CAR_Public/150914.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, September 14, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 183


                            Headlines


126 BAKE CORP: "Sampedro" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
156-40 GRILL: Faces Suit in New York Over FLSA, NYLL Violations
A.S.A.P. LOCK: Faces "Reyes" Suit Seeking Overtime Pay Under FLSA
ACCELERATE DIAGNOSTICS: Julia Chang Appointed Lead Plaintiff
ACCESS MEDICAL: Faces "Legon" Suit in Fla. Seeking Unpaid Wages

ACCOR NORTH: "Murray" Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA, Penn. Wage Laws
AEROGROUP RETAIL: "Roy" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
ALPHA NATURAL: 4th Cir. Reviews Plaintiffs' Initial Briefs
ALPHA NATURAL: Bid to Dismiss Delaware Complaint Remains Pending
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Patel" Suit for Antitrust Practices

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Final Settlement Hearing on September 18
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs' Bid to Lift Stay Due Oct. 27
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: SICO Filed Notice of Appeal
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Caremark Action Trial to Begin Feb. 22
AMERICAN LANGUAGE: Faces "Volpe" Suit Seeking to Recover Wages

AMERICAN VANGUARD: Intends to Defend Galvan v. AMVAC
AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY: Faces "Hoelscher" Suit Seeking OT Pay
ASSOCIATED ESTATES: Class Action Parties Entered Into MOU
AZIN INC: Faces "Ferrara" Suit Under FLSA, Fla. Min. Wage Act
BASS FISHING: "Tingey" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation

BAYBRENT TILE: Faces "Lehane" Suit for FLSA, NYLL & NYDOL Breach
BBMC MORTGAGE: "Pieksma" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
BI-LO HOLDINGS: Faces "Rennock-Witter" Suit for Wage, Bias Claims
BOK FINANCIAL: Defending Suit Over Consumer Deposit Accounts
BOK FINANCIAL: Defending Suit Over Extended Overdraft Fees

BREATHLESS INC: "Moon" Alleges FLSA Violations
CAFE VICO: Faces "Vieira" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CELGENE CORPORATION: Faces Class Actions Over Receptos Merger
COCO ASIAN: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violations
CSOS LLC: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay

DNA ASSOCIATES: Faces "Cruz" Suit Over FLSA Violation
DWM PLLC: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
EASTERN COMPANY: Court Okayed Stipulation and Order of Dismissal
EL CAMINO: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Becker" Suit Says
EL REY: Faces "Bue" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Min. Wage Law

EMDEON INC: Social Service Coordinators Paid Full Amount in Deal
ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Has Deal to Decertify and Dismiss Claims
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Roberts" Suit Says
FIRST INDEX: All American Painting Alleges Violation of TCPA
FIRSTMERIT: Stipulation in Overdraft Suit Awaits Court Approval

FIRSTMERIT: Settlement in Merger Litigation Becomes Final
FREEWAY INSURANCE: Sued in Cal. Over Inaccurate Wage Statements
GARDEN PARTNERS: Faces "Najera" Suit Over Gender Discrimination
GOLDEN INVESTMENTS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
INTEGRATED SILICON: Case Management Conference Set for October 2

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Action Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
ITG INC: Faces "Shah" Suit for Securities Law Violation
ITT EDUCATIONAL: 3-Month Stay Entered in NY Securities Litigation
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Indiana Securities Action Stayed Until Oct. 13
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Continues to Defend Against "Gallien" Litigation

IXIA: Parties at Mediation Fail to Reach Agreement
JE-GO CORP: Faces "Garcia" Suit Seeking Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hearing to Reconsider Class Certification Held
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Oct. 2015 Class Cert. Hearing on Field Claim
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Action Cases Transferred to Florida

MARATHON PETROLEUM: Class Action Filed Challenging Merger
MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Faces "Young" Suit Over Data Breach
MERGE HEALTHCARE: Faces "Molinaro" Suit Over Mulled IBM Takeover
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces "Williams" ERISA Suit Over Hershey Plan
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces "Moeller" ERISA Suit Over Sutter Plan

METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces "Williams" ERISA Suit Over Hershey Plan
MICROSOFT CORP: Total Remaining Settlement Cost Pegged at $200MM
MICROSOFT CORP: Trial Remains Stayed in US Phone Product Suit
MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Class Action Still Inactive
MILLER'S CROSSING: Faces "Banuelos" Suit for Unpaid OT Under FLSA

MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiff Filed Motion to Remand
NATALIA CO: "Lobut" Suit Seeks Damages for Alleged FLSA Violation
NAVIENT CORP: Court Denied Request to Amend "Ubaldi" Complaint
NAVIENT CORP: Bids to Dismiss 2nd Amended "Blyden" Suit Granted
NEWPARK RESOURCES: Trial of "Davida" Case Set for September 2016

NEWPARK RESOURCES: Retained Counsel in "Christiansen" Case
NOBLE CASING: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Cooper" Suit Says
NORTEK INC: No Arguments with Respect to Class Action Status
OCH-ZIFF CAPITAL: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
OCWEN FINANCIAL: To Defend Against Suit by Altisource Investors

