INC: Court Dismisses "Shaulis" Complaint
OCWEN FINANCIAL: Must Defend Against "Weiner" Lawsuit
ONTARIO, CA: $325MM Class Suit Filed Over Abused Deaf Students
PAIN THERAPEUTICS: KB Partners' Class Suit Remains Pending
PANGBORN CORP: "Frazier" Suit Removed to Arkansas District Court

PAPA JOHN'S: Records $123MM Pre-Tax Expense to Settle Suit
PRECISION CASTPARTS: Berkshire Buyout Subject to Class Suit
PREMERA BLUE: 7 Suits Consolidated in Data Security Breach MDL
SAN ANTONIO HOSPITAL: Judgment of Nonsuit to Defendants Affirmed
SHERMETA ADAMS: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Walker" Action

SILVER WHEATON: Andrew & Springer Files Securities Class Suit
SONAE INDUSTRIA: Kirby Residents' Class Suit Dismissed
STANCORP FINANCIAL: Andrew & Springer Files Securities Class Suit
STARLINE TOURS: "Harp" Suit Wins Conditional Certification
TAO GROUP: Employees Files Class Suit Over Unpaid Wages

TARGET BRANDS: "Sparks" Suit Moved From Arkansas to N.D. Illinois
TIME WARNER: Must Defend Against "Groshek" Background Check Suit
TRACFONE UNLIMITED: Challenge to Class Action Settlement Tossed
TRINET GROUP: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit
TRINET GROUP: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Suit

TRINET GROUP: October 6 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
TROTT LAW: Court Narrows Claims in "Wilson" Lawsuit
UBER: Woman Sues Over Violation of TCPA
UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Ocean Cargo Suit
UNITED STATES: Trial Date in Suit v. Immigration Set for May 2016

UNIV OF CALIFORNIA: Court Narrows Claims in Cops' Suit
USG7 LLC: Bid for Final Default Judgment Granted in Part
VALENCIA HOLDING: Calif. SC Reverses Appeals Court Judgment
VERMONT: Health & Human Services Must Defend Against "Ryan" Case
WERNER ENTERPRISES: Court Admits Testimony of Expert Witnesses

ZEOBIT: Nov. 30 Deadline for Filing Claims in $2MM Class Deal

* Financial Recovery Acquires Cypress Settlements
* RG/2 Hires T. Chiango as Claims, Securities, Antitrust Director




                            *********


013 NETVISION: Faces Class Suit Over Sale of Customer Data
----------------------------------------------------------
Cellcom Israel Ltd. (tase:CEL) (hereinafter:the "Company")
announced that a purported class action was filed against 013
Netvision Ltd., or Netvision, the Company's wholly owned
subsidiary and three other defendants, alleging that another
defendant unlawfully sold the other defendants, including
Netvision, private data of its customers, which was used by the
other defendants to approach such customers with commercial
proposals. The amount claimed from each of the defendants
allegedly purchasing the data, including Netvision, if the lawsuit
is certified as a class action, was estimated by the plaintiff to
be NIS 1000 for each customer whose private data it allegedly
purchased and/or each approach made to such customers, the total
of which was assessed by the plaintiff to be approximately 1.5
million customers. At this preliminary stage, the Company is
unable to assess the lawsuit's chances of success.

                     About Cellcom Israel

Cellcom Israel Ltd., established in 1994, is the largest Israeli
cellular provider; Cellcom Israel provides its approximately 2.885
million subscribers (as at March 31, 2015) with a broad range of
value added services including cellular and landline telephony,
roaming services for tourists in Israel and for its subscribers
abroad, additional services in the areas of music, video, mobile
office etc. and most recently -- also television over the internet
service in Israel, based on Cellcom Israel's technologically
advanced infrastructure. The Company operates an LTE 4 Generation
and HSPA 3.5 Generation networks enabling advanced high speed
broadband multimedia services, in addition to GSM/GPRS/EDGE
networks. Cellcom Israel offers Israel's broadest and largest
customer service infrastructure including telephone customer
service centers, retail stores, and service and sale centers,
distributed nationwide. Cellcom Israel further provides through
its wholly owned subsidiaries internet connectivity services and
international calling services, as well as landline telephone
communication services, in addition to data communication
services. Cellcom Israel's shares are traded both on the New York
Stock Exchange (CEL) and the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (CEL). For
additional information please visit the Company's website
http://www.cellcom.co.il

Company Contact:

Shlomi Fruhling
Chief Financial Officer
investors@cellcom.co.il
Tel: +972-52-998-9755

Investor Relations Contact:

Ehud Helft
GK Investor & Public Relations, In partnership with LHA
cellcom@GKIR.com
Tel: +1-617-418-3096


21ST CENTURY: Judge Report Clears Hurdle in Suit v. Auto Insurers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gregory A. Presnell of the United States District
Court for Middle District of Florida overruled Plaintiffs' omnibus
objection to a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation in the
case captioned, A & E AUTO BODY, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, v. 21ST
CENTURY CENTENNIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No.
6:14-MD-2557-ORL-31TBS (M.D.Fla.).

The A&E suit is part of a multi-district litigation involving two
dozen suits, consolidated for pretrial purposes.  In the lawsuits,
collision repair shops have accused most of the automobile
insurers in their states of conspiring to suppress the
reimbursement rates for collision repairs in violation of Section
I of the Sherman Antitrust Act and various state laws.

On August 8, 2014, the MDL was created and four cases were
transferred to the Court: one from Mississippi; one from Indiana;
one from; and one from Utah. Nineteen other tag-along cases have
been transferred to the Court.

On March 10, 2015, Magistrate Judge Smith recommended that the
complaints in the Louisiana cases be dismissed. The Court
overruled Plaintiffs' objections to that recommendation and
dismissed the complaints.

In the R & R, Judge Smith concludes that to satisfy the notice
requirement of Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a), "at a minimum, Plaintiffs should
allege sufficient facts specific to each Defendant, or at least to
each corporate family of Defendants, to tie that Defendant to the
wrongdoing alleged and that Plaintiffs have failed to state an
actionable claim, generally because they have not alleged that the
Defendants as opposed to the Defendants' insureds requested the
work for which compensation or additional compensation is now
sought. He recommended that all of the claims be dismissed without
prejudice except for Plaintiffs' claims for quasi estoppel, which
he recommended dismissing with prejudice.

On June 29, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an omnibus objection.

In his Opinion and Order dated August 7, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/ZUNhK4from Leagle.com, Judge Presnell confirmed and
adopted as part of the Order the R&R of Judge Smith except insofar
as it recommended that the Oregon Unfair Trade Practices Act
("OUTPA") claim be dismissed without prejudice.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Scottie McPherson, Esq.
Tucker H. Byrd, Esq.
TUCKER H. BYRD & ASSOCIATES, PA
180 N Park Ave Ste 2A.
Tel: (407)392-2285

Defendants are represented by Karl E. Sturge, Esq.  --
kstruge@marlowadler.com -- Rosemary B. Wilder, Esq.  --
rwilder@marlowwadler.com -- MARLOW, CONNELL, ABRAMS, ADLER, NEWMAN
& LEWIS


3D SYSTEMS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces that it has filed a
class action on behalf of investors of 3D Systems Corporation ("3D
Systems" or the "Company") (NYSE:DDD) who purchased shares between
October 29, 2013 and October 22, 2014 and have been damaged by the
recent declines in the Company's stock price. 3D Systems investors
have until August 14, 2015 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

The complaint alleges that 3D Systems and certain of its
executives failed to disclose material information to investors in
violation of federal securities laws. The alleged false statements
and omissions include, but are not limited to: (i) 3D Systems'
ability to increase capacity; (ii) the true demand for the
Company's products; (iii) the value of its acquisitions; and (iv)
the Company's expected earnings. On October 22, 2014, 3D Systems
announced disappointing preliminary results for the third quarter
and lowered its guidance for the full year, stating that the poor
results were due to capacity constraints. On this news, the price
of 3D Systems' shares plummeted by over 15% on unusually high
volume.

If you purchased shares of 3D Systems between October 29, 2013 and
October 22, 2014 and suffered a loss of over $1,000,000 you are
encouraged to contact Casey Sadler of GPM to discuss your legal
rights 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


ALABAMA ELECTRIC COOP: Parties Must File Supplemental Briefs
------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge William H. Steele of the United States
District Court from Southern District of Alabama ordered the
parties to file supplemental briefs in the case captioned, WILLIAM
A. DAVIS, on behalf of himself and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CENTRAL ALABAMA ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE,
Defendant, Case No. 15-0131-WS-C (S.D. Ala.).

William A. Davis, brought this putative class action against
Central Alabama Electric Cooperative (CAEC) by filing a Complaint
in the Circuit Court of Dallas County, Alabama, on January 26,
2015. Davis alleged that CAEC, a rural electric cooperative
providing services to customers/members in Dallas County and
elsewhere in Alabama, violated Alabama Code Sec. 37-6-20 and
breached its contractual obligations by improperly retaining
excess revenues rather than distributing them to members via
patronage refunds or rate reductions. Davis purports to bring
these claims on his own behalf, and also as representative of a
class consisting of "all current and former members of Defendant
who (1) currently reside in Alabama; and (2) have not been
distributed all excess revenue rightfully owed to them under Ala.
Code Sec. 37-6-20." CAEC subsequently removed this action to this
District Court pursuant to the federal officer removal provisions
of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1442(a)(1).

A separate group of plaintiffs consisting of Pamela Caver,
Christine Grandison and Dexter Grandison filed a Class Action
Complaint of their own against CAEC in Dallas County Circuit
Court. The Caver Complaint was strikingly similar to that filed by
Davis, inasmuch as it alleged that CAEC had violated Alabama Code
Sec. 37-6-20 and breached a contract with its members by failing
to refund excess revenues to its members on an annual basis. Caver
and the Grandisons purported to bring their action on their own
behalf, as well as two proposed member classes, one consisting of
current members of CAEC who "(1) currently reside in Alabama, and
(2) have not been paid all excess revenues (in the form of
'Patronage Capital' or 'Capital Credit') owed to them," and the
other consisting of former members of CAEC who meet the same
criteria.

The net result of the foregoing is that there are now two
virtually identical class action complaints pending against CAEC
on the undersigned's civil docket. The alleged wrongdoing by CAEC
is the same in both cases. The relief sought against CAEC is the
same (or substantially the same) in both cases. And the proposed
classes are the same (or substantially the same) in both cases.
The only difference lies in the identities of the named plaintiffs
and, perhaps more importantly, their counsel.

CAEC has filed a Motion to Dismiss or Stay in the Davis action.
CAEC says Davis's Complaint should be dismissed or stayed as a
second-filed class action. CAEC contends that this rule requires
that Davis's lawsuit be dismissed or stayed pending a
determination of whether class certification will be granted.

In the Order dated August 10, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/xbRFXzfrom Leagle.com, Judge Steele concluded that
additional briefing is required to ensure that both sides get a
fair opportunity tobve heard on what may be a pivotal legal
question raised sua sponte because the the parties' failure to
address them in their court filings. The parties were to file
supplemental briefs on or before August 24, 2015.

William Davis is represented by Andrew P. Campbell, Esq. --
andy.campbell@campbellguin.com -- John C. Guin, Esq. --
jay.guin@campbellguin.com -- CAMPBELL, GUIN, WILLIAMS, GUY &
GIDIERE, LLC

Central Alabama Electric Cooperative is represented by Dennis R.
Bailey, Esq. -- DRB@rushtonstakely.com -- John Evans Bailey, Esq.
-- ebailey@rushtonstakely.com -- Richard McConnell Freeman, Jr.,
Esq. -- RMF@rushtonstakely.com -- RUSHTON, STAKELY, JOHNSTON &
GARRETT, P.A.


ALLEN, TX: "Watson" Red Light Camera Suit Stays in N.D. Tex.
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John McBryde of the United States District Court
for Northern District of Texas denied Plaintiff's motion to remand
in the case captioned, JAMES H. WATSON, AND OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF ALLEN, ET AL., Defendants, Case
No. 4:15-CV-335-A (N.D. Tex.).

On April 23, 2015, plaintiff, a citizen of Louisiana, filed a
class action petition in Texas state court against the State of
Texas, 53 Texas cities (Cities), three private corporations, and a
limited liability company in the 153rd Judicial District Court of
Tarrant County, Texas, alleging that defendants were responsible
for, and were participating in, the enforcement of red light
camera ordinances in violation of the Texas Constitution.
Plaintiff asserted causes of action for reimbursement of funds
paid for red light camera violations, for violation of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C.
Sections 1961-68, (RICO), for common law misrepresentation, and
for violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer
Protection Act, Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Sections 17.41-.63, (DTPA).
addition, the petition included class action allegations.

On May 27, 2015, defendant Xerox State & Local Solutions, Inc.
f/k/a ACS State & Local Solutions, Inc. (Xerox)), filed its motion
to dismiss asserting that plaintiff lacked standing to sue Xerox
inasmuch as plaintiff's claims arose out of a red light camera
ticket he received while driving in the City of Southlake, whose
red light camera program is administered by defendant Redflex
Traffic Systems, Inc., and he suffered no injury at the hands of
Xerox. City of Garland filed its motion to dismiss on May 29,
2015.

On June 10, 2015, defendants American Traffic Solutions, Inc. and
American Traffic Solutions, L.L.C., filed their motion to dismiss.
On June 22, 2015, defendant City of Fort Worth filed its motion to
dismiss. On June 26, 2015, more than 30 days after removal of this
action and after 28 defendants had filed motions to dismiss,
plaintiff filed a motion to remand.

In the motion, Plaintiff contended that the court must remand,
notwithstanding the discretionary language contained in 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 1367, now that he has abandoned his RICO claims, and that the
local controversy, home state, and/or discretionary exceptions to
the Class Action Fairness Act, codified at 28 U.S.C. Sections
1332(d) and 1453, (CAFA) apply.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 29, 2015 available
at http://is.gd/42kaPMfrom Leagle.com, Judge McBryde was
convinced that it is correct in retaining its jurisdiction for the
resolution of the claims against those defendants who are entitled
to have the claims against them dismissed because of plaintiff's
lack of standing to assert them. As to the remaining claims, the
court will review again the possibility of a remand of those
claims after the court has devoted more attention to a definition
of the issues involved in those claims, the weighing of the
factors that would determine whether a remand to state court as to
those claims would be appropriate, and the effect of CAFA on the
possibility of a remand of those claims.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Russell J. Bowman, Esq.
Paul R. Smith, Esq.
SCOTT BOWMAN & STELLA
3131 McKinney Ave., Ste 220
Dallas, TX 75204
Tel: (214)922-0220

     - and -

Scott A. Stewart, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT A. STEWART
777 E. Thomas Road, Ste 210,
Phoenix, AZ 85014
Tel:(602)899-6086

Defendants are represented by Robert E. Hager, Esq. --
rhager@njdhs.com -- Peter G. Smith, Esq. -- psmith@njdhs.com --
Victoria W. Thomas, Esq. -- vthomas@njdhs.com -- NICHOLS, JACKSON,
DILLARD, HAGER & SMITH, L.L.P.


ANGIE'S LIST: Must Face Suit Over Suppressed Negative Reviews
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Thompson, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Angie's List must face claims from a woman who says it
suppressed negative reviews on a contractor who bilked her, a
federal judge ruled.

Janell Moore claims she paid the contractor, Bravo Philadelphia,
$4,000 to remodel her kitchen after seeing positive reviews on
Angie's List. The contractor did not finish the work and refused
to refund her money, she says.

After leaving a negative review for Bravo on the site, she claims
she was suddenly able to see scores of negative remarks that had
previously been concealed. She claims that, had she seen the
reviews, she never would have hired the contractor.

Moore alleges that Angie's List representatives did not cite any
technological error of the site.

In its membership agreement and its FAQ section, the company
purports to rank service providers based solely on the reviews
given by customers, not by any payment to the company, she notes.

After Moore relayed the event to an electrician he knew, however,
he allegedly told her that "he pays 'to be at the top' of search
results."

With Moore hoping to represent a class of similarly situated
consumers, U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell found that she has
standing to proceed with her counts of fraud and unfair trade
practices.

The 28-page ruling says Moore's allegations and the electrician's
substantiation of her suspicions "inject precision and some
measure of substantiation into Moore's allegations of fraud by
spelling out circumstances that contradict certain Angie's List
representations, including that service providers cannot influence
their ratings and that businesses do not pay to be on Angie's
List."

Dismissing Moore's counts of unjust enrichment and breach of
contract, however, Dalzell found that the user contract made no
such promises as to the validity of the reviews, and that the
existence of a contract itself was sufficient to nullify the
unjust enrichment claim.


ANTHEM INC: 4 Indiana Suits Included in Data Security Breach MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Four class action lawsuits were transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose):

   -- Keyser v. Anthem Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00178.  The
      California District Court Clerk assigned
      Case No. 5:15-cv-02644-LHK to the proceeding;

   -- Kaslowitz v. Anthem Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00188.
      The California District Court Clerk assigned
      Case No. 5:15-cv-02647-LHK to the proceeding;

   -- Garson v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00180.
      The California District Court Clerk assigned
      Case No. 5:15-cv-02645-LHK to the proceeding; and

   -- Weinberger v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00201.
      The California District Court Clerk assigned
      Case No. 5:15-cv-02648-LHK to the proceeding.

The cases are consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Anthem, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation, MDL No. 5:15-md-02617-LHK.

The actions in the litigation arise from a data security breach
that allegedly occurred sometime between December 10, 2014, and
February 4, 2015.  The breach allegedly resulted in the electronic
theft of personally identifiable information and personal health
information of, by one estimate, some 80 million current and
former health insurance plan members and employees of Anthem or
its affiliated health insurance companies.

Plaintiff John Keyser is represented by:

          David J. Hensel, Esq.
          PENCE HENSEL LLC
          135 N. Pennsylvania Street, Suite 1600
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 833-1111
          Facsimile: (317) 833-1199
          E-mail: dhensel@pencehensel.com

Plaintiff Jeffrey Kaslowitz is represented by:

          James Piatt, Esq.
          Joseph N. Williams, Esq.
          William N. Riley, Esq.
          PRICE WAICUKAUSKI RILEY & DEBROTA, LLC
          301 Massachusetts Avenue
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 633-8787
          Facsimile: (317) 633-8797
          E-mail: jpiatt@price-law.com
                  jwilliams@price-law.com
                  wriley@price-law.com

               - and -

          Lauren I. Dubick, Esq.
          Robert Kaplan, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          850 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687-1980
          Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
          E-mail: ldubick@kaplanfox.com
                  rkaplan@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          Linda M. Fong, Esq.
          Mario M. Choi, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772-4700
          Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
          E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
                  lfong@kaplanfox.com
                  mchoi@kaplanfox.com

Plaintiff David Garson is represented by:

          Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
          Benjamin Thomassen, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
          E-mail: ascharg@edelson.com
                  bthomassen@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com

               - and -

          Robert E. Duff, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT E. DUFF
          INDIANA CONSUMER LAW GROUP
          P.O. Box 7251
          Fishers, IN 46037
          Telephone: (800) 817-0461
          Facsimile: (800) 817-0461
          E-mail: robert@robertdufflaw.com

Plaintiff Michael S. Weinberger is represented by:

          P. Gregory Cross, Esq.
          Danyel Struble, Esq.
          THE CROSS LAW FIRM
          Historic Riley-Jones House
          315 East Charles Street
          Muncie, IN 47305
          Telephone: (765) 747-1953
          Facsimile: (765) 747-1991
          E-mail: pgcross@thecrosslawfirm.com
                  dstruble@thecrosslawfirm.com

               - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com

Defendant Anthem Inc. is represented by:

          Allison M. Holt, Esq.
          Craig A. Hoover, Esq.
          E. Desmond Hogan, Esq.
          Peter R. Bisio, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          555 13th St NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637-5600
          Facsimile: (202) 637-5910
          E-mail: allison.holt@hoganlovells.com
                  craig.hoover@hoganlovells.com
                  desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com
                  peter.bisio@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          Sally F. Zweig, Esq.
          KATZ & KORIN P.C.
          The Emelie Building
          334 North Senate Avenue
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 464-1100
          Facsimile: (317) 464-1111
          E-mail: szweig@katzkorin.com


ANTHEM INC: "McKinley" Suit Included in Data Security Breach MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled McKinley, et al. v. Anthem Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-00096, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California (San Jose).  The
California District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-02650-
LHK to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Anthem, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, MDL
No. 5:15-md-02617-LHK.

The actions in the litigation arise from a data security breach
that allegedly occurred sometime between December 10, 2014, and
February 4, 2015.  The breach allegedly resulted in the electronic
theft of personally identifiable information and personal health
information of, by one estimate, some 80 million current and
former health insurance plan members and employees of Anthem or
its affiliated health insurance companies.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kimberly C. Young, Esq.
          Phillip A. Kuri, Esq.
          ELK & ELK, CO.
          6105 Parkland Blvd.
          Mayfield Heights, OH 44124
          Telephone: (440) 442-6677
          Facsimile: (440) 442-7944
          E-mail: kyoung@elkandelk.com
                  pkuri@elkandelk.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Glenn Virgil Whitaker, Esq.
          VORYS SATER SEYMOUR & PEASE LLP
          Great American Tower
          301 E Fourth Street, Suite 3500
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 723-4000
          E-mail: gvwhitaker@vorys.com

               - and -

          Robert Neal Webner, Esq.
          VORYS SATER SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
          52 E Gay Street
          PO Box 1008
          Columbus, OH 43216-1008
          Telephone: (614) 464-8243
          Facsimile: (614) 719-5083
          E-mail: RNWebner@vssp.com

               - and -

          Allison M. Holt, Esq.
          Craig A. Hoover, Esq.
          E. Desmond Hogan, Esq.
          Peter R. Bisio, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          555 13th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637-5600
          Facsimile: (202) 637-5910
          E-mail: allison.holt@hoganlovells.com
                  craig.hoover@hoganlovells.com
                  desmond.hogan@hoganlovells.com
                  peter.bisio@hoganlovells.com


ANTHEM INC: Six Calif. Suits Included in Data Security Breach MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Six class action lawsuits were transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose):

   -- Samantha Kirby v. Anthem, Inc., et al.,
      Case No. 2:15-cv-00820.  The Northern District Court Clerk
      assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-02636-LHK to the proceeding;

   -- John Doe v. Anthem Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00934.
      The Northern District Court Clerk assigned
      Case No. 5:15-cv-02638-LHK to the proceeding;

   -- Aswad Hood v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00918.
      The Northern District Court Clerk assigned
      Case No. 5:15-cv-02637-LHK to the proceeding;

   -- T.C. v. Anthem Inc., et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-01106.
      The Northern District Court Clerk assigned
      Case No. 5:15-cv-02651-LHK to the proceeding;

   -- Susan Morris, et al. v. Anthem Inc., et al.,
      Case No. 8:15-cv-00196.  The Northern District Court Clerk
      assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-02639-LHK to the proceeding; and

   -- David Liu v. Anthem, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00215.
      The Northern District Court Clerk assigned
      Case No. 5:15-cv-02640-LHK to the proceeding.

The cases are consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Anthem, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation, MDL No. 5:15-md-02617-LHK.

The actions in the litigation arise from a data security breach
that allegedly occurred sometime between December 10, 2014, and
February 4, 2015.  The breach allegedly resulted in the electronic
theft of personally identifiable information and personal health
information of, by one estimate, some 80 million current and
former health insurance plan members and employees of Anthem or
its affiliated health insurance companies.

