CAR_Public/150827.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, August 27, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 171


                            Headlines


1416 CHANCELLOR: Court Denies Arbitration Bid in "Herzfeld"
AIRMEDIA GROUP: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Suit
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Deninno" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Frank" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Valdes" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Credit Union Lacks Authority to Remove Funds
AMERICAN CREDIT: Illegally Records Telephone Calls, Suit Says
AMERICAN GREETINGS: Final Approval Hearing Set for Dec. 17
AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Red-Light Camera Class Action Stays Alive
BARRACK SQUARE: Traders Threaten Legal Action Over Lost Income

BENNY'S BURRITOS: Faces "Luna" Lawsuit for FLSA "Violation"
BLUE CROSS: Faces Aero Suit Over Plan Assets Misappropriation
BOB WINES: Class Tolling Not Available for Subsequent Class Suits
BRASKEM SA: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Suit
CALIFORNIA: Fire Fee Class Suit Certified

CARIBBEAN PETROLEUM: Plaintiff Counsel Fined for Improper Remarks
CIGNA CORP: Faces "Litwin" Suit Over Plan to Merge With Anthem
CONSTANT CONTACT: October 6 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
CORNERSTONE HOME: Faces "Bingham" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
DAIRY FARMERS: Two Farmers Want Milk Monopoly Suit Deal Rejected

DICKS SPORTING: Reduced Atty Fees, Incentive Award Upheld
DYNAMIC PETS: Faces California Class Suit Over Real Ham Bone
ECOLAB: Settles Overtime Class Suit for $7.5-Mil.
ENCANA OIL: Faces "Dent" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: "Rodriguez" Won't Proceed as Class Action

FCI LENDER: 2nd Circuit Revives Debt Collection Class Suit
FIRST INDEX: 7th Circ. Affirms Dismissal of TCPA Suit
FLORIDA POWER: Faces "Aschettino" Suit in Fla. Over Robocalls
GREEN MOUNTAIN: 2nd Cir. Revives Suit by Retirement Funds
HYUNDAI MOTOR: N.D. Cal. Judge Trims Suit by Santa Fe Owners

ICONIX BRAND: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Class Suit
IHEARTCOMMUNICATIONS INC: ABS Sues Over "Unlawful" Recordings
INDEPENDENCE OILFIELD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: Firms File Securities Class Suit
LINCOLN GENERAL: Court Tosses Attempt to Sue O'Melveny

LOCURA MARINA: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MCLANE/MIDWEST: Final Fairness Hearing on October 23
MDC PARTNERS: Lieff Cabraser Files Securities Class Suit
MDC PARTNERS: Kessler LLP Files Securities Class Suit
MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Faces "Harris" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach

MEDORA HOLDINGS: Suit Over Popcorners Won't Proceed as Class
MERGE HEALTH: Faces "Lozoya" Suit Over Proposed IBM Merger
MICHAEL EUGENE SPEARS: Car Buyers to Get Little Monetary Relief
NAVIENT CORP: Court Dismisses "Blyden" Class Action
NELNET INC: Collection Call Case Attys. Get $1.25MM in Fees

NESTLE INDIA: Government Sues Over 'Unfair Trade Practices'
NESTLE INDIA: Compromise Best Option, Not Litigation
NINE ENERGY: Faces "Webber" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PALM SPRINGS: "Billak" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
PANASONIC CORPORATION: Sued Over Linear Resistors-Price Fixing

PEACE OFFICERS: Sued Over Unlawful Denial of Plan Benefits
PHILADELPHIA: Court Rejects Suit Over Issuance of Arrest Warrant
PIZZA HUT: Class Action vs. Franchise to Resume on September 18
PLAINS ALL: Sued Over Concealment of Oil Pipeline Failures
QRX PHARMA: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit

RETROFOAM: $13MM Settlement Reached in Faulty Product Suit
ROBERT J. POWELL: $4.75MM "Kids-for-Cash" Suit Settlement Gets OK
ROPER & TWARDOWSKY: Testimony of Defendants' Experts Inadmissible
SEARS ROEBUCK: Illinois Class Certified in Defective Washers Suit
SEARS ROEBUCK: Parents Mull Class Suit Over Website Price Error

SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Faces Class Suit by Oregon Home-Care Workers
SILVERLEAF RESORTS: Court Compels Arbitration in "Iappini" Case
SILVER WHEATON: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Suit
SILVER WHEATON: September 8 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
SITE 25: Faces "Li" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

SOCIETE DE TRANSPORT: Settles Class Suit Thru Fare Rebate
SOLEDAD UNIFIED: Students Get $190K Class Suit Deal
STANCORP FINANCIAL: Andrews & Springer Disclose Stockholders Suit
STRUCTURAL PRESERVATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SYSCO CORPORATION: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

TD BANK: Court Dismisses MZL Suit Over Forex Rates
TRINET GROUP: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Class Suit
TRINET GROUP: October 6 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
UCLA HEALTH: McCuneWright Files Private Data Breach Suit
UNITED STATES: IRS Faces "Welborn" Suit Over Alleged Cyber-Breach

UNITED STATES: Faces Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae Stockholders' Suit
VIVENDI: Wins $57MM Class Suit Over Investors Claim
WELLS FARGO: Faces "Caldera" Suit in Cal. Over Robocalls
WESTERN AUSTRALIA: 2014 Bushfire Victims File Class Suit
WHOLE FOODS: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Fraud Class Suit

WW GRAINGER: Faces "Mobility Impaired" Persons' Suit in Cal.
YAHOO: Appeals Court Allows Email Privacy Class Suit to Proceed

* Optimizing Damages Adjustments In Securities Class Actions


                            *********


1416 CHANCELLOR: Court Denies Arbitration Bid in "Herzfeld"
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Mark A. Kearney of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Defendant's
renewed motion to compel arbitration in the case, JESSICA
HERZFELD, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. 1416 CHANCELLOR, INC. d/b/a THE GOLD CLUB, and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. 14-4966 (E.D. Pa.).

While attending college from sometime in 2006 until April 2014,
Plaintiff Jessica Herzfeld performed as an exotic dancer at the
Gold Club in Philadelphia, owned by Defendant 1416 Chancellor,
Inc. (Gold Club). Herzfeld, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, filed a lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 (FLSA) seeking: (i) unpaid minimum wages for hours
worked for which Defendant failed to pay the mandatory minimum
wage; (ii) unpaid overtime wages for hours worked in access of
forty in a work week; and (iii) liquidated damages. In addition,
Herzfeld sought to bring a class action on behalf of all dancers
performing at the Gold Club in Pennsylvania to hold Gold Club
liable under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968, the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law, and Pennsylvania
common law.

Gold Club moved to compel arbitration directing Herzfeld to pursue
all claims through arbitration, or alternatively, stay the
proceeding on those claims not referred to arbitration.

Judge Kearney said the 2013 arbitration clause unenforceable.  A
copy of the Court's Opinion dated July 22, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/fbnbXDfrom Leagle.com.

Jessica Herzfeld is represented by Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq. --
ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com -- Gary F. Lynch, Esq. --
glynch@carlsonlynch.com -- Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq. --
jetzel@carlsonlynch.com -- CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP

1416 Chancellor, Inc. is represented by:

     Bradley J. Shafer, Esq.
     Matthew J. Hoffer, Esq.
     SHAFER & ASSOCIATES PC
     3800 Capitol City Blvd # 2
     Lansing, MI 48906
     Tel: (517)886-6560

          - and -

     Pasquale J. Colavita, Esq.
     PASQUALE J. COLAVITA, P.C.
     900 Kings Hwy N # 302
     Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
     Tel: (856)939-4464


AIRMEDIA 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 AirMedia Group, Inc.
("AirMedia" or the "Company") who purchased shares between April
15, 2015 and June 15, 2015 and have been damaged by the recent
declines in the Company's stock price. AirMedia investors have
until August 24, 2015 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

AirMedia is a leading operator of out-of-home advertising
platforms that focuses on selling time slots on its network in the
People's Republic of China. The complaint alleges that over the
course of several months the Company misled investors into
believing that a 5% portion of AirMedia, Ltd. would be sold to
Shenzhen Liantronics Co. ("Liantronics") at a total subsidiary
valuation of $500 million.

On April 28, 2015, a news report published on seekingalpha.com
alleged that the Company was misleading investors regarding the
sale of AirMedia, Ltd., that the subsidiary was overvalued by the
Company, and a sale would likely not be closed. In response, the
Company confirmed to investors that it would sell a 5% stake in
AirMedia, Ltd. to Liantronics at a total valuation of $500
million. Then on June 15, 2015, AirMedia announced entry into a
definitive agreement to sell 75 percent of AirMedia, Ltd. for $344
million to Beijing Longde Wenchuang Fund Mgmt. Co., Ltd., a quick
reversal from its earlier announcement regarding a sale of 5% of
the subsidiary at a $500 million valuation. When this news was
revealed, shares of AirMedia fell $1.29 per share, or nearly 20%,
to close on June 15, 2015 at $5.97 per share thereby damaging
investors.


If you purchased shares of AirMedia between April 15, 2015 and
June 15, 2015, 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, 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/


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Deninno" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Deninno, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc.,
Southwest Airlines Co., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-04910 (E.D.N.Y, August 20, 2015), arises from the Defendants'
alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix,
raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of airline tickets through
signaling one another how quickly they would add new flights,
routes, and extra seats in order to limit the capacity, and
limiting access to competitive fare information to keep the price
of airfares artificially high.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
      John A. Blyth, Esq.
      HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
      185 Madison Avenue, 14th Floor
      New York, NY, 10016
      Telephone: (516) 228-5100
      Facsimile: (516) 228-5106
      E-mail: fschirripa@hrsclaw.com
              jblyth@hrsclaw.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Frank" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Frank, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc.,
Southwest Airlines Co., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-04909 (E.D.N.Y., August 20, 2014),  arises from the Defendants'
alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix,
raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of airline tickets through
signaling one another how quickly they would add new flights,
routes, and extra seats in order to limit the capacity, and
limiting access to competitive fare information to keep the price
of airfares artificially high.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
      John A. Blyth, Esq.
      HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
      185 Madison Avenue, 14th Floor
      New York, NY, 10016
      Telephone: (516) 228-5100
      Facsimile: (516) 228-5106
      E-mail: fschirripa@hrsclaw.com
              jblyth@hrsclaw.com

         - and -

      Philip J. Gordon, Esq.
      GORDON LAW GROUP LLP
      585 Boylston Street
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 536-1800
      Facsimile: (617) 536-1802
      E-mail: pgordon@gordonllp.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Valdes" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nelson Valdes, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated v. American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc.,
Southwest Airlines Co., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-23125-UU (S.D. Fla., August 20, 2015), arises from the
Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy
to fix, raise, maintain, or stabilize prices of airline tickets
through signaling one another how quickly they would add new
flights, routes, and extra seats in order to limit the capacity,
and limiting access to competitive fare information to keep the
price of airfares artificially high.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis I. Mussman, Esq.
      Brian Ku, Esq.
      6001 NW 153rd Street, Suite 100
      Miami Lakes, FL 33014
      Telephone: (305) 891-1322
      Facsimile: (305) 891-4512
      E-mail: louis@kumussman.com
              brian@kumussman.com

         - and -

      Allan Kanner, Esq.
      Cynthia St. Amant, Esq.
      KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC
      701 Camp Street
      New Orleans, LO 70130
      Telephone: (504) 524-5777
      Facsimile: (504) 524-5763
      E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com
              c.stamant@kanner-law.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Credit Union Lacks Authority to Remove Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Douglas P. Woodlock of the United States District
Court for District of Massachusetts deemed as moot Plaintiff's
initial Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, granted Plaintiff's
Amended Motion for Summary Judgment, and denied Defendant's Cross-
Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned, LISA MARTINO,
Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN AIRLINES FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Defendant,
Case No. 14-10310-DPW (D. Mass.).

Lisa Martino maintained three depository accounts with AAFCU. The
first account, opened in the early nineties, was in Martino's name
alone, while the second and third accounts, opened in 2001, were
joint accounts with her children. Martino opened a credit card
account with AAFCU in 2007. She failed to pay outstanding amounts
due on her credit card, and on May 23, 2012, AAFCU withdrew funds
from Martino's three depository accounts to pay the credit card
debt. This withdrawal was noted on Martino's monthly statements as
"CC CHG OFF RECOVERY."

Lisa Martino brought this action on her own behalf and on behalf
of a putative class challenging the practices of the American
Airlines Federal Credit Union (AAFCU), which deducts funds owed on
credit card bills from depository accounts held by cardholders
with the credit union. Martino alleges that AAFCU's policies with
respect to such accounts violate the anti-offset provisions of the
Massachusetts Consumer Credit Cost Disclosure Act (MCCCDA) and the
Federal Truth in Lending Act (TILA). AAFCU claims that it has a
valid security interest in the depository accounts and is
therefore permitted to take funds from the accounts.

Martino filed a complaint on December 31, 2013, in the Superior
Court of Suffolk County, Massachusetts, and filed an amended
complaint in January 2014. AAFCU invoked the federal district
court's diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332, and removed
the action to this court in February 2014. Martino filed a Second
Amended Class Action Complaint on January 12, 2015, alleging
individual and class claims against AAFCU in three counts: (1)
Violation of the MCCCDA, 209 CMR 32.12; (2) Declaratory Judgment
seeking a declaration that AAFCU's practices are in violation of
the MCCCDA; and (3) Violation of Chapter 93A Sections 2 and 9
through violations of the MCCCDA and TILA, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1666(h).

The two parties have moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule
56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In the Memorandum and Order dated August 18, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/Mpo6j8from Leagle.com, Judge Woodlock found that the
AAFCU's disclosures were inadequate to create a consensual
security interest and that the AAFCU's removal of funds from
Martino's depository accounts was therefore an unlawful offset
under 209 C.M.R. 32.12, that such removal is a violation of Mass.
Gen. Laws c. 93A.

The parties are directed to submit a proposal for bringing the
case to final judgment, including resolution of the question of
class certification since liability is already established on or
before September 16, 2015.

Lisa Martino is represented by Carlin J. Phillips, Esq. --
cphillips@phillipsgracia.com -- PHILLIPS & GARCIA, LLP

     - and -

Scott C. Borison, Esq.
LEGG LAW FIRM LLC,
Francis Scott Key Mall
5500 Buckeystown Pike # 400,
Frederick, MD 21703
Tel: (301)620-1016

American Airlines Federal Credit Union is represented by Daniella
Massimilla, Esq., and Eileen P. Kavanagh, Esq., at LITCHFIELD
CAVO, LLP


AMERICAN CREDIT: Illegally Records Telephone Calls, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Mathis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. American Credit Educational Center and Does 1-10,
inclusive, Case No. BC591964 (D. Cal., August 20, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to disclose its
intentional recording of telephone communications.

American Credit Educational Center is a California corporation
that provides financial education programs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott Ferrell, Esq.
      Richard H. Hikida, Esq.
      Victoria Knowles, Esq.
      David Reid, Esq.
      NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP
      4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 706-6464
      Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
      E-mail: sferrell@trialnewport.com
              rhikida@trialnewport.com
              vknowles@trialnewport.com
              dreid@trialnewport.com


AMERICAN GREETINGS: Final Approval Hearing Set for Dec. 17
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted preliminary approval of a settlement reached in
a class action lawsuit against American Greetings Corporation.

American Greetings employed Al Smith as installer of Defendant's
greeting card displays in retail locations, and as merchandisers
of Defendant's products. Smith, on behalf  of its current and
former non-exempt California employees, filed a putative class
action against Defendant for failure to pay overtime and minimum
wages for travel time, time spent waiting for company vans, and
time spent on administrative tasks, including entering hours
worked.

The settlement provides $4 million as a gross settlement amount,
with the amount of individual awards weighted according to the
number of days individual class members worked during the class
period.  The Court preliminarily finds that the settlement amount
is adequate.

Plaintiffs estimate that if they prevailed on all of their claims,
and recovered every penalty they seek in the maximum amount, they
would receive approximately $9.65 million in damages, and $10.1
million in statutory penalties.  Plaintiffs also estimate that if
Defendant prevailed on all of its defenses, Plaintiffs would only
be entitled to $690,000 in damages, and somewhere between nothing
and just over $5 million in penalties.

Attorneys' fees and costs, administrative costs, payments to the
California Labor Workforce Development Agency, taxes due on
settlement payments, and service payments to class representatives
will be paid from the settlement fund.  Plaintiffs' counsel will
seek $1.12 million in attorneys' fees, representing 28% of the
gross settlement amount. Plaintiff's counsel will also seek up to
$10,000 in costs.  The settlement also provides for class
representatives to receive $7,500 each, for the settlement
administrator to be compensated up to $35,000, and for $37,500 to
be paid to the Labor Workforce Development Agency.

A copy of District Judge Jon S. Tigar's Order dated July 23, 2015,
is available at http://bit.ly/1Jmouddfrom Leagle.com.  The Court
appointed Smith and Hourcade as class representatives; and Kevin
Woodall as class counsel.

The Court directed the plainitffs to file a motion for final
approval of the settlement, and an application for attorneys'
fees, costs, expenses, and service awards no later than October
16, 2015.  A final approval hearing on the deal is set for
December 17, 2015 at 2:00 p.m.

The case is, AL SMITH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN GREETINGS
CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-02577-JST (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Kevin Francis Woodall, Esq.
     WOODALL LAW OFFICES
     1201 Main St
     Columbia, SC 29201
     Tel: (803) 386-1862

American Greetings Corporation is represented by by Angela Joy
Rafoth, Esq. -- arafoth@littler.com -- Arthur M. Eidelhoch, Esq.
-- aeidelhoch@littler.com -- Jessica Xing Yun Rothenberg, Esq. --
jrothenberg@littler.com -- Margaret Hart Edwards, Esq. --
kedwards@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C


AMERICAN TRAFFIC: Red-Light Camera Class Action Stays Alive
-----------------------------------------------------------
Julie Kay, writing for Daily Business Review, reported that a
class action lawsuit against three red-light camera vendors and
more than 70 Florida counties and cities is moving forward after a
Miami federal judge rejected their motion to dismiss.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno tossed out some
limited motions by the local governments -- including procedural
due process claims -- but kept alive most of the plaintiffs'
claims.

The suit involves hundreds of thousands of red-light tickets
issued to Florida drivers since 2010. It was filed last October by
two Florida residents on behalf of all motorists ticketed for
running red lights based on camera photos.

Public records show more than $200 million in camera fines were
assessed during the four-year period covered by the lawsuits.
The plaintiffs are represented by co-lead counsel Stephen
Rosenthal of Podhurst Orseck in Miami and Theodore Leopold of
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll in Palm Beach Gardens.


BARRACK SQUARE: Traders Threaten Legal Action Over Lost Income
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew O'Connor, writing for ABC News, reported that Barrack
Square traders whose income has been savaged by construction work
for Elizabeth Quay in Perth's CBD are considering a class action
to recover lost revenue.