OLD NATIONAL: Indiana Supreme Court Won't Accept Case Transfer
OLD REPUBLIC: "Markocki" Class Action Still Pending
OLD REPUBLIC: RMIC Filed Motions to Dismiss RESPA Class Actions
PARAMOUNT FOODS: Faces "Basurto" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
PARK PIZZA: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages & Damages

PHILADELPHIA: Police Department Sued Over Civil Rights Violation
PJS OF PARMA: Accused of Violating Min. Wage Laws on Tips/Credits
PLAINS ALL: Sued in Texas Over Misleading Financial Reports
QEP RESOURCES: Court Order Regarding Class Certification Pending
QEP RESOURCES: Audet Case Stayed Pending Yannick Gagne Case

QUICKEN LOANS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Newhart" Suit Claims
RC NYC: Faces Suit by "Pilch" for Alleged FLSA and NYLL Violation
RESTAURANT BRANDS: Settlement Received Final Court Approval
ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Defendant in 3 Class Actions
SABI VENTURES: Faces "Welch" Suit Seeking Unpaid Wages Under FLSA

SAC INC: "Stecco" Suit Seeks Damages for Alleged TCPA Violations
SANDRIDGE ENERGY: "Peck" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Fraud Action Dismissed
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: AirTran to Defend Agaisnt Class Action
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: MDL Panel Will Hold Hearing on October 1

TETRA TECH: Class Action Against BPR Officially Closed
TIME WARNER: Faces "Byrd" Suit in Cal. Over Automated Calls
TIME WARNER: Faces 2nd "Byrd" Suit in Cal. Over Automated Calls
VBI VACCINES: Disputes Claims Asserted in Class Action
VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Arkansas Teachers Group to Lead Class Suit

VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Lead Plaintiff Named in "Youngers" Case
WAL-MART STORES: Removed "Mesa" Class Suit to S. District Florida
WAYFAIR INC: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
WESTSIDE DONUT: Faces "Parenteau" Suit Under ADA, Rights Law
YELP INC: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss Securities Action

YELP INC: Plaintiffs Filed First Amended Complaint v. Eat24
YELP INC: Former Eat24 Sales Employee Filed Lawsuit
YODLEE INC: Faces "Inala" Suit Over Proposed Envestnet Takeover



                            *********


126 BAKE CORP: "Sampedro" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Sampedro, and all others similarly-situated v. 126 Bake
Corp. dba Tasty Cafe, 128 Bake Corp. dba Tasty Cafe, Kamal Khadr,
Ahmed Zabady, Mohammed Zabady, and John Does #1-10, Case No. 1:15-
cv-06537 (S.D.N.Y., August 19, 2015), seeks to recover
compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory minimum
wage, unpaid wages for overtime work, and liquidated damages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

The Defendants owned and operated a deli/restaurant in Manhattan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Stein, Esq.
      SAMUEL & STEIN
      38 West 32nd Street
      Suite 1110
      New York, NY 10001
      Tel: (212) 563-9884
      E-mail: dstein@samuelandstein.com


156-40 GRILL: Faces Suit in New York Over FLSA, NYLL Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marco Antonio Sanchez Juarez and Janet Gutierrez individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. 156-40 Grill LLC d/b/a
Taverna Greek Grill, Greek Grill Crossbay Corp., d/b/a Taverna
Greek Grill, Evangelos Pollatos, Maria Karras-Pollatos, Michael
Siderakis, and Konstantinos Siklas, Case 2:15-cv-05081 (E.D.N.Y.,
Aug. 31, 2015), alleges violations of the Federal Labor Standards
Act, and of the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     John Troy, Esq.
     TROY LAW, PLLC
     41-25 Kissena Boulevard Suite 119
     Flushing, NY 11355
     Tel: (718) 762-1324
     Fax: (718) 762-1342
     E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.com


A.S.A.P. LOCK: Faces "Reyes" Suit Seeking Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Armando B. Reyes, and other similarly-situated individuals v.
A.S.A.P. Lock Safe & Key, Inc. and Howard Teamkin, individually,
Case 0:15-cv-61833-WPD (S.D.Fla., Aug. 31, 2015), seeks to recover
money damages for alleged unpaid overtime wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

A.S.A.P. Lock Safe provides locksmith services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
     ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
     9100 South Dadeland Blvd.
     Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Tel: (305) 446-1500
     Fax: (305) 446-1502
     E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


ACCELERATE DIAGNOSTICS: Julia Chang Appointed Lead Plaintiff
------------------------------------------------------------
Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Julia Chang has
been appointed Lead Plaintiff of the purported class action
lawsuit.

The Company said, "On March 19, 2015, a putative securities class
action lawsuit was filed against us, Lawrence Mehren, and Steve
Reichling, Rapp v. Accelerate Diagnostics, Inc., et al., U.S.
District Court, District of Arizona, 2:2015-cv-00504.  The
complaint alleges that we violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5, by making
false or misleading statements about our ID/AST System, formerly
called the BACcel System.  Plaintiff purports to bring the action
on behalf of a class of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired our stock between March 7, 2014 and February 17, 2015."

