CAR_Public/150902.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, September 2, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 175


                            Headlines


200 E. 81ST: Class Suit Filing Is Protected Concerted Activity
3D SYSTEMS: Shareholders Sue Over False Market Value
ABENGOA SA: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Suit
ADVANCE DATA: Sued in Florida Over Violation of HIPAA
ADVANCED DRAINAGE: September 28, 2015 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set

ADVOCATE MEDICAL: Data Breach Class Suit Dismissal Upheld
AIRMEDIA GROUP: August 24, 2015 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
ALLCO FINANCE: Australian Court Rejects Common Fund
AMWAY CANADA: Ct. Dismisss Class Cert. Bid in "Murphy" Case
APARTMENTS DOWNTOWN: Appeals Court Ruling Over Class Suit

ASHLEY MADISON: Faces $5-Mil. Class Suit Over "Hack Attack"
ASHLEY SERVICES: Faces Class Action Over Inadequate Prospectus
BANK OF AMERICA: Arbitration in Class Suit Violates Labor Law
BARCLAYS CAPITAL: Faces Treasury Bonds Rigging Class Suit
BIOGEN INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit

BLUE BELL: Faces New Class Action Suit
BRASKEM SA: Vincent Wong Firm Files Securities Class Suit
BRASKEM SA: Securities Class Action Pending in N.Y. Court
BROADCOM: Investors File Class Suit Over Avago Takeover
BROADCOM CORP: Weisslaw LLP Files Securities Class Suit

CALFRAC WELL: Settles Employee Wage Class Suit for $6-Mil.
CAPITAL WORLD: Faces Class Suit Over GBP50MM Fund Fraud
CELLADON CORP: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Suit
CHICAGO, IL: 7th Circ. Certifies Teachers' Discrimination Suit
CORMEDIX INC: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Suit

COSTCO WHOLESALE: Sued Over Slave Labor in Shrimp Supply Chain
DONNYBROOK ENERGY: Oct. 9 Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set
ELETROBAS: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Class Suit
FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Former President Pleads Guilty
GAWKER: Asks Court to Reject Interns' Class Suit

HAMPDEN COUNTY, MA: Springfield Residents File Class Suit
HARPERSVILLE, AL: Sued Over Constitutional Violation
HERTZ CORP: Former, Current Workers File Unpaid Wages Class Suit
ICONIX BRAND: Securities Suit Seeks to Recover Damages
ICONIX BRAND: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit

IDI INC: September 21 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
INDIANA: Law Impedes Sex Offender's Voting Rights, Suit Says
INVESTMENT TECH: October 5, 2015 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
J. CREW GROUP: Sued Over Discrimination Against Blind Customers
LIFELOCK INC: September 21 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline

LOGMEIN INC: TOU Crucial Tool to Defeat Customer's Class Suit
LONG BEACH WESTIN: Hotel Workers File Wage Law Violations Suit
LOS ANGELES, CA: Hearing Set for Compton School Class Suit
LOS ANGELES, CA: LADWP Reaches Deal in Customer Billing Suit
MANNY PACQUIAO: Calif. Judge to Hear Arguments on Class Suit

MDC PARTNERS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Suit
MITSUI OSK: Reaches Settlement in Antitrust Class Suit
MOBILEIRON INC: Ryan & Maniskas Files Securities Class Suit
MUELLER: Pa. Court Allows Suit vs. McDonald's Franchisee
NAT'L SECURITY: Former SLC Mayor Sues Over 2002 Olympic Spying

NIAGARA COLLEGE: Former International Students File Class Suit
NORDSTROM INC: Deceptive Marketing Class Suit Dismissed
ON DECK: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Suit
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Suit
QRX PHARMA: Goldberg Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit

QRX PHARMA: Faces Securities Class Action Case
ROOT9B TECHNOLOGIES: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Suit
SERVICESOURCE INT'L: Sept. 8, 2015 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
SOLAZYME INC: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Suit
SOLAZYME INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit

SOLAZYME INC: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Class Suit
SUNTRUST MORTGAGE: Faces Class Suit Over Rushed Foreclosures
TARGET CORP: Reaches $67MM Settlement With Visa Over Data Breach
TESCO: Moves to Dismiss Securities Class Suit in Manhattan
TYSONS FOODS: SCOTUS to Rule on "Trial by Formula" Class Suits

UBER: Assaulted Driver Files Class Suit Over Comp Coverage
UNITED STATES: Data Breach Leads to Another Class Suit
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: Firm Reprises Role in No-Poach Case
URANIUM ENERGY: Vincent Wong Firm Files Securities Class Suit
VOCATION LIMITED: Faces Class Suit Over Tax-Subsidized Courses

YAHOO: Seeks Dismissal of Privacy Invasion Class Action
YELP: Class Suit Dismissed, Court Rules Yelpers are Not Employees

* 4th Cir. Ruling Could Influence Class-Action Requirements
* Class Suit Settlements in Australia Soar to $1B in 2014-15




                            *********


200 E. 81ST: Class Suit Filing Is Protected Concerted Activity
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Crotty, Esq. -- jonathancrotty@parkerpoe.com -- and
Michael Vanesse, Esq. -- michelvanesse@parkerpoe.com -- at Parker
Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, in an article for JD Supra, reported
that Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act prohibits
employers from discriminating or retaliating against employees who
engage in protected concerted activity. Concerted Activity means
actions involving terms and conditions of employment, involving
more than one employee. The National Labor Relations Board
concluded that an employee who filed a collective action lawsuit
under the Fair Labor Standards Act engaged in concerted activity
despite the lack of evidence of any other employee who consented
to the claim.

In 200 E. 81st Restaurant Corp., the plaintiff alleged that the
restaurant had violated FLSA rules involving tipped employees. He
filed a concerted activity claim on behalf of himself and other
employees (FLSA class actions are called collective action
claims), but the lawsuit did not indicate the consent of any other
employee to the filing. The plaintiff alleged that he was removed
from the restaurant's schedule as a result of the filing.

Of course, the plaintiff could have filed a retaliation claim
under the FLSA. However, he also alleged a Section 7 violation.
The NLRB agreed, concluding that the filing constituted protected
concerted activity despite the fact that no other employee
participated. The dissent noted that the plaintiff had independent
retaliation protection under the FLSA and that Section 7 does not
cover FLSA collective action claims.

This decision means that employees who file class or collective
action claims have another legal route in the event they believe
that they have been retaliated against as a result of the filing.
This right exists even in situations where the employee takes it
upon himself or herself to file the suit in the absence of any
indication that any other employee shares the belief that the
employer violated their legal rights."


3D SYSTEMS: Shareholders Sue Over False Market Value
----------------------------------------------------
Don Worthington, writing for The State, reported that
Stockholders have filed a class action lawsuit against 3D Systems
of Rock Hill, alleging the company intentionally deceived
investors by making false and misleading statements they used to
make financial decisions.

Some stockholders, according to federal court filings, lost
millions of dollars in stock value when 3D Systems announced twice
in 2014 that its quarterly earnings were below analysts'
expectations, causing 3D Systems' stock prices to plummet.

Officials from 3D Systems said the company does not comment on
pending litigation and that the company "believes the claims
alleged in the putative stockholder class action lawsuit and the
related derivative lawsuit are without merit and we intend to
defend the company and its officers and directors vigorously."

The class action lawsuit names the company as well as Abraham
Reichental, the company's president and chief executive officer,
and Damon Gregoire, the company's executive vice president for
mergers and acquisitions, as defendants.

The suit was filed in the Rock Hill division of the federal court
for South Carolina.

3D Systems, which has been an industry leader in developing 3-D
technology and manufacturing 3-D printers, is based in Rock Hill.

Multiple plaintiffs are seeking to become the lead plaintiff in
the consolidated case that is before Judge Mary G. Lewis.

The plaintiffs all make similar arguments: Between Oct. 29, 2013,
and Oct. 22, 2014, 3D Systems drove up the stock price by issuing
false and misleading statements concerning the company's ability
to increase the capacity of its metal printing business, about the
demand for its consumer products, the value of the companies it
had acquired, and its expected earnings.

On Oct. 29, 2013, Reichental said 3D Systems would triple its
manufacturing capacity in the and accelerate development of
additional 3-D printers that use metals. About four months later,
Reichental said the company would quadruple its direct metal
printing sales in the next 12 to 18 months.

When 3D Systems issued its second quarter report in July 2014, it
missed analysts' expectations, citing delays in the rollout of new
products. The company's share price fell nearly 11 percent as a
result of the report. 3D Systems stock price then was $51.33.

When 3D Systems issued its third-quarter report in October 2014,
the company said manufacturing constraints would hamper its third-
quarter performance and that it expected revenues between $164
million and $169 million. Analysts were anticipating revenues to
be about $182 million.

The company's share price plunged 15.5 percent after the
announcement to close at $36.67.

Kris Carroll of Carroll Financial of Charlotte said when stocks
dramatically lose value there are frequently class action suits.
He said the reaction to the suits, however, is "not as high as you
might think because the only people who can sell are those who own
the stock."

Among those filing petitions to be lead plaintiff are Enormous
Luck Ltd. of the Bahamas which lost $2.8 million and the 3D
Investors Group, which includes the Bristol, Conn., pension fund,
which lost $2 million.


ABENGOA SA: Gainey McKenna Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a class action lawsuit
has been filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased Abengoa, S.A.  ("Abengoa" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:ABGB) securities during the period between May 5, 2014 and
August 3, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The Complaint
charges the Company and certain of its officers and directors with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its former
and current executive officers and directors have misrepresented
the liquidity of the Company's balance sheet.  On July 31, 2015,
the Company announced it would lower its free cash flow guidance
and a plan to divest itself of 400 million euros in assets.
Despite this statement, CEO Santiago Seage Medela maintained that
"the company has no plan to . . . tap the capital markets in any
manner."  Then on August 3, 2015, contrary to this statement, the
Company announced a share issuance plan to raise 650 million
euros, along with an asset divestiture totaling 500 million euros.

When the market digested this news, the Company's securities
plunged over $5 per share, or 46%, to close at $6.00 on August 4,
2015.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 9, 2015.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  If you wish to join the litigation, or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of
Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at
tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com.

Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
Gainey McKenna & Egleston LLP
440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 983-1300
Facsimile: (212) 983-0383
tjmckenna@gme-law.com
gegleston@gme-law.com


ADVANCE DATA: Sued in Florida Over Violation of HIPAA
-----------------------------------------------------
Linn Freedman, Esq. -- lfreedman@rc.com -- at Robinson+Cole Data
Privacy + Security Insider, in an article for JD Supra, reported
that Advanced Data Processing, Inc. and Intermedix Corp. were sued
in federal court in Florida for violating the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) for failing to protect
the health information of "potentially millions" of individuals.

Plaintiffs allege that for several months in 2012, an employee of
Intermedix viewed health information of patients that used
ambulances without authorization. This information, including
patients names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers and health
insurance information was then given or sold to others who used
the stolen information to file fraudulent tax returns with the IRS
and obtain refunds.

Significantly, plaintiffs allege that they were not told of the
incident, and that Intermedix merely posted a notice about the
incident on its website in 2014 that was not prominent on the
website. Plaintiffs allege this did not constitute notice as most
of the members of the proposed class did not have a relationship
with Intermedix, which processes claims for health care providers.
The named plaintiff was taken by an ambulance to a hospital in
California in 2012, but did not learn of the incident until April
of 2015. He alleges that he has been the victim of identity theft
as a result of the incident.

Plaintiffs immediately moved to certify the class and the Judge
denied the Motion the next day saying it was premature.


ADVANCED DRAINAGE: September 28, 2015 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, a national investor-rights law
firm, reminds investors of the September 28, 2015 lead plaintiff
deadline in the securities fraud class action lawsuit filed
against Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc. WMS, -3.53% ("Advanced
Drainage" or "the Company"). If you have losses in Advanced
Drainage securities during the Class Period contact Hagens Berman
Partner Reed Kathrein, who is leading the firm's investigation, by
calling (510) 725-3000, emailing WMS@hbsslaw.com or visiting
http://hb-securities.com/investigations/WMS

The lawsuit, pending in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, is filed on behalf of investors who
purchased Advanced Drainage securities between September 5, 2014
and July 14, 2015, inclusive, (the "Class Period").

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

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

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

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

                        About Hagens Berman

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

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


ADVOCATE MEDICAL: Data Breach Class Suit Dismissal Upheld
---------------------------------------------------------
iHealth Beat, citing Healthcare IT News, reported that an Illinois
appellate court in an opinion in early August affirmed lower court
rulings that dismissed a class-action lawsuit that alleged
Advocate Medical Group had failed to adequately protect patient
data (McCann, Healthcare IT News, 8/17).

Case Background

A group of Advocate Medical Group patients in 2013 filed a class-
action lawsuit against the Illinois-based health system after the
theft of four unencrypted computers that contained personal
information on four million individuals.

Kelly Jo Golson -- senior vice president and chief marketing
officer at Advocate Health Care -- said the computers were
password-protected but not encrypted.

The information contained on the computers included patients':

    Addresses;
    Dates of birth;
    Names; and
    Social Security numbers.

In addition, the computers contained clinical information, such
as:

    Health insurance data; and
    Medical diagnoses and record numbers.

Plaintiffs had argued that Advocate violated privacy regulations
by failing to use encryption and other security measures on the
computers (iHealthBeat, 9/6/13).

Ruling Details

In the ruling, Illinois Second District Appellate Court Judge Ann
Jorgensen affirmed two lower courts' decisions to dismiss the
case, noting that the plaintiffs failed to prove that their
information had been used in an unauthorized manner.

Jorgensen wrote, "We reject plaintiffs' arguments and note again
that their allegations are merely speculative." She continued,
"The fact that two plaintiffs to date (out of those four million)
have received notification of fraudulent activity, i.e., have
suffered actual injury arising from Advocate's alleged wrongful
acts, does not show that plaintiffs here face imminent, certainly
impending, or a substantial risk of harm as a result of the
burglary, where no such activity has occurred with respect to
their personal data."

According to Healthcare IT News, the lower courts had found no
"present harm" and that "the harm that Plaintiffs fear [was]
contingent on a chain of attenuated hypothetical events and
actions by third parties" (Healthcare IT News, 8/17).


AIRMEDIA GROUP: August 24, 2015 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
August 24, 2015 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
class action complaint filed on behalf of a class comprising
purchasers of the securities of AirMedia Group, Inc. ("AirMedia"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ: AMCN) 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. This class action
seeks to recover damages against defendants for alleged violations
of the federal securities laws.

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 securities of AirMedia between April 15, 2015 and
June 15, 2015, if you have information or would like to learn more
about these claims, or have any questions concerning this
announcement, 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.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Casey Sadler, Esq.
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
310-201-9150
888-773-9224
shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com


ALLCO FINANCE: Australian Court Rejects Common Fund
---------------------------------------------------
Patrick Boardman, Esq. -- patrick.boardman@wottonkearney.com.au --
at Wooton Kearney, in an article for Lexology, reported that on
August 7, 2015, Justice Wigney handed down his eagerly awaited
judgment1 on whether the Federal Court had the power to create a
'common fund' and, if it did, whether it would exercise that
power. This effectively would allow a litigation funder to be the
funder of an entire open class action, notwithstanding that group
members had not signed any funding agreement with it.

If successful, the making of a 'common fund' or 'common funder'
would have enormous implications for the conduct of class actions
going forward which would affect the rights of applicants, group
members, respondents and their insurers.

The two Applicants in the Allco Finance Group class action (Class
Action), who are the only two group members to have entered a
litigation funding agreement with International Litigation Funding
Parties Pty Ltd (ILFP), sought orders for:

   -- Court approval that amounts payable to ILFP under the
funding agreement are reasonable (being a % of all money
recovered); and

   -- a declaration that the Applicants are entitled to pay those
amounts from all money recovered from any settlement / damages for
the entire class.

Wigney J held that:

the Court had discretionary power to make such an order pursuant
to s33ZF of the Federal Court Act (the Act) which confers a wide
discretionary power on the Court to " . . . make any order the
Court thinks appropriate or necessary to ensure that justice is
done in the proceeding . . . "; and

justice did not require such an order to be made at this
particular point in time in the Class Action. In so finding, the
Judge did not rule out the possibility that such an order could be
made later in the proceeding. However, as the proceeding is at an
early stage, he considered that the proposal was not appropriate
or necessary to ensure that justice is done in the proceeding and
consequently there was no reason to make the proposed order at
this stage, other than to provide some commercial certainty for
the funder.

BACKGROUND

A litigation funding agreement usually provides that the funder
pays all or some of the plaintiffs' costs and indemnifies them for
any adverse costs order, with the funder receiving between 25% to
40% of all money recovered on behalf of signed up group members,
after all costs have been reimbursed.

The Class Action is an open class action on behalf of all Allco
shareholders who purchased Allco shares in the 6 month period 21
August 2007 to 27 February 2008. The Class Action had previously
been considered by another funder, IMF (Australia) Ltd which had
not been able to sign enough group members to make an economically
viable closed Class Action2.  The Class Action was eventually
filed by Maurice Blackburn with ILFP support shortly before expiry
of the limitation period.

The ILFP funding agreement with the two Applicants provides that
the Applicants would:

   -- receive all damages/settlements on behalf of the class (the
'common fund'); and

   -- deduct from the common fund the cost of the litigation and
the funding commission to ILFP, which was in the range of 32.5% -
35% of each group members' share.

The Applicants advanced six reasons why the Court should make the
proposed orders:

   -- They were analogous to other instances where the court
ordered costs from a common fund -- e.g. liquidators;

   -- Ensured an equal and equitable outcome between all Group
Members;

   -- Secures a beneficial outcome for all Group Members -- based
on the suggestion that it would not be commercially viable for
ILFP to continue funding without the orders;

   -- Consistent with policy objectives of Pt IVA of the Act i.e.
it enhances access to justice, reduces costs and promotes
efficiency of court resources;

   -- Appropriately protects Group Members' rights -- retains opt-
out and court supervision powers;

   -- Consistent with similar proceedings in Australia, US and
Canada.

The Respondents submitted that the orders were unconventional,
unprecedented and contrary to the Class Action Rules. Further, the
orders were beyond the Court's powers and, if not, the Court
should nevertheless refuse to exercise any discretion it may have.

DECISION

The Court held that it had the power to make the order under s33ZF
of the Act. However, Wigney J held that the orders were not
required to ensure justice in the Class Action, particularly at
such an early stage when there was insufficient evidence to
determine the number of Group Members, the value of the claims,
the amount to be paid to ILFP and whether such payments were
reasonable.

He considered the orders were more to do with creating commercial
certainty and viability for ILFP and, in part, the Applicants.
Each of the issues raised by the Applicants were, or could be,
addressed by other means, including the existing rules and case
law which could avoid any perceived inequality between Group
Members. As the Court concluded that the orders were not
appropriate or necessary to ensure that justice is done in the
Class Action, the Court's discretion was not to be enlivened.

However, in making those findings, Wigney J said that it does not
mean that the Court will not make such orders at some later stage
of the proceeding. He also considered that " . . . in some
respects, the Applicants' Submissions made out a fairly compelling
case for reform". He considered that the 'grim reality' is that
class actions would not be commenced without litigation funders
and as Pt IVA did not address litigation funders (particularly the
issue of only some group members being signed up) and while the
Courts had the discretion to deal with these issues, it would be
preferable for that to occur by legislative reform rather than
piecemeal by judicial discretion.

GOING FORWARD

Class actions are now big business, involving both law firms and
litigation funders quoted on the ASX. As such, and given the
potential returns, their frequency can only increase as every
potential claim and cause of action is vigorously investigated.
This decision has significant ramifications for all class actions
and, in particular, the Class Action.

The establishment of a 'common fund' or 'common funder' can only
increase the prevalence and quantum of class actions. The former
by allowing solicitors and funders to bring class actions with
only one or two applicants, notwithstanding having had years and
numerous opportunities to engender better support. The inability
to gain group support for a class action raises questions as to
whether such class actions are really brought for the benefit of
the group members who, despite having had ample opportunity to
pursue their rights, have at best shown a complete indifference or
reluctance to participate, and yet proceedings can nevertheless be
brought in their name. We also expect a common fund to increase
the race to file first, as there would be greater spoils and
greater certainty for those that could first obtain the 'common
fund' order in any dispute.

The increased quantum arises because the 30 - 40% funder's
commission would have to be taken from the entire settlement
(rather than only those party to the funding agreement), meaning
that the settlement amount will have to increase to account for
that increased deduction and leave a reasonable sum for group
members.

As a significant factor in the failure of the application was its
timing, we envisage that similar applications will be made either
later in the Class Action or in different proceedings. Given that
perceived inevitability, it probably is a matter that requires
legislative reform.

The decision also raises additional issues in the Class Action.
The continued funding by ILFP of an open class would be contrary
to submissions made to the Court about the inability of the Class
Action to continue (at least in its current form) if the
application was refused. The Applicants referred to the
possibility of closing the class after re-advertising and seeking
greater support. However, Wigney J considered that would involve
significant difficulties as closing the class would require
requisite leave of the court and the Applicants would have the
inherent problem of purporting to be representative of the class,
while seeking orders that would be beneficial to some and
detrimental to others.