Plaintiff Samantha Kirby is represented by:

          Bradley K. King, Esq.
          Tina Wolfson, Esq.
          Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C.
          1016 Palm Avenue
          West Hollywood, CA 90069
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: bking@ahdootwolfson.com
                  twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
                  rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          Theodore W. Maya, Esq.
          AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C.
          10850 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 370
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 474-9111
          Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
          E-mail: tmaya@ahdootwolfson.com

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN AND MORGAN, P.A.
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 275-5272
          Facsimile: (813) 222-4736
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

Plaintiff John Doe is represented by:

          Caleb Marker, Esq.
          Christopher Paul Ridout, Esq.
          RIDOUT MARKER & OTTOSON LLP
          555 East Ocean Boulevard, Suite 500
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (877) 500-8780
          Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
          E-mail: clm@ridoutmarker.com
                  cpr@ridoutmarker.com

Plaintiff Aswad Hood is represented by:

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Scott M. Grzenczyk, Esq.
          Steven Augustine Lopez, Esq.
          Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, 14th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: dcg@girardgibbs.com
                  smg@girardgibbs.com
                  aep@girardgibbs.com
                  ehg@girardgibbs.com

Plaintiff T. C. is represented by:

          Christopher Barton Dalbey, Esq.
          WEITZ AND LUXENBERG PC
          700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 558-5500
          Facsimile: (212) 344-5641
          E-mail: cdalbey@weitzlux.com

The Morris Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Maria Adrianne De Castro, Esq.
          RUDY, EXELROD, ZIEFF & LOWE, LLP
          351 California Street, Suite 700
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 434-9800
          Facsimile: (415) 434-0513
          E-mail: adc@rezlaw.com

               - and -

          Aashish Y. Desai, Esq.
          DESAI LAW FIRM PC
          3200 Bristol Street, Suite 650
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (949) 614-5830
          Facsimile: (949) 271-4190
          E-mail: aashish@desai-law.com

Plaintiff David Liu is represented by:

          Daniel S. Robinson, Esq.
          Wesley K. Polischuk, Esq.
          Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
          ROBINSON CALCAGNIE ROBINSON SHAPIRO DAVIS INC.
          19 Corporate Plaza Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 720-1288
          Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
          E-mail: drobinson@rcrlaw.net
                  mrobinson@rcrlaw.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Craig A. Hoover, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          555 13th Street
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 637-5694
          Facsimile: (202) 637-5910
          E-mail: craig.hoover@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          Michael M. Maddigan, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 785-4727
          Facsimile: (310) 785-4601
          E-mail: michael.maddigan@hoganlovells.com


APPLE: Calif. Court Grants Class Status to Bag Search Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Heidi Turner, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that
a 2013 California labor lawsuit against Apple alleging employees
should be compensated for time taken to search their bags has been
granted class-action status. The lawsuit alleged that up to 12,000
current and former employees at 52 stores in California should
have been paid for security checks before they left their
worksite.

U.S. District Judge William Alsup granted class-action status to
plaintiffs in the lawsuit, who alleged they are forced to undergo
security screening every time they leave the worksite, including
meal breaks and at the end of shifts.

The lawsuit (case number CV 13 3451) was initially filed by Amanda
Frlekin and Dean Pelle in 2013 on behalf of current and former
employees of Apple in California. Plaintiffs argue that because
the "personal package and bag searches" are done solely for
Apple's benefit and are conducted in all Apple retail stores
across the US, employees should be paid for time spent undergoing
the bag checks.

According to the lawsuit, time spent waiting for bag checks can
add up for employees. Employees who leave the worksite at the same
time are required to wait in line for security screenings.
Plaintiff Amanda Frlekin alleges she waited between 5 and 10
minutes for all bag checks before meal breaks and 10 minutes
before leaving at the end of her shift at every shift.

"By conservative calculations, this equated over the course of one
year to an aggregate amount of approximately $1,500 in
uncompensated hours worked and overtime," the initial lawsuit
argued. Employees who refuse to undergo a security check could
face disciplinary action, including termination.

In 2014, Judge Alsup dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice, finding
that the lawsuit would not survive a Supreme Court ruling in
Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk. When he dismissed the
lawsuit, however, Judge Alsup gave plaintiffs the opportunity to
present a second complaint, but complaints from New York,
Massachusetts and Ohio were left off the second complaint.

Apple has argued that not all store managers conducted bag
searches and that the time spent in back checks was so
insignificant that it should not be compensated.

The lawsuit alleges employees are owed millions of dollars in
unpaid wages and overtime. Plaintiffs seek damages, including
overtime wages and benefits, attorneys' fees and interest.


ARGENTINA: 2nd Circ. Reverses Bondholder Class Status Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reported that Argentina won the
reversal of a U.S. judge's ruling that a group of bondholders
suing over its defaulted debt said entitled them to $700 million.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York ruled that U.S.
District Judge Thomas Griesa had improperly expanded a class of
bondholders who were seeking repayment following the country's
$100 billion default in 2002.

Circuit Judge Chester Straub, writing for a three-judge panel,
said Griesa must return to a narrower definition of the class,
limited to those who have continuously held the eight series of
bonds in question, and to hold a hearing to determine the proper
amount of damages.

Carmine Boccuzzi, Argentina's lawyer, welcomed the ruling, saying
the plaintiffs had "repeatedly failed to prove their alleged
damages and are not entitled to the overstated judgments" they
have sought in court.

Jennifer Scullion, the plaintiffs' lawyer, declined comment.

The ruling marked the latest development in long-running
litigation by creditors seeking full repayment on Argentine bonds
following its 2002 default.

The country defaulted again in July 2014 after refusing to honor
court orders to pay $1.33 billion plus interest to hedge funds
including Elliott Management's NML Capital Ltd suing for full
payment on its defaulted bonds.

Griesa later in June ordered Argentina to pay $5.4 billion to
another 500-plus holders of defaulted debt before it could pay the
majority of its creditors.

The ruling came in a related series of lawsuits by creditors
seeking to pursue damages as a group in class action lawsuits
rather than individually.

The creditors initially sought to pursue claims on behalf of all
holders of Argentina's bonds in eight bond series.

Griesa granted class action status in 2005 but only on behalf of
creditors who continuously held the bonds, a major restriction
given secondary market trading in the bonds. He then entered
judgment against Argentina for $2.2 billion.

Argentina appealed. In 2010, the 2nd Circuit reversed, saying the
judgments were inflated.

Griesa entered judgment again, this time for $700 million, but the
2nd Circuit reversed once more and instructed him to hold a
damages hearing and to assess them on an individualized basis if a
reasonable approximation as a group was not feasible.

Instead, Griesa in 2014 modified the class definition to encompass
all holders of outstanding bonds, as the plaintiffs originally
wanted.

The creditors subsequently moved for an order blocking Argentina
from servicing its debt unless the country paid them $700 million.


ATLANTIC CENTRAL: "Alegre" Overtime Suit Stays in Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Stanley R. Chesler of the United States District
Court for District of New Jersey denied Leonardo Alegre's motion
to remand to the Superior Courtof New Jersey the case captioned,
LEONARDO ALEGRE, Plaintiff, v. ATLANTIC CENTRAL LOGISTICS, et al.
Defendants, Case No. 15-2342(SRC)(D.N.J.).

From about January of 2013 to the present, Plaintiff and other
putative class members drove trucks for Defendants' operation as
an international logistics company that arranges furniture
deliveries. On January 8, 2015, Alegre filed a putative class
action alleging that he and others delivered goods from Elizabeth,
New Jersey, to customers in New Jersey and New York in violation
of New Jersey's Wage and Hour Law.  Plaintiff further asserts that
the class members worked for well over 40 hours per week,
entitling them to overtime pay that they have not received.

Defendants contend that Plaintiff and his company, Atlas Freight
Services, LLC, worked as independent contractors, rather than
employees, and that they are accordingly not entitled to overtime
pay.

Defendant XPO Last Mile Inc. removed the case to Federal District
Court on April 2, 2015. In its notice of removal, Defendant
asserted that the Federal Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the
Class Action Fairness Act because the action has a proposed class
of over 100 members, the amount in controversy is over $5,000,000,
and minimal diversity exists.

Plaintiff seeks to remand this matter back to New Jersey Superior
Court. In support of his motion, Plaintiff argues that Defendants
cannot establish jurisdiction to a "legal certainty," particularly
because Plaintiff specifically stated in the Complaint that the
amount in controversy is not over $5,000,000. Plaintiff further
asserts that even if Defendants could meet their burden, the Court
should nevertheless remand the matter because the proposed class
meets the "local controversy exception" and satisfies the standard
for permissive remand.

Defendant XPO opposes Plaintiff's motion. XPO urges that it need
not prove jurisdiction to a legal certainty, but instead only by a
preponderance of the evidence. Defendant further argues that it
has satisfied the jurisdictional prerequisites irrespective of
which standard the Court applies.

In his Opinion dated July 31, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/d15SaAfrom Leagle.com, Judge Chesler was not
persuaded by Plaintiff's contention that CAFA's jurisdictional
prerequisites are not met and that Defendant has demonstrated by a
preponderance of evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds
$5,000,000. The amount in controversy turns on the following five
variables: (i) the amount of overtime hours allegedly worked by
the purported class members; (ii) the liability period; (iii) the
applicable pay rate; (iv) the size of the class; and (v)
attorneys' fees.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Ravi Sattiraju, Esq.
THE SATTIRAJU LAW FIRM, P.C.
116 Village Blvd.
Princeton, NJ 08540,
Tel: (609)799-1267

Defendants are represented by Homer B. Ramsey, Esq. --
HRamsey@herzfeld-rubin.com -- Joseph J. Michalowski, Esq. --
JMichalowski@chaselawnj.com -- CHASE KURSHAN HERZFELD & RUBIN LLC


ATP OIL: Court Tosses 2nd Amended Complaint in Suit v. D&Os
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sarah S. Vance of the United States District Court
from Eastern District of Louisiana -- at the behest of defendants
-- dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with prejudice in the
case captioned, FIREFIGHTERS PENSION & RELIEF FUND OF THE CITY OF
NEW ORLEANS, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. T. PAUL BULMAHN, ET AL., Section: R., Case No. 13-
3935, No. C/W 13-6083, 13-6084, 13-6233 (E.D.La.).

The case is a securities class action brought on behalf of all
persons who acquired ATP Oil and Gas Corporation 11.875% Senior
Second Lien Exchange Notes traceable to an allegedly false and
misleading Form S-4 registration statement and prospectus issued
in connection with ATP's December 16, 2010 exchange offer. ATP
filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy on August 17, 2012 and is not
named as a defendant in this action. Instead, plaintiff sued ATP's
senior executives and board of directors, alleging violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

Before ATP for bankruptcy in 2012, it engaged in the acquisition,
development, and production of oil and natural gas properties. On
April 19, 2010, ATP raised $1.5 billion by selling unregistered
private notes to institutional investors in a transaction exempt
from the registration requirements under the Securities Act. In
2010, the United States Department of the Interior issued two
moratoria that halted all drilling at depths greater than 500 feet
between May 6, 2010 and October 12, 2010 following explosion in
the Gulf of Mexico and creating the largest oil spill in U.S.
history.

The Second Amended Complaint, among others, alleges that the
Prospectus's projection of a "substantial increase in production
over the next year as development wells are brought to production"
was misleading because defendants did not believe, and had no
reasonable basis to believe, that production would actually
increase.  Plaintiff also pointed out that (1) ATP did not submit
permit applications for its Gomez #9 and #10 wells until June
2011, thereby ensuring that the Gomez wells would not contribute
to the projected production increase in 2011; (2) ATP did not
conduct "exploratory testing" at wells attached to the Telemark
Hub and therefore could not "accurately estimate" production from
these wells; (3) "connectivity" problems at ATP's Atwater well
suggested that other wells attached to the Telemark Hub would also
have less than anticipated production; and (4) ATP did not have
the financial resources to complete the Telemark and Gomez
projects.

Defendants T. Paul Buhlman, Albert L. Reese, Jr., and Keith R.
Godwin have filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's Second Amended
Complaint for failure to state a claim. Defendants Chris A.
Brisack, Arthur H. Dilly, Gerard J. Swonke, Brent M. Longnecker,
Walter Wendlandt, Burt A. Adams, George R. Edwards, and Robert J.
Karow have likewise filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint.

The Officer and Director Defendants asked the Court to dismiss
plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim.

In the Order and Reasons dated August 14, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/6JSHeufrom Leagle.com, Judge Vance found that
plaintiff has failed to plead sufficient facts to give rise to an
inference that defendants possessed actual knowledge that the
projection of a substantial increase in production was false or
misleading at the time it was made and that ATP's projection of a
substantial increase in production was accompanied by "substantive
company-specific warnings thus, the projection therefore falls
within the safe-harbor provision for forward-looking statements
and defendants cannot be held liable under Section 11. 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 77z-2(c)(1)(A)(I).

Plaintiffs are represented by Andrew Allen Lemmon, Esq. --
Andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com -- Irma L. Netting, Esq. --
irma@lemmonlawfirm.com -- LEMMON LAW FIRM

Defendants are represented by Omer Frederick Kuebel, III, Esq.  --
rjuebel@lockelord.com -- Alicia Fazzano Castro, Esq.  --
acastro@lockelord.com -- Brent Benoit, Esq.  --
bbenoit@lockelord.com -- Corby Davin Boldissar, Esq.  --
cboldissar@lockelord.com -- Monique M. Lafontaine, Esq.  --
mlafontaine@lockelord.com -- Philip Guy Eisenberg, Esq.  --
meisenberg@lockelord.com -- LOCKE LORD LLP


BABCOCK & WILCOX: Judgment in Insurance Row Reinstated
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Max Baer of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania,
Western District, reversed a superior court decision and
reinstated a trial court judgment in the case captioned, THE
BABCOCK & WILCOX COMPANY AND B&W NUCLEAR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES,
INC. v. AMERICAN NUCLEAR INSURERS AND MUTUAL ATOMIC ENERGY
LIABILITY UNDERWRITERS AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTY: ATLANTIC
RICHFIELD COMPANY. AMERICAN NUCLEAR INSURERS AND MUTUAL ATOMIC
ENERGY LIABILITY UNDERWRITERS v. THE BABCOCK & WILCOX COMPANY AND
B&W NUCLEAR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, INC., AND ATLANTIC RICHFIELD
COMPANY. APPEAL OF: BABCOCK & WILCOX POWER GENERATION GROUP, INC.
(F/K/A THE BABCOCK & WILCOX COMPANY) AND BABCOCK & WILCOX
TECHNICAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. (F/K/A B&W NUCLEAR ENVIRONMENTAL
SERVICES, INC.), AND ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY, Case No. 2 WAP
2014.

The case started in 1994 with the filing of a federal class action
lawsuit against Babcock & Wilcox Company (B&W) and Atlantic
Richfield Company (ARCO) brought by plaintiffs claiming to have
suffered bodily injury and property damage caused by emissions
from nuclear facilities owned by Insureds. A 1998 jury trial of
eight test cases resulted in an initial verdict totaling over $36
million or approximately $4.5 million per plaintiff. The federal
court, however, granted a new trial due to evidentiary issues. The
retrial was never held given the subsequent settlement.

While the tort action was pending in federal court, disputes arose
between Insureds and their insurers, American Nuclear Insurers and
Mutual Atomic Energy Liability Underwriters. At the outset of the
litigation, the Insurer acknowledged that it would defend Insureds
but contested whether the policy covered aspects of the claims,
and thus defended subject to a reservation of rights.
Specifically, in 1994, Insurer, inter alia, asserted that the
policy did not cover damages that were not caused by nuclear
energy hazard, damages in excess of the policy limits, and claims
for injunctive relief and punitive damages. The 1994 reservation
of rights was supplemented as to B&W in October 1999, by a letter
indicating, inter alia, that Insurer reserved its right to
disclaim coverage for Insureds' liability based upon Insureds'
pressuring of Insurer to settle, which Insurer viewed, in
connection with other actions, as a breach of Insureds' duty to
cooperate.

Insurer filed a declaratory judgment action in state court days
after the 1999 reservation of rights letter, raising challenges
relating to the coverage limit, whether B&W and ARCO were entitled
to separate representation, and bad faith and breach of contract
allegations, including the breach of the duty to cooperate,
against the Insureds. The Insureds counter claimed, raising bad
faith allegations against Insurer. While staying various claims
for future determination, including the breach of the duty to
cooperate claim, the court decided issues regarding the trigger of
coverage and held that B&W and ARCO were entitled to separate
counsel. The Superior Court affirmed on appeal.

Judge Baer concluded that the Superior Court erred by requiring an
insured to demonstrate bad faith when the insured accepted a
settlement offer in a reservation rights case. The court held
"that when an insurer provides a defense under a reservation of
rights and rejects a fair and reasonable settlement demand that a
reasonable and prudent insurer would pay, the insured is free to
consummate the settlement on terms that protect the insured from
any personal exposure." If coverage is later found to apply, the
insurer will be liable for the insured's settlement up to policy
limits.

A copy of Judge Baer's Opinion dated July 29, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/lqIAXg from Leagle.com.


BANK OF NEW YORK: Oct. 20 Fairness Hearing on $180MM Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
A summary notice on In re: BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORP., MASTER
FILE FOREX TRANSACTIONS LITIGATION, CIVIL ACTION NO. 12 MD 2335
(LAK), This Document Relates to: 11-CV-09175:

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF
SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT
FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES
AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO:  All persons and entities who or which purchased the common
stock of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation ("BNYM") during
the period beginning on February 28, 2008 through and including
October 4, 2011, and were damaged thereby (the "Settlement
Class"):

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

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, that the above-
captioned litigation (the "Action") has been preliminarily
certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class,
except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the
Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full printed
Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action, Certification of
Settlement Class, and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement
Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees
and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Lead Plaintiff in the Action has
reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $180,000,000 in
cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all
claims in the Action.

A hearing will be held on October 20, 2015 at 10:00 a.m., before
the Honorable Lewis A. Kaplan at the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Courtroom 21B of the Daniel
Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New
York, NY 10007, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement
should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether
the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants,
and the Releases specified and described in the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement dated June 23, 2015 (and in the Notice)
should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation
should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead
Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses should be approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. If you have not yet
received the Notice and the Proof of Claim Form, you may obtain
copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator
at In re Bank of New York Mellon Corp. Securities Action, c/o Epiq
Systems, P.O. Box 3410, Portland, OR 97208-3410, 1-877-819-9774.
Copies of the Notice and Proof of Claim Form can also be
downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims
Administrator, www.BNYMFXSecuritiesLitigation.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Proof of Claim Form postmarked no later than
December 11, 2015. If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not
submit a proper Proof of Claim Form, you will not be eligible to
share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement
but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders
entered by the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than September 29,
2015, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.
If you properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you
will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court
in the Action and you will not be eligible to share in the
proceeds of the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Representative Defendants' Counsel
such that they are received no later than September 29, 2015, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, BNYM, or its
counsel regarding this notice. All questions about this notice,
the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Proof of Claim
Form, should be made to Lead Counsel:

         John C. Browne, Esq.
         BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
         1285 Avenue of the Americas
         New York, NY 10019
         1-800-380-8496
         blbg@blbglaw.com

Requests for the Notice and Proof of Claim Form should be made to:

         In re Bank of New York Mellon Corp. Securities Action
         c/o Epiq Systems
         P.O. Box 3410
         Portland, OR 97208-3410
         1-877-819-9774
         www.BNYMFXSecuritiesLitigation.com


BIOLOGICAL RESOURCE: Faces Class Suit Over Body Part Trafficking
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Harkins, writing for Cook County Record, reported that five
individuals are filing a class action lawsuit against health
centers and medical businesses, alleging a ruse to traffic in body
parts.

Pequeena Dixon, as representative of a class with Deborah McClain,
Deveda Perkins, Diane Owens, William Perkins and others similarly
situated, filed a lawsuit May 28 in Cook County Circuit Court
against the Biological Resource Center of Illinois, Biological
Resource Center of Phoenix, International Biological Inc.,
Arthroscopy Association of North America, Anatomical Service Inc.,
Cremation Services Inc., Waukegan Hospice Corp and Mercy Hospital
and Medical Center, alleging fraud.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege "the
mishandling, abuse and desecration of their deceased loved ones'
body ... issuing a false certification of cremation and incomplete
return of remains, and making false statements and promised
concerning how and where donated bodies will be used."

The suit says on Dec. 10, 2013, the plaintiffs received a
certificate of cremation from the defendants concerning the
remains of William Earl Perkins, which were, in part, to be
donated to science. However, on April 4, 2015, the lawsuit states,
Dixon and the other plaintiffs were informed by the FBI about a
criminal investigation concerning the defendants, "stating the
plaintiffs' loved one's body parts may have been identified during
the execution of a search warrant," in a search related to a body
part trafficking case.

Not only can't the plaintiffs ensure the remains presented to them
are authentic but they also can't be sure they are complete, the
lawsuit states. It also is impossible to determine, how many
members of the class there should be, the suit says.

The plaintiffs allege fraud, conspiracy, negligence, tortious
interference with a dead body, infliction of emotional distress
and breach of contract.

The plaintiffs seek to classify this case as a class action, to
award damages equal to the cost of identification and location of
remains, as well as unspecified actual, punitive and compensatory
damages, attorney fees and court costs. They are represented by
Clinton A. Krislov and Kenneth T. Goldstein of Krislov &
Associates in Chicago.

Cook County Circuit Court case number 2015CH08513.


BLUECREST CAPITAL: Sued in US Over LIBOR Rigging
------------------------------------------------
Will Wainewright, writing for Bloomberg News, reported that
BlueCrest Capital Management was sued by a group of investment
firms over claims an employee at the hedge fund run by billionaire
Michael Platt conspired with banks to rig the Swiss franc Libor
rate.

The allegations closely follow information disclosed by the New
York Department of Financial Services in April as part of a record
$2.5 billion fine against Deutsche Bank AG. The lawsuit cites a
transcript released by regulators that indicated a BlueCrest
employee asked a Deutsche Bank director to contribute a low
interest rate to Libor submissions.

BlueCrest and other defendants "rearranged their Swiss franc
Libor-based derivatives desks to encourage cooperation among
traders," investors said in the lawsuit filed June 19 in federal
court in Manhattan.

The world's largest banks have paid about $9 billion in fines
since 2012 to settle allegations of rigging the London interbank
offered rate, a key financial benchmark used to set interest
rates. Jersey-based BlueCrest is the only hedge fund sued in the
lawsuit filed by a group of investors including Sonterra Capital
Master Fund and FrontPoint European Fund.

Vigorous Defense

BlueCrest said that the claims in the lawsuit are without merit
and that it will vigorously defend itself.
"We have reviewed the circumstances surrounding the communication
mentioned in the complaint and are satisfied with our employee's
continued suitability to serve at BlueCrest," the hedge fund said
in the statement.

The lawsuit, which is seeking class-action status, was initially
filed in February against banks including Credit Suisse Group AG,
JPMorgan Chase & Co., Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc and UBS
Group AG. BlueCrest and Deutsche Bank were added in June, two
months after the New York Department of Financial Services fine
against Deutsche Bank.

In April, BlueCrest said it fired a money manager for allegedly
asking an employee at Steve A. Cohen's investment firm to front
run, or place a trade ahead of him. A Manhattan judge said in June
that Nicholas O'Grady couldn't sue over his dismissal.
The case is Sonterra v. Credit Suisse, 15-cv-00871, U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York.


BP LLC: Brent Coon Wants Cases Moved to State Court
---------------------------------------------------
Kyle Barnett, writing for SETexas Record, reported that more than
five years after the Deepwater Horizon explosion and the
subsequent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, attorney Brent Coon
and over 3,000 of his clients have not received a hearing on their
legal claims against BP PLC.