Traders say discussions with Transport Minister Dean Nalder have
yielded little benefit and they are collectively facing millions
of dollars in losses.

The State Government has offered rent relief and other assistance,
but the traders say it is nowhere near enough.

Bryan Molner, who operates the Riverside Bar and Cafe, said
traders had been told if they were unhappy with the Government's
offer of financial assistance, they could mount an appeal.

"The director-general of the Department of Transport told us that
if we didn't like it, we could go to the State Administrative
Tribunal," Mr Molner said.

"As has been pointed out to us, you can only go to the
administrative tribunal to appeal a decision, but they haven't
actually made a decision."

Mr Molner said the Government had left the traders with litigation
as the only way to get fair compensation.

"Perhaps we have to take a class action. That's probably the only
way we'll get any satisfaction, especially seeing his response in
Parliament today," he said.

In Parliament, the traders watched on as Labor raised a grievance
motion with the Transport Minister, urging the Government to
properly compensate the Barrack Square business owners.

Opposition shadow tourism spokesman Paul Papalia said the
Government had an obligation to help.

"They will never be compensated for this loss unless you do it
now," he told Parliament.

"Show some compassion. You have a moral obligation to treat these
people in a far better way than you have treated them to date."

Nalder claims Government is 'helping'

Mr Nalder told Parliament he acknowledged things had been tough
for the businesses but said the Government was helping.

He said in mid-2014 he initiated a process for financial
assistance based on losses. A total of 14 applications were
received and eight were granted assistance in the form of rent
relief or an act-of-grace payment.

In June this year Mr Nalder said traders were offered another
opportunity seek further financial assistance in the form of help
with building rental, berthing, jetty mooring and storage licence
fees.

"This will provide assistance in particular to the charter vessel
operators who form an integral part of the tourism precinct at
Barrack Square and who will be the hub of Elizabeth Quay
activities when it opens in December 2015," he said.

But charter ferry operator Bill Edgar said the Government's offers
of help were no help at all.

"What he's saying, rent to me, is nothing. It is 20 per cent,
maybe less, of my overhead," he said.

"To keep my boat sitting in the water is $225,000 [a year]."

Mr Edgar said the disruption at Elizabeth Quay had almost
destroyed his business and was struggling to survive with the help
of friends and family.

In 2012 his business generated revenue of $813,000. In 2015 his
revenue had dropped to $178,000.

But he is refusing to quit.

"Barnett. Nalder. I'll fight you and I'll keep on fighting. I'm
not giving in. They should restore my revenue and every single
business down there is entitled to compensation. Compensation.
Rent is not compensation," he said.

"I come from Freo and I'd like to get Barnett and Nalder in a
ring."


BENNY'S BURRITOS: Faces "Luna" Lawsuit for FLSA "Violation"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eduardo Luna a/k/a Sinuhe Flores Munoz, Roberto Bautista, Alvaro
Castillo Ramos, Victor Rosas, Josue Castro Morales, Rolando Coxic
Alvarez, Antonio Miguel Jimenez, Gabino Nocelotl-Fernandez, Victor
Roman Gutierrez, Ignacio Israel Cedeno, Enoc Moreno, Alfredo Justo
Perez, Jorge Gonzales, Eduardo Velazquez Candia, Miguel Luis Yat
Chic a/k/a Marcos Yat and Alberto Yenez v. Benny's Burritos, Inc.
(d/b/a Benny's Burritos), Blockhead's Burritos, Inc. (d/b/a
Blockheads), Egg White, Inc. (d/b/a Blockheads), Casa 91 LLC (d/ba
Blockheads), 954 Second Corp. (d/ba Blockheads), Kiosk 50 Corp.
(d/b/a Blockheads), John Doe Corp. (d/b/a Blockheads), Donald
Sofer and Kenneth Sofer, Case 1:15-cv-06479 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 17,
2015), seeks payment for unpaid minimum and overtime wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own, operate and/or control a chain of Mexican
restaurants.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
     MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
     New York, New York 10165
     Tel: (212) 317 1200
     Fax: (212) 317 1620


BLUE CROSS: Faces Aero Suit Over Plan Assets Misappropriation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aero Communications, Inc., and Advanced Communications, Inc.
Health Benefit Plan v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, Case
No. 4:15-cv-12964-TGB-EAS (E.D. Mich., August 20, 2015), arises
out of the Defendant's alleged misappropriation of Aero's self-
insured employee benefit Plan assets.

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan is a non-profit health care
corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron M. Phelps, Esq.
      VARNUM LLP
      Bridgewater Place, PO Box 352
      Grand Rapids, MI, 49501-0352
      Telephone: (616) 336-6000
      Facsimile: (616) 336-7000
      E-mail: amphelps@varnumlaw.com


BOB WINES: Class Tolling Not Available for Subsequent Class Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On August 3, the Eleventh Circuit held in Ewing Industries
Corporation v. Bob Wines Nursery, Inc., et al., that a proposed
class action accusing a Florida nursery of sending unsolicited
faxes did not suspend the statute of limitations for a later-filed
proposed class action challenging that same conduct, despite the
fact that the initial class action failed for reasons regarding
the named plaintiff's standing, and not due to any defect in the
proposed class.  Even in such circumstances, where the defect
regarded only the named plaintiff, the Eleventh Circuit held that
class tolling was not available for a subsequent proposed class
action.

The Eleventh Circuit based its decision on its 1994 ruling in
Griffin v. Singletary, which established the (now generally
accepted) "no-piggybacking" rule, i.e., that a proposed class
action does not toll the limitations period under the principles
of American Pipe tolling for subsequent class claims that are
asserted by members of the original class.  Effectively, the
Eleventh Circuit declined to create an exception to this general
rule.

On this basis, the Eleventh Circuit held: "This case presents the
question of whether the pendency of a purported class action tolls
the statute of limitations for a later class action seeking to
represent the same class, when the original purported class action
was dismissed due to the inadequacy of the class representative
rather than a defect in the class itself.  The district court held
that the purported class action did not toll the statute of
limitations for the later class action.  We affirm."

The Eleventh Circuit's decision adds to the split of authority as
to whether American Pipe tolling can be invoked for subsequent
putative class actions when the initial class action was dismissed
for reasons specific to the class representative (or his or her
counsel), as opposed to reasons concerning the class as a whole.
Looking forward, the decision in Ewing will have particular force
relative to causes of action that have short statutes of
limitation (such as the one-year statute of limitations under the
federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act), as well as in cases
where the initial proposed class action was pending for a long
period of time before certification was denied.  In such contexts,
the holding of Ewing would serve to preclude the claims of
essentially all of the proposed class members.  Ewing also
counsels litigants to take a hard look at the circumstances of the
named plaintiff (and his or her counsel).  That is true with
respect to issues of standing, adequacy, and typicality, among
many others.  Litigants should, therefore, tailor discovery around
such issues.

Indeed, based on the decision in Ewing, such challenges, if
successful, could have a sweeping practical effect on the ability
of the proposed class members to bring future claims against the
defendant.  Attorneys for class defendants should also advise
their clients as to the practical effect of these decisions on
their ability to defeat stacked class actions on statute of
limitations grounds, and the related effect of that calculus on
the litigation strategy for the initial class action.  Troutman
Sanders will continue to monitor this and like decisions.


BRASKEM SA: 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 Braskem S.A. ("Braskem"
or the "Company") American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs"), who
purchased shares between June 1, 2010 and March 11, 2015,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint against Braskem has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, and docketed as Case No: 15-cv-5183. Braskem
investors have until August 31, 2015 to file a motion to serve as
lead plaintiff in the class action.

Braskem is the largest producer of thermoplastic resins in the
Americas. Braskem buys naphtha, which accounts for half of its
production costs and is the main ingredient for making its
petrochemicals, from Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. -- Petrobras
("Petrobras"). Petrobras provides approximately 70% of Braskem's
naphtha needs.

According to the complaint, the truth began to emerge on March 11,
2015, when a report from a Sao Paulo newspaper, Folha de S. Paolo,
implicated Braskem in the corruption scandal surrounding
Petrobras. As reported by Folha de S. Paolo, testimony from a
former Petrobras executive alleged that Braskem engaged in a
bribery and corruption scandal that enabled the Company to
purchase raw materials at favorable prices. According to the
testimony Braskem allegedly paid annual bribes to Petrobras,
initially set at $5 million, to buy crude derivatives such as
naphtha and propylene at low prices from at least 2006 to 2012.

After reports of the pervasive bribery scandal surfaced, the
Company's equity and debt securities prices fell sharply and
investors have been damaged, with Braskem ADRs falling $1.72 per
ADR, to close on March 11, 2015 at $6.71 per ADR, an one day
decline of over 20% on unusually heavy volume.

If you purchased Braskem securities 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/


CALIFORNIA: Fire Fee Class Suit Certified
-----------------------------------------
Shea Johnson, writing for Daily Press, reported that a tentative
ruling by the Sacramento County Superior Court has granted "class
action" certification in a lawsuit over the controversial fire
fee, a victory for the fee's opponents, who had sought for months
to drastically broaden the suit's number of plaintiffs.

In October 2012, the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association sued the
California Dept. of Forestry and Fire Protection, and Board of
Equalization, challenging the validity of the fee and claiming it
was actually just a tax in disguise. As a tax, it would have
required a two-thirds legislative approval, but the fee was passed
by just a majority.

Lawmakers enacted the fee the year before to support state fire
services in response to budget cuts during the economy's downturn.
The fee affects homeowners in so-called State Responsibility
Areas, including in parts of Pinion Hills, Phelan, Wrightwood, Oak
Hills, Apple Valley and Lucerne Valley.

As a class action suit, anyone who completed and submitted a
petition for determination, disputing the fee, will be a member of
the filing class, overriding the need for them to officially be
named as plaintiffs.

HJTA President Jon Coupal described the implications of the court
denying the certification request during a conference call with
reporters in May.

"Instead of having tens of thousands of people, we'd be
representing about five," Coupal said.

The court's tentative ruling came Aug. 6, which in turn canceled a
scheduled court date for the next day. In a statement released
Aug. 6, HJTA officials said that attorneys for the state said they
would not request a hearing to challenge the tentative ruling,
making the ruling official.

"This tentative ruling is essentially exactly the outcome that
HJTA was hoping for," HJTA officials said in the statement.
"Opposing counsel's decision not to challenge the tentative ruling
is a positive development for taxpayers and a step forward in the
. . . challenge to the unfair fire tax."

The fee currently requires homeowners pay $152.33 yearly for each
habitable structure they own. The fee drops to $117.33 for those
who simultaneously reside within local fire protection boundaries.
In May, Coupal said he expected a ruling on the merits of the
lawsuit "within a year."


CARIBBEAN PETROLEUM: Plaintiff Counsel Fined for Improper Remarks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Francisco A. Besosa of the United States District
Court for District of Puerto Rico granted in part Dora Monserrate-
Penagaricano's motion for sanctions against fellow lawyer, Camilo
Salas, and granted Ms. Monserrate-Penagaricano $1,000 as
reasonable attorney's fees for bringing the motion in the case
captioned, ELIEZER CRUZ-APONTE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CARIBBEAN
PETROLEUM CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 09-2092
(FAB)(D.P.R.).

Ms. Monserrate-Penagaricano is counsel for co-defendant Intertek
USA, Inc. and Mr. Salas is pro hac vice counsel for plaintiffs in
the class action litigation.

Ms. Monserrate-Penagaricano sought sanctions against Mr. Salas for
an improper and personally offensive comment that Mr. Salas made
to Ms. Monserrate during a deposition.

On March 19, 2015, Mr. Salas deposed former Intertek employee
Orlando A. Diaz-Diaz, who Ms. Monserrate represented for purposes
of the deposition.  Present at the deposition were 16 attorneys:
Mr. Salas was one of twelve male attorneys, and Ms. Monserrate was
one of four female attorneys.

Mr. Salas responded to Ms. Monserrate's motion, by acknowledging
that he made the comment and that it was improper, but imploring
that sanctions are not warranted because he did not intend to harm
or embarrass Ms. Monserrate.

In the Memorandum and Order dated August 17, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/bEN6qCfrom Leagle.com, Judge Besosa found that the
sanctions are warranted. First, to ensure that he bears some of
the burden of the costs of bringing his discriminatory conduct to
light, Mr. Salas should pay Ms. Monserrate reasonable attorney's
fees for bringing the motion. Second, Mr. Salas should complete a
continuing legal education course on attorney professionalism and
professional conduct on or before February 1, 2016.  The harsh
sanction of revocation of Mr. Salas's pro hac vice admission is
not warranted, the judge said.

Any objection to the amount fixed for attorney's fees may be filed
before August 31, 2015.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

John F. Nevares, Esq.
JOHN F. NEVARES & ASSOC. P.S.C.
Vig Tower Suite 15041225
Ponce De Leon Avenue
San Juan, PR 00907
Tel: (787) 722-9333

Defendants are represented by Diego A. Ramos, Esq. --
dramos@fgrlaw.com -- FIDDLER GONZALEZ & RODRIGUEZ, P.S.C.


CIGNA CORP: Faces "Litwin" Suit Over Plan to Merge With Anthem
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harold Litwin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Cigna Corporation, David M. Cordani, Eric J. Foss
Michelle D. Gass, Isaiah Harris, Jr., Jane E. Henney, Roman
Martinez, IV, John M. Partridge, James E. Rogers, Eric C. Wiseman,
Donna F. Zarcone, William D. Zollars, Anthem, Inc., and Anthem
Merger Sub Corp., Case No. 11396 (Del. Ch., Aug. 17, 2015), seeks
to enjoin defendants from consummating the sale of Cigna to
Anthem, Inc.

Cigna is a global health services organization.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
     Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
     Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
     WEISSLAW LLP
     1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
     New York, NY 10036
     Tel: (212) 682-3025


CONSTANT CONTACT: October 6 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP issued the following statement:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Constant Contact, Inc. ("Constant Contact") CTCT,
+1.11% between October 23, 2014 and July 23, 2015.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the USDC for the District of Massachusetts. If
you purchased or otherwise acquired Constant Contact securities
between October 23, 2014 and July 23, 2015, your rights may be
affected by this action. To get more information go to:
http://zlk.9nl.com/constant-contact-ctctor 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 Constant Contact made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that (a) Constant
Contact's gross customer additions were less than projected; (b)
Constant Contact suffered negative trends in consumer conversion
rates; and (c) the Company was directing new clients towards the
cheapest packages.

On July 23, 2015, Constant Contact announces its earnings results
for the second quarter of 2015 and a weak third quarter outlook.
The Company noted it experienced low trial-to-conversion rates in
April and May of 2014 and a substantial swing in product mix with
about 80% of new clients picking the cheapest package instead of
more expensive options. Upon this news, shares of Constant Contact
fell over 11% to close on July 24, 2015 at $26.18 per share.

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

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

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


CORNERSTONE HOME: Faces "Bingham" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Bingham, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. Cornerstone Home Lending, Case 4:15-cv-02377
(S.D.Tex., Aug. 17, 2015), seeks payment for overtime work under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Cornerstone -- https://www.houseloan.com/about-cornerstone.html
-- is "a national home lender" with branch offices throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.
     ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC
     10601 Mission Rd., Suite 100
     Leawood, Kansas 66206
     Web site: www.rmlegalgroup.com
     Tel: (913) 766-5587
     Fax: (816) 875-5069
     E-mail: Rowdy.Meeks@RMLegalGroup.com


DAIRY FARMERS: Two Farmers Want Milk Monopoly Suit Deal Rejected
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Boshnack, writing for The Daily Star, reported that two local
farmers involved with the case are hopeful a U.S. District Court
judge rejects a proposed $50 million settlement in a long-running
lawsuit involving a dairy cooperative, they said, although their
attorney supported the deal.

Under the proposal filed, Dairy Farmers of America would pay an
average of $4,000 to about 9,000 farmers to settle a 2009 class-
action lawsuit.

The suit charged Dairy Farmers of America, its marketing arm,
Dairy Marketing Services, and Dallas-based dairy processor Dean
Foods with working together to monopolize the market for raw milk
in the Northeast.

U.S. District Court Judge Christina Reiss rejected the previous
settlement proposal in March mainly because some farmers opposed
it.

Franklin dairy farmer Garret Sitts said "it's kind of insulting"
that the new agreement is pretty much identical to what was
rejected. Class representatives, including Sitts and several other
area farmers, didn't have any input, he said.

"We were pretty much excluded during the process," he said. The
Sitts Franklin farm milks about 80-90 cows, mostly Holsteins.
The settlement doesn't address such issues as the cooperative's
control of milk testing and how that affects what price the
farmers get, Sitts said. It would give farmers little, while
making sure the cooperative can't be sued, he said.

He hoped the judge recognizes the problems and either moves
forward with a "legitimate" settlement or allows it to go to
trial.

Dean Foods agreed to a settlement of $30 million in 2011. It
covered farmers in Delaware, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,
Vermont, Virginia and the District of Columbia.


DICKS SPORTING: Reduced Atty Fees, Incentive Award Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Golba, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a class action against Dick's Sporting Goods,
Inc., alleging violations of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act of
1971 based on Dick's alleged practice of requesting personal
information from consumers during credit card transactions. The
litigants reached a settlement which was granted final approval by
the court on October 11, 2013. On December 4, 2013, the trial
court issued a minute order on the motion for attorney fees. The
court awarded attorney fees and costs of $11,000 and awarded a
plaintiff incentive award of $500.

Eventually, the Plaintiff timely appealed the court order, which
denied recovery of attorney fees for work performed by out-of-
state counsel who represented the named plaintiff in the case.
The Plaintiff argued that the trial court erred in denying
recovery of attorney fees for work performed by out-of-state
counsel who represented the named plaintiff in a class action in
California but who had not been admitted pro hac vice.

Presiding Judge Richard D. Fybel of the Court of Appeals of
California, Fourth District, Division Three in the Opinion dated
July 24, 2015 available at http://is.gd/Se6lb3from Leagle.com,
affirmed the trial court's order awarding $11,000 in attorney fees
and costs out of the $210,000 sought as part of a class action
settlement and to reduce the amount of the plaintiff incentive
award.

The case is, LESLIE GOLBA et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
DICK'S SPORTING GOODS, INC., Defendant and Respondent, Case No.
G049611 (Cal. App. Ct.).

Plaintiffs are represented by Joseph J. Siprut, Esq. --
jsiprut@siprut.com -- SIPRUT PC


DYNAMIC PETS: Faces California Class Suit Over Real Ham Bone
------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Crosby, writing for Chicago Tribune, reported that if you
give a dog a bone, there is a chance it can cause digestive
problems, obstruction and even death -- a far cry from the classic
nursery rhyme. Yet a class-action lawsuit filed in California
makes a case that the baddest of those bones is the Real Ham Bone,
made by Missouri-based Dynamic Pet Products.

Scott Kent, of Batavia, said that the precooked, hickory-smoked
pork femur was the reason Nugget, his cockapoo, died. Kent
recalled his wife giving their 4-year-old dog the packaged bone
treat in March. She loved it.

