CAR_Public/150903.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, September 3, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 176


                            Headlines


A & A AUTO: "Rocha" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
A SQUARE B: "Garcia" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
AFFINION GROUP: Plaintiffs' Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 15
AFFINION GROUP: No Hearing Yet on Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Suit
AFFINION GROUP: Plaintiff's Opening Appeal Brief Due October 19

AFFINION GROUP: Scheduling Conference Held in Massachusetts Case
AFFINION GROUP: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissed Claims
ALE INDUSTRIES: Faces "Koskiniemi" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: To Defend Against Securities Class Action
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Evans" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing

AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Bank" Suit Alleges Airfare Price-Fixing
AMERICAN WASTE: Ortega-Perla Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
ARIA HEALTH: "Mullins" Class Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Faces "Vehec" Suit in Pa. Over FDCPA Violation
ATLAS AIR: Court Affirms Decision Certifying Class

ATLAS AIR: Court-Ordered Disclosure Continuing in U.K. Case
ATCHAFALAYA HOMES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
AUS MARKETING: Faces "Amini" Suit in Cal. Over TCPA Violation
AUTO RESCUE: "Metzger" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued in New York Over Treasury-Price Fixing

BROADCOM CORPORATION: Defendants Filed Petition for Coordination
BUMBLE BEE: Faces Harvesters Suit in Miss. Over PSP-Price Fixing
BUMBLE BEE: Faces Piggly Suit in Miss. Over PSP-Price Fixing
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Hershkowitz" Suit Over FLSA Violation
CCB CREDIT: Faces "Banda" Suit in New York Over FDCPA Violation

CIGNA CORPORATION: Faces Patel Suit Over Proposed Anthem Takeover
COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Reply in Securities Litigation Due
EMCOR GROUP: Paid $1.0 Million to 3rd Party Claims Administrator
EXCEL TRUST: Court Dismissed Laborers' Local Class Action
EXCEL TRUST: Court Denied Motion for Preliminary Injunction

FINANCIAL ASSET: Faces "Accardi" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
FIRSTBANK HOLDING: Faces "Bollman" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
HALLIBURTON ENERGY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
HELMERICH & PAYNE: Fails to Provide Termination Notice, Suit Says
KOHN LAW: Faces "Costanza" Suit in Wisconsin Over FDCPA Violation

LAKES ENTERTAINMENT: Special Litigation Committee Appointed
LINN ENERGY: Class Cert. Briefing Expected in Fall of 2015
MARKWEST ENERGY: Faces "Schein" Suit Over Marathon Merger Plan
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Court Dismissed Employees' Class Action
MCCORMICK & COMPANY: Sued for Under-filling Black Pepper Tins

MONTCLAIR VENTURE: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
MOODY'S CORP: Decision by Second Circuit Expected in Near Future
MR JOHN: Faces "Oliver" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Illegally Limits Sunday Games Trade, Suit Says
NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports

PACIRA PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks to Dismiss "Lovallo" Class Action
PANASONIC CORP: Faces Top Suit Over Linear Resistors-Price Fixing
PEAK PRESSURE: "Snively" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
RECEPTOS INC: Faces Putative Class Action by Scott
SEARS ROEBUCK: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Merchandise Prices

SOLARCITY CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Filed Amended Complaint
SONUS NETWORKS: Ming Huang Files Class Action
SOOOOO SMOOTH: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
TARGET CORPORATION: Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
TIME WARNER: Plaintiffs in NY Actions Filed 2nd Amended Complaint

TIME WARNER: Still Defending Set-Top Cable TV Box Antitrust Case
TOWN SPORTS: Sanctions Bid in Labbe Class Action Remains Pending
TOYOTA MOTOR: Sued Over Defective Remote-Control Keyless Fob
TRADER JOE'S: Transferred "Garlough" Suit to C.D. California
UNIFIN INC: Made Automated Calls, "Caldera" Suit Claims

UNILEVER UNITED: Falsely Marketed Iced Tea Products, Suit Claims
UNION PACIFIC: Faces "Rivera" Trespassing Suit in C.D. Calif.
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
VIVINT SOLAR: Faces "Belyea" Suit Over Proposed SunEdison Merger
VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Q2 2015 Results Exclude Class Suit Costs

VONAGE HOLDINGS: Briefing Complete in Merkin & Smith Case Appeal
WESTERN UNION: Taylor Police Class Action at Preliminary Stage
WESTERN UNION: Appeals Court Affirmed District Court Decision
WESTERN UNION: Settlement in "Douglas" Subject to Court Approval
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Trial in Geisma Personal Injury Suit Moved

WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Purported Stockholder Filed Class Action
WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Filed Answer to Amended Complaint




                            *********


A & A AUTO: "Rocha" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Rocha and Juan A. Lopez, and all others similarly-situated
v. A & A Auto Transfer LLC, JF Vehicle Transporters, Inc., Rizen
Fleet Logistics, Inc., Eduardo E. Rodriguez, Juan M. Ferret, and
Eduardo F. Rodriguez Sr., Case No. 1:15-cv-23037 (S.D. Fla.,
August 13, 2015), seek to recover money damages for unpaid
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants provide logistic services to rental car companies
such as as Hertz, and Avis Rent a Car, mostly at the Miami
International Airport.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      3100 South Dixie Highway, Ste 202
      Miami, FL 33133
      Tel: (305) 446-1500
      Fax: (305) 446-1502
      E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


A SQUARE B: "Garcia" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------
Alfredo Garcia, and all others similarly-situated v. A Square B
Inc. dba Murphy's Tavern, Brian M. Murphy, Dennis Johnson Murphy,
and Kathleen Murphy, Case No. 1:15-cv-06398 (S.D.N.Y., August 13,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for unpaid or underpaid
overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate a bar in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
      277 Broadway, Suite 408
      New York, NY 10007-2036
      Tel: (212) 229-2249
      Fax: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com


AFFINION GROUP: Plaintiffs' Class Certification Bid Due Sept. 15
----------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a court has set a
schedule for class certification, with plaintiffs' motion for
class certification due on September 15, 2015, and with briefing
to be completed by November 30, 2015.

On June 17, 2010, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company and Trilegiant Corporation ("Trilegiant") in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut. The
complaint asserts various causes of action on behalf of a putative
nationwide class and a California-only subclass in connection with
the sale by Trilegiant of its membership programs, including
claims under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"),
the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act ("CUTPA"), the
Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair
Competition Law, the California False Advertising Law, and for
unjust enrichment.

On September 29, 2010, the Company filed a motion to compel
arbitration of all of the claims asserted in this lawsuit. On
February 24, 2011, the court denied the Company's motion.

On March 28, 2011, the Company and Trilegiant filed a notice of
appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit, appealing the district court's denial of their motion to
compel arbitration.

On September 7, 2012, the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of
the district court denying arbitration. While that issue was on
appeal, the matter proceeded in the district court. There was
written discovery and depositions.

Previously, the court had set a briefing schedule on class
certification that called for the completion of class
certification briefing on May 18, 2012. However, on March 28,
2012, the court suspended the briefing schedule on the motion due
to the filing of two other overlapping class actions in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut.

The first of those cases was filed on March 6, 2012, against the
Company, Trilegiant, Chase Bank USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A.,
Capital One Financial Corp., Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A.,
Apollo Global Management, LLC, 1-800-Flowers.Com, Inc., United
Online, Inc., Memory Lane, Inc., Classmates Int'l, Inc., FTD
Group, Inc., Days Inn Worldwide, Inc., Wyndham Worldwide Corp.,
People Finderspro, Inc., Beckett Media LLC, Buy.com, Inc., Rakuten
USA, Inc., IAC/InteractiveCorp., and Shoebuy.com, Inc.

The second of those cases was filed on March 25, 2012, against the
same defendants as well as Adaptive Marketing, LLC, Vertrue, Inc.,
Webloyalty.com, Inc., and Wells Fargo & Co.

These two cases assert similar claims as the claims asserted in
the earlier-filed lawsuit in connection with the sale by
Trilegiant of its membership programs.

On April 26, 2012, the court consolidated these three cases. The
court also set an initial status conference for May 17, 2012. At
that status conference, the court ordered that Plaintiffs file a
consolidated amended complaint to combine the claims in the three
previously separate lawsuits. The court also struck the class
certification briefing schedule that had been set previously.

On September 7, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint asserting substantially the same legal claims. The
consolidated amended complaint added Priceline, Orbitz, Chase
Paymentech, Hotwire, and TigerDirect as Defendants and added three
new Plaintiffs; it also dropped Webloyalty and Rakuten as
Defendants.

On December 7, 2012, all Defendants filed motions seeking to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint and to strike certain
portions of the complaint. Plaintiff's response brief was filed on
February 7, 2013, and Defendants' reply briefs were filed on April
5, 2013.

On September 25, 2013, the court held oral argument on the motions
to dismiss.

On March 28, 2014, the court ruled on the motions to dismiss,
granting them in part and denying them in part. The court
dismissed the Plaintiffs' RICO claims and claims under the
California Automatic Renewal Statute as to all defendants. The
court also dismissed certain named Plaintiffs as their claims were
barred either by the statute of limitations and/or a prior
settlement agreement. Certain Defendants were also dismissed from
the case.

The court also struck certain allegations from the consolidated
amended complaint, including certain of Plaintiffs' class action
allegations under CUTPA. As to the Company and Trilegiant, the
court denied the motion to dismiss certain Plaintiffs' claims
under ECPA and for unjust enrichment, as well as certain other
claims of Plaintiffs under CUTPA.

Also, on December 5, 2012, the Plaintiffs' law firms in these
consolidated cases filed an additional action in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut. That case is
identical in all respects to this case except that it was filed by
a new Plaintiff (the named Plaintiff from the class action
complaint previously filed against the Company, Trilegiant, 1-800-
Flowers.com, and Chase Bank USA, N.A., in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on November
10, 2010).

On January 23, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to consolidate that
case into the existing set of consolidated cases.  On June 13,
2013, the court entered an order staying the date for all
Defendants to respond to the Complaint until 21 days after the
court ruled on the motion to consolidate. On March 28, 2014, the
court entered an order granting the motion to consolidate.

On May 12, 2014, remaining Defendants in the consolidated cases
filed answers in which they denied the material allegations of the
consolidated amended complaint.  On April 28, 2014, Plaintiffs
filed a motion seeking interlocutory appellate review of portions
of the court's order of March 28, 2014.  Briefing on the motion
was completed on June 5, 2014.

On March 26, 2015, the court denied Plaintiff's motion for
interlocutory appeal.  On May 29, 2015, the court issued a
scheduling order indicating that discovery was to commence
immediately and be completed by December 31, 2015.

On May 29, 2015, the court also set deadlines for dispositive
motions, which are due February 29, 2016.  If no dispositive
motions are filed, a joint trial memorandum would be due by April
1, 2016, and jury selection would take place on May 3, 2016.  If
dispositive motions are filed, the joint trial memorandum would be
due by October 3, 2016, and jury selection would take place on
November 1, 2016.

On June 16, 2015, the court set a schedule for class
certification, with plaintiffs' motion for class certification due
on September 15, 2015, and with briefing to be completed by
November 30, 2015.


AFFINION GROUP: No Hearing Yet on Bid to Dismiss 2nd Amended Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a court has not yet
scheduled a hearing on the defendants' motions to dismiss the
second amended complaint in the class action filed against
Webloyalty.