AMWAY CANADA: Ct. Dismisss Class Cert. Bid in "Murphy" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Claude Marseille and Adam Spiro, writing for JD Supra Business
Advisory, reported that on August 7, 2015, Justice R. LeBlanc of
the Federal Court of Canada dismissed a motion to certify a class
action in Murphy v. Amway Canada Corporation, clarifying the
conditions a proposed class plaintiff must meet in order to
certify a class action for damages pursuant to section 36 of the
Competition Act (Act). The plaintiff claimed that the operator of
a multi-level marketing plan made misrepresentations regarding the
level of income he could achieve under the plan and that it
operated a pyramid scheme, in violation of subsections 52(1),
55(2) and 55.1 of the Act.

The plaintiff, a distributor for Amway Canada Corporation (Amway)
in British Columbia, filed a proposed class action before the
Federal Court on behalf of all Canadian residents who distributed
Amway's products starting October 23, 2007. He claimed that Amway
had breached various dispositions of the Act and sought damages of
C$15,000 as a result, under section 36 of the Act.

In a previous stage of the proceedings, Amway obtained a stay of
the action in favour of arbitration, on the basis of an
arbitration agreement and a class action waiver for claims
exceeding C$1,000 in the distributor agreement. The class action
waiver provides that a party may not "assert any claim as a class,
collective or representative action if the amount of the party's
individual claim exceeds $1,000."

The plaintiff subsequently waived the portion of his claim above
C$1,000, had the stay of proceeding lifted, and was granted the
right to amend his statement of claim to seek damages of up to
C$1,000 before the Federal Court.

The Court conducted a thorough analysis of the five conditions a
plaintiff must meet in order to have a class action certified,
pursuant to section 334.16 of the Federal Courts Rules.

A Reasonable Cause of Action: Notwithstanding the strong arguments
and evidence presented by the defendant respecting the merit of
the lawsuit, the Court found that the causes of action pleaded by
the plaintiff raised mixed questions of fact and law, such that a
hearing would be required to determine whether they should
succeed. Thus, taking the allegations as true at this stage, the
motion could not be dismissed on that ground alone.

An Identifiable Class of Two or More Persons: The Court found that
that plaintiff had failed to provide evidence that a single other
distributor shared his complaints, and therefore failed to
establish the existence of a class. The judgment on this issue
clarifies that a plaintiff must actively seek out other class
members who share his complaints against the defendant, and must
provide evidence thereof. A mere inference that other class
members likely exist is insufficient.

Common Questions of Law or Fact: The Court confirmed the existing
case law regarding class certification of misrepresentation
claims, finding that section 36 of the Act requires the plaintiff
to show a causal link between the alleged misrepresentations and
the damages claimed. The necessity to show reliance and causality
in the context of a misrepresentation claim raises issues that are
highly individual to each class member, such that there was an
absence of common questions of law or fact that would
substantially advance the claims of the class members. The Court
noted that the alleged violations of subsections 52(1) and 55(2)
of the Act do not, on their own, create a cause of action: rather,
section 36 creates the cause of action, of which damages caused by
the alleged violations of the Act are an essential component.

The evidence adduced by Amway showed that distributors joined the
business for many reasons. Thus, claiming violations of the Act
does not obviate the need for an individual trial for each class
member, to determine whether they had joined as a result of the
alleged misrepresentations or for some other reason, whether they
had relied on these representations, and whether they had suffered
damages as a result.

Preferable Procedure: The Court found that a class action was not
the preferable procedure to handle the issues raised by the
plaintiff because, aside from the predominance of individual over
common questions (discussed above), other class members had a
legitimate interest in individually controlling the prosecution of
the proceedings. In particular, because the claims before the
Federal Court were capped at an amount of C$1,000 for each class
member (as a result of the class action waiver in the distributor
agreement), any class member with a claim above that sum has an
interest in bringing it to arbitration for its full value.

Furthermore, the Court found that a complaint to the Competition
Bureau would be significantly less costly and more efficient than
class action proceedings to address the issues raised by the
plaintiff in this matter, since the Bureau has extensive
investigation powers in this regard and can impose significant
fines as the case may be. Yet, the plaintiff had failed to lodge
such a complaint.

A Proper Class Representative: It appears from the Court's ruling
that a proposed representative plaintiff must be more than a
simple placeholder in the proceedings in order to have a class
action certified. In this matter, the Court found that the
plaintiff would not adequately represent the class for several
reasons, including that:

He lied in his affidavit respecting the circumstances surrounding
his registration with Amway

His claim was really the initiative of his common law spouse, who
had since withdrawn from the proceedings

He never called the Competition Bureau or other Amway distributors
respecting his claim

He could not give information about the agreement respecting the
fees and disbursements of his attorneys

He could not explain certain key concepts of his own claim

He was not aware of the procedural stage of his proceedings

The litigation plan he provided was deficient

CONCLUSION

This ruling shows that the courts will take a serious look at the
proceedings and evidence of a proposed class representative before
certifying a class action. It confirms that the onus is on
proposed class representatives to exhaust other available avenues,
and to ensure that the action they seek to put forward can
properly be the subject of class action proceedings.


APARTMENTS DOWNTOWN: Appeals Court Ruling Over Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
KWWL.com reported that an apartment rental company in Iowa is
appealing a district court's ruling in July that certified a class
action lawsuit by a tenant rights group.

Apartments Downtown, Iowa City's largest off-campus student
housing provider, filed an appeal recently with the Iowa Supreme
Court. The company is also challenging the district court's ruling
that deemed its lease provisions as illegal.

Iowa Tenants Project says in its lawsuit that the company charged
illegal fees and withheld unreasonable amounts from security
deposits through leases used from 2010 through 2014.

Christopher Warnock, an attorney leading Iowa Tenants Project,
tells the Iowa City Press-Citizen (http://icp-c.com/1NuTafm) that
the appeal will delay a bench trial scheduled in November. The
trial would determine any damages owed.


ASHLEY MADISON: Faces $5-Mil. Class Suit Over "Hack Attack"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tony Spears, writing for Ottawa Sun, reported that as fallout
grows from a hack attack against infidelity website Ashley
Madison, Missouri lawyers have filed a class-action lawsuit in
United States district court seeking more than $5 million in
damages.

And a prominent Toronto law firm is looking for potential
plaintiffs to start a class-action suit for Canadian victims.

U.S. lawyers filed a statement of claim late on behalf of an
unnamed female plaintiff from Maryland Heights, Mo., who said
she'd ponied up $19 so Ashley Madison would purge her personal
information from its website in a process called a "paid-delete."

It's alleged Toronto-based parent company Avid Life Media "failed
to adequately analyze its computer systems for vulnerabilities
that could expose cardholder data."

"(Avid Life) maintains or maintained information ... regarding
nearly 37-million subscribers, and defendant's security failures
affected the credit and debit cards of hundreds of thousands if
not millions of customers."

The $5-million damages figure appears to be only a crude estimate;
the statement of claim says the amount of the plaintiff's losses
"are yet to be completely determinable  . . .  (and) are ongoing."

None of the allegations have been proven in court and no statement
of defence has been filed.

Avid Life did not immediately return a request for comment.

Ashley Madison -- which boasts the motto "Life is short. Have an
affair" -- acknowledged on July 20 that it had been the victim of
an "unprovoked and criminal intrusion into our customers'
information."

In a statement released the company confirmed reports that the
hackers claimed to have released stolen data. Ashley Madison is
trying to "determine the validity" of the information, the
statement said.

Several tech websites reported hackers dumped compromised data on
the dark web, leaving it inaccessible -- for now -- to casual
Internet users.

A group calling itself Impact Team leaked snippets of data and
threatened to name and shame customers unless Avid shut down
Ashley Madison and another website it operates.

Charney Lawyers is the Toronto firm seeking Canadian plaintiffs
for a possible class-action suit north of the border. (Canadians
cannot join the American lawsuit.)

So far. there have been no takers -- but there has yet to be a
widely accessible deluge of stolen data.

"I think it's a matter of time before someone comes forward," Ted
Charney said.

As in the U.S. case, Charney said he would use pseudonyms for
plaintiffs to protect their privacy. He promised "complete
confidentiality" for prospective clients.

Canadian case law puts the amount of damages for this sort of
action at roughly between $2,000 and $20,000, depending on the
severity of the privacy breach and its effect on the individual
plaintiff, he said.

Thus there is a "huge advantage" in proceeding with a class action
lawsuit, Charney said; an individual trying to sue Ashley Madison
would incur significant legal costs up front and might end up
financial losers even in victory.

Anyone signing up for the class, however, would not be responsible
for any legal fees, Charney said. If victorious, the lawyers would
be paid out from pot.


ASHLEY SERVICES: Faces Class Action Over Inadequate Prospectus
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kylar Loussikian, writing for The Australian Business Review,
reported that Ashley Services could be the next private education
provider to feel the anger of jilted investors, with law firm
William Roberts and litigation funder IMF Bentham reaching an
agreement to pursue a potential class action against the company,
which listed on the Australian Securities Exchange last August.

The claim will allege Ashley's prospectus did not properly
disclose the impact of the withdrawal of a federal government
subsidy that helped boost enrolments in its Integracom Training
Solutions subsidiary.

Ashley, which counts former federal Labor leader Simon Crean as a
director, purchased the WA-based Integracom as part of a roll-up
of training providers. Ashley only disclosed in February that the
subsidiary earned AUD100,000 in the two months before listing,
compared to expectations of AUD1.8 million. At the time, Ashley
said the shortfall would have almost no effect on full-year
earnings, lowering forecasts from AUD31 million to AUD29.2
million. The failure of Integracom to hit student enrolment
targets was blamed on the removal of a AUD5500 federal government
subsidiary that was intended to help students purchase trade
tools.

Ashley was forced to again lower guidance in April, with a
"significant shortfall in Integracom earnings" pushing full-year
earnings as low as AUD21 million. Shares fell more than 50 per
cent in one day, dropping from AUD1.25 to 56 cents, with investors
who acquired shares under the allegedly defective prospectus -- at
AUD1.66 -- losing AUD66 million of the total AUD98.7 million
raised.

The float was brokered by Canaccord Genuity and Evans and
Partners, while several significant funds, including Greencape
Capital and Mirrabooka Investments, remain substantial holders of
the stock.

Shares fell another 5 per cent yesterday to close at 47.5c.

William Roberts will allege the prospectus should have been
updated to reflect the poor trading conditions and significant
underperformance in the two months prior to the bookbuild, which
began in early August, and the issuance of shares.

"We take the view that Ashley Services has breached the
Corporations Act by providing misleading information concerning
its expected profitability in its prospectus," said Bill
Petrovski, a lawyer at William Roberts. "Our proposed action will
seek to recover losses suffered by shareholders who become group
members in the action that purchased their shares pursuant to the
prospectus."

Ashley managing director Ross Shrimpton said no decision had yet
been taken to commence proceedings and the company had not yet
been served.

"Ashley denies all liability in respect of claims of the nature
described in IMF's announcement and will vigorously defend any
such claims should they be commenced," he said.

IMF is already funding a separate class action against former
sector giant Vocation, which had nearly $20m in funding withdrawn
after the Victorian government found inappropriate enrolments and
1ow-quality training by two subsidiaries.

Those businesses, BAWM and Avana, have since been shut, with the
company posting a AUD273 million first-half loss in March.

Vocation is now the target of three separate class actions, run by
Slater & Gordon, Maurice Blackburn and former Minter Ellison
partner Mark Elliott.


BANK OF AMERICA: Arbitration in Class Suit Violates Labor Law
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Iafolla, writing for Reuters, reported that Bank of America
violated labor law when it tried to kill a wage-and-hour class
action by moving to compel individual arbitration, the National
Labor Relations Board ruled.

While the underlying case settled with class arbitration, the
decision further underscores the board's view that employers
cannot force workers to give up their rights to act collectively
by pursuing class actions.


BARCLAYS CAPITAL: Faces Treasury Bonds Rigging Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported
that just as they did with LIBOR, major Wall Street banks have for
years manipulated the $12.7 trillion U.S. Treasuries market, a
federal class action alleges.

The Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System is the
lead plaintiff in the complaint filed in Manhattan against
Barclays Capital, Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, HSBC Securities,
Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and others.

Filing comes on the heels of a June investigation by the
Department of Justice into possible fraud committed by banks at
Treasury auctions, the secretive process in which the price of
U.S. Treasury securities are set.

U.S. Treasury bonds are considered extremely safe investments,
since there is virtually no chance the U.S. government will
default on its bond obligations.

Therefore, strong demand for U.S. government debt signals less
confidence in the market, and will result in a lower interest rate
attached to Treasury bonds. In contrast, lower demand will result
in a higher interest rate, because it signals that banks believe
there is a good chance of making money in a riskier investment.

The rate attached to the sale of Treasurys also impacts a range of
other borrowing costs, including mortgages, credit card rates and
corporate bonds.

"Defendants are expected to be 'good citizens of the Treasury
market' and compete against each other in the U.S. Treasury
Securities markets; however, instead of competing, they have been
working together to collusively manipulate the prices of U.S.
Treasury Securities at auction and in the when-issued market,
which in turn influences pricing in the secondary market for such
securities as well as in markets for U.S. Treasury-Based
Instruments," the 28-page complaint states.

The State-Boston Retirement System filed similar allegations, also
in Manhattan.

As in that lawsuit, the Oklahoma pension fund accuses the
defendant banks of using their position as primary bond traders to
inflate the price of Treasuries on the secondary market.

"Bloomberg has reported that individual traders working for
defendants 'have talked with counterparts at other banks via
online chatrooms,' and such conduct is believed to have continued
at least through 2014," the complaint states. "Perhaps for this
reason, the Primary Dealers have been regarded as an 'insiders
club.' Bloomberg further reported that traders 'shared broad
guidance' in advance of auctions and that in many instances,
traders did not follow internal guidelines prohibiting them from
discussing client information before auctions.

"The exchange of competitively-sensitive information between and
among the defendants allowed them to coordinate bidding strategies
at Treasury Department auctions as well as in the when-issued
market, thereby suppressing auction prices while increasing prices
in the when-issued market which resulted in wider spreads (and
thus increased profits) for the defendants at the expense of
plaintiff, the class, and the U.S. Government." (Parentheses in
original.)

It's been just three months since five of the banks named in the
Treasuries suit, representing the biggest banks in the world,
pleaded guilty and agreed to pay $5 billion for manipulating the
London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR) and other foreign benchmark
interest rates.

Approximately two dozen banks and financial institutions were
linked to the scandal.

Class action seeks treble damages from the banks for fixing bids
during Treasury auctions, a practice that allegedly causing U.S.
government bonds to be artificially priced from 2007 until the
present.

The class is represented by Robert Kaplan with Kaplan, Fox &
Kilscheimer.

         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
         Fax: 415-772-4707
         Email: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
                garenson@kaplanfox.com
                jcampisi@kaplanfox.com
                lking@kaplanfox.com


BIOGEN INC: Rosen Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, announced that
a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of all purchasers
of Biogen Inc. BIIB, -4.60% securities from January 29, 2015
through July 23, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
seeks to recover investors' losses under the federal securities
laws.

To join the Biogen class action, visit the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-700.html,or contact Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or via email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

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

According to the lawsuit, Biogen and certain of its executive
officers and directors misrepresented the financial benefits that
Biogen would receive from the sale of its drug TECFIDERA.
TECFIDERA is one of Biogen's most important drug products. On
multiple occasions during the first half of 2015, the defendants
projected 2015 revenue growth between 14% and 16% over 2014.
Specifically, the market was told that "TECFIDERA will represent
the largest contributor to [Biogen's] overall revenue growth."

However, on July 24, 2015, Biogen revealed a correction to its
earlier announced revenue growth guidance, decreasing its
projected growth by half "based largely on revised expectations
for the growth of TECFIDERA." Consequently, the trading price of
Biogen common stock dropped from a closing price of $385.05 on
July 23, 2015 to close at $300.03 per share on July 24, 2015, a
loss of more than 22%, on extremely heavy trading volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than October 19, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's
website at http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-700.htmlor to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law
Firm toll-free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com

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

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


BLUE BELL: Faces New Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------
Mark Collette, writing for Houston Chronicle, reported that Blue
Bell ice cream will appear in stores Aug. 31 for the first time
since a listeria outbreak put one of Texas' most recognizable
brands on the verge of ruin.

The gradual return to market will mimic the 108-year-old company's
original expansion, starting in Brenham, Houston and Austin, plus
parts of Alabama, home to the only Blue Bell Creameries plant
currently making ice cream.

The former No. 3 player in U.S. ice cream still has a long way to
climb and trust to regain, plus legal troubles, including a new
federal class-action lawsuit filed August 14.

"Over the past several months, we have been working to make our
facilities even better and to ensure that everything we produce is
safe, wholesome and of the highest quality for you to enjoy,"
Ricky Dickson, vice president of sales and marketing, said in a
video posted on the company's website.

Even after deaths linked to Blue Bell, adoring customers were
ready to forgive, and Dickson's announcement triggered a social
media frenzy. The scarcity of the sweet commodity will likely only
lead to even more buzz about where and how to find it. Blue Bell
is offering an ice cream locator map on its website.

"Yippee," Carrie Hargis of Austin posted on the company's Facebook
page, followed by 49 exclamation points. "I am crying cause I am
so happy that my ice cream is coming back. Thanks for all your
hard work for your loyal customers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can't wait to buy me some blue bell!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

"Thank goodness!" wrote Deanne Jordan Martinez of Waco. "I gained
10 pounds from the stress of not having Blue Bell when I'm
stressed!!!"

Erin Whitty wanted to know how long it would be before Nevada
sales resumed.

"We waited a long time to see you on our shelves," she wrote, "and
have been looking forward to your return."

Nevada was one of the last markets Blue Bell reached before the
outbreak, with distribution to the Las Vegas area. It's not on the
list of places receiving ice cream in a five-phase approach
outlined by the company.

Dickson didn't give a timetable for the next four phases, which
will happen "based on product availability and when (Blue Bell)
can properly service the customers in an area," he said.

After Texas and Alabama, sales will resume in the following order:
north central Texas and southern Oklahoma; southwest Texas and
central Oklahoma; and the majority of Texas and southern
Louisiana. Phase five will complete the states of Alabama,
Oklahoma and Texas, and begin distribution in Arkansas, Florida,
northern Louisiana and Mississippi, plus parts of Georgia,
Kentucky, Missouri, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Tennessee and Virginia.

The company hasn't said which flavors will be out first.

Dickson said he was humbled by the passion consumers have shown
for the brand and that maintaining their trust is paramount. He
added that he hoped former customers would give them another
chance.

The plant in Sylacauga, Ala., is the smallest of Blue Bell's three
major production facilities. The company is still retooling the
others, dealing with the fallout from sanitation problems that
plagued them for years, according to federal records.

Louisiana lawsuit

The legal fallout continues, with the new lawsuit seeking refunds
for all customers in Louisiana who bought ice cream only to find
out it could be tainted.

The lawsuit, filed on behalf of Steven J. Leon of Hammond, La.,
claims that customers heard news of the recall and threw their ice
cream away before they were aware they could get refunds from
retailers. Leon and his attorneys couldn't be reached for comment,
and Blue Bell won't talk about litigation.

Two attorneys who are experts on food recalls said the lawsuit
isn't likely to succeed.

It's hard to get the court to certify a class of plaintiffs if
they don't all have the same circumstances, said James Neale of
McGuire Woods LLP, a Virginia law firm that defended ConAgra Foods
in lawsuits tied to a 2008 outbreak of salmonella in Peter Pan
peanut butter.

"As serious as listeria is, it's not in every half gallon of
chocolate chip ice cream, so a lot of people are going to have
eaten that product and gotten exactly what they paid for out of
it," Neale said. "Some people will be halfway through a container,
some will not have opened it. It sounds silly, but those are the
kinds of issues that typically bring down a refund class action."

The plaintiffs also will have to convince the judge that getting
relief through a lawsuit -- which typically involves mailing in
claim forms and waiting weeks, months or years for money -- is
somehow better than the alternative Blue Bell already provided
through retailers, Neale said.

"The long and short of it is so long as there is a refund offered
that should preclude certifying a class," said Alan Maxwell,
another food company defense attorney in Atlanta.

Leon's suit argues that Blue Bell should have offered refunds
directly to customers. ConAgra won by summary judgment after
showing that it had offered refunds to virtually anyone, no
questions asked, Neale said.

Suit over listeriosis

Bill Marler, a Seattle attorney, is in talks with Blue Bell on
behalf of Brent McRae, a Florida man who claims he contracted
listeriosis from a half-gallon of Cookies 'n Cream that tested
positive for listeria by a private laboratory. The U.S. Centers
for Disease Control didn't identify his case in the outbreak, but
McRae was never tested for listeria by his doctors.

"I think Blue Bell should be far more transparent as to why its
plants, especially the Broken Arrow (Okla.) plant, had so many
food safety challenges," Marler said.