On June 9, 2015, Julia Chang was appointed Lead Plaintiff of the
purported class.

"On June 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, by making false or misleading
statements or omissions about our ID/AST System and by allegedly
employing schemes to defraud.  Plaintiff seeks certification of
the action as a class action, compensatory damages for the class
in an unspecified amount, legal fees and costs, and such other
relief as the court may order.  We believe the case is without
merit and intend to defend it vigorously.  However, an adverse
result could have a material adverse effect upon our financial
condition or results of operations," the Company said.


ACCESS MEDICAL: Faces "Legon" Suit in Fla. Seeking Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Legon, and other similarly situated v. Access Medical
Acquisition, Inc., Dr. Mark McKenney, Luis H. Izquierdo, Jeff
Settembrino, and Evan Horton, Case 1:15-cv-22815-UU (S.D.Fla.,
July 29, 2015), seeks unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
     Anaeli C. Petisco, Esq.
     REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
     44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
     Miami, FL 33130
     Tel: 305-416-5000
     Fax: 305-416-5005


ACCOR NORTH: "Murray" Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA, Penn. Wage Laws
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Murray v. Accor North America, Inc., South 17th Street
Leaseco, LLC d/b/a Sofitel Philadelphia, La Liberte LLC, Sofitel
USA, LLC, Accor Business and Leisure North America Inc. and Accor
Lodging North America, Case 2:15-cv-04907-JD (E.D.Penn., Aug. 31,
2015), seeks to recover unpaid gratuities and overtime wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act,
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, Pennsylvania Wage Payment and
Collection Law, Philadelphia's Gratuity Protection Bill, and
Philadelphia Administrative Code.

The Defendants own and operate luxury hotels under the trade name
"Sofitel."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marc A. Goldich, Esq.
     SHELLER, P.C.
     1528 Walnut Street, 4th Floor
     Philadelphia, PA 19102
     Tel: 215 790 7300
     Fax: 215 546 0942
     E-mail: mgoldich@sheller.com

        - and -

     Noah Axler, Esq.
     Michael D. Donovan, Esq.
     DONOVAN AXLER, LLC
     1055 Westlakes Drive, Suite 155
     Berwyn, PA 19312
     Tel: 610 647 6068
     Fax: 610 647 7215
     E-mail: naxler@donovanaxler.com


AEROGROUP RETAIL: "Roy" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Jodi Roy fka Jodi Martin, and all others similarly-situated v.
Aerogroup Retail Holdings, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-02941 (N.D. Ga.,
August 19, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
an additional equal amount as liquidated damages and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendant is an apparel industry that engages in the
manufacturing and retailing of shoes sales.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason R. Doss, Esq.
      THE DOSS FIRM, LLC
      36 Trammell St., Ste. 101
      Marietta, GA 30064
      Tel: (770) 578-1314
      Fax: (770) 578-1302
      E-mail: jasondoss@dossfirm.com


ALPHA NATURAL: 4th Cir. Reviews Plaintiffs' Initial Briefs
----------------------------------------------------------
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is now reviewing the plaintiffs'
initial briefs.

Twenty of the twenty-nine families of the deceased miners filed
wrongful death suits against Massey and certain of its
subsidiaries in West Virginia, in Boone County Circuit Court and
Wyoming County Circuit Court. In addition, two seriously injured
employees filed personal injury claims against Massey and certain
of its subsidiaries in Boone County Circuit Court seeking damages
for physical injuries and/or alleged psychiatric injuries, and
thirty-nine employees filed lawsuits against Massey and certain of
its subsidiaries in Boone County Circuit Court and Wyoming County
Circuit Court alleging emotional distress or personal injuries due
to their proximity to the explosion.

Through mediation ordered by the Boone County Circuit Court, the
Company reached agreements to settle with all twenty-nine families
of the deceased miners, the two employees who were seriously
injured and thirty-nine employees who filed lawsuits for emotional
distress or personal injuries. The settlements reached with the
families of the deceased miners were approved by the court, and
the other settlements did not require court approval.

On April 5, 2012, the family of one of the deceased miners filed a
class action suit in Boone County Circuit Court, purportedly on
behalf of the families that settled their claims prior to the
mediation, alleging fraudulent inducement into a contract, naming
as defendants Massey, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries,
the Company's CEO and the Company's Board of Directors.
On June 17, 2013 and August 29, 2013, two complaints were filed in
Boone County Circuit Court alleging personal injury claims
relating to the UBB explosion. In July 2014, the Circuit Court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss in one of the two cases.
The second motion was denied in October 2014.

On July 17, 2013, the administrators for the estates of three
miners who died in the UBB explosion filed an action against Alpha
and Alpha Appalachia in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of West Virginia claiming they are entitled to
"criminal restitution" under the Agreement, which defendants moved
to dismiss. In October 2013, the court granted defendants' motion
to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed
this dismissal order. In September 2014, the Court of Appeals
determined that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that the
District Court had jurisdiction over the case. Accordingly, the
Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's dismissal of the
case and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the case
without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. On October 22, 2014,
the District Court entered an order dismissing the plaintiffs'
complaint without prejudice and terminating all pending motions as
moot.