"She was eating the meat, chewing the knuckles," he said. "We took
it away after awhile because she wouldn't put it down."

Within 24 hours, the dog was dead. She fell ill that night, he
said, vomiting every 20 minutes for about seven hours. "We stayed
up all night with her." But after he left for work in the morning,
she was gone.

"I get a call from my wife screaming hysterically saying that she
killed the dog, she killed the dog, because she bought the thing
for her," he said. "You think you're doing something good for your
pet -- giving them a treat -- and it kills them."

More than a month after Kent's dog died, the lawsuit was filed in
May (he is interested but not involved). The California woman
who's named in the suit, Khristie Reed, said her basset hound also
died after chewing on the bone. The suit argues that despite
customer complaints, the treat company continues to sell its bone
as "safe for your pet" and "meant to be chewed."

The suit's language splices the company's word-for-word message on
its website, which reads the bone is "safe for your pet when label
guidelines are followed" and "meant to be chewed, not eaten." Part
of the package guidelines read, "Supervise your pet while enjoying
any natural bone product. . . . Pet owner assumes liability
associated with the use of this or any natural bone product."

Still, customer complaints did trigger a reaction from the St.
Louis Better Business Bureau, the suit said. The bureau first
alerted the Missouri company in 2010 of several Real Ham Bone
complaints, the suit said, and an alert remains on the company's
online bureau profile, said Michelle Corey, the St. Louis bureau's
president and CEO.

Since 2008, the bureau has collected 54 Real Ham Bone complaints.

"I know of at least five or six cases where the dog actually
died," Corey said, "and in many of the other cases, they were
severely injured."

There are complaints online too. One of them is Reed's, in the
form of a Facebook post with photos of her dog, Fred, that laments
her decision to buy the bone in the first place.

"Please share this so others don't make the same mistake I did,"
it reads. More than 225,000 people followed through on her plea.

So what about the company that makes them?

Dynamic Pet Products is a family-owned business. It has 160
employees who manufacture the bones, which are human-grade and
have been since 2001, when they first appeared on the market. Its
management is small -- there is not a spokesman.

An employee said the bone, which is approved by the Food and Drug
Administration, is federally regulated. "We take the safety of the
products we offer very seriously and go above and beyond what is
required by law with the measures we have in place," the employee
said in a statement.

That is one of the reasons Wal-Mart is comfortable selling the
product, said spokesman Brian Nick. Jewel-Osco and the Schnucks
supermarket chain removed it from their inventory, according to
Corey.

Nick also said that the bone's total sales far outnumber its
complaints. In May, two people complained out of about 300,000
bones sold nationally. In April, three complained out of 256,000.

"At Walmart, we are committed to providing our customers and their
pets with safe, quality pet treats," Nick said in a statement. "We
take any concerns raised seriously, and after thoroughly reviewing
the situation with our supplier, we are confident in offering this
product to our customers."

Corey said the ratio is not a fair comparison. "We know a majority
of people don't complain or they may not even know who to complain
to," she said.

For example: Kent. He researched the bone only after Nugget died.

You wouldn't think to research a product in a pet store," he said.
"I think that they have an obligation as a company doing business
with the public to not sell products that they should know are
dangerous."

Nick said that while the bones remain on Wal-Mart's shelves, the
corporation worked with Dynamic Pet Products to make the Real Ham
Bone's guidelines more prominent on its packaging. The language
hasn't changed, but per Wal-Mart's request, the guidelines are now
boxed in yellow and include the word "WARNING."

Though the bone is FDA-regulated, it does fall under a general
notice the agency first issued in 2010, which warns that bones
like the Real Ham Bone are unsafe and that giving them to a dog
can cause gastrointestinal obstruction, vomiting, diarrhea and
death, among other complications -- all of which is true, said
Aaron Jackson, surgical department head at the Chicago Veterinary
Emergency and Specialty Center.

"You have to be careful in general with bones. They can cause
problems in dogs and cats, whether they're cooked, not cooked,
precooked," he said. Chicken and pork bones especially, like the
Real Ham Bone, tend to splinter more than beef ones do. "But all
three types can cause problems."

As with any treat or toy, it's best to be cautious, he said.
Jackson sees two to three obstruction cases a week at the center
but said anything from chew toys to trash like corncobs can cause
them.

"I've always just watched my pets with my toys," he said. And if
any symptoms arise, or you can't find that bone or toy your pet
was just gnawing on, "you really need to get it into the
veterinarian or the emergency clinic."


ECOLAB: Settles Overtime Class Suit for $7.5-Mil.
-------------------------------------------------
Jillian Singh, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge gave preliminary approval to a class-action
settlement of employment claims against Ecolab that includes a
$7.5 million settlement fund and over $2 million in attorney fees
and costs.

According to plaintiff Nick Cancilla's class action, which
consists of 580 people, the company hasn't been accurately paying
its pest-elimination service specialists for overtime.

In his 7-page order U.S. District Judge James Donato said "the
plaintiffs' claims meet the typicality requirement because they
are all current or former employees of Ecolab and 'their claims
arise from the same alleged events and course of conduct.'"

Donato approved the proposed settlement agreement, under which
Ecolab will pay $7.5 million into a settlement fund that will be
the source for attorney's fees and costs. Under the agreement the
company will also set aside a reserve of $25,000 from the
settlement to ensure that all participating class members will
receive at least $100.

According to the order, the settlement money will be distributed
based on the number of weeks each class member worked.

Donato set a final approval hearing for the settlement on Dec. 9.

Ecolab is a self-described international force in water, hygiene
and energy technologies and services. The company it provides
products and services to world businesses in food service, food
processing, hospitality, health care, industrial and oil and gas
markets to help keep their environment clean and safe, operate
efficiently and achieve sustainability goals.

Neither Ecolab attorney Dawn Fonseca nor Cancilla's attorney Molly
Brooks could immediately be reached for comment.


ENCANA OIL: Faces "Dent" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald L. Dent, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Encana Oil & Gas, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01800 (D.
Colo., August 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages for work more than 40 hours in a
workweek.

Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Encana Oil & Gas, Inc. owns and
operates a commercial support service company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Don J. Foty, Esq.
      KENNEDYHODGES, L.L.P.
      711W. Alabama St.
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com


EQUIFAX INFORMATION: "Rodriguez" Won't Proceed as Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Anthony J. Trenga of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied a motion for
class certification in the case captioned, MIGUEL A. RODRIGUEZ, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:14-CV-
01142 (AJT/MSN)(E.D. Va.).

The Court, instead, granted Defendant's motion for summary
judgment.

Miguel Rodriguez alleged that Equifax violated the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA). Plaintiff asserted two causes of action in
his Amended Complaint filed on April 27, 2015. First, Plaintiff
alleged that Equifax provided OPM with a consumer report
containing public record information that would likely have an
adverse effect upon Plaintiff's ability to obtain employment, but
failed to provide notice to him "at the time" it furnished the
report to OPM, as required by 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681k(a)(1).

Second, Plaintiff alleged, as an individual claim only, that the
consumer report on him provided by Equifax to OPM contained an
objectively incorrect civil judgment under a name other than his
and a "collection amount" that had been discharged in bankruptcy;
and for these reasons, Equifax violated 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681e(b),
which required Equifax to establish or to follow reasonable
procedures to assure maximum possible accuracy in the preparation
of the consumer report it furnished to OPM. Plaintiff sought
statutory damages in connection with his Sec. 1681k claim (the
class claim), actual damages in connection with his Sec. 1681e
claim (the individual claim), and punitive damages, attorneys'
fees and costs as to both claims.

Judge Trenga, in a Memorandum Opinion dated July 17, 2015
available at http://is.gd/FNiPdQfrom Leagle.com, denied
Plaintiff's motion for class certification finding and concluding
that there was insufficient evidence in the record for a
reasonable factfinder to conclude that Equifax violated either
Section 1691k or 1681e(b), or alternatively, that any violation of
Section 1691k was "willful" or that any violation of Section
1681e(b) was either negligent or willful and granted Defendant's
motion for summary judgment.

Miguel A. Rodriguez is represented by:

     John Charles Bazaz, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF JOHN C BAZAZ PLC
     4000 Legato Rd #1100
     Fairfax, VA 22033
     Tel: (703)272-8455

          - and -

Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq. -- leonard@clalegal.com -- Casey
Shannon Nash, Esq. -- casey@clalegal.com -- Matthew James
Erausquin, Esq. -- matt@clalegal.com -- Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq. --
susan@clalegal.com -- CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES

Equifax Information Services, LLC is represented by John Willard
Montgomery, Jr., Esq. -- jmontgomery@jwm-law.com -- at JOHN W.
MONTGOMERY JR. ATTORNEY PLC


FCI LENDER: 2nd Circuit Revives Debt Collection Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Evan Weinberger, writing for Law360, reported that the Second
Circuit on revived a putative class action alleging FCI Lender
Services Inc. sent notices to mortgage borrowers appearing to
initiate debt collections that did not comply with federal laws
governing such communications.

A three-judge Second Circuit panel ruled that mortgage servicing
statements sent by FCI in July 2012 to borrowers, including to
named plaintiff Matthew J. Hart, fell under the sway of the Fair
Debt Collections Practices Act because they included where to send
mortgage payments, including late payments, and language that
specifically said that the letter was an attempt to collect on
debt.

Because of that, the plaintiffs' claims that FCI did not comply
with the requirements of the FDCPA should move forward, the Second
Circuit ruled.

"A reasonable consumer would credit the letter's warning, its
instruction to take action within [30] days and its statement that
it represents an attempt to collect a debt," the opinion, written
by Judge Susan L. Carney, said.

Judges Ralph K. Winter and Reena Raggi constituted the rest of the
panel.

FCI took over servicing Hart's and other mortgages from GMAC
Mortgage LLC in 2012, according to the ruling.

Soon after, the company sent notices to Hart and other mortgage
holders including the new address where payments should be sent as
well as telling borrowers that they had to dispute any statements
of debts they owe within 30 days, the ruling said.

The notices also included specific references mentioning the
FDCPA, as well as an attachment that read, in part, "This is an
attempt to collect upon a debt, and any information obtained will
be used for that purpose," according to the ruling.

Hart, who was delinquent on his mortgage, sued in 2013 alleging
the notice violated the FDCPA by not including information
regarding the current creditor on the mortgage and misstating
debtors' rights under the law, the opinion said.

FCI argued that its notice was informational and not a move to
collect on debts, and that the language that was included in the
notice related to debt collections was simply boilerplate required
under the law. A federal district court judge in Buffalo agreed
with FCI and dismissed Hart's case in January.

But the Second Circuit overturned that decision, saying that
consumers rightly considered FCI's letter to be a debt collection
letter.

While the language in the letter was required by law, FCI could
have made its intentions more clear, the judicial panel said.

"We see no reason why we should not take it at its word, nor any
18 reasons that a consumer would, or indeed should, fail to credit
the clear language of the document," the Second Circuit said.

Counsel for Anaheim Hills, California-based FCI and for Hart could
not immediately be reached for comment.

Hart and the putative class is represented by Daniel A. Edelman,
Cathleen M. Combs and Tiffany N. Hardy of Edelman Combs Latturner
& Goodwin LLC.

FCI is represented by Preston L. Zarlock and Spencer L. Durland of
Phillips Lytle LLP.

The case is Hart et al. v. FCI Lender Services Inc., case number
14-0191, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.


FIRST INDEX: 7th Circ. Affirms Dismissal of TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Mark S. Melodia, Esq. -- mmelodia@reedsmith.com -- Paul Bond, Esq.
-- pbond@reedsmith.com -- and Christine Nielsen Czuprynski, Esq. -
- cczuprynski@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith, in an article for
Mondaq, wrote that perturbed by two allegedly unwanted faxes,
Arnold Chapman brought a putative class action under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). For himself, he sought the most
the statute could provide -- $3,000, an injunction, and costs.
($3,000 represents $500 in statutory damages for each of the two
faxes, trebled for an allegedly knowing or wilful violation.) The
defendant offered Chapman $3,002, and the entry of an injunction,
and costs. Chapman let the offer expire without accepting it. The
District Court dismissed the case as moot.

Chapman appealed, and the Seventh Circuit reversed the lower court
ruling. In Arnold Chapman v. First Index, Inc., the Seventh
Circuit held that an expired offer of judgment does not moot an
individual plaintiff's claims. In so ruling, the panel reversed
circuit precedent and aligned itself with the Second, Ninth, and
Eleventh Circuits on the issue.

Per the court, "A case becomes moot only when it is impossible for
a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing
party," citing to Knox v. Service Employees International Union,
132 S. Ct. 2277, 2287 (2012). "Many other decisions say the same
thing. By that standard, Chapman's case is not moot. The district
court could award damages and enter an injunction. Chapman began
this suit seeking those remedies; he does not have them yet; the
court could provide them."

The court acknowledged that in other circumstances, an unaccepted
offer of judgment would moot the case. Indeed, "If there is only
one plaintiff, however, why should a court supply a subsidized
dispute-resolution service when the defendant's offer means that
there's no need for judicial assistance, and when other litigants,
who do need the court's aid, are waiting in a queue?" But in a
class setting, "Settlement proposals designed to decapitate the
class upset the incentive structure of the litigation by
separating the representative's interests from those of other
class members."

The Seventh Circuit sought to clarify the law in that circuit
ahead of the same issues that will be presented for the Supreme
Court in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez. Oral arguments in Campbell-
Ewald v. Gomez are scheduled for October 14, 2015.


FLORIDA POWER: Faces "Aschettino" Suit in Fla. Over Robocalls
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marcel Aschettino, an individual, doing business as "Marcel
Productions," on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Florida Power & Light Company and John Doe
Corporations 1 through 10, unknown business entities, Case No.
CACE-15-014929 (D. Fla., August 20, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of placing calls on consumers' cellular
telephone using an auto-dialer and prerecorded messages for
collection of delinquent accounts.

Florida Power & Light Company is a utility company which
transported, stored and distributed electricity to consumers in
the State of Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert W. Murphy, Esq.
      1212 S.F. 2nd Avenue
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
      Telephone: (954) 763-8660
      Facsimile: (954) 763-8607
      E-mail: rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com


GREEN MOUNTAIN: 2nd Cir. Revives Suit by Retirement Funds
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed a district court order granting Defendants'
motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' Corrected Consolidated Class Action
Complaint in the case, EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT
OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, LEAD PLAINTIFF, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, LOUISIANA MUNICIPAL POLICE EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, LEAD PLAINTIFF, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CITY OF FORT
LAUDERDALE GENERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, LEAD PLAINTIFF,
on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, PUBLIC
EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF MISSISSIPPI, LEAD PLAINTIFF, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, SJUNDE AP-
FONDEN, LEAD PLAINTIFF, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LAWRENCE J.
BLANFORD, GREEN MOUNTAIN COFFEE ROASTERS, INC., FRANCES G. RATHKE,
Defendants-Appellees, BARBARA D. CARLINI, ROBERT P. STILLER,
WILLIAM D. DAVIS, HINDA MILLER, JULES A. DEL VECCHIO, MICHAEL J.
MARDY, DAVID E. MORAN, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INC.,
SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY, INC., WILLIAM BLAIR & COMPANY, L.L.C.,
CANACCORD GENUITY INC., JANNEY MONTGOMERY SCOTT LLC, WELLS FARGO
SECURITIES, LLC, PIPER JAFFRAY & CO., RABO SECURITIES USA, INC.,
RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, SANTANDER INVESTMENT SECURITIES INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 14-199-CV.

In the putative securities class action, plaintiffs-appellants
were five employee retirement systems that purchased or otherwise
acquired common stock in Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., the
manufacturer of the Keurig single-cup brewing system. Plaintiffs
alleged that Green Mountain and certain of its executives made
fraudulent misrepresentations about Green Mountain's inventory,
business performance, and growth prospects in a manner designed to
mislead investors about the strength of Green Mountain's business,
in violation of federal securities law. The district court granted
Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' Corrected Consolidated
Class Action Complaint for failure to (1) allege a misleading
statement or omission of material fact, and (2) plead a compelling
inference of scienter.

Circuit Judge Denny Chin of the United States Court of Appeals,
Second Circuit, in the Order dated July 24, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/9P3joPfrom Leagle.com, vacated the district court's
order finding that the district court erred in granting Green
Mountain's motions to dismiss and that the Complaint pled
sufficient facts to state a securities law violation and remanded
the action for further proceedings.

Plaintiffs are represented by Mark R. Rosen, Esq. --
mrosen@barrack.com -- Daniel E. Bacine, Esq. --
dbacine@barrack.com -- Jeffrey A. Barrack, Esq. --
jbarrack@barrack.com -- Lisa M. Lamb, Esq. -- llamb@barrack.com --
BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE

Defendant is represented by Randall W. Sooner, Esq. --
Randall.Sooner@ropesgray.com -- Anne Johnson Palmer, Esq. --
Anne.JohnsonPalmer@ropesgray.com -- Mark D. Vaughn, Esq. --
Mark.Vaughn@ropesgray.com -- Douglas H. Hallward-Driemeier, Esq.
-- Douglas.Hallward-Driemeier@ropesgray.com -- ROPES & GRAY LLP


HYUNDAI MOTOR: N.D. Cal. Judge Trims Suit by Santa Fe Owners
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Samuel Conti of the United States District Court
for Northern District of California granted in part Defendants'
motion to dismiss and denied motion to strike in the case
captioned, JULIA RENIGER, GREG BATTAGLIA, OREN JAFFE, LUCIA
SAITTA, and ANN MANCUSO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA, a
California corporation, and HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, a foreign
corporation, Defendants, Case No. 14-3612 SC (N.D. Cal.).

Named Plaintiffs in the putative class action are five current or
former owners of new or used Santa Fes from model years 2010-2012.
They seek to represent a nationwide class of owners and lessees of
2010-2012 Santa Fes and three subclasses made up of (1) New York
owners and lessees, (2) California owners and lessees, and (3)
California owners and lessees who are "consumers" within the
meaning of California Civil Code Section 1761(d). Plaintiffs
allege nine causes of action, including violations of California
and New York consumer, false advertising, and implied warranty
laws; breach of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (Mag.-Moss), 15
U.S.C. Sec. 2301; and common law fraud.  While not all of the
named plaintiffs allege out-of-pocket costs associated with the
stalling defect, all allege that they owned Santa Fes from model
years 2010-2012 and experienced unforeseen and sometimes dangerous
stalling.

In the motion, Defendants Hyundai Motor America and Hyundai Motor
Company moved to strike Plaintiffs' class action allegations and
allegations relating to the Kia Motor Group on the grounds that
these allegations are either contrary to California and Ninth
Circuit law or otherwise redundant, impertinent, and immaterial
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f).  The Defendants moved
to dismiss several of the named Plaintiffs for lack of standing
and to dismiss the balance of Plaintiffs' allegations for failure
to state a claim.