The company faces a second federal lawsuit by a former Houston man
who claims he was left with permanent brain damage after consuming
the products.

While it faces litigation, Blue Bell has been mostly silent about
lapses that led to the outbreak. Those include findings of
listeria years ago on plant surfaces, and condensation problems,
including water that dripped into ice cream, according to FDA
records.

The CDC has linked Blue Bell to 10 illnesses in four states,
including the deaths of three patients already hospitalized with
other conditions.

Blue Bell had more than $880 million in sales, according to
market-research firm Euromonitor International. It was sold in 23
states before the outbreak, which was discovered in January. After
a total recall, Blue Bell shut down all plants and was left
reeling financially until Texas investor Sid Bass agreed to lend
the company up to $125 million.

The company has introduced a slew of improvements, with intense
new sanitation requirements, testing and holding every lot of ice
cream until it proves safe, and hiring a team of microbial
specialists.


BRASKEM SA: Vincent Wong Firm Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who
purchased Braskem S.A.("Braskem" or the "Company") securities
between June 1, 2010 and March 11, 2015.

Click here to learn about the case: http://docs.wongesq.com/BAK-
Info-Request-Form-833. There is no cost or obligation to you.

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

If you suffered a loss in Braskem you have until August 31, 2015
to request that the court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
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/BAK-Info-Request-
Form-833.

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/


BRASKEM SA: Securities Class Action Pending in N.Y. Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP ("Scott+Scott"), reminded
investors that they had until August 31, 2015 to file lead
plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit
against Braskem S.A. (NYSE:BAK) ("Braskem") if they purchased the
Braskem's American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") between June 1,
2010 and March 11, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This
action is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. If you are a Braskem shareholder,
you are encouraged to contact Scott+Scott for additional
information.

Braskem (NYSE:BAK) is a Brazilian petrochemical company and is the
largest petrochemicals producer in Latin America. Braskem is also
the largest producer of thermoplastic resins in the Americas.

On March 11, 2015, Braskem's shares plummeted after a report from
a local newspaper, Folha de S. Paolo, implicated Braskem in the
corruption scandal surrounding state-owned oil producer Petroleo
Brasileiro SA ("Petrobras"). On this news, shares of Braskem fell
over 20%, or $1.80 per share, on March 11, 2015.

On March 17, 2015, according to a Bloomberg article discussing
Braskem, "ex-Petrobras executive Paulo Roberto Costa and admitted
money launderer Alberto Youssef said in testimony" that "Braskem
paid annual bribes, initially set at $5 million, to buy crude
derivatives such as naphtha and propylene at low prices from 2006
to 2012."

What You Can Do

If you are a Braskem shareholder and wish to serve as a lead
plaintiff in the action, you must move the Court no later than
August 31, 2015. Any member of the class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you
wish to discuss this action or have questions concerning this
notice or your rights, please contact Scott+Scott (scottlaw@scott-
scott.com, (800) 404-7770, (860) 537-5537) or visit the
Scott+Scott website for more information: http://www.scott-
scott.com.

            About Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide.

Joseph V. Halloran, Esq.
Scott & Scott LLP
The Chysler Building 405 Lexington Ave. 40th Flr  New York, NY
10174-4099
Phone: (800) 404-7770
Fax: (646) 582-0121)
scottlaw@scott-scott.com
http://www.scott-scott.com.


BROADCOM: Investors File Class Suit Over Avago Takeover
-------------------------------------------------------
Kat Hall, writing for The Register, reported that investors of
networking biz Broadcom have launched a class action lawsuit to
block a $37BB (GBP24BB) takeover by chip maker Avago.

In May, the companies announced the mega merger, which will value
the new entity at $77BB (GBP50BB). The deal is planned to close by
the end of March 2016.

The law firm acting on the investors' behalf alleges some of
Broadcom's defendants breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty
and due care owed to Broadcom shareholders.

It claims they filed a "materially false and misleading
registration statement" on Form S-4 with the US Securities and
Exchange Commission in an attempt to secure shareholder approval
of the takeover.

"The omitted and/or misrepresented information is believed to be
material to Broadcom shareholders' ability to make an informed
decision whether to approve the Proposed Transaction," said Weiss
Law.

The complaint arises out of a 28 May 2015 press release announcing
that Broadcom had entered into a definitive merger agreement with
Avago Technologies Limited, "pursuant to which Broadcom
shareholders will receive $54.50 in cash and 0.4378 of an Avago
share".

The complaint seeks injunctive relief on behalf of the named
plaintiffs and all other similarly situated shareholders of
Broadcom as of 28 May, 2015.


BROADCOM CORP: Weisslaw LLP Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Zacks Equity Research reported that WeissLaw LLP filed a class
action lawsuit against semiconductor maker Broadcom Corp. and its
board of directors, on behalf of the company's shareholders.

A number of law firms have been investigating potential claims on
behalf of shareholders about the company's proposed acquisition by
Avago Technologies Limited.  These firms believe that the
consideration to be received by Broadcom shareholders is
inadequate, and they are getting less than their fair and
proportionate share of the company's continued success and future
growth prospects.

The law firms are also investigating whether the board of
directors effectively pursued alternatives to the acquisition and
whether they obtained the best price possible for the company's
shares.

On May 28, Broadcom entered into a definitive merger agreement
with Avago in a deal valued at $37 million. Per the agreement,
Broadcom shareholders will be entitled to receive $54.50 in cash
and 0.4378 of the combined company, or a combination thereof, in
exchange for each share of Broadcom common stock they own.
Following the merger, the stake of Broadcom's shareholders is
expected to be significantly diluted, as they will own a mere 32%
of the newly formed company.

In early June, the firm had announced an investigation to attempt
to determine if Broadcom's board of directors had committed a
breach of their fiduciary duty in failing to maximize
consideration to shareholders. Possible unfairness of the
consideration to investors, the process by which the transaction
was considered, and potential conflicts of interest among board
members were also to be probed.

The class action lawsuit filed by the firm seeks injunctive relief
for the concerned plaintiffs and all other Broadcom shareholders
who are in a similar situation. The plaintiffs claim that the
defendants violated their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care
and full disclosure that they owed to the Broadcom shareholders.
The breach specifically alludes to a materially false and
misleading registration statement on Form S-4 that was filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in an attempt to gain
approval from shareholders for the proposed merger. The plaintiffs
assert that the omitted and/or misrepresented information is
deemed to be material to the shareholders' ability to make an
educated decision regarding the deal.

Broadcom currently carries a Zacks Rank #3 Better-ranked stocks in
the computer services space include Mellanox Technologies, Ltd.
and Applied Optoelectronics, Inc.), both carrying a Zacks Rank #1


CALFRAC WELL: Settles Employee Wage Class Suit for $6-Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bowling, writing for TribLive, reported that a Canadian
company involved in hydraulic fracturing has agreed to pay $6
million to settle a class-action lawsuit claiming it underpaid its
American employees for overtime hours, according to federal court
documents.

The settlement will cover an estimated 1,039 people who worked for
Calfrac Well Services Ltd. of Alberta in Pennsylvania as well as
Arkansas, Colorado and North Dakota.

U.S. District Judge Terrence McVerry in Pittsburgh has scheduled a
status conference on the proposal for. If he approves the
proposal, the next steps would be notifying the members of the
class and setting a hearing to determine the settlement's
fairness.

The employees were paid a salary and bonuses. When they worked
overtime, the company calculated their "hourly" rate by dividing
their salary and bonuses by the total hours worked and paying them
time-and-a-half on that rate.

Howard Bland Jr., a Burgettstown fracking operator, and others
contended in the suit that the company should have divided their
salary and bonuses by 40 hours per week to obtain the base rate
for the overtime calculation.

Nicholas Migliaccio, one of Bland's lawyers, said he will wait
until after the conference to comment.

A company spokesman declined to comment.


CAPITAL WORLD: Faces Class Suit Over GBP50MM Fund Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------
Dylan Lobo, writing for Wealth Manager, reported that victims of
an alleged GBP50 million fund fraud have taken legal action in a
bid to get their money back, according to The Times.

The class action sheds light on money flows from the CWM fund,
which promised investors high rates of return through interest
from banks in the Cayman Islands.

The fund was run by Capital World Markets, which was formed two
years ago and won the right to become Chelsea football club's
'online forex trading partner' at the start of the year. The
Premier League champions have since dropped their association with
the firm.

Earlier City of London police arrested 13 people in a raid on the
firm's headquarters in Heron Tower at part of its investigation
into alleged fraud.

According to The Times, the class action has 30 members and claims
that the GBP50 million which was deposited in a CWM account with
Cayman Islands-based bank DMS, only has GBP1.2 million left.

It is alleged investors only got only part of their expected
return, with the rest of the money used for sponsorships within
the CWM network of businesses and 'private jets and general
lifestyle expenditure'.

The legal action is being taken against DMS and is being led by
tax adviser Tim Richardson, who has taken advice from David Quest
QC. Documents are set to be filed in the Cayman Islands.

Richardson claims he lost a six figure sum from the scheme and the
some of his fellow investors may have lost up to GBP2.5 million.

'It is our legal team's strong opinion that the banks that held
the CWM Limited accounts are liable for the losses incurred by
investors as they were not authorised accounts,' the action, seen
by The Times, stated.


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

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Celladon Corporation ("Celladon") (NASDAQGM:CLDN)
between July 7, 2014 and June 25, 2015.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the USDC for the Southern District of
California. If you purchased or otherwise acquired Celladon
Corporation securities between July 7, 2014 and June 25, 2015,
your rights may be affected by this action. To get more
information go to http://zlk.9nl.com/celladon-cldnor contact
Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by
telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is
no cost or obligation to you.

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

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

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

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


CHICAGO, IL: 7th Circ. Certifies Teachers' Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher M. Cascino, Esq. -- ccascino@seyfarth.com -- and
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq. -- gmaatman@seyfarth.com -- at
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for Workplace Action, reported
that in Chicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1, American Federation
of Teachers, AFL-CIO v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Chicago, Case
No. 14-2843 (7th Cir. Aug. 7, 2015), the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Seventh Circuit reversed a district court decision we
discussed previously here and certified the discrimination claims
of a class of African-American Chicago teachers.

The case is significant for employers in that the Seventh Circuit,
as it previously did in McReynolds v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith, Inc., 672 F.3d 482 (7th Cir. 2012), a case we
discussed here, again certified a class even though the final
alleged discriminatory decisions were based on subjective
decisions by multiple decision-makers. In addition, the Seventh
Circuit further limited Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct.
2541 (2011), and held that, even where the legality of final
employment decisions cannot be decided on a class-wide basis
because of individualized exercise of discretion, there are
circumstances where the legality of intermediate decisions
preceding the final alleged unlawful employment decision can
nonetheless be decided on a class-wide basis.

Background Of The Case

Under the Illinois School Code, schools may be subject to a
"turnaround" if they have been on probation for at least one year
and have failed to make adequate progress in correcting
deficiencies. In a turnaround, the Board of Education takes
control of the school and removes all staff. Affected teachers and
para-professionals are either placed in a reassignment pool or a
substitution pool with different rights to salary and other
benefits depending on their tenure status and job position.

In 2011, the Board began considering which schools should be
turned around in 2012. There were three steps in this process. The
process started with an initial list of 226 schools eligible for
turnaround because they had been on probation for one year and had
failed to make adequate progress in correcting deficiencies. That
list was reduced to 74 schools based on composite standardized
test scores and graduation rates. Subsequently, in the third step,
a qualitative "in-depth investigation process" began for the
remaining 74 schools. This involved school visits, additional data
collection, and meetings with a variety of school representatives
and community members. No written policy applied to the final
turnaround decision. Some of the factors considered were: the
academic culture of the school, whether quality instruction was
being provided, the quality of the leadership, and the academic
trends of the school.

After reviewing the information, several Chicago Public Schools
officials decided to recommend that 10 schools should be turned
around. The Board subsequently agreed. The schools were located
exclusively on the south and west sides of Chicago. The total
percentage of African-American tenured teachers at the 10 schools
selected for turnaround was approximately 51%, while the total
percentage of African-American tenured teachers in the entire
Chicago public school system was only 25%.

The Chicago Teachers Union and three African-American tenured
teachers brought a class action lawsuit against the Chicago Board
of Education alleging that the board's decision to turn around the
10 Chicago public schools was racially discriminatory. Plaintiff
sought to certify a class consisting of all African-American
teachers or para-professionals in any school subjected to the 2012
turnarounds. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois denied class certification, and the Plaintiffs appealed.

The Seventh Circuit's Decision

The Seventh Circuit began its analysis by noting that one of the
purposes of class action litigation is to avoid repeated
litigation of the same issues. Chicago Teachers Union, at 8. Then
pointing out that the question on appeal was whether there were
common issues of law or fact common to the class, the Seventh
Circuit addressed the Board's argument that, given that the third
step in the turnaround decision-making process was qualitative and
subjective, there was a lack of commonality under Wal-Mart. Id. at
12.

The Seventh Circuit reasoned that the first flaw in this argument
was that it skipped to the third step of the decision-making
process. It pointed out that the first two steps of the process
were "clearly-objective steps." Id. at 13. The Seventh Circuit
opined that these first two steps could have resulted in disparate
impact discrimination against African-Americans regardless of what
happened at the third step. Id. For example, it hypothesized that,
after the first two steps, it could be the case that all schools
remaining under consideration for turnaround had 100% African-
American teaching staffs, and that the first two steps would thus
have had a disparate impact on African-Americans regardless of the
third step. Id. The Seventh Circuit therefore found that the
question of whether the first two objective steps had a disparate
impact could be decided on a class-wide basis. Id. at 14.

The Seventh Circuit concluded that this result followed from its
prior decision in McReynolds.  In McReynolds, the Seventh Circuit
certified the disparate impact claims of a class of African-
Americans even though the employment decisions at issue were made
at the discretion of 165 separate individuals because two company-
wide policies allegedly caused the 165 individuals to exercise
their discretion in a common way that caused discrimination. Id.
at 15-16. In Chicago Teachers Union, the Seventh Circuit held that
McReynolds demonstrated "that a company-wide practice is
appropriate for class challenge even where some decisions in the
chain of acts challenged as discriminatory can be exercised by
local managers with discretion[,] at least where the class at
issue is affected in a common manner[,]" and that under this
principle certification of a class to determine the disparate
impact of the first two steps of the turnaround decision-making
process was appropriate. Id. at 17-18.

The Seventh Circuit went on to consider whether a class could be
certified to determine whether the third step of the decision-
making process was discriminatory. It found that, despite the fact
the Board "describe[d] numerous factors considered in the various
schools" during the third step, "they could be boiled down to" 10
factors, including factors like "school culture" and "parent and
community input." Id. at 19-20. It found the fact that there were
10 factors that made the "case worlds away from that in Wal-Mart
where a court could have no way of knowing why each of the
thousands of individual managers made distinct decisions." Id. at
22. It did so even though there were cases where only one of the
10 factors was determinative in deciding to turnaround a school.
Id.

The Seventh Circuit also emphasized the fact that there was one
decision-making body that was "of one mind, using one process."
Id. at 23. It distinguished this situation from Wal-Mart, where
there were "myriad actions of individual managers." Id. It
concluded that "[d]ecisions by myriad low-level managers are
different than decisions made by . . . few concentrated top-level
managers," and thus that certification of claims based on the
third stage of the decision-making process was appropriate. Id. at
23-24.

The Seventh Circuit also reaffirmed McReynolds' holding that a
class should be certified where liability can be determined on a
class-wide basis even though individual trials as to damages would
be needed. Id. at 32-33.

Implications For Employers

Plaintiffs' class action lawyers will likely cite to this case as
further support in their McReynolds-based arguments for class
certification. Of particular concern to employers might be the
fact that the Seventh Circuit found that decisions based on
consideration of 10 non-enumerated factors -- including factors
like "school culture" that are far from objectively measurable --
are the type of decisions that can support certification of a
discrimination class action.  Moreover, this case provides an
additional tool that plaintiffs' lawyers are likely to use to try
to certify classes where employment decisions are made in multiple
stages. They will likely try to certify classes even where final
decisions were highly individualized and discretionary by arguing
that earlier steps leading to the final decision were uniformly
applied and discriminatory. Employers should be on the lookout for
how successful these attempts are in future litigation.


CORMEDIX INC: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action has
been filed on behalf of purchasers of the securities CorMedix, Inc
between March 12, 2011 and June 29, 2015, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). CorMedix investors have until September 4, 2015 to file
a lead plaintiff motion.

CorMedix is a pharmaceutical company that intends to in-license,
develop, and commercialize therapeutic products for the prevention
and treatment of cardiac, renal, and infectious diseases.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose, among
others: (1) CorMedix's only viable product in development is based
on a 1970s-era chemical product acquired for less than $1 million
in a bankruptcy sale; (2) CorMedix relies heavily on paid stock
promoters to pump the stock's value; (3) CorMedix uses misleading
clinical data to hide the fact that its Neutrolin/Taurolidine
product is a failure; and (4) the Company is led by an alleged
"wipeout artist," and associated with partners that have been
barred from the securities business by FINRA.

On news of the alleged wrongdoing of its executives and misleading
statements by the Company, shares of CorMedix fell $0.81 per
share, or 16%, to close on June 29, 2015 at $4.05 per share
thereby damaging investors.

If you purchased shares of CorMedix 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/


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Sued Over Slave Labor in Shrimp Supply Chain
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeanine Stewart, writing for Under Current News, reported that a
California woman has filed a class action law suit against US
retailer Costco Wholesale alleging the company misled consumers
over the shrimp it sells from Thailand.

"This case arises from the devaluing of human life," states
plaintiff Monica Sud in the suit document she filed in the
Northern District of California.

Sud is seeking injunctions against the company's alleged "tainted
food supply chain", prohibiting it from selling inadequately
labelled shrimp and prohibiting its continued purchase of products
knowingly tainted by slave labor, states the document.

The filing claims unlawful business acts and practices, misleading
and deceptive advertising and unfair methods of competition. These
go against the Unlawful Business Acts and Practices California
Business & Professional Code, the Misleading and Deceptive
Advertising California Business and Professions Code and the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, respectively, alleges Sud.

Central to the case is the claim that Costco publicly represents
itself as not tolerating human trafficking while selling products
that are a product of slave labor.

The document cites Costco's Disclosure Regarding Human Trafficking
and Anti-Slavery, included on Costco.com, where Costco says "Our
suppliers contractually agree to follow the code and to ensure
that their sub-suppliers also comply."

In the disclosure, Costco says practices such as human trafficking
and failure to pay adequate wages, among other human rights
violations listed, are addressed by the code.

The plaintiff takes issue with this statement, as she claims it to
be contradictory to realities in Costco's supply chain.

"As far as the market for farmed prawns [shrimp] is concerned, any
representation by Costco that slavery in the supply chain is not
allowed is simply false," the court document states.

"Allegations concerning issues in the Thai seafood industry have
been well publicized for over one year," Washington state-based
Costco told Undercurrent News in an emailed statement, in response
to the filing. "Costco Wholesale has been working with and will
continue to work with various stakeholders (including the Thai
government, other retailers, and Thai industry) to address the
issues that have surfaced. In the meantime, all of our customers
know that if they are dissatisfied with any purchase from Costco
Wholesale they can return the item for a full refund."

Sun's claim against the company also flagged up the 2015 TIP
report, which kept Thailand on its lowest Tier 3 level for the
second year in a row, with commercial fishing and fishing-related
industries part of the labor trafficking problem.

The court document also says fishmeal suppliers to Thailand's
shrimp industry sell the fishmeal made by slave-caught fish to
Charoen Pokphand Foods, and CP Foods feeds the fishmeal to farm-
raised shrimp. The document says Costco purchases shrimp from CP
Foods "despite well-documented use of forced labor on trash fish
boats in Thailand".

It should be noted Costco publicly addressed negative results from
the 2014 TIP report related to Thailand's fishing industry. Costco
publicly stated it was "committed to working with suppliers of
Thai shrimp to require them to take corrective action to police
their feedstock sources with respect to labor practices"

In relation to the false advertising claim, Sud says Costco "does
not advise US consumers, in its packaging or otherwise, that the
supply line for farmed prawns has been tainted by the use of slave
labor in Thailand, and other nearby locations in international
waters, including Indonesia, on Thai-flagged ships, and that there
has been no eradication of this plague".


DONNYBROOK ENERGY: Oct. 9 Securities Suit Settlement Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid Hawkes LLP and Siskinds LLP announced
the Notice of Hearing of Application for Approval of Settlement in
Donnybrook and Donnycreek Securities Class Action.

This notice is directed to the following "Class Members": all
persons and entities, wherever they may reside or be domiciled,
who held shares of Donnybrook Energy Inc. (now known as Stonehaven
Exploration Ltd.) ("Donnybrook") at the time of a plan of
arrangement completed by Donnybrook on November 4, 2011 (the
"Arrangement") and received shares of Donnycreek Energy Inc. (now
known as Kicking Horse Energy Inc.) ("Donnycreek") through the
Arrangement, other than (i) Excluded Persons (certain persons
associated with the Defendants and persons who purchased
Donnycreek shares in the Private Placement (defined below)), and
(ii) persons who have previously opted out of the class action.