On August 27, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Webloyalty, one of its former clients and one of the credit card
associations in the United States District Court for the District
of Connecticut alleging, among other things, violations of the
Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, unjust enrichment, civil theft, negligent misrepresentation,
fraud and Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act violation (the
"Connecticut Action"). This lawsuit relates to Webloyalty's
alleged conduct occurring on and after October 1, 2008.

On November 1, 2010, the defendants moved to dismiss the initial
complaint, which plaintiff then amended on November 19, 2010. On
December 23, 2010, Webloyalty filed a second motion to dismiss
this lawsuit.

On May 15, 2014, the court heard oral argument on plaintiff's
motion to strike the Company's request for judicial notice of the
plaintiff's membership enrollment documents filed in support of
the Company's second motion to dismiss. On July 17, 2014, the
court denied plaintiff's motion to strike.  The court, at the same
time, dismissed those claims grounded in fraud, but reserved until
further proceedings the determination as to whether all of
plaintiff's claims are grounded in fraud and whether those claims
not grounded in fraud are dismissible.

The court permitted the plaintiff until August 15, 2014 to amend
his complaint and allowed the parties the opportunity to conduct
limited discovery, to be completed by September 26, 2014,
concerning the issues addressed in its dismissal order. All other
discovery is currently stayed in the case.

The July 17, 2014 order indicated that the court will set a
further motion to dismiss briefing schedule following the
conclusion of this limited discovery. The plaintiff amended his
complaint as scheduled, and the parties conducted limited
discovery as ordered. After this limited discovery, the parties
proposed a motion to dismiss briefing schedule calling for the
defendants to file their opening briefs on January 9, 2015.  The
plaintiff filed his opposition brief on March 24, 2015, and on
April 24, 2015, the defendants filed their reply briefs in
response to that opposition.  The court has not yet scheduled a
hearing on the defendants' motions to dismiss the second amended
complaint.


AFFINION GROUP: Plaintiff's Opening Appeal Brief Due October 19
---------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the plaintiff's opening
appeal brief in an appeal related to a class action lawsuit is due
on October 19, 2015.

On June 7, 2012, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California against
Webloyalty that was factually similar to the Connecticut Action.
The action claims that Webloyalty engaged in unlawful business
practices in violation of California Business and Professional
Code Sec. 17200, et seq. and in violation of the Connecticut
Unfair Trade Practices Act. Both claims are based on allegations
that in connection with enrollment and billing of the plaintiff,
Webloyalty charged plaintiff's credit or debit card using
information obtained through a data pass process and without
obtaining directly from plaintiff his full account number, name,
address, and contact information, as purportedly required under
Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act.

On September 25, 2012, Webloyalty filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety and the court scheduled a hearing on the
motion for January 14, 2013. Webloyalty also sought judicial
notice of the enrollment page and related enrollment and account
documents. Plaintiff filed his opposition on December 12, 2012,
and Webloyalty filed its reply submission on January 7, 2013.
Thereafter, on January 10, 2013, the court cancelled the
previously scheduled January 14, 2013 hearing and indicated that
it would rule based on the parties' written submissions without
the need for a hearing.

On August 28, 2013, the court sua sponte dismissed plaintiff's
complaint without prejudice with leave to amend by September 30,
2013. The plaintiff filed his amended complaint on September 30,
2013, adding purported claims under the Electronic Communications
Privacy Act and for unjust enrichment, money had and received,
conversion, civil theft, and invasion of privacy. On December 2,
2013, the Company moved to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint.
Plaintiff responded to the motion on January 27, 2014.

On February 6, 2014, the court indicated that it would review the
submissions and issue a decision on plaintiff's motion without
oral argument. On September 29, 2014, the court dismissed the
plaintiff's claims on substantive grounds and/or statute of
limitations grounds. The court has allowed the plaintiff 28 days
to file a motion demonstrating why a further amendment of the
complaint would not be futile.

On October 27, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
amend the complaint and attached a proposed amended complaint. The
Company responded to the motion on November 10, 2014.

On June 22, 2015, the court entered a final order and judgment
denying plaintiff's motion to amend, dismissing all federal claims
with prejudice, and dismissing all state claims without prejudice.

On July 10, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice appealing the dismissal
decision and denial of his request to further amend his complaint
to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The
plaintiff's opening appeal brief is due on October 19, 2015, and
the Company's responsive brief is due on November 19, 2015.


AFFINION GROUP: Scheduling Conference Held in Massachusetts Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a scheduling conference
with the court was set for August 11, 2015, in a class action
lawsuit.

On February 7, 2014 a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and one of its clients in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts alleging, among other things,
violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, unjust enrichment, money had and
received, conversion, misrepresentation, violation of the
Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act and equitable relief.
Claims are based on allegations that plaintiff was enrolled and
billed for a package program without plaintiff's proper consent
and knowledge.

On April 4, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss. A hearing
on that motion was held on July 24, 2014.  On March 11, 2015, the
magistrate judge to whom the motion was referred by the district
court judge issued a report and recommendation granting in part
and denying in part the motion to dismiss.  The magistrate judge
granted the motion to dismiss on the fraud claim, which was
dismissed as time-barred, but denied the remainder of the motion.

On March 25, 2015, the Company filed objections to the magistrate
judge's report and recommendation.  Briefing on the objections
concluded on April 9, 2015.  On June 4, 2015, the court accepted
and adopted the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge
over the Company's objections.  The Company filed its answer to
the complaint on July 2, 2015.  A scheduling conference with the
court was set for August 11, 2015.


AFFINION GROUP: Plaintiff Voluntarily Dismissed Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Affinion Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed her claims against the Company without prejudice.

On May 12, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company and one of its clients in the United States District
Court, Northern District of California - San Francisco Division.
The complaint alleges plaintiff was unknowingly enrolled in and
charged for an Identity Theft Protection program.  The defendants
moved to compel individual arbitration of the case or in the
alternative to dismiss the case, and briefing on that motion
concluded on September 26, 2014. On October 31, 2014, the court
granted the Company's motion to compel individual arbitration of
the case.  On April 28, 2015, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed
her claims against the Company without prejudice.


ALE INDUSTRIES: Faces "Koskiniemi" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Koskiniemi v. Ale Industries LLC and Does l to 100, Case No.
RG15781022 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 7, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the California Labor Code.

Ale Industries LLC operates a warehouse-like brewery offering a
variety of house beers in Alameda County, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott Bonagofsky, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT BONAGOFSKY
      111 Deerwood Road, Suite 200
      San Ramon, CA 94583
      Telephone: (925) 831-4835
      Facsimile: (866) 568-3517


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: To Defend Against Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company intends to
vigorously defend itself against the allegations in the securities
class action lawsuit.

On November 28, 2012, plaintiff City of Dearborn Heights Act 345
Police & Fire Retirement System filed a lawsuit against Align,
Thomas M. Prescott ("Mr. Prescott"), Align's former President and
Chief Executive Officer, and Kenneth B. Arola ("Mr. Arola"),
Align's former Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial
Officer, in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of our common stock (the "Securities Action").

On July 11, 2013, an amended complaint was filed, which named the
same defendants, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of
our common stock between January 31, 2012 and October 17, 2012.
The amended complaint alleged that Align, Mr. Prescott and Mr.
Arola violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that Mr. Prescott
and Mr. Arola violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. Specifically, the amended complaint alleged that
during the purported class period defendants failed to take an
appropriate goodwill impairment charge related to the April 29,
2011 acquisition of Cadent Holdings, Inc. in the fourth quarter of
2011, the first quarter of 2012 or the second quarter of 2012,
which rendered our financial statements and projections of future
earnings materially false and misleading and in violation of U.S.
GAAP. The amended complaint sought monetary damages in an
unspecified amount, costs and attorneys' fees.

On December 9, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss with leave for plaintiff to file a second amended
complaint. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on January
8, 2014 on behalf of the same purported class. The second amended
complaint states the same claims as the amended complaint.

On August 22, 2014, the court granted our motion to dismiss
without leave to amend. On September 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a
notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Align intends to vigorously defend itself against these
allegations. Align is currently unable to predict the outcome of
this amended complaint and therefore cannot determine the
likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss, if any.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Evans" Suit Over Ticket-Price Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tina Evans, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. American Airlines Group Inc., American Airlines, Inc.,
Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., United
Continental Holdings, Inc., and United Airlines, Inc., Case No.
0:15-cv-03433-JRT-HB (D. Minn., August 26, 2015), arises from the
Defendants' alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy
to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of domestic air
travel services in the United States.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
      Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
      Michelle J. Looby, Esq.
      Joshua J. Rissman, Esq.
      GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
      Canadian Pacific Plaza
      120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 333-8844
      Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
      E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
              dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
              mlobby@gustafsongluek.com
              jrissman@gustafsongluek.com

          - and -

      Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
      Lisa A. White, Esq.
      GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
      800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
      Knoxville, TN 37929
      Telephone: (865) 247-0080
      Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
      E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
              lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com

         - and -

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


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Bank" Suit Alleges Airfare Price-Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Bank, and all others similarly-situated v. American
Airlines, Inc., Delta Airlines, Inc., Southwest Airlines Co., and
United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-03699 (N.D. Calif., August
13, 2015), seeks actual damages, treble damages, injunctive
relief, costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees in violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants conspired to fix, raise,
maintain, or stabilize the price of domestic airline tickets in
the United States.

American Airlines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation based in Forth
Worth, Texas that conducts air passenger transportation services
throughout the U.S. including flights to and from this district.
The Defendant is a subsidiary of American Airlines Group, Inc.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. Delta conducts air
passenger transportation services throughout the U.S., including
flights to and from this district.

Southwest Airlines Co. is a Delaware corporation domiciled in
Dallas, Texas. Southwest conducts air passenger transportation
services throughout the United States, including flights to and
from this district.

United Airlines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located Chicago, Illinois. United conducts air
passenger transportation services throughout the U.S., including
flights to and from this district.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam C. Belsky, Esq.
      GROSS BELSKY ALONSO LLP
      One Sansome Street, Suite 3670
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Tel: (415) 544-0200
      Fax: (415) 544-0201
      E-mail: adam@gba-law.com


AMERICAN WASTE: Ortega-Perla Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Ever O. Ortega-Perla, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. American Waste & Recycling Services,
Inc., et al., Case No. 603191/2015 (N.Y. Sup Ct., August 7, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

American Waste & Recycling Services, Inc. is a New York
corporation, with its principal place of business at 39 Buckingham
Drive, Dix Hills, New York 11746, engaged in the carting and
refuse removal business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Emmet Murphy, Esq.
      Suzanne Leeds Klein, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
      New York, N.Y. 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080


ARIA HEALTH: "Mullins" Class Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Jamal Mullins, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. Aria Health, Case No.
150500883, was removed from the Common Pleas Philadelphia to the
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania
(Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-
cv-04385-AB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts accuses of action for violation of the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
      Peter D. Winebrake, Esq.
      THE WINEBRAKE LAW FIRM LLC
      Twining Office Center
      Suite 211, 715 Twining Rd Ste 211
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Telephone: (215) 884-2491
      Facsimile: (215) 884-2492
      E-mail: mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com
              pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com


ASSET ACCEPTANCE: Faces "Vehec" Suit in Pa. Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
David G. Vehec and Gigi C. Vehec, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Asset Acceptance, LLC, et al., Case
No. 2:15-cv-0103-MPK (W.D. Pa., August 7, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark G. Moynihan, Esq.
      MOYNIHAN LAW
      112 Washington Pl Ste 1-N
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 889-8535
      Facsimile: (800) 997-8192
      E-mail: mark@moynihanlaw.net


ATLAS AIR: Court Affirms Decision Certifying Class
--------------------------------------------------
Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a court
has issued an order affirming the magistrate judge's decision and
certifying the class in the case related to alleged pricing
practices.