The Defendants make eight arguments as to why Plaintiffs' claims
fail as pleaded: (1) that HMC should be dismissed from the case
for lack of any transaction; (2) that the Unfair Competition Law
(Cal Bus. & Prof. C. Sec. 17200 et seq.) ("UCL"), Consumer Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA") (Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1750 et seq.), and
Fraud Claims fail for assorted reasons; (3) that False Advertising
Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. C. Sec. 17500 et seq.) ("FAL") claims fail
to identify an advertisement; (4) that certain named plaintiffs
fail to allege a breach of implied warranty within the warranty
period; (5) that New York implied warranty claims fail for lack of
privity; (6) that the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ.
Code Sec. 1790 et seq.) ("Song-Beverly") and Mag.-Moss require
damages that were not pleaded; (7) that Mag.-Moss claims without a
viable underlying state-law claim should be dismissed; and (8)
that the Court should defer to the "primary jurisdiction" of the
National Highway and Transportation Safety Administration
("NHTSA") rather than decide this case.

In his Order dated August 18, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/90Z1Ixfrom Leagle.com, Judge Conti denied in part
Defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to:

     -- lack of standing;
     -- that HMC should be dismissed from the case for lack of
        any transaction;
     -- that UCL, CLRA, and fraud should be dismissed for
        assorted reasons;
     -- that certain named plaintiffs fail to allege a breach
        of implied warranty within the warranty period;
     -- that Song-Beverly and Mag.-Moss claims required damages;
     -- that California Mag.-Moss claims were improperly pleaded;
        and
     -- that the Court should defer to primary jurisdiction.

The Court granted in part with respect to:

     -- FAL claims failing to identify an advertisement;
     -- that New York implied warranty claims fail for lack of
        privity; and
     -- that Mag.-Moss related to the New York claims also failed.

The motion to strike is denied because Defendants have not met
their burden to prove intent.

Plaintiff were directed to file an amendment to the complaint
within 14 days upon issuance of the Order.

Plaintiffs are represented by Mark Samuel Greenstone, Esq. --
mgreenstone@glancylaw.com -- Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. --
lglancy@glancylaw.com -- GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP

Defendants are represented by Eric Y. Kizirian, Esq. --
Eric.Kizirian@lewisbrisbois.com -- Kimberly Thanh Chung, Esq. --
Kimberly.Chung@lewisbois.com -- Michael K. Grimaldi, Esq. --
Michael.Grimaldi@lewisbois.com -- LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH
LLP


ICONIX BRAND: Pomerantz Law Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announced that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Iconix Brand Group, Inc. ("Iconix" or the "Company") ICON,
+1.25% and certain of its officers.   The class action, filed in
United States District Court, Southern District of New York, and
docketed under 15-cv-04981, is on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons or entities who purchased Iconix securities between
February 20, 2013 and April 17, 2015 inclusive (the "Class
Period").  This class action seeks to recover damages against
Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

A copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com.
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

Iconix is a brand management company, that owns, licenses, and
markets a portfolio of consumer brands across women's, men's,
entertainment, and home primarily in the United States and
internationally. The company brand portfolio includes Candie's,
Bongo, Badgley Mischka, Joe Boxer, Rampage, Mudd, London Fog,
Mossimo, Ocean Pacific, Danskin, Rocawear, Cannon, Royal Velvet,
Fieldcrest, Charisma, Starter, Waverly, Ecko Unltd, Marc Ecko Cut
& Sew, Zoo York, Sharper Image, Umbro, and Lee Cooper brand names.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (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, the Company announced, after the close of the
trading session that its CFO, Jeff Lupinacci, had resigned
effective March 30, 2015.  On this news the Company's shares 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 filed a Current
Report with the SEC on Form 8-K.  Therein, the Company, in
relevant part, stated:  Seth Horowitz, Chief Operating Officer
("COO") of Iconix, tendered his resignation on April 13, 2015.  On
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.

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

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


IHEARTCOMMUNICATIONS INC: ABS Sues Over "Unlawful" Recordings
-------------------------------------------------------------
ABS Entertainment, Inc., an Arkansas corporation, each
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
iHeartmedia, Inc., a Delaware corporation; iHeartcommunications,
Inc., a Texas corporation; iHeartmedia + Entertainment, Inc., a
Nevada corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Case 2:15-cv-06252-DMG-
KLS (C.D.Cal, Aug. 17, 2015), alleges that iHeart operated Music
Service without licenses for Pre-1972 Recordings in violation of
California law, California Civil Code, misappropriation, violation
of California Business & Professions Code, and conversion for its
unauthorized reproduction, distribution, and public performance of
those recordings.

Defendant iHeartMedia, Inc. (through itself and its subsidiaries
iHeartCommunications, Inc. and iHeartMedia +Entertainment, Inc.)
operates media and entertainment services via broadcast and
digital delivery. Specifically, iHeart delivers music content
through broadcast (AM and FM) radio channels, the Internet at
iHeartRadio.com and its stations' websites, and through one or
more iHeartRadio mobile applications on smart phones, tablets and
gaming consoles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roderick G. Dorman, Esq.
     Robert E. Allen, Esq.
     Lawrence M. Hadley, Esq.
     Alan P. Block, Esq.
     McKOOL SMITH HENNIGAN, P.C.
     865 S. Figueroa St., Suite 2900
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Tel: (213) 694-1200
     Fax: (213) 694-1234
     E-mail: rdorman@mckoolsmithhennigan.com
             rallen@mckoolsmithhennigan.com
             ldadley@mckoolsmithhennigan.com
             ablock@mckoolsmithhennigan.com

        - and -

     Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
     Andrew Szot, Esq.
     Kathleen Boychuck, Esq.
     MILLER LAW LLC
     115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Tel: (312) 332-3400
     Fax: (312) 676-2676
     E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com
             aszot@millerlawllc.com
             kboychuck@maillerlawllc.com


INDEPENDENCE OILFIELD: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Cormier, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Independence Oilfield Chemicals, LLC, Case No. 4:15-
cv-02416 (S.D. Tex., August 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Independence Oilfield Chemicals, LLC is an oilfield services
company and provides drilling fluid products and services to wells
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


INVESTMENT TECHNOLOGY: Firms File Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Wites & Kapetan, P.A. (http://www.wklawyers.com)and Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP (www.kaplanfox.com) have filed a class action suit
against Investment Technology Group, Inc. ("ITG" or the "Company")
(NYSE: ITG), and certain of its executives, that alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of
purchasers of ITG common stock during the period February 28, 2011
through August 3, 2015, inclusive (the "Class").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. A copy of the Complaint may be
obtained from Wites & Kapetan's website, or from the Court.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements to
investors concerning the Company's POSIT network, an Alternative
Trading System or "dark pool."

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, ITG held
itself out as an "agency-only" and "conflict-free" broker, and
represented that POSIT safeguarded client trading data, but
omitted to disclose: "(1) that, as detailed in the SEC Settlement
Order, between April 2010 through July 2011, the Company operated
a proprietary trading pilot called 'Project Omega' within the
Company's AlterNet subsidiary that involved 'crossing against
sell-side clients in POSIT' and violations of the Company's
policies and procedures by Mittal, a former ITG Managing Director,
Head of Algorithmic Trading, and Head of Liquidity Management; (2)
that Mittal, while head of Project Omega, along with numerous
other employees, accessed private client data within the Company
while simultaneously operating a proprietary trading strategy, a
clear conflict of interest; (3) that this conduct violated
Regulation ATS; and (4) that the Company was under investigation
for this conduct by the SEC by Fall 2013, and faced an enforcement
action by May 2015, which threatened major fines and legal costs
as well as reputational harm to the Company and loss of
customers."

The Complaint further alleges that on July 29, 2015, after market
close, ITG issued a press release disclosing, for the first time,
the underlying wrongful conduct. On July 30, 2015, ITG's stock
price declined approximately 23.5%, or $5.64 per share, to close
at $18.36 per share.

On August 12, 2015, the SEC announced its settlement with ITG, and
released an Order that included "detailed admissions of
wrongdoing" by ITG, and imposed "a civil penalty in the amount of
$18,000,000 -- the largest civil penalty to date assessed by the
SEC against an Alternative Trading System" -- in addition to over
$2 million in disgorgement of wrongfully-gotten revenues and pre-
judgment interest of over $250,000.

If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court
no later than October 5, 2015 to serve as a lead plaintiff for the
Class. You need not seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to
share in any possible recovery.

If you have any questions about this Notice, the action, your
rights, or your interests, you may contact Wites & Kapetan
(www.wklawyers.com) or Kaplan Fox (www.kaplanfox.com):

         Marc A. Wites,Esq.
         WITES & KAPETAN, P.A.
         4400 North Federal Highway
         Lighthouse Point, FL 33064
         Toll Free: 866-277-8631
         Tel: 561-752-1414
              954-570-8989
         Fax: 954-354-0205
         Email: mwites@wklawyers.com

         Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
         Gregory K. Arenson, Esq.
         Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
         Laurence D. King, Esq.
         KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
         850 Third Avenue
         New York, NY 10022
         Toll Free: 800-290-1952
         Tel: 212-687-1980
         Fax: 212-687-7714
              415-772-4700
         Fax: 415-772-4707
         Tel: 212.687.1980
         Fax: 212.687.7714
         Email: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
                garenson@kaplanfox.com
                jcampisi@kaplanfox.com
                lking@kaplanfox.com


LINCOLN GENERAL: Court Tosses Attempt to Sue O'Melveny
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, EAST 51st STREET DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, LLC and
ILLINOIS UNION INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. LINCOLN GENERAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, AXIS SURPLUS INSURANCE COMPANY, INTERSTATE FIRE
AND CASUALTY COMPANY and EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendants, Case No. 150063/2010, MOTION SEQ. Nos. 016 017,
Lincoln General sought, by separate motions, leave to supplement
its affirmative defenses and leave to assert a third party action
against O'Melveny and Meyers, LLP, which defends East 51st in
numerous tort and property damage cases.

The Plaintiffs commenced the action against the insurers of
certain project participants and Interstate Fire and Casualty
Company, and Everest National Insurance Company, claiming that
defendants were obligated to provide defense and indemnity in
favor of East 51st (and reimburse Illinois Union for defense
costs) under their respective policies. The action stemmed from
the crane collapse accident that occurred on March 15, 2008 during
a construction project in Manhattan. East 51st was the developer
and owner of the project.

In the motion, Lincoln General argued that plaintiffs would not be
prejudiced by the Court's grant of leave and that defense costs
charged by O'Melveny were in excess of reasonable defense costs,
as evidenced by the rates paid to Illinois Union's panel counsel
in the New York area for similar work between and including 2008
and 2010.

Judge Carol R. Edmead of the Supreme Court of New York County in
the Memorandum Decision dated July 17, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/GraMM7from Leagle.com, denied Lincoln General's
motion for leave to assert a third party action against O'Melveny,
and for costs and sanctions against Illinois Union and granted
Illinois Union's application for costs and fees associated with
defending the motions.


LOCURA MARINA: Faces "Alvarez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Alvarez and all others similarly situated v. Locura Marina
Inc., Jose Valera, and Debra Barrientos, Case No. 1:15-cv-23129-
DPG (S.D. Fla., August 20, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Locura Marina Inc. owns and operates a Peruvian restaurant in
Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MCLANE/MIDWEST: Final Fairness Hearing on October 23
----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, JAMES WALKER, individually and on behalf of
all others, Plaintiffs, v. MCLANE/MIDWEST, INC. Defendant, Case
No. 2:14-CV-04315-NKL (W.D. Mo.), the parties asked the court to
preliminarily approve the class-wide Joint Stipulation of
Settlement, conditionally certify the case as a class action for
settlement purposes only, designate James Walker as a class
representative and Jason Brown and Jayson Watkins as class
counsel, approve the form and manner of class notices, set a date
for a final fairness hearing, and preliminarily enjoin all members
of the class from commencing, prosecuting, or maintaining any
claim already asserted in and encompassed by the case.

James Walker filed the putative class action alleging that
Defendant McLane/Midwest, Inc. procured and used consumer reports
between November 5, 2012, and March 30, 2015, as part of its
hiring process and violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA)
by: (1) taking adverse actions against job applicants based on
consumer reports without affording the class members the
opportunity to dispute the accuracy of the adverse information
contained in the reports; and (2) violating the disclosure and
authorization provisions of the FCRA.

District Judge Nanette K. Laughery, in the Order dated July 20,
2015 available at http://is.gd/7LxAnIfrom Leagle.com, granted
the parties' Joint Motion.   The Court set the final fairness
hearing on October 23, 2015 at 11:00 a.m.

James Walker is represented by:

     Charles Jason Brown, Esq.
     Jayson A. Watkins, Esq.
     BROWN & ASSOCIATES, LLC
     8334 S Stony Island Ave
     Chicago, IL 60617
     Tel: (773)731-1300

McLane Midwest, Inc. is represented by Kenneth W. Gage, Esq. --
kennethgage@paulhastings.com -- PAUL HASTINGS


MDC PARTNERS: Lieff Cabraser Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP announces
that class action litigation has been brought on behalf of
investors who purchased the common stock of MDC Partners, Inc.
("MDC" or the "Company") between September 24, 2013 and April 27,
2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").

If you purchased MDC common stock during the Class Period, you may
move the Court for appointment as lead plaintiff by no later than
September 29, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who
acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.
Your share of any recovery in the action will not be affected by
your decision of whether to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.
You may retain Lieff Cabraser, or other attorneys, as your counsel
in the action.

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

Background on the MDC Securities Class Litigation

The action charges MDC and certain of its senior executives with
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. MDC, headquartered in New York, New York, is a
holding company that provides a range of customized marketing,
activation, communications and consulting services through its
subsidiaries.

The action alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose, among other things, that: (i) MDC's SEC filings
materially understated the Company's executive compensation; (ii)
MDC's financial statements failed to disclose certain related
party transactions; (iii) MDC's reported goodwill was materially
overstated; (iv) MDC's financial statements were presented in
violation of GAAP; and (v) MDC's disclosure controls and internal
controls over financial reporting were materially deficient.

On April 27, 2015, MDC announced its financial results for the
period ended March 31, 2015 and revealed that the Securities and
Exchange Commission had been conducting a formal investigation
into the Company's reporting of executive compensation and
goodwill. MDC also announced that it had formed a Special
Committee of independent directors to review matters relating to
the reimbursement of expenses purportedly incurred by defendant
Miles Nadal, MDC's Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, and
President during the Class Period. Following this news, the price
of MDC common stock fell 27.8%, or $7.78 per share, from its
closing price of $27.98 per share on April 27, 2015 to close at
$20.20 per share on April 28, 2015.

                 About Lieff Cabraser

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

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

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


MDC PARTNERS: Kessler LLP Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announced that a shareholder
class action has been filed against MDC Partners, Inc. MDCA,
+1.46%   ("MDC" or the "Company") on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between September 24, 2013 and April 27,
2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").

MDC shareholders who wish to discuss this action and their legal
options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne O.
Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or at info@ktmc.com.

For additional information about this lawsuit, or to request
information about this action online, please visit
http://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/mdc-partners-inc

Through its subsidiaries, MDC provides a comprehensive range of
customized marketing, activation, communications and consulting
services.

The complaint alleges that MDC and certain of its senior executive
officers made a series of false and misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, executive compensation and related party
transactions.  Specifically, the defendants are alleged to have
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose,
among other things, that:  (i) the disclosures in MDC's SEC
filings materially understated the Company's executive
compensation; (ii) the disclosures in MDC's financial statements
failed to disclose certain related party transactions; (iii) the
Company's reported goodwill was materially overstated; (iv) the
Company's financial statements were presented in violation of GAAP
and were materially false and misleading; and (v) the Company's
disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting
were materially deficient.

On April 27, 2015, MDC issued a press release disclosing that the
SEC had been conducting a formal investigation into the Company's
reporting of executive compensation and goodwill, and that MDC had
formed a Special Committee of independent directors (the "Special
Committee") to review matters relating to the reimbursement of
expenses purportedly incurred by MDC's Chief Executive Officer
("CEO").  The press release further reported that, following the
Special Committee's investigation, MDC's CEO agreed to repay the
Company $8.6 million, and that the SEC's investigation into the
Company's accounting for goodwill and certain other accounting
practices was believed to be in "an early stage."

Following these disclosures, shares of MDC's stock declined $7.78
per share, or over 27.8 percent, to close on April 28, 2015 at
$20.20 per share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests with respect to
these matters, please contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check
(Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or Adrienne O.
Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299 - 7706 or (610) 667 - 7706, or via e-mail
at info@ktmc.com

Members of the class may, no later than September 29, 2015,
petition the Court for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the
class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed as a lead plaintiff, the Court must
determine that the class member's claim is typical of the claims
of other class members, and that the class member will adequately
represent the class in the action.  Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to
serve as a lead plaintiff.  Any member of the purported class may
move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check prosecutes class actions in state
and federal courts throughout the country.  Kessler Topaz Meltzer
& Check is a driving force behind corporate governance reform, and
has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of institutional and
individual investors from the United States and around the world.
The firm represents investors, consumers and whistleblowers
(private citizens who report fraudulent practices against the
government and share in the recovery of government dollars).  The
complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check.  For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
or for additional information about participating in this action,
please visit www.ktmc.com.

Darren J. Check, Esq.
D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq.
Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087
(888) 299 - 7706
(610) 667 - 7706
info@ktmc.com


MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Faces "Harris" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Floyd Harris, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc., Case No. 1:15-
cv-00225-JD-SLC (N.D. Ind., August 20, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to adequately safeguard patients'
sensitive personal information including Social Security numbers
and medical histories.

Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc. is an Indiana corporation
that provides electronic medical records services to hospitals,
health care providers, and patients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Irwin B. Levin, Esq.
      Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
      Vess A. Miller, Esq.
      Lynn A. Toops, 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
              rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
              vmiller@cohenandmalad.com
              ltoops@cohenandmalad.com

         - and -

      Sherrie Savett, Esq.
      Shanon Carson, Esq.
      Jon Lambiras, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust St.
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: ssavett@bm.net
              scarson@bm.net
              jlambiras@bm.net


MEDORA HOLDINGS: Suit Over Popcorners Won't Proceed as Class
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal of the United States District
Court for Northern District of California denied Plaintiff's
motion to certify a class in the case captioned, KARISA NGUYEN, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. MEDORA HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:14-CV-00618-PSG (N.D. Cal.).

Beginning in 2009, Plaintiffs Karisa Nguyen, Andre Vandenberg and
Pearline Blackwood all bought triangular "Popcorners" chips made
and sold by Defendant Medora Holdings, LLC. The chip packaging
bore labels touting the chips as "all natural." In 2013, lawyers
for Plaintiffs sent Medora letters questioning the truth of the
labeling and threatening a lawsuit. Soon thereafter, Medora
decided to implement new packaging that omitted the offending "all
natural" language. Plaintiffs filed suit anyway, alleging that
because the products contain genetically-modified organisms the
labels were false and misleading. Like the majority of consumers,
allege Plaintiffs, they expect "natural" foods to be free of GMOs.
Plaintiffs request declaratory relief, injunctive relief and
damages generally.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class only as to declaratory and
injunctive relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rules 23(b)(2) and 23(c)(4)
for liability purposes specifically, leaving damages for later.
Plaintiffs also seek alternative state subclasses consisting of
California, Florida and New York residents.