In August 2013, the Plaintiff Wayne Philpott commenced a class
action against Donnybrook, Donnycreek, Malcolm Todd, Robert Todd,
Murray Scalf, David Patterson, Randy Kwasnicia, Ken Stephenson and
Colin Watt (collectively, the "Defendants") in the Court of
Queen's Bench of Alberta (the "Court"). The class action claims
arise out of the Arrangement whereby various assets of Donnybrook
were transferred to Donnycreek, as well as a concurrent private
placement by Donnycreek pursuant to which shares were issued to
various persons (including the individual Defendants) at $0.37 per
share (the "Private Placement").

On January 22, 2015, the Court certified this proceeding as a
class action on consent. Certification by the Court is not a
decision on the merits of the class action.

On July 10, 2015, the parties to the class action executed a
Settlement Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") providing for
the settlement of the class action. The settlement is subject to
the approval of the Court. The Settlement Agreement provides for
the payment of CDN$5,500,000.00 (the "Settlement Amount") in
consideration for full and final settlement of the claims of Class
Members. The Settlement Amount includes all legal fees,
disbursements, taxes and administration expenses. In return for
the Settlement Amount, the Defendants will receive releases and a
dismissal of the class action. The settlement is a compromise of
disputed claims and is not an admission of liability, wrongdoing
or fault on the part of any of the Defendants, all of whom have
denied, and continue to deny, the allegations against them.

NPT RicePoint Class Action Services has been appointed by the
Court as the Administrator for the settlement.

A Settlement Approval Hearing Will Be Held in Calgary, Alberta

The settlement must be approved by the Court before it can be
implemented. Class Members may, but are not required to, attend at
the settlement approval hearing which will be held on October 9,
2015 at 1:00pm (MDT), at the Calgary Courts Centre, 601 - 5 Street
SW, Calgary, Alberta.

Class Members who approve of or do not oppose the settlement do
not need to appear at the settlement approval hearing or take any
other action at this time.

In addition to seeking the Court's approval of the settlement,
Siskinds LLP and Jensen Shawa Solomon Duguid Hawkes LLP (together,
"Class Counsel") will seek the Court's approval of its legal fees
not to exceed 32.5% of the Settlement Amount, plus disbursements
and applicable taxes ("Class Counsel Fees") at the settlement
approval hearing. In addition, Class Counsel will seek the Court's
approval for the payment of an honorarium of CDN$2,000 to the
Plaintiff Wayne Philpott. The fees of the Administrator, together
with any other costs relating to approval, notification,
implementation and administration of the settlement
("Administration Expenses"), will also be paid from the Settlement
Amount. Class Counsel Fees, Administration Expenses and the
honorarium will be deducted from the Settlement Amount before it
is distributed to Class Members.

Terms of the Settlement Agreement

The Settlement Amount, after deduction of Class Counsel Fees,
Administration Expenses and the honorarium to Mr. Philpott (the
"Net Settlement Amount"), will be distributed to Class Members in
accordance with the Plan of Allocation which is also subject to
Court approval.

The amount of each Class Member's actual compensation from the Net
Settlement Amount will depend upon: (i) the number of Donnybrook
shares held by the Class Member at the time of the Arrangement for
which they received Donnycreek shares through the Arrangement;
(ii) the number of Donnybrook shares held at the time of the
Arrangement by all Class Members who submit a claim for
compensation to the Administrator. It is therefore not possible to
predict what any individual Class Member's share of the Net
Settlement Amount will be.

If the Court approves the settlement, Class Members may
participate in the Settlement by filing a claim for compensation.
All Class Members will be bound by the terms of the settlement,
regardless of whether they submit a claim for compensation or
receive payment from the Settlement Amount. Class Members will not
be able to bring or maintain any other claim or legal proceeding
against the Defendants or any other person released by the
settlement in relation to the matters alleged in the class action.

If the settlement is approved, another notice to Class Members
will be published which will provide instructions on how to make a
claim to receive compensation from the settlement.

Copies of the Settlement Agreement and the proposed Plan of
Allocation may be found on the websites of Class Counsel at
www.jssbarristers.ca/pages/class-actions/class-actions.cfm or
http://www.siskinds.com/donnybrook-energy-and-donnycreek-energy/,
or by contacting Class Counsel at the contact information provided
below.

Class Members May Object to the Settlement

Class Members who wish to comment on or object to the settlement
should do so in writing. All objections should be received by
Class Counsel (contact details below) no later than September 21,
2015. Class Counsel will file all such submissions with the Court.
You may attend at the settlement approval hearing whether or not
you deliver an objection. The Court may permit you to participate
in the settlement approval hearing whether or not you deliver an
objection.

A written objection should use the heading "Donnybrook/Donnycreek
Securities Class Action", and should include: (i) the Class
Member's name, address, telephone number, fax number (where
applicable) and email address; (ii) a brief statement outlining
the nature of, and reasons for, the objection; and (iii) a
statement as to whether the objector intends to appear at the
settlement approval hearing in person or through a lawyer and, if
through a lawyer, the name, address, telephone number, fax number
and email address of the lawyer.

Questions related to this Notice should NOT be addressed to the
Court of Queen's Bench for Alberta.

DISTRIBUTION OF THIS NOTICE HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT OF
QUEEN'S BENCH OF ALBERTA

Visit Class Counsel's websites at www.siskinds.com or
www.jssbarristers.ca. For further information please contact Class
Counsel at:

Nicole Young, Esq.
Siskinds LLP
680 Waterloo Street
London, ON N6A 3V8
Tel: 1-877-672-2121 x 2380
Fax: 519-672-6065
Email: nicole.young@siskinds.com


ELETROBAS: Kaplan Fox Files Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP (www.kaplanfox.com) has filed a class
action suit against Centrais Eletricas Brasileiras SA
("Eletrobras" or the "Company") (NYSE: EBR), and certain of its
executives, that alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 on behalf of the City of Providence, Rhode Island,
individually, and all others similarly situated who purchased
Eletrobras' publicly traded securities during the period August
17, 2010 through June 24, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period")
(collectively, 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 Kaplan Fox'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 award of contracts for multi-billion
dollar construction projects controlled by Eletrobras and its
subsidiaries.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period Eletrobras
made assurances of its commitment to "[m]aking corporate decisions
based on the principles of ethics, transparency, integrity,
loyalty, impartiality, legality and efficiency," while,
unbeknownst to investors, "the Company was engaged in an illegal
scheme whereby billions of dollars paid by the Company to third
parties, ostensibly for construction and services contracts, were
being diverted to Eletrobras' executives and to political parties
associated with the Company's management."  Specifically,
throughout the Class Period, "Defendants held themselves out as
refusing any form of corruption, bribery or kickback and making
decisions transparently based on ethical principles, but failed to
disclose, among other things, that: (1) the Company and Individual
Defendants were engaged in a massive bribery and corruption scheme
operating in direct contradiction to the publicly-available
policies set forth in the Company's Code of Ethics and other
corporate governance directives, (2) there were serious
irregularities with respect to the costs of contracts that
Eletrobras entered into for the construction of projects,
including Angra 3, Belo Monte and Jirau, (3) a substantial amount
of the contracts the Company awarded were the product of bid-
rigging that materially inflated the costs of contracts, (4) the
Company's financial statements were materially false and
misleading and not presented in accordance with International
Financial Reporting Standards, and (5) the Company had material
deficiencies in its internal controls over its financial
reporting."

The Complaint further alleges that on April 30, 2015 before the
markets opened for trading, "Eletrobras filed a notice on Form NT
20-F with the SEC disclosing that the Company would be unable to
file its Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December
31, 2014 by April 30, 2015, the prescribed date for the Form 20-F
filing.  The Company gave two reasons for the delay.  First,
Eletrobras disclosed that the auditor of a significant affiliate
of Eletrobras, Energia Sustent vel do Brasil Participacoes S.A.
(the affiliate operating Jirau), had informed the Company that it
did not consider itself independent under the relevant U.S.
independence rules and that a new auditor had been appointed to
audit the financial statements of Jirau for purposes of applying
equity method accounting.  Second, as a result of press reports in
relation to Operation Car Wash that the consortium of companies
bidding for the mechanical assembly of the Angra 3 power plant
allegedly made illegal payments to the CEO of Eletrobras' wholly
owned subsidiary, Eletronuclear, the CEO of Eletronuclear
(Pinheiro da Silva) requested a leave of absence."  A separate SEC
filing also disclosed that although the Company's internal
investigation had not yet concluded, the Board of Directors had
approved the engagement of a 'specialized and independent entity
to conduct an investigation to ensure transparency and
independence.'"  On April 30, 2015, Eletrobras' ADSs declined by
8.24% to close at $2.45 per ADS.

If you are a member of the proposed Class, you may move the court
no later than September 21, 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.

For more information about Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, or to
review a copy of the Complaint filed in this action, you may
contact Kaplan Fox.

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
800-290-1952
212-687-1980
Fax: 212-687-7714
415-772-4700
Fax: 415-772-4707
phone: 212.687.1980
fax: 212.687.7714
https://www.kaplanfox.com/
rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
garenson@kaplanfox.com
jcampisi@kaplanfox.com
lking@kaplanfox.com


FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Former President Pleads Guilty
--------------------------------------------------
The Wall Street Journal reported that the last of six company
officials charged in a chemical spill that contaminated drinking
water for 300,000 people in West Virginia has pleaded guilty to
pollution charges.

Former Freedom Industries President Gary Southern pleaded guilty
in federal court in Charleston and could face up to three years in
prison.

In January 2014, a corroded Freedom tank in Charleston leaked
coal-cleaning chemicals into the water supply for nine counties,
spurring a ban on tap water for up to 10 days.

Mr. Southern pleaded guilty to three pollution charges and faces a
minimum of 30 days in prison and a maximum of three years in a
plea deal. He also faces a fine of up to $300,000 and perhaps
restitution.

He will be sentenced Dec. 16. Prosecutors dropped 12 other counts
related to bankruptcy fraud.

Freedom's public image suffered after Mr. Southern spoke at a Jan.
10, 2014, news conference.

"Look guys. It has been an extremely long day," Mr. Southern said,
occasionally drinking from a bottle of water. "I have trouble
talking at the moment. I would appreciate if we could wrap this
thing up."

Prosecutors portrayed Mr. Southern as a wealthy businessman who
cared little about safety. In court documents, they considered the
U.K. citizen a flight risk because he had a pilot's license and a
plane. Prosecutors said a tracking device wouldn't work on him
because his Marco Island, Fla., house was too big.

The government seized $7.3 million and a Bentley from Mr. Southern
and put a lien on his Florida house. Under the plea deal, he would
get those assets back. Prosecutors said it would be up to
immigration officials to decide whether to deport him.

The plea deal said some assets could go toward claims in Freedom's
bankruptcy case, a class-action lawsuit or court-ordered
restitution.

U.S. Attorney Booth Goodwin said his office won't ask Judge Thomas
Johnston for restitution because the applicable environmental laws
aren't well designed for that.

For more than a decade, officials had been aware of critical
deficiencies at the Freedom site, including a cracked containment
wall that let chemicals seep through down a bank into the Elk
River, an FBI affidavit said. But improvements to the wall weren't
made.

On, former Freedom executive Dennis Farrell pleaded guilty to a
deal that includes 30 days to two years in prison and up to a
$200,000 fine.

Messrs. Southern and Farrell had said some prosecutors had been
affected by the spill and tried to get Mr. Goodwin's office off
the case, but they didn't succeed.

Businesses and residents who struggled without clean water are
closely watching several ongoing court cases that will dictate if
they are paid back for their hardships.

A class-action lawsuit is ongoing against the chemical's producer,
Eastman Chemical, and West Virginia American Water, the utility
whose water supply became laced with chemicals.

A final bankruptcy deal still hasn't been struck, as businesses
and residents compete with other creditors for the little cash
remaining in defunct Freedom Industries. The company had proposed
paying out $2.7 million to spill victims in a larger bankruptcy
plan, but a federal bankruptcy judge rejected the proposal over
concerns about paying to clean up Freedom's contaminated
headquarters.


GAWKER: Asks Court to Reject Interns' Class Suit
------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for Hollywood Reporter, reported that in a
bid to beat a class action lawsuit, Gawker highlights what its
former interns actually produced.

Pointing out that its former interns weren't exactly prolific,
Gawker is now asking a judge to reject a class action lawsuit over
its unpaid internships.

The media company filed a motion for summary judgment to end a
legal battle being led by former Kotaku intern Aulister Mark and
former io9 intern Andrew Hudson. The bid to wrap up the case comes
on the heels of a decision in early July by the 2nd Circuit Court
of Appeals. The appellate opinion articulated the broad analysis
that should be applied in determining whether an internship might
be unpaid. "The proper question is whether the intern or the
employer is the primary beneficiary of the relationship," wrote
Second Circuit judge John Walker.

In its summary judgment motion, Gawker believes that all but one
of the plaintiffs are barred from suing by a 3-year statute of
limitations and also raises an issue with respects to a waiver
agreement that Mark had signed before becoming an intern. If those
arguments fail, Gawker also believes it is on the proper side of
the beneficiary scale.

Mark "gained much for himself but contributed little to Gawker,
writing one substantial piece over the course of several weeks
that a Gawker employee would have written in a day or two," states
a Gawker  memo.

And what exactly did Mark gain during his time at Gawker?

College credit, for starters. Mark was studying toward a degree in
journalism at The New School, Eugene Lang College.

Gawker also points to Mark's testimony in a deposition and school
evaluations that he gained the ability to work in a "fast-paced
environment" and the ability to "fine tune [his] writing style to
the progressive world of blogging."

As for copy-editing, which Mark did during his time at Gawker in
the summer of 2010, the media company argues that it was hardly
the beneficiary of such work. The copy-editing, Gawker says, "did
not displace paid employees' work because if the interns had not
done that work, no one would have."

Gawker provides similar analysis on Hudson, saying that in the
summer internship of 2008, the plaintiff only "published two
articles over the course of his nine-week internship, whereas io9
was publishing, on average, 'a dozen or several dozen' posts every
day."

"It would contravene the meaning of Glatt to allow this claim to
go to a jury," Gawker tells the judge. "Hudson's internship
embodied the 'purpose' of unpaid internships to integrate
classroom work in the real world."


HAMPDEN COUNTY, MA: Springfield Residents File Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Roman, writing for Mas Live, reported that attorney
Shawn Allyn has filed a class action lawsuit against the Hampden
County Sheriff's Department on behalf of 11 North End residents
opposing the relocation of the Western Massachusetts Correctional
Alcohol Center to the city's North End.

The lawsuit was filed in Hampden Superior Court and seeks
clarification of the Dover Amendment and its applicability in the
North End case.

The Dover Amendment allows developers to build facilities that
would normally be considered inappropriate or substantially larger
than what zoning laws permit as long as projects involve nonprofit
educational institutions. The amendment was cited by Margaret
Hurley, an assistant attorney general in Maura Healey's Municipal
Law Unit, at a recent public meeting in the North End, where a
Wason Avenue site in Brightwood has emerged as the preferred
location for the new correctional treatment facility.

"The amendment states that if education is a predominant part of
your program, then your program is protected and the city of
Springfield can't apply their normal zoning laws against you,"
Hurley said at the meeting.

Among the plaintiffs are Maria Perez, president of Women of the
Vanguard, a grassroots organization that collected 400 signatures
opposing the relocation, and Germaine Kennedy, a nearly lifelong
resident of the North End. Other plaintiffs include Springfield
residents Ana Andino, Ivelisse Gonzalez, Rodolfo Curbelo, Jesus
Matos, Marysol Matos, Miguel Rivas, Gloria Rivas, Christopher
Rivas and Ward 1 City Councilor Zaida Luna.

Kennedy, who is a board member of the New North Citizens Council,
said she is doing this as a resident, not a board member.

"This is a decision I made for myself, not as a representative of
the board," she said.  "I've been here 48 years. I live in my
family home. It's a very nice home and I don't want to see my
property values go down."

Kennedy said the neighborhood is already home to two methadone
clinics, boarders the women's correctional facility in Chicopee
and has several other treatment centers.

"We don't want it here, we have enough facilities in our
neighborhood," she said.

The original facility was located on Howard Street in
Springfield's South End for 30 years, but was uprooted to
accommodate the planned MGM Springfield casino. The program is now
being run from a temporary location in the former Geriatric
Authority building in Holyoke.

Ashe worked with the state Division of Capital Asset Management
and Maintenance to review possible sites for a permanent location
for the correctional treatment facility, and the Wason Avenue
proposal came in around $2 million cheaper than the only other
alternative proposal on Mill Street.


HARPERSVILLE, AL: Sued Over Constitutional Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Kevin Lessmiller, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that an Alabama town's private court collections firm made threats
outside its authority and caused indigent citizens to be jailed, a
class action lawsuit claims.

Dana Carden sued the Town of Harpersville, Ala. on behalf of
herself and similarly-situated individuals. The complaint alleges
constitutional violations including due process denial,
unreasonable seizure, excessive fines and denial of equal
protection.

The town hired Judicial Correction Services to collect court fines
and fees for its municipal court, according to the complaint.
Under its contract with Harpersville, JCS allegedly placed people
on probation if they were unable to pay court fines or costs and
issued arrest warrants for those who could not keep up with
payments.

JCS employees dressed like state authority figures and wore
badges, the lawsuit states. The company is also accused of
arbitrarily setting fines and fees.

"This public ruse was maintained by Harpersville for purposes of
imposing and collecting fines and costs from citizens such as the
plaintiff, and was accomplished by allowing JCS to control the
money, determine how much each municipal court 'offender' must pay
each month, how much would be credited for each payment to the
collection 'services' of JCS each month, and how much it would
rebate to Harpersville toward the fines adjudged," the complaint
states.

Carden, a Sylacauga, Ala. resident, says she was given three
traffic citations in 2007 but the ticket did not have a court date
and she did not receive a letter advising her of a date.

Three years later, she was riding in a car that was stopped by a
roadblock and an officer ran her name. Three outstanding warrants
for failure to appear in court showed up and Carden was arrested,
according to the complaint.

Carden was unable to post a $1,400 bond and was jailed for 19 days
despite being indigent and unable to pay, she claims.

"The plaintiff and some class members were imprisoned, and some
repeatedly, under these policies of Harpersville for their failure
to pay fines, costs and the added fees mandated by the illegal
contract between Harpersville and JCS," the complaint states. "The
plaintiff was not given a hearing or consideration of her
indigency before being jailed, nor was she provided notice of
charges, a hearing on charges levied that might result in
imprisonment, or provided assistance of counsel before being
imprisoned."

The lawsuit claims the delegation of administrative and judicial
functions to a private company is against the law.

"Despite the lack of authority to do so, Harpersville allowed JCS
to use threats of revoking probation, arrest, increased fines and
costs and jail time for purposes of collection," the complaint
states.

The Harpersville Municipal Court was dissolved through a 2012 city
council decision after an investigation. However, the town has not
reimbursed citizens for illegal fees or wrongful imprisonment, the
class action alleges.

The class seeks punitive damages and a court declaration that the
JCS contract is void. It is represented by G. Daniel Evans in
Birmingham, Ala.


HERTZ CORP: Former, Current Workers File Unpaid Wages Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that
one former and two current (as of July) employees of a Hertz
Corporation outlet in the greater Los Angeles area quietly filed a
class-action lawsuit alleging off-the-clock work.

According to the Los Angeles Times, the plaintiffs accuse Hertz
Corp. of creating small branches with an equally small number of
employees, and yet mandated those employees to maintain
supervision over what were described as "sizable" rental fleets
and a substantial customer base, or so it is alleged. The
plaintiffs decry that such a workload made it impossible to take
their legally mandated meal breaks and rest periods under
California labor law.

In fact, according to the report, plaintiffs were required to
clock out for meal breaks they never had time to enjoy, having to
continue working through their meal breaks and were not paid
accordingly, or so it is alleged.

One of the plaintiffs in the unpaid wages claim said in comments
published in the LA Times that management at her place of employ
would require her to clock out. However, plaintiff Chalissa
Johnson claims that in spite of clocking out, she was made to
remain on duty to help various customers at the Moreno Valley
location where she was stationed.

What's more, she was not allowed to clock back in, in spite of
continuing to work. "I got into [the job] thinking it would be
better for me and my daughter," Johnson said, in comments to the
LA Times. "I was wrong."

Johnson, who is a single mother, also told NBC4, "I was forced to
clock out and to stay behind and still work and it was very
difficult," she said. "My daughter is special needs, it forced me
to quit, I couldn't take it anymore," she said in a press
conference announcing the lawsuit. Johnson left Hertz after six
months. Two other plaintiffs were still employed at the time the
Unpaid Wages lawsuit was filed in Los Angeles County Superior
Court.