Plaintiffs filed a new complaint on November 7, 2014. Defendants
subsequently filed a motion to dismiss and plaintiffs filed a
motion for leave to file a surreply memorandum. On April 6, 2015,
the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, and
the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit, which is now reviewing the parties'
initial briefs.


ALPHA NATURAL: Bid to Dismiss Delaware Complaint Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the motion filed by
defendants to dismiss Delaware Plaintiffs' amended complaint
remains pending.

In a case filed on April 23, 2010 in Delaware Chancery Court, In
re Massey Energy Company Derivative and Class Action Litigation
("In re Massey"), a number of purported former Massey stockholders
(the "Delaware Plaintiffs") allege, purportedly on behalf of
Massey, that certain former Massey directors and officers breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to monitor and oversee Massey's
employees, allegedly resulting in fines against Massey and the
explosion at UBB, and by wasting corporate assets by paying
allegedly excessive and inflated amounts to former Massey Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer Don L. Blankenship as part of his
retirement package. The Delaware Plaintiffs also allege, on behalf
of a purported class of former Massey stockholders, that certain
former Massey directors breached their fiduciary duties by
agreeing to the Massey Acquisition. The Delaware Plaintiffs allege
that defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to
secure the best price possible, by failing to secure any downside
protection for the acquisition consideration, and by purportedly
eliminating the possibility of a superior proposal by agreeing to
a "no shop" provision and a termination fee. In addition, the
Delaware Plaintiffs allege that defendants agreed to the Massey
Acquisition to eliminate the liability that defendants faced on
the Delaware Plaintiffs' derivative claims. Finally, the Delaware
Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to fully disclose all
material information necessary for Massey stockholders to cast an
informed vote on the Massey Acquisition.

The Delaware Plaintiffs also name the Company and Mountain Merger
Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary
created for purposes of effecting the Massey Acquisition, which,
at the effective time of the Massey Acquisition, was merged with
and into Massey, as defendants. The Delaware Plaintiffs allege
that the Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted the former
Massey directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and agreed to
orchestrate the Massey Acquisition for the purpose of eliminating
the former Massey directors' potential liability on the derivative
claims. Two additional putative class actions were brought against
Massey, certain former Massey directors and officers, the Company
and Merger Sub in the Delaware Court of Chancery following the
announcement of the Massey Acquisition, which were consolidated
for all purposes with In re Massey in February 2011.

The Delaware Plaintiffs seek an award against each defendant for
restitution and/or compensatory damages, plus pre-judgment
interest; an order establishing a litigation trust to preserve the
derivative claims asserted in the complaint; and an award of
costs, disbursements and reasonable allowances for fees incurred
in this action. The Delaware Plaintiffs also sought to enjoin
consummation of the Massey Acquisition. The court denied their
motion for a preliminary injunction in May 2011.

In June 2011, Massey moved to dismiss the Delaware Plaintiffs'
derivative claims on the ground that the Delaware Plaintiffs, as
former Massey stockholders, lacked the legal right to pursue those
claims, and the Company and Alpha Appalachia Merger Sub moved to
dismiss the purported class action claim against them for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In June 2011,
certain former Massey director and officer defendants moved to
dismiss the derivative claims and filed answers to the remaining
direct claims.

In September 2011, the parties submitted a Stipulation Staying
Proceedings, which stayed the matter until March 2012, without
prejudice to the parties' right to seek an extension or a
termination of the stay by application to the court. The court
approved the stipulation and entered the stay that same day. The
court extended the stay several times and the most recent stay
expired on October 31, 2014.

On October 17, 2014, the Delaware Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint which maintains claims against Massey and certain former
Massey directors and officers but no longer asserts claims against
the Company or Mountain Merger Sub, Inc. Defendants moved to
dismiss on December 5, 2014, and the motion remains pending.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces "Patel" Suit for Antitrust Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kumar Patel and Rajesh Patel, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. American Airlines Group, Inc.,
American Airlines, Inc., Delta Airlines, Inc., Southwest Airlines
Co., United Continental Holdings, Inc., and United Airlines, Inc.,
Case: 1:15-cv-07659 (N.D.Ill., Aug. 31, 2015), seeks treble
damages and injunctive relief under the United States antitrust
laws for alleged unlawfully fixing, raising, maintaining and/or
stabilizing by the Defendants of the price of domestic travel.

American Airlines Group Inc. is a holding company and the parent
company of American Airlines, Inc.  Delta is the oldest operating
airline in the United States (founded in 1924) and operates more
than 5,400 flights per day to 326 locations in 64 countries.
Southwest operates more than 3,600 flights per day to 94 locations
in the U.S and six additional countries.  United Continental
Holdings, Inc. is a holding company and the parent company of
United Airlines, Inc.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jayne Goldstein, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     10 S. LaSalle Street, Ste. 3505
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Tel.: (312) 377-1181
     Fax: (312) 377-1184
     E-mail: jagoldstein@pomlaw.com

        - and -

     Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
     SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
     35 E. State Street
     Media, PA 19063
     Tel.: (610) 891-9880
     Fax: (610) 891-9883
     E-mail: nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com

        - and -

     Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq.
     SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
     1640 Town Center Circle, Suite 216
     Weston, FL 33326
     Tel: (954) 515-0123
     Fax: (866) 300-7367


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Final Settlement Hearing on September 18
----------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the
ERISA Actions - Southern District of New York, the Court issued an
order preliminarily approving the settlement and notice
procedures, and setting a final settlement hearing for September
18, 2015.