The Company and Old Polar have been named defendants, along with a
number of other cargo carriers, in several class actions in the
United States arising from allegations about the pricing practices
of Old Polar and a number of air cargo carriers that have now been
centralized for pretrial purposes in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York. The consolidated
complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants,
including the Company and Old Polar, manipulated the market price
for air cargo services sold domestically and abroad through the
use of surcharges, in violation of United States, state, and
European Union antitrust laws. The suit seeks treble damages and
injunctive relief.

In 2007, the Company and Old Polar commenced an adversary
proceeding in bankruptcy court against each of the plaintiffs in
this class action litigation seeking to enjoin the plaintiffs from
prosecuting claims against the Company and Old Polar that arose
prior to July 28, 2004, the date on which the Company and Old
Polar emerged from bankruptcy. In 2007, the plaintiffs consented
to the injunctive relief requested and the bankruptcy court
entered an order enjoining plaintiffs from prosecuting Company
claims arising prior to July 28, 2004.

The court in the antitrust class actions has heard and decided a
number of procedural motions. Among those was the plaintiffs'
motion to join Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, Inc. as an additional
defendant, which the court granted for discovery purposes on April
13, 2011. There was substantial pretrial written discovery and
document production, and a number of depositions were taken. A
court hearing on whether to certify the case as a class action was
held in October 2013, and oral arguments and an evidentiary
hearing were held in November 2013. On October 15, 2014, the
magistrate judge issued a decision recommending that the court
enter an order certifying the class for adjudicating the claims.

On July 10, 2015, the court issued an order affirming the
magistrate judge's decision and certifying the class.

"We and other remaining defendants have petitioned the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit for permission to appeal that
order and we also intend to vigorously pursue a number of
defenses, some of which were made in summary judgment motions and
responses in 2015. We are unable to reasonably predict the court's
ruling on our opposition to class certification and our defenses,
or the ultimate outcome of the litigation," the Company said.


ATLAS AIR: Court-Ordered Disclosure Continuing in U.K. Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that court-
ordered disclosure is continuing in the case in the United
Kingdom.

In the United Kingdom, several groups of named claimants have
brought suit against British Airways in connection with alleged
antitrust practices and are seeking damages allegedly arising from
that conduct. British Airways has filed claims in the lawsuit
against Old Polar, the Company and a number of air cargo carriers
for contribution should British Airways be found liable to
claimants. Old Polar's formal statement of defense was filed on
February 28, 2015. Court-ordered disclosure is continuing. Old
Polar intends to mount a vigorous defense.


ATCHAFALAYA HOMES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Tabitha Frederick Richard, and all others similarly-situated v.
Atchafalaya Homes, Inc., Case No. 6:15-cv-02179 (W.D. La., August
13, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for unpaid wages,
including overtime and minimum wage earnings in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant sells modular and manufactured homes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth D. St. Pe, Esq.
      KENNETH D. ST. PE, LLC
      311 West University Avenue, Suite A
      Lafayette, LA 70506
      Tel: (337) 534-4043


AUS MARKETING: Faces "Amini" Suit in Cal. Over TCPA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Amini, individually and on behlaf of all others similarly
situated v. AUS Marketing Research Systems, Inc., Case No. 8:15-
cv-01270-AG-JCG (C.D. Cal., August 7, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


AUTO RESCUE: "Metzger" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Troy Metzger and Chris Brown, and all others similarly-situated v.
Auto Rescue of MKE, LLC, Inman's Auto Rescue LP, and Michael K.
Inman, Case No. 2:15-cv-00967 (E.D. Wis., August 13, 2015), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants provide service to customers in a number of major
cities who have been locked out of their car, run out of gas, or
suffered a flat tire, by dispatching roadside technicians to
assist stranded drivers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
      HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
      222 E Erie St., #210
      Milwaukee, WI 53202
      Tel: (414) 271-8650
      Fax: (414) 271-8442
      E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com

         - and -

      Harold L. Lichten, Esq.
      LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
      729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
      Boston, MA 02116
      Tel: (617) 994-5800
      E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com


BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA: Sued in New York Over Treasury-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Pension Fund, Cleveland Bakers and
Teamsters Health and Welfare Fund, and Masterinvest Kapitalanlage
GMBH, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Bank of Nova Scotia, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-06782-UA (S.D.N.Y.,
August 26, 2015), arises out of the Defendants' alleged collusive
manipulation of the market for U.S. Treasury bills, notes, and
bonds, and derivative financial products based on these Treasury
securities, including Treasury futures and options traded on the
Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

Bank of Nova Scotia is a New York-based branch of a Canadian
financial services and banking company with its principal place of
business at 250 Vesey Street, New York, New York 10080.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Douglas Richards, Esq.
      Michael Eisenkraft, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 838-7797
      Facsimile: (212) 838-7745
      E-mail: drichards@cohenmilstein.com
              meisenkraft@cohemilstein.com

         - and -

      Carol V. Gilden, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1705
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 357-0370
      E-mail: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com

         - and -

      Manuel John Dominguez, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200
      Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
      Telephone: (561) 833-6575
      E-mail: dominguez@cohenmilstein.com

         - and -

      David A. Young, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      1100 New York Avenue NW, Suite 500
      Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (202) 408-4600
      E-mail: dyoung@cohenmilstein.com

         - and -

      Daniel L. Brockett, Esq.
      Sascha N. Rand, Esq.
      Steig D. Olson, Esq.
      QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
      51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
      New York, NY 10010
      Telephone: (212) 849-7000
      Facsimile: (212) 849-7100
      E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com
              sascharand@quinnemanuel.com
              steigolson@quinnemanuel.com

         - and -

      Karl S. Stern, Esq.
      QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
      711 Louisiana Street, Suite 500
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 221-7000
      Facsimile: (713) 221-7100
      E-mail: karlstern@quinnemanuel.com

         - and -

      Jeremy D. Andersen, Esq.
      Adam B. Wolfson, Esq.
      Chris R. Barker, Esq.
      QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
      865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 443-3000
      Facsimile: (213) 443-3100
      E-mail: jeremyandersen@quinnemanuel.com
              adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
              chrisbarker@quinnemanuel.com


BROADCOM CORPORATION: Defendants Filed Petition for Coordination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Broadcom Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Defendants in
shareholder class action lawsuits have filed a Petition for
Coordination to the Chair of the Judicial Counsel, requesting a
determination on whether the Jew v. Broadcom lawsuit should be
coordinated with the other shareholder class actions filed in the
Superior Court of Orange County.

The Company said, "Following the May 28, 2015 announcement of the
Avago Agreement, multiple shareholder class action lawsuits were
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Orange against Broadcom, our Board of Directors, and other parties
to the Merger Agreement (collectively "the Defendants") under the
following captions:  Xu v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-
2015-00790689-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 1, 2015; Freed v. Broadcom
Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-00790699-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 1,
2015; N.J. Building Laborers Statewide Pension Fund v. Samueli, et
al., Case No. 00791484-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 4, 2015; Yiu v.
Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 00791490-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 4,
2015; Yiu and Crombie v. Broadcom Corp. et al., Case No. 30-2015-
00791762-CU-BT-CXC, filed June 5, 2015; Yassian v. McGregor et
al., Case No. 30-2015-00793360-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 15, 2015;
Seafarers' Pension Plan v. Samueli et al., Case No. 30-2015-
00794492-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 19, 2015; and Engel v. Broadcom
Corp. et al., Case No. 30-2015-00797343-CU-SL-CXC, filed on July
2, 2015."

Another putative class action was filed in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Santa Clara, captioned Jew v.
Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 115-CV-281353, on June 2, 2015.

On June 18, 2015, plaintiffs in the Yiu and Crombie lawsuit moved
to voluntarily dismiss their action.  The same day, a lawsuit was
filed in federal district court for the Central District of
California, captioned Wytas and Crombie v.  McGregor, et al., Case
No. 8:15-cv-00979.

The Company said, "The complaints in the cases generally allege:
(i) that our Board of Directors breached its fiduciary duties to
Broadcom's shareholders by pursuing a flawed sale process and
failing to obtain adequate consideration, and (ii) that Broadcom
and the other parties to the Avago Agreement aided and abetted the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by our Board of Directors.
The Wytas complaint also names Henry T. Nicholas III, one of our
co-founders, as a defendant.  The plaintiffs in each of the
lawsuits seek to enjoin the Defendants from proceeding with the
proposed transaction set forth in the Avago Agreement.  The
plaintiffs also seek damages and attorney's fees."

On June 16, 2015 the Defendants filed a Petition for Coordination
to the Chair of the Judicial Counsel, requesting a determination
on whether the Jew v. Broadcom lawsuit should be coordinated with
the other shareholder class actions filed in the Superior Court of
Orange County.  Defendants have also requested a stay of all
proceedings in the state court cases until the Petition for
Coordination is decided.


BUMBLE BEE: Faces Harvesters Suit in Miss. Over PSP-Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harvesters Enterprises, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Bumble Bee Foods LLC, Tri-Union Seafoods
LLC, Starkist Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-00628-CWR-LRA (S.D. Miss.,
August 26, 2015), arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged
unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize prices for shelf-stable packaged seafood
products (PSP) within the United States.

The Defendants are the largest producers of packaged seafood
products in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Don John W. Barrett, Esq.
      David Malcolm McMullan Jr., Esq.
      Katherine Barrett Riley, Esq.
      BARRETT LAW GROUP, PA
      P. O. Box 927
      404 Court Square North
      Lexington, MS 39095
      Telephone: (662) 834-2488
      Facsimile: (662) 834-2628
      E-mail: donbarrettpa@gmail.com
              dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com
              kbriley@barrettlawgroup.com


BUMBLE BEE: Faces Piggly Suit in Miss. Over PSP-Price Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
Piggly Wiggly Alabama Distributing Co., Inc., on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC,
f/k/a Bumble Bee Seafoods, LLC, Triunion Seafoods, LLC, d/b/a
Chicken of The Sea International, Starkist Company, and King
Oscar, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-03906-EDL (N.D. Cal., August 26,
2015), arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful
combination, agreement and conspiracy to raise, fix, stabilize, or
maintain prices, allocate customers, and restrict capacity in the
market for shelf-stable packaged seafood (PSP), including tuna,
clam, crab, mackerel, oyster, salmon, sardines, and shrimp sold in
the United States.