Coon represents what may be the largest number of litigants who
declined BP's settlement offer in 2012 to resolve thousands of
private claims that resulted from the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil
spill. As of June 30, 2015, the claims administrators overseeing
the settlement said a total of $5 billion had been paid to 91,984
claimants.

Now Coon is seeking his day in court. Because his clients declined
BP's settlement offer, they have yet to receive any damage award
offer from the oil giant. Instead, these opt-out claimants have
been thrown into a sort of legal limbo, awaiting a instructions
from U.S. District Judge Carl Barbier, who is overseeing the case
against BP in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana, on how to proceed.

Coon said altogether somewhere around 10,000 litigants opted out
of the settlement and have yet to be told how their cases will
proceed.

"Everybody [has] been sitting there for three or four years," Coon
said. "BP has no desire to settle any of them, because there is no
pressure to, and the court hasn't entertained any other pathway to
resolution."

In the past Barbier has consistently ruled against Coon on motions
involving opt-out claimants, but Coon said the situation has now
becoming dire and deserves to be addressed.

"Those guys are unfortunately sitting there. A lot of the business
owners couldn't outlast it, they were starving and couldn't get
any recourse and some of them went under," he said. "Some of these
folks are getting old, five years later. Some of them you lose -
some of these people die off."

But Barbier may not be the only obstacle to moving the opt-out
cases. Coon said the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee (PSC), a group
of 17 trial lawyers overseeing the settlement, is still angry that
he opposed the 2012 settlement. Moreover, he said, the opt-out
claimants, unlike members of the settlement class, pay no fees to
the PSC members.

The PSC members already stand to split a minimum of $600 million
in fees for overseeing the settlement.

"[The PSC was] personally mad at us because I put their $600
million settlement bill at risk," Coon said.

Coon said his claimants had good reason to opt-out of the class
settlement the PSC struck with BP. He said his firm ran litigation
test case scenarios on 1,000 claims based on information they were
given and found damage awards were likely to be far higher if his
clients took BP to court individually.

According to Coon, class action settlements, such as the Deepwater
Horizon settlement, are often times inefficiently run and pay out
large legal fees, sometimes to lawyers who do not represent any
claimants, that minimize the settlements of individual class
members.

"They beat most of the plaintiffs to death with paper," Coon said.

In addition, Coon said the PSC has willfully ignored opt-out
claimants for the past several years while several other claimants
who are part of the settlement class action are given precedence.

"I think they are basically looking at it as trying to resolve big
blocks of cases and saying if you chose not to participate in
these deals for whatever reason you'll just have to go to the back
of the line," he said. Due to inaction of the PSC and the court
on behalf of opt-out claimants, Coon has requested the claims be
removed from federal court so they can be tried separately in
state courts.

Coon said allowing such an alternative pathway would allow his
clients, as well as the roughly 7,000 other opt-outs, some relief.

In any case, Coon said so much time has passed that his clients
have suffered not only from the oil spill, but from a lack of the
due process to which they are entitled.

"They won't have their claims resolved in a timely manner," Coon
said. "It has already been over five years. If it does happen you
are still probably looking at a year or two down the road before
things develop enough to really resolve any significant numbers of
those cases."

That is why Coon has encouraged the court to allow the cases to be
tried separately in state courts and beyond the reach of the PSC.

Court records show that Barbier has not yet ruled on Coons' motion
and has not set a date for doing so.


CELLADON CORP: Vincent Wong Firm 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 California on behalf of investors who purchased Celladon
Corporation securities between July 7, 2014 and June 25, 2015.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants made
false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose adverse
information regarding the Company's prospects for its lead drug
candidate, MYDICAR, for treating enzyme deficiency in heart
failure patients that results in inadequate pumping of the heart.

On April 26, 2015, Celladon announced that the Company's Phase 2b
CUPID2 trial of MYDICAR did not meet its primary and secondary
goals. Then on June 1, 2015, Celladon issued a press release
announcing the abrupt resignation of the Company's Chief Executive
Officer. Then, on June 26, 2015, Celladon announced the suspension
of its plans for further research or development of its MYDICAR
program and other pre-clinical programs, indicating there was a
possibility that the Company could be liquidated with net cash
available to shareholders of $25-$30 million.

If you suffered a loss in Celladon you have until August 31, 2015
to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff. 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/CLDN-Info-
Request-Form-839.

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
E-Mail: www.wongesq.com/


CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces "Mbaku" Discrimination Suit in Colorado
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jolie Mbaku v. Adecco USA, Inc.; Adecco Employment Services, Inc.;
Charles Schwab & Co., Inc.; Charles Schwab Bank; Charles Schwab
Bank, National Association; and, Charles Schwab Investment
Management, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01301 (D. Colo., June 18, 2015)
arises from alleged discrimination against the Plaintiff as a
result of her age, race, ethnicity, and national origin.

Ms. Mbaku is a citizen of the state of Colorado.  She was employed
as a Customer Service Representative by the Defendants from
October 2014 to November 26, 2014.  She alleges that she
ultimately was constructively terminated due to the severe and
pervasive discrimination she faced at work.  During her time at
the Company, she asserts that she was subjected to comments about
her accent, her birthplace, and her nationality.  She was
regularly tormented for not only the way she pronounced words but
also the fact that her first language is French.

Adecco USA is a corporation with its principal place of business
in Jacksonville, Florida.  Adecco Employment Services, Inc., is a
corporation with its principal place of business in Melville, New
York.  Charles Schwab & CO. Inc. and Charles Schwab Investment
Management, Inc., are corporations with their principal place of
business in San Francisco, California.  Charles Schwab Bank and
Charles Schwab Bank, National Association, are corporations with
their principal place of business in Reno, Nevada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Claire Munger, Esq.
          HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
          1444 Blake Street
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 883-6933
          E-mail: cmunger@hkm.com


COMENITY BANK: Faces Class Suit Over Robocalls
----------------------------------------------
Dena Aubin, writing for Reuters, reported that Comenity Bank,
which manages credit card programs for major U.S. retailers, has
been hit with a proposed class action accusing it of violating
federal law by using a debt collection firm that made robocalls to
consumers' cellphones without consent.

Filed, the lawsuit said the bank subjected thousands of consumers
to harassing cellphone calls, invading their privacy and violating
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The lawsuit was filed by
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, the Kim Law Firm and Meyer
Wilson.


CONTRA COSTA: Deal Has Conditional OK; Fairness Hearing Nov. 12
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James of the United States District
Court for Northern District of California preliminarily approved
the Settlement Agreements and set the schedule for related
deadlines in the case captioned, G. F., et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-03667-MEJ
(N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs G.F. (by and through her guardian ad litem, Gail F.),
W.B., and Q.G. filed this action on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, alleging discrimination against a
proposed class of youth with disabilities who are detained, or
will be detained, at the Juvenile Hall located in Martinez,
California. They originally filed the action on August 8, 2013 and
subsequently filed their FAC on December 24, 2013, bringing six
causes of action against Defendants: (1) violation of Individuals
with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA); (2) violation
of Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); (3) violation of Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act; (4) violation of California
Government Code section 11135; (5) violation of California
Education Code for Special Education Requirements; and (6)
violation of California Education Code for General Education
Requirements. Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class
Certification contemporaneously with their original complaint, and
subsequently re-filed their motion for class certification
following the filing of the FAC. Plaintiffs assert that
Defendants' solitary confinement policies and practices deny youth
educational and rehabilitative services, which disproportionately
burdens youth with disabilities who require additional assistance
to access the general education curriculum and rehabilitative
programs.

On September 4, 2013, Plaintiffs made their first written
settlement proposal to the County and Defendant Contra Costa
Office of Education (CCCOE). Plaintiffs made their second written
settlement proposal to both Defendants that same day. All parties
met for a two-day in-person settlement conference before the
Honorable James Warren (Ret.) on November 4 and November 7, 2013.
Id. Although the parties were unable to reach agreement at that
conference, they continued to discuss settlement options and
exchanged written settlement proposals until the final agreement
with the County was fully executed on May 19, 2015.

In the motion, the parties seek an order(1) certifying the
proposed class for settlement purposes, (2) granting preliminary
approval of the Settlement Agreement, (3) directing notice to the
Settlement Class, and (4) setting a Fairness Hearing and related
dates.

In her Order dated July 30, 2015 available at http://is.gd/p3KYtW
from Leagle.com, Judge James held that the settlement agreements
are approved as fair, adequate and reasonable pursuant to Fedral
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) and appoints and designates
Plaintiffs G.F., by and through her guardian ad litem, Gail F.;
W.B.; and Q.G as class representatives and Disability Rights
Advocates and Public Counsel as Class Counsel. She scheduled the
fairness hearing on November 12, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.

Plaintiffs are represented by Daniel Simon Mason, Esq. & Mary-Lee
Kimber Smith, Esq. -- DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES, Heather T.
Rankie, Esq. -- hrankie@zelle.com -- ZELLE HOFMANN VOELBEL & MASON
LLP

Contra Costa is represented by Kimberly Anne Smith, Esq. --
ksmith@f3law.com -- David Reis Mishook, Esq. -- dmishook@f3law.com
-- FAGEN FRIEDMAN AND FULFROST, LLP


DISH ONE: Accused of Violating TCPA in "Couser" Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Carrie Couser, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Dish One Satellite, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-04622 (C.D.
Cal., June 18, 2015) alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason A. Ibey, Esq.
          Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: jason@kazlg.com
                  ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Jessica R.K. Dorman, Esq.
          Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE AND SWIGART
          2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 233-7770
          Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
          E-mail: jessica@westcoastlitigation.com
                  josh@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

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


DOCTORS DIRECT INSURANCE: CA Affirms Ruling in TCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Justice Maureen E. Connors of the Appellate Court of Illinois,
First District, First Division, affirmed a lower court order that
granted Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant
to Section 2-615(e) of the Code of Civil Procedure in the case
captioned, DOCTORS DIRECT INSURANCE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
DAVID BOCHENEK, Defendant-Appellant, and Beaute'e'mergente, LLC,
doing business as McAdoo Comestic Surgery, Defendant, Case Nos. 1-
14-2919.

In his original federal complaint, in which McAdoo and others who
are not parties to this appeal were named as defendants, Bochenek
alleged that in September and October 2013, he received
unsolicited text messages on his cellular phone. Bochenek asserted
that defendants violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
2012. In addition, Bochenek alleged that defendants "engaged in
unfair acts and practices" that violated section 2 of the Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

The circuit court granted granted Plaintiff's motion for judgment
on the pleadings pursuant to section 2-615(e) of the Code of Civil
Procedure finding that the Defendant failed to to establish that
the collection of names and telephone numbers implicates the
control and use of personally identifiable financial, credit, or
medical information.

On appeal, Bochenek contends that his federal claim under the TCPA
alleged a privacy wrongful act under the Doctors Direct policy and
argued that the Doctors Direct policy does not require that a
statute or regulation expressly state an intent to regulate the
control and use of personally identifiable financial, credit, or
medical information.

In the Opinion dated August 3, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/0E8RINfrom Leagle.com, Justice Connors agreed with
the circuit court that nothing in the plain language of the
Consumer Fraud Act itself suggests that the statute is associated
with personally identifiable financial, credit, or medical
information so that a claim under the CFA that in turn relies on
the TCPA is not covered under the Doctors Direct policy.


DOLLAR TREE: Class Suit Deal Stopped Over "Lavish" Atty. Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Daugherty, writing for The Virgininan Pilot, reported that a
federal judge in Norfolk refused to let Dollar Tree pay a group of
current and former employees $300,000 to settle a class-action
lawsuit -- in part, he said, because the 4,209 plaintiffs were
getting too little and their 11 attorneys too much.

In a written opinion, U.S. District Judge Raymond Jackson referred
to the proposed settlement as "miniscule" and the proposed
attorney fees as "excessive." He chastised the lawyers for not
providing more documentation to support their request for $1.9
million in fees and noted that most attorneys receive compensation
in the range of 20 to 30 percent of the settlement -- not 633
percent.

"The Court is unable to assess the reasonableness of what appears
to be, at first blush, an exorbitant fee request," said Jackson,
who also said the agreement lacked any injunctive relief that
would prevent the Chesapeake-based retailer from requiring hourly
employees to work off the clock in the future.

He asked the attorneys representing the employees to file
supplemental motions, prompting the lawyers to file 406 pages of
new court documents. They offered several changes to the agreement
to address some of the judge's concerns, but they largely defended
the size of the settlement and how much money they should make on
the case.

The attorneys noted that the number of plaintiffs had dwindled
over time to 4,209 from more than 6,000 and that Dollar Tree was
poised to have nearly 3,700 more plaintiffs kicked out of the
suit. As the case currently stands, the documents said, the "best
case scenario" for the employees at trial would be an award of
roughly $340,000 in wages.

The attorneys argued that the $1.9 million in fees was a bargain,
noting that they and their clerks and paralegals have spent more
than 10,600 hours on the case. Among other things, they sent out
more than 275,000 notices, traded more than 17,000 phone calls
with clients, drafted and served hundreds of court documents and
conducted 77 depositions.

They estimated the true value of their work at more than $3.7
million.

In an affidavit, lead attorney Dennis Pantazis Jr. noted that of
the 4,209 plaintiffs contacted about the settlement agreement,
only five questioned the size of the settlement or the attorney
fees. And of those, only one remains concerned, he said.

A spokesman for Dollar Tree -- the nation's largest operator of
stores selling everything for $1 -- declined to comment on the
case.

Class-action lawsuits involve a large number of people with
similar experiences dealing with an organization they say did them
wrong. They usually help people whose cases, on their own, garner
too little money to make them worth the cost or effort to push
through the legal system.

In the Dollar Tree lawsuit, the plaintiffs claimed they were
required to work during their lunch breaks and after their shifts
had ended. It amounted to about 30 or 45 minutes each day.

Court documents indicated about 270,000 current and former workers
could have qualified for the lawsuit. The suit initially estimated
the damages at more than $5 million.

In 2012, Jackson dismissed part of the lawsuit involving assistant
store managers. He allowed an "opt-in collective action" on behalf
of hourly sales associates to move forward, though.

According to court documents, attorneys hammered out the
settlement agreement on March 2 during a meeting with Magistrate
Judge Lawrence Leonard. The meeting was requested by the
employees' attorneys and was the case's second such settlement
conference.

Under the terms of the settlement, plaintiffs would receive checks
between $10 and $3,142, documents said. The bulk of the payments,
however, would be between $10 and $361.


DUALSTAR ENTERTAINMENT: Interns File Class Suit Over Wage Theft
---------------------------------------------------------------
Snejana Farberov, writing for Daily Mail, reported that former
child stars-turned-entertainment moguls Mary Kate and Ashley Olsen
have found themselves on the receiving end of a class-action
lawsuit filed by dozens of their unpaid interns claiming wage
theft.

The 29-year-old twins, best known for their shared role as
Michelle Tanner on the beloved 80s sitcom Full House, have built a
billion-dollar empire under the brand name Dualstar Entertainment
Group, churning out videos, books, hair care products, cosmetics
and clothing.

But according to a lawsuit filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, the
Olsens, whose combined personal net worth is estimated at
$300million, have been reluctant to share some of them profits
with their interns.

Court papers allege that Dualstar has failed to pay about 40 past
and present interns working long hours performing menial tasks.
Dualstar has since denied the allegations to Daily Mail, calling
them 'groundless.'

The lead plaintiff in the case in Shahista Lalani, who worked as a
design intern for five months in 2012 as part of the Olsens'
fashion label, The Row.

In court documents obtained by Page Six, Lalani is quoted as
saying that her supervisor, The Row's head technical designer, was
'very demanding.'

'I was doing the work of three interns. I was talking to her all
day, all night,' Ms Lalani states in the lawsuit.
Lalani claims that at one point, she landed in the hospital with
dehydration after working 50-hour weeks.

'It was like 100 degrees outside. I'd just be sweating to death. I
probably carried like 50 pounds worth of trench coats,' she
alleges.

Her other responsibilities at the company included inputting data
into spreadsheets, running personal errands for her paid co-
workers, sewing and cutting patterns, among other tasks.
During down time at work, the interns were required to clean and
organize buttons by color without getting even a 15-minute break,
the class-action suit alleges.

'You're like an employee, except with not getting paid,' Lalani
writes.

According to Lalani, she had witnessed fellow interns cry while
performing menial tasks like going on coffee runs and making
photocopies for their supervisors, some of whom she described as
'kind of mean.'

The main charge in the suit is that unpaid interns were performing
the same tasks as paid employees, and that they were wrongly
classified as exempt from minimum wage requirements.
Dualstar's interns were also denied college credits for their
work, the court paper claim.

Lalani is a native of Canada who graduated from the Parsons School
of Design in Manhattan in 2013. She noted in the filings that she
never worked directly for the Olsen sisters.

On her personal website, Lalani writes: 'Interning with Zac Posen
as well as The Row greatly impacted her knowledge about the local
garment district and ethical manufacturing processes as well as
mastering care and quality in design.'

The Olsens launched Dualstar Entertainment Group in 1993, when the
sisters were just 6 years old. In 2007, Forbes ranked the former
child stars as the 11th richest women in entertainment.
In a statement to Daily Mail Online, a public relations firm
representing Dualstar said the company 'is committed to treating
all individuals fairly and in accordance with all applicable
laws.'

Dualstar spokeswoman Annett Wolf went on to dismiss the
allegations outlined in the lawsuit as 'groundess' and said
Dualstar will 'vigorously defend itself' against the claims in
court.

'Dualstar is confident that once the true facts of this case are
revealed, the lawsuit will be dismissed in its entirety,' the
statement concluded.


DYNAMIC PET: Court Narrows Claims in Pet Food Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Q. Hayes of the United States District
Court for Southern District of California granted, in part,
Defendants' motion to dismiss the claims in the case captioned as,
KHRISTIE REED, on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. DYNAMIC PET PRODUCTS; and FRICK'S MEAT
PRODUCTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15CV0987-WHQ-DHB (S.D. Cal.).

Khristie Reed purchased the Real Ham Bone for Dogs from Wal-Mart
in Ocenaside, California on March 1, 2015 and fed it to her dog.
The next day, her dog fell ill and was euthanized. On May 1, 2015,
Plaintiff commenced the action on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, for alleged misrepresentations and omissions
made by Dynamic Pet Products and Frick's Meat Products, Inc.  The
Complaint alleges that the Food and Drug Administration stated
that bones such as the Real Ham Bone For Dogs are not safe for
dogs. The Complaint also alleges that the Missouri Better Business
Bureau "specifically warned Defendants about the dangers posed by
their Real Ham Bone For Dogs product," but "Defendants ignored
this notice."  The Complaint quotes 13 complaints made by pet
owners online or to Dynamic directly.

The Complaint asserts the following claims for relief: (1)
violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA);
(2) violation of California Business and Professions Code (UCL);
(3) breach of implied warranty; (4) fraud; and (5) negligent
misrepresentation. Plaintiff requests general damages, punitive
damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive
relief, corrective advertising; and attorneys' fees and costs.

In the motion, Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's CLRA, UCL,
fraud, and negligent misrepresentation claims for failure to
allege fraud with the particularity required by Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule
9(b). Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's CLRA and UCL claims
on the ground that Defendants' alleged misrepresentations are not
likely to deceive a reasonable consumer. Defendants move to
dismiss Plaintiff's CLRA claim for failure to comply with its 30-
day notice requirement. Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's
proposed class, with respect to Plaintiff's CLRA, UCL, and implied
warranty claims, to the extent the class includes members who
reside outside of California. Defendants move to dismiss
Plaintiff's implied warranty claim on the ground that there is no
vertical privity between Plaintiff and Defendants. Defendants move
to dismiss Plaintiff's declaratory and injunctive relief requests
on the ground that Plaintiff lacks Article III standing to request
declaratory and injunctive relief.

In his Order dated July 30, 2015 available at http://is.gd/ee1YeP
from Leagle.com, Judge Hayes concluded that the allegations of
each defendant's involvement are specific enough to give
defendants notice of the particular misconduct which is alleged to
constitute the fraud charged so that they can defend against the
charge and not just deny that they have done anything wrong and as
a matter of law that the Real Ham Bone For Dogs label would not
mislead a reasonable consumer.

Because the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's UCL, CLRA, and implied warranty claims to the extent
that they are brought on behalf of non-California residents and
Plaintiff's requests for declaratory and injunctive relief,
Defendants' motion to strike is denied as moot.

Khristie Reed is represented by Leslie E. Hurst, Esq. --
lhurst@bholaw.com -- Timothy Gordon Blood, Esq. --
tblood@bholaw.com -- BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP

Defendants are represented by David Joseph Aveni, Esq. --
david.aveni@wilsonelser.com -- Gregory Dean Hagen, Esq. --
gregory.hagen@wilsonelser.com -- WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN &
DICKER LLP


ELECTRONIC GAME: Court Grants Class Certification in "Petrie"
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David O. Carter of the United States District Court
for the Central District of California granted Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification in the case captioned, DALTON PETRIE,
Plaintiff, v. ELECTRONIC GAME CARD, INC.; LEE J. COLE; LINDEN
BOYNE; KEVIN DONOVAN; PAUL FARRELL; EUGENE CHRISTIANSEN; ANNA
HOUSSELS; ESTATE OF LORD LEONARD STEINBERG, Defendants, Case No.
SACV 10-0252 DOC (RNBX)(C.D. Cal.).

The case is a putative securities fraud class action against
Electronic Game Card, Inc. (EGC), Linden Boyne (Boyne), Lee Cole
(Cole), Eugene Christiansen (Christiansen), Kevin Donovan
(Donovan), Paul Farrell (Farrell), Anna Houssels (Houssels), and
the Estate of Lord Leonard Steinberg (Estate of Lord Steinberg).
In the Consolidated Third Amended Complaint (TAC), the operative
complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants EGC, Cole, and Boyne
violated Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange
Act and that Defendants Cole, Boyne, Christiansen, Donovan,
Farrell, Houssels, and the Estate of Lord Steinberg should be held
liable as control persons under Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act. Plaintiffs allege that, during the class period
(April 5, 2007 to May 18, 2010), EGC engaged in a fraud to conceal
from and misrepresent to EGC's investors the true financial
condition and performance of EGC. The alleged misrepresentations
included statements about EGC's finances made in EGC's 2006, 2007,
and 2008 10KSBs; quarterly reports from 2007, 2008, and 2009;
earnings conference calls in May, August, and November 2009; and a
press release dated August 6, 2009.

Plaintiffs seek to certify a class described as "All persons or
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded
common stock Electronic Game Card, Inc. (EGC) between April 5,
2007 and May 18, 2010, inclusive, and who held such shares on or
after February 10, 2010. Excluded from the Class are Defendants,
the present and former officers and directors of EGC and any
subsidiary thereof, members of their immediate families and their
legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns and any entity
in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest.

The Defendants opposed the proposed class, arguing that the class
period should be shortened by moving up the end date from May 18,
2010 to February 19, 2010 because the EGC failed to meet the
factors in Cammer v. Bloom, 711 F.Supp. 1264, 1280-84 (D.N.J.
1989), after February 18, 2010 and that the plaintiffs failed to
met the standard requirement of class certification.

In his Order dated July 31, 2015 available at http://is.gd/uw2DPP
from Leagle.com, Judge Carter was convinced that Plaintiffs have
met their burden of proving that they are entitled class
certification since the predominance requirement under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b) has been complied. The Court does not find it
appropriate to shorten the class period on the ground that
Plaintiffs cannot use the fraud-on-the-market presumption during
the three-month period given Plaintiffs' direct evidence of
reliance and the dearth of precedent for modifying the length of a
class period based on failure to meet the Cammer factors in
certain sub-periods.