Between June 25, 2008 and November 25, 2008, AIG, certain
directors and officers of AIG, and members of AIG's Retirement
Board and Investment Committee were named as defendants in eight
purported class action complaints asserting claims on behalf of
participants in certain pension plans sponsored by AIG or its
subsidiaries. The Court subsequently consolidated these eight
actions as In re American International Group, Inc. ERISA
Litigation II.

On December 19, 2014, lead plaintiffs' counsel filed under seal a
third consolidated amended complaint. The action purports to be
brought as a class action under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), on behalf of all
participants in or beneficiaries of certain benefit plans of AIG
and its subsidiaries that offered shares of AIG Common Stock. In
the third consolidated amended complaint, plaintiffs allege, among
other things, that the defendants breached their fiduciary
responsibilities to plan participants and their beneficiaries
under ERISA, by continuing to offer the AIG Stock Fund as an
investment option in the plans after it allegedly became imprudent
to do so. The alleged ERISA violations relate to, among other
things, the defendants' purported failure to monitor and/or
disclose certain matters, including the Subprime Exposure Issues.

On January 6, 2015, the parties informed the Court that they had
accepted a mediator's proposal to settle the action for $40
million. On June 5, 2015, the Court issued an order preliminarily
approving the settlement and notice procedures, and setting a
final settlement hearing for September 18, 2015. The entirety of
the $40 million settlement is expected to be paid by AIG's
fiduciary liability insurance carriers.


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs' Bid to Lift Stay Due Oct. 27
----------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the
Canadian Securities Class Action - Ontario Superior Court of
Justice, Plaintiff must move to lift the stay before October 27,
2015 or the stay will become permanent and plaintiffs will have no
further rights to pursue the application or proposed class
proceeding. As of August 3, 2015, plaintiff has not yet moved to
lift the stay.

On November 12, 2008, an application was filed in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice for leave to bring a purported class
action against AIG, AIGFP, certain directors and officers of AIG
and Joseph Cassano, the former Chief Executive Officer of AIGFP,
pursuant to the Ontario Securities Act. If the Court grants the
application, a class plaintiff will be permitted to file a
statement of claim against defendants. The proposed statement of
claim would assert a class period of March 16, 2006 through
September 16, 2008 and would allege that during this period
defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions in
quarterly and annual reports and during oral presentations in
violation of the Ontario Securities Act.

On April 17, 2009, defendants filed a motion record in support of
their motion to stay or dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and forum
non conveniens. On July 12, 2010, the Court adjourned a hearing on
the motion pending a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada in a
pair of actions captioned Club Resorts Ltd. v. Van Breda, 2012 SCC
17. On April 18, 2012, the Supreme Court of Canada clarified the
standard for determining jurisdiction over foreign and out-of-
province defendants, such as AIG, by holding that a defendant must
have some form of "actual," as opposed to a merely "virtual,"
presence to be deemed to be "doing business" in the jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court of Canada also suggested that in future cases,
defendants may contest jurisdiction even when they are found to be
doing business in a Canadian jurisdiction if their business
activities in the jurisdiction are unrelated to the subject matter
of the litigation. The matter has been stayed pending further
developments in the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation.

On June 29, 2015, counsel for AIG and AIGFP provided notice to
counsel for plaintiff in the action that a final order approving
the settlement  in the Consolidated 2008 Securities Litigation was
entered and can no longer be appealed. Plaintiff in the action
must move to lift the stay before October 27, 2015 or the stay
will become permanent and plaintiffs will have no further rights
to pursue the application or proposed class proceeding. As of
August 3, 2015, plaintiff has not yet moved to lift the stay.

In plaintiff's proposed statement of claim, plaintiff alleged
general and special damages of $500 million and punitive damages
of $50 million plus prejudgment interest or such other sums as the
Court finds appropriate. As of August 3, 2015, the Court has not
determined whether it has jurisdiction or granted plaintiff's
application to file a statement of claim, no merits discovery has
occurred and the action has been stayed. As a result, we are
unable to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of
losses, if any, arising from the litigation.


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: SICO Filed Notice of Appeal
---------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the
Starr International Litigation, SICO has filed a notice of appeal
of the July 2, 2012 dismissal of SICO's unconstitutional
conditions claim.