The Defendants are manufacturers of Packaged Seafood sold in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
      Thomas C. Bright, Esq.
      Louis A. Kessler, Esq.
      CERA LLP
      595 Market Street, Suite 2300
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 777-2230
      Facsimile: (415) 777-5189
      E-mail: scera@cerallp.com
              tbright@cerallp.com
              lakessler@cerallp.com


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Hershkowitz" Suit Over FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sara Hershkowitz, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Capital Management Services, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-04656-BMC (E.D.N.Y., August 7, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
      ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      483 Chestnut Street
      Cedarhurst, NY 11516
      Telephone: (516) 791-4400
      Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
      E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


CCB CREDIT: Faces "Banda" Suit in New York Over FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Basya Banda, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. CCB Credit Services Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-03923
(E.D.N.Y., July 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
      ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
      483 Chestnut Street
      Cedarhurst, NY 11516
      Telephone: (516) 791-4400
      Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
      E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      CCB Credit Services Inc.
      PRO SE


CIGNA CORPORATION: Faces Patel Suit Over Proposed Anthem Takeover
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jyotindra Patel, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Cigna Corporation, et al., Case No. 11377-CB
(Del. Ch., August 7, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public
stockholders of Cigna Corporation to enjoin a proposed transaction
announced on July 24, 2015, pursuant to which Cigna will be
acquired by Anthem, Inc.

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

Anthem, Inc. is one of the largest health benefits companies in
terms of medical membership in the U.S.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      Jeremy J. Riley, Esq
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
              bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com
              jjr@rl-legal.com

         - and -

      J. Brandon Walker, Esq.
      Melissa A. Fortunato, Esq.
      KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
      825 Third Avenue, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 371-6600
      E-mail: bwalker@kmllp.com
              mfortunato@kmllp.com


COMMVAULT SYSTEMS: Reply in Securities Litigation Due
-----------------------------------------------------
Commvault Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company's reply in
the Securities Litigation was due Aug. 17.

On September 10, 2014, a purported class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey against the Company, the Chief Executive Officer and the
Chief Financial Officer.  The case is captioned In re CommVault
Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation (Master File No. 3:14-cv-
05628-MAS-LHG).  The suit alleges that the defendants made
materially false and misleading statements, or failed to disclose
material facts, regarding the Company's financial results,
business, operations and prospects in violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The suit asserts claims covering an
alleged class period from May 7, 2013 through April 24, 2014.  It
is purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock during that period, and seeks compensatory damages,
costs and expenses, as well as equitable or other relief.

Lead plaintiff, the Arkansas Teachers Retirement System, was
appointed on January 12, 2015, and on March 18, 2015, an amended
complaint was filed by the plaintiffs.

Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the complaint on May 26,
2015, and the Plaintiff's filed their opposition brief on July 1,
2015. The Company's reply was due on August 17, 2015.

The Company believes that the suit is without merit and intends to
defend itself and the officers vigorously. At this time, the
Company is unable to predict the outcome of this matter and cannot
currently estimate a range of any possible losses that it may
experience. Accordingly, the Company is unable at this time to
estimate the effects of this lawsuit on its financial condition,
results of operations, or cash flows. As of June 30, 2015 the
Company has not recorded a reserve for this matter.


EMCOR GROUP: Paid $1.0 Million to 3rd Party Claims Administrator
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emcor Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a payment of $1.0
million was made to a third party claims administrator who is
holding the funds pending approval by the Court of the consent
decree as of June 30, 2015,, and the remainder is expected to be
paid before the end of 2015.

"One of our subsidiaries, USM, Inc. ("USM"), doing business in
California provides, among other things, janitorial services to
its customers by having those services performed by independent
janitorial companies," the Company said.

"USM and one of its customers, which owns retail stores (the
"Customer"), are co-defendants in a federal class action lawsuit
brought by five employees of USM's California janitorial
subcontractors. The action was commenced on September 5, 2013 in a
Superior Court of California and was removed by USM on November
22, 2013 to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California. The employees allege in their complaint,
among other things, that USM and the Customer, during a period
that began before our acquisition of USM, violated a California
statute that prohibits USM from entering into a contract with a
janitorial subcontractor when it knows or should know that the
contract does not include funds sufficient to allow the janitorial
contractor to comply with all local, state and federal laws or
regulations governing the labor or services to be provided.

"The employees have asserted that the amounts USM pays to its
janitorial subcontractors are insufficient to allow those
janitorial subcontractors to meet their obligations regarding,
among other things, wages due for all hours their employees
worked, minimum wages, overtime pay and meal and rest breaks.
These employees seek to represent not only themselves, but also
all other individuals who provided janitorial services at the
Customer's stores in California during the relevant four year time
period.

"We do not believe USM or the Customer has violated the California
statute or that the employees may bring the action as a class
action on behalf of other employees of janitorial companies with
whom USM subcontracted for the provision of janitorial services to
the Customer. However, if the pending lawsuit is certified as a
class action and USM is found to have violated the California
statute, USM might have to pay significant damages and might be
subject to similar lawsuits regarding the provision of janitorial
services to its other customers in California.

"The plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment that USM has violated
the California statute, monetary damages, including all unpaid
wages and thereon, restitution for unpaid wages, and an award of
attorneys' fees and costs.

"On February 17, 2015, USM and its Customer entered into a consent
decree which, subject to final approval of the consent decree by
the federal judge in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California following a determination by the
Court of the consent decree's fairness, adequacy and
reasonableness, will resolve the claims and defenses asserted in
the class action. Under the terms of the consent decree, USM is to
(a) pay an aggregate of $1.0 million (i) for monetary relief to
the members of the class, (ii) for awards to the class
representative plaintiffs, (iii) for California Labor Code Private
Attorney General Act payments to the State of California for an
immaterial amount, and (iv) for all costs of notice and
administration of the claims process, (b) pay to counsel for the
class an aggregate of $1.3 million, of which $0.25 million is to
be allocated for their reimbursable costs and litigation expenses
and $1.05 million is to be allocated for attorneys' fees, and (c)
establish procedures to monitor USM's California subcontractors
providing janitorial services to its Customer designed principally
to ensure janitorial employees of those subcontractors are paid no
less than minimum wage.

"The settlement amount was accrued for as of December 31, 2014. As
of June 30, 2015, a payment of $1.0 million was made to a third
party claims administrator who is holding the funds pending
approval by the Court of the consent decree, and the remainder is
expected to be paid before the end of 2015."


EXCEL TRUST: Court Dismissed Laborers' Local Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Excel Trust, Inc. and Excel Trust, L.P. said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a
court has dismissed the class action filed by Laborers' Local #231
Pension Fund in its entirety, without prejudice.

On April 22, 2015, a purported class action related to the Merger
Agreement, Laborers' Local #231 Pension Fund v. Excel Trust, Inc.
et al., was filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Diego, against the Parent Company, the
Operating Partnership, The Blackstone Group L.P., Blackstone
Property Partners L.P., BRE Retail Centers Holdings LP ("BRE
Retail Centers"), BRE Retail Centers Corp ("Merger Sub"), BRE
Retail Centers LP ("Merger Partnership") and the members of our
board of directors, alleging, among other things, that our
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
Merger Agreement (including, but not limited to, various alleged
breaches of duties of good faith, loyalty, due care and candor).
On June 19, 2015, the Court dismissed this action in its entirety,
without prejudice.


EXCEL TRUST: Court Denied Motion for Preliminary Injunction
-----------------------------------------------------------
Excel Trust, Inc. and Excel Trust, L.P. said in their Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a
court has denied plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction,
declining to enjoin the vote of the Parent Company's stockholders
to approve a merger agreement.

Five lawsuits, Branagan v. Excel Trust, Inc., et al., Sciabacucchi
v. Excel Trust, Inc., et al., Gonzalez v. Excel Trust, Inc., et
al., Werbowsky v. Excel Trust, Inc. et al. and Berkman v. Excel
Trust, Inc., et al., raising similar purported class claims, were
filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Case Nos. 24-C-15-
002142, 24-C-15-002305, 24-C-15-002412, 24-C-15-002832 and 24-15-
002924 on April 29, 2015, May 7, 2015, May 12, 2015, May 29, 2015
and June 2, 2015, respectively.

"These lawsuits generally allege breaches of fiduciary duties by
our directors in connection with the Merger Agreement," the
Company said. "More specifically, the complaints allege that the
defendants failed to take appropriate steps to maximize
stockholder value and improperly favored themselves in connection
with the proposed transaction. The complaints further assert that
the Merger Agreement contains several deal protection provisions
that are unnecessarily preclusive. The five complaints also allege
that some or all of the Parent Company, the Operating Partnership,
The Blackstone Group L.P., Blackstone Property Partners L.P., BRE
Retail Centers, Merger Sub and Merger Partnership aided and
abetted the directors' purported breaches of fiduciary duty."

The Werbowsky action also alleges aiding and abetting claims
against the Parent Company's financial advisor, Morgan Stanley &
Co., LLC ("Morgan Stanley"), and a derivative claim on behalf of
the Parent Company. The lawsuits seek equitable and injunctive
relief, including an order enjoining the completion of the
proposed Mergers, rescission of any consummated transaction,
attorneys' fees and expenses, and unspecified damages. The
Werbowsky lawsuit also seeks a constructive trust in favor of the
plaintiffs in that action.

On June 18, 2015, the Court consolidated the Branagan,
Sciabacucchi, Gonzalez, Werbowsky and Berkman actions, and the
consolidated cases are captioned Branagan, et al. v. Excel Trust,
Inc., et al., Case No. 24-C-15-002142.

On July 10, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
motions to dismiss the Branagan action, dismissing the claims
against Blackstone and Morgan Stanley, and the derivative claim,
with prejudice.

On July 15, 2015, Plaintiff Branagan filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction, which sought to enjoin the vote of the
Parent Company's common stockholders to approve the Merger
Agreement and the Company Merger based on alleged disclosure
deficiencies in the definitive proxy statement filed by the Parent
Company on June 1, 2015. On July 23, 2015, the Court denied
plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, declining to
enjoin the vote of the Parent Company's stockholders to approve
the Merger Agreement and the Company Merger, which vote was held
on July 28, 2015 and which approval was received.

"We believe the remaining consolidated lawsuit is wholly without
merit, we intend to continue to vigorously defend against it and
we believe that the impact of the lawsuit would be immaterial to
our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash
flows," the Company said.


FINANCIAL ASSET: Faces "Accardi" Suit Over FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Accardi, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Financial Asset Management Systems, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-02308-TCB-ECS (N.D. Ga., June 28, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for violation of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Marvin Feagle, Esq.
      SKAAR AND FEAGLE, LLP
      Suite B, 2374 Main Street
      Tucker, GA 30084
      Telephone: (404) 373-1970
      Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
      E-mail: jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com

         - and -

      Justin Tharpe Holcombe, Esq.
      Kris Kelly Skaar, Esq.
      SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
      133 Mirramont Lake Drive
      Woodstock, GA 30189
      Telephone: (770) 427-5600
      Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
      E-mail: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
              krisskaar@aol.com


FIRSTBANK HOLDING: Faces "Bollman" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Zachary Bollman, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. FirstBank Holding Company, Case No. 1:15-cv-
01843 (D. Colo., August 26, 2015), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

FirstBank Holding Company is a banking institution with over $14
billion in assets and over 115 locations in Colorado, Arizona, and
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HALLIBURTON ENERGY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Henderson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., Case No.
1:15-cv-01846-PAB (D. Colo., August 26, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for work of more
than 40 hours in a workweek.

Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. is a commercial support service
company that is engaged in providing service to other commercial
firms through the use of service employees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Don J. Foty, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES, LLP
      711 West Alabama Street
      The Stanford Mansion
      Houston, TX 77006-5005
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com


HELMERICH & PAYNE: Fails to Provide Termination Notice, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AJ Sunday III, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated v. Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co., Case No.
5:15-cv-00731-DAE (W.D. Tex., August 26, 2015), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to provide at least 60 days' advance
written notice of termination in violation of the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co. operates a drilling
rig from numerous yards and sites of employment around the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
      BARON AND BUDD PC
      3102 Oak Lawn Ave-Ste 1100
      Dallas, TX 75219
      Telephone: (214) 521-3605
      Facsimile: (214) 520-1181
      E-mail: avaught@baronbudd.com


KOHN LAW: Faces "Costanza" Suit in Wisconsin Over FDCPA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Costanza, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Kohn Law Firm SC, Case No. 2:15-cv-00819 (E.D. Wis.,
July 6, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
      STERN THOMASSON LAW LLP
      2816 Morris Ave-Ste 30
      Union, NJ 07083-4870
      Telephone: (973) 379-7500
      Facsimile: (855) 479-9969
      E-mail: andrew@sternthomasson.com


LAKES ENTERTAINMENT: Special Litigation Committee Appointed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lakes Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2015, that in response to the
Shareholder Class Action Lawsuits, Lakes' Board of Directors
appointed a special litigation committee (the "SLC") pursuant to
Minnesota law to investigate the claims alleged by the plaintiffs.

On February 6, 2015, Lakes, the members of the Lakes' Board of
Directors, LG Acquisition Corporation, Sartini Gaming, Inc., and
the Blake L. Sartini and Delise F. Sartini Family Trust were named
as defendants in three complaints filed in the District Court of
the State of Minnesota, Fourth Judicial District in Hennepin
County. The cases are captioned James Orr, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, as Plaintiff, vs. Lakes
Entertainment, Inc., LG Acquisition Corporation, Sartini Gaming,
Inc., Lyle A. Berman, Timothy J. Cope, Larry C. Barenbaum, Neil I.
Sell, Ray M. Moberg, and the Blake L. Sartini and Delise F.
Sartini Family Trust, as Defendants; Anthony Dacquisito, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, as Plaintiff vs.
Larry Barenbaum, Lyle Berman, Neil Sell, Ray Moberg, Timothy Cope,
LG Acquisition Corporation, Sartini Gaming, Inc., and the Blake L.
Sartini and Delise F. Sartini Family Trust, as Defendants; and
David Lehr and Pamela Lehr, as Plaintiffs, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated vs. Larry Barenbaum, Lyle
Berman, Neil Sell, Ray Moberg, Timothy Cope, LG Acquisition
Corporation, Sartini Gaming, Inc., and the Blake L. Sartini and
Delise F. Sartini Family Trust, as Defendants.

These are purported shareholder class action lawsuits brought by
certain of Lakes' shareholders on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, alleging that in entering into the proposed
transaction with Golden Gaming, the Defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties of good faith, loyalty and due care, and/or have
aided and abetted such breaches. The Plaintiffs seek, among other
things, to enjoin the transactions contemplated by the Merger
Agreement and attorney's fees.

On April 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint consolidating all pending actions arising
out of the Merger.

In response to the lawsuits, Lakes' Board of Directors appointed a
special litigation committee (the "SLC") pursuant to Minnesota law
to investigate the claims alleged by the plaintiffs. On June 8,
2015, the judge in the matter denied the plaintiffs' request for
expedited proceedings and stayed the lawsuit until the conclusion
of the SLC investigation and the issuance of its determinations.

An unfavorable outcome in this lawsuit could result in substantial
costs to Lakes. It is also possible that other lawsuits may yet be
filed and Lakes cannot estimate any possible loss from this or
future litigation at this time.


LINN ENERGY: Class Cert. Briefing Expected in Fall of 2015
----------------------------------------------------------
Linn Energy, LLC said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company has been
named as a defendant in a number of lawsuits, including claims
from royalty owners related to disputed royalty payments and
royalty valuations. With respect to a certain statewide class
action case, the parties have agreed on a scheduling order, which
provides for briefing on the class certification issues in late
2015 and the first part of 2016. The Company has denied that it
has liability on the claims asserted in the case and has denied
that class certification is proper. If the Court accepts the
Company's arguments, there will be no liability to the Company in
the case.

For another statewide class action royalty payment dispute,
briefing on class certification issues is expected to be completed
during the fall of 2015. The Company has denied that it has any
liability on the claims and has denied that class certification is
proper. If the Court accepts the Company's arguments, there will
be no liability to the Company in the case.

The Company is unable to estimate a possible loss, or range of
possible loss, if any, in these cases.


MARKWEST ENERGY: Faces "Schein" Suit Over Marathon Merger Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Harold Schein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P., et al., Case No.
11375-VCG (Del. Ch., August 7, 2015), is brought on behalf of all
the common unit-holders of MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P. to
enjoin the proposed acquisition of MarkWest by Marathon Petroleum
Corporation for an inadequate consideration and an unfair price.

MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P. is engaged in the gathering,
processing, and transportation of natural gas, the transportation,
fractionation, storage, and marketing of natural gas liquids, and
the gathering and transportation of crude oil.

Marathon Petroleum Corporation is one of the largest petroleum
product refiners, marketers, and transporters in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      Jeremy J. Riley, Esq
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
              bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com
              jjr@rl-legal.com

          - and -

      Shane Rowley, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (866) 367-6510
      E-mail:  srowley@zlk.com


MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Court Dismissed Employees' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marriott International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the court has
granted Marriott's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the
class action lawsuit filed by former Marriott employees.

On January 19, 2010, several former Marriott employees (the
"plaintiffs") filed a putative class action complaint against us
and the Stock Plan (the "defendants"), alleging that certain
equity awards of deferred bonus stock granted to the plaintiffs
and other current and former employees for fiscal years 1963
through 1989 are subject to vesting requirements under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended
("ERISA"), that are in certain circumstances more rapid than those
set forth in the awards. The action was brought in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland (Greenbelt
Division), and Dennis Walter Bond Sr. and Michael P. Steigman were
the remaining named plaintiffs.

Class certification was denied, and on January 16, 2015, the court
granted Marriott's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the
case. Plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the Company has cross-
appealed on statute of limitations grounds.


MCCORMICK & COMPANY: Sued for Under-filling Black Pepper Tins
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lillian Ferreri, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. McCormick & Company, Incorporated, Case No.
7:15-cv-06760-KMK (S.D.N.Y., August 26, 2015), arises from the
Defendant's deceptive business practices in selling substantially
under-filled black peppercorn grinders and pure ground black
pepper tins in a non-functional slack-fill packaging.

McCormick & Company, Incorporated is a Maryland corporation that
manufactures spices, herbs, and flavorings for retail, commercial,
and industrial markets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
      Shane Rowley, Esq.
      Nancy Kulesa, Esq.
      Andrea Clisura, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 363-7500
      Facsimile: (866) 367-6510
      E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com
              srowley@zlk.com
              nkulesa@zlk.com
              aclisura@zlk.com


MONTCLAIR VENTURE: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ariana Roven v. Montclair Venture Partners, LLC, et al., Case No.
RG15781159 (Cal. Super. Ct., August 7, 2015), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay all wages due, failure to
provide meal and rest periods, and failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the California Labor Code.

Montclair Venture Partners, LLC owns and operates an equity and
venture capital firm in Oakland, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan D. Roven, Esq.
      KAHN ROVEN, LLP
      3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1260
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 738-0708
      E-mail: jroven@kahnroven.com


MOODY'S CORP: Decision by Second Circuit Expected in Near Future
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a class action lawsuit
has now been returned to the Second Circuit for final disposition
of the appeal, and a decision is expected in the near future.

On August 25, 2008, Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank filed a purported
class action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York asserting numerous common-law causes of
action against two subsidiaries of the Company, another rating
agency, and Morgan Stanley & Co. The action related to securities
issued by a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne Finance
(the "Cheyne SIV") and sought, among other things, compensatory
and punitive damages. The central allegation against the rating
agency defendants was that the credit ratings assigned to the
securities issued by the Cheyne SIV were false and misleading.

In early proceedings, the court dismissed all claims against the
rating agency defendants except those for fraud and aiding and
abetting fraud. In June 2010, the court denied plaintiff's motion
for class certification, and additional plaintiffs were
subsequently added to the complaint.

In January 2012, the rating agency defendants moved for summary
judgment with respect to the fraud and aiding and abetting fraud
claims. Also in January 2012, in light of new New York state case
law, the court permitted the plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint that reasserted previously dismissed claims against all
defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent
misrepresentation, and related aiding and abetting claims.

In May 2012, the court, ruling on the rating agency defendants'
motion to dismiss, dismissed all of the reasserted claims except
for the negligent misrepresentation claim, and on September 19,
2012, after further proceedings, the court also dismissed the
negligent misrepresentation claim.

On August 17, 2012, the court ruled on the rating agencies' motion
for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' remaining claims for fraud
and aiding and abetting fraud. The court dismissed, in whole or in
part, the fraud claims of four plaintiffs as against Moody's but
allowed the fraud claims to proceed with respect to certain claims
of one of those plaintiffs and the claims of the remaining 11
plaintiffs. The court also dismissed all claims against Moody's
for aiding and abetting fraud. Three of the plaintiffs whose
claims were dismissed filed motions for reconsideration, and on
November 7, 2012, the court granted two of these motions,
reinstating the claims of two plaintiffs that were previously
dismissed.

On February 1, 2013, the court dismissed the claims of one
additional plaintiff on jurisdictional grounds. Trial on the
remaining fraud claims against the rating agencies, and on claims
against Morgan Stanley for aiding and abetting fraud and for
negligent misrepresentation, was scheduled for May 2013.

On April 24, 2013, pursuant to confidential settlement agreements,
the 14 plaintiffs with claims that had been ordered to trial
stipulated to the voluntary dismissal, with prejudice, of these
claims as against all defendants, and the court so ordered that
stipulation on April 26, 2013. The settlement did not cover
certain claims of two plaintiffs, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Public School Employees' Retirement System ("PSERS") and
Commerzbank AG ("Commerzbank"), that were previously dismissed by
the Court.

On May 23, 2013, these two plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to
the Second Circuit, seeking reversal of the dismissal of their
claims and also seeking reversal of the trial court's denial of
class certification.

According to pleadings filed by plaintiffs in earlier proceedings,
PSERS and Commerzbank AG seek, respectively, $5.75 million and
$69.6 million in compensatory damages in connection with the two
claims at issue on the appeal.

In October 2014, the Second Circuit affirmed the denial of class
certification and the dismissal of PSERS' claim but reversed a
ruling of the trial court that had excluded certain evidence
relevant to Commerzbank's principal argument on appeal. The Second
Circuit did not reverse the dismissal of Commerzbank's claim but
instead certified a legal question concerning Commerzbank's
argument to the New York Court of Appeals.

The New York Court of Appeals subsequently agreed to hear the
certified question, and on June 30, 2015, the Court of Appeals
ruled in Moody's favor. The case has now been returned to the
Second Circuit for final disposition of the appeal, and a decision
is expected in the near future.


MR JOHN: Faces "Oliver" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Oliver, individually and on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Mr. John Portable Sanitation Units, Inc.,
Russell Reid Waste Hauling and Disposal Service Co., Inc., Robert
H. Suessmann, John Does 1-10 and ABC Corps. 1-10., Case No. 2:15-
cv-06431-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., August 26, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

Mr. John Portable Sanitation Units, Inc. is a New Jersey
corporation that provides short and long-term portable sanitation
for, events and construction sites.