Dalton Petrie is represented by:

Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
BOTTINI AND BOTTINI INC.
7817 Ivanhoe Avenue #102,
La Jolla, CA 92037,
Tel:(858)914-2001

     - and -

Jonathan Stern, Esq. -- jstern@rosenlegal.com -- Laurence M.
Rosen, Esq. -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- Phillip Kim, Esq. --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM PA

Defendants are represented by Stephen D. Hibbard, Esq. --
shibbard@shearman.com -- Jerome S. Fortinsky, Esq. --
jfortinsky@shearman.com -- SHEARMAN AND STERLING LLP


ETHICON INC: Faces Suit Over Physiomesh(R) Mesh-Related Injuries
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charlene McDonald v. Ethicon, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-00519 (W.D.
Tex., June 18, 2015) is a negligence, strict liability, and breach
of warranty action arising out of the alleged serious personal
injuries of the Plaintiff as a result of the Ethicon Physiomesh(R)
Flexible Composite Mesh.

The Mesh is an implantable tissue-separating mesh designed to be
physiologically compatible with the abdominal wall.

Ethicon, Inc., is a foreign corporation licensed to do business in
the state of Texas.  The Mesh was manufactured, designed, tested,
and marketed by Ethicon.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dan Stroup, Esq.
          DAN STROUP, PC
          3400 W. Marshall Ave., Suite 403
          Longview, TX 75604
          Telephone: (903) 295-2200
          Facsimile: (903) 295-2171
          E-mail: dstroup@danstroup.com

               - and -

          Blake C. Erskine, Esq.
          ERSKINE & McMAHON, LLP
          P. O. Box 3485
          Longview, TX 75606
          Telephone: (903) 757-9435
          Facsimile: (903) 757-9429
          E-mail: blakee@erskine-mcmahon.com


GREEN TREE: Sued in Penn. for Violating Telecommunications Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Herndon, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly
Situated v. Green Tree Servicing, LLC, Case No. 4:15-cv-01202-MWB
(M.D. Pa., June 18, 2015) alleges violations of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cynthia Levin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, PC
          1150 First Avenue, Suite 501
          King of Prussia, PA 19046
          Telephone: (888) 529-9111
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: clevin@attorneysforconsumers.com


ICONIX BRAND: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors thata class
action complaint has been filed on behalf of a class comprising
purchasers of the securities of Iconix Brand Group, Inc. ("Iconix"
or the "Company") between February 20, 2013 and April 17, 2015,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

Iconix is a brand management company and owner of a diversified
portfolio of global consumer brands across women's, men's,
entertainment and home. The complaint alleges that defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose to
investors that: (1) that the Company had underreported the cost
basis of its brands; (2) that the Company engaged in irregular
accounting practices related to the booking of its joint venture
revenues and profits, free-cash flow, and organic growth; (3)
that, as a result, the Company's earnings and revenues were
overstated; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about Iconix's business, operations, and
prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.

On March 30, 2015 after the market closed, the Company announced
that its Chief Financial Officer Jeff Lupinacci had resigned
effective March 30, 2015. Following this news, shares of Iconix
fell $2.72 per share, or 7%, to close on March 31, 2015, at $33.67
per share on unusually high volume.

On April 17, 2015, after the market closed, Iconix announced that
the Company's Chief Operating Officer ("COO") Seth Horowitz had
resigned after serving for approximately one year. The Company
stated that it did not intend to name a new COO. Then, on, April
20, 2015, Roth Capital Partners, published an Equity Research
Note, criticizing the Company's alleged accounting irregularities
concerning free-cash flow accounting, organic growth, and gains on
licensing fees. Following this news, shares of Iconix declined
$6.62 per share, over 20%, to close on April 20, 2015, at $25.41
per share, on unusually heavy volume.

If you purchased Iconix securities during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than August 22, 2015, to serve as lead
plaintiff. If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you
have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G.
Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol
Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at
(215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.

Howard G. Smith, Esq.
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, PA 19020
Telephone: (215) 638-4847
Facsimile: (215) 638-4867
Toll Free: 1-888-638-4847
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/


INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: Oct. 5 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of common stock of
Investment Technology Group Inc. ("ITG" or the "Company") (NYSE:
ITG) between February 28, 2011 and July 29, 2015, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

ITG shareholders may, no later than October 5, 2015, move the
Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class.  If you
purchased shares of ITG and would like to learn more about these
claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or to
sign up online, visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/itg.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements to investors
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Information Technology's
AlterNet Securities, Inc. subsidiary operated a proprietary
trading operation in 2010 through mid-2011 inside of Information
Technology's POSIT dark pool, a private stock trading platform,
against some of its broker clients; (2) the proprietary trading
operation used information from customer stock orders within
Information Technology's dark pool, as well as information from
Information Technology's clients that used the firm's algorithms
to execute trades on other trading  platforms, which should not
have been available; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times.

On July 29, 2015, after the close of trading, the brokerage firm
announced that it is in talks to settle allegations that its
equity dark pool ran afoul of U.S. regulations and may pay a
record penalty of $20.3 million to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.  "In hindsight, I recognize that our client
disclosures about the pilot were insufficient," Bob Gasser, chief
executive of Information Technology said in an email to clients on
July 29, 2015.

On this news, shares of Information Technology closed at $18.36,
down $5.64, or 23.5%, in trading on July 30, 2015.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than October
5, 2015, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of
the class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determine
that the class member's claim is typical of the claims of other
class members, and that the class member will adequately represent
the class.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members
may together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in
any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Ryan & Maniskas,
LLP or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.

Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is a national shareholder litigation firm.
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is devoted to protecting the interests of
individual and institutional investors in shareholder actions in
state and federal courts nationwide.  To learn more about the
class action process, please visit: www.rmclasslaw.com.

Ryan & Maniskas, LLP
995 Old Eagle School Rd, Wayne, PA 19087
Phone:+1 877-316-3218
www.rmclasslaw.com/


JAMES HARDIE: Faces Class Suit Over Harditex Building Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Harris, writing for Stuff.co, reported that victims of
leaky homes are being urged to join a class action being formed
against James Hardie over one of its cladding product, HardieTex.

Law firm Parker & Associates has filed a High Court case on behalf
of a Wellington couple, who claim HardieTex was the cause of their
$200,000-plus leaky home problem.

The claim alleges James Hardie was negligent in the design,
manufacture and supply of HardieTex which was used to build
thousands of houses through the 1990s and early 2000s.

Building owners who have suffered damage have until December to
join the action.

James Hardie's head office in Sydney has not responded to request
for comment, but the country manager for James Hardie in New
Zealand, Justin Burgess, said the product was no longer on the
market.

He declined to comment further.

The plaintiffs, Tracey Cridge and Mark Unwin, said they were
shocked to recently find their home has widespread water damage.

"We called in experts to look at what we first thought was a
little leak and then discovered widespread internal water damage
in our home and now we are looking at repair costs of over
$200,000," said Cridge.

Cridge said they bought their Island Bay home 10 years ago and it
had a good building report at the time. It was a "little bit
scary" being a potential test case "but hopefully it's for the
better good".

Parker & Associates partner Dan Parker said they were looking for
similarly affected property owners to form a class action or bring
a test case.

"Anyone whose property was built after 1990 using HardieTex
cladding and has suffered damage as a result of the alleged system
defects, may be eligible to join the claim."

He said many homeowners would have no idea of potential problems
with their properties, and claims would require investigation by
building experts.

Owners would need to move quickly as after December 31 there would
be a bar on claims based on acts or omissions that occurred more
than 15 years ago, Parker said.

A recent Court of Appeal judgment in a leaky schools battle held
that a product liability claim against a cladding manufacturer was
not subject to the 10-year limitation period under the Building
Act.

Parker said this left open the ability to claim against a cladding
manufacturer for negligent design and manufacture work that
occurred more than 10 years later.

Another litigator, Adina Thorn, has also launched a class action
against the makers of various plaster cladding products including
HardieTex.

She expects the damages could reach $100 million or more,
depending on the number of claims she received.

Auckland building consultant William Hursthouse is an executive
member of the New Zealand Institute of Building Surveyors which
had been heavily involved in "hundreds" of cases involving
HardieTex and James Hardie.

James Hardie had argued it had simply provided sheets of fibrous
cement but its critics argued that the sheets were part of a
system.

Hursthouse said cladding manufacturers had struggled to find a
waterproof alternative to asbestos cladding after they were
abolished in the 1980s.

It was one of a range of products made of wood fibre and cement
which were "inherently" flawed.

Joints between the sheets were filled with plaster which cracked
when the house moved., Hursthouse said.

"So inherently it's a pretty bad idea really," he said.


JAMES HARDIE: CA Affirms Summary Judgment Ruling in "Coe" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Acting Presiding Judge Patricia Bamattre-Manoukian of the Court of
Appeals of California, Sixth District affirmed the trial court's
order granting James Hardie Building Products, Inc. (JHBP)'d
motion for summary judgment in the case, THOMAS U. COE et al.,
Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. JAMES HARDIE BUILDING PRODUCTS,
INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No. H040160 (Cal. App. Ct.).

In 1999 Plaintiffs Thomas U. Coe and Norma Coe entered into a
contract with James Kramer Construction, Inc. (Kramer), a general
contractor, to build a new house on their property in Saratoga.
Kramer hired a subcontractor, Raindance Roofing, to install the
roof on the house. Raindance Roofing used a roof shake product
called Hardislate, which was manufactured or distributed by JHBP
and had a 50-year warranty. The new house was completed in 2001.
In 2011, appellants Thomas U. Coe and Norma Coe filed the instant
action against respondent James Hardie Building Products, Inc.
(JHBP), in which they alleged that JHBP was liable for supplying
the defective roofing product, Hardislate, that was installed when
their house was built about 10 years earlier. JHBP moved for
summary judgment on the ground that the Coes' action was barred
under the doctrine of res judicata, since all claims against JHBP
arising from that roofing product had been resolved by the final
order and judgment in a prior nationwide class action against JHBP
in Washington state court.

The trial court granted JHBP's motion for summary judgment and
entered judgment in JHBP's favor on the ground that the Coes'
action was barred by the affirmative defense of res judicata. The
court took judicial notice that the Washington state court in the
Read class action had previously determined that "[t]he notice
provided fully and accurately informed the Class Members of all
material elements of the proposed Settlement and their opportunity
to participate in or be excluded from it; was the best notice
practicable under the circumstances; was valid, due and sufficient
notice to all Class Members; and complied fully with Superior
Court Civil Rules 23, the United States Constitution, due process,
and other applicable law.

On appeal, the Coe's primary contention is that the trial court
erred in granting JHBP's motion for summary judgment because there
are triable questions of fact as to whether the notice given in
the Read class action was adequate to make them members of the
class and bar their action against JHBP under the doctrine of res
judicata.

In the Order dated July 30, 2015 available at http://is.gd/yJGhRM
from Leagle.com, Judge Bamattre-Manoukian concluded that the
undisputed facts established that the Coe action is barred as a
matter of law under the doctrine of res judicata.


KIMBERLY-CLARK: Faces Class Suit Over Huggies Advertising
---------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for The Courthouse News Service, reported
that marketed in a soft-green font and tree imagery, Huggies "pure
& natural" diapers market themselves safe and environmentally
sound, but they have a synthetic ingredient that can "strip skin
of pigment," a federal class action claims.

Christina Franjul and Veronica Brenner, of New York and
California, respectively, filed the federal complaint against
Huggies parent Kimberly-Clark Corp. and two subsidiaries.

The 32-page filing accuses the Fortune 500 company of deceiving
consumers who are growing more conscious of the dangers of mass-
marketed household products.

"In recent years, consumers have become significantly more aware
and sensitive to the toxicity and impact of household products on
their health, the health of their children, and the general
environment," the complaint states. "As a result, demand has
increased for so-called 'green' products that are naturally
derived, environmentally sound, and non-toxic."

The Huggies diapers appeal to this demographic with promises of
"soft organic cotton," and healthy green leaves providing a canopy
over a smiling baby who has the words "pure & natural" hovering
over his belly.

The diapers, however, are "neither pure nor natural" because they
contain ingredients such as polypropylene, sodium polyacrylate,
sodium methylparaben and methylisothiazolinone, the class says.

A Washington-based watchdog called the Environmental Working Group
(EWG) describes sodium methylparaben as a "human endocrine
disrupter," and the European Union has banned the substance for
its potential to "strip skin of pigment," according to the
lawsuit.

The EWG has also linked methylisothiazolinone to skin toxicity,
immune system toxicity and allergic reactions.

"Furthermore, until around June 2010, Huggies Natural Wipes
contained a substance called DMDM hydantoin, which is a
'formaldehyde releaser' - i.e., over time, it releases
formaldehyde, which is a preservative classified as a carcinogen
by the United States Department of Labor's Occupational Safety &
Health Administration," the complaint states.

In addition, the women say, the "organic cotton" advertised on the
packaging refers only to the material on the outside of the
diaper.

"The organic cotton, thus, never actually comes into contact with
the ultimate user, the baby," according to the complaint.

The class seeks punitive damages for 10 violations of federal and
state law, including the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of
express warranty, and California, Florida and New York consumer
protection statutes.

It is represented by attorney Joseph Marchese of Bursor & Fisher.

Kimberly-Clark actually discontinued Huggies Natural Diapers and
removed methylisothiazolinone from Huggies Natural Wipes after two
other women hit it with a similar federal class action in San
Francisco.

A footnote in the new complaint notes that the company has not
recalled the products, which are "still available for purchase
online and on shelves nationwide."

Kimberly-Clark declined to comment on pending litigation.


LIFELOCK INC: Hagens Berman Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, a national investor-rights law
firm, reminds investors of the September 21, 2015 lead plaintiff
deadline in the securities fraud class action lawsuit filed
against LifeLock, Inc. ("LifeLock" or "the Company"). If you have
losses in LifeLock securities during the Class Period contact
Hagens Berman Partner Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's
investigation, by calling (510) 725-3000, emailing
LOCK@hbsslaw.com or visiting http://hb-
securities.com/investigations/LOCK.

On July 21, 2015 the FTC revealed in a press release that LifeLock
violated a 2010 settlement by continuing to make deceptive claims
about the Company's identity theft protection services and by
failing to take the agreed-upon steps to protect users' data. On
this news, shares of LifeLock declined $7.91 per share, nearly
50%, to close at $8.15 per share on July 21, 2015. The stock has
not recovered.

The lawsuit, pending in U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona, is filed on behalf of investors who purchased LifeLock
securities between July 30, 2014 and July 20, 2015, inclusive,
(the "Class Period"). No class has been certified in this case.
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts including that it did not
establish or maintain an information security program that
adequately protected its subscribers' sensitive, personal data in
spite of advertising that it protected this data with the same
high-level safeguards used by banks and other financial
institutions. Additionally, the Company failed to meet the
recordkeeping requirements that arose from a 2010 settlement with
the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC").

If you were negatively impacted by your investment in LifeLock
between July 30, 2014 and July 20, 2015, and would like to learn
more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead
plaintiff, please contact us for your no-cost evaluation.

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

                  About Hagens Berman

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

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


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Martin" Suit Added to Chinese Flooring MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Martin, et al. v. Lumber
Liquidators Inc., et al., Case No. 5:15-cv-00233, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma
to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
(Alexandria).  The Virginia District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:15-cv-02636-AJT-TRJ to the proceeding.

The case is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation captioned
In re: Lumber Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Products
Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, MDL
No. 1:15-md-02627-AJT-TRJR.

The actions in the litigation involve common factual questions
regarding whether Lumber Liquidators falsely represented that its
Chinese-manufactured laminate flooring complied with California
Air Resources Board standards and other legal requirements
governing the emissions of formaldehyde.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Fletcher D. Handley, Jr., Esq.
          FOGG FOGG & HANDLEY
          P O Box 310
          421 S Rock Island
          El Reno, OK 73036
          Telephone: (405) 262-3502
          Facsimile: (405) 262-3531
          E-mail: fdh@handleylaw.com


MDC PARTNERS: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, announces that
a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of purchasers of
MDC Partners Inc. (NASDAQ:MDCA) securities during the period from
September 24, 2013 through April 27, 2015 inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for MDC Partners
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the MDC Partners class action, go to the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-595.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

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

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, hence causing MDC Partners' common stock to be
overvalued and artificially inflated. Consequently, MDC Partners'
common stock traded at artificially elevated prices and
shareholders sustained damages.

On April 27, 2015, MDC Partners announced in a press release its
financial results for the first quarter ended March 31, 2015. MDC
Partners also announced that: (1) since October 5, 2014, MDC
Partners has been actively cooperating with an SEC investigation
relating to the reimbursement of expenses incurred by the CEO,
Miles Nadal; (2) Mr. Nadal agreed to reimburse MDC Partners $8.6
million which MDC Partners had sought for reimbursement; (3)
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 (4) MDC Partners
reassigned its CFO, Michael Sabatino, to a new role in MDC
Partners. On this news, shares of MDC Partners fell $9.09 per
share to close at $18.89 on April 28, 2015.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
September 29, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-595.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law
Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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

         Laurence Rosen, Esq.
         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Kevin Chan, Esq.
         The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
         New York, NY  10016
         Tel: (212) 686-1060
         Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
         Fax: (212) 202-3827
         lrosen@rosenlegal.com
         pkim@rosenlegal.com
         kchan@rosenlegal.com
         www.rosenlegal.com


MOBILE IRON: Faces Class Suit Over 2014 Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------
Marisa Kendall, writing for The Recorder, reported that a Silicon
Valley company that touted the security of its mobile platform is
facing a shareholder class action related to a 2014 data breach.
MobileIron Inc. sells software intended to help companies securely
manage their employees' mobile devices. A suit filed in Santa
Clara County Superior Court claims the company failed to disclose
before launching its June 2014 initial public offering that
hackers had infiltrated the MobileIron platform used by British
insurance company Aviva PLC.

MobileIron went ahead with its IPO, raising almost $100 million,
but "omitting crucial realities," plaintiffs lawyers wrote.
MobileIron failed to disclose that the company's platform was
vulnerable to hackers, according to the complaint, information
which was likely to hurt the company's ability to continue to
close deals.

"The registration statement's representations were materially
inaccurate, misleading and/or incomplete," wrote John Jasnoch of
Scott + Scott's San Diego office. "Accordingly, the price of
MobileIron shares was artificially and materially inflated at the
time of the offering."

MobileIron revealed subpar earnings on April 22, according to the
suit. Stock prices fell more than 25 percent on that news, and
have "continued to languish" at levels below their IPO. The same
day, the company's chief financial officer resigned.

Jasnoch said an online insurance journal broke the news of the
Aviva cyberattack the day after MobileIron's IPO. A second article
by The Register revealed a hacker infiltrated the MobileIron
server and wiped many Aviva devices, costing the insurance company
millions. Aviva, which had used MobileIron's platform to manage
more than 1,000 mobile devices, moved its impacted personnel onto
a service offered by MobileIron competitor BlackBerry Ltd., and
started discussions about ending its MobileIron contract.

Jasnoch's complaint follows a federal suit filed by The Rosen Law
Firm, which also accuses the company of misleading investors, but
doesn't address the Aviva breach. MobileIron is represented in
that case by Cooley partner John Dwyer, who declined to comment on
the new litigation.

A representative from MobileIron didn't respond to a request for
comment.

Data breaches are becoming increasingly frequent, but while
plaintiffs lawyers have had some luck with privacy class actions,
securities lawyers have mainly stayed on the sidelines.

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro partner Reed Kathrein said he's
researched data breaches to see if there's potential for a
securities class action, but he's passed on every one. Plaintiffs
need a significant breach-related stock drop to prove damages, and
so far that hasn't been the case.

Keker & Van Nest partner Michael Celio said that may be because
data breaches have become the norm.
"These breaches are such common events these days, unfortunately
for all of us," he said, "that I'd be surprised if the markets
reacted consistently negatively to every allegation that there's
been a breach."

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/


MITSUBISHI FUSO: Suit Over BlueTec Emissions Allowed to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Martinez, writing for Trucking Info, reported that a judge
has allowed a class action against Mitsubishi Fuso Truck of
America to continue after the truck maker made motions to dismiss
the case involving BlueTec emissions control technology.

Mitsubishi Fuso moved to dismiss all five counts brought against
it. However, after reviewing the arguments, the judge ruled three
out of the five could continue. The manufacturer also moved to
strike the class allegations, which were also denied.

Grocery chain Q Plus Food LLC claims that the engines in
Mitsubishi's 2012 FE125 truck were defective due to a faulty
emissions control system. The BlueTec ECU was designed to reduce
emissions in the trucks to keep the engines in compliance with the
EPA's 2010 emissions standards using selective catalytic reduction
technology.

The ECU software caused the engines to shut down without any
apparent reason, according to the lawsuit. The software allegedly
issued shutdown commands requiring immediate maintenance, which
took the trucks out of service.

The trucks were purchased in 2011 and were covered under a five-
year emission control system warranty. According to court
documents, the owner of the truck brought it in on 13 different
occasions in the first three years, placing the truck out-of-
service for at least 250 days of the 790 days it was owned.

Q Plus Food alleges that it received an email from Mitsubishi's
product support manager in 2014 explaining that no further
assistance would be provided for the problem. Because of this, the
grocery company alleged that the warranty had failed its essential
purpose.

The case was originally brought before the New Jersey court
claiming that Mitsubishi was in violation of New Jersey's Fraud
Act and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices act as well
as other claims of a breach of warranty, good faith and
declaratory relief.

A spokesperson for Mitsubishi Fuso said the company's policy was
not to comment on pending litigation.


MULTICARE HEALTH SYSTEM: Tousley Brain Appointed as Class Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the United States District
Court for Western District of Washington certified Plaintiff's
TCPA class and appointed Tousley Brain Stephens PLLC as class
counsel in the case captioned, JUMAPILI IKUSEGHAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
MULTICARE HEALTH SYSTEM, a Washington nonprofit corporation,
Defendant, Case No. C14-5539 BHS (W.D. Wash.).

In 2008, MultiCare contracted with Hunter Donaldson, a California
company, to identify payment sources for patients who received
treatment at MultiCare's facilities and provided patient telephone
numbers from its records. Hunter Donaldson then used automated
dialing systems to call these numbers. Hunter Donaldson made
55,091 phone calls to 3,041 unique cell phone numbers.

In June 2013, Ikuseghan received treatment at a MultiCare hospital
in Tacoma, Washington. MultiCare asks its patients to sign a
Financial Agreement. This agreement provides that MultiCare may
use and release a patient's protected health information,
including telephone numbers, in order for MultiCare to get paid
for the patient's treatment. Following her treatment at MultiCare,
Ikuseghan received at least seven automated calls to her cell
phone from Hunter Donaldson regarding payment options for her
medical treatment at MultiCare. On July 7, 2014, Ikuseghan filed a
class action complaint against Defendant MultiCare Health System
(MultiCare). Ikuseghan alleges that MultiCare (1) violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and (2) invaded her
privacy by intrusion under Washington law.

In the motion, Ikuseghan seeks to certify a nationwide class under
the TCPA.  MultiCare opposes the motion, arguing that Ikuseghan
lacks Article III standing and has not satisfied the requirements
for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

In his Order dated July 27, 2015 available at http://is.gd/ewWBEK
from Leagle.com, Judge Settle certified the TCPA class as "All
persons who received medical treatment at a MultiCare facility,
who signed MultiCare's Financial Agreement and Conditions of
Treatment forms, and to whose cellular telephone number Hunter
Donaldson made a call on behalf of MultiCare through the use of an
automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded
voice at any time on or after July 7, 2010."