NBC4 referenced a UCLA Labor Center study, which estimates that
more than 600,000 workers in LA County are victims of so-called
wage theft, working without regular or overtime pay and losing
meal breaks. LA County Supervisor Hilda Solis has said minority
women like Johnson are frequent victims.

The alleged labor violations have occurred since at least 2011.
And while about 150 workers were employed by Hertz in the Los
Angeles area, an unpaid wages attorney familiar with the case
noted that the class-action California unpaid wages claim could
potentially apply to hundreds if not thousands of workers
similarly affected in neighboring counties.

In a statement appearing in the LA Times, Hertz said, "We take the
well-being of our employees very seriously. We are not able to
comment until we have completed a review of the complaint and an
investigation of the allegations."


ICONIX BRAND: Securities Suit Seeks to Recover Damages
------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights firm, reminded
purchasers of Iconix Brand Group, Inc. (NASDAQ:ICON) securities
from February 20, 2013 through April 17, 2015, inclusive (the
"Class Period") of the important August 24, 2015 lead plaintiff
deadline in the class action. The lawsuit seeks to recover damages
for Iconix investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Iconix class action, go to the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-579.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq.
or Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

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

The lawsuit alleges that the Company made false and/or misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose that: (1) the Company
had underreported the cost basis of its brands; (2) the Company
engaged in irregular accounting practices related to the booking
of its joint venture revenues and profits, free-cash flow, and
organic growth; (3) as a result, the Company's earnings and
revenues were overstated; and (4) as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' statements about Iconix's business, operations, and
prospects were false and misleading.

On March 30, 2015, the Company announced that its CFO, Jeff
Lupinacci, had resigned effective March 30, 2015. Then, on April
17, 2015, the Company revealed that its COO, Seth Horowitz, had
tendered his resignation on April 13, 2105. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
August 24, 2015. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-579.htmlor to discuss your rights
or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip
Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of The Rosen Law Firm, toll-free, at
866-767-3653, or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
kchan@rosenlegal.com.

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

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


ICONIX BRAND: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the
August 22, 2015 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the
class action complaint filed on behalf of a class comprising
purchasers of the securities of Iconix Brand Group, Inc. 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.

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

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

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

Then on August 11, 2015, the Company announced earnings and sales
that fell below analysts' expectations, and also reported that the
Iconix CEO and Founder, Neil Cole, had resigned his executive and
director positions.

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

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


IDI INC: September 21 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
-------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Southern District
of Florida on behalf of investors who purchased IDI, Inc. (NYSE
MKT:IDI) securities between April 30, 2015 through July 21, 2015.

Click here to learn about the case: http://docs.wongesq.com/IDI-
Info-Request-Form-853. There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period defendants
issued materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) Chairman Michael Brauser was named as a
defendant in multiple civil fraud litigation; (2) Brauser was co-
owner of a company that filed for bankruptcy and was sued as an
adversary in that bankruptcy proceeding; and (3) IDI's Transunion
lawsuit could render its stock worthless.

If you suffered a loss in IDI, Inc. you have until September 21,
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/IDI-Info-
Request-Form-853.

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


INDIANA: Law Impedes Sex Offender's Voting Rights, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Walker, writing for The Indy star, reported that the
American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana on filed a federal class
action lawsuit on behalf of a Hartford City man concerned that a
change in state law might impede his ability to vote.

A new law went into effect July 1 that prohibits "serious sex
offenders" from entering school property.

"One of the consequences of this is that these persons will be
prohibited from voting at their designated polling place if it is
located on school property," the ACLU's suit, filed in U.S.
District Court in Indianapolis, contends.

In 1993, Brian Valenti was convicted of "lewd or lascivious acts
with a child under 14 years" in California, drawing an eight-year
sentence, according to the Indiana Sex and Violent Offender
Registry.

According to the lawsuit, Valenti's crime occurred in 1988, and he
has not been convicted of "any other sex offenses against children
either before or after that time."

Valenti -- who moved to Hartford City in 2014 -- will be required
to register with local authorities as a sex offender for the rest
of his life, at least so long as he remains in Indiana.

"Mr. Valenti is registered to vote and intends to vote in future
elections, including the upcoming municipal election on Nov. 3,"
the suit states. "The polling place for Mr. Valenti's precinct,
however, is located on school property."

The suit -- filed by ACLU attorneys Kenneth Falk and Jan Mensz --
acknowledges Valenti has the option of voting by absentee, but
calls that an "onerous" process.

The lawsuit also says Valenti "would like to talk to people,
including electioneers and candidates, outside of polling places."

The Hartford City man "views voting in person on Election Day as a
celebration of his right to vote and... something that should be
shared publicly with his community."

Defendants in the suit are Indiana Secretary of State Connie
Lawson, the Indiana Election Board, Blackford County Prosecutor
Kevin Basey and Doug Carter, superintendent of the Indiana State
Police.

Valenti and the ACLU filed another federal suit in March,
questioning the legality of a Hartford City ordinance concerning
"child safety zones."

That suit alleges the ordinance prevents Valenti from taking his
child to the local library or area parks, visiting her school or
attending church.


INVESTMENT TECH: October 5, 2015 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announced that
a shareholder class action complaint has been filed against
Investment Technology Group, Inc. (NYSE: ITG) ("ITG" or the
"Company") on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities
between February 28, 2011 and July 29, 2015, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

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

ITG 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.

ITG is an independent execution and research broker in the United
States, Canada, Europe, and the Asia Pacific regions. One of the
Company's principal subsidiaries, AlterNet Securities, Inc.
("AlterNet"), is a U.S. broker-dealer.

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

On July 29, 2015, ITG issued a press release announcing that it
"had commenced settlement discussions" with the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") to resolve an SEC investigation into,
among other things, ITG's customer disclosures, regulatory filings
and customer information controls.  The press release further
disclosed that "ITG has negotiated a potential settlement" of the
investigation, and that the Company had "reserved $20.3 million
for a probable settlement with the SEC."

On this news, shares of ITG's stock fell $5.46 per share, or over
23%, to close at $18.36 per share on July 30, 2015, on unusually
heavy trading volume.

Members of the class may, no later than October 5, 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
www.ktmc.com


J. CREW GROUP: Sued Over Discrimination Against Blind Customers
---------------------------------------------------------------
J.Crew Group, Inc., a national clothing retailer, and Build-A-Bear
Workshop, Inc., a retailer of children's stuffed animals, were
sued in separate class action lawsuits in the Southern District of
New York (Case No. 15-cv-06337) and the District of Colorado,
(Case No. 15-cv-01724), respectively, alleging the companies
discriminate against their blind customers.

The lawsuits, brought by the Martinez Law Group, P.C., on behalf
of the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, a nonprofit disability
rights advocacy organization, the National Federation of the
Blind, the nation's leading advocate for the rights of the blind,
and seven individual named Plaintiffs who reside in New York,
Colorado, Texas, and California, allege violations of Title III of
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as well as various state
laws, based on the merchants' failure to provide accessible point-
of-sale devices (POS Devices) that enable blind customers to
securely enter their private PIN codes when making a purchase.

Both merchants have been sued repeatedly by blind customers over
the last two years for their failure to provide accessible POS
Devices. Despite numerous prior lawsuits, the merchants continued,
for years, to delay making the necessary changes required to make
their POS Devices accessible to the blind. As alleged in each
Complaint, the unnecessary and avoidable delay by both merchants
in complying with the law is surprising given that the retailers
operate extensively in California, which has since 2010 required
that every merchant operating in California provide tactile
keypads at every POS terminal.

In addition, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a statement in
a Florida court more than a year ago that made clear the DOJ's
position that merchants are required under the ADA to provide
blind customers an accessible auxiliary aid to input their debit
or credit card PINs.

"Unfortunately, merchants like J.Crew and Build-A-Bear have not
taken their obligations under the ADA seriously, and they have
failed to make accessibility a priority for their organizations,"
said Kevin Williams, Legal Program Director for CCDC. "These
merchants have the attitude that they can address accessibility
issues on their own delayed timeframe, and by eventually getting
around to doing so, they will avoid any liability. That is simply
not the case. We hope these lawsuits will send the message to
merchants that when they flagrantly disregard the law, as J. Crew
and Build-A-Bear have done, they do so at their own peril."

In addition to seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, the
class action lawsuits seek statutory damages on a classwide basis
for blind customers in New York, Colorado, Texas, and California.
Each of the state laws at issue provide for minimum statutory
damages for violations of their respective statutes that closely
follow the ADA.

Plaintiffs are represented in these lawsuits by Jana Eisinger of
the Martinez Law Group, P.C., a law firm that specializes in
complex litigation and class actions, with offices in Denver and
New York City; Scott LaBarre of LaBarre Law Offices, P.C., in
Denver; Kevin Williams of the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition
Legal Program; and in the J.Crew action, Plaintiffs are also
represented by Azra Z. Mehdi, of the Mehdi Firm, P.C in San
Francisco, California.

The NFB filed suit against The Container Store in Massachusetts,
for its failure to provide accessible POS Devices, and because the
in-store electronic devices on which customers can enroll in The
Container Store's loyalty program cannot be independently used by
blind customers. Enrollment in The Container Store's in-store
loyalty program can only be accomplished through visual
touchscreen devices, forcing blind customers to disclose their
confidential information to store personnel in order to obtain the
program's benefits. The NFB and CCDC also previously filed suit
against PetSmart, Inc. in Colorado for its failure to provide
accessible POS Devices.

Jana Eisinger, Esq.
Martinez Law Group, P.C.
720 S Colorado Blvd, Denver, CO 80246
303-597-4012
eisinger@mlgrouppc.com


LIFELOCK INC: September 21 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of LifeLock, Inc. ("LifeLock") (NYSE:LOCK) between July
30, 2014 through July 20, 2015.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the USDC for the District of Arizona. If you
purchased or otherwise acquired LifeLock between July 30, 2014 and
July 20, 2015, your rights may be affected by this action. To get
more information go to http://zlk.9nl.com/lifelockor contact
Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by
telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is
no cost or obligation to you.

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

If you suffered a loss in LifeLock you have until September 21,
2015 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

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

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


LOGMEIN INC: TOU Crucial Tool to Defeat Customer's Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Rubin, Esq. -- arubin@mofo.com -- at Morrison Foerster, in
an article for JD Supra, reported that websites sometimes present
their terms of use ("TOU") to users merely by including a link to
those TOU on the website without requiring users to affirmatively
accept the terms by, for example, checking a box or clicking an "I
accept" button. As we have written previously, Courts tend to look
disfavorably on such website TOU presentations, which have become
somewhat misleadingly known as "browsewrap agreements," when
determining whether a TOU constitutes an enforceable contract
between the website operator and a user. According to a recent
federal district court opinion, however, browsewrap TOU might be
sufficient to help websites achieve another legal end: providing
sufficient notice to defeat a false advertising claim based on an
allegedly fraudulent omission.

In the case, Handy v. LogMeIn, Inc., the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California held that a software vendor's
online terms and conditions provided notice that the company might
discontinue its app, and that such notice was sufficient to defeat
a customer's claims under California's false advertising and
unfair competition laws, regardless of whether the customer had
affirmatively accepted the TOU.

The defendant, LogMeIn, Inc., sells software for accessing
computer files remotely from separate computers or mobile devices.
LogMeIn previously provided its software as two separate products:
LogMeInFree, a free service that allowed users to log into remote
computers from a desktop or laptop; and Ignition, a paid service
that allowed users to log into computers using mobile devices.
Before 2011, the plaintiff, Darren Handy, downloaded LogMeInFree
and then paid for Ignition. In 2014, LogMeIn introduced a new paid
product called "LogMeInPro," which merged the features of
LogMeInFree and Ignition. Eventually, LogMeIn posted a message on
its website stating it would begin migrating users of LogMeInFree
and Ignition to the new platform while ending support and
maintenance on the older platforms. This required users of
LogMeInFree and Ignition to pay for LogMeInPro in order to receive
continued support and maintenance for Ignition and to continue to
use the functionality previously provided for free as part of
LogMeInFree.

In response, Mr. Handy brought a class action suit alleging he
would never have purchased Ignition if he had known that the
company would discontinue support for Ignition or require
additional payment for continued access to the LogMeInFree
functionality. His suit claimed that LogMeIn violated California
Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200 and 17500 by fraudulently
failing to disclose that the company might discontinue support and
change its pricing model for the software.  LogMeIn argued, among
other things, that its online TOU reserved the right for LogMeIn
"to modify or discontinue any Product for any reason or no
reason." But Handy argued that this statement was not binding on
him because he never affirmatively accepted the TOU.

The court disagreed, however, holding that "whether the Terms and
Conditions constituted an enforceable contract is irrelevant to
whether the Terms and Conditions related to LogMeInFree provided
notice to prospective purchasers of the Ignition app that
LogMeInFree could be discontinued." The court went on to note
that, while LogMeIn's TOU may not have been "forced on Plaintiff
through a clickwrap," the TOU nonetheless showed that LogMeIn had
"publish[ed] the fact that it reserved the right to terminate the
free app, LogMeInFree." Therefore, the court held that there was
"an insufficient showing that information related to the future
termination of LogMeInFree constituted a material omission when
selling the Ignition app."

Clients often ask us whether a "browsewrap" TOU serves any purpose
at all, in light of the fact that courts are often disinclined to
construe such TOU presentations as creating an enforceable
contract. Handy v. LogMeIn, Inc. shows that, in at least some
circumstances, the answer is yes: even if a browsewrap does not
constitute a contract, it may serve a useful purpose by providing
legally significant notices to users.


LONG BEACH WESTIN: Hotel Workers File Wage Law Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Thornton, writing for Gazettes, reported that Long Beach
Westin Hotel workers filed a class action lawsuit (Aug. 18),
saying the hotel violated wage and hour laws.

The lawsuit filed with the California Superior Court alleges
Westin subjected workers to off-the-clock work, not reimbursing
their work supplies and not allowing breaks for meals and rests.

Noble-Interstate Management Group California and Interstate Hotels
& Resorts operates the hotel. Utah Retirement Systems has 95%
ownership of the hotel's operators.

The law firm of Alexander Krakow + Glick of Santa Monica and Law
Offices of Kyle Todd of Los Angeles, represent the workers,
including Juana Melara.  Melara said the following in a release:

"Although my work shift doesn't begin until 8 a.m., I am expected
to start working well before that to prepare my cart with all the
cleaning supplies that I will need throughout the day. I also have
purchased gloves to better protect my hands and have brought my
own cleaning supplies from home because the hotel doesn't provide
what is necessary for me to clean all of the rooms, even though I
am expected to leave each one of them spotless."

Melara, Francisco Estin and Rosa Casarrubias are the plaintiffs in
the lawsuit, which lists Casarrubias and Estin as working at the
hotel's The Grill Restaurant and in the banquet department. The
lawsuit says they are not allowed routine uninterrupted 30-minute
meal breaks before the fifth hour of work and are not paid a meal
penalty, or extra hour of premium pay for missed meals.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Hearing Set for Compton School Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Cory turner, writing for NPR News, reported that an unprecedented,
class action lawsuit brought against one Southern California
school district and its top officials could have a big impact on
schools across the country.

On in Los Angeles, a U.S. District Court judge will preside over
the first hearing in the suit against the Compton Unified School
District. To understand the complaint, you need to understand
Compton.

The city, located just south of LA, has long had a violent
reputation. It's murder rate was more than five times the national
average. Now, a handful of students say they've been traumatized
by life in Compton and that the schools there have failed to give
them the help they deserve.

The complaint is a terrifying read -- of kids coping with physical
and sexual abuse, addicted parents, homelessness and a constant
fear of violence.

One of the plaintiffs, listed as 15-year-old Phillip W., says he
witnessed his first murder when he was 8.

"Somebody got shot in the back of the head with a shotgun," the
boy explains in a video on a website dedicated to the case. "And
they threw him over the rail, and he was just sitting there
bleeding, blood all down the sewer line. It was a horrifying
sight."

The complaint says Phillip has witnessed more than 20 shootings
and, in 2014, was hit in the knee by a bullet.

What's this have to do with Compton's schools?

Susan Ko of the National Center for Child Traumatic Stress says
exposure to violence can have a profound effect on the brain's
ability to learn.

"That impacts concentration, the ability to just listen to what
the teacher is saying, to understand what you're reading, to
remember something that you learned or what the teacher just
said," Ko says.

Not only that, many traumatized students live in a state of
constant alarm. Innocent interactions like a bump in the hallway
or a request from a teacher can stir anger and bad behavior.

The lawsuit alleges that, in Compton, the schools' reaction to
traumatized students was too often punishment -- not help.

"They were repeatedly either sent to another school, expelled or
suspended -- and this went back to kindergarten," says Marleen
Wong, who teaches at the USC School of Social Work and has spent
decades studying kids and trauma. "I think we're really doing a
terrible disservice to these children."

The suit argues that trauma is a disability and that schools are
required -- by federal law -- to make accommodations for
traumatized students, not expel them. The plaintiffs want Compton
Unified to provide teacher training, mental health support for
students and to use conflict-mediation before resorting to
suspension.

"That's a very strong mandate, and it needs to be funded," says
the district's attorney, David Huff. He argues the suit uses too
broad a definition of disability and sends the wrong message to
kids living in other struggling neighborhoods.

"A sweeping declaration would effectively tell these children that
they have now been labeled as having a physical or mental handicap
under federal law."

Compton Unified has asked the judge to dismiss the case.

This idea -- of treating trauma in children as a disability -- is
new, though the problem is not, says Ko. "Twenty-five percent of
kids will have experienced a traumatic event before the age of
16."

Not all of those children will struggle in school. But many will -
- and not just in Compton, where students returned to class
bringing with them the stories of summer, good and bad.


LOS ANGELES, CA: LADWP Reaches Deal in Customer Billing Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
CBS reported that The Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
reached a tentative settlement in regards to a customer billing
class-action litigation.

The settlement would amount to LADWP crediting or refunding up to
tens of millions of dollars to customers  who experienced over-
billing as a result of the problematic initiation of the
department's new billing system.

In all, the department says, $44 million was wrongly billed as
excessive charges after the system took effect. Recent refunds and
credits, according to Chief Administrative Officer David Wright,
have decreased that sum to $36 million.

LADWP General Manager Marcie Edwards released a statement,
addressing the settlement.

"The proposed settlement makes good on a commitment I made to our
customers when I was appointed to review every account and make
whole any customer who was overcharged by our new billing system,
no matter how small the error," Edwards said.
"With this agreement, every customer who was affected will receive
100 cents on the dollar."

Edwards goes on to note that the proposed settlement results in
the majority of credits and refunds being "quite small", and that
they will amount to under $10 for customers who were overcharged
by the new billing system.

". . . the total remaining credits and refunds owed to customers
amount to approximately three tenths of one percent of total
billings since we began using the new billing system," Edwards
stated.
In her statement, Edwards went on to acknowledge that the issue
caused inconvenience for customers, and that further efforts would
keep the same problem from occurring again.

". . . we know that the problems associated with our billing
system caused problems and headaches for far too many of our
customers and we apologize to each and every customer who was
affected," Edwards stated. "We are continuing our legal action to
seek recovery of all costs associated with the proposed settlement
as part of ongoing litigation against Pricewaterhouse Coopers
(PWC), the firm hired to perform the system integration and
replacement of LADWP's customer information and billing system."

While most cases will result in $10 of refunds or less, others are
due a much larger sum.

Roger Espinosa, one such over-billed LADWP customer, says the
prices of his bills grew steadily, and then rapidly.

"It started off at let's say five hundred, and then it was always
even numbers, it would go to a thousand, and then it got up to
something crazy (like) fourteen or seventeen thousand dollars was
the bill," Espinosa said.

Espinosa says he paid as much as $1200 on some bills, just to keep
the DWP at bay.

Under the settlement, customers would be notified in October, and
refunds and credits would be received by June 2016. A new audit of
1.6 million customer accounts would also be required.

Additionally, DWP would be required to spend roughly $20 million
to fix the faulty billing system.

"Finding out that the DWP would actually care enough to make a
proposal or settlement is progress, because in the past, in my
dealings, I've found that it can be extremely difficult to
navigate through their systems as it is," Espinosa said.

The final disposition on the proposal will be up to the court,
which may announce whether or not it agrees to the proposal by
October.


MANNY PACQUIAO: Calif. Judge to Hear Arguments on Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberley Pierceall, writing for The News Tribune, reported that
plaintiffs who say the May 2 Las Vegas fight between Manny
Pacquiao and Floyd Mayweather Jr. was a fraud and they deserve
their pay-per-view money back will argue their cases in front of a
federal judge in California.

Judge R. Gary Klausner, the same judge hearing arguments in cases
filed against the Sony movie studio related to a computer hacker
attack, will decide if the Pacquiao cases are granted class-action
status before any trial proceeds.

A panel of judges that decides whether to consolidate similar
claims brought in different jurisdictions into a single courtroom
ruled that lawsuits filed in several states will be heard in the
Central District of California where Pacquiao was said to injure
his shoulder while training for the fight.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation said in its
decision that determining the severity and timing of the boxer's
rotator-cuff injury could require "significant factual, and
possibly expert, discovery."