Russell Reid Waste Hauling and Disposal Service Co., Inc. is a New
Jersey corporation that provides responsible non-hazardous waste
management solutions to a wide range of customers including
commercial, industrial, municipal as well as residential sectors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony M. Rainone, Esq.
      Lucas A. Markowitz, Esq.
      BRACH EICHLER LLC
      101 Eisenhower Parkway
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: (973) 228-5700
      Facsimile: (973) 228-7852
      E-mail: arainone@bracheichler.com
              lmarkowitz@bracheichler.com


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Illegally Limits Sunday Games Trade, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
8812 Tavern Corp. d/b/a Bench Sports Bar, Christina Malerba, and
Nicholas Racklin, for themselves and for all others similarly
situated v. National Football League, Inc., NFL Enterprises LLC,
DirecTV, LLC, and DirecTV Holdings LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-06771
(S.D.N.Y., August 26, 2015), seeks to enjoin the ongoing
unreasonable restraint of trade that Defendants have implemented
through DirecTV's exclusive arrangement to broadcast all Sunday
afternoon out-of-market games.

National Football League, Inc. is an unincorporated association of
32 American professional football teams in the United States.

NFL Enterprises, LLC was organized to hold the broadcast rights of
the 32 NFL teams and license them to providers and other
broadcasters.

DirecTV Holdings, LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company and
has its principal place of business at 2230 East Imperial Highway,
El Segundo, California. DirecTV is a direct broadcast satellite
service provider and broadcaster.

DirecTV, LLC is a California Limited Liability Company that has
its principal place of business at 2230 East Imperial Highway, El
Segundo, California. DirecTV, LLC issues bills to its subscribers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Christopher Carmody, Esq.
      Arun Subramanian, Esq.
      Seth D. Ard, Esq.
      Ian M. Gore, Esq.
      SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
      560 Lexington Avenue 15th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 336-8330
      Facsimile: (212) 336-8340
      E-mail: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com
              asubramanian@susmangodfrey.com
              sard@susmangodfrey.com
              igore@susmangodfrey.com


NORTHWEST BIOTHERAPEUTICS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chad A. Lerner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. and Linda F. Powers,
Case No. 8:15-cv-02532-GJH (D. Md., August 26, 2015), alleges that
the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects.

Northwest Biotherapeutics, Inc. is a development stage
biotechnology company that discovers and develops immunotherapy
products to treat cancers in the United States and
internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven J. Toll, Esq.
      Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
      S. Douglas Bunch, Esq.
      COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
      1100 New York Avenue N.W.
      West Tower, Suite 500
      Washington, DC 20005
      Telephone: (202) 408-4600
      Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
      E-mail: stoll@cohenmilstein.com
              dsommers@cohenmilstein.com
              sbunch@cohenmilstein.com

          - and -

      Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
      J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
      Marc Gorrie, Esq.
      POMERANTZ LLP
      600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 661-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 661-8665

         - and -

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


PACIRA PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks to Dismiss "Lovallo" Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company has
filed a motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit filed by
Nicholas R. Lovallo.

On October 3, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the
Company and several of its current officers, Nicholas R. Lovallo
v. Pacira Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-06172-
WHW-CLW. The plaintiff amended the lawsuit on May 29, 2015. The
lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is premised on
allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and non-disclosure
of material facts, regarding the Company's business, operations,
prospects and performance during the proposed class period of
February 24, 2014 to April 29, 2015.

The Company is vigorously defending all claims asserted, including
by filing a motion to dismiss. Given the early stage of the
litigation, at this time the Company is unable to reasonably
estimate possible losses or form a judgment that an unfavorable
outcome is either probable or remote. It is not currently possible
to assess whether or not the outcome of these proceedings will
have a material adverse effect on the Company.


PANASONIC CORP: Faces Top Suit Over Linear Resistors-Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Floor Home Improvements, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Panasonic Corporation, et al., Case No.
5:15-cv-03907-HRL (N.D. Cal., August 26, 2015), arises from the
Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement
and conspiracy to inflate, fix, raise, maintain or artificially
stabilize prices of linear resistors sold in the United Sates.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
      Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
      Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 633-1908
      Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
      E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com
              bsweeney@hausfeld.com
              clebsock@hausfeld.com

         - and -

      Arthur N. Bailey Sr., Esq.
      ARTHUR N. BAILEY & ASSOCIATES
      111 West Second St., Suite 4500
      Jamestown, NY 14701
      Telephone: (716) 483-3732
      Facsimile: (716) 664-2983
      E-mail: artlaw@windstream.net


PEAK PRESSURE: "Snively" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Snively and Stephen Clark, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Peak Pressure Control, LLC and Nine
Energy Services, L.L.C., Case No. 7:15-cv-00134 (W.D. Tex., August
26, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an oilfield services company in
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL, LLP
      1801 N. Lamar St., Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 749-1400
      Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
      E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com


RECEPTOS INC: Faces Putative Class Action by Scott
--------------------------------------------------
Receptos, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on July 20, 2015, a
putative class action, Scott v. Receptos, Inc., related to the
Merger Agreement was commenced by the filing of a complaint in the
Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware, Case No. 11316,
against the Company, members of the Company's Board, Parent and
Purchaser.

"Four other complaints, Cacioppo v. Hasnain and Rosenberg v.
Receptos, Inc., (Case Nos. 11324 and 11325) filed on July 23,
Kadin v. Receptos, Inc., filed on July 27 (Case No. 11337), and
Rockaway v. Hasnain, filed on July 28, 2015 (Case No. 11346),
raise similar putative class claims in the Court of Chancery for
the State of Delaware, against some or all of us, members of our
Board, Parent and Purchaser," the Company said. "These complaints
generally allege breaches of fiduciary duty by the members of our
Board in connection with the Merger Agreement. In the Scott,
Rosenberg, Kadin and Rockaway actions, the plaintiffs also allege
that Parent and Purchaser aided and abetted the purported breaches
of fiduciary duty. These complaints seek equitable and injunctive
relief, including an order enjoining the defendants from
completing the proposed merger transaction, rescission of any
consummated transaction, unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

"We believe these lawsuits are wholly without merit, and intend to
vigorously defend against them."


SEARS ROEBUCK: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Merchandise Prices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Teperson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Sears Roebuck & Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-01892-L-DHB
(S.D. Cal., August 26, 2015), arises from the Defendant's false
and misleading advertisement of "original" prices, "sale" prices,
and corresponding phantom "markdowns" on merchandise sold in its
retail stores and Internet website.

Sears Roebuck & Company is a New York corporation that operates a
chain of American department stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John T. Jasnoch, Esq.
      Joseph Pettigrew, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      707 Broadway, Suite 1000
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 233-4565
      Facsimile: (619) 233-0508
      E-mail: jjasnoch@scott-scott.com
              jpettigrew@scott-scott.com

         - and -

      Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      The Chrysler Building
      405 Lexington Avenue, 40th Floor New
      New York, NY 10174
      Telephone: 212-223-6444
      Facsimile: 212-223-6334
      E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

         - and -

      Erin G. Comite, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP
      156 South Main Street
      P.O. Box 192
      Colchester, CT 06415
      Telephone: 860-537-5537
      Facsimile: 860-537-4432
      E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com

         - and -

      Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
      CARPENTER LAW GROUP
      402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 756-6994
      Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
      E-mail: todd@carpenterlawyers.com

         - and -

      Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
      1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Telephone: 412-253-6307
      E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com

         - and -

      E. Kirk Wood, Esq.
      WOOD LAW FIRM, LLC
      P. O. Box 382434
      Birmingham, AL 35238-2434
      Telephone: (205) 908-4906
      Facsimile: (866) 747-3905
      E-mail: ekirkwood1@bellsouth.net


SOLARCITY CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Filed Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------
SolarCity Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that plaintiffs in a
stockholder class action lasuit have filed an amended complaint in
an attempt to remedy the defects in the original complaint.

On March 28, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company and two of its
officers. The complaint alleges claims for violations of the
federal securities laws, and seeks unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the Company's securities from March 6, 2013 to March
18, 2014.

On April 16, 2015, the District Court dismissed the complaint. The
plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint in an attempt to remedy
the defects in the original complaint; the Company had until
August 7, 2015 to respond to the amended complaint.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends
to defend itself vigorously. The Company is unable to estimate the
possible loss, if any, associated with this lawsuit.


SONUS NETWORKS: Ming Huang Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Sonus Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 26, 2015, that Ming Huang, a purported
shareholder of the Company (the "Plaintiff"), filed on April 6,
2015, a Class Action Complaint alleging violations of the federal
securities laws (the "Complaint") in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey (Civil Action No. 3:15-
02407), against Sonus and two of its officers, Raymond P. Dolan,
the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, and Mark T.
Greenquist, the Company's Chief Financial Officer (collectively,
the "Defendants"). The Plaintiff claims to represent purchasers of
the Company's common stock during the period from October 23, 2014
to March 24, 2015 and seeks unspecified damages. The principal
allegation contained in the Complaint is the claim that the
Defendants made misleading forward-looking statements concerning
the Company's fiscal first quarter 2015 financial performance.

The Company believes that the Defendants have meritorious defenses
to the allegations made in the Complaint and does not expect the
results of this suit to have a material effect on its business or
consolidated financial statements.


SOOOOO SMOOTH: Sued in N.Y. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Victorino Mendez-Garcia v. Sooooo Smooth Laser and Skin Care
Center, LLC, d/b/a Naturopathic Spa and Khadija Hayari, Case No.
1:15-cv-04633 (E.D.N.Y., August 7, 2015), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a spa located at 3805 Broadway,
Astoria, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Gurrieri, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER
      277 Broadway Suite 408
      New York, NY 10007
      Telephone: (212) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com


TARGET CORPORATION: Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Margarita Serrano, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Target Corporation and Does 1-20, Case No.
3:15-cv-03908-JSC (N.D. Cal., August 26, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendant's alleged practice of making unsolicited phone calls to
the cellular telephones of consumers nationwide and to obtain
redress for all persons injured by its conduct.

Target Corporation is a company involved in consumer debt buying
and recovery or collection.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TIME WARNER: Plaintiffs in NY Actions Filed 2nd Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that plaintiffs in the NY
Actions filed the Second Amended Complaint on July 1, 2015.

In connection with the formerly proposed Comcast merger, eight
putative class action complaints were filed on behalf of purported
TWC stockholders in the New York Supreme Court (the "NY Actions")
and the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. These
complaints named as defendants TWC, the members of the TWC board
of directors, Comcast and Comcast's merger subsidiary. The
complaints generally alleged, among other things, that the members
of the TWC board of directors breached their fiduciary duties to
TWC stockholders during merger negotiations and by entering into
the Comcast Merger Agreement and approving the Comcast merger, and
that Comcast aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary duties.
The complaints further alleged that the joint proxy
statement/prospectus filed by Comcast with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 20, 2014 was misleading or omitted
certain material information. The complaints sought, among other
relief, compensatory damages in an unspecified amount, injunctive
relief and costs and fees. The parties entered into a settlement
agreement, conditioned inter alia on the consummation of the
Comcast merger.

Now that the Comcast Merger Agreement has been terminated, the
settlement is no longer operative, although the plaintiffs have
the right to petition the court for the award of attorneys' fees
and TWC has the right to oppose that application.