Jumapili Ikuseghan is represented by Kim D. Stephens, Esq. --
kstephens@tousley.com -- Jessica Therese Stevenson, Esq. --
jstevenson@tousley.com -- Chase Christian Alvord, Esq. --
calvord@tousley.com -- TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS

MultiCare Health System is represented by Justin A. Steiner, Esq.
-- Jsteiner@bbllaw.com -- Michael Madden, Esq. --
mmadden@bbllaw.com -- Timothy E. Allen, Esq. -- tallen@bbllaw.com
-- BENNETT BIGELOW & LEEDOM


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Class Cert. Denied in "Alhassid" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Beth Bloom of the United States District Court for
Southern District of Florida denied Plaintiffs Sarah Alhassid and
Sarah Drennen's motion to certify a class action in the case
captioned, SARAH ALHASSID and SARAH DRENNEN, on their own behalf
and on behalf of all others similar situated, Plaintiff, v. BANK
OF AMERICA, N.A., NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC (d/b/a CHAMPION
MORTGAGE), Defendants, Case No. 14-CIV-20484-BLOOM/VALLE (S.D.
Fla.).

Both Alhassid and Drennen obtained mortgages originally owned and
serviced by Bank of America, N.A., which were later sold to
Nationstar. Both Plaintiffs defaulted on their loans by failing to
make the required payments. They intiated a putative class action
against the Defendant for alleged improper imposition of fees in
connection with mortgage loans it owned and/or serviced including
property inspection fees, property preservation fees, property
appraisal fees, property taxes and attorney's fees first by
placing or maintaining the loans in some form of default status
and then, using the default status as a pretext, assessing the
unauthorized fees which resulted in windfall profits at its
borrowers' expense. The Third Amended Complaint asserts six causes
of actions against Nationstar on behalf of all putative classes:
breach of contract resulting from unnecessary and excessive
servicing fees and charges (Count I); breach of contract resulting
from unauthorized foreclosure proceedings (Count II); breach of
contract resulting from unauthorized charges for attorneys' fees
and costs (Count III); breach of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing (Count IV); violation of Florida's Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act, (FDUTPA) (Count V); and violation of
the Fair Dent Collection Practices Act, (FDCPA) (Count VI).

In her Order dated July 31, 2015 available at http://is.gd/D7kaLI
from Leagle.com, Judge Bloom found that Plaintiffs' failure to
establish predominance mirrors their failure to establish
commonality hence, failure to satisfy the four requirements of
Rule 23(a).

Plaintiff is represented by Maury Lorne Udell, Esq. --
mudell@bmulaw.com -- BEIGHLEY, MYRICK & UDELL, P.A., Geoff
Hirshberg, Esq. -- ghirshberg@hersseinlaw.com -- Iris Joy
Herssein, Esq. -- iris@hersseinlaw.com -- Reuven T. Herssein, Esq.
-- reuven@hersseinlaw.com -- HERSSEIN LAW GROUP

National Mortgage LLC is represented by Alan Graham Greer, Esq. --
agreer@richmangreer.com -- Nathaniel Mark Edenfield, Esq. --
nedenfield@richmangreer.com -- RICHMAN GREER, P.A., Erik Kemp,
Esq. -- ek@severson.com -- John B. Sullivan, Esq. --
jbs@severson.com -- Jonah S. Van Zandt, Esq. -- jvz@severson.com
-- Mark Douglas Lonergan, Esq. -- mdl@severson.com -- SEVERSON &
WERSON


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Judge Seeks Guidance From Wash. High Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thomas O. Rice of the United States District Court
for Eastern District of Washington deferred ruling on Nationstar
Mortgage LLC's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Plaintiff's
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in the case captioned, LAURA
ZAMORA JORDAN, as her separate estate, and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2:14-CV-
0175-TOR (E.D.Wash.).

Judge Rice said the motions present questions of state law that
have not been clearly determined by either the Washington Supreme
Court or the Washington appellate courts and that answers to these
questions are necessary to dispose of these motions.

Pending a decision by the Washington Supreme Court, the
proceedings in the Jordan case is stayed.

In 2007, Ms. Jordan bought a home in Wenatchee, Washington, and,
like other class members, secured her home loan by signing a deed
of trust. Homecomings Financial was the original lender named in
the deed of trust; however, it subsequently assigned the loan to
Fannie Mae. The deed of trust contains the following provision,
which permits the lender to enter, maintain, and secure the
property after the borrower's default or abandonment. Ms. Jordan
made her last loan payment in December 2010 and subsequently went
into default. In March 2011, Nationstar -- whom Fannie Mae had
hired to service the loan in 2008, hired a vendor to perform an
exterior inspection of Ms. Jordan's property and the vendor
preliminarily determined that it was vacant. Nationstar then
ordered entry of Ms. Jordan's property. The vendor changed the
lock on the front door and posted a sign that the property is
unsecure and vacant.

On April 3, 2012, Ms. Jordan filed her Complaint in Chelan County
Superior Court against Nationstar Mortgage, LLC, alleging numerous
state law causes of action, including trespass, breach of
contract, violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, as
well as violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA). Nationstar subsequently removed the case to the federal
district court. The parties then filed cross motions for partial
summary judgment on two similar, but distinguishable, legal
issues. Nationstar's motion asked the Court to hold as a matter of
law that the so-called Entry Provisions within the deed of trust
are enforceable under Washington law. Ms. Jordan's motion, on the
other hand, asked the Court to hold as a matter of law that,
before the lender can lawfully act upon the Entry Provisions, the
lender is first required to obtain the borrower's post-default
consent or permission from a court.

In his Order dated August 10, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/opKVq0from Leagle.com, Judge Rice certified the
question of law as follows:

"(1) Under Washington's lien theory of mortgages and RCW
7.28.230(1), can a borrower and lender enter into a contractual
agreement prior to default that allows the lender to enter,
maintain, and secure the encumbered property prior to
foreclosure?(2) Does RCW chapter 7.60, Washington's statutory
receivership scheme, provide the exclusive remedy, absent post-
default consent by the borrower, for a lender to gain access to an
encumbered property prior to foreclosure?"

The Court further acknowledged that the Washington Supreme Court
may, in its discretion, reformulate the questions if it decides to
answer these certified questions. If the Washington Supreme Court
accepts review of the certified questions, the District Court
designates Ms. Jordan and others similarly situated to file the
first brief, and the parties shall file a joint status report
every six months from the date of the acceptance, or more
frequently if the circumstances so warrant.

Laura Zamora Jordan is represented by:

Beau C. Haynes, Esq.
Michael D. Daudt, Esq.
TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC
936 N 34th St #300,
Seattle, WA 98103
Tel: (206)816-6603

     - and -

Clay M. Gatens, Esq.
Michelle A. Green, Esq.
JEFFERS DANIELSON SONN AND AYLWARD PS
2600 Chester Kimm Rd,
Wenatchee, WA 98801
Tel: (509)662-3685

Nationstar Mortgage, Inc. is represented by John Alan Knox, Esq.
-- jknox@williamskastner.com -- WILLIAMS KASTNER & GIBBS, Andrew
W. Noble, Esq. -- awn@severson.com -- Jan T. Chilton, Esq. --
jtc@severson.com -- Mary Kate Sullivan, Esq. - mks@severson.com --
SEVERSON & WERSON PC


NEW YORK: Court Narrows Suit Against Housing Authority
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin of the United States District
Court for Southern District of New York granted in part New York
City Housing Authority (NYCHA)'s motion to dismiss and denied in
part Plaintiffs' cross-motion for leave to amend in the case,
BRIAN WYNN, JOHN WILLIAMS, AWILDA GUZMAN, JOSE OTERO, and KEVIN
FULTON, Plaintiffs, v. THE NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY,
Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-2818 (SAS)(S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs Brian Wynn, John Williams, Awilda Guzman, Jose Otero,
and Kevin Fulton, all minorities either Black or Hispanic who
reside in New York, brought a class action alleging that their
employer, the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), has been
systematically under-compensating them due to their race and/or
ethnicity. All plaintiffs are currently employed by NYCHA and
perform the job duties of Plasterer Tenderers, also known as
Plasterer Helpers. Plaintiffs have held their respective jobs at
NYCHA for varying lengths of time, ranging from a low of
approximately twelve to a high of approximately seventeen years.
Plaintiffs asserted causes of action for violations of their civil
rights under section 1981 of title 42 of the United States Code as
well as the New York City Human Rights Laws (NYCHRL).  Plaintiffs
contend that NYCHA discriminated against them on the basis of
their race or ethnicity by failing to pay them prevailing wages.
Further, plaintiffs alleged that NYCHA attempts to disguise its
employment practices by assigning to plaintiffs the job title
"Caretaker P" instead of Plasterer Tenderer.

In the motion, NYCHA argued plaintiffs' claims are governed by the
grievance and arbitration procedures outlined in the collective
bargaining agreement ("CBA") between NYCHA and the Union.
According to NYCHA, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to
hear plaintiffs' claims because plaintiffs have failed to exhaust
the grievance procedures under the CBA.

In her Opinion and Order dated July 29, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/FwuJ6rfrom Leagle.com, Judge Scheindlin held that
NYCHA failed to cite any case linking the existence of a
collective bargaining agreement to depriving federal courts of
subject matter jurisdiction to hear a claim of employment
discrimination. Plaintiffs' proposed claim under Section 1981 is
sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs are represented:

Lee Sam Nuwesra, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF LEE NUWESRA
60 E 42nd St.
New York, NY 10165

Defendants are represented by:

Diana Marie Murhpy, Esq.
Marni Blank, Esq.
NEW YORK CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY
647 Columbus Ave
New York, NY 10024
Tel: (212)799-9400


NEW YORK: Court Trims Lawsuit Against Health Department
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jed S. Rakoff of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York dismissed Claims III and IV
and also dismissed Claim V with respect to the Youth Exclusion but
denied defendant's motion to dismiss the entire Amended Complaint
in the case captioned, ANGIE CRUZ, I.H., AR'ES KPAKA, and RIYA
CHRISTIE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. HOWARD ZUCKER, as Commissioner of the
Department of Health [of the State of New York], Defendant, Case
No. 14-CV-4456 (JSR)(S.D.N.Y.).

Each of the three named plaintiffs in this class action has been
diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria (GD) -- formerly known as Gender
Identity Disorder. They allege that GD is recognized by the
medical community as "'an identifiable, severe and incapacitating
disease". Prior to 1998, medical coverage was available under New
York's Medicaid program for the treatment of GD, including hormone
treatment and sex reassignment surgery. However, in 1998, the New
York State Department of Health (DOH), which is responsible for
administering the state's Medicaid program, promulgated 18
N.Y.C.R.R. Sec. 505.2(1), which barred payment for all "care,
services, drugs or supplies rendered for the purposes of gender
reassignment" treatment or for "promoting" such treatment.

On March 27, 2015, plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint. In
it, plaintiffs allege that the Amended Section 505.2(1) violates
various provisions of Title XIX of the Social Security Act (the
Medicaid Act), the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(ACA), and the New York State Constitution. Specifically,
plaintiffs assert six causes of action:

     (I) violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1396a(a)(10)(A) and its
implementing regulation, 42 C.F.R. Sec. 440.210 (the "Availability
Requirement" of the Medicaid Act);

    (II) violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1396a(a)(10)(B) and its
implementing regulation, 42 C.F.R. Sec. 440.240(b) (the
"Comparability Requirement" of the Medicaid Act);

   (III) violation of 42 U.S.C. Sections 1396a(a)(17),
1396a(a)(10)(B)(i) and their implementing regulation, 42 C.F.R.
Sec. 440.230(c) (the "Reasonable Standards Requirement" of the
Medicaid Act);

    (IV) violation of Article I, Section 11 of the New York State
Constitution, which guarantees equal protection of the laws;

     (V) Section 1557 of the ACA, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 18116, which
prohibits sex discrimination in the provision of healthcare; and

    (VI) violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1396a(a)(43), which requires
states to provide "early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and
treatment services" for eligible persons under the age of 21(the
"EPSDT Requirement" of the Medicaid Act).

In the motion, Defendant argued that provisions of the Medicaid
Act cited by the plaintiffs do not create private rights of action
under Section 1983.

In his Opinion dated July 29, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/v9fndNfrom Leagle.com, Judge Rakoff found that the
Availablity, Comparability, and EPSDT Requirements create private
rights enforceable via Section 1983 and that the defendant's
motion has merit regarding plaintiffs; claim that Amended Section
505.2(1) violates the Reasonable Standards Requirement (Count
III).

Plaintiffs are represented by Christopher James McNamara, Esq. --
cmcnamara@willkie.com -- Lee Larson Hulsebus, Esq. --
lhulsebus@willkie.com -- Norman Paul Ostrove, Esq. --
nostrove@willkie.com -- Wesley Railey Powell, Esq. --
wpowell@willkie.com -- Mary Jane Eaton, Esq. -- meaton@willkie.com
-- WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP

Defendant is represented by John Peter Gasior, Esq. Peter W.
Beauchamp, Esq. & Zoey Chenitz, Esq., at the OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK


NORDSTROM INC: Court Dismisses "Shaulis" Complaint
--------------------------------------------------
District Judge F. Dennis Saylor of the United States District
Court for District of Massachusetts reversed the July 1, 2014
order of the district court which granted defendant's motion to
dismiss in the case captioned, JUDITH SHAULIS, Plaintiff, v.
NORDSTROM INC., d/b/a NORDSTROM RACK, Defendants, Case No. 15-
10326-FDS (D.Mass.).

Judith Shaulis has filed suit against Nordstrom, Inc., doing
business as Nordstrom Rack. The complaint alleges that Nordstrom
"misrepresented the existence, nature, and amount of price
discounts on products" by "purporting to offer discounts off of
fabricated former prices." Specifically, the complaint alleges
that the price tags of Nordstrom Rack products represented
"Compare At" prices that did not represent a bona fide price at
which Nordstrom formerly sold these products or at which these
products were sold elsewhere. The complaint alleges that plaintiff
purchased a cardigan sweater at Nordstrom Rack for $49.97. The
price tag included a "Compare At" price of $218.00. The complaint
alleges that the sweater had never been sold at Nordstrom, or
anywhere else, for $218.00, and that therefore the pricing
language was illegal.

On February 18, 2015, defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. In
support of its motion to dismiss, defendant submitted an affidavit
from its attorney Joseph Duffy with attachments. Plaintiff has
moved to strike the affidavit and its attachments.

In his Memorandum and Order dated August 14, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/m7Rp5Pfrom Leagle.com, Judge Saylor concluded that
the complaint does not allege a legally cognizable injury.

Judith Shaulis is represented by:

S. James Boumil, Esq.
BOUMIL LAW OFFICES & KONSTANTINE W. KYROS
17 Miles Rd.
Hingham, MA 02043

Nordstrom Inc. is represented by Joseph Duffy, Esq. --
jduffy@morganlewis.com -- Julie V. Silva Palmer, Esq. --
julie.palmer@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Must Defend Against "Weiner" Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. of the United States
District Court for Eastern District of California denied Ocwen
Financial Corp.'s Motion to Dismiss in the case captioned, DAVID
WEINER, individually, and on behalf of other members of the public
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. OCWEN FINANCIAL CORPORATION, a
Florida corporation, and OCWEN LOAN SERVICING, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Defendants, Case No. 2:14-CV-02597-MCE-
DAD (E.D. Cal.).

David Weiner alleges that his mortgage servicer, Ocwen Loan
Servicing LLC (OLS) and OLS' parent company, Ocwen Financial
Corporation (collectively referred to as "Ocwen" unless otherwise
indicated), improperly assessed default-related service fees that
contained substantial, undisclosed mark-ups which violated the
terms of his mortgage contract. Plaintiff further alleges that
Defendants misapplied his payments in violation of the terms of
the applicable deed of trust. Plaintiff also purports to represent
a class of borrowers who have been similarly damaged by
Defendants' allegedly improper actions.

Plaintiff's Class Action Complaint alleges violations of: 1)
California's Unfair Competition Law, (UCL); 2) The Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO); and 3) the
Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA). Plaintiff
also includes state law claims for unjust enrichment, fraud and
breach of contract, and he further seeks to bring his claims on
behalf of both himself and others similarly situated by way of a
class action under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 23.

In the motion, Ocwen moves to dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in
accordance with Rule 12(b)(6). Additionally, with respect to
Plaintiff's claims premised on fraud, Ocwen further assert those
claims fail because they are not pled with the particularity
required by Rule 9(b).

In the Memorandum and Order dated July 28, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/1IOvvhfrom Leagle.com, Judge England, Jr. concluded
that Ocwen's request for dismissal of Plaintiff's Seventh Cause of
Action for breach of contract is misplaced, Plaintiff's fraud
claims are factually grounded on allegations that Ocwen marked up
BPO and title search fees by as much as 100 percent without
disclosing the vendor's markup and Plaintiff's unjust enrichment
claim is premised on the same facts underlying Ocwen's alleged
fraudulent concealment of its marked-up default related fees. The
Court squarely rejects Ocwen's claim that Plaintiff's complaint
utterly fails to state any specific evidence to supports its
claims of misrepresentation and/or omission.

Plaintiffs are represented by Mark Pifko, Esq. --
mpifko@baronbudd.com -- BARON & BUDD

Defendants are represented by Ashley Pavel, Esq. -- apavel@omm.com
-- Catalina Joos Vergara, Esq. -- cvergara@omm.com & Elizabeth
Lemond McKeen, Esq. -- emckeen@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP


ONTARIO, CA: $325MM Class Suit Filed Over Abused Deaf Students
--------------------------------------------------------------
AM 980 reported that a proposed $325 million class action lawsuit
has been filed against the provincial government for alleged
abuses that took place at four Ontario schools for the deaf.

The lawsuit alleges that the province failed to operate or
supervise the four schools -- Ernest. C. Drury School for the Deaf
in Milton, Robarts School for the Deaf in London (pictured), Sir
James Whitney School for the Deaf in Belleville, and Centre Jules-
L‚ger in Ottawa -- so as to ensure the safety and well-being of
its vulnerable students, most of whom lived in residence during
the school year.

"There are three different forms of abuse that are being alleged,"
said Rob Gain, an associate at Toronto-based Koskie Minsky LLP.
"They are sexual abuse, physical abuse, and psychological abuse."


The legal action was commenced by Christopher Welsh, a former
student who attended both Ernest C. Drury School for the Deaf and
the Robarts School and Koskie Minksy LLP.

The alleged abuse dates back to as early as 1950, and covers past
conduct, according to Gain.

"This is another unfortunate example of the Province of Ontario
failing to protect vulnerable students from abuse," said Kirk
Baert, co-lead counsel at Koskie Minsky LLP. "Parents of deaf
children trusted the Province to protect their kids, who often
lived at these schools far from home."

Anyone who was a student or knows any former students at any of
the schools are being encouraged to contact Koskie Minsky LLP toll
free at 1-877-309-9111 or at www.kmlaw.ca/SchoolAbuse or by email
at SchoolAbuse@kmlaw.ca

The lawsuit is seeking $300 million plus punitive damages of $25
million.

The allegations have not been proven in court.

Koskie Minsky LLP
20 Queen St W #900, Toronto, ON M5H 3R3, Canada
Phone:+1 416-977-8353
www.kmlaw.ca


PAIN THERAPEUTICS: KB Partners' Class Suit Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
The following notice was filed:

Summary Notice of Pendency of Class Action. KB Partners I, L.P. v
Pain Therapeutics, Inc., Remi Barbier, Nadav Friedmann, and Peter
S. Roddy, U.S. District Court Western District of Texas, Case No.
1-11-CV-01034 (SS).

TO:

ALL PURCHASERS OF THE COMMON STOCK OF PAIN THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
DURING THE PERIOD FROM DECEMBER 27, 2010 AND JUNE 26, 2011, BOTH
DATES INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS PERIOD").

Excluded from the Class are defendants, officers and directors of
Pain Therapeutics, Inc., members of their immediate families,
heirs, successors or assigns, and any entity in which defendants
have or had a controlling interest.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS
MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THIS ACTION.

Notice is hereby given pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas (the "Court"), entered June 4,
2013, certifying the above action as a Class Action. This Action
has not been settled and continues to be litigated. Accordingly,
no claim form need be filed at this time.

If you are a member of the Class, your rights are affected by this
action and you may have the right to participate in any recovery.
You also have the right to exclude yourself from the Class in
accordance with the directions set forth in a more detailed Notice
of Pendency of Class Action, which was mailed separately to
persons and entities identified from the records of defendant Pain
Therapeutics, Inc. as members of the Class. That Notice of
Pendency of Class Action describes the Class Action and your
rights with respect thereto.

If you have not received a more detailed Notice by mail, please
contact in writing:

Pain Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation
Notice Administrator
PO Box 43372
Providence, RI 02940-3372
info@paintherapeuticslitigation.com
Telephone: 1-866-348-7651

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to
Class Counsel:

Tamar A. Weinrib,Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, New York 10016
Telephone: 212-661-1100
Facsimile: 212-661-8665


PANGBORN CORP: "Frazier" Suit Removed to Arkansas District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant American Optical Corporation removed the lawsuit styled
Frazier v. Pangborn Corporation, et al., Case No. CV2014-280-2,
from the Jefferson County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Arkansas (Pine Bluff).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:15-cv-00202-DPM to the proceeding.

The case alleges personal injury/product liability.  The
Plaintiff's alleged injury is lung disease and silica related
conditions, caused by exposure to respirable crystalline silica
while working for the Defendants or their predecessors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick C. Malouf, Esq.
          Timothy W. Porter, Esq.
          John T. Givens, Esq.
          PORTER & MALOUF, PA
          Post Office Box 12768
          Jackson, MS 39236-2768
          Telephone: (601) 957-1173
          Facsimile: (601) 957-7366
          E-mail: patrick@portermalouf.com
                  tim@portermalouf.com
                  johnny@portermalouf.com

               - and -

          R. Allen Smith, Jr., Esq.
          THE SMITH LAW FIRM, PLLC
          681 Towne Center Blvd., Suite B
          Ridgeland, MS 39157
          Telephone: (601) 952-1422
          Facsimile: (601) 952-1426
          E-mail: allen@smith-law.org

Defendants Pangborn Corporation and Precision Packaging Inc. are
represented by:

          John P. Parsons, Esq.
          FORMAN WATKINS KRUTZ & TARDY LLP
          2001 Bryant Street, Suite 1300
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 905-2924
          Facsimile: (214) 905-3976
          E-mail: parsonsjp@fpwk.com

Defendant American Optical Corporation is represented by:

          Alex T. Gray, Esq.
          Lyn Peeples Pruitt, Esq.
          Megan D. Hargraves, Esq.
          MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES & WOODYARD, P.L.L.C.
          425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 1800
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 688-8800
          E-mail: agray@mwlaw.com
                  lpruitt@mwlaw.com
                  mhargraves@mwlaw.com

               - and -

          Ginger C. Hyneman, Esq.
          MITCHELL, WILLIAMS, SELIG, GATES & WOODYARD, P.L.L.C.
          100 East Huntington, Suite C
          Jonesboro, AR 72401
          Telephone: (870) 336-9295
          Facsimile: (870) 336-9787
          E-mail: ghyneman@mwlaw.com


PAPA JOHN'S: Records $123MM Pre-Tax Expense to Settle Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Janet Sparks, writing for Blue MauMau, reported that in its second
quarter results, Papa John's International, Inc. (NASDAQ: PZZA)
touted that its "better ingredients, better pizza" promise is
resonating more than ever with loyal customers. The company said
it is hopeful that in itself will differentiate its chain by
enhancing the quality of its pizza.

But one black cloud hoovering over Papa John's second quarter
results is the company's announcement that it also recorded a pre-
tax expense of $12.3 million for a preliminary legal settlement,
subject to court approval.

In the collective and class action lawsuit, Perrin v. Papa John's
International, Inc. and Papa John's USA, Inc., approximately
19,000 delivery drivers alleged they were not reimbursed in
accordance with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Despite the
possible settlement, Papa John's states that it continues to deny
any liability or wrongdoing in the matter.