The panel said questions about the facts of the case, including
for example who knew about the injury, are sufficiently complex to
warrant consolidating the large number of related cases.

At least 32 lawsuits had been filed as of mid-May in California,
Nevada, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, New York and
Texas. Several more appear to have been filed since.

Pacquiao and his promoter Top Rank Inc. are named in all of the
lawsuits, and most include Mayweather, his promoters and cable
companies HBO and Showtime.

In court filings, attorneys representing Pacquiao and Top Rank
have said the claims are without merit.

An attorney for the defendants declined to comment. So did
representatives for HBO and Showtime. Attempts to reach
Mayweather's promoter by phone and email were unsuccessful.

The lawsuits argue the injury wasn't revealed until after the
fight, too late for 4.4 million viewers who had already paid up to
$100 each to watch it. HBO and Showtime have said they earned more
than $400 million from the fight.

Each of the fighters earned more than $100 million.


MDC PARTNERS: Rigrodsky & Long Files Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. announces that a complaint has been filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased the
common stock of MDC Partners, Inc. ("MDC" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ GS: MDCA) between September 24, 2013 and April 27, 2015,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and certain of
its officers (the "Complaint").

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

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted
materially adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations
and prospects.  As a result of defendants' alleged false and
misleading statements, the Company's stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

According to the Complaint, on April 27, 2015, after the close of
trading, the Company issued a press release reporting that the SEC
had been conducting a formal investigation into the Company's
reporting of executive compensation and goodwill and that MDC
formed a Special Committee of independent directors to review
matters relating to the reimbursement of expenses purportedly
incurred by the Company's Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and
President, Miles S. Nadal ("Nadal").  Further, the release stated
that following the Special Committee's investigation, Nadal agreed
to repay the Company $8.6 million; that the Company had adopted
and implemented a series of remedial steps to improve and
strengthen its internal controls and procedures; 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."

On this news, shares in MDC plummeted over 27%, closing at $20.20
per share on April 28, 2014, on heavy trading volume.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than September 29, 2015.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may
move the court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

Timothy J. MacFall, Esq.
Peter Allocco, Esq.
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A.
825 E Gate Blvd #300 Garden City, NY 11530
(888) 969-4242
(516) 683-3516
Fax: (302) 654-7530
http://www.rigrodskylong.com


MITSUI OSK: Reaches Settlement in Antitrust Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
A settlement has been reached with Japanese shipping giant Mitsui
O.S.K. Lines, Ltd., known as MOL, in a major class-action
antitrust lawsuit filed by individual consumers and auto, truck
and equipment dealerships against more than a dozen international
companies accused of artificially driving up shipping costs.

This marks the second significant settlement in the Vehicle
Carrier Services Antitrust Litigation following an agreement
reached with another Japanese shipping giant, Kawasaki Kisen
Kaisha, known as K-Line. While the financial terms of both
settlements remain confidential, they are expected to become
public in documents seeking court approval.

"This is an important day for American consumers," says Dallas
attorney Warren T. Burns of Burns Charest LLP, who servers as
interim co-lead counsel for the end-payor plaintiffs. "This is the
second major settlement in a month, demonstrating the strength of
our clients' claims. This should send a strong signal to the
remaining defendants that it is time to resolve this case."

The defendants asked U. S. District Judge Esther Salas of Newark
to dismiss the lawsuit by arguing that the 1984 Shipping Act pre-
empts state antitrust laws that protect indirect purchasers
against price-fixing. Mr. Burns argued on behalf of all indirect
purchasers that state antitrust laws complement the Shipping Act,
and that Congress did not intend to bar such state claims.

"We expect that the court will make a decision very soon," says
Burns. "We are confident that the court will work through the
issues carefully and deny the defendants' motions."

Additional defendants, among others, include Nippon Yusen
Kabushiki Kaisha (NYK Line) of Japan and Chilean-based Compania
Sud Americana de Vapores (CSAV), both of which previously pled
guilty to participating in the conspiracy that is still being
investigated by the federal government.

The case is In Re: Vehicle Carrier Services Antitrust Litigation,
No. 13-cv-3306 (MDL No. 2471).

Burns Charest is a Dallas and New Orleans-based trial law firm
with a national practice representing consumers and businesses.
The firm represents clients in large, complex class actions;
antitrust claims; oil and gas royalty disputes; environmental
pollution cases; and asbestos exposure claims. To learn more,
visit http://www.burnscharest.com.

Burns Charest LLP
500 North Akard Street, Suite 2810, Dallas, TX 75201
PHONE: 69.904.4550
http://www.burnscharest.com/


MOBILEIRON INC: Ryan & Maniskas Files Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has
been filed in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Santa Clara on behalf of purchasers of common stock of
MobileIron, Inc. who purchased MobileIron securities pursuant to
the company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with its initial public offering ("IPO") on June 12,
2014.

MoblieIron shareholders may move the Court for appointment as a
lead plaintiff of the Class. If you purchased shares of MDC and
would like to learn more about these claims or if you wish to
discuss these matters and have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights, contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire
toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or to sign up online, visit:
www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/mobl.

According to the complaint, MobileIron officials deceived the
investing public and caused the price of its securities to be sold
at artificially inflated prices. Specifically, MobileIron's
Registration Statement omitted material information that was
required to be disclosed -- namely, that the company had recently
been hacked and that its platform was vulnerable to security bugs.
MobileIron went public on June 12, 2014, at $9.00 per share, and
quickly traded up to close its first day of public trading at
$11.02 per share. The following day, online insurance news journal
PostOnline.co.uk published a story detailing that MobileIron's
customer, Aviva plc, had its employees' mobile devices hacked.
MobileIron was quoted as downplaying the event as an isolated
incident.

Then, on June 23, 2014, a news article published by
TheRegister.co.uk stated that on May 20, 2014, a hacker
compromised the MobileIron administrative server and performed a
"full wipe" of many of the mobile devices used by Aviva personnel.
An Aviva employee revealed in the article that the breach caused
the company millions in damages. In the wake of the incident,
Aviva moved its impacted personnel onto a Blackberry service and
entered discussions with MobileIron's reseller Esselar to cancel
their contract. Despite the fact that the breach occurred weeks
before MobileIron's IPO, the Offering Materials failed to disclose
the breach, Aviva moving to Blackberry's services, and the likely
impact that the publication of the breach would have on
MobileIron's ability to secure contracts with large customers and
keep customers on its perpetual licensing revenue model.

On April 22, 2015, MobileIron issued a press release announcing an
inability to close multiple large deals from North American
customers and a large shift by customers to its monthly
subscription model, which resulted in lower billings and revenue.
On the same day, the company issued another press release stating
that its Chief Financial Officer was resigning. On this news,
MobileIron stock fell $2.39 per share, or over 25%.

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

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

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


MUELLER: Pa. Court Allows Suit vs. McDonald's Franchisee
--------------------------------------------------------
Karen Baillie, Esq. -- kbaillie@schnader.com -- at Schnader
Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP, in an article for Mondaq, wrote that
in  September 2013, SchnaderWorks published "Employers should
Proceed With Caution in Using Payroll Cards." At that time, author
Scott Wenner advised that employers should follow the conditions
prescribed in the federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act,
Regulation E and should be aware that the United States Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) takes the position that,
"Regulation E prohibits employers from mandating that employees
receive wages only on a payroll card of the employer's choosing."
In addition, Scott cautioned employers of the need to comply with
state payroll laws.

Recently, a Luzerne County, Pennsylvania judge weighed in on the
issue.  This decision reiterates Scott's earlier advice.  In the
case of Siciliano v. Mueller, C.A.  No. 2013-07010 (Luzerne County
Court of Common Pleas May 29, 2015) employees of a McDonald's
franchise claimed that their employer violated the Pennsylvania
Wage Payment and Collection Law  (WPCL) (23 P.S. Sec. 260.3) by
mandating that employees receive wages only via a JP Morgan Chase
Payroll Card.

The employee-plaintiffs object to the payroll cards because there
may be fees incurred in activating and using the cards and because
managerial employees are permitted to be paid via direct deposit.
In denying the defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, the court
noted that the WPCL requires that, "wages shall be paid in lawful
money of the United States or check." The court reasoned that the
Pennsylvania legislature did not contemplate payroll cards when
the language was adopted in 1961. Further, the legislature did not
just use the word "money" but instead used the words, "lawful
money of the United States," which the court found to mean the
"bills and coins" approved as legal tender. The court further
found that paycards do not meet the legal definition of "check"
because they are not "unconditional written orders."

Although at least half of the states across the country now allow
wages to be paid on payroll cards (either by statutory amendment
or regulations promulgated pursuant to statutory authority), such
laws typically permit the use of payroll cards only if employees
are offered other wage payment options and give advance written
consent to payment by payroll card. In its decision, the Luzerne
County court pointed out that the (currently dormant) proposed
legislation in Pennsylvania (Pa. H.B. 2274, 198th General
Assembly, 2014 Session (Pa. 2014) (referred to Committee on Labor
and Industry May 28, 2014) likewise would allow for payment of
wages via payroll cards, only with employee advance authorization.
Interestingly, the court did not mention the CFPB's guidance on
the use of payroll cards and the requirements of Regulation E.
Instead, the court urged the state to provide guidance,
"Pennsylvania employers and wage-earners could benefit from the
Department of Labor and Industry expressing a formal position on
the matter."

In sum, Pennsylvania employers (especially those in Luzerne
County) considering a payroll card system should continue to seek
employee advance written authorization to be paid via payroll card
(or direct deposit) and should continue to be cognizant of the
requirements of EFTA, Regulation E, and of the CFPB's guidance on
the use of payroll cards.


NAT'L SECURITY: Former SLC Mayor Sues Over 2002 Olympic Spying
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Winslow, writing for Fox 13, reported that former Salt Lake
City Mayor Rocky Anderson has filed a class-action lawsuit against
the National Security Agency, former President George W. Bush and
former Vice-President Dick Cheney over accusations of spying on
everyone in Salt Lake City during the 2002 Olympic Winter Games.

In a lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court, Anderson accused the
NSA and the Bush administration of blanket surveillance over
everyone in Salt Lake City and the Olympic venues from the start
of the opening ceremonies until the closing ceremonies two weeks
later.

The plaintiffs in Anderson's lawsuit are: Josie Valdez, the former
vice-chair of the Utah Democratic Party; Sen. Howard Stephenson,
R-Draper; Anderson's former spokeswoman and former Salt Lake City
Councilwoman Deeda Seed; former Dead Goat Saloon owner Daniel
Darger; author William Bagley; and University of Utah English
professor Thomas Huckin.

The lawsuit claims a Fourth and First Amendment violation and
seeks class-action status. In his request for damages, Anderson
asks on behalf of his clients an injunction "prohibiting
Defendants' continued warrantless surveillance of communications"
and also asking the NSA to give his clients the data that was
allegedly taken during the 2002 Olympic Winter Games.


NIAGARA COLLEGE: Former International Students File Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Hall, writing for The Star, reported that former
international students at Niagara College are launching a class-
action lawsuit against the school and seeking more than $50
million in damages after a mostly online program left some foreign
students ineligible to work in Canada after graduation.

Anish Goyal and Chintan Zankat are taking legal action on behalf
of a host of affected classmates after they enrolled in a four-
month program allegedly designed to help them qualify for
"coveted" post-graduate, three-year work permits.

"We've alleged that Niagara College came up with a program for
international students designed to allow them to qualify for a
three-year work permit, which they coveted, but failed to properly
design it. And, as a result, their graduates are not qualifying
for the work permits and are essentially being kicked out of
Canada," said Darcy Merkur, the graduates' lawyer.
None of the allegations in the group's statement of claim has been
proven in court.

Niagara College confirmed it received notice of the legal action.
"We have received a claim and are consulting legal counsel. It is
too early to make any other comments at this time," said Susan
McConnell, a spokesperson for Niagara College, in an email to the
Star.

Merkur is working on the case with a group of immigration lawyers
who represent about 100 of the 500 international students he said
could be affected by the work permit rejections.

The statement of claim alleges the school and its representatives
led students to believe that by completing the mostly online
general arts and science diploma transfer program, after
completing one year of graduate or post-graduate schooling in
Canada, they would qualify for a three-year work permit.

But the students later learned the Niagara College program didn't
meet Citizenship and Immigration Canada's work permit requirements
because the program was considered distance learning.

It's something Niagara College "knew or ought to have known"
before it allegedly "promised" the program's foreign graduates
would qualify for the work permit, according to the statement of
claim.

"By pushing the course online, they've disqualified their
graduates from qualifying," Merkur said.

The document also alleges Niagara College advised its students
that the online portion of the program wouldn't make it a distance
learning program, which was, the plaintiffs allege, "misleading."
The ordeal has been enormously frustrating for Goyal, 26, who
expects his work permit application will be denied just like
Zankat's. He had planned to send money back home to support his
parents while he worked in IT project management.

"I will lose my career here," Goyal said. "I've invested almost
two years of my life in Canada and now I'm being forced to go back
home without getting what I was promised."


NORDSTROM INC: Deceptive Marketing Class Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Tom Egan, writing for Massachusetts Lawyer Weekly, reported that a
retailer could not be sued under Chapter 93A for its alleged
deceptive and misleading labeling and marketing of merchandise, a
U.S. District Court judge has ruled. Plaintiff Judith Shaulis
filed a class action alleging that defendant Nordstrom Inc., doing
business as Nordstrom Rack, "misrepresented the existence, nature,
and amount of price discounts on products."


ON DECK: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP announces that
a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against On Deck
Capital, Inc. ("On Deck" or the "Company") on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's common stock, who purchased or acquired their
shares pursuant or traceable to On Deck's Initial Public Offering
("IPO") on or about December 16, 2014.

On Deck 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/on-deck-capital-inc.

On Deck provides capital financing services to small and medium
sized businesses in the United States.  On or about December 16,
2014, On Deck completed its IPO, selling 11.5 million shares of
common stock to investors at $20 per share.  In connection with
the IPO, On Deck filed a Registration Statement and Prospectus
with the SEC (collectively, the "Offering Materials").

The complaint alleges that the Offering Materials contained untrue
statements of material fact and omitted to state material facts
required to be disclosed.  Specifically, the complaint alleges
that the Offering Materials failed to disclose shifts in the
Company's lending practices to less profitable channels and longer
term loans, which were negatively affecting, among other things,
On Deck's interest rate spread, effective interest yield, annual
percentage rates and earnings.

Shortly after the Company's IPO, several analysts issued reports
about On Deck cautioning investors about the Company's declining
financial situation, and cutting their price target on the
Company's stock.  Thereafter, On Deck reported a series of
disappointing financial and operational results, and disclosed
that it was experiencing a declining interest yield caused by the
Company's shift to less profitable channels and longer term loans.
Following those disclosures, shares of On Deck's common stock
significantly declined.

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

Members of the class may,no later than October 5, 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 Rd, Radnor, PA 19087
(888) 299-7706
info@ktmc.com.


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Bernstein Litowitz Files Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G") announced that
it has filed a securities class action on behalf of the
Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund alleging claims under
Section 10(b) and 20(a) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
("Exchange Act") on behalf of investors in the Common Units of
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. ("Plains" or the "Company")
between February 27, 2013 and August 4, 2015, inclusive, and the
Class A Shares of Plains GP Holdings, L.P. ("Plains Holdings")
(NYSE: PAGP) between October 16, 2013 and August 4, 2015,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint also alleges claims under Sections 11, 12 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Plains Holdings Class
A Shares pursuant and/or traceable to Plains Holdings' initial
public offering conducted on or about October 16, 2013 (the
"IPO"), as well as a registered public offering of Plains Holdings
Class A Shares conducted on or about November 10, 2014 (the
"November 2014 Offering" and, collectively with the IPO, the
"Offerings"). The action is captioned Jacksonville Police and Fire
Pension Fund v. Plains All American Pipeline, L.P., No. 2:15-cv-
06210 (C.D. Cal.).

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Plains, Plains
Holdings and certain of its senior executives violated provisions
of the Exchange Act by issuing false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's pipeline monitoring, maintenance and
spill response measures, as well as its compliance with federal
regulations governing its pipeline operations. Among other things,
Plains told investors and regulators that it was in compliance
with regulations governing its pipeline operations, and that its
Line 901 pipeline and operations off the coast of Santa Barbara,
California were "state of the art" and therefore a spill was
"extremely unlikely." The Complaint also seeks remedies under the
Securities Act against Plains Holdings, certain of its senior
officers and directors, and certain underwriters of the IPO and
November 2014 Offering for material misstatements and omissions
contained in materials issued in connection with the Offerings.

On May 19, 2015, news reports disclosed that Line 901 had
ruptured, causing a spill that impacted several miles of some of
the most environmentally sensitive and protected coastline in
North America. Although the Company was required to notify the
National Response Center within 30 minutes of discovery of the
spill, the agency was instead notified as a result of a 911 call
to the local fire department. Further, regulators investigating
the spill have reported that Line 901 and an adjacent pipeline
were "extensively" corroded, and that prior inspections had shown
a worsening of pipeline integrity.

Moreover, after the spill occurred, Plains executives
misrepresented the extent and severity of the spill. In the days
after the spill was disclosed, Company officials told investors
that a "worst case" estimate showed that 2,400 barrels had been
released. However, on August 5, 2015, the Company reported that
the extent of the spill was in fact far greater than initially
reported, and that the U.S. Department of Justice had initiated a
criminal investigation into the spill.
In response to disclosures concerning the spill and the truth
about the Company's operations, the price of Plains securities
have declined by nearly 30%. Plains Holdings Class A Shares have
similarly declined in value, falling $5.65 per share on August 5,
2015, or over 20%.

If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must
file a motion with the Court no later than 60 days from.
Accordingly, the deadline for filing a motion for appointment as
Lead Plaintiff is October 16, 2015. Any member of the proposed
Class may move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff through
counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain a
member of the proposed Class.

Avi Josefson, Esq.
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
1285 Avenue of the Americas # 38, New York, NY 10019
Phone:+1 212-554-1400
www.blbglaw.com


QRX PHARMA: Goldberg Law Firm Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Goldberg Law PC announces that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against QRx Pharma, Ltd., for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws. Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares between January 24, 2011 and April 23, 2014,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), have until August 24, 2015 to
serve as lead plaintiff in the class action.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss during the Class
Period, we advise you to contact Michael Goldberg or Brian Schall,
of Goldberg Law PC, 13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Suite 1404, Marina Del
Rey, CA 90292, at 800-977-7401, to discuss your rights without
cost to you. You can also reach us through the firm's website at
http://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or by email at
info@goldberglawpc.com.

The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the complaint, the Company failed to disclose to
investors that it received a "no agreement letter" from the Food
and Drug Administration ("FDA") regarding its Moxduo trials. When
the truth was revealed, shares dropped causing investors harm.

If you have any questions concerning your legal rights in this
case, please immediately contact Goldberg Law PC at 800-977-7401,
or visit our website at http://www.Goldberglawpc.com,or email us
at info@goldberglawpc.com.

Goldberg Law PC represents shareholders around the world and
specializes in securities class actions and shareholder rights
litigation.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Michael Goldberg, Esq
Brian Schall, Esq
Goldberg Law PC
13650 Marina Pointe Dr., Suite 1404
Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
Phone 800-977-7401
http://www.Goldberglawpc.com
info@goldberglawpc.com


QRX PHARMA: Faces Securities Class Action Case
----------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP ("Scott+Scott"), reminded
investors that they had until August 24, 2015 to file lead
plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit
against QRx Pharma, Ltd. ("QRx" or "the Company") (OTCBB: QRXPY,
QRXPF). Scott+Scott had filed the first class action in this
matter and that case is currently pending in the Southern District
of New York as well.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and was filed on behalf of all purchasers of QRx American
Depository Receipts ("ADRs") between January 24, 2011 and April
23, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period"). If you are a QRx
shareholder, you are encouraged to contact Scott+Scott for
additional information.

The complaint alleges that QRx 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 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
memorandum which denied QRx's application to get Moxduo approved,
the price of QRx ADRs plummeted over 83% on April 23, 2014.

You can view a copy of the complaint filed by Scott+Scott at:
http://www.scott-scott.com/cnt/cp/qrx_pharma_complaint.pdf

What You Can Do

If you purchased QRx ADRs during the Class Period, you may move
the Court no later than August 24, 2015 to serve as lead
plaintiff. Any member of the investor class may move the Court to
serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of its choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member. If you
wish to discuss this action or have questions concerning this
notice or your rights, please contact Michael Burnett, Esq. at
Scott+Scott (mburnett@scott-scott.com (800) 404-7770, (860) 537-
5537, or visit the Scott+Scott website, http://www.scott-
scott.com) for more information. There is no cost or fee to you.

            About Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP

Scott+Scott has significant experience in prosecuting major
securities, antitrust, and employee retirement plan actions
throughout the United States. The firm represents pension funds,
foundations, individuals, and other entities worldwide.