Following the announcement of the Charter merger on May 26, 2015,
on June 29, 2015, the parties in the NY Actions filed a
stipulation agreeing that plaintiffs could file a Second
Consolidated Class Action Complaint (the "Second Amended
Complaint"), and dismissing with prejudice Comcast and Comcast's
merger subsidiary.

After the court so ordered the stipulation, the plaintiffs in the
NY Actions filed the Second Amended Complaint on July 1, 2015. The
Second Amended Complaint names as defendants TWC, the members of
the TWC board of directors, Charter and the merger subsidiaries.
The Second Amended Complaint generally alleges, among other
things, that the members of the TWC board of directors breached
their fiduciary duties to TWC stockholders during the Charter
merger negotiations and by entering into the Charter Merger
Agreement and approving the Charter merger, and that Charter and
its subsidiaries aided and abetted such breaches of fiduciary
duties. The complaint seeks, among other relief, injunctive relief
enjoining the shareholder vote on the Charter merger, unspecified
declaratory and equitable relief, compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount, and costs and fees.

The Company believes that the claims asserted against it are
without merit and intends to defend against this lawsuit
vigorously, but is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit
or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss.


TIME WARNER: Still Defending Set-Top Cable TV Box Antitrust Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner Cable Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company is the
defendant in In re: Set-Top Cable Television Box Antitrust
Litigation, ten purported class actions filed in federal district
courts throughout the U.S. These actions are subject to a
Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") Order transferring the cases for
pretrial proceedings to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

On July 26, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a third amended
consolidated class action complaint (the "Third Amended
Complaint"), alleging that the Company violated Section 1 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act, various state antitrust laws and state
unfair/deceptive trade practices statutes by tying the sales of
premium cable television services to the leasing of set-top
converter boxes. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things,
unspecified treble monetary damages and an injunction to cease
such alleged practices.

On September 30, 2010, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Third Amended Complaint, which the court granted on April 8, 2011.
On June 17, 2011, the plaintiffs appealed this decision to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The Company intends to defend against this lawsuit vigorously, but
is unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit or reasonably
estimate a range of possible loss.

No further updates were provided in the Company's Form 10-Q
report.


TOWN SPORTS: Sanctions Bid in Labbe Class Action Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Town Sports International Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
30, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the
Company's motion for sanctions in the class action filed by James
Labbe remains pending.

On or about October 4, 2012, in an action styled James Labbe, et
al. v. Town Sports International, LLC, plaintiff commenced a
purported class action in New York State court on behalf of
personal trainers employed in New York State. Labbe is seeking
unpaid wages and damages from TSI, LLC and alleges violations of
various provisions of the New York State labor law with respect to
payment of wages and TSI, LLC's notification and record-keeping
obligations. The Court has bifurcated class and merits discovery.
The deadline for the completion of pre-class certification
document discovery was December 31, 2014.

On June 12, 2015, the plaintiff made a motion for class
certification.  On July 24, 2015, the court indefinitely adjourned
the plaintiff's motion for class certification to allow the court
to first decide a motion for sanctions by TSI, LLC against Labbe.
TSI, LLC made that motion for sanctions on June 30, 2015.  The
motion seeks dismissal of Labbe's complaint, and reimbursement of
certain of TSI, LLC's legal fees, on the ground that Labbe has not
complied with his discovery obligations and the court's discovery
orders. TSI, LLC's motion for sanctions remains pending.

"While it is not possible to estimate the likelihood of an
unfavorable outcome or a range of loss in the case of an
unfavorable outcome to TSI, LLC at this time, TSI, LLC intends to
contest this case vigorously," the Company said.


TOYOTA MOTOR: Sued Over Defective Remote-Control Keyless Fob
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Draeger, et al. v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:15-cv-06491-AB-MRW (C.D. Cal., August 26, 2015),
seeks redress for a deadly defect associated with the remote-
control electronic keyless fob implemented by ten different auto
manufacturing groups and their associated research and design
companies.

Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. is a Delaware corporation whose
principal place of business is 19001 South Western Avenue,
Department WC11, Torrance, CA 90501. Toyota is a holding company
of sales and manufacturing subsidiaries of Toyota Motor Corp. in
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Martis Ann Alex, Esq.
      Daniel R. Leathers, Esq.
      Brian R. Morrison, Esq.
      LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
      140 Broadway
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 907-0700
      Facsimile: (212) 818-0477
      E-mail: malex@labaton.com
              dleathers@labaton.com
              bmorrison@labaton.com

         - and -

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-7292
      Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
      E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 203
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Telephone: (213) 330-7150
      E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com


TRADER JOE'S: Transferred "Garlough" Suit to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Keith Garlough, Lance Alicaya,
Steve Meylink, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Trader Joe's Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-01278, was
transferred from the California Northern to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California (Western Division -
Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:15-cv-
05953-PA-PJW to the proceeding.

The case asserts employment discrimination claims.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stanley D. Saltzman, Esq.
      Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq.
      Leslie Joyner, Esq.
      Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
      MARLIN AND SALTZMAN LLP
      29229 Canwood Street Suite 208
      Agoura Hills, CA 91301-1555
      Telephone: (818) 991-8080
      Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
      E-mail: ssaltzman@marlinsaltzman.com
              kgrombacher@marlinsaltzman.com
              ljoyner@marlinsaltzman.com
              mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com

         - and -

      Ian J. Barlow, Esq.
      William A. Kershaw, Esq.
      KERSHAW CUTTER AND RATINOFF LLP
      401 Watt Avenue
      Sacramento, CA 95864
      Telephone: (916) 448-9800
      Facsimile: (916) 669-4499
      E-mail: ibarlow@kcrlegal.com
              wkershaw@kcrlegal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Adam J. Karr, Esq.
      Lauren A. Elkerson, Esq.
      O'MELVENY AND MYERS LLP
      610 Newport Center Drive 17th Floor
      Newport Beach, CA 92660-6429
      Telephone: (949) 823-6928
      Facsimile: (949) 823-6994
      E-mail: akarr@omm.com
              lelkerson@omm.com


UNIFIN INC: Made Automated Calls, "Caldera" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Lucy Caldera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Unifin, Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-06549-DSF-RAO (C.D.
Cal., August 26, 2015), seeks to put an end to the Defendant's
practice of placing calls on the Plaintiff's and class member's
cellular telephone using an automatic telephone dialing system.

Unifin, Inc. is a company engaged, by use of the mails and
telephone, in the business of collecting debts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNILEVER UNITED: Falsely Marketed Iced Tea Products, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Cruz-Acevedo, individually on her own behalf and others
similarly situated v. Unilever United States, Inc., and PepsiCo,
Inc., and The Pepsi Lipton Tea Partnership, Case No. 3:15-cv-02175
(D.P.R., August 26, 2015), alleges that the Defendants have
unlawfully, negligently, unfairly, misleadingly, and deceptively
represented that its Pure Leaf Iced Tea, sold in a variety of
flavors, is "All Natural," despite containing unnatural
ingredients, which are synthetic, artificial, and genetically
modified, including but not limited to Citric Acid and "Natural
Flavor."

Unilever United States, Inc. owns and operates a consumer goods
company with principal place of business located at 700 Sylvan
Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632.

PepsiCo, Inc. owns and operates a food and beverage corporation
with its principal place of business located at 700 Anderson Hill
Road, Purchase, New York 10577.

The Pepsi Lipton Tea Partnership manufactures, distributes and
sells the Pure Leaf(TM) Real Brewed Tea Products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jose R. Franco-Rivera, Esq.
      JOSE R. FRANCO RIVERA
      B-24 Mirador de Borinquen Gardens
      San Juan, PR 00926
      Telephone: (787) 407-7041
      E-mail: jrfrancolaw@gmail.com


UNION PACIFIC: Faces "Rivera" Trespassing Suit in C.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lidia Rivera, et al. v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, SFPP, L.P.
f/k/a Santa Fe Pacific Pipelines, Inc., Kinder Morgan Operating
L.P. "D", and Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc., Case No. 8:15-cv-01362-
CJC-DFM (C.D. Cal., August 26, 2015), is a class action that seeks
to recover to the class of San Bernardino County, California
property owners unpaid rents, damages, and interest, as a result
of the Defendant's trespass upon the class's real property and
wrongful occupation with the railroad to use the subsurface of the
railroad right-of-way.

The Defendants operate a subterranean petroleum pipeline that runs
beneath the right-of-way of the Union Pacific Railroad Company
through El Paso County, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew G. Giacomini, Esq.
      John T. Cu, Esq.
      HANSON BRIDGETT LLP
      425 Market Street, 26th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 777-3200
      Facsimile: (415) 541-9366
      E-mail: agiacomini@hansonbridgett.com
              jcu@hansonbridgett.com

         - and -

      John W. Cowden, Esq.
      Angela M. Higgins, Esq.
      BAKER STERCHI COWDEN & RICE, L.L.C.
      2400 Pershing Road, Suite 500
      Kansas City, MO 64108
      Telephone: (816) 471-2121
      Facsimile: (816) 472-0288
      E-mail: cowden@bscr-law.com
              higgins@bscr-law.com

         - and -

      J. Robert Sears, Esq.
      Caroline M. Tinsley, Esq.
      BAKER STERCHI COWDEN & RICE, L.L.C.
      1010 Market Street, Suite 950
      St. Louis, MO 63101
      Telephone: (314) 231-2925
      Facsimile: (314) 231-4857
      E-mail: sears@bscr-law.com
              tinsley@bscr-law.com


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kazeem Adebayo Kanmodi, Kwamiga Adogla, and Jim McGill,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Verizon Communications, Inc., Verizon New York, Inc., Verizon New
Jersey, Inc., and Verizon Virginia, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-06770-
ALC (S.D.N.Y., August 26, 2015), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a broadband and telecommunications
company with a principal place of business in New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Mitchell Swartz, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN, LLP
      3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000
      Facsimile: (212) 977-4005
      E-mail: jms@outtengolden.com


VIVINT SOLAR: Faces "Belyea" Suit Over Proposed SunEdison Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carey Belyea, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Vivint Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 11376-VCL (Del.
Ch., August 7, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the holders of
the common stock of Vivint Solar, Inc. to enjoin the merger of
Vivint Solar with SunEdison, Inc. pursuant to an unfair process
and for an unfair price.

Vivint Solar, Inc. owns and operates a solar energy company with
its principal executive offices located at 3301 N. Thanksgiving
Way, Suite 500, Lehi, Utah 84043.

SunEdison, Inc. owns and operates a renewable energy company with
its principal executive offices located at 13736 Riverport Dr.,
Maryland Heights, Missouri 63043.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
      Craig J. Springer, Esq.
      ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC
      3801 Kennett Pike
      Building C, Suite 305
      Wilmington, DE 19807
      Telephone: (302) 504-4967
      Facsimile: (302) 397-2681
      E-mail: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com
              cspringer@andrewsspringer.com

         - and -

      Michael J. Palestina, Esq.
      KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
      206 Covington Street
       Madisonville, LA 70447
       Telephone: (504) 455-1400
       Facsimile: (504) 455-1498
       E-mail: michael.palestina@ksfcounsel.com


VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: Q2 2015 Results Exclude Class Suit Costs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vocera Communications, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K
Report filed with the Securities  and Exchange Commission on July
30, 2015, that second quarter 2015 non-GAAP results exclude
securities litigation expenses.