Court Order in Lawsuit

The legal settlement now appearing in Papa John's second quarter
report for 2015, surrounds a complaint filed in August 2009 by
Timothy Perrin, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
delivery drivers employed by Papa John's. It was filed in U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

The driver claimed that Papa John's violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the minimum wage laws of five states, Missouri,
Arizona, Florida, Illinois and Maryland. All states mandate a
higher minimum wage than that under federal law, and the pizza
chain failed "reasonably to approximate the delivery drivers'
automotive expenses for reimbursement purposes. That meant Papa
John's failed to pay the minimum wage.

The long, drawn out litigation resulted in a court order on
December 31, 2013, which granted class certification for drivers
in the five states. Notices were mailed to affected drivers in
each state on April 30, 2014. Drivers who worked for Papa John's
company-owned stores were advised not to remain in the class
action. Drivers remaining in the class were told that they would
be bound by the court judgment, win or lose, and would be eligible
to participate if there was a settlement in the future. The matter
was to go to trial in early 2015, "as a class and representative
action."

Papa John's settlement finalized with drivers

In reviewing the Missouri district court docket, Papa John's
settlement with pizza delivery drivers has now been finalized.

An order was filed on July 8, 2015, granting the drivers motion
for summary judgment regarding Papa John's reliance on tips to
achieve the minimum wage. Other motions for summary judgment were
denied and granted in part on both sides, plaintiffs and
defendants.

After the Alternative Dispute Resolution conference was held on
July 24, the judge stated the parties participated in good faith
and achieved a settlement on August 3. The court then asked the
parties to submit documents by September 8, to have the case
dismissed. The exact amount of the settlement is not known at this
time.

Stueve Siegel Hanson and Weinhaus & Potashnick were appointed by
the court to represent the drivers in the class action
litigations. Ogletree and Deakins in Kansas City are the lead
counsel for Papa John's International.

In spite of having to report the preliminary $12.3 recorded legal
settlement, Papa John's founder, chairman and CEO John Schnatter
was happy with the results. "We are pleased to have maintained our
excellent sales momentum and completed another successful
quarter," he stated.


PRECISION CASTPARTS: Berkshire Buyout Subject to Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The fairness of the proposed acquisition of Precision Castparts
Corp. ("PCP" or the "Company") by Berkshire Hathaway Inc.
("Berkshire") is the subject of an investigation by WeissLaw LLP,
a national class action, shareholder rights law firm. The
investigation focuses on possible breaches of fiduciary duty and
other violations of law by the Board of Directors of PCP for
agreeing to sell the Company to Berkshire. On August 10, 2015, the
Company announced it had reached a definitive agreement for
Berkshire to acquire PCP in a transaction valued at approximately
$37.2 billion. Under the terms of the agreement, PCP shareholders
will receive $235.00 for each PCP share they own.

WeissLaw is investigating whether PCP's Board acted to maximize
shareholder value. Notably, analysts have set a target price of
$252.00 per PCP share, or $17.00 above the offer price.
Additionally, the offer price represents a mere 5.8% premium over
the Company's May 22, 2015 trading price of $221.91.

Given these facts, WeissLaw is investigating whether PCP's Board
acted in the best interests of PCP's public shareholders by
actively shopping the Company to maximize shareholder value. If
you own PCP shares and would like more information about your
rights or our investigation, or if you have information to share
with us, please contact Joshua Rubin by telephone at (888) 593-
4771 or by email at stockinfo@weisslawllp.com.

WeissLaw LLP has litigated hundreds of stockholder class and
derivative actions for violations of corporate and fiduciary
duties. We have recovered over a billion dollars for defrauded
clients and obtained important corporate governance relief in many
of these cases. If you have information or would like legal advice
concerning possible corporate wrongdoing (including insider
trading, waste of corporate assets, accounting fraud, or
materially misleading information), consumer fraud (including
false advertising, defective products, or other deceptive business
practices), or anti-trust violations, please email us at
stockinfo@weisslawllp.com or fill out the form on our website,
http://www.weisslawllp.com/contact/report_fraud/.


PREMERA BLUE: 7 Suits Consolidated in Data Security Breach MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Seven class action lawsuits were transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Washington to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Oregon (Portland):

   -- Blackwolfe, et al. v. Premera Blue Cross,
      Case No. 2:15-cv-00429.  The Oregon District Court Clerk
      assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01102-SI to the proceeding;

   -- Archibald v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 2:15-cv-00505.
      The Oregon District Court Clerk assigned
      Case No. 3:15-cv-01107-SI to the proceeding;

   -- Guenser v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 2:15-cv-00441.  The
      Oregon District Court Clerk assigned
      Case No. 3:15-cv-01103-SI to the proceeding;

   -- Hoirup, et al. v. Premera Blue Cross,
      Case No. 2:15-cv-00445.  The Oregon District Court Clerk
      assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01104-SI to the proceeding;

   -- Cossey, et al. v. Premera Blue Cross,
      Case No. 2:15-cv-00472.  The Oregon District Court Clerk
      assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01105-SI to the proceeding;

   -- Cushnie v. Premera Blue Cross, Case No. 2:15-cv-00413.
      The Oregon District Court Clerk assigned
      Case No. 3:15-cv-01101-SI to the proceeding; and

   -- Forseter, et al. v. Premera Blue Cross,
      Case No. 2:15-cv-00499.  The Oregon District Court Clerk
      assigned Case No. 3:15-cv-01106-SI to the proceeding.

The cases are consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Premera Blue Cross Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation, MDL No. 3:15-md-02633-SI.

The actions in the litigation share factual questions arising from
a data security breach that allegedly occurred sometime between
May 2014 and January 2015, resulting in the electronic theft of
personally identifiable information and personal health
information of, by one estimate, some 11 million current and
former health insurance plan members of Premera or its affiliated
health insurance companies.

Plaintiff Ann Michelle Blackwolfe is represented by:

          Clifford A. Cantor, Esq.
          627 208th Avenue SE
          Sammamish, WA 98074
          Telephone: (425) 281-8217
          Facsimile: (425) 732-3752
          E-mail: cliff.cantor@outlook.com

Plaintiff Sandy Archibald is represented by:

          Matthew James Ide, Esq.
          7900 SE 28th Street, Suite 500
          Mercer Island, WA 98040
          Telephone: (206) 625-1326
          Facsimile: (206) 622-0909
          E-mail: mjide@yahoo.com

Plaintiff Bradd Guenser is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
          Chase C. Alvord, Esq.
          Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
          TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
          1700 Seventh Ave., Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 682-5600
          Facsimile: (206) 682-2992
          E-mail: jdennett@tousley.com
                  calvord@tousley.com
                  kstephens@tousley.com

The Hoirup Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Darrell L. Cochran, Esq.
          Kevin M. Hastings, Esq.
          PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS AMALA PLLC
          911 Pacific Ave., Suite 200
          Tacoma, WA 98402
          Telephone: (253) 777-0799
          E-mail: darrell@pcvalaw.com
                  kevin@pcvalaw.com

The Cossey Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James J. Bilsborrow, Esq.
          Robin L. Greenwald, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG (NY)
          700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 558-5500
          E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com
                  rgreenwald@weitzlux.com

               - and -

          John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 223-5505
          E-mail: jyanchunis@ForThePeople.com

               - and -

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL, DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          Facsimile: (206) 350-3528
          E-mail: bterrell@tmdwlaw.com

Plaintiff Lawrence Cushnie is represented by:

          Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
          Benjamin Scott Thomassen, Esq.
          Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589-6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589-6379
          E-mail: ascharg@edelson.com
                  bthomassen@edelson.com
                  rbalabanian@edelson.com

               - and -

          Clifford A. Cantor, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE, LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101-1688
          Telephone: (206) 622-3150

Plaintiff Eric Forseter is represented by:

          Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
          E-mail: ilevin@cohenandmalad.com
                  ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
                  rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com

               - and -

          Robert S. Schachter, Esq.
          ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING LLP
          767 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10017-2023
          Telephone: (212) 223-3900
          E-mail: rschachter@zsz.com

               - and -

          Sona R. Shah, Esq.
          ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING LLP
          41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (221) 223-3900
          E-mail: sshah@zsz.com

               - and -

          Dan Drachler, Esq.
          ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING
          1904 3rd Avenue, Suite 1030
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 223-2053
          Facsimile: (206) 223-2053
          E-mail: ddrachler@zsz.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel R. Warren, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          1900 East 9th Street, Suite 3200
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (216) 861-7145
          Facsimile: (216) 696-0740
          E-mail: dwarren@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          1801 California Street
          Denver, CO 80202-2662
          Telephone: (303) 764-4013
          Facsimile: (303) 861-7805
          E-mail: pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Randal L. Gainer, Esq.
          DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 2200
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 757-8047
          Facsimile: (206) 757-7047
          E-mail: randygainer@dwt.com


SAN ANTONIO HOSPITAL: Judgment of Nonsuit to Defendants Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Thomas E. Hollenhorst of the Court of Appeals of
California, Fourth District, Division Two, affirmed the trial
court's order granting nonsuit to defendants and respondents San
Antonio Community Hospital (SACH) and Michael J. Mammone, M. D. in
plaintiffs' action concerning Brandon's misdiagnosis of a spinal
tumor.

The appellate case is, BRANDON FOSS et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants, v. SAN ANTONIO COMMUNITY HOSPITAL et al., Defendants
and Respondents, Case No. 10-13487 (Cal. App. Ct.).

On June 23, 2002, Brandon Foss, a minor at the time, was taken to
SACH by his father, Ronald, with complaints of extreme pain in the
groin and genital area and numbness in his legs, along with
weakness and giving way of his legs. SACH's emergency room doctor,
Dr. Mammone, ordered an x-ray of Brandon's sacral (tailbone) area,
diagnosed Brandon as having a fractured coccyx, and released him
that same day. Three days later, on June 26, 2002, Brandon
returned to SACH because he could not feel anything from his waist
down. An MRI revealed Brandon was "acutely paralyzed" from the
waist down due to a tumor in the L1-L2 area of his spine that was
compressing on his spinal cord. He had surgery to remove the tumor
and then was treated with chemotherapy, proton radiation, and
daily physical therapy at Loma Linda University Medical Center.

On June 18, 2003, plaintiffs initiated this action against
defendants. Pursuant to their third amended complaint filed on
February 10, 2004, plaintiffs alleged general negligence,
concealment, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and
violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA). On or about
May 3, 2006, plaintiffs served their designation of expert
witnesses, including Marshall T. Morgan, M.D.  whose was expected
to testify concerning Brandon's emergency medical care and
treatment on June 22, 2003, along with the standard of care for
emergency medicine. Plaintiffs failed to produce their emergency
medicine expert for deposition over a two-year period of time,
despite repeated efforts from defense counsel, including a court
order, to schedule such deposition. On April 3, 2008 the trial
court granted defendants' motion to exclude the expert's
testimony.

In June 2008, one of the defendants filed bankruptcy, which
resulted in the action being automatically stayed which was lifted
on March 27, 2012 where the trial commenced. Defendants moved for
nonsuit on the ground that plaintiffs failed to offer any evidence
that Dr. Mammone's or the nursing staff's treatment of Brandon
fell below the standard of care for emergency room doctors and
nurses. Furthermore, Dr. Mammone argued that plaintiffs failed to
prove causation that Dr. Mammone's negligence, if any, caused
Brandon's injury. Trial court granted nonsuit and entered judgment
in favor of defendants.

On appeal, Plaintiffs contended the trial court erred in (1)
precluding their expert's testimony, (2) granting nonsuit, (3)
denying their motion to strike and/or tax costs, and (4) granting
SACH's motion for attorney fees.

In the Opinion dated July 28, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/vbSwFIfrom Leagle.com, Judge Hollenhorst concluded
that the exclusion sanction was properly applied to prohibit Dr.
Morgan's expert testimony because plaintiffs unreasonably failed
to make the doctor available for deposition and that there is no
evidence to show that any act or omission on the part of
defendants was the proximate cause of Brandon's injuries. Judge
Hollenhorst further concluded that there was no error in granting
the nonsuit in favor of defendants Dr. Mammone and SACH.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Suzanne E. Rand-Lewis, Esq.
Timothy D. Rand-Lewis, Esq.
GARY A. RAND PRO LAW CORP.
5990 Sepulveda Blvd # 330,
Van Nuys, CA 91411,
Tel: (818)779-1720

Defendant is represented by Stacy K. Brigham, Esq. --
Stacy@david-grass.com -- Jeffrey W. Grass, Esq. --
Jeff@david-grass.com -- DAVIS, GRASS, GOLDSTEIN, FINLAY & BRIGHAM


SHERMETA ADAMS: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Walker" Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Allan E. Norris of the United States Court of
Appeals, Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court's dismissal of
the class action suit and remanded the action to the district
court to allow Plaintiff to seek leave to amend the complaint in
the case captioned, IAN WALKER, On Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SHERMETA, ADAMS,
VON ALLMEN, PC; TRICIA N. McKINNON; KYLE J. VON ALLMEN; GRUCA P.
TERRI Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 14-1543.

Defendants sent a series of debt collection letters to Plaintiff
for allegedly past-due student loans. Plaintiff brought a class
action against the law firm of Shermeta, Adams & Von Allmen P.C.,
its shareholders, and certain attorneys of the firm. Plaintiff
maintains that Defendants' debt collection letters violate the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and Michigan's
analogous state statute. Plaintiff maintains that because
Defendants did not have the legal right or intention to add
interest or other charges, the letters as written were deceptive
and threatening in order to create confusion and cause Plaintiff
and other consumers to incorrectly believe they will benefit
financially by immediately sending payment for the full amount
demanded. The district court dismissed Plaintiff's suit for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

On appeal, Plaintiff contends that the letters on several grounds
were false, deceptive, and misleading, in violation of the FDCPA
and the analogous Michigan Collection Practices Act.

In his Opinion dated August 7, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/CvFEiEfrom Leagle.com, Judge Norris held that
Plaintiff's pleadings are deficient and dismissal under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) was proper because Plaintiff maintains that
because Defendants did not have the legal right or intention to
add interest or other charges, the letters as written were
deceptive and threatening in order to create confusion and cause
Plaintiff and other consumers to incorrectly believe they will
benefit financially by immediately sending payment for the full
amount demanded.


SILVER WHEATON: Andrew & Springer Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law
firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, announced
that a securities fraud class action lawsuit has been filed in the
U.S. District Court, Central District of California, on behalf of
investors of Silver Wheaton Corp. ("Silver Wheaton" or the
"Company") that held shares between March 30, 2011 and July 6,
2015 (the "Class Period"). If you purchased Silver Wheaton
securities during the Class Period, you may, no later than
September 8, 2015, request that the Court appoint you lead
plaintiff of the proposed class.

A copy of the complaint is available from the Court or from
Andrews & Springer LLC. If you would like to join the class
action, please visit our website or contact Craig J. Springer,
Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800-
423-6013. You may also follow us on LinkedIn -
https://www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc, Twitter -
www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer or Facebook --
www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates.

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

The lawsuit alleges that Silver Wheaton officials failed to
disclose that the Company's financial statements contained errors
concerning income tax owed from the income generated by its
foreign subsidiaries. The class action further alleges that Silver
Wheaton officials issued annual reports, SEC filings, and other
statements that failed to disclose material adverse information
and misrepresented the truth about Silver Wheaton's finances.
These reports and filings were allegedly designed to influence the
market for Silver Wheaton securities, and as a result,
artificially inflated the market price of Silver Wheaton
securities. Additionally, the complaint states that the company
lacked adequate internal controls over its financial reporting.

On July 6, 2015, the company issued a press release announcing
that the Canada Revenue Agency ("CRA") was proposing to reassess
Silver Wheaton under various rules of the Income Tax Act (Canada).
CRA determined that Silver Wheaton's taxable income should be
increased by approximately $567 million for the years 2005 to 2010
for income generated by its foreign subsidiaries. As a result,
Silver Wheaton estimates it would be subject to taxes of
approximately $150 million and transfer pricing penalties of
approximately $57 million, as well as interest and other penalties
of an unknown amount. Silver Wheaton executives caused Silver
Wheaton securities to trade at artificially inflated prices by
improperly concealing this information.

As a result of this news, Silver Wheaton's stock price fell
approximately 12% (equivalent to $2.08 per share) on July 7, 2015,
causing shareholders to incur millions in losses.

Andrews & Springer is a boutique securities class action law firm
representing shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct. Having
formerly defended some of the largest financial institutions in
the world, our founding members use their valuable knowledge,
experience, and superior skill for the sole purpose of achieving
positive results for investors. These traits are the hallmarks of
our innovative approach to each case our Firm decides to
prosecute. For more information please visit our website at
www.andrewsspringer.com

Craig J. Springer, Esq
Andrews & Springer LLC
3801 Kennett Pike #305, Wilmington, DE 19807
1-800-423-6013
cspringer@andrewsspringer.com
www.andrewsspringer.com.


SONAE INDUSTRIA: Kirby Residents' Class Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
Margot Miller, writing for World Socialist Website, reported that
some 16,626 residents of Kirkby, in northwest England, lost their
class action for damages against the Portuguese firm Sonae
Industria.

Sonae was founded in Portugal in 1959, beginning in the wood
derivative business and expanding into retail, IT, and the media
and other businesses. It operates in 60 countries.

Residents took out the claim, the largest class action of its kind
in UK legal history, following a huge fire at the factory in June
2011. Smoke from the blaze blew over the area, and residents
complained of skin irritation and breathing difficulties.

The fire burned for eight days, after 1,500 tonnes of woodchips
ignited and stopped production at that part of the plant until the
end of the following month.

The High Court judge in the case, Mr Justice Jay, admitted, "Many
claimants -- it is not clear to me how many -- suffered some
symptoms of shortness of breath, lacrimation and soreness of the
throat." He added, "It is difficult to say for how long the smoke
and these mild symptoms lasted, but I have in mind a maximum
period of about one week."

Despite this, in a blatant act of class justice, the judge found
in favour of Sonae, which has a history of health and safety
violations, including the death by negligence of two of its former
employees.

The judge justified his ruling on the grounds of what he called
"serious weaknesses", including a delay in bringing the case.
However, according to the Limitation Act 1980, applicable in
England and Wales, cases are actionable up to six years following
breaches of ordinary contract and 12 for breaches of deed. The
case was heard four years after the fire, well within the statute
of limitations.

The judge also cited "recall bias" and stated the following:

   "Human beings are naturally susceptible and suggestible,
particularly if they are made to believe that they form part of a
coherent group with shared experiences, and if they risk none of
their own resources in bringing a claim."

The insinuation that some form of collective hysteria induced the
residents to somehow imagine their symptoms following the fire is
not only an insult to the integrity of the claimants, but defies
the well-documented history of health and safety abuses at the
factory.

Neither were the lawyers, who dared to bring such a case on behalf
of a working class community, exempt from the judge's ire.
"Many months later," he continued, "lawyers arrived on the scene
and sensed the opening of a business opportunity ... preying on
human susceptibility and vulnerability."

He suggested that the veracity of the accounts of the claimants
may have been compromised because, "there was a lot of ill-feeling
in the neighbourhood directed towards Sonae, and many people
genuinely believed that they must have been harmed in some way."
The ill feeling in the neighbourhood towards Sonae was entirely
justified and, had justice prevailed, would not have undermined
their claim.

Sonae, which claims to be one of the largest chipboard
manufacturers in the world, began operations in Kirkby in the year
2000, supported by GBP2 million of taxpayers' money. Before the
company located to Kirkby, Knowsley council failed to carry out a
Health Impact Assessment, despite many countries refusing Sonae
building permission.

Within a year, local residents were complaining of symptoms
associated with exposure to formaldehyde, including irritation of
the eyes, nose and throat, irritation of the skin and breathing
problems. Formaldehyde is used in the manufacture of chipboard,
and is a known carcinogen.

White dust from the manufacturing process in the factory coated
cars, gardens and washing hanging out to dry. Local farmers began
to protest, complaining that they were unable to work the fields
when the wind, bearing contaminants from the factory, was blowing
in their direction.

There had been a number of previous explosions and fires at the
plant since it opened. In September 2001, 70 firefighters battled
for three hours to bring under control a blaze that followed an
explosion.

By February 2007, Knowsley council had served 17 enforcement
notices on Sonae under environmental legislation.

Even worse than the repeated pollution of the surrounding
environment were the avoidable accidents at work.

In December 2010, two employees, James Bibby, 25, and Thomas
Elmer, 27, tragically lost their lives while working at the
factory. Sonae and the subcontractor Metso Paper Ltd were charged
with failing to carry out safe and suitable risk assessments
towards an employee, in contravention of the Management of Health
and Safety at Work regulations 1999. The companies are awaiting
sentence, having pled guilty, such was the weight of evidence
against them.

The circumstances of the deaths of these young men were horrific.
A conveyor belt they were maintaining started automatically,
dragging them into a huge silo machine. The conveyor belt should
have been properly isolated, but as prosecutor Nigel Lawrence
said, "there was no safe system of work" and confusion reigned.
"Everyone seems to have had a different view of who should do
what, how they should isolate and when it should occur," he
explained.

The company has a long history of injuries due to criminal
negligence. According to the Liverpool Echo, between 2000 and
2010, "The Health and Safety Executive . . . have said they had
been called to 22 serious incidents in 10 years including fires
and an explosion." Between 2003 and 2006, it was successfully
prosecuted by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) on four
occasions, for which it paid just GBP132,000 in fines.

In April 2000, the HSE began a prosecution against Sonae after
employee Ian Fairclough suffered serious crush injuries after
being trapped in the clamping mechanism of a hydraulic press. The
outcome was that Sonae was fined GBP15,000 and ordered to pay
GBP16,703 in costs. The judge in the case declared, "It is
important that firms such as Sonae do not sacrifice safety for
profit."

In April 2001, Michael McNamara broke his leg after it was caught
in a piece of machinery. Sonae was fined GBP3,500 and ordered to
pay costs of GBP6,417.

In June 2002, John Thomas was rescued by firefighters after a dust
explosion at the factory, suffering serious injuries to his head,
chest and back. The explosion resulted in 20,000 litres of
pollutant escaping into local waterways. Again, Sonae was fined
and ordered to pay costs.

In 2011, demolition worker James Kay, 62, lost his life while
working for a firm that was demolishing part of the site damaged
by the June fire. He died after being crushed by industrial
machinery.

Speaking to the Liverpool Echo after Kay's death in 2011, a local
resident, Helen Moss, said, "Sadly I am not surprised. . . . I
tell you the Health and Safety Executive had better set up an
office at Sonae they are there so often. If that factory isn't
closed down over this then I would like to know why."

Such was the decade-long "ill feeling in the neighbourhood"
towards Sonae, for its disregard for health and safety, that in
2011, Knowsley MP George Howarth tabled an Early Day Motion in the
House of Commons. He called for the closure of the factory until
safety could be guaranteed.

Following another factory fire in January 2012, Howarth called for
the rescinding of Sonae's environmental permit and for it to be
closed.

The company terminated operations in Kirkby in September 2012,
with a loss of 220 jobs. It reported a rise in profits for the
year 2014 to GBP144 million.


STANCORP FINANCIAL: Andrew & Springer Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrews & Springer LLC, a boutique securities class action law
firm focused on representing shareholders nationwide, announced
that a class action lawsuit has been filed by another law firm on
behalf of stockholders of StanCorp Financial Group, Inc.
(NYSE:SFG) ("StanCorp" or the "Company") seeking to challenge the
Company's recently announced merger.

If you would like to join the class action, please visit our
website or contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at
cspringer@andrewsspringer.com, or call toll free at 1-800-423-
6013. You may also follow us on LinkedIn -
www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc, Twitter -
www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer or Facebook --
www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates.