In his Order dated August 18, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/NlQc0Qfrom Leagle.com, Judge Grewal held that named
Plaintiffs lack Article III standing because they failed to show
any need for an injunction to preserve the status quo. They
additionally lack standing to pursue injunctive relief because
Plaintiffs offer no evidence of a likelihood of injury in the
future, and even if they did, the Popcorners label no longer
includes the offending "all natural" language.

Plaintiffs are represented by Todd S. Garber, Esq. --
tgarber@fbfglaw.com -- FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON &
GARBER, LLP

Defendants are represented by Robert Leslie Wallan, Esq. --
robert.wallan@pillsburylaw.com -- Alyson Reed Parker, Esq. --
alyson.parker@pillsburylaw.com -- PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN,
LLP


MERGE HEALTH: Faces "Lozoya" Suit Over Proposed IBM Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Monique A. Lozoya and Raymond C. Blackburn, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.  Merge Health Care
Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2015CH12493 (D. Ill., August 20,
2015), is brought on behalf of all the public shareholders of
Merge Healthcare Incorporated to enjoin the proposed acquisition
of Merge by International Business Machines Corporation for an
unfair price and inadequate consideration.

Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, Merge is a provider of medical
imaging.

International Business Machines Corporation is a technology and
consulting corporation that manufactures and markets computer
hardware, middleware and software, and offers infrastructure,
hosting and consulting services in areas ranging from mainframe
computers to nanotechnology.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Norman Rifkind, Esq.
      LASKY & RIFKIND, LTD.
      351 West Hubbard Street, Suite 401
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 634-0057
      Facsimile: (312) 634-0059
      E-mail: rifkind@laskyrifkind.com

         - and -

      Randall J. Baron, Esq.
      David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
      Eun Jin Lee, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
      E-mail: randyb@rgrdlaw.com
              DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com
              elee@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Hamilton P. Lindley, Esq.
      DUNNAM & DUNNAM, L.L.P.
      4125 West Waco Drive
      Waco, TX 76710
      Telephone: (254) 753-6437
      Facsimile: (254) 753-7434


MICHAEL EUGENE SPEARS: Car Buyers to Get Little Monetary Relief
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Wren, writing for The Post and Courier, reported that a
federal privacy lawsuit that made its way to the U.S. Supreme
Court and potentially had a group of powerful South Carolina
lawyers on the hook for $200 million in damages appears to be
headed for a resolution. But hardly any of the 34,000 consumers
affected by the breach will see a dime.

A proposed settlement -- it includes Charleston lawyer Gedney Howe
III and Columbia's Dick Harpootlian -- would give three named
plaintiffs $10,000 apiece and would let their attorneys make a
case before a judge for up to $2.6 million in legal fees. The
thousands of remaining plaintiffs would get assurances that their
private information will be kept safe, but no money.

A federal judge in Spartanburg will hold a hearing Sept. 11 to
determine whether the proposed settlement is fair. Anyone who
wants to pull out of the class-action case and file their own
lawsuit has until Aug. 28 to do so.

The case stems from a separate complaint in which Howe,
Harpootlian and others represented car buyers who alleged hundreds
of automobile dealerships were charging improper fees. Before the
lawsuit was filed, the lawyers filed Freedom of Information Act
requests with the S.C. Department of Motor Vehicles to get the
names of thousands of people who bought cars from those dealers,
including purchasers in Charleston County. They then sent letters
to those people asking them to join the lawsuit and offered them a
free consultation.

Among the people who received letters was the manager of one of
the automobile dealerships that was being sued.

The automobile dealers' lawyers countersued, saying the request
for names violated the federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act,
which is designed to limit access to driver's license information
and motor vehicle records.

Initial court rulings said the request for names was proper
because the act allows lawyers to get private information for
litigation purposes.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court in 2013 said soliciting business
for a possible future lawsuit doesn't count as litigation, and
sent the case back to the circuit court for a new trial.

The proposed settlement was struck while the case was pending
trial. The lawyers who requested information from the state's DMV
faced up to $200 million in damages -- plus possible punitive
damages -- based on the number of names they received and
solicitation letters they sent.

Harpootlian, Howe and two other lawyers -- Michael Spears of
Spartanburg and Camden Lewis of Columbia -- deny they violated the
privacy act, and they admit no wrongdoing in the proposed
settlement agreement.

Dawes Cooke Jr., one of the lawyers representing the defendants,
declined to comment on the case because the proposed settlement is
still pending. Phil Elbert, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs,
could not be reached for comment.


NAVIENT CORP: Court Dismisses "Blyden" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Marlene Blyden, v. Navient Corp., et al., Case No. EDVC 14-02456-
JGB(KKX) (C.D. Cal.), is a putative class action over a loan
agreement.  Plaintiff entered into a loan contract, which
specified the nominal lender as First National Bank of Sioux Falls
which was later assigned to a now-defunct entity, the Student Loan
Marketing Association (SLMA). SLMA, through a series of mergers,
eventually became Defendant Navient LLC. From July 1, 2006 to
September 30, 2007, Plaintiff was charged interest on her loan at
a rate of 10.25% in violation to California usury law under the
National Bank Act.

Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint (SAC) on February 4,
2015. On March 6, 2015, Defendants brought three separate motions
to dismiss the SAC asserting multiple grounds for dismissal
including lack of Article III jurisdiction and failure to state a
claim.

District Judge Jesus G. Bernal, in the Civil Minutes dated July
23, 2015 available at http://is.gd/69PcVpfrom Leagle.com, granted
Defendants' motions to dismiss and directed the Plaintiff to amend
with respect to all Defendants except the trusts that never owned
her loan.

Marlene Blyden is represented by Michael D. Braun, Esq. --
mdb@braunlawgroup.com -- BRAUN LAW GROUP PC, Andrew N. Friedman,
Esq. -- afriedman@cohenmilstein.com -- Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.

-- dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com -- Sally Mae Handmaker, Esq. --
shandmaker@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS AND TOLL
PLLC

Defendants are represented by David McDaniel Jolley, Esq. --
djolley@cov.com -- Emily Johnson Henn, Esq. -- ehenn@cov.com --
Sonya D Winner, Esq. -- swinner@cov.com -- Ashley Margaret
Simonsen, Esq. -- asimonsen@cov.com -- COVINGTON AND BURLING LLP


NELNET INC: Collection Call Case Attys. Get $1.25MM in Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Eva Fedderly, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge in Orlando, Florida awarded $1.25 million in
attorney's fees following the settlement of a class action against
a student loan servicing company.

The fee award represents 27.78 percent of the gross settlement
fund of $4.5 million, and was accompanied by the final dismissal -
- with prejudice -- of a complaint filed in February 2014.

In his complaint, lead plaintiff James David Cooper Jr. claimed
NelNet Inc., repeatedly placed pre-recorded voice calls to his
cell phone while attempting to collect an alleged debt.

Cooper argued the calls were a direct contravention of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, because he did not consent to
them, and in fact, were related to a debt incurred by someone
other than himself.

NelNet denied the allegations, but in June 2015, after an exchange
of "robust" discovery, production of thousands of pages and
documents, and a full day of mediation, nevertheless agreed to
settle the case.

A total of 2,526 individuals submitted class action claim forms,
and under the agreement, each will receive at least $150.

Cooper himself was also granted a $25,000 "incentive" award for
his role in pursuing the case.

NelNet also agreed to implement a new, enhanced training regime
for its employees. Attorneys then submitted a request for $1.5
million in fees, which U.S. District Judge Roy Dalton Jr. felt
compelled to reduce on August 4.

Dalton explained he did so for a number of reasons, not least of
which was the relatively short amount of time the case was
actually pending.

"The docket reflects that the progress of the case has been
unremarkable with little to no substantive motion practice beyond
the TCPA constitutional issue, which was mooted by settlement,"
Dalton wrote.

At the same time, the judge said, he was mindful not to reduce the
fees too much, acknowledging that it is not easy for consumers to
obtain counsel in Telephone Consumer Protection Act cases, given
the law is relatively new and the cases often handled on a
contingency basis.

"Additionally, Class Counsel obtained significant benefits for the
class . . . " Judge Dalton wrote. "Moreover, the Agreement,
including the negotiation of the attorneys' fees, was reached in
mediation with a skilled mediator. Thus, there is a presumption
that the Agreement is fair, negotiated at arm's length and without
collusion."

"Importantly, there were no objections to the Agreement or even to
the fees requested by counsel," he added.

Representatives could not be reached for comment by Courthouse
News.


NESTLE INDIA: Government Sues Over 'Unfair Trade Practices'
-----------------------------------------------------------
NetIndian reported that the government said it had filed a class
action suit against food products major Nestle India and claimed a
sum of INR639.9 crore from the company on grounds of "unfair trade
practices, sale of defective goods and sale of Maggi Oats Noodles
to the public without product approval".

An official press release said the Department of Consumer Affairs,
Ministry of Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution had
filed a complaint under section 12(1)(d) of the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission (NCDRC).

The class action suit has been filed on behalf of the "large
number of consumers of Maggi in the country", it said.

"The complainant has sought a sum of INR284, 55,00,000 that the
Opponent Company is liable to pay and a sum of INR355,40,70,000 as
punitive damages on account of the gross negligence, apathy and
callousness on the part of the Opponent Company.

"Thus, the total claim is for a sum of INR639,95,70,000 (Rupees
six hundred and thirty nine crores and ninety five lakhs and
seventy thousand)," the release added.

Nestle India had, on June 5, decided to take Maggi off the shelves
across India after a food safety scare led to a ban on the instant
noodles in several states of the country.

On the same day, the Government had ordered the recall of the
noodles from the market, saying that tests conducted by various
states on Nestle India's Maggi instant noodles had revealed the
presence of lead in excess of the permissible level of 2.5 ppm.

An official press release had said on the same day that, apart
from the high levels of lead, the company was also found to be in
violation of relevant laws with its "misleading label" of "No
added MSG (monosodium glutamate (MSG)" and by releasing "Maggi
Oats Masala Noodles with Tastemaker" without risk assessment and
grant of product approval.

The company had, at that time, insisted that the noodles were
completely safe and that they had been trusted in India for over
30 years.

The company was responding to reports about laboratory tests that
suggested that the noodles contained higher than allowed levels of
lead and glutamate.

Maggi had an overwhelming share of the instant noodles market in
India and can be found in the remotest parts of the country.

Nestle's relationship with India goes back to 1912, when it began
trading as The Nestle Anglo-Swiss Condensed Milk Company (Export)
Limited, importing and selling finished products in the Indian
market. In 1961, it set up its first factory in India at Moga in
Punjab.


NESTLE INDIA: Compromise Best Option, Not Litigation
----------------------------------------------------
R Jagannathan, writing for F.Business, reported that the Union
consumer affairs ministry's decision to launch a class action suit
against Nestle, makers of Maggi noodles, in the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) will be an important test
case for such actions in the future.

However, it is in the best interests of the regulators, Nestle and
consumers to come to a compromise solution rather than litigate
endlessly.

Nestle was forced to withdraw its Maggi stocks from all over India
in June following the discovery of lead above acceptable levels in
some samples, and a label that said "No added MSG". While tests of
Maggi noodles sent outside the country to Singapore, Canada and
the US appear to have passed their more stringent food safety
tests, Nestle's real battleground is India, where it is contesting
the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India's (FSSAI's) order
and claims that Maggi can be hazardous to health.

The class action suit, which seeks INR640 crore in damages from
Nestle on behalf of consumers, has two dimensions -- one positive,
and the other negative. The positive one is the message it sends
out about stronger government action on food safety standards. But
this will be credible only if the government follows up the action
against Nestle with similar actions involving other food products.
Also, class action suits have not had a track-record in India; the
suit by the ministry may thus be a shot in the dark.

The negative dimension is the possibility that the government may
have chosen to make its point with the wrong company -- a
multinational that is normally known to follow higher standards
than domestic producers. It can have implications for how foreign
companies view India as a fair and safe place to do business in.
It is possible that the class action suit launched by the consumer
affairs ministry was intended to pressure Nestle to settle the
case out of court so that there is no inordinate delay in the
reintroduction of a suitably relabelled and reformulated Maggi.

The salutary effects of the action against Maggi are already
visible in the area of milk, where the FSSAI and milk cooperatives
have agreed to increase checks and quality standards for milk
delivered. According to this Business Standard report, the FSSAI
and representatives of the National Dairy Development Board (NDDB)
have agreed to implement better quality checks and the government
testing facilities needed to enforce those standards.

This is critical, for the key element in ensuring quality is not
just the care taken by food manufacturers at their end, but the
quality of the testing facilities available with the regulators in
states and the FSSAI. Nestle, for example, has raised doubts about
the accuracy of FSSAI's testing laboratories. Despite failing
tests in some labs in India, Maggi jumped over the hurdles in
Singapore, USA and Canada.

Since it cannot be anyone's claim that India's food safety
standards, regulation and supervision are better than that of the
US, Canada and Singapore, the class action suit seems more like an
effort to push Nestle to compromise in order to spare India's
regulator the blushes in case Nestle gets the courts to lend it a
more sympathetic ear.

However, the negative fallout of trying to pressure Nestle is that
no one outside India will believe that the regulatory process here
is fair and transparent. This will damage the country's efforts to
tell the world that India is a safe place to do business in.

The concurrent agreement reached with the NDDB will also suggest
that when it pleases the regulator and government, deals will be
done in consultation with industry.

Is there a way out for the FSSAI, the government and Nestle? The
only answer is a compromise where Nestle is allowed to restart
production and marketing of Maggi after proper testing and
reformulation of its products, and a simultaneous agreement
between the two on how the products will be inspected and tested
in future, and with what equipment.

The real problem of food safety lies not in India's laws, but in
its inability to create enough testing systems with adequate
manpower to do the job consistently and fairly. It does not have a
regulator who can regulate effectively. As a result, it is the
oddball result -- as in the case of Maggi -- that is seen as a
great achievement.

As this writer has noted before, Indian food is largely unsafe for
human consumption. Toxic food is sold everywhere, from
contaminated milk to fruits and vegetables that bear an overdose
of pesticides, to bhujias and junk food that are simply unhealthy
for all people, leave alone kids.

Nowhere is the problem worse than in the case of milk -- a product
fundamental to Indian children's health, especially those born in
vegetarian families. Many producers and distributors adulterate
milk to increase profits and to make the product look thick. In
Maharashtra, the Food and Drug Administration found that 24
percent of the samples tested in Pune division some time back were
either unsafe or did not conform to the standards set by FS&SAI.
But Indians continue to drink this poison in the name of health.
Some diaries inject hormones or insulin into buffaloes because
this helps make the milk thicker. But insulin also gets into the
milk, which makes it unsafe for women and children. In Andhra
Pradesh, milk samples tested by a private laboratory found traces
of urea, coliform, e-coli and salmonella (many of them harmful
bacteria), but the milk diaries faced no action. Unlike Maggi,
which is being withdrawn at huge cost, how many milk producers
have been ordered to throw their milk away because it is sub-
standard?

And it isn't about milk alone. The New Delhi-based Centre for
Science and Environment found that junk food -- like burgers and
bhujias -- contains high levels of trans-fats (very harmful), salt
and sugar, which could lead to problems like obesity, diabetes and
heart disease.

Most ordinary hotel kitchens are unhygienic, and street food is
often sold next to gutters and garbage in big cities. Branded
Kurkure may be made in hygienic factories, but potato chips and
namkeen are often made inside slums or dirty factories, often with
low-quality ingredients and oil, in order to sell them cheap.
Indians pay a price in terms of health for buying and consuming
"cheap" food.

The short point is this: food and health safety, despite the
existence of standards and regulations, is badly in need of strong
supervision and enforcement of the law.

The states are the real culprits, as food safety has to be
enforced by them. The Maggi problem was discovered by a food
inspector in Barabanki in Uttar Pradesh, but the chances are this
discovery was an accident or an exception. The reason why bad and
unhygienic food goes unchecked is corruption. It is simply too
easy for food manufacturers to bribe inspectors and continue doing
what they are doing: selling poison for profit. For small food
sellers, the cost of complying with the law is simply too high
compared with the ease of paying a bribe.

There are only three ways to combat food adulteration. First, the
public must be educated on this. Second, packaged food makers and
hotels must be sensitised to improve hygiene standards by the use
of better technology and safer ingredients. And third, Indians
simply need many thousands of food inspectors and foolproof
testing equipment of the highest quality to ensure fair and
effective quality standards.

Indians need quality standards in its testing equipment as much as
in their food.


NINE ENERGY: Faces "Webber" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Webber, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Nine Energy Service, Inc., CDK Perforating, LLC d/b/a
Nine Energy Service, and Dak-Tana Wireline, LLC d/b/a Nine Energy
Service, Case No. 4:15-cv-02406 (S.D. Ohio, August 20, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Nine Energy Service, Inc. is an international oil and gas
conglomerate that consists of NSC-Tripoint, CDK Perforating,
Integrated Production Services Canada, Peak Pressure Control, Dak-
Tana Wireline and Crest Pumping Technologies.

CDK Perforating, LLC is an energy company that provides wireline
and tubing conveyed perforating services in Texas, Oklahoma, West
Virginia, Ohio, New York and Pennsylvania and is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Nine Energy.

Dak-Tana Wireline, LLC is a wire-line services company that
provides electric line cased hole logging, pipe recovery and plug
setting services out of North Dakota and Montana and is a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Nine Energy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
      Sonia M. Whitehouse, Esq.
      THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
      920 Rockefeller Building
      614 W. Superior Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 696-5000
      Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
      E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
              sonia@lazzarolawfirm.com

         - and -

      Don J. Foty, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, L.L.P.
      711 W. Alabama Street
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com


PALM SPRINGS: "Billak" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Karen A. Billak and others similarly situated v. Palm Springs
General Hospital, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-23126-DPG (S.D. Fla.,
August 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Palm Springs General Hospital, Inc. owns and operates a hospital
in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eddy O. Marban, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF EDDY O. MARBAN
      1600 Ponce De Leon Boulevard, Suite 902
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Telephone (305) 448-9292
      Facsimile (305) 448-9477
      E-mail: marbanlaw@gmail.com


PANASONIC CORPORATION: Sued Over Linear Resistors-Price Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Microsystems Development Technologies, Inc. on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated v. Panasonic Corporation, et
al., Case No. 5:15-cv-03820 (N.D. Cal., August 20, 2015), arises
from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination,
agreement and conspiracy to inflate, fix, raise, maintain or
artificially stabilize prices of linear resistors sold in the
United Sates.