On November 21, 2011, Starr International Company, Inc. (SICO)
filed a complaint against the United States in the United States
Court of Federal Claims (the Court of Federal Claims), bringing
claims, both individually and on behalf of the classes and
derivatively on behalf of AIG (the SICO Treasury Action). The
complaint challenges the government's assistance of AIG, pursuant
to which AIG entered into a credit facility with the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York (the FRBNY, and such credit facility, the
FRBNY Credit Facility) and the United States received an
approximately 80 percent ownership in AIG. The complaint alleges
that the interest rate imposed on AIG and the appropriation of
approximately 80 percent of AIG's equity was discriminatory,
unprecedented, and inconsistent with liquidity assistance offered
by the government to other comparable firms at the time and
violated the Equal Protection, Due Process, and Takings Clauses of
the U.S. Constitution.

In the SICO Treasury Action, the only claims naming AIG as a party
(as a nominal defendant) are derivative claims on behalf of AIG.
On September 21, 2012, SICO made a pre-litigation demand on our
Board demanding that we pursue the derivative claims or allow SICO
to pursue the claims on our behalf. On January 9, 2013, our Board
unanimously refused SICO's demand in its entirety and on January
23, 2013, counsel for the Board sent a letter to counsel for SICO
describing the process by which our Board considered and refused
SICO's demand and stating the reasons for our Board's
determination.

On March 11, 2013, SICO filed a second amended complaint in the
SICO Treasury Action alleging that its demand was wrongfully
refused. On June 26, 2013, the Court of Federal Claims granted
AIG's and the United States' motions to dismiss SICO's derivative
claims in the SICO Treasury Action due to our Board's refusal of
SICO's demand and denied the United States' motion to dismiss
SICO's direct, non-derivative claims.

On March 11, 2013, the Court of Federal Claims in the SICO
Treasury Action granted SICO's motion for class certification of
two classes with respect to SICO's non-derivative claims: (1)
persons and entities who held shares of AIG Common Stock on or
before September 16, 2008 and who owned those shares on September
22, 2008 (the Credit Agreement Shareholder Class); and (2) persons
and entities who owned shares of AIG Common Stock on June 30, 2009
and were eligible to vote those shares at AIG's June 30, 2009
annual meeting of shareholders (the Reverse Stock Split
Shareholder Class). SICO has provided notice of class
certification to potential members of the classes, who, pursuant
to a court order issued on April 25, 2013, had to return opt-in
consent forms by September 16, 2013 to participate in either
class. 286,908 holders of AIG Common Stock during the two class
periods have opted into the classes.

On June 15, 2015, the Court of Federal Claims issued its opinion
and order in the SICO Treasury Action.  The Court found that the
United States exceeded its statutory authority by exacting
approximately 80 percent of AIG's equity in exchange for the FRBNY
Credit Facility, but that AIG shareholders suffered no damages as
a result.  SICO argued during trial that the two classes are
entitled to a total of approximately $40 billion in damages, plus
interest. The Court also found that the United States was not
liable to the Reverse Stock Split Class in connection with the
reverse stock split vote at the June 30, 2009 annual meeting of
shareholders.

On June 17, 2015, the Court of Federal Claims entered judgment
stating that "the Credit Agreement Shareholder Class shall prevail
on liability due to the Government's illegal exaction, but shall
recover zero damages, and that the Reverse Stock Split Shareholder
Class shall not prevail on liability or damages."  SICO has filed
a notice of appeal of the July 2, 2012 dismissal of SICO's
unconstitutional conditions claim, the June 26, 2013 dismissal of
SICO's derivative claims, the Court's June 15, 2015 opinion and
order, and the Court's June 17, 2015 judgment to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

In the Court of Federal Claims, the United States has alleged, as
an affirmative defense in its answer, that AIG is obligated to
indemnify the FRBNY and its representatives, including the Federal
Reserve Board of Governors and the United States (as the FRBNY's
principal), for any recovery in the SICO Treasury Action.

AIG believes that any indemnification obligation would arise only
if: (a) SICO prevails on its appeal and ultimately receives an
award of damages; (b) the United States then commences an action
against AIG seeking indemnification; and (c) the United States is
successful in such an action through any appellate process. If
SICO prevails on its claims and the United States seeks
indemnification from AIG, AIG intends to assert defenses thereto.
A reversal of the Court of Federal Claim's decision and judgment
and a final determination that the United States is liable for
damages, together with a final determination that AIG is obligated
to indemnify the United States for any such damages, could have a
material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial
condition and results of operations.


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Caremark Action Trial to Begin Feb. 22
--------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the
class action involving Caremark, trial is expected to commence on
February 22, 2016.

AIG and certain of its subsidiaries have been named defendants in
two putative class actions in state court in Alabama that arise
out of the 1999 settlement of class and derivative litigation
involving Caremark Rx, Inc. (Caremark). The plaintiffs in the
second-filed action intervened in the first-filed action, and the
second-filed action was dismissed. An excess policy issued by a
subsidiary of AIG with respect to the 1999 litigation was
expressly stated to be without limit of liability. In the current
actions, plaintiffs allege that the judge approving the 1999
settlement was misled as to the extent of available insurance
coverage and would not have approved the settlement had he known
of the existence and/or unlimited nature of the excess policy.
They further allege that AIG, its subsidiaries, and Caremark are
liable for fraud and suppression for misrepresenting and/or
concealing the nature and extent of coverage.