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

On July 23, 2015, StanCorp and Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance Company
("Meiji Yasuda") announced the signing of a definitive merger
agreement pursuant to which Meiji Yasuda will acquire StanCorp in
a merger worth $5.0 billion. As a result of the merger, StanCorp
shareholders are only anticipated to receive $115.00 per share in
cash in exchange for each share of StanCorp. The process leading
up to the announcement of the merger appears to have significant
conflicts of interest, thus making the process and consideration
unfair. StanCorp's senior leadership is expected to remain in
place and continue their employment after the consummation of the
merger. Additionally, StanCorp's management will receive millions
of dollars in change-of-control payments for currently unvested
stock options, performance units and restricted shares upon
consummation of the merger.

On August 3, 2015, a StanCorp shareholder represented by another
law firm filed a class action complaint challenging StanCorp's
merger with Meiji Yasuda. The complaint was filed in the Oregon
Circuit Court, Multnomah County, Case No. 15-CV-20372.

If you own shares of StanCorp and want to receive additional
information and protect your investments free of charge, please
visit us at http://www.andrewsspringer.com/cases-
investigations/stancorp-financial-class-action-investigation or
contact Craig J. Springer, Esq. at cspringer@andrewsspringer.com,
or call toll free at 1-800-423-6013. You may also follow us on
LinkedIn - www.linkedin.com/company/andrews-&-springer-llc,
Twitter - www.twitter.com/AndrewsSpringer or Facebook --
www.facebook.com/AndrewsSpringer for future updates.

Andrews & Springer is a boutique securities class action law firm
representing shareholders nationwide who are victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty or corporate misconduct. Having
formerly defended some of the largest financial institutions in
the world, our founding members use their valuable knowledge,
experience, and superior skill for the sole purpose of achieving
positive results for investors. For more information please visit
our website at www.andrewsspringer.com

Craig J. Springer, Esq
Andrews & Springer LLC
3801 Kennett Pike #305, Wilmington, DE 19807
1-800-423-6013
cspringer@andrewsspringer.com
www.andrewsspringer.com.


STARLINE TOURS: "Harp" Suit Wins Conditional Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Christina A. Snyder of the United States District
Court for Central District of California granted Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional certification in the case captioned, JOAN
HARP ET AL. v. STARLINE TOURS OF HOLLYWOOD, INC. ET AL, Case No.
2:14-CV-00704-CAS(EX)(C.D.Cal.).

Joan Harp initially filed a putative class action against
defendants Starline Tours of Hollywood, Inc., Starline Sightseeing
Tours, Inc., Starline Tours USA, Inc., Vahid Sapir, Farid Sapir,
and Does 1 through 150 (Starline) in Los Angeles County Superior
Court on December 28, 2012. Soon thereafter, the state court
struck plaintiff Harp's class allegations, and dismissed Harp as
class representative. William Brockman and Andres Reyes were
subsequently substituted as named plaintiffs, and EHM Productions,
Inc., (EHM) was added as a named defendant. On September 29, 2014,
the state court granted plaintiffs leave to file the operative
Second Amended Complaint (SAC). The SAC asserted the following
claims against Starline and EHM: (1) failure to compensate for all
hours worked; (2) failure to pay reporting time pay; (3) failure
to pay overtime compensation; (4) failure to pay overtime; (5)
failure to provide meal and rest periods; (6) failure to provide
itemized wage statements; (7) failure to maintain accurate
records; (8) failure to pay wages upon discharg; (9) violation of
the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA); (10) conversion; (11)
failure to reimburse expenses; (12) unfair competition. Defendants
removed the action to this Court on October 3, 2014 which was
denied and the court but declined to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over plaintiffs' state law claims. The only claim
pending before the Court is plaintiffs' claim that defendants
failed to pay its hourly employees overtime compensation, in
violation of the FLSA.

In the motion, Plaintiffs argued that to remedy the alleged
miscalculation of hours and resulting underpayment of overtime
wages, they sought to certify a collective action consisting of
"All individuals who have been employed or are currently employed
by the Defendants, or any of them, as hourly workers performing
work relating to tours or carrying paying passengers in California
at any time since December 28, 2009, and continuing while this
action is pending."

In her Civil Minutes dated July 27, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/CE59Ubfrom Leagle.com, Judge Snyder concluded that
plaintiffs have only established that they are similarly situated
to other hourly drivers employed by defendants. Further, as to
EHM, conditional certification may only include drivers who worked
the TMZ Hollywood Tour defined as "All current and former hourly
drivers who, within three years preceding the date of their
decision to opt in to this action, were employed by the Starline
defendants in the State of California.  Starline and EHM Driver
Subclass: All current and former hourly drivers who, within three
years preceding the date of their decision to opt in to this
action, were employed by both the Starline defendants and EHM in
the State of California."

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Dennis Patrick Wilson, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF DENNIS P. WILSON
3322 W Victory Blvd
Burbank, CA 91505
Tel: (818)843-1788

     - and -

Julia Alicia Aparicio-Mercado, Esq.
APARICIO-MERCADO LAW LC
315 W 9th St #905
Los Angeles, CA 90015
Tel: (213)627-0770

Defendants are represented by:

Mohammed K. Ghods, Esq.
Sandra J. Vivonia, Esq.
Jeremy A Rhyne, Esq.
GHODS LAW FIRM
2100 N Broadway
Santa Ana, CA 92706
Tel: (714)558-8580

     - and -

Eric M. Schiffer, Esq. -- eschiffer@schifferbuus.com -- William L.
Buus, Esq. -- wbuus@schifferbuus.com -- SCHIFFER AND BUUS APC


TAO GROUP: Employees Files Class Suit Over Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Greg Morabito, writing for NY Eater, reported that the owners of
58th Street monster Tao are the latest restaurateurs to be slapped
with a class action wage suit, Law 360 reports. The lawsuit
alleges that Tao neglected to pay minimum wages to some employees
and that certain tipped workers were required to share their
gratuities with staffers that were ineligible for tips.

According to the suit, Tao Uptown had non-tipped, back of the
house "polishers" and "stockers" who allegedly got money from the
front-of-the-house gratuity pool. The suit also alleges that
sometimes the tipped bussers were asked to do the polishing and
stocking work, even though they weren't paid minimum wage.
According to the suit, Tao changed up the operations around 2012,
so that the polishers and stockers are paid at an hourly rate
above minimum wage now, and they're not in the tip pool. 100 +
workers are eligible for the suit.

The complaint demands the unpaid wages plus attorney costs and
damages for the employees that were allegedly shorted, although no
word yet on how much they're seeking, total. According to Law 360,
the suit lists Tao Licensing LLC, Madison Entertainment Associates
LLC, Asia Five Eight LLC, and Strategic Hospitality Group LLC as
defendants.

The entity currently known as Tao Group operates over 20 venues
spread across New York, Las Vegas, and Sydney. Its biggest hits in
NYC are Tao Uptown (the subject of the suit), Tao Downtown, Lavo,
Beauty & Essex, and Stanton Social.


TARGET BRANDS: "Sparks" Suit Moved From Arkansas to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Sparks v. Target Brands, Inc., et
al., Case No. 5:15-cv-05033, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Arkansas to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago).
The Illinois District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:15-cv-05110
to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from alleged personal injury/product liability.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth Robert Shemin, Esq.
          SHEMIN LAW FIRM, PLLC
          3333 Pinnacle Hills Parkway, Suite 603
          Rogers, AR 72758
          Telephone: (479) 845-3305
          E-mail: ken@sheminlaw.com

               - and -

          Marcus Neil Bozeman, Esq.
          Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
          THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
          1101 Garland Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374-1058
          Facsimile: (501) 374-2222
          E-mail: bozemanmarcus@hotmail.com
                  tomthrash@sbcglobal.net

The Defendants are represented by:

          Judy Simmons Henry, Esq.
          WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS LLP
          200 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3699
          Telephone: (501) 212-1391
          Facsimile: (501) 376-9442
          E-mail: jhenry@wlj.com


TIME WARNER: Must Defend Against "Groshek" Background Check Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Rudolph T. Randa of the United States District
Court for Eastern District of Wisconsin granted Time Warner Cable,
Inc.'s motion for leave to file a sur-reply and denied Time
Warner's motion to dismiss in the case captioned, CORY GROSHEK,
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TIME WARNER
CABLE, Inc. Defendant, Case No. 15-C-157.

Groshek applied for employment at Time Warner Cable in September
of 2014. Groshek received an offer of employment conditioned upon
his completion of 30-plus pages of online documents, including
multiple background screening disclosures and authorizations. Time
Warner required Groshek to consent to three separate background
disclosure/authorization forms including liability release.
Groshek contends that the release violates 15 U.S.C. Sec.
1681b(b)(2)(A).

Groshek alleges that Time Warner Cable willfully violated the
under the Fair Credit Reporting Act by procuring a consumer report
for employment purposes without first providing a clear and
conspicuous written disclosure in a document consisting solely of
the disclosure. Groshek moved for class certification at the same
time that he filed his complaint -- in accordance with the
procedure set forth in Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891,
896 (7th Cir. 2011) ("[t]he pendency of that motion protects a
putative class from attempts to buy off the named plaintiffs").

Time Warner moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim.  Time
Warner argues further that the release language is permissible
because it actually draws attention to and enhances the
disclosure. In support, Time Warner cites FCRA Sec.
1681b(b)(2)(A)(ii), infra, which expressly permits the inclusion
of a consumer authorization on the disclosure form, but this is
the only item that can accompany the disclosure. Time Warner also
asserts that Groshek cannot show that the violation was willful.

Time Warner also pointed out Groshek's pre-suit settlement demand,
which demonstrates that he is an inadequate class representative.
Time Warner said Groshek is inadequate because he attempted to
sell out the putative class for his own financial gain.  Time
Warner added Groshek could be charged with extortion.

Judge Randa, however, said he doubts the Milwaukee County District
Attorney would devote time and resources to prosecuting Groshek on
the tenuous theory that a pre-suit settlement demand qualifies as
extortion.  In any event, the judge said, Time Warner can renew
these arguments when Groshek's motion is ripe for decision.

Judge Randa said Time Warner's motion to dismiss is denied, and
the motion for class certification will remain pending as a
placeholder motion pursuant to the "Damasco" procedure.

In his Decision and Order dated July 31, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/oYYKAtfrom Leagle.com, Judge Randa set a telephonic
scheduling conference for September 16, 2015 at 9:30 a.m. (Central
Time).  The Court will initiate the call.  The purpose of the
conference call is to establish a scheduling order which will
limit the time: (a) to join other parties and to amend the
pleadings; (b) to file motions; (c) to complete discovery.

Judge Randa added he is participating in the Seventh Circuit
Electronic Discovery Pilot Program and has adopted the Principles
Relating to the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information.
He said counsel should be fully prepared to discuss methods and
techniques to accomplish cooperative fact-finding in their case at
the initial status conference. Before the initial status
conference, counsel must also meet and discuss the Principles
Relating to the Discovery of Electronically Stored Information.

At the initial status conference, Judge Randa said counsel must be
prepared to discuss what agreements they have reached regarding
discovery of Electronically Stored Information ("ESI") and what
area of disagreement they have with regard to discovery of ESI.
After discussing the matter with counsel, the Court will determine
whether to enter the Standing Order Relating to the Discovery of
Electronically Stored Information in their particular case.

Cory Groshek is represented by Heath P. Straka, Esq. --
straka@gcllawyers.com -- Robert J. Gingras, Esq. --
gingras@gcllawyers.com -- GINGRAS CATES & LUEBKE SC, John C.
Mitby, Esq. -- jmitby@hbslawfirm.com -- HURLEY BURISH & STANTON SC

Time Warner Cable is represented by Emery K. Harlan, Esq. --
Emery_Harlan@gshllp.com -- Michael Mishlove, Esq. --
Michael_Mishlove@gshllp.com -- GONZALEZ SAGGIO & HARLAN LLP


TRACFONE UNLIMITED: Challenge to Class Action Settlement Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California denied a motion for
reconsideration that challenged the approval of the class action
settlement reached in the case captioned, IN RE TRACFONE UNLIMITED
SERVICE PLAN LITIGATION, Case No. C-13-3440 EMC (N.D. Cal.).

Alexander Birner, who objected to the settlement, asked Judge Chen
to reconsider his prior order and judgment on the merits granting
final approval of the class action settlement, awarding class
counsel the full amount of their requested attorneys' fees, and
awarding the named class representatives service awards. Birner
has also filed a separate motion for reconsideration of the
Court's order denying Birner's request for additional time to
conduct further discovery regarding his status as a class member.
The Court previously determined that Birner does not have standing
to object to the settlement because he is not a class member, and
further concluded that Birner was not entitled to additional time
or additional discovery because "Birner has made an insufficient
showing that it [is] likely that he will ever find evidence in the
discovery provided to him that contradicts TracFone's direct
assertion that he was never throttled.

Birner argues that the class definition is improper because "as a
practical matter it permits TracFone to exclusively 'adjudicate'
class membership and that the class definition is impermissibly
under-inclusive because it does not include individuals like
Birner himself whose data was never throttled, suspended or
terminated is equally meritless.

In his Order dated August 10, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/eIzIcsfrom Leagle.com, Judge Chen held that Birner's
motion for reconsideration does not make any additional showing
that he has found (or is likely to ever find) evidence that
demonstrates that he is a class member. And even if he did somehow
prove his standing as a class member, it would not change the
Court's decision. The Court has already considered all of Birner's
objections on the merits as if he was a class member, and found
them to be without merit.

Plaintiffs are represented by Michael W. Sobol, Esq. --
msobol@lchb.com -- Nicole Diane Sugnet, Esq. -- nsugnet@lchb.com
-- John Tate Spragens, Esq. -- jspragens@lchb.com -- Roger Norton
Heller, Esq. -- rheller@lchb.com -- LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
BERNSTEIN, LLP

Defendants are represented by Joel Steven Feldman, Esq. --
jfeldman@sidley.com -- Lisa Schwartz, Esq. -- lschwartz@sidley.com
-- Ryan M. Sandrock, Esq. -- rsandrock@sidley.com -- SIDLEY
AUSTIN, LLP & Steven J. Brodie, Esq. -- sbrodie@cgjblaw.com --
CARLTON FIELDS


TRINET GROUP: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP alerts investors that a class action has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers (the
"Class") of common stock of TriNet Group, Inc. ("TriNet" or the
"Company") (NYSE: TNET) during the period of May 5, 2014 and
August 3, 2015 (the "Class Period") alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against the Company and certain of its officers (the "Complaint").

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that (a) the Company's processes and methodologies for analyzing
and accruing claims failed to properly account for historical
claims trends; (b) the Company's forecasting process failed to
properly incorporate relevant historical and current claims
trends; and (c) the Company was experiencing growing claims trends
in medical and workers compensation that negatively affected the
Company's current and future business prospects.

On August 3, 2015, after the market close, TriNet issued a press
release reporting a second-quarter loss of $1.3 million, after
reporting a profit in the same period a year earlier. The Company
also reported earnings per share of $0.14, greatly missing Wall
Street analyst expectations of $0.27 per share. Burton Goldfield,
TriNet CEO, attributed these results to a higher than usual number
of large medical claims and stated the Company needed to address
the volatility and visibility of these large claims.

Following this news, the price of TriNet common stock fell 38%, or
$10.36 per share, to close at $16.33 per share on August 4, 2015.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members
who invested in TriNet common stock during the Class Period.  If
you invested in TriNet common stock as described above, and either
lost money on the transaction or still hold the security, you may
wish to join in this action to serve as lead plaintiff.  In order
to do so, you must meet certain requirements set forth in the
applicable law and file appropriate papers no later than October
6, 2015.

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

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

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

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

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


TRINET GROUP: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
has been filed on behalf of investors of TriNet Group, Inc.
("TriNet" or the "Company") (NYSE:TNET) who purchased shares
between May 5, 2014 and August 3, 2015 inclusive (the "Class
Period"). TriNet investors and are encouraged to contact Howard G.
Smith, Esq. to discuss their legal rights in the pending class
action.

On August 3, 2015, after the market close, TriNet reported a
second-quarter loss of $1.3 million, after reporting a profit in
the same period a year earlier. TriNet, a human resources services
outsourcing company, said it had a loss of 2 cents per share
during the quarter, and earnings, adjusted for one-time gains and
costs, of 14 cents per share. The results missed Wall Street
analyst expectations where expectations were for earnings of 27
cents per share. On this news shares of TriNet dropped
significantly during after-hours trading on August 3, 2015.

The complaint alleges that TriNet misled investors by failing to
adequately disclose that (a) the Company's processes and
methodologies for analyzing and accruing claims failed to properly
account for historical claims trends; (b) the Company's
forecasting process failed to properly incorporate relevant
historical and current claims trends; and (c) the Company was
experiencing growing claims trends in medical and workers
compensation that negatively affected the Company's current and
future business prospects.

If you purchased shares of TriNet during the Class Period, have
information regarding these allegations, and/or would like to
learn more about your legal rights in connection with this notice
please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard
G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania
19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847,
or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our
website at http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.

Howard G. Smith, Esq.
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, PA 19020
Telephone: (215) 638-4847
Facsimile: (215) 638-4867
Toll Free: 1-888-638-4847
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/


TRINET GROUP: October 6 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
---------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of TriNet Group, Inc. ("TriNet") TNET, +0.75% between
May 5, 2014 and August 3, 2015.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the USDC for the Northern District of
California. If you purchased or otherwise acquired TriNet
securities between May 5, 2014 and August 3, 2015, your rights may
be affected by this action. To get more information go to:
http://zlk.9nl.com/trinet-groupor 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 during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements and/or omitted
material information including that: (a) the Company's processes
and methodologies for analyzing and accruing claims failed to
properly account for historical claims trends; (b) the Company's
forecasting process failed to properly incorporate relevant
historical and current claims trends; and (c) the Company was
experiencing growing claims trends in medical and workers
compensation that negatively affected the Company's current and
future business prospects.

If you suffered a loss in TriNet you have until October 6, 2015,
to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

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

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


TROTT LAW: Court Narrows Claims in "Wilson" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge David M. Lawson of the United States District Court
for Eastern District of Michigan granted in part the motion for
summary judgment and dismissed the part of the amended complaint
based on 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692f in the case captioned, EARL D.
WILSON, Plaintiff, v. TROTT LAW, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 15-
10747 (E.D. Mich.).

Earl D. Wilson, who now lives in Fenton, Michigan, obtained a loan
on September 8, 2004 in the amount of $160,000 from Countrywide
Home Loans, Inc. As security for the loan, he granted a mortgage
on his home in Redford, Michigan to Countrywide and its successors
and assigns. Plaintiff fell behind on his mortgage. The note
holder hired the Trott law firm to collect the debt. As part of
its routine practice, the law firm sent Wilson a letter that
itemized the various charges included in the total amount of
$196,642.54, which Trott claimed was owing.

One of the listed items was denominated "corporate advances," a
term not used in any of the loan documents. In that category,
Trott apparently lumped together certain charges such as property
inspection fees and attorney fees and costs incurred when the
plaintiff fell behind on his mortgage. Wilson says Trott's letter
violated the two sections of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act because the term "corporate advances" masked the nature of the
charges, and he was unable to determine why and if he actually
owed the money.

On March 2, 2015, the plaintiff filed a putative class action
lawsuit alleging that the defendant violated the FDCPA and
Michigan Collection Practices Act (MCPA). He filed an amended
complaint on April 14, 2015. The plaintiff alleges that the
defendant has a policy and practice of sending consumers, like the
plaintiff, demands for "corporate advances" without defining what
a corporate advance is in the debt collection letters. The
plaintiff, noting that corporate advances are not referenced in
his mortgage, believes that the defendant is either manufacturing
the fees or billing for future costs in violation of 15 U.S.C.
Sections 1692e, 1692e(2)(A), 1692f(1), and 1692e(10).

In the motion, Defendant argued that its practice did not violate
the FDCPA.

In his Opinion and Order dated July 29, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/XZakv2from Leagle.com, Judge Lawson held that the
use of the term "corporate advances" in the dunning letter in the
case to describe costs and expenses actually incurred by the
creditor is not an unfair or unconscionable practice within the
meaning of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692f(1). The Court concluded that
Trott's letter was not "unfair or unconscionable," because the
mortgage actually requires the plaintiff to pay the charges Trott
was attempting to collect. Therefore, there was no violation of
section 1692f. However, a fact question remains whether the use in
a collection letter of a term of art  "corporate advances"
unconnected to any corresponding term in the note or mortgage, is
materially misleading and therefore runs afoul of section
1692e(2)(A) which prohibits a "false representation of  the
character  of any debt" or section 1692e(10) which prohibits the
use of any false representation or deceptive means to collect or
attempt to collect any debt.

Earl D. Wilson is represented by:

Brian P. Parker, Esq.
BRIAN P. PARKER ASSOC.
30700 Telegraph Rd., Suite 1580
Bingham Farms, MI 48025
Tel: (248) 642-6268

Trott Law, PC is represented by Richard Welke, Esq. --
trott_general@trottlaw.com -- TROTT LAW, PC


UBER: Woman Sues Over Violation of TCPA
---------------------------------------
Alejandra Cancino, writing for Chicago Tribune, reported that an
Illinois woman is accusing Uber of violating the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act when it erroneously sent her multiple text
messages, according to a lawsuit filed in federal court in
Chicago.

Maria Vergara allegedly received at least eight text messages in
June from an Uber-owned number about an account she didn't create.
She didn't provide consent to receive the messages, which the
lawsuit calls spam.

The lawsuit, which seeks class action status, alleges the ride-
hailing company does not confirm the accuracy of information it
receives from customers or potential customers who sign up for its
app. As a result, people like Vergara are forced to pay for text
messages and calls they did not authorize, the suit stated. Those
people, the lawsuit alleges, are entitled to a minimum of $500 in
damages for each time Uber violated federal law.

Uber said it was reviewing the lawsuit.


UNITED STATES: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Ocean Cargo Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Richard C. Clifton of the United States Court of
Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed a district court's dismissal,
with prejudice, of a lawsuit against the United States government
over domestic ocean cargo shipping services on west coast Hawaii
routes.

The Ninth Circuit held that Plaintiffs failed to satisfy what it
framed as prudential standing requirements because they alleged
only generalized grievances shared with all residents and
businesses in Hawaii.

Plaintiffs are six individuals and one corporation. All reside in
Hawaii and claim to have suffered pecuniary injury when they
purchased "domestic ocean cargo shipping services on west coast
Hawaii routes." They sued the United States, claiming that the
root of their problem is found in the cabotage provisions of the
Jones Act, formally known as the Merchant Marine Act of 1920.
According to Plaintiffs, these provisions violate the basic tenets
of the Commerce Clause because they have effectively "impaired,
hindered, and substantially affected and completely cut off Hawaii
from interstate commerce.

The district court granted the government's motion to dismiss the
action with prejudice, holding that Plaintiffs failed to establish
standing on prudential grounds because they alleged only
generalized grievances. Specifically, the court concluded that
"Plaintiffs assert only generalized claims on behalf of an
extremely broad class of persons or entities that pay for
interstate shipping or are consumers of goods that have been
shipped in interstate commerce.

On appeal, Plaintiffs have argued that, even if the Jones Act is a
valid exercise of congressional power derived from the Commerce
Clause, it violates protections guaranteed under the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

In his Opinion dated July 30, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/BU9Jydfrom Leagle.com, Judge Clifton found that the
Plaintiffs have alleged more than generalized grievances and have
demonstrated an "injury in fact," but have not met their burden to
show causation or redressability, the other two elements of
Article III standing.