Panasonic Corporation is a Japanese corporation with its principal
place of business located at 1006 Oaza Kadoma, Kadoma shi, Osaka
571-8501, Japan. Panasonic is one of the world's leading
manufacturers of resistors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
      Steven N. Williams, Esq.
      Demetrius X. Lambrinos, Esq.
      Elizabeth T. Tran, Esq.
      Joyce Chang, Esq.
      COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
      840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
      Burlingame, CA 94010
      Telephone: (650) 697-6000
      Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
      E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
              swilliams@cpmlegal.com
              dlambrinos@cpmlegal.com
              etran@cpmlegal.com
              jchang@cpmlegal.com


PEACE OFFICERS: Sued Over Unlawful Denial of Plan Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------
Riverside Police Officers Association and Torrance Police Officers
Association, on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Peace Officers Research Association of California
Legal Defense Fund, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-01335 (C.D. Cal.,
August 20, 2015), is an action for damages a result of Defendants'
breach of fiduciary duties, by failing and refusing to provide a
rationale for the denial of benefits and failing and refusing to
communicate with Plaintiffs regarding the denial of benefits, the
appeal of such denials, and any limitation of action provision
purportedly provided by the Plan.

Peace Officers Research Association of California Legal Defense
Fund throughout the United States and contracts with over 90% of
California's law enforcement unions to provide third-party payer
service.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward Susolik, Esq.
      Richard T. Collins, Esq.
      CALLAHAN & BLAINE, APLC
      3 Hutton Centre Drive, Ninth Floor
      Santa Ana, CA 92707
      Telephone: (714) 241-4444
      Facsimile: (714) 241-4445
      E-mail: ES@callahan-law.com
              Rcollins@callahan-law.com


PHILADELPHIA: Court Rejects Suit Over Issuance of Arrest Warrant
----------------------------------------------------------------
AARON HOUSTON, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 13-4442 (E.D. Pa.), raised claims for
violation of the plaintiff's constitutional rights pursuant to 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1983 as well as pendant state law claims arising from
Defendants' alleged seizure and retention of his gun. Defendants
were the City of Philadelphia and several officials of the
Philadelphia Police Department: Police Commissioner Charles
Ramsey, Detective Mary Caldwell, Officer Anthony Barbera, and
Officer Carol Austin.  Mr. Houston contended that the warrant was
"fabricated by Det. Caldwell retroactively" without further
explanation of the claim.  Mr. Houston proceeded pro se.

District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe, in the Memorandum Opinion dated
July 20, 2015 available at http://is.gd/xoTHv7from Leagle.com,
granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment on all of Mr.
Houston's federal claims and the Court declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over Mr. Houston's state-law claims. The
Court dismissed Mr. Houston's motion to compel as untimely because
he filed the motion long after the time for fact discovery had
elapsed.

Defendants are represented by Aaron Shotland, Esq., of the City of
Philadelphia Law Department.


PIZZA HUT: Class Action vs. Franchise to Resume on September 18
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Norris, writing for The Maitland Mercury, reported that while
consumers rejoice, the low cost of pizzas is driving Green Hills
and Rutherford Pizza Hut stores to the wall.

The franchise is locked in a fierce price war with Dominos, says
the report.

At $4.95 each, the franchisees lose money on every pizza and Pizza
Hut corporate now faces the wrath of disgruntled chain owners for
setting prices too low.

Rutherford and Green Hills-franchisees Darren MacClure and Ebony
Prescott are among 288 of 298 stores nationwide involved in a
class action that entered its second week in the Federal Court on
Aug 13.

"At that price [$4.95] we're not making any money," Mr. MacClure
said.  "Still, we're better off than a lot of franchisees because
we're not servicing any debt."

Pizza Hut Australia general-manager Graeme Houston would not
comment on the price directive while the matter was in court.

"We are looking forward to finally resolving this matter in court
and moving on so we can focus on our core role of helping our
franchisees build their businesses," he said.  "We are unable to
comment further while the case is before the courts."

Franchisee solicitor Jim Kartounis will argue that Yum Brand's
conduct is unconscionable under the franchising code of conduct.

The court's decision could mean the difference between profit and
loss for the Green Hills and Rutherford stores.

Mr. MacClure worked 17 years at Pizza Hut corporate before he
bought the Green Hills franchise in 2006.  He and Ms Prescott
built the Rutherford store in 2008.

Mr. MacClure said the $4.95 pizza pick-up price was the tip of a
bigger problem between store owners and Pizza Hut corporate, but
would not elaborate because the matter was before court.

"Every time we turn around and try to do something we're blocked,"
he said.

The court will recess and the matter is expected to resume on
September 18.


PLAINS ALL: Sued Over Concealment of Oil Pipeline Failures
----------------------------------------------------------
City of Birmingham Firemen's and Policemen's Supplemental Pension
System, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., Gregory L.
Armstrong, Al Swanson and Chris Herbold, Case No. 4:15-cv-02404
(S.D. Tex., August 20, 2015), asserts that the Defendants misled
investors throughout the Class Period by concealing pervasive and
systemic oil pipeline monitoring and maintenance failures,
inadequate spill response measures, repeated failures to comply
with federal regulations and other misconduct that led to the
largest oil spill in California in 25 years.

Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. is one of the largest crude oil
and other liquid energy pipeline operators in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roger F. Claxton, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF ROGER F. CLAXTON
      10000 N. Central Expressway, Suite 725
      Dallas, TX 75231
      Telephone: (214) 969-9029
      Facsimile: (214) 953-0583
      E-mail: roger@claxtonlaw.com

         - and -

      Joseph E. White III, Esq.
      Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
      SAXENA WHITE P.A.
      5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601
      Boca Raton, FL 33486
      Telephone: (561) 394-3399
      Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
      E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
              lhooker@saxenawhite.com


QRX PHARMA: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") announces the filing of a
class action lawsuit on behalf of investors of QRx Pharma, Ltd.
("QRX" or the "Company") (OTC Ticker: QRXPY; QRXPF), who purchased
shares between January 24, 2011 and April 23, 2014, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). QRX investors have until August 21, 2015 to file
a motion to serve as lead plaintiff in the class action.

The complaint alleges that QRx Pharma issued false and misleading
public statements and omitted material facts concerning the
commercial prospects for its experiment drug Moxduo. Specifically,
the complaint alleges that QRx Pharma failed to disclose to
investors that it received a "no agreement letter" from the Food
and Drug Administration ("FDA") regarding its Moxduo trials and
further misrepresented and concealed other material facts
concerning its attempts to get Moxduo approved. Upon the
disclosure of an FDA memo which denied QRx Pharma's application to
get Moxduo approved, the price of QRx Pharma ADRs plummeted over
83% on April 23, 2014.

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

Casey Sadler, 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


RETROFOAM: $13MM Settlement Reached in Faulty Product Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
CTV Kitchener reported that a class action lawsuit against the
federal government and a Breslau-based distributor of a foam
insulation product has been settled.

In a Windsor courtroom, Justice Terrence Patterson awarded $13
million in damages to the approximately 770 members of the suit.

With $3.9 million earmarked for the law firm that fought the case,
that leaves each individual with a little less than $10,000.

"(The settlement) was hard work," Patterson said in court.

"This was hard-fought, in an honourable way."

RetroFoam of Canada, the Canadian distributor of the RetroFoam
product, was sued in 2009, after Health Canada ordered them to
stop selling the product.

Urea formaldehyde foam insulation products like RetroFoam have
been banned from Canada since 1980, due to the risk they could
release formaldehyde gas.

Nearly 900 homeowners in Ontario had nonetheless installed
RetroFoam, because they were not aware the product was banned.

The lawsuit had been seeking $500 million in compensation.


ROBERT J. POWELL: $4.75MM "Kids-for-Cash" Suit Settlement Gets OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Mark, writing for CitizensVoice.com, reported that the end of
court actions in the kids-for-cash scandal may be near.

A federal judge has approved a $4.75 million settlement in a
class-action lawsuit brought against Robert J. Powell, a key
player in the scandal. Powell co-owned a detention center in which
juveniles were improperly jailed as part of a scheme to enrich him
and others, including former Luzerne County judges Mark A.
Ciavarella Jr. and Michael T. Conahan.

Powell, 56, a former Drums-based lawyer, served an 18-month prison
sentence after admitting he paid more than $700,000 in bribes to
Ciavarella and Conahan to funnel juveniles to his detention
center.

The scheme made national headlines and sent Powell, Ciavarella,
Conahan and local developer Robert Mericle to prison.

Some of the juveniles wrongly jailed, as well as their parents,
filed a class-action lawsuit in 2009, seeking damages. Powell and
the plaintiffs in that suit reached a tentative settlement
agreement in March, pending its approval by a federal judge.

That approval came in a nine-page ruling from Senior Judge Richard
Caputo, of U.S. Middle District Court.

The court filing details how the plaintiffs can collect the money
owed to them. Those details include:

* A claims committee will be formed, to supervise and administer
the processing of claims.

* That committee will mail notice of the settlement to the last
known address of all no later than Aug. 24. Notice will also be
published in The Citizens' Voice and the Times Leader.

* All plaintiffs who want to claim a portion of the settlement
money must submit a proof of claim form by Oct. 5.

* That is also the "opt-out" deadline for plaintiffs who do not
want to be included in the settlement.

* Those who opt out of the settlement and plan to pursue a
separate claim "shall be required to participate in confidential,
non-binding mediation with the Powell defendants."

* The final approval hearing in the case will be held on Dec. 16
at the Max Rosenn United States Courthouse, in Wilkes-Barre.

* The settlement money will be kept in escrow, pending the final
hearing.

The settlement class -- those who qualify for a piece of the
settlement money -- includes all juveniles who appeared before
Ciavarella between Jan. 1, 2003 and May 28, 2008 and were
adjudicated delinquent or "placed," according to the agreement.

It also includes parents of juveniles who were adjudicated
delinquent or placed by Ciavarella, who suffered financial loss or
"any loss of companionship and/or familial integrity" for which
they have not been reimbursed.

Powell pleaded guilty in July 2009 to failing to report a felony
and being an accessory to a crime. He was later sentenced to 18
months in federal prison and was permanently disbarred.


ROPER & TWARDOWSKY: Testimony of Defendants' Experts Inadmissible
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, WILLIAM J. SKEPNEK and STEVEN M. SMOOT,
Plaintiffs, v. ROPER & TWARDOWSKY, LLC and ANGELA ROPER,
Defendants, Case No. 11-CV-4102-DDC-JPO (D. Kan.), District Judge
Daniel D. Crabtree:

     -- granted Paintiffs' Motion to Strike Defendants' expert
designations, strike the expert report of Evan L. Goldman, and
preclude testimony by defendants' witnesses at trial, finding that
the proposed testimony of all three experts is inadmissible under
Federal Rule of Evidence 702;

     -- granted in part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment as
to Plaintiffs' breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty
claims and denies in part as to plaintiffs' quantum meruit claim;

     -- and granted Plaintiffs'  Motion for Summary Judgment.

William J. Skepnek and Steven M. Smoot were attorneys licensed in
Kansas and Texas, respectively. Roper & Twardowsky, LLC (R&T) was
a New Jersey limited liability company located in Totowa, New
Jersey. Defendant Angela Roper was a licensed attorney practicing
and residing in New Jersey.

In late summer or early fall of 2002, several people contacted the
defendants expressing concerns about an agreement they had entered
to settle certain claims against Prudential Life Insurance Company
of America. These people believed that their lawyers in that case,
a firm named Leeds, Morelli & Brown, had taken a $5 million
payment from Prudential which they had concealed from their
clients. R&T eventually filed a lawsuit against Prudential and
Leeds, Morelli & Brown on behalf of these clients (the Prudential
Clients). In the lawsuit, plaintiffs sought to recover a share of
the attorney's fees defendants earned in another lawsuit.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated July 23, 2015, is
available at http://is.gd/4xoTscfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Corlin J. Pratt, Esq.
     Terry L. Unruh, Esq.
     SHERWOOD, HARPER, DAKAN, UNRUH & PRATT LC
     833 N Waco Ave
     Wichita, KS 67203
     Tel: (316)267-1281

Defendants are represented by:

     Kenneth S. Thyne, Esq.
     ROPER & TWARDOWSKY, LLC
     77 Jefferson Pl
     Totowa, NJ 07512
     Tel: (973)790-4441

          - and -

     William M. Modrcin, Esq.
     JOHNSTON, BALLWEG & MODRCIN, LC
     9393 W 110th St #450
     Overland Park, KS 66210
     Tel: (913)491-6900


SEARS ROEBUCK: Illinois Class Certified in Defective Washers Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois plaintiffs Karen Freeman and Peggy Lemley each alleged
that they bought a Kenmore-brand front-loading, high-efficiency
washing machine manufactured by intervenor-defendant Whirlpool
Corp. and sold by defendant Sears, Roebuck and Co., and that the
machine developed serious internal mold problems. In 2011, Judge
Sharon Johnson Coleman in Chicago denied plaintiffs' motion to
certify a class of "purchasers of front loading, high efficiency
washing machines manufactured by Whirlpool and sold by Sears" in
six different States "whose machines suffered from [a] mold
defect."  (Coleman, J.). The Court also denied a motion for
reconsideration.  A lengthy journey through federal appellate
courts followed, culminating in reversal.

After the case returned to the district court, plaintiffs filed an
amended renewed motion for class certification.  Judge Coleman the
denied the motion without prejudice, knowing the parties intended
subsequently to: (1) consent to the jurisdiction of the
undersigned; and then (2) re-submit portions of their earlier-
filed class certification briefs, with necessary amendments.

The plaintiffs' renewed motion is identical to the previous motion
except that the plaintiffs: (a) have substituted two new proposed
class representatives, and (b) seek to certify a class made up of
Illinois plaintiffs only, rather than plaintiffs from six
different states. Similarly, the arguments raised by Sears in
opposition to plaintiffs' pending renewed motion were identical to
those offered in its earlier opposition.

In a Memorandum Opinion and Order dated July 20, 2015 available at
http://bit.ly/1JjgbfVfrom Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge Mary M.
Rowland granted class certification this time around.
Specifically, the Court certified the following liability-only
class of Illinois plaintiffs:

     "All persons who are current residents of Illinois and who
purchased certain models of Whirlpool-Manufactured, Kenmore-Brand
Front-Load Washing Machines for primarily personal, family, or
household purposes, and not for resale, in Illinois."

The Court appointed these law firms as class counsel:

     (1) Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP;
     (2) Carey Danis & Lowe; and
     (3) Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP.

The Court directed the Class Counsel to submit, within 30 days of
the date of the Order, a proposed Plan of Notice, including
methods of service and approximate time for completion of service.

The case is captioned, JOSEPH LEONARD, KEVIN BARNES, VICTOR MATOS,
ALFRED BLAIR, MARTIN CHAMPION, KAREN FREEMAN, and PEGGY LEMLEY,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., Defendant, WHIRLPOOL
CORPORATION, Intervenor Defendant. ALAN JARASHOW, LAUREN CRANE,
and LAWRENCE L'HOMMEDIEU, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO.,
Defendant. JOHN BETTUA, GIUSEPPINA P. DONIA, DERRAL HOWARD, DENISE
MILLER, CHARLES NAPOLI, VIC PFEFER, JEFFREY A. AND SANDRA K.
ROBINSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO., Defendant, Case
No. 06-CV-7023, CONSOLIDATED WITH Case No. 07-CV-0412, 08-CV-1832
(N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiffs are represented by Eric H. Jaso, Esq., at SEEGER WEISS
LLP, Jerome Mayer-Cantu, Esq.; and

     Sarah R. London, Esq.,
     LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
     275 Battery St., 29th St.
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Tel: (800)541-7358

Defendants are represented by Rebecca Weinstein Bacon, Esq. --
rweinstein.bacon@bartlit-beck.com -- Asha L.I. Spencer, Esq. --
asha.spencer@bartlit-beck.com -- Eric Reuel Olson, Esq. --
eric.olson@bartlit-beck.com -- John C. Fitzpatrick, Esq. --
john.fitzpatrick@bartlit-beck.com -- BARTLIT BECK HERMAN PALENCHAR
& SCOTT LLP


SEARS ROEBUCK: Parents Mull Class Suit Over Website Price Error
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Campbell, writing for CJAD News, reported that one
Sherbrooke mom won an unlikely battle against retail giant Sears
this summer, now Sears may face thousands of other parents
demanding the same deal.

Last winter Jessica Charest-Corriveau of Sherbrooke spotted an
incredible deal for a child's play set on the Sears website.

It was advertised for $12.99, a deal seemingly too good to be true
. . . and it was.

The price was an error on Sears' part, the price was supposed to
have been set at $129.99.

The error, that Sears says was an honest mistake, a typo, was not
discovered by Sears employees until after Charest-Corriveau had
made her purchase, and alerted other parents to the incredible
deal online.

Over 25,000 people purchased the playsets.

Considering the set was being sold at a 10th of its price, and so
many orders had been put in, Sears cancelled all orders and
withdrew that playset from sale altogether, which according to the
Consumer Protection Act, is against the law.

"A merchant cannot charge a higher price than the price that was
advertized," says Gary Frost Director of Consumer Services at the
Consumer Protection Office. "This principal applies to all means
and forms of advertising including the website as it was the case
in the Sears situation."

Charest-Corriveau sued Sears and on July 20th a Quebec judge ruled
in her favor, forcing Sears to pay the difference for the playset
for any amount above $12.99.

Another mother Malika Zaid who bought multiple sets for both her
kids and her kids' kindergarten says the ruling encourages her to
demand that Sears honour her purchase as well.

"I'm really happy for that mother," says Zaid. "I'm thinking of
maybe doing a class action [lawsuit]."

Zaid has a group of about 2000 people she's in contact with who
bought the playsets, but thousands more could take Sears to court
in pursuit of the advertised price.


SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Faces Class Suit by Oregon Home-Care Workers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Friedman, writing for Statesman Journal, reported that the
Freedom Foundation, a libertarian think tank based in Washington
state, is opening a branch in Salem and arriving with a running
start.

The organization held a press conference on the Capitol steps,
announcing the filing of a federal class action lawsuit against
the Service Employees International Union Local 503, Oregon's
largest workers union.

The suit, filed Wednesday, names home-care worker Julian Brown, of
Deschutes County, as the plaintiff. Named as defendants are SEIU
Local 503, Gov. Kate Brown, Department of Human Services Director
Erinn Kelley-Siel, Oregon Home Care Commission Executive Director
Cheryl Miller, Department of Administrative Services Director
George Naughton, and DAS Labor Relations Unit Manager Tom Perry.

SEIU Local 503 represents more than 20,000 home-care workers who
provide essential services for seniors and people with
disabilities. Since unionization in 2000, the state's home-care
workers have won pay raises, health care and workers compensation
coverage, according to SEIU.

The Freedom Foundation's general counsel, James Abernathy, said
the suit will focus on two arguments: That the state and SEIU
cannot take union dues from or force membership for home-care
workers who did not consent to union membership, and that SEIU's
exclusivity as the only bargaining agent for home-care workers is
illegal.

"What we're saying is we believe it violated workers' First
Amendment rights of free association and to petition the
government when a state forces somebody to be represented in this
context by a private organization that would represent them on
these matters of public concern," Abernathy said.

Heather Conroy, SEIU Local 503's executive director, couldn't
disagree more.