The complaints filed by the plaintiffs and the intervenors request
compensatory damages for the 1999 class in the amount of $3.2
billion, plus punitive damages. AIG and its subsidiaries deny the
allegations of fraud and suppression, assert that information
concerning the excess policy was publicly disclosed months prior
to the approval of the settlement, that the claims are barred by
the statute of limitations, and that the statute cannot be tolled
in light of the public disclosure of the excess coverage. The
plaintiffs and intervenors, in turn, have asserted that the
disclosure was insufficient to inform them of the nature of the
coverage and did not start the running of the statute of
limitations.

On August 15, 2012, the trial court entered an order granting
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and on September 12,
2014, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed that order. AIG and the
other defendants' petition for rehearing of that decision was
denied on February 27, 2015. The matter has been remanded to the
trial court for general discovery and adjudication of the merits.
Trial is expected to commence on February 22, 2016. AIG is unable
to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if
any, arising from the litigation.


AMERICAN LANGUAGE: Faces "Volpe" Suit Seeking to Recover Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
John Volpe v. American Language Communication Center, Inc. (d/b/a
American Language Communication Center), Jean Pachter and Peter
Pachter, Case 1:15-cv-06854 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 29, 2015), seeks to
recover minimum wages and liquidated damages, interest, costs and
attorneys' fees for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the New York Labor Law and associated rules and regulations.

Defendants owned, operated and/or controlled a language learning
center.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AMERICAN VANGUARD: Intends to Defend Galvan v. AMVAC
----------------------------------------------------
American Vanguard Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2014, that in the case, Galvan
v. AMVAC, after having taken discovery against plaintiff, the
Company believes that the claims have no merit and intends to
defend the matter vigorously.

On April 7, 2014, an action entitled Graciela Galvan v. AMVAC
Chemical Corp. was filed with the Superior Court for the State of
California for the County of Orange as case number 00716103CXC.
This is a putative class action brought under California Labor
Code Section 2698 under which claimant, an inactive employee
currently on leave, seeks civil penalties on behalf of herself and
other allegedly "similarly aggrieved employees" under various
Labor Code sections relating to overtime compensation, minimum
wages, meal periods, and rest periods among other things.

After having taken discovery against plaintiff, the Company
believes that the claims have no merit and intends to defend the
matter vigorously. At this stage in the proceedings, the Company
does not believe that a loss is probable or reasonably estimable;
accordingly, the Company has not recorded a loss contingency for
the matter.


AMERICANS FOR PROSPERITY: Faces "Hoelscher" Suit Seeking OT Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Hoelscher v. Americans for Prosperity Foundation, Case 2:15-
cv-01554-MHB (D. Ariz., August 1, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation and an equal amount of liquidated damages,
including interest thereon, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees,
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and to recover
unpaid wages and an award of treble damages, including interest
thereon, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees, and costs pursuant
to the Arizona Revised Statutes.

Americans for Prosperity Foundation is a political advocacy group.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Phillips Dayes, Esq.
     NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM
     3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1500
     Phoenix, AZ 85012
     Tel: 1-800-JOB-LAWS
          020805 (Trey Dayes)
          030754 (Sean Davis)
          (602) 288-1610 ext. 301
     E-mail: docket@phillipsdayeslaw.com


ASSOCIATED ESTATES: Class Action Parties Entered Into MOU
---------------------------------------------------------
Associated Estates Realty Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that counsel
for the parties in the class action lawsuits have entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU"), in which they agreed on
the terms of a settlement that would dispose of all actions in
both federal and state courts, including the dismissal with
prejudice of the actions and a release of all claims made therein
against all defendants.

Two putative class action and shareholder derivative lawsuits,
captioned Cutler v. Friedman, et al., No. 1:15-cv-00857, and
Berkman v. Friedman, et. al., No. 1:15-cv-00928, were filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio in
connection with the announcement of the Merger. Two putative class
action and shareholder derivative lawsuits, captioned Witkowski v.
Associated Estates Realty Corp., et. al., No. CV 15 845978, and
Kessler v. Associated Estates Realty Corp., et al., No. CV 15
845987, also were filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga
County, Ohio. The lawsuits, filed by purported shareholders of the
Company, challenge the proposed Merger and allege, among other
things, that the Company's directors breached their fiduciary
duties to shareholders by engaging in a flawed sale process,
agreeing to a transaction price that does not adequately
compensate shareholders, and agreeing to certain unfair deal
protection terms. The complaints also allege that Parent and
Merger Sub have aided and abetted the directors' breaches of
fiduciary duties. Among other things, the shareholder litigation
seeks to enjoin the Merger.

The two District Court actions were consolidated by order of the
Court dated July 2, 2015, and the consolidated action is now
governed by an amended complaint that includes, in addition to the
fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting claims, claims against all
defendants for violation of disclosure requirements of federal
proxy law and rules, specifically sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and associated SEC Rule 14a-9.

"We believe that the shareholder litigation and the underlying
claims are without merit," the Company said.