Joseph V. Halloran, Esq.
Scott & Scott LLP
The Chysler Building 405 Lexington Ave. 40th Flr  New York, NY
10174-4099
Phone: (800) 404-7770
Fax: (646) 582-0121)
scottlaw@scott-scott.com
http://www.scott-scott.com


ROOT9B TECHNOLOGIES: Levi & Korsinsky Files Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of root9B Technologies Inc. ("root9B") (OTCMKTS:RTNB)
between December 1, 2014 through June 15, 2015.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. If you purchased or otherwise acquired
root9B shares between December 1, 2014 and June 15, 2015, your
rights may be affected by this action. To get more information go
to http://zlk.9nl.com/root9b-technologiesor contact Joseph E.
Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at
(212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is no cost or
obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that the Company made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (a) the
Company does not have an advanced cyber security product offering,
and (b) a substantial portion of the Company's Cyber Solutions
business consists of a one-time low margin hardware installation.

If you suffered a loss in root9B you have until August 24, 2015 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.

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


SERVICESOURCE INT'L: Sept. 8, 2015 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors that a class
action complaint has been filed on behalf of a class comprising
purchasers of the securities of ServiceSource International, Inc.
("ServiceSource" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SREV) who purchased
the Company's securities between January 22, 2014 and May 1, 2014
inclusive (the "Class Period").

ServiceSource provides recurring revenue management, maintenance,
support, and subscription for technology and technology-enabled
healthcare and life sciences companies. The complaint alleges that
defendants made allegedly false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and management which
caused the stock price to inflate, allowing certain insiders to
sell their ServiceSource stock at artificially-inflated prices;
and, in addition whether Mike Smerklo, President and CEO of
ServiceSource, obtained millions of dollars in cash bonuses and
other perks as a result of the alleged fraud. The complaint
further alleges that ServiceSource investors have been damaged by
the defendants' alleged fraud as a result of a sharp decline in
the Company's share price.

If you purchased shares of ServiceSource during the Class Period,
you may move the Court no later than September 8, 2015, to serve
as a class representative. If you wish to learn more about this
action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement
or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please
contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G.
Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020
by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by
email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com.

Howard G. Smith, Esq.
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, PA 19020
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com


SOLAZYME INC: Howard G. Smith Files Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith reminds investors of the
upcoming lead plaintiff deadline in the class action lawsuit filed
on behalf of a class comprising purchasers of the securities of
Solazyme, Inc. ("Solazyme" or the "Company") who purchased
securities between February 27, 2014 and November 5, 2014,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Investors have until August 24,
2015 to file a motion to be appointed as a lead plaintiff in this
class action lawsuit.

Solazyme is a bioproducts company that uses algae-based
fermentation to produce renewable oils for a range of personal and
industrial uses. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period, the Company made false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about Solazyme's
construction progress, development and production capacity at its
renewable oils production facility located in Moema, Brazil (the
"Moema Project"). Specifically, Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: Solazyme
misstated and/or failed or disclose unfavorable news about the
Moema Project. Solazyme initially failed to report that the Moema
Project suffered construction delays stemming from the inadequate
availability of electricity and steam utilities. As a result, the
lawsuit alleges that Solazyme was prevented from increasing output
to its previously projected levels. On or around November 5, 2014,
when the truth regarding the Moema Project was revealed to
investors, the Company's stock declined $4.35 per share, or 58%,
to close at $3.14 per share on November 6, 2014.

If you purchased Solazyme shares during the Class Period, if you
have information or would like to learn more about these claims,
or have any questions concerning this announcement, 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.
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith
215-638-4847
888-638-4847
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com


SOLAZYME INC: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announced that only one week remains to
file a motion for lead plaintiff in a class action pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California alleging claims on behalf of purchasers (the "Class")
of Solazyme, Inc. ("Solazyme" or the "Company") securities during
the period of February 27, 2014 and November 5, 2014 (the "Class
Period"), including those traceable to either of Solazyme's two
registered public offerings on March 27, 2014 (the "Offerings"),
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and/or
the Securities Act of 1933 against the Company and certain of its
officers (the "Complaint").

Solazyme is a San Francisco-based bio-products company that
produces sustainable oils from microalgae.  The Company uses an
industrial fermentation process to transform plant-based sugars
into triglyceride oils, which are used in a wide range of
products.

On March 25, 2014, Solazyme filed a Registration Statement with
the SEC for the Offerings.  On March 27, 2014, Solazyme filed a
Prospectus in connection with the offering of $149.5 million in
convertible notes paying 5% interest and scheduled to mature in
2019 (the "Notes").  On the same day, Solazyme filed a Prospectus
for the offering of 5.75 million shares of stock at $11 per share
for aggregate gross proceeds of approximately $63.25 million.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose that the
Company's Brazilian Moema Facility was experiencing construction
delays due to insufficient access to electricity and steam utility
services, and that these challenges would prohibit the facility
from scaling its capacity production as projected.  As a result of
these false and misleading statements and/or omissions, Solazyme
securities traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class
Period.

On November 5, 2014, Solazyme acknowledged significant
construction delays at the Moema Facility and revealed for the
first time that it would "narrow [its] production focus to smaller
volumes of higher value products at . . . Moema" and would be
"prioritizing cash management and product margin over a rapid
capacity ramp."

On this news, the price of the Company's stock declined $4.35 per
share, over 58%, on November 6, 2014, and the market price of
Solazyme's Notes declined by $235 per Note, over 30%, on November
7, 2014, the next session in which the Notes traded.

Plaintiffs seek to recover damages on behalf of all Class members
who purchased Solazyme notes or shares during the Class Period.
If you purchased Solazyme securities as described above, and
either lost money on the transaction or still hold the security,
you may wish to join in this action to serve as lead plaintiff.
In order to do so, you must meet certain requirements set forth in
the applicable law and file appropriate papers no later than
August 24, 2015.

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

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

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

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

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


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

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of Solazyme, Inc. ("Solazyme") (NASDAQ:SZYM) between
February 27, 2014 and November 5, 2014.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California. If you purchased or otherwise
acquired Solazyme shares between February 27, 2014 and November 5,
2014, your rights may be affected by this action. To get more
information go to http://zlk.9nl.com/solazyme-szymor contact
Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by
telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972. There is
no cost or obligation to you.

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

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


SUNTRUST MORTGAGE: Faces Class Suit Over Rushed Foreclosures
------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Ryan, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
SunTrust Mortgage broke state and federal laws by scheduling
foreclosure sales before loss mitigation hearings with homeowners,
a class action claims in Maryland.

SunTrust went forward with foreclosure proceedings even as it
reviewed homeowners' options for loss mitigation that could have
saved their homes, the class claims. This dual tracking deprived
homeowners of the opportunity to avoid foreclosure, the class
claims in its Aug. 4 complaint in Montgomery County Court.

"In these instances, such as the underlying matter involving
SunTrust, the servicers place their interest above that of the
homeowner and unfairly and deceptively ignore their statutory and
contractual duties including those which were agreed to as part of
the license to legally operate in the State of Maryland and
nationwide," the class claims.

Lead plaintiffs Todd and Ivey Farber said they filed paperwork on
May 18 for loss mitigation, a federally mandated process that
attempts to get a bank the money it is owed while allowing the
homeowner to remain in the house through loan modification,
refinancing or other programs.

The Farbers' income increased after they refinanced in 2007, so
they thought they would be good candidates for loss mitigation.
SunTrust responded by setting a hearing for late July. But
SunTrust also scheduled and advertised a foreclosure sale for July
7, two weeks before the loss mitigation hearing, according to the
complaint.

"There was no just or equitable reason for SunTrust . . . to
schedule and advertise a foreclosure sale while it was
participating in Maryland's foreclosure mediation program for the
purposes of considering Mr. & Mrs. Farber's loss mitigation
application," the Farbers say.

They claim SunTrust violated the 1974 Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau now
oversees such procedures.

Similar actions are pending in Maryland against Green Tree and
Bank of America, said Phillip Robinson with the Consumer Law
Center of Silver Spring, who represents the Farbers. He said many
of the larger firms in Maryland have done some form of dual
tracking recently.

"What we're seeing is, it seems to still be a problem in Maryland
where they are dual tracking homeowners, and they don't really
have the ability to stop it until someone files a lawsuit,"
Robinson said.

SunTrust Mortgage agreed to pay the federal government $320
million for violating the Home Affordable Modification Program,
and $968 million for breaking rules on Federal Housing Authority-
backed loans.

The size of the class is unclear, but the Farbers say it includes
"many hundreds" of homeowners in Maryland. Robinson said the
number will likely be closer to 50, but that he won't be able to
say for sure until discovery is complete.

The class seeks $2,000 per member -- the statutory damage under
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act -- plus costs incurred
during foreclosure proceedings with SunTrust.

SunTrust did not respond to a request for comment.


TARGET CORP: Reaches $67MM Settlement With Visa Over Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Schaust, writing for Twin Cities Business, reported that
Target Corp. and Visa Inc. have agreed to a $67 million settlement
the retail giant will pay as a result of its 2013 data breach.

Both companies confirmed that a deal had been struck, according to
the Wall Street Journal. After a long negotiation period, Target
said it will cover costs incurred by Visa to reissue credit and
debit cards to its customers. Some 40 million credit and debit
card numbers were exposed during the data breach, considered among
the largest breaches in recent years.

Although both companies have landed on an agreement, the $67
million exchange is not a sure thing. Charles Zimmerman of
Zimmerman Reed PLP, a co-lead plaintiff for the class action
lawsuit forming against Target, believes Visa should not take the
deal.

"This settlement with Visa is Target's latest effort to avoid
fully reimbursing financial institutions for the losses suffered
as a result of its data breach," Zimmerman said in a statement.
"Just as with the proposed MasterCard settlement -- resoundingly
rejected by financial institutions in May -- this deal was
negotiated under a veil of secrecy without the involvement of the
court or the court-appointed legal representatives of financial
institutions. Importantly, it fails to fully reimburse card
issuers for the substantial losses suffered from the Target data
breach."

News of agreement comes nearly three months after a proposed $19
million settlement between Target and MasterCard fell through. In
that case, at least 90 percent of the card issuers needed to
accept the $19 million dollar settlement, but the threshold was
not met.

Zimmerman and his fellow plaintiffs are currently seeking for
"damages far greater than what has been offered" by Target as of
yet. A hearing over the potential class action settlement is
scheduled for September 10.

In late July, 11 law firms organizing a class action lawsuit
against Target over the data breach claimed the Minneapolis
retailer was hiding court filings under a "confidential" status,
making the law documents largely inaccessible.


TESCO: Moves to Dismiss Securities Class Suit in Manhattan
----------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reported that British grocery
giant Tesco moved to dismiss a securities class action in
Manhattan federal district court that alleges the company's
coverup of an accounting scheme eventually resulted in a 15
percent plummet in the price of Tesco's American Depository
Receipts. Tesco's lawyers at Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz argue
that because Tesco ADRs do not trade on a U.S. stock exchange --
they are only sold over the counter -- investors cannot sue in
federal court under the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 ruling in
Morrison v. National Australia Bank.

According to Wachtell, this issue has already been decided, in an
early post-Morrison ruling that tossed a class action against
Societe Generale. That decision briefly noted that because SocGen
ADRs traded only in the relatively informal over-the-counter
market, those transactions are "primarily foreign." Tesco contends
that the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals confirmed in its 2014
decision in Parkcentral Global Hub v. Porsche that investors in
securities not traded on U.S. exchanges cannot sue issuers under
federal law.

But in the greater scheme of securities class action litigation,
the most intriguing part of Tesco's brief probably isn't the
discussion of over-the-counter ADRs. It's a footnote in which
Wachtell said that the first U.S. firm to file a complaint on
behalf of Tesco ADR holders, Scott & Scott, had dropped the U.S.
case "apparently so that Scott & Scott or its client could bring
litigation against Tesco in England."

Wachtell fleshed out its mention of British shareholder litigation
against the company with a bunch of exhibits detailing how three
prominent members of the U.S. shareholder bar -- Scott & Scott,
Grant & Eisenhofer and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check -- are
devoting their time and effort to litigating abroad on behalf of
Tesco shareholders rather than in the U.S. for holders of ADRs.
The Tesco case exemplifies how the Supreme Court's Morrison
ruling, in conjunction with the U.K.'s Financial Services and
Markets Act of 2000, has changed securities litigation against
global companies. A mere 2.5 percent of Tesco's float is in U.S.
ADRs. So instead of fighting in federal court to bring claims on
behalf of ADR holders, savvy U.S. plaintiffs' firms are figuring
out how to represent the vastly larger pool of ordinary Tesco
shareholders.

As you probably know, the U.K.'s financial reform law gave
shareholders the right to sue issuers for fraud. Shareholders in
the British system must affirmatively opt in to litigation, and
can't avail themselves of U.S.-style class actions. They can,
however, band together to pursue claims as a group. In the Tesco
case, two firms are organizing shareholder groups: New York-based
Scott & Scott and London-based Stewarts Law. Stewarts, which said
its group will include only investors with 10,000 or more shares
of Tesco, is working with the litigation funder Bentham to assure
that its clients will not have to pay legal fees if they lose the
case. Scott & Scott's news releases indicate it will offer the
same no-win, no-fee deal to investors that join its group. The
Scott & Scott group will be represented by a solicitor at
McGuireWoods -- a firm known in the U.S. for class action defense!
-- and barrister Philip Marshall QC.

Grant & Eisenhofer and Kessler Topaz, meanwhile, have announced
they are "preparing for potential future U.K. litigation against
Tesco." In anticipation, they said, they have formed a Dutch
foundation for Tesco investors. Though investors cannot sue under
the Dutch system, they can apply for approval of a class action
settlement of shareholder claims, as in the 2009 Royal Dutch Shell
case. By forming a Dutch foundation, the two U.S. firms have given
Tesco a mechanism to resolve the U.K. litigation investors are
threatening.

I talked to Scott & Scott partner Sylvia Sokol about the Tesco
litigation. She said she hadn't read Wachtell's brief in the U.S.
case so she couldn't comment specifically on its assertion that
her firm ditched the ADR class action to litigate in the U.K.
instead. But she agreed that the real action against Tesco is in
England, where the vast majority of Tesco securities were traded
(and where the company is under government investigation for its
accounting practices).

Sokol said Scott & Scott is talking to both American and
international shareholders, mostly institutional investors
although it hasn't set a minimum stake for its group.

Neither her firm nor Stewarts has yet filed a group action for
Tesco shareholders. Unlike the U.S. system, in which one investor
or shareholder group is designated to lead the case, the U.K.
system permits more than one group of shareholders at a time to
bring claims.


TYSONS FOODS: SCOTUS to Rule on "Trial by Formula" Class Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew M. Grossman, writing for CATO, reported that the whole
point of the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.
Dukes was to put an end to "trial by formula" class actions that
stack the deck against defendants. Lower courts, unfortunately,
haven't gotten the message. And that is a serious threat to
defendants' due process rights. Fortunately, the Supreme Court
will return to the issue next term in Tyson Foods, Inc. v.
Bouaphakeo.

There is a whiff of parody to the case. The plaintiff class
consists of about 1,300 workers at Tyson's Storm Lake, Iowa, pork-
processing plant who say that Tyson failed to compensate them for
the overtime that they spent putting on and taking off protective
gear before and after their shifts. The class was certified as
presenting "common" fact questions despite that the  plant has
some 420 job classifications, each of which has different
protective requirements, not to mention that Tyson provides
additional gear that employees may choose to wear -- so even
workers in the same department or at the same position may wind up
wearing different equipment.

Logically, one would expect the plaintiffs to present evidence of
the amount of time that they each spent putting on and taking off
gear, compare that to the work and pay records kept by Tyson, and
then show that they weren't properly compensated for any time they
worked over 40 hours in a given week, which the Fair Labor
Standards Act sets as the trigger for overtime. After all, that's
how it would work in an individual suit.

But that's nothing like what happened here.

Rather than put on evidence of individual employees' changing
times, an expert for the plaintiffs measured several workers,
whose changing times ranged from a few seconds to ten minutes --
reflecting what even the expert acknowledged was "a lot of
variation." No matter, the expert averaged everything out, added
in a few minutes to account for various factors, and arrived at
"average" changing times of 18 minutes for "processing" workers
and 21.25 for "slaughter" workers. At this point, a second expert
added those averages to individual employees' time records,
identified weeks in which workers were due overtime pay, and then
calculated damages, arriving at a class-wide figure of over $6
million in unpaid overtime wages. But as the second expert
conceded, that figure was very sensitive to changes in the
averages; reduce them by just a small amount, and hundreds of
workers drop out of the class altogether, because their time drops
below 40 hours for every week or they were already adequately
compensated for any overtime. Indeed, although the jury ultimately
found for the employees, it didn't buy the average times and
reduced the damages award to less than $3 million.

In case that's not clear: based on the plaintiffs' formula
evidence, the jury necessarily believes that a substantial number
of class members suffered no injury at all. Yet as class members,
they'll still receive damages -- at the expense of other workers who
might actually have been underpaid. So the jury verdict is
incoherent, but you can't really blame the jury: the class itself
is the real problem, throwing together workers with so many
different kinds of jobs and such different circumstances that
there aren't any truly common fact questions among them.
Meanwhile, due to the use of common, formula-based evidence, Tyson
was denied any ability to challenge its liability to and the
damages of individual class members, only the plaintiffs' formula.
Even with most of its defenses off the table, Tyson's challenge to
the formula was mostly successful. Absent the formula, it's
possible that Tyson might have prevailed on many individual claims
or even all of them -- there's no way to know.

That's not how class actions are supposed to work. Rule 23, which
sets the procedure for class actions, is a procedural device and
is not supposed to alter the substantive rights of plaintiffs or
defendants. In particular, that means that a class action can't be
used as a shortcut by "extrapolating" damages and liability based
on a formula. The Court explained in Dukes that this requires that
plaintiffs' claims turn on a common contention "that it is capable
of classwide resolution -- which means that determination of its
truth or falsity will resolve an issue that is central to the
validity of each one of the claims in one stroke." (For example, a
common issue in a product-liability class action might be whether
a given product was defectively designed.) When that requirement
is loosened, the result is trial by formula, as individual issues
are decided based on class-wide evidence, whether or not that
evidence says anything at all about particular class members'
claims. The quaint notion of having to support legal claims with
probative evidence goes out the window. Relieving plaintiffs of
the burden of proving their cases is, needless to say, something
more than merely "procedural."

Trial by formula not only violates Rule 23 and its statutory
basis, the Rules Enabling Act, but also raises serious due process
concerns. "Due process requires that there be an opportunity to
present every available defense," the Supreme Court has explained.
It follows that "[a] defendant in a class action has a due process
right to raise individual challenges and defenses to claims, and a
class action cannot be certified in a way that eviscerates this
right or masks individual issues." When aggregate litigation
procedures abridge a defendant's ability to mount the same
defenses that it could bring in individual suits, something is
seriously wrong.

The Court needs to make clear that trial by formula is off-limits,
whether a case is brought as a class action or as a "collective
action" under the Fair Labor Standards Act or a combination of the
two. Defendants have a right to defend themselves, and that's
possible only when a class action satisfies Dukes's "one stroke"
rule. That's as true in FLSA wage and hour cases-which many of the
lower courts seem to believe are an exception to due process
requirements-as in any other. Skipping past that requirement
offends fundamental principles of justice and perverts the
substantive law being enforced by extending liability to persons
and circumstances that Congress never intended.


UBER: Assaulted Driver Files Class Suit Over Comp Coverage
----------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn, writing for Workers Compensation, reported that a
Los Angeles-based Uber driver who says he was beaten up by a
customer filed a class action accusing the ride-hailing upstart of
refusing to buy workers' compensation insurance.

Uber driver and lead plaintiff Omar Zine on sued Uber
Technologies, Rasier LLC, Rasier-CA, Laju Choudhury, and a person
identified only as Doe Assailant, in LA County Superior Court.

"Our client was bodily assaulted, which was not an unforeseeable
harm," attorney John Kristensen told Courthouse News. "Ratepayers
have been assaulting cabbies since the dawn of rickshaw
transportation some 2,000 ago, so Uber should have known it was a
possibility."

Uber refuses to get workers' compensation insurance for drivers
because it wants to "get rid of all employment protections that
have come about in the last 200 years," he added.

The California Labor Commission in June rejected Uber's arguments
that it is a "neutral technological platform," finding that the
company is "involved in every aspect of the operation." Given that
involvement, the commission determined that drivers are properly
classified as employees and ordered Uber to pay driver Barbara
Berwick $4,152 in reimbursable business expenses.

Nevertheless, Zine says, Uber still classifies drivers as
independent contractors so it can avoid covering them under
workers' compensation insurance.

This lack of coverage meant Zine could not drive and earn income
for weeks after a customer's friend beat him up, according to the
complaint.

Zine says he was driving Choudhury and Doe in December 2014 when
he and Doe got into an argument: "A verbal dispute occurred and
Doe assailant escalated this situation by repeatedly, and
viciously, punching and hitting plaintiff in the face and head.
This heinous attack was intended to and did cause severe injury to
plaintiff, including but not limited do knocking teeth out of
plaintiff's head and breaking his jaw. Plaintiff required medical
attention and surgeries to treat the injuries inflicted by Doe
assailant," the complaint states.