"This is, in my opinion, a very cookie-cutter approach that they
are picking up from organizations like the National Right to Work
Legal Defense Foundation and, really, the Scott Walker/Wisconsin-
style attack on working people, and trying to bring it into
Oregon," Conroy said.

She said SEIU does not force home-care workers to join or pay for
union membership without signing up. Following the Supreme Court's
2014 Harris v. Quinn decision -- which was decided 5-4 and
declared "fair share" provisions which deduct union fees for home-
care workers unconstitutional -- home-care workers can opt not to
join or pay for union membership and still receive benefits
resulting from union bargaining contracts.

"And we're obligated to enforce the contracts on their behalf,"
Conroy said of home-care workers who opt out of union membership.

Scott Roberts, the freedom in action director for the Freedom
Foundation, said the organization's goal is to educate workers
about their rights and unionization options.

"The unions have enjoyed a monopoly for forced unionization, and
nobody likes that," he said.

Local 503 member and home-care worker Penny Wicklander, 69, lives
in Pendleton and has worked most of her life in service.
Wicklander said that not only was she not forced to join the
union, but she enjoys being a paying member because it feels good
to participate.

"We don't want to fight with them," she said of the Freedom
Foundation. "We just want to be able to take care of our people."

When asked about post-Harris v. Quinn policies barring mandatory
deduction of fair-share provisions, Roberts said: "The unions
continue to take automatic deductions by the force of the state
out of these peoples' medicare and medicaid reimbursements, except
for people that explicitly tell them that they want out of the
union."

Conroy disputes this.

"That is categorically incorrect," Conroy said. She said the proof
is a matter of looking at the collective bargaining contracts: The
home-care contract doesn't have fair-share provisions. The state
workers' contract does, because those provisions are still legal.

"Not only did we stop it, we stripped those provisions out of our
bargaining agreement because they're obsolete," Conroy said. "It's
literally no longer there."

The Freedom Foundation is a nonprofit think tank based in Olympia,
Washingon, where it is "working to reverse the stranglehold
public-sector unions have on our government," according to its
website. Since 2012, the group has received $465,000 in grants
from the M.J. Murdoch Charitable Trust, which holds more than $1
billion in assets and funds programs for the arts, sciences and
education as well as groups promoting conservative economics,
anti-abortion policies and prayer in school.


SILVERLEAF RESORTS: Court Compels Arbitration in "Iappini" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. asked the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri to compel arbitrations and dismiss,
without prejudice, or alternatively to stay a purported class
action lawsuit pending arbitration.

Robert and Lilly Iappini brought suit individually and on behalf
of a purported class of consumers who purchased time-share units
located in Missouri from Silverleaf after January 1, 2010. The
written contracts between Plaintiffs and Silverleaf include an
Arbitration Addendum governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)
requiring all claims to be arbitrated on an individual basis.

Plaintiffs alleged that Silverleaf used deceptive and misleading
tactics to induce them to purchase timeshare units and that they
attempted but were unable to timely cancel their time-share
purchases because Silverleaf "clogged" their right to cancel by
not answering their phones during the contractual cancellation
period. Plaintiffs sought damages under the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act (MMPA) as well as the rescission of their time-share
contracts.

Silverleaf moved to compel individual arbitration of all of
Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, arguing that:

     1) the class action waiver was ambiguous,

     2) the class action waiver was unenforceable because it was
substantively and procedurally unconscionable, and

     3) Plaintiff's claims fell under the FAA's savings clause and
should not be subject to arbitration.

District Judge Rodney W. Sippel, in a Memorandum and Order dated
July 20, 2015 available at http://is.gd/Eigwxufrom Leagle.com,
granted Silverleaf's motion to compel arbitrations and dismiss
litigation without prejudice finding the arbitration addendum
binding, enforceable, and unambiguous.

The case is, ROBERT IAPPINI, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SILVERLEAF
RESORTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:15 CV 695 RWS (E.D. Mo.).

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Eric F. Kayira, Esq.
     KAYIRA LAW, LLC
     200 South Hanley, Suite 208
     Clayton, MO 63105
     Tel: (314) 899-9378

Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. is represented by Andrew P. Speicher,
Esq. -- Andrew.speciher@figdav.com -- Timothy A. Daniels, Esq. --
tim.daniels@figdav.com -- FIGARI AND DAVENPORT, L.L.P.,  Charles
W. Hatfield, Esq. -- chuck.hatfield@stinsonleonard.com -- and John
W. Moticka, Esq. -- john.moticka@stinsonleonard.com -- STINSON AND
LEONARD LLP


SILVER WHEATON: Vincent Wong Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Central District of
California on behalf of investors who purchased Silver Wheaton
Corp. (NYSE:SLW) securities between March 31, 2011 and July 6,
2015.

Click here to learn about the case: http://docs.wongesq.com/SLW-
Info-Request-Form-849 There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Silver Wheaton's financial statements contained
errors concerning income tax owed from the income generated by its
foreign subsidiaries; (2) Silver Wheaton lacked adequate internal
controls over its financial reporting; and (3) as a result of the
foregoing, Silver Wheaton's financial statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.

If you suffered a loss in Silver Wheaton you have until September
8, 2015 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.
Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you
serve as a lead plaintiff. 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/SLW-
Info-Request-Form-849.

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/


SILVER WHEATON: September 8 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Silver Wheaton
Corp. ("Silver Wheaton" or the "Company") SLW, -1.02% securities
during the period between March 30, 2011 and July 6, 2015,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors who wish to become
proactively involved in the litigation have until September 8,
2015 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff.

If you have suffered a loss from investment in Silver Wheaton
securities purchased on or after March 30, 2011 and held through
the revelation of negative information during and/or at the end of
the Class Period, as described below, and would like to learn more
about this lawsuit and your ability to participate as a lead
plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you, please visit our
website at http://www.browerpiven.com/currentsecuritiescases.html.
You may also request more information by contacting Brower Piven
either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at
(410) 415-6616. No class has yet been certified in the above
action. Members of the Class will be represented by the lead
plaintiff and counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the Class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court. The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the Class in the action. The lead plaintiff will be
selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in Company securities during the Class Period. Brower
Pivenalso encourages anyone with information regarding the
Company's conduct during the period in question to contact the
firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and
others.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that the Company's
financial statements contained errors concerning income tax owed
from the income generated by its foreign subsidiaries. According
to the complaint, following the Company's July 6, 2015
announcement that it would be audited by the Canada Revenue Agency
to reassess its earnings from foreign subsidiaries and that the
Company expects to pay approximately $150 million in taxes and
another $57 million in penalties after the Agency has estimated
that the Company's reported income from its foreign subsidiaries
should have been $567 million higher for fiscal years 2005 through
2010, the value of Silver Wheaton shares declined significantly.

Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating
securities and other class action cases and have been advocating
for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s. If you choose to
retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your
choice. You need take no action at this time to be a member of the
class.

Charles J. Piven,Esq.
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
1925 Old Valley Road Stevenson, MD 21153
410-415-6616
hoffman@browerpiven.com


SITE 25: Faces "Li" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kwong Wai Li, Wang Cao, Qing Jia Zhuo, Shixiong Hu, Jieqing Lin,
Santiago Ceballos Natalio, and Yong Fang Ke, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situate v. Site 25 Restaurant
Concepts, LLC d/b/a Wei West Restaurant, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-
06619 (S.D.N.Y., August 20, 2014), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Site 25 Restaurant Concepts, LLC owns and operates Wei West
Restaurant located at 235 Murray Street, New York, New York 10282.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Benjamin B. Xue, Esq.
      Bradley L. Wilson, Esq.
      Robert L. Isabella, Esq.
      XUE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      1001 Avenue of the Americas, 11th Floor
      New York, NY 10018
      Telephone: (212) 219-2275
      E-mail: benjaminxue@xuelaw.com
              bradwilson@xuelaw.com
              robertisabella@xuelaw.com


SOCIETE DE TRANSPORT: Settles Class Suit Thru Fare Rebate
---------------------------------------------------------
Montreal Gazette reported that an out-of-court settlement of a
class-action lawsuit against the Societe de transport de Montreal
means users who buy monthly passes will save some money on their
September passes.

The class-action lawsuit was in relation to a strike at the STM in
May 2007.

The settlement means all STM clients will get a rebate of $2.25 on
a monthly pass at regular fare, and $1.25 for reduced fare passes
for September.

The reduction is applicable to all STM users, whether or not they
took public transit in 2007. The September passes go on sale Aug.
20.


SOLEDAD UNIFIED: Students Get $190K Class Suit Deal
---------------------------------------------------
Monterey Superior Court Judge Robert O'Farrell approved a class
action settlement in which the Soledad Unified School District
agreed to refund 16 students their tuition paid plus interest for
the failed vocational nursing program operated by the Soledad
Adult School.

Catalina Zendejas filed a class action on behalf of herself and 15
other vocational LVN nursing school students when the Soledad
Adult School lost its accreditation from the State of California
Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians on May 11,
2012 for the failure to retain a Program Director.  The SUSD
refused to voluntarily refund the tuition and forced the students
to file a lawsuit resulting in the time and expense of almost 3
years of unnecessary litigation in order to compel the SUSD to
refund the tuition.

Class Counsel John L. Fallat states that "(t)he opportunity to
obtain an education to better one's life is something Americans
hold dear to their hearts, and when young women are misled not
just by a vocational school but one operated by a public school
district, it is an absolute disgrace that cannot be repeated,
anywhere, anytime.  While we appreciate the SUSD finally stepping-
up and refunding the tuition, this never should have happened and
the refunds should have been tendered a long, long time ago."

The case is Zendejas v. Soledad Unified School District Monterey
Superior Court Case #M122625.

   John L. Fallat
   Tel:  (415) 457-3773
   E-mail: jfallat@fallat.com


STANCORP FINANCIAL: Andrews & Springer Disclose Stockholders 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. SFG, -
0.18% ("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. This notice may constitute
Attorney Advertising.

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


STRUCTURAL PRESERVATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ruben Alvarez v. Structural Preservation Systems, LLC, Case No.
1:15-cv-07292 (N.D. Ill., August 20, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Structural Preservation Systems, LLC owns and operates a specialty
repair contracting company that provides structural repair,
strengthening, waterproofing and protection, building
envelope/facade repair, and geotechnical services for both
historic and contemporary structures throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Terry Heady, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF TERRY HEADY
      54 West Downer Pl, Suite 106
      Aurora, IL 60506
      Telephone: (630) 892-8109
      Facsimile: (630) 216-6186
      E-mail: Terry@headylaw.com


SYSCO CORPORATION: Faces "Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Cosmo Lopez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Sysco
Corporation, Sysco San Francisco, Inc., and Does 1-100, Case No.
RG15782744 (D. Cal., August 20, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
California Labor Code.

The Defendants are engaged in the ownership and operation of
industrial vehicles and industrial work sites located within
Alameda County, and throughout the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Turley, Esq.
      David Mara, Esq.
      THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC
      7428 Trade Street
      San Diego, CA 92121
      Telephone: (619) 234-2833
      Facsimile: (619) 234-4048
      E-mail: bturley@turleylawfirm.com
              dmara@turleylawfirm.com


TD BANK: Court Dismisses MZL Suit Over Forex Rates
--------------------------------------------------
District Judge Renee Marie Bumb of the United States District
Court for District of New Jersey granted Defendant's motion to
dismiss with leave to amend in the case captioned, MZL CAPITAL
HOLDINGS, INC., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. TD BANK, N.A. and UNIDENTIFIED ENTITIES
(A-Z), Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-05771(RMB/AMD)(D.N.J.).

The Plaintiff, however, is granted leave to file an amended
complaint.

MZL, a New York entity, holds a commercial checking account with
TD Bank, a New Jersey corporation. Many TD Bank commercial
business customers engage in international transactions involving
the sending or receipt of wired currency from other countries. The
parties' relationship is governed by the Business Deposit Account
Agreement which states with respect to such transactions: "Items
sent for collection will be credited to your Account in U.S.
dollars, with the amount of U.S. dollars credited calculated using
our applicable exchange rate that is in effect on the date when we
credit the funds to your Account."

According to Plaintiff, on or about January 29, 2014, MZL received
a wire transfer from London, England in the amount of GBP70,000.
The amount credited to Plaintiff's account was $93,282.  Defendant
sent a notice, which referenced what appeared to be an exchange
rate of 1.3355.  However, Plaintiff contends that the exchange
rate appearing in the Wall Street Journal for January 30, 2014 was
1.3664.

Plaintiff brings a putative class action on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated alleging that TD Bank fails to
disclose to its customers a fee that it charges for the conversion
of foreign currency and misleads the customer by concealing this
charge. Plaintiff's Complaint sets forth several counts: (1) a
violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act ("NJCFA"); (2)
unjust enrichment; (3) violation of Regulation E, 12 C.F.R. Sec.
205.10(b) and the Electronic Fund Transfers Act ("EFTA"), 15
U.S.C. Sec. 1693, et seq.; (4) breach of contract; and (5)
violation of 48 other states' (and the District of Columbia's)
consumer protection laws.

Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the alleged unlawful practices and acts
of Defendant, recover Plaintiff's actual damages, treble damages
and attorney's fees.

A copy of the Court's Opinion dated August 18, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/mb9IcEfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs are represented by Bruce H. Nagel, Esq. -
bnagel@nagelrice.com & Andrew I. Pepper, Esq. -
apepper@nagelrice.com -- NAGEL RICE, LLP

Defendant is represented by James S. Richter, Esq. -
jrichter@winston.com & Jeffrey P. Catenacci, Esq. -
jcatenacci@winston.com -- WINSTON & STRAWN LLP


TRINET GROUP: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
CNN Money reported that on August 7, 2015, a class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against TriNet Group, Inc. (NYSE: TNET).
The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material or false misrepresentations to the market which had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price during the Class
Period, which is May 5, 2014 through August 3, 2015.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all TriNet Group,
Inc. shareholders who purchased common stock during the Class
Period and are therefore a member of the Class as described above.
You may move the Court no later than, October 6, 2015 to serve as
a lead plaintiff for the entire Class. However, in order to do so,
you must meet certain legal requirements pursuant to the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.


TRINET GROUP: October 6 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, the former
Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind
investors that they have until October 6, 2015 to file lead
plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit
against TriNet Group, Inc. (NYSE:TNET) if they purchased the
Company's securities between May 5, 2014 and August 3, 2015,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of TriNet and would like to discuss your
legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to
recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or
cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or email KSF
Managing Partner Lewis Kahn (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com). If you
wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must
petition the Court by October 6, 2015.

About the Lawsuit

TriNet and certain of its executives are charged with failing to
disclose material information during the Class Period, violating
federal securities laws.

These false statements and omissions included, in part, that: (i)
TriNet's processes and methodologies for analyzing and accruing
claims did not properly account for the trends of historical
claims; (ii) TriNet's forecasting process did not properly
incorporate the trends of relevant historical and current claims;
and (iii) TriNet experienced growing claims trends in medical and
workers compensation that had a negative impact on its current and
future business prospects.

               About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

To learn more about KSF, whose partners include the Former
Louisiana Attorney General, Charles C. Foti, Jr., and other
lawyers with significant experience litigating complex securities
class actions nationwide on behalf of both institutional and
individual shareholders, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com.

Lewis Kahn, Esq.
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC
206 Covington St.Madisonville, LA 70447
1-877-515-1850
lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com


UCLA HEALTH: McCuneWright Files Private Data Breach Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
McCuneWright, LLP has filed a class action complaint against UCLA
Health System, UCLA Medical Sciences, and The Regents of the
University of California, for responsibility regarding compromised
private data that may have affected as many as 4.5 million
patients.

Richard McCune, partner of the Inland Empire's premier complex
litigation firm, McCuneWright, LLP, and a national spokesperson on
legal issues concerning consumers, said, "UCLA had the
responsibility to take the steps necessary to protect their
patients' sensitive information and comply with HIPAA guidelines.
It's not clear why a university of UCLA's size and notoriety would
not do more to secure their patients' most private information."

The complaint was filed July 29 in Los Angeles County Superior
Court on behalf of Miguel Ortiz and "all others similarly
situated." It alleges that "personally identifiable information
(PII) and other highly sensitive information was stolen," that the
"Defendants knew that the information was a likely target for
attack by cyber criminals" -- given UCLA's own history of being
hacked less than a decade ago and other highly publicized recent
massive data breaches -- and that, despite this fact, the
defendants failed to take even basic protective steps such as data
encryption.

According to UCLA, it is possible that these patients had their
names, Social Security numbers, date of birth, health plan
identification numbers, and specific financial and medical
information compromised in the security breach of the Health
System's computer network, which was announced to the public July
17.

UCLA admitted the hospital detected unusual activity on one of its
computer servers as early as October 2014 and, with the FBI, began
its investigation then. On May 5, according to UCLA, investigators
determined that hackers had accessed parts of the network holding
patient information. The complaint notes that patients were not
notified in timely fashion after discovery of the breach, and that
the Defendants' acts and omissions violate the Customer Records
Act, Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, and invasion of
privacy.

Richard McCune is available to talk with reporters about the case
and how it could affect not just the 4.5 million patients directly
involved but privacy issues and the behavior of corporations and
health organizations going forward.

McCuneWright, LLP has long been involved in advocating on behalf
of Southern California consumers and holding large organizations
accountable for their products and business practices.  The firm
is involved in a number of lawsuits dealing with privacy issues,
including filing a lawsuit against Intuit, Inc., after
cybercriminals breached security in its TurboTax software product.

Additional information regarding the UCLA case, including a copy
of the class action complaint, is available at
www.mccunewright.com

Jack Boren, Esq.
McCuneWright, LLP
2068 Orange Tree Ln, Redlands, CA 92374
Phone:+1 909-557-1250
www.mccunewright.com


UNITED STATES: IRS Faces "Welborn" Suit Over Alleged Cyber-Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Becky Welborn and Wendy Windrich, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Internal Revenue Service, John
Koskinen and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 1:15-cv-
01352-RMC (D. Col., August 20, 2015), arises out of the cyber-
breach of IRS's systems that resulted in cyber-criminals stealing
the identity and financial information from approximately 330,000
taxpayers.