The Company said, "In August 2013, Vocera and other related
parties were named as defendants in two purported securities class
actions, alleging claims for allegedly misleading statements
regarding our business and financial results. As the cases
progress, we may encounter more significant legal costs for our
defense. Our projections of net income/(loss), and non-GAAP
earnings/(loss) per diluted share for the third quarter 2015 do
not give effect to any such future legal expenses because we do
not regard them as reflective of the costs we incur to operate our
business. For the same reason, second quarter 2015 non-GAAP
results exclude these securities litigation expenses."


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Briefing Complete in Merkin & Smith Case Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vonage Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that briefing on the appeal
related to the Merkin & Smith, et als case is complete.

On September 27, 2013, Arthur Merkin and James Smith filed a
putative class action lawsuit against Vonage America, Inc. in the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
alleging that Vonage violated California's Unfair Competition Law
by charging its customers fictitious 911 taxes and fees. On
October 30, 2013, Vonage filed a notice removing the case to the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. On November 26, 2013, Vonage filed its Answer to the
Complaint. On December 4, 2013, Vonage filed a Motion to Compel
Arbitration.

On February 4, 2014, the Court denied Vonage's Motion to Compel
Arbitration. On March 5, 2014, Vonage filed an appeal with the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit of the
decision denying Vonage's Motion to Compel Arbitration. On March
6, 2014, Vonage moved to stay the district court proceedings
pending its appeal; the Court granted Vonage's stay motion on
March 26, 2014. Briefing on the appeal is complete.

No further updates were provided in the Company's Form 10-Q
report.


WESTERN UNION: Taylor Police Class Action at Preliminary Stage
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the class action filed
by City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement System is in a
preliminary stage.

On December 10, 2013, City of Taylor Police and Fire Retirement
System filed a purported class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado against The
Western Union Company, its President and Chief Executive Officer
and a former executive officer of the Company, asserting claims
under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 ("Exchange Act") and Securities and Exchange Commission rule
10b-5 against all defendants.

On September 26, 2014, the Court appointed SEB Asset Management
S.A. and SEB Investment Management AB as lead plaintiffs. On
October 27, 2014, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint, which asserts the same claims as the
original complaint, except that it brings the claims under section
20(a) of the Exchange Act only against the individual defendants.
The consolidated amended complaint also adds as a defendant
another former executive officer of the Company. The consolidated
amended complaint alleges that, during the purported class period,
February 7, 2012 through October 30, 2012, defendants made false
or misleading statements or failed to disclose adverse material
facts known to them, including those regarding: (1) the
competitive advantage the Company derived from its compliance
program; (2) the Company's ability to increase market share, make
limited price adjustments and withstand competitive pressures; (3)
the effect of compliance measures under the Southwest Border
Agreement on agent retention and business in Mexico; and (4) the
Company's progress in implementing an anti-money laundering
program for the Southwest Border Area.

On December 11, 2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. On January 5, 2015, plaintiffs
filed an opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. On January 23, 2015, defendants
filed a reply brief in support of their motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.

The Court referred the motion to a Magistrate Judge, who, on April
14, 2015, issued a report and recommendation, which recommends
that the defendants' motion to dismiss be granted and that the
consolidated amended complaint be dismissed in full.

On April 28, 2015, plaintiffs filed objections to the report and
recommendation.

"This action is in a preliminary stage and the Company is unable
to predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if
any, which could be associated with this action. The Company and
the named individuals intend to vigorously defend themselves in
this matter," the Company said.


WESTERN UNION: Appeals Court Affirmed District Court Decision
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the United States Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has affirmed the District Court's
decision to overrule the objections filed by the two class members
who appealed.

The Company and one of its subsidiaries are defendants in two
purported class action lawsuits: James P. Tennille v. The Western
Union Company and Robert P. Smet v. The Western Union Company,
both of which are pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado. The original complaints asserted claims
for violation of various consumer protection laws, unjust
enrichment, conversion and declaratory relief, based on
allegations that the Company waits too long to inform consumers if
their money transfers are not redeemed by the recipients and that
the Company uses the unredeemed funds to generate income until the
funds are escheated to state governments. The Tennille complaint
was served on the Company on April 27, 2009. The Smet complaint
was served on the Company on April 6, 2010.

On September 21, 2009, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the Tennille complaint and gave the plaintiff leave to
file an amended complaint. On October 21, 2009, Tennille filed an
amended complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the Tennille
amended complaint and the Smet complaint. On November 8, 2010, the
Court denied the motion to dismiss as to the plaintiffs' unjust
enrichment and conversion claims.

On February 4, 2011, the Court dismissed the plaintiffs' consumer
protection claims. On March 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint that adds a claim for breach of fiduciary duty,
various elements to its declaratory relief claim and WUFSI as a
defendant.

On April 25, 2011, the Company and WUFSI filed a motion to dismiss
the breach of fiduciary duty and declaratory relief claims. WUFSI
also moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs' claims and to
stay the action pending arbitration. On November 21, 2011, the
Court denied the motion to compel arbitration and the stay
request. Both companies appealed the decision.

On January 24, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit granted the companies' request to stay the District
Court proceedings pending their appeal. During the fourth quarter
of 2012, the parties executed a settlement agreement, which the
Court preliminarily approved on January 3, 2013.

On June 25, 2013, the Court entered an order certifying the class
and granting final approval to the settlement. Under the approved
settlement, a substantial amount of the settlement proceeds, as
well as all of the class counsel's fees, administrative fees and
other expenses, would be paid from the class members' unclaimed
money transfer funds, which are included within "Settlement
obligations" in the Company's Condensed Consolidated Balance
Sheets. During the final approval hearing, the Court overruled
objections to the settlement that had been filed by several class
members.

In July 2013, two of those class members filed notices of appeal.
On May 1, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision to overrule the
objections filed by the two class members who appealed. The
settlement requires Western Union to deposit the class members'
unclaimed money transfer funds into a class settlement fund, from
which class member claims, administrative fees and class counsel's
fees, as well as other expenses will be paid.


WESTERN UNION: Settlement in "Douglas" Subject to Court Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Western Union Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the settlement
agreement in the class action lawsuit filed by Jason Douglas has
been signed by the parties and remains subject to the Court's
approval.

On March 12, 2014, Jason Douglas filed a purported class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois asserting a claim under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227, et seq., based on
allegations that since 2009, the Company has sent text messages to
class members' wireless telephones without their consent. During
the first quarter of 2015, the Company's insurance carrier and the
plaintiff reached an agreement, subject to the Court's approval,
to create an $8.5 million settlement fund that will be used to pay
all class member claims, class counsel's fees and the costs of
administering the settlement. The agreement has been signed by the
parties and remains subject to the Court's approval.

The Company accrued an amount equal to the retention under its
insurance policy in previous quarters and believes that any
amounts in excess of this accrual will be covered by the insurer.
However, if the Company's insurer is unable to or refuses to
satisfy its obligations under the policy or the parties are unable
to reach a definitive agreement or otherwise agree on a
resolution, the Company's financial condition and results of
operations could be adversely impacted.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Trial in Geisma Personal Injury Suit Moved
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the trial for
certain plaintiffs claiming personal injury related to the Geismar
Incident has been continued or postponed for at least 120 days.

As a result of the Geismar Incident, there were two fatalities and
numerous individuals (including employees and contractors)
reported injuries, which varied from minor to serious.  "We are
addressing the following matters in connection with the Geismar
Incident," the Company said.

"On October 21, 2013, the EPA issued an Inspection Report pursuant
to the Clean Air Act's Risk Management Program following its
inspection of the facility on June 24 through 28, 2013. The report
notes the EPA's preliminary determinations about the facility's
documentation regarding process safety, process hazard analysis,
as well as operating procedures, employee training, and other
matters. On June 16, 2014, we received a request for information
related to the Geismar Incident from the EPA under Section 114 of
the Clean Air Act to which we responded on August 13, 2014. The
EPA could issue penalties pertaining to final determinations.

"Multiple lawsuits, including class actions for alleged offsite
impacts, property damage, customer claims, and personal injury,
have been filed against us. To date, we have settled certain of
the personal injury claims for an aggregate immaterial amount that
we have recovered from our insurers. The trial for certain
plaintiffs claiming personal injury, that was set to begin on June
15, 2015 in Iberville Parish, Louisiana, has been continued or
postponed for at least 120 days. For these and all other unsettled
lawsuits, we believe it is probable that additional losses will be
incurred, while for the others we believe it is only reasonably
possible that losses will be incurred.

"However, due to ongoing litigation concerning defenses to
liability, the number of individual plaintiffs, limited
information as to the nature and extent of all plaintiffs'
damages, and the ultimate outcome of all appeals, we are unable to
reliably estimate any such losses at this time. We believe that it
is probable that any ultimate losses incurred will be covered by
our general liability insurance policy, which has an aggregate
annual limit of $610 million and retention (deductible) of $2
million per occurrence."


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Purported Stockholder Filed Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 30, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in July 2015, a
purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class and
derivative action on behalf of the Company in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware. The action names as defendants
certain members of the Company's Board of Directors (Individual
Defendants), as well as WPZ, and names the Company as a nominal
defendant.

The Company said, "Among other things, the action seeks to enjoin
the Acquisition of WPZ Public Units and seeks monetary damages,
including the repayment of the $410 million termination fee that
may become payable by us, in certain circumstances, if there were
a termination of the merger agreement for the Acquisition of WPZ
Public Units.  The action alleges, among other things, that the
Individual Defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to us
and our stockholders by failing to adequately evaluate an
unsolicited proposal to acquire us in an all-equity transaction
and by putting their personal interests ahead of the interests of
us and our stockholders in connection with that unsolicited
proposal. The action further alleges that WPZ aided and abetted
the alleged breaches.  We cannot reasonably estimate a range of
potential loss at this time."



WORLD ACCEPTANCE: Filed Answer to Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------
World Acceptance Corporation has filed an answer to the amended
complaint in the class action lawsuit by Edna Selan Epstein, the
Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on July 30, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2015.

On April 22, 2014, a shareholder filed a putative class action
complaint, Edna Selan Epstein v. World Acceptance Corporation et
al., in the United States District Court for the District of South
Carolina (case number 6:14-cv-01606), against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common
stock between April 25, 2013 and March 12, 2014. The complaint
alleges that the Company made false and misleading statements in
various SEC reports and other public statements in violation of
federal securities laws preceding the Company's disclosure in a
Form 8-K filed March 13, 2014 that it had received Civil
Investigative Demand ("CID") from the Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau ("CFPB"). The original complaint seeks class
certification, unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys'
fees.

The lead plaintiff's amended complaint contains similar
allegations to the original complaint, but expands the class
period and includes additional allegations that the Company's loan
growth and volume figures were inflated because of a weakness in
the Company's internal controls relating to its accounting
treatment of certain small-dollar loan re-financings. The Company
and the individual defendants subsequently moved to dismiss the
amended complaint.

On May 18, 2015, the Court issued an order denying the Company's
motion to dismiss. On May 28, 2015, the Company filed a motion
asking the Court to certify its May 18, 2015 order for immediate
appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b), and to stay
proceedings pending the resolution of that appeal, on grounds that
the Court's decision involves a controlling question of law over
which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and an
immediate appeal may materially advance the ultimate termination
of the litigation. This motion is still pending before the Court.
On July 1, 2015, the Company filed an answer to the amended
complaint, denying all liability.



                            *********

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  * * *