Kristensen said Doe used a metal pipe or similar object during the
assault on Zine.

"He is driving again, but is not able to go back to full-time
work," Kristensen added.

Zine says he is now permanently disabled and has struggled with
depression, anxiety, sleeplessness, and humiliation after the
"heinous beating" he suffered at the hands of Doe.

He also claims there are thousands of current and former drivers
who are entitled to workers' compensation benefits they never
received because Uber misclassified them as independent
contractors.

Not covering its drivers allows Uber to do business at lower costs
than if it had properly classified drivers as employees and
purchased the insurance, according to the complaint.

Uber tried to force Zine to arbitrate the matter, but he would not
do it, Kristensen said.

"The pervasiveness of arbitration agreements has gone past the
tipping point," he said. "This case exemplifies that."

Uber did not immediately return requests for comment.

Zine wants a declaration that Uber must classify all drivers as
employees, restitution for himself and all class members for all
the profits Uber made by failing to protect them with workers'
compensation coverage, and special, punitive and exemplary damages
for unfair business practices, assault and battery.

John Kristensen is with Kristensen Weisberg of Santa Monica,
California.

Uber has been the target of several similar lawsuits since the
2013 suit brought by former drivers claiming they were
misclassified as contractors.

In June, Uber drivers Lori Kellett and David Cotoi of Los Angeles
sued Uber for allegedly failing to pay overtime and regular wages
and not providing them with meal and rest breaks.

An administrative law judge in mid July recommended that Uber be
fined $7.3 million for breaking several California laws, such as
failing to report on disabled accessibility requirements and
problems with drivers. Uber stated that it would appeal the
ruling.

Another Los Angeles class action accuses Uber of advertising,
falsely, that it is cheaper than traditional cab companies, while
California cabbies claim Uber lied about offering the "safest
rides on the road" via advertisements and media statements.


UNITED STATES: Data Breach Leads to Another Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Snell, writing for Health It Security, reported that a
second class action lawsuit has been filed against the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) and the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), following the large scale OPM data breach that took place
earlier.

Judge Teresa J. McGarry filed the lawsuit against the two
governmental agencies, as she received a data breach notification
letter following the OPM security incident. McGarry stated in the
lawsuit that she has had at least two background investigations
conducted as a condition of her appointment as an administrative
law judge. Additionally, she has been interviewed for several
background investigations. These two examples are why her
sensitive information was potentially compromised in the OPM data
breach. On June 4, OPM announced that it was the victim of a cyber
attack, compromising millions of federal applicants' personally
identifiable information ("PII"), records, and sensitive
information. However, it was not long before a second data breach
was discovered, according to the lawsuit.

"On July 9, 2015, OPM issued a second news release confirming that
a significantly greater number of individuals were affected by a
'separate but related' cyber security breach," the lawsuit
explains. "OPM announced that records of 21.5 million individuals
had been stolen, including, 'identification details such as Social
Security Numbers; residency and educational history; employment
history; information about immediate family and other personal
acquaintances; health, criminal and financial history; and other
details.'"

Among other allegations, McGarry claims that OPM had weak
cybersecurity measures, and that it continually failed to meet
Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) guidelines:

    [The Office of Inspector General] found that OPM was not in
compliance with several standards promulgated under 40 U.S.C. Sec.
11331, including in the areas of risk management, configuration
management, incident response and reporting, continuous monitoring
management, contractor systems, security capital planning, and
contingency planning.

OPM and DHS are also charged with with violating the Privacy Act
of 1974 and the Administrative Procedure Act. The case was filed
in the US District Court of Colorado.

While medical information was only one part of information that
was potentially compromised in the OPM data breach, there are
several important takeaways for healthcare organizations. One of
the larger issues in the security breach was that OPM did not have
multi-layered security, Institute for Critical Infrastructure
Technology (ICIT) Co-founder and Senior Fellow Parham Eftekhari
explained to HealthITSecurity.com.

"Hospitals need to change their mindset from 'we're going to keep
the bad guys out' to 'we're going to put perimeter defenses in
place to try and keep the bad guys out,'" Eftekhari said. "But for
those insider threats that do occur, and the malicious actors --
whether they're nation states or criminal groups -- who do
successfully penetrate perimeter defenses and go after the data,
what internal defenses are in place to detect them as early as
possible and to then stop them before they exfiltrate the data?"

Having good governance policies is also essential, Eftekhari said.
Prior to the OPM data breach, ICIT had identified that the agency
had lackluster governance policies.

"These are not new concepts," Eftekhari said. "Governance is a
basic idea that unfortunately a lot of organizations still don't
get down."


UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA: Firm Reprises Role in No-Poach Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Henderson, writing for The American Lawyer, reported that
less than six months after a federal judge in San Jose signed off
on a $415 million antitrust class action settlement to resolve
Silicon Valley "no poaching" claims, a parallel fight involving
many of the same lawyers is taking shape in the Southeast.

This time, the case involves faculty at top North Carolina medical
schools, not workers at Google Inc., Apple Inc. and other
technology heavyweights. But both cases allege that the defendants
violated antitrust laws by agreeing not to hire or recruit each
other's employees. And Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein -- one
of the plaintiffs firms still fighting in California for a share
of up to $81 million in fees -- is leading the faculty members'
case in North Carolina.

As of both cases also feature defense counsel at Covington &
Burling, which entered an appearance on in Durham, North Carolina
federal court for Duke University and its health system. Leading
the Covington team are antitrust partners Gregg Levy and Derek
Ludwin.

Covington's Levy, who is best known as longtime outside counsel
for the National Football League, declined to discuss the case on.

Covington's appearance in North Carolina puts the firm in the
familiar position of defending antitrust claims over hiring pacts
involving highly educated employees. In 2011, when tech sector
employees filed the earlier no-poach suit in California, a
separate team from Covington led the defense efforts for Pixar and
Lucasfilm Ltd.

Along with a third Silicon Valley defendant, Intuit Inc.,
Covington's clients agreed to pay $20 million to resolve the
California case in a deal approved in May 2014. (Pixar and
Lucasfilm paid $9 million of that amount). The Silicon Valley no-
poach litigation, in which Lieff Cabraser served as co-lead
counsel for the plaintiffs, continued until Google, Apple, Adobe
Systems Inc. and Intel Corp. agreed earlier to a $415 million
settlement.

In May, Lieff Cabraser, along with other plaintiffs lawyers, filed
a motion seeking more than $81 million in attorney fees in
connection with the settlement. The firms had previously been
awarded $5 million in fees and nearly $3.7 million in expenses for
the settlement involving Lucasfilm and Pixar.

In North Carolina, a Lieff Cabraser team led by Kelly Dermody,
Brendan Glackin and Dean Harvey filed suit on June 9 on behalf of
Dr. Danielle Seaman. The doctor, an assistant professor of
radiology at Duke's medical school since 2011, alleges that she
was denied a job at the University of North Carolina School of
Medicine after Duke and UNC officials agreed to prohibit the
schools from hiring faculty from one another. The putative class
action claims that the no-poaching pact violates federal and state
antitrust laws.

"The skilled medical professionals at Duke and UNC have the right
to fair and open competition for their talent," Harvey said in an
emailed statement. "Duke and UNC are the dominant employers of
skilled medical labor in North Carolina. By agreeing not to hire
from each other, Duke and UNC substantially eliminated competition
in violation of state and federal laws."

It wasn't immediately clear from the docket who would represent
the only UNC official identified as a defendant in the case,
medical school dean and University of North Carolina Health Care
System CEO William Roper.


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

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

If you suffered a loss in Uranium Energy you have until August 28,
2015 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contact
Vincent Wong, Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephone
at 212.425.1140, or visit http://docs.wongesq.com/UEC-Info-
Request-Form-820.

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

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/


VOCATION LIMITED: Faces Class Suit Over Tax-Subsidized Courses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Josie Taylor, writing for ABC News, reported that a group of
shareholders has sued private training company Vocation Limited,
accusing it of failing to fully inform the market about its
taxpayer-subsidised courses.

Vocation's market price crashed last October, after news emerged
it had lost nearly $20 million in state government funding due to
quality concerns.

The ABC revealed earlier more than 1,000 students had their
qualifications revoked.

Law firm Maurice Blackburn has now filed a class action in the
Federal Court.

"The case is concerned with information that indicates Vocation
did not meet its legal obligations to disclose timely and accurate
information to the market -- information that would have a
material effect on the share price," class action principal Jacob
Vorghese said.

"When the market eventually learned the extent of regulator
concerns with VET, investors' view of the materiality of the
information was clear, and they were not happy with what they
heard, nor with the delay, driving the share price down 57 per
cent in a single day.

"Our clients allege that VET was, or ought to have been, aware of
the regulatory reviews and concerns in relation to its
subsidiaries at the time of its listing, and it failed to
adequately disclose those matters, meaning investors paid an
inflated price."


YAHOO: Seeks Dismissal of Privacy Invasion Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Madison Record.com, reported that Yahoo answers a class action
complaint of privacy invasion by pleading that no one can call its
scanning practices surreptitious.

"Yahoo's scanning of emails has been the subject of media reports
for years," Peter Herzog of St. Louis wrote on Aug. 17.

He moved to dismiss a suit that Kaylynn Rehberger of Highland
filed at U.S. district court in June, alleging violation of the
Illinois Eavesdropping Statute.

Rehberger alleged that she didn't consent to scanning of messages
she sent through her provider to Yahoo subscribers.

She sued Yahoo a week after U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh of San
Jose, Calif., decided not to certify a national class action on a
similar claim.

Rehberger's lawyer, former Madison County chief judge Ann Callis,
proposes a statewide class action for violations since last Dec.
31.

In Yahoo's motion to dismiss the suit, Herzog argued that
Rehberger did not plausibly allege that the scanning was
surreptitious as the law requires.

Herzog wrote that she instead alleged that Yahoo disclosed the
practice to at least 75 million people, her estimate of the number
of Yahoo subscribers.

He inserted a footnote that the actual number far exceeds 75
million.

He attached 14 articles about scanning practices of Yahoo, Google
and others.

He wrote that Rehberger did not identify her email provider or
state whether she consented to scanning by her provider.

"Any user who has consented to scanning, whether by Google,
Microsoft, or his or her own employer, cannot have a reasonable
expectation of privacy in an email sent to or received from a
Yahoo subscriber," Herzog wrote.

He wrote that she did not allege that she sent any specific email
under circumstances justifying an expectation of privacy.

"She also alleges that she will send emails in the future to Yahoo
subscribers from her non-Yahoo email address even though she knows
that Yahoo intercepts and scans emails," he wrote.

He wrote that in March 2014, the Illinois Supreme Court found a
previous eavesdropping statute broader than the state Constitution
allowed.

He wrote that legislators passed a new statute applying only to
surreptitious interception of conversations between persons who
reasonably expect privacy.

"The current statute became effective on December 31, 2014, and
applies only to conduct occurring on or after that date," Herzog
wrote.

"Plaintiff has limited her allegations accordingly."

He wrote that her complaint borrowed heavily from the California
suit, though the California statute lacks the elements of
surreptitious interception and reasonable expectation of privacy.

"Even armed with prior knowledge of the California lawsuit,
plaintiff made no attempt to allege any circumstances justifying
her alleged expectation of privacy with respect to any specific
email," he wrote.


YELP: Class Suit Dismissed, Court Rules Yelpers are Not Employees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juliano Dario, writing for Food World News, reported that a group
of Yelp reviewers, or Yelpers as they're more commonly known, have
just lost a class action lawsuit against the company.

Yelp is a popular website that lets users rate and review a number
of establishments ranging from restaurants and bars to shopping
malls and salons.

The plaintiffs argued that they deserved to be compensated for the
reviews they contribute to the site. According to Forbes:

"each of the three named plaintiffs alleges that he or she "was
hired by Yelp, Inc. as a writer and she fulfilled that job
description and job functions." Each plaintiff allegedly was
"directed how to write reviews and given other such employee type
direction from employer defendant." Yelp allegedly controlled each
plaintiff's "work schedule and conditions." Two of the three
plaintiffs are alleged to have been "fired" with "no warning [and]
a flimsy explanation."

However a California court has just ruled that this argument was
not valid. Techdirt printed this excerpt from the ruling which
says:

"A reasonable inference to be drawn from the complaint, and from
plaintiffs' arguments, is plaintiffs use the term "hired" to refer
to a process by which any member of the public can sign up for an
account on the Yelp website and submit reviews, and the term
"fired" to refer to having their accounts involuntarily closed,
presumably for conduct that Yelp contends breached its terms of
service agreement. A further reasonable inference is that
plaintiffs and the putative class members may contribute reviews
under circumstances that either cannot be reasonably characterized
as performing a service to Yelp at all, or that at most would
constitute acts of volunteerism."

This isn't the first time Yelpers have taken legal action against
the company. In 2013, Eater reported that a group of reviewers
launched a similar law suit but it was also shot down by the
courts.


* 4th Cir. Ruling Could Influence Class-Action Requirements
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mark McGraw, writing for HR Executive Online, reported that four
years ago, the Supreme Court ruled in Wal-Mart Stores Inc. v.
Dukes. The Court's decision in that pivotal case struck down what
would have been a class-action employment action involving 1.6
million Wal-Mart employees, and led experts to predict that
achieving class certification would now be more difficult for
plaintiffs and their attorneys.

Now, however, a 4th Circuit court decision in South Carolina may
be providing plaintiffs with an easier path to class
certification.

In a 2-1 decision, the 4th Circuit -- covering Maryland, North
Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and West Virginia -- recently
reversed a district court's previous decision that decertified a
class of African-American steel workers at Charlotte, N.C.-based
Nucor Corp.'s Nucor Steel Berkeley plant in Huger, S.C.

In overturning the district court ruling and remanding for
recertification of the class, the 4th Circuit didn't adhere to
class-action certification requirements as strictly as the Supreme
Court did in the Dukes case, which was cited 571 times across
lower federal and state courts in 2014.

The 4th Circuit reached its decision for two primary reasons, says
James Hammerschmidt, a Bethesda, Md.-based co-managing partner at
Paley Rothman, and co-chair of the firm's employment law practice.

Beyond "the irritation" the 4th Circuit felt with the district
court "for not having followed the court's prior mandate to
certify the class," the equities of the case made it compelling,
he says.

For instance, court documents indicate that statistical analysis
of a four-year period (December 1999 to December 2003) suggest the
plaintiffs' experts established a benchmark using "change-of-
status" forms filed by the company whenever a promotion took place
at the plant, finding significant statistical disparities in the
number of white employees receiving promotions in comparison to
black employees.

(According to court records, the Nucor Steel Berkeley plant
encompasses six production departments that work together to melt,
form, finish and ship steel products to customers. At the start of
this litigation, 611 employees worked at the plant. Despite 71 of
these employees -- nearly 12 percent -- being black, there was at
most one black supervisor in the production departments until
after the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission initiated the
charges that preceded the class action.)

The plaintiffs also produced "a mountain of anecdotal allegations
of a hostile work environment," which affected decisions regarding
promotions, says Hammerschmidt.

For example, the suit alleges a series of discriminatory practices
that court documents describe as "disquieting in their volume,
specificity and consistency," including the routine use of racial
epithets directed at African-American employees via the plant-wide
radio system, the circulation of racist emails and "the prominent
display" of a hangman's noose.

Hammerschmidt says the Nucor promotion practices the plaintiffs
are calling into question are "much more centralized and objective
than those in Wal-Mart," adding that there is evidence of a
"common glue" that was not present in the Wal-Mart suit, a sex-
discrimination case in which approximately 1.6 million female
employees accused the Bentonville, Ark.-based retail behemoth of
gender discrimination in its pay and promotion practices across
many Wal-Mart locations.

"In Wal-Mart, there was no anecdotal evidence of animosity toward
women across the country in its 3,400 stores, whereas here there
is ample evidence of racial hostility toward blacks, and of a
conspiracy among the managers to ensure that there would not be a
black supervisor at the plant," says Hammerschmidt, adding that
the Wal-Mart case found no evidence that the alleged culture of
gender bias concretely influenced employment decisions across the
country.

In that case, the Supreme Court essentially set new, tougher
standards for class certification. The three-plus years since that
ruling, however, have brought about a "rebooting process" of sorts
for plaintiffs' attorneys seeking class certification, says Gerald
Maatman, a Chicago-based partner and co-chair of Seyfarth Shaw's
class-action defense group.

Plaintiffs' attorneys "are trying out new theories" in seeking
certification, he says. "And this is an example of a new theory --
limiting the class theory to a single plant and a single
employment practice -- that worked."

We may soon see other courts taking a similar view of
certification requirements, says Katherine Kimpel, an executive
board member and managing partner of Sanford Heisler Kimpel's
Washington office.

"The 4th Circuit's opinion is, in many ways, consistent with long-
standing precedents regarding various aspects of class-action
litigation," says Kimpel.

In refusing to endorse criticisms of the data and statistics used
by the plaintiffs, for example, the court "simply affirmed long-
standing precedent that says that evidence of that sort doesn't
need to be 'perfect.'"

As one of the highest courts in the land, the 4th Circuit's ruling
serves as "affirmation of the enduring value of those earlier
cases, carries particular weight and helps crystalize how those
prior precedents apply specifically to post-Wal-Mart class cases,"
continues Kimpel.

For instance, she says, this ruling explains more fully how
statistics and anecdotes from class members should be read
together "to determine if there is a systemic problem," she says.

"This decision makes it very clear that anecdotal evidence -- here
it's the stories relayed by the named plaintiffs and 16 other
individuals -- plays an important role."

The 4th Circuit opinion also illuminates the fact that "even if
decisions are made by a range of lower-level managers, those
decisions must be ratified by a more-senior individual," says
Kimpel.

Indeed, any court would likely have difficulty believing that the
type of "widespread and appalling" work environment such as the
one that allegedly permeated the Nucor plant "was not well-known
throughout the company's management," adds Hammerschmidt.

Of course, no workplace has room for the sort of behavior detailed
in this case. But, in the event that the organization does have to
handle a claim of discrimination, "sound nuts-and-bolts HR
policies and procedures are always the best antidote," says
Maatman, "so these problems are isolated and individualized rather
than systemic."

And, "every single discrimination claim is worthy of a response,"
he adds, "in order to get to the bottom of it and diffuse it, so
you don't have a second, third or fourth situation or incident to
deal with."


* Class Suit Settlements in Australia Soar to $1B in 2014-15
------------------------------------------------------------
Renee Thompson, writing for Smart Company, reported that the
amount of class action settlements in Australia has soared in the
and SMEs are at risk, according to data published by King & Wood
Mallesons.

The Review: Class Actions in Australia 2014-15, recorded
Australia's largest total for class action settlements to date,
with a combined payout of $950 million in 2015.

The report found class actions, including a trend towards mass
consumer claims, are becoming more commonplace with 33 new class
actions filed in the year to June compared to 18 for the previous
period.

Securities, financial product and investment claims made up just
under half of new class action filings, with 16 such new class
actions filed in the year to June.

Of the remaining class actions filed in the period, the largest
single group were consumer claims relating to household business
names including Cash Converters and Pizza Hut.

Report co-author, KWM partner Moira Saville, said class actions
are becoming an increasing risk for Australian businesses across a
range of sectors.

She said class actions now "one of the first responses to
unexpected events across a wide range of industries".

"The combination of increasing numbers of cases and increasingly
large settlements is creating a perfect storm for corporate
Australia," Saville said.

Fellow report co-author Peta Stevenson told SmartCompany that
class actions are increasingly attractive and part of a "mature
market" comfortable with the idea of such litigation.

She says SMEs are most likely to be impacted by the increase in
class actions in areas of consumer protections and product
liability.

"It's not so much about the size of an entity but the entity's
ability to respond to a claim," she says.

"For all companies, what is more important is that they need to
develop strategies for responding to unexpected events.

"Be up front so you're best placed to deal with mediating a
situation.

"Also put yourself in the best position to be proactive and have a
strategy."

Professor of commercial law at Melbourne University, Ian Ramsay,
told SmartCompany the report highlights the growing importance of
class actions in Australia.

"Not only in terms of a significant increase in the number of
class actions filed in the courts in the past year, but also in
terms of the large sums that are being paid by defendants to
settle these claims," he says.

"One reason why class actions are increasing is the role of
litigation funders -- who are prepared to shoulder the financial
risk of bringing these legal claims on the basis that if a claim
is successful, the funder will receive a significant percentage of
the compensation."

Ramsay says for small companies, one notable feature of the study
is the number of class actions based on alleged breaches of
consumer protection laws.

"They cover a broad range of industries -- including tourism,
financial services and food retail," he says.

"We are therefore in a challenging environment for small business
where we are seeing regulators focus on enforcement of the laws
but also increasing private litigation.

"And where this private litigation is a class action rather than
an individual action brought by one plaintiff, the costs to the
company, including the payment of legal fees where the class
action is either successful in court or settled, can be very
high."




                            *********

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  * * *