Internal Revenue Service is an administrative agency of the United
States Government headquartered at 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW,
Washington, DC 20224.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven W. Teppler, Esq.
      ABBOTT LAW GROUP, P.A.
      2929 Plummer Cove Road
      Jacksonville, FL 32223
      Telephone: (904) 292-1111
      Facsimile: (904) 292-1220
      E-mail: steppler@abbottlawpa.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Joel R. Rhine, Esq.
      RHINE LAW FIRM, P.C.
      1612 Military Cutoff Road, Ste. 300
      Wilmington, NC 28403
      Telephone: (910) 777-7651
      Facsimile: (910) 772-9062
      E-mail: jrr@rhinelawfirm.com


UNITED STATES: Faces Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae Stockholders' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Jacobs and Gary Hindes, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, and derivatively on behalf of the
Federal National Mortgage Association and Federal Home Loan
Mortgage Corporation, v. The Federal Housing Finance Agency, in
its capacity as Conservator of the Federal National Mortgage
Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, and
The United States Department of The Treasury, and The Federal
National Mortgage Association and The Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation, Case 1:15-cv-00708-UNA (D.Del., Aug. 17, 2015), was
brought by Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and several classes
of holders of preferred and common stock issued by either the
Federal National Mortgage Association or the Federal Home Loan
Mortgage.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Myron T. Steele, Esq.
     Michael A. Pittenger, Esq.
     Christopher N. Kelly, Esq.
     POTTER ANDERSON & CORROON LLP
     Hercules Plaza
     1313 North Market Street, 6th Floor
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Tel: (302) 984-6000
     E-mail: msteele@potteranderson.com
             mpittenger@potteranderson.com
             ckelly@potteranderson.com


VIVENDI: Wins $57MM Class Suit Over Investors Claim
---------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reported that the French
media company Vivendi proved that it is possible to rebut the
infamous presumption in securities class actions that investors
relied on market-distorting corporate misrepresentations.

U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin of Manhattan granted
Vivendi's motion for summary judgment against claims by the
institutional investor Southeastern Asset Management, or SAM,
concluding that the evidence -- including a five-hour deposition
of the analyst who oversaw SAM's Vivendi stake -- showed SAM did
not make investment decisions based on Vivendi's supposedly
fraudulent statements.

That's quite a win for Vivendi and its lawyers at Weil Gotshal &
Manges. Vivendi was found liable to a class of investors back in
2010, after a rare securities class action trial. Last December,
Judge Scheindlin entered a partial final judgment against the
company, awarding investors about $50 million in damages and
interest. But Vivendi retained the right to challenge claims by
some big investors. SAM was the biggest of them. It held more than
45 percent of Vivendi's American Depository Receipts during part
of the alleged fraud. If Vivendi had lost summary judgment, it
would have been on the hook for $57 million in damages -- more
than it owes the rest of the investor class.

Judge Scheindlin had previously ruled for Vivendi in an individual
fraud suit the Gabelli Funds brought after the class won the jury
verdict on liability. The judge held in that case that Vivendi
successfully established the Gabelli Funds did not make investment
decisions based on its supposed misstatements.

But that 2013 decision occurred before the U.S. Supreme Court's
2014 opinion in Halliburton v. Erica P. John Fund, which changed
Scheindlin's analysis a bit. The class, represented by Abbey
Spanier, argued in its motion for summary judgment on SAM's
investment that the justices in Halliburton reinforced the idea,
first codified in 1988's Basic v. Levinson, that fraud distorts
the market price of shares. So according to the class, investors
that use price-to-value ratios to evaluate their holdings, as SAM
did, inevitably rely, even if indirectly, on fraudulent
statements.

Judge Scheindlin agreed that Halliburton's discussion in dicta of
"value investors" might seem, in isolation, to back the class's
argument. She pointed out, however, that Halliburton and its
predecessor, Basic, addressed reliance only in the context of
class certification. "There is a key difference between relying on
the market price of a stock -- in the way SAM does in calculating
PVR -- and relying on the integrity of the market price in trading
that stock," she wrote. "The very premise of the Basic presumption
is that not all investors rely on the integrity of the market
price . . . Successfully navigating the choppy waters of class
certification on a sturdy ship named Basic does not guarantee safe
passage for the rest of the journey."

SAM's own analyst testified that the market price of Vivendi's
shares wasn't an important consideration for him, the judge wrote.
The analyst said that even if he had known the corporation was
misleading investors about its liquidity, it wouldn't have
mattered, and that he did not believe he had been misled about
Vivendi's debt. Those facts, Scheindlin said, were enough for
Vivendi to rebut the presumption that SAM relied on corporate
misrepresentations.

The judge said her ruling in this case doesn't mean that
sophisticated investors with their own pricing strategies cannot
recover losses from securities fraud defendants. "It is easy to
imagine a situation in which an institutional investor is
legitimately duped by a fraud and loses a substantial sum of money
as a result," she said. "These simply are not the facts here."

Scheindlin did reject Vivendi's attempt to limit SAM's potential
damages by arguing that the investment manager ended up holding
its Vivendi shares for more than five years and eventually made a
killing on its investment. The judge said that although the law
isn't entirely clear, damages should be based on the mean trading
price during 90 day "bounce-back" period after the last corrective
disclosure, as the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
anticipates. If the mean trading price during the 90-day bounce-
back is less than the inflated price investors paid before the
fraud was revealed, shareholders can recover damages, she ruled.

Vivendi counsel James Quinn of Weil said in an email that the
company may bring similar summary judgment motions against two
other institutional investors but SAM was "by far the biggest
claimant." Lead class counsel Arthur Abbey didn't respond to my
email request for comment.


WELLS FARGO: Faces "Caldera" Suit in Cal. Over Robocalls
--------------------------------------------------------
Lucy Caldera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Case No. 2:15-
cv-06383 (C.D. Cal., August 20, 2015), seeks to put an end on the
Defendant's practice of making calls to the Class members using
any automatic telephone dialing system or any artificial or
prerecorded voice to any telephone number assigned to a cellular
telephone service.

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association is a company involved in
auto finance lending.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WESTERN AUSTRALIA: 2014 Bushfire Victims File Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Lucy Martin, writing for ABC News, reported that in Western
Australia, more than 100 people have joined forces to sue the
State Government over a bushfire that destroyed dozens of homes in
2014.

They say the fire, in the outer Perth suburbs of Parkerville and
Stoneville, could have been prevented.

The fire started with a fallen power pole on private property.

The lawsuit says it wouldn't have happened if the state-owned
utility Western Power had replaced the rotten pole.

But Western Power insists that fixing private poles is not its
responsibility.

It's been a year and a half since the Perth hills communities of
Stoneville and Parkerville were devastated by a bushfire.

The blaze destroyed 57 properties and damaged many more.

Greg Jones is the chairman of the Stoneville and Parkerville
Progress Association.

He says some residents are still struggling.

There's still a lot of people who have not yet settled with their
insurance company, there are people that have started rebuilding,
there are some people who can't afford to rebuild.

Now I'm aware of a number of marriages that have broken up, people
who have had to sell their property when they didn't want to,
they've had to move elsewhere, and it really turned their lives
upside down.

The bushfire began when a wooden power pole on private property
fell over and ignited dry grass.

Residents say the pole should have been replaced long before it
fell.

One hundred and forty of them have launched a class action against
the state government-owned utility Western Power and its
contractor Thiess.

Kevin Banks-Smith is a lawyer with the firm handling the case,
Slater and Gordon.

In a nutshell what happened was power continued to be put through
a pole which, subsequent to it falling over, inquires revealed to
be full of rot and termites. In other words, the pole was simply
waiting to fall over.

After a lengthy investigation, the WA watchdog EnergySafety found
Western Power did not contribute to the blaze. It also found the
responsibility for maintaining the power pole lay with the
property owner, not the utility.

Mr Banks-Smith says the class action seeks to challenge that.
It is a contradiction. On the one hand, they try and say the pole
was no responsibility of theirs, but on the other hand we know
that their own representatives attended the pole, reviewed the
pole and passed the pole as fit to remain in service.

Our contention will be that this pole is what we call the point of
supply and under WA law the point of supply is the obligation of
Western Power.

Western Power is confident it has no case to answer.

Dave Fyfe is the utility's executive manager of asset operations.
Western Power has a responsibility and accountability for those
components that sit on Western Power's network. In this instance,
it wasn't a part of Western Power's network and it was on private
property.

The EnergySafety investigation was a thorough investigation and it
did conclude that the work that was completed some six or seven
months prior did not contribute to the event, so we're happy to
defend on that basis.

EnergySafety also ruled out legal action against the elderly owner
of the property because she wasn't legally obliged to maintain the
pole.

But the case has renewed a long-running debate around who should
look after private power poles.

It's estimated there could be up to 250,000 of them across WA, but
no central record of where they're located or how old they are.

Greg Jones is calling on the Government to introduce a compulsory
inspection scheme.

The scheme we put forward was that it would be done by authorities
such as Western Power or Horizon Power or their appointed agents,
and that would be done when they're inspecting their own
infrastructure and that could be back charged to the property
owner on a fee-per-pole basis.

So we believe we came up with a very good scheme that is cost
effective, could be done by experts, but as yet the Government has
done nothing about it.

Slater and Gordon lawyer Kevin Banks-Smith says the total damages
claim could reach tens of millions of dollars and he expects more
residents to join the class action.

Mr Jones is hoping the case will provide some closure.

I think everybody wants to know why their lives changed, why their
lives turned upside down and they want to see something put in
place that prevents this from happening again.

Contracting company Thiess did not respond to a request for
comment.


WHOLE FOODS: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Fraud Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP announces that a
securities fraud class action complaint was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint
alleges that officers and directors of Whole Foods Market, Inc.
(NASDAQGS: WFM) violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
between August 9, 2013 and July 30, 2015, by making materially
false and misleading statements about Whole Foods' business
prospects. Whole Foods operates as a retailer of natural and
organic foods.

View this information on the law firm's Shareholder Rights Blog:
http://is.gd/LUsKJG

Whole Foods Overcharges its Customers

According to the complaint, Whole Foods officials failed to
disclose that the company routinely overstated the weight of its
pre-packaged products and overcharged customers. As a result,
Whole Foods deceived the investing public and caused the market
price of the company's securities to be artificially inflated. On
June 25, 2015, the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs
("NYCDA") announced it had uncovered systematic overcharging for
pre-packaged foods at Whole Foods' eight New York City locations.
In response, Whole Foods stated that there was no evidence of
overcharging and that it would vigorously defend itself against
what it described as "overreaching allegations" by NYCDA.

Then, on July 29, 2015, the company filed its Form 8-K, announcing
its financial and operating results for the quarter ended July 5,
2015. Whole Foods also hosted an earnings call to discuss its
financial results, during which it attributed its lower-than-
expected quarterly results to news that the company had
overcharged its customers. Glenda Flanagan, the company's Chief
Financial Officer and Executive Vice President stated, "The impact
was really felt across the whole country, not in New York City.
This was national news." On this adverse news, Whole Foods' common
stock fell $4.74 per share, or 11.61%, to close at $36.08 on July
30, 2015.

Whole Foods Shareholders Have Legal Options

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

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

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


WW GRAINGER: Faces "Mobility Impaired" Persons' Suit in Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
Dwain Lammey, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. W. W. Grainger, Inc., Case No. RG15782784 9 (D. Cal.,
August 20, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the mobility
impaired and wheelchair-bound persons located in California who
have patronized Grainger stores, who have been, or who were,
denied the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,
programs, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of
any of the Grainger stores.

W. W. Grainger, Inc. operates as a distributor of maintenance,
repair, and operating (MRO) supplies and other related products
and services that are used by businesses and institutions
primarily in the United States and Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Evan J. Smith, Esq.
      BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
      9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 534-2590
      Facsimile: (310) 247-0160
      E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


YAHOO: Appeals Court Allows Email Privacy Class Suit to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Travis, writing for Media Post, reported that in a defeat
for Yahoo, a federal appeals court has paved the way for a group
of consumers to proceed with a class-action privacy lawsuit over
the company's email scanning practices.

Two judges of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected Yahoo's
request to appeal a decision issued in May by U.S. District Court
Judge Lucy Koh in the Northern District of California, who granted
the consumers class-action status.

Shortly after Koh issued the ruling, Yahoo asked the 9th Circuit
for permission to immediately appeal. The company argued that the
consumers aren't entitled to class-action treatment because the
key issue in the privacy dispute -- whether people consented to
Yahoo's email scans -- will require individualized assessments.

The appellate judges didn't state why they denied Yahoo's request
for an immediate appeal.

The battle between litigation dates to 2013, when a group of
consumers alleged that Yahoo violates email users' privacy by
scanning their messages in order to surround them with ads. They
say that Yahoo violated the federal wiretap law and a California
privacy law by allegedly intercepting messages without the consent
of both the sender and recipient.

Yahoo's terms of service provide that the company analyzes email
in order to display ads, but the people who are suing didn't have
Yahoo email accounts and say they never explicitly agreed to the
company's terms of service.

Yahoo asked Koh to reject the request for class-action treatment
on the ground that questions about users' consent need to be
decided individually. But Koh said in her decision that the
consumers raised the kinds of "common" questions that don't
require separate determinations for every affected Web user.

Koh previously came to the opposite conclusion in a lawsuit
involving Gmail. In that matter, a group of Web users argued that
Google violated privacy laws by scanning messages in order to
surround them with ads.

Koh ruled in the Gmail dispute that the consumers could proceed
with their allegations, but refused to allow them to do so in a
class-action. Instead, she said they could only proceed as
individuals. The users settled their dispute with Google soon
after that decision.


* Optimizing Damages Adjustments In Securities Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine J. Galley, Erin E. McGlogan and Daniel J. Tyukody,
writing for Law360, reported that because most securities class
actions settle, the statutory limitations on damages that
plaintiffs are allowed to recover following a favorable verdict
are often overlooked. Those limitations, however, can be
surprisingly large, and understanding them can improve defendants'
negotiating position in the vast majority of cases that actually
settle.

There are two statutory limitations on damages found in the 1934
Securities Exchange Act: (1) Section 28(a)'s "actual damages"
limitation and (2) Section 21D(e)(1), commonly called the "90-day
bounce-back" rule, which was added as part of the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act's amendments and which limits
plaintiffs to a form of nominal losses.

Why Do Damages Get Adjusted?

A broad principle that applies to all damages awards in Rule 10b-5
cases is Section 28(a)'s requirement that no person "recover . . .
a total amount in excess of [that person's] actual damages."  The
statute does not define "actual damages," however, and courts have
employed different methodologies in limiting plaintiffs'
recoveries.

Any adjustments necessary to conform damages awards to those
statutory damages limitations are applied as funds are
administered to class members following settlement or, more
rarely, a verdict. In order to better understand the adjustment
methods commonly used, the authors reviewed 65 settlement
allocation plans from 2012 and 2013, as well as two cases that
produced jury verdicts for plaintiffs; in those cases (Vivendi and
Household)[1] court orders defining the terms of their judgments
were reviewed, including the application of statutory offsets.

In addition, the application of the 90-day bounce-back rule in
settlements and following verdicts was reviewed. That rule is
really a form of a nominal loss cap that by statute is expressly
applied to so-called "retention damages" (i.e., damages awarded
for class period purchases that are retained through the end of
the class period), and as a matter of practice, is typically
applied in settlements to "in-and-out damages" for shares
purchased and sold during the class period.

How Do Damages Get Adjusted?

Statutory damages limitations manifest themselves in three basic
ways in settlements and verdicts, and there is surprising
inconsistency in how they are applied between and among
settlements and verdicts.

The first and perhaps most obvious type of adjustment prevents
plaintiffs from benefiting financially from the very same
misrepresentations or omissions that caused their alleged harm.
Say a plaintiff purchased a share of stock before the class
period, when inflation was zero (i.e., before a company
misrepresentation or omission had artificially inflated the stock
price), and then sold that share during the class period, when the
fraudulent statements had inflated the stock's price by $10 per
share. That "undeserved" $10 gain logically should offset that
same plaintiff's losses caused by subsequent purchases of inflated
shares during the class period. This principle was applied in both
Vivendi and Household, but it was not used in any of the 65
settlements reviewed. This probably is owing to the fact that as a
condition of settlement, defendants agree not to interfere with
settlement administration, and plaintiffs' counsel may not feel it
is their job to deny "windfalls" to class members. But it's a
zero-sum game in fixed-amount settlements (which is the only way
securities cases settle), so in this respect one claimant's gain
is another one's loss.

The second method of adjustment is perhaps less intuitive. It
offsets an investor's damages with her aggregate nominal gains
(i.e., the sales price less purchase price). Thus, if a plaintiff
bought a share of stock during the class period at $40 (while
inflation was $10 per share), and it rose for nonfraudulent
reasons during the class period to $45, at which point the
plaintiff sold (with inflation still at $10), then the plaintiff's
damages for any subsequent class period purchase would be offset
by her noninflationary nominal gain of $5. This method was not
referenced in either the Household or Vivendi judgments, but was
observed in 57 percent of the 65 settlements analyzed.

The third method of limiting damages is a nominal loss cap on per-
share damages. This cap is consistent with the Reform Act's
bounce-back rule limiting a plaintiff's damages on a per-
transaction basis to the difference between the purchase price and
the actual sales price (or the mean trading price during the 90
days following the final corrective disclosure).[2] Thus, if the
plaintiff bought a share of stock at $40, held it through a $10
correction following the revelation of the misrepresentation, but
did not sell it until the stock had rebounded to a mean trading
price of $37 over the relevant period, this adjustment method
would recognize only a $3 loss. This method of adjustment was used
in both the Household and Vivendi judgments, at least as applied
to retention damages. A simple nominal loss cap (i.e., sales price
less purchase price) was also used in almost all settlements
reviewed, where it was generally applied to both retention and to
in-and-out damages.

How Can Defendants Use Adjustments to Their Advantage?

The size of potential adjustments can be quite surprising,
particularly when it comes to offsetting gains from inflation,
where the theoretical aggregate value of such offsets can actually
exceed traditional "plaintiffs'-style" damages estimates. That's
not really possible, of course, because one class member's gains
cannot be used to offset a different class member's losses;
instead, those gains and losses must be painstakingly calculated
on an individual basis during the claims process. But this
illustrates the basic proposition that the well of potentially
available offsets can be quite deep.

Because one can calculate the theoretical maximum of inflationary
gains available to the entire class, but can't know the actual
number of offsets available through matching principles until the
end of the class administration process, it creates substantial
uncertainty for both plaintiffs and defendants. That uncertainty
can be used by defendants to settle cases, as the authors of this
article recently did in a case involving a class action verdict in
plaintiffs' favor notwithstanding the exhaustion of all appeals.
Defendants may not fully appreciate these potentially sizeable
offsets, and the leverage that they give defendants in settlement
negotiations.

The nominal gains offset likewise cannot be precisely calculated
until after the claims process is complete, so the same principles
apply, although in the typical case it is likely that this offset
will be smaller than the others discussed in this article.

On the other hand, the aggregate impact of the Reform Act's per-
share nominal loss cap can be calculated using trading models on a
classwide basis (at least by the end of the 90-day waiting
period). This number can also be quite substantial, particularly
where a stock's price is appreciating at points during and after
the end of the class period. Defendants ought to know this number
before they enter into settlement discussions.

Damages Adjustments and Opt Outs

If present practices remain constant, understanding statutory
offsets can also affect the opt-out calculus. Large institutional
traders might want to think twice about opting out of class
actions if they have substantial inflationary gains that
traditionally have not been recognized in settlements, but that
have been applied in judgments following verdicts. Convincing
potential opt outs to stay with a settlement on this basis can
save considerable litigation expense and effort.

Conclusion

In each of these ways, the often overlooked area of statutory
damages limitations provides leverage to defendants in settlement
discussions and is essential knowledge in any post-trial
proceeding following a plaintiffs' verdict.



                            *********

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  * * *