On July 24, 2015, counsel for the parties in the lawsuits entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU"), in which they
agreed on the terms of a settlement that would dispose of all
actions in both federal and state courts, including the dismissal
with prejudice of the actions and a release of all claims made
therein against all defendants. The proposed settlement is
conditioned upon, among other things, the execution of an
appropriate stipulation of settlement, consummation of the Merger,
and final court approval of the proposed settlement following
notice and hearing.

In addition, in connection with the settlement and as provided in
the MOU, the parties contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will
seek an award of attorneys' fees and expenses as part of the
settlement. There can be no assurance that the Merger will be
consummated, that the parties ultimately will enter into a
stipulation of settlement, or that the settlement will receive
court approval even if the parties enter into such stipulation. If
the settlement conditions are not met, the proposed settlement as
contemplated by the MOU would become void. The settlement will not
affect the amount of the Merger consideration that the Company's
stockholders are entitled to receive in the Merger.


AZIN INC: Faces "Ferrara" Suit Under FLSA, Fla. Min. Wage Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Ferrara, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, v. AZIN Inc. d/b/a Casa Dora Italian Restaurant, and
Hassan Hamadi, Case 3:15-cv-01007-TJC-JRK (M.D. Fla., Aug. 12,
2015), was brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act to recover
unpaid overtime compensation and under the Florida Minimum Wage
Act to recover unpaid minimum wages allegedly owed to dishwashers
and cooks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jay P. Lechner, Esq.
     Jason M. Melton, Esq.
     WHITTEL & MELTON, LLC
     One Progress Plaza
     200 Central Avenue, #400
     St. Petersburg, FL 33701
     Tel: (727) 822-1111
     Fax: (727) 898-2001
     E-mail: Pleadings@theFLlawfirm.com
             lechnerj@theFLlawfirm.com
             daveyard@theFLlawfirm.com


BASS FISHING: "Tingey" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Kyle Tingey, Allen C. Stevens, and all others similarly-situated
v. Bass Fishing & Rentals, LLC, Case No. 5:15-cv-00705 (W.D. Tex.,
August 19, 2015), seeks declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and
costs, including reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant is registered to do business in the State of Texas,
providing products and services in the oil and gas industry,
throughout the United States in those areas in which fracking is a
viable business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      One Financial Center
      650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Tel: (501) 221-0088
      Fax: (888) 787-2040
      E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


BAYBRENT TILE: Faces "Lehane" Suit for FLSA, NYLL & NYDOL Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy J. Lehane and on behalf of All Similarly-situated v.
Baybrent Tile Corp., Baybrent Construction Corp. and Richard
Hoshino, Case 1:15-cv-04577 (E.D.N.Y., August 5, 2015) seeks to
recover monetary damages, declaratory and affirmative relief,
overtime payment, proper meal period, maintained employment
record, interest in all compensation, an award of $2,500.00,
liquidated damages and attorney's fees and costs under Fair Labor
Standards Act, New York Labor Law and New York State Department of
Labor Regulations.

The Defendant is a tile supplier and installer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Saul D. Zabell, Esq.
     ZABELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     1 Corporate Drive, Suite 103
     Bohemia, NY 11716
     Tel: (631) 589-7242
     Fax: (631) 563- 7475
     E-mail: SZabell@laborlawsny.com


BBMC MORTGAGE: "Pieksma" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Jean Pieksma, and all others similarly-situated v. BBMC
Mortgage, LLC and Bridgeview Bancorp, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-07312
(N.D. Ill., August 20, 2015), seeks relief under the California
Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission Order No. 4-2001 ("the
Wage Order") and the Business and Professions Code, and for the
FLSA Collective under the FLSA, to remedy the Defendants' failure
to pay all wages due, pay appropriate minimum wage and overtime
compensation, and maintain and distribute accurate time records,
in addition to injunctive relief.

Bridgeview Bank offers customers a complete range of mortgage
services through BBMC Mortgage, LLC.

BBMC Mortgage, LLC is a full-service lending subsidiary offering a
complete line of residential mortgage, refinancing, and specialty
loans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth C. Apicella, Esq.
      DROST, GILBERT, ANDREW & APICELLA, LLC
      800 E. Northwest Hwy, Ste. 1090
      Palatine, IL 60074
      Tel: (847) 934-6000
      Fax: (847) 934-6040
      E-mail: KCA@dgaalaw.com

          - and -

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


BI-LO HOLDINGS: Faces "Rennock-Witter" Suit for Wage, Bias Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ruthlynn Rebecca Rennock-Witter v. Bi-Lo Holdings, LLC, Winn Dixie
Stores, Inc., and Southeastern Grocers, LLC, Case 0:15-cv-61680-
FAM (S.D. Fla., Aug. 12, 2015), alleges the Plaintiff is owed
overtime payment under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and was
unlawfully terminated because of her advanced age in violation of
the Civil Rights Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and
the anti-retaliation provisions of the FLSA.

Bi-Lo is the parent company of Winn Dixie, and recently changed
its name to Southeastern Grocers.  All Defendants jointly operate
grocery stores in Florida, including the grocery stores in
which Plaintiff and similarly situated employees work.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steven F. Grover, Esq.
     STEVEN F. GROVER, PA
     