The appellate case is captioned, PATRICK NOVAK; DANIEL ROCHA;
LARRY KENNER, DBA Kenner, Inc., a Hawaii corporation; KEN
SCHOOLLAND; BJORN ARNTZEN; PHILIP R. WILKERSON; WILLIAM AKINA,
PH.D., Individually and as Representatives of a Class of Similarly
Situated Persons, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA; DOES 1-1000, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 13-16383 (9th
Cir.).

Plaintiffs are represented by:

John S. Carroll, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JOHN CARROLL
810 Richards St.,
#810, Honolulu, HI 96813
Tel: (808) 526-9111

Defendant is represented by:

Rachel S. Moriyama, Esq.
Florence T. Nakakuni, Esq.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY


UNITED STATES: Trial Date in Suit v. Immigration Set for May 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court
for Northern District of California granted Plaintiffs' motion to
modify the class certification order and to file supplemental
complaint in the case, AUDLEY BARRINGTON LYON, JR., et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. U.S. IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. C-13-5878 EMC (N.D. Cal.).

Audley Barrington Lyon, Jr.; Jose Elizandro Astorga-Cervantes; and
other similarly situated immigration detainees filed a putative
class action against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and certain employees
of both agencies on the grounds that their constitutional and
statutory rights are being violated while they are held in
government custody awaiting deportation proceedings. Plaintiffs
challenge the practices that they claim restrict their ability to
make telephone calls necessary to prepare for their removal
proceedings in the San Francisco Immigration Court.

In March 2015, ICE opened a new detention facility in Bakersfield
and began housing certain aliens and class members there.
Plaintiffs alleged that the telephone policies and practices at
the Bakersfield facility do not allow detainees adequate access to
resources necessary to prepare for their removal proceedings.

On April 16, 2014, the Court certified a class of "all current and
future immigration detainees who are or will be held by ICE in
Contra Costa, Sacramento, and Yuba Counties".

In the motion, Plaintiffs moved to: (1) modify the Court's Class
Certification Order to include detainees housed at the newly
opened Bakersfield facility as class members; (2) file a
supplemental complaint that would add allegations regarding the
Bakersfield facility and add a new representative plaintiff; and
(3) extend all deadlines in the Case Management Scheduling Order
(Scheduling Order) by 75 days or longer to allow for necessary
discovery regarding the Bakersfield facility.

In his Order dated July 27, 2015 available at http://is.gd/IUZxka
from Leagle.com, Judge Chen found that Plaintiffs have shown due
diligence in seeking to supplement their complaint and therefore
satisfy the good cause requirement of Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 16.  The
Corut sets a new trial date for May 23, 2016 and extends all
corresponding deadlines in the Scheduling Order by 16 weeks.

Plaintiffs are represented by Charles J. Ha, Esq. --
charlesha@orrick.com -- David S. Keenan, Esq. --
dkeenan@orrick.com -- Robert P. Varian, Esq. -- rvarian@orrick.com
-- ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP

Defendants are represented by Jennifer A. Bowen, Esq., U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL DIVISION, Brian Christopher Ward,
Esq., DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE & Katherine J. Shinners, Esq., U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL DIVISION


UNIV OF CALIFORNIA: Court Narrows Claims in Cops' Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, Federated University Police Officers'
Association et al. v. The Regents of the University of California
et al, Case No. SACV 15-00137-JLS (RNBX) (C.D. Cal.), District
Judge Josephine L. Staton of the United States District Court for
Central District of California denied separate motions to dismiss
filed by Johnson Controls, Inc., and by The Regents of the
University of California ("RUC"), Police Chief Paul Henisey, and
Assistant Police Chief Jeffrey Hutchison -- "UC Defendants" -- to
the extent they seek to dismiss Federated University Police
Officers' Association ("FUPOA")'s claims for lack of standing,
granted JCI's motion to the extent JCI moved to dismiss
Plaintiffs' Wiretap Act claim, and granted in part the UC
Defendant's motion to the extent that the UC Defendants moved to
dismiss Plaintiffs' first claim against RUC and Henisey in his
official capacity.

In December 2013, Plaintiffs discovered that a "surreptitious
network of advanced audio/video recording devices" had been
installed at the UC Irvine Police Department Building located at
410 East Peltason Drive, in Irvine, California.  JCI allegedly
installed and maintained the recording system, enabled and used
the audio recording feature, and instructed the UC Defendants on
how to use the system. Plaintiffs claim that JCI installed the
listening devices to record private communications without
Plaintiffs' knowledge or consent and was "a direct participant in
the audio recording scheme." Plaintiffs also assert that JCI
"installed the system in concert with and with the knowledge,
participation and approval of each and every Defendant."

On November 6, 2014, Plaintiffs on behalf of itself and its
members filed a putative class action Complaint in Alameda County
Superior Court against Defendants asserting (1) violation of 18
U.S.C. Sec. 2520 (the Wiretap Act) asserted by all Plaintiffs
against all Defendants; (2) violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983
asserted by all Plaintiffs against all Defendants; (3) violation
of California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA) under Cal. Penal Code
Sec. 637.2  asserted by all Plaintiffs against Henisey, Hutchison,
and JCI; (4) invasion of privacy/intrusion  asserted by Lopez and
the putative class against all Defendants; and (5) writ of
mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1651 asserted by all
Plaintiffs against RUC.

Defendants present several arguments as to why Plaintiffs' FAC
should be dismissed in its entirety. Defendants also contend that
Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for each of the five
distinct causes of actions alleged in the FAC and that FUPOA
lacks standing to sue on its own because it has not suffered any
injury itself and lacks standing to sue under associational
standing because its members must individually participate in the
suit.

In her Civil Minutes dated July 29, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/bn9Ne2from Leagle.com, Judge Staton held that FUPOA
has standing to assert its Wiretap Act, CIPA, and Sec. 1983 claims
against Defendants because FUPOA has satisfied the requirements
for individual standing in regards to those claims and that Sec.
2520 provides no cause of action against a municipality for
violations of Sec. 2511(1) and Henisey cannot be held liable under
the Wiretap Act because he is an employee of RUC and is acting in
his official capacity.

Petitioners are represented by Kevin Anthony Flautt, Esq. --
kflautt@mastagni.com -- David Emilio Mastagni, Esq. --
davidm@mastagni.com -- David Philip Mastagni, Esq. --
dmastagni@mastagni.com -- MASTAGNI, HOLSTEDT, AMICK, MILLER,
JOHNSEN

Respondents are represented by Kristina Doan Gruenberg, Esq. --
kgruenberg@bwslaw.com -- Susan E. Coleman, Esq. --
scoleman@bwslaw.com -- Daphne M. Anneet, Esq. --
danneet@bwslaw.com -- BURKE WILLIAMS AND SORENSEN LLP


USG7 LLC: Bid for Final Default Judgment Granted in Part
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Carlos E. Mendoza of the United States District
Court for Middle District of Florida granted in part Plaintiffs'
motion for final default judgment in the case captioned, RICHARD
LEBLANC, Plaintiff, v. USG7, LLC and USDS, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 6:12-CV-1235-ORL-41TBS (M.D. Fla.).

Richard Leblanc brings a Collective Action against USG7, LLC
(USG7) and USDS, LLC (USDS) and former Defendant Mike Keen
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the
Florida Constitution. Plaintiffs Leblanc, Warren Willets, and
Jason Pietarila also filed Consent to Join Collective/Class Action
Notices. Plaintiffs allege that while employed by Defendants they
were not paid overtime wages in violation of the FLSA and were not
compensated at a rate equal to the minimum wage as required by the
FLSA and article X, section 24 of the Florida Constitution.

USG7 never made an appearance in the case or otherwise defended
the litigation, and a Clerk's default was entered against USG7 on
May 21, 2013.  On the other hand, USDS and Keen initially appeared
and filed an Answer, but after their attorney withdrew in March
2014, neither Defendant made any further appearances in the case.

As a result of USDS's and Keen's failure to proceed in the
litigation or obey Court orders, the Court struck their Answer
from the record and directed the Clerk to enter a Clerk's default
as to each.  Clerk's defaults were entered against USDS and Keen
on September 8, 2014.

Plaintiffs moved for the entry of default judgment against all
Defendants.  In a November 6, 2014 Order, Plaintiffs' Motion for
Final Default Judgment was denied because the Amended Complaint
failed to adequately allege either enterprise or individual
coverage under the FLSA.

The November 6, 2014 Order granted Plaintiffs leave to amend the
Amended Complaint to address the issues concerning coverage.
Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed the Second Amended Complaint.
Plaintiffs effected service of process of the Second Amended
Complaint on Defendants USG7 and USDS.  However, Plaintiffs were
unable to serve the Second Amended Complaint on Defendant Keen,
and all claims against him were dismissed without prejudice,
pursuant to the May 15, 2015 Order.

Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Default seeking the entry of a
final default judgment against the remaining Defendants and the
award of reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

In his Order dated August 3, 2015 available at http://is.gd/6gDBOO
from Leagle.com, Judge Mendoza held that Plaintiffs' Renewed
Motion for Final Default Judgment is granted in part. To the
extent Plaintiffs' seek the entry of a default judgment against
Defendants USG7, LLC and USDS, LLC, the Motion is granted. In all
other respects, the Motion is denied without prejudice.

Plaintiff is represented by:

N. Ryan LaBar, Esq.
Scott C. Adams, Esq.
LABAR & ADAMS, PA
2300 E Concord St,
Orlando, FL 32803,
Tel: (407)835-8968


VALENCIA HOLDING: Calif. SC Reverses Appeals Court Judgment
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Goodwin Liu of the Supreme Court of California reversed the
judgment finding the Court of Appeal erred as a matter of state
law in finding the agreement unconscionable in the case captioned,
GIL SANCHEZ, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. VALENCIA HOLDING
COMPANY, LLC, Defendant and Appellant, Case No. S199119 (Cal.).

Plaintiff Gil Sanchez purchased a 2006 "preowned" Mercedes-Benz
S500V in 2008 for $53,498.60 from Valencia Holding Company.
Sanchez alleged that Valencia violated the Consumer Legal Remedies
Act (CLRA) by making false representations about the condition of
the automobile. Sanchez also alleged that Valencia violated
several other California laws by (1) failing to separately itemize
the amount of the down payment that is deferred to a date after
the execution of the sale contract, (2) failing to distinguish
registration, transfer, and titling fees from license fees, (3)
charging the optional Department of Motor Vehicles electronic
filing fee without discussing it or asking if he wanted to pay it,
(4) charging new tire fees for used tires, and (5) requiring him
to pay $3,700 to have the vehicle certified so he could qualify
for the 4.99 percent interest rate, when that payment was actually
for an optional extended warranty unrelated to the interest rate.

In this dispute over the sale of a car, Sanchez filed a class
action lawsuit against Valencia.  The defendant moved to compel
arbitration. The trial court denied the motion, finding the class
waiver and, in turn, the entire arbitration agreement
unenforceable.

In AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, the United States Supreme
Court held that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) preempts
California's unconscionability rule prohibiting class waivers in
consumer arbitration agreements. In deciding Valencia's appeal
from the trial court's denial of the motion to compel arbitration,
the Court of Appeal declined to address whether the class waiver
was enforceable and instead held that the arbitration appeal
provision and the arbitration agreement as a whole were
unconscionably one-sided.

On appeal, Valencia broadly contends that under Concepcion,
"absent exceptional circumstances, states either judicially or
legislatively may not, under the guise of unconscionability, judge
the supposed fairness of the parties' agreed arbitration process."
In support of that assertion, Valencia cites "the examples of
arbitration-process unconscionability evaluations (ranging from
discovery to evidentiary requirements) that the FAA precludes.

In the Order dated August 3, 2015 available at http://is.gd/mYlhMU
from Leagle.com, Judge Liu concluded in light of Concepcion that
the FAA preempts the trial court's invalidation of the class
waiver on unconscionability grounds, the agreement's poison pill
provision is inoperable.

Plaintiffs are represented by  Gretchen M. Nelson, Esq. --
Gnelson@kreindler.com -- Jacob H. Mensch, Esq. --
Gmencch@kreindler.com -- KREINDLER & KREINDLER

Defendants are represented by:

David R. Sidran, Esq.
Thomas M. Cromwell, Esq.
TOSCHI, SIDRAN, COLLINS & DOYLE
5145 Johnson Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
Telephone: (510) 835-3400


VERMONT: Health & Human Services Must Defend Against "Ryan" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford of the United States District
Court for District of Vermont denied Defendant's motion to dismiss
Plaintiffs' complaint in the case, MARCELLA RYAN and JOHN HERBERT,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. SYLVIA MATHEWS BURWELL, Secretary of Health and
Human Services, Defendant, Case No. 5:14-CV-00269 (D. Vermont).

Plaintiffs in the instant case are "dual eligible" recipients of
both Medicaid and Medicare who receive home health care services.
They allege that the Secretary of Health and Human Services has
systematically failed to follow her own regulations and guidance
governing appeal of Medicare coverage for home health care
services, resulting in the improper denial of their claims.

In the motion, the Secretary moved to dismiss plaintiffs'
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim
for which relief may be granted under Rule 12(b)(6). The Secretary
argued that (1) plaintiffs lack standing to sue; (2) plaintiff
Herbert has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies; (3)
neither plaintiff has established the basis for mandamus
jurisdiction; (4) the alleged failure to follow the provisions of
the MPIM will not support a cause of action; (5) the availability
of the administrative review process renders any error by the MACs
harmless; and (6) the relief sought by plaintiffs exceeds the
court's powers.

In his Opinion and Order dated July 27, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/dpXzXdfrom Leagle.com, Judge Crawford concluded that
Plaintiffs allegations were sufficient to state a claim under the
"long-settled principle that the rules promulgated by a federal
agency, which regulate the rights and interests of others, are
controlling upon the agency". Plaintiffs' claims involved the
improper application of a specific policy promulgated by the
agency itself in a fashion that has harmed plaintiffs, a situation
that the Lujan decision recognizes as actionable.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

Alice Bers, Esq.
Gill Deford, Esq.
CENTER FOR MEDICARE ADVOCACY, INC.
P.O. Box 350
Willimantic, CT 06226
Tel:  (860) 456-7790

     - and -

Michael Kelly Benvenuto, Esq.
Rachel L. Seelig, Esq.
Sean P. Londergan, Esq.
VERMONT LEGAL AID, INC.
264 N Winooski Ave.,
Burlington, VT 05401
Tel: (800)-889-2047

Defendant is represented by Daniel Bensing, Esq., U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF JUSTICE & Owen C.J. Foster, Esq., UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S
OFFICE


WERNER ENTERPRISES: Court Admits Testimony of Expert Witnesses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Lyle E. Strom of the United States District
Court for District of Nebraska denied (1) Defendants' motion in
limine to exclude damage calculations and expert testimony by
Richard Kroon, a Business Intelligence Developer of Kurtzman
Carson Consultants; and (2) Plaintiffs' motion in limine to
exclude defendants' proposed rebuttal expert Dr. Robert Topel and
to strike under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 26 in the case captioned,
PHILLIP PETRONE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC.,
and DRIVERS MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants. PHILLIP PETRONE, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., and DRIVERS MANAGEMENT,
LLC, Defendants, Case Nos. 8:11CV401; 8:12CV307 (D. Neb.).

The Defendants argue that Kroon's damage calculations and the
opinions he seeks to offer at trial fail to meet the requirements
of Fed.R.Evid. 702 and should be excluded under Daubert.

The plaintiffs asked the Court to exclude the testimony of Dr.
Topel, defendants' rebuttal expert and a Distinguished Service
Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago Booth School
of Business, Director of the George J. Stigler Center of the Study
of the Economy at the University of Chicago, and State and Co-
Director of the Energy Policy Institute at the University of
Chicago. The plaintiffs claim that Dr. Topel does not have the
requisite training or knowledge to be admissible under Fed.R.Evid.
702 and failed to submit a report in compliance with Rule 26.

In the Memorandum and Order dated July 30, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/pNi3SCfrom Leagle.com, Judge Strom held that Dr.
Topel is qualified to testify as a rebuttal expert in this action.
Dr. Topel studied the same materials as the plaintiffs' expert
Kroon, and it is offered to rebut Kroon's testimony and
calculations and found that Richard Kroon is qualified to testify
as an expert in the action but limit his testimony in scope to
address only damage calculations under plaintiffs' theories of
liabilities. Kroon may not testify outside of his expertise as a
data analyst. Werner's objections to Kroon's testimony and
calculations go more to the weight to be afforded rather than
admissibility.

Plaintiffs are represented by Justin L. Swidler, Esq. --
jswidler@swartz-legal.com -- Richard S. Swartz, Esq. --
rswartz@swartz-legal.com -- SWARTZ, SWIDLER LAW FIRM

Defendants are represented by Elizabeth A. Culhane, Esq. --
ECULHANE@FraserStryker.com -- Joseph E. Jones, Esq. --
JJONES@FraserStryker.com -- Patrick J. Barrett, Esq. --
PBARRETT@FraserStryker.com -- FRASER, STRYKER LAW FIRM


ZEOBIT: Nov. 30 Deadline for Filing Claims in $2MM Class Deal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Kirk, writing for PC World, reported that customers of the
oft-criticized security and performance program MacKeeper have
until Nov. 30 to file a claim for reimbursement, the result of a
proposed class-action suit settlement.

Those who bought MacKeeper before July 8 are eligible, according
to the settlement website where claims can be filed.

The class action suit accused MacKeeper's original developer,
ZeoBIT, of deceptively advertising the program and making false
claims about what it could fix. It was filed in May 2014 in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Under the proposed settlement, ZeoBIT will put US$2 million into a
fund for those who want a refund. But ZeoBIT will admit no fault
as part of the agreement.

According to court documents, 513,330 people bought MacKeeper in
the U.S. for as much as $39.95 per copy. Those people will be
contacted by email to be notified of the proposed settlement.

Rust Consulting, the company contracted to administer the
settlement, also plans to buy millions of ad impressions through
providers such as Xasis, an advertising platform, and Facebook.

As few as 1 to 2 percent of eligible people file claims resulting
from class-action suits. That makes it likely that the MacKeeper
customers who make the effort to make a claim will be fully
reimbursed. But as the number of applicants rises, the refund
value will proportionally fall from $39.95.

One-third of the $2 million will go towards attorney fees, leaving
the remainder for refunds and other administration costs.

Those who object to the proposed settlement must contact the court
by Sept. 21. The court will hold a final approval hearing on Oct.
16 where MacKeeper customers will be allowed to speak.

ZeoBIT, which was founded in Kiev, Ukraine, but now lists a
California headquarters, no longer owns MacKeeper. The product was
sold in April 2013 to a company called Kromtech Alliance of
Cologne, Germany.

Kromtech isn't a released party in the settlement, and it still
could be sued over MacKeeper. Jeremiah Fowler, a Kromtech
spokesman, recently said the company was addressing some of the
criticisms about MacKeeper.

He said the company has toned down some of the warnings MacKeeper
displays during trial scans. A test of MacKeeper in early May
showed the application warned of performance problems on a fresh,
fully patched version of OS X Yosemite, Apple's latest operating
system.

Fowler also said Kromtech had severed relationships with affiliate
advertising partners who were too aggressive.


* Financial Recovery Acquires Cypress Settlements
-------------------------------------------------
Financial Recovery Technologies, LLC, a leader in securities class
action recovery, announced the acquisition of Cypress Settlements,
a respected competitor in the claim filing industry founded by
Patrick Horsman, Drew Lambert and Sean Brennan. Upon closing, all
of Cypress' clients and partners will have immediate access to
FRT's state of the art class action claims monitoring and filing
platform, while FRT and its clients will benefit from Cypress'
industry knowledge and expertise.

"FRT is excited about the acquisition of Cypress," said Rob Adler,
president of FRT. "We believe that this partnership will
strengthen FRT, allowing us to further expand our market share and
industry-leading presence. The Cypress brand is well-respected in
the securities class action industry and FRT looks forward to
servicing Cypress' existing client base."

"I am extremely proud of what Cypress has accomplished over the
last six years, as well as being proud to partner with the
industry's leading provider in Financial Recovery Technologies,"
said Patrick Horsman, Cypress' Founder and Managing Partner.

"I am confident FRT will provide our clients with the technology
platform, industry expertise, and dedicated leadership that will
serve them best into the future," said Sean Brennan, Cypress'
Director of Operations.

Terms of the deal are not being announced.

               About Cypress Settlements

Cypress Settlements offers its clients a simple solution to a
complex problem: how to stay on top of and maximize awards from
securities class action settlements in which they have eligible
claims. Cypress provides a fully automated, end-to-end claims
submission system, utilizing our comprehensive database of
current, pending, and historical class action settlements. For
more information, visit cypressettlements.com.

           About Financial Recovery Technologies

Financial Recovery Technologies (FRT) is a leading technology-
based services firm that helps the investment community identify
eligibility, file claims and collect funds made available in
securities class action settlements. Offering the most
comprehensive range of claim filing and monitoring services
available, we provide best-in-class eligibility analysis,
disbursement auditing and client reporting, and deliver the
highest level of accuracy, accountability and transparency
available. Financial Recovery Technologies is a Cross Country
Group company (http://www.crosscountrygroup.com).For more
information, go to http://www.frtservices.com


* RG/2 Hires T. Chiango as Claims, Securities, Antitrust Director
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RG/2 Claims Administration LLC, a national boutique class action
claims administration firm, announced the recent addition of Tina
Chiango as the Director of Claims, Securities and Antitrust.
Specializing in securities and anti-trust litigation
administration, Chiango brings to RG/2 Claims over 20 years of
rich experience in class and collective action claims
administration.

Most recently serving as Project Manager at a regional class
action administrator, Chiango worked on a broad spectrum of class
actions settlements, including securities, antitrust, employment,
consumer, and mass tort among others, while distinctively managing
and co-leading each phase of the claims administration process.

"This is an exciting growth time for RG/2," said Mike Lee, COO of
RG/2 Claims. "Chiango brings exceptional technical expertise to
our firm.  Our coordinated expertise and personal approach makes
us distinct in the market and Chiango's proven experience and
personal touch will extend our ability to provide the guidance and
administrative services our clients need."

"This union enhances our ability to deliver truly personal and
quality-based administrative  services to both existing and ever
expanding clients," said Michael A. Gillen, President of RG/2
Claims. "We are committed to delivering high quality and cost-
effective administration services to clients with whom we have
built and are building trusted relationships. We are thrilled that
Chiango has joined our team and will be serving in a leadership
role which will bring immediate value to our clients."

"I am very excited to have the opportunity to be working with the
talented and dedicated professionals at RG/2 Claims. With years of
experience in Claims Administration, I look forward to growing an
already successful practice by continuing my current client
relationships and establishing new ones. This opportunity gives me
the ability to grow both personally and professionally by sharing
my knowledge and working with their cutting edge technology to
help RG/2 Claims advance even further in this competitive
industry.  I am extremely fortunate to be joining such a well-
respected company."

             About RG/2 Claims Administration

Whether engaged as a court-appointed settlement administrator,
claims agent or disbursing agent, RG/2 Claims Administration LLC
offers a complete range of claims, settlement administration and
investment management services. Our principals combine experience
with cutting-edge proprietary technology to make RG/2 unique in
the field of claims administration.

There is a depth and breadth of knowledge to be found among our
team of class action attorneys, certified public accountants,
management and communications professionals, with decades of
experience handling complex claims from inception through final
distributions. It is this background, along with our
transformative approach, technical proficiency, personalized
attention, range of services and competitive fees, that sets us
apart from other claim administrators.

SOURCE:

Melissa Baldwin
RG/2 Claims Administration LLC
30 South 17th Street, Suite 400
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: 1-215-979-1611
Facsimile 1-215-979-1695
Email: mbaldwin@rg2claims.com


                            *********

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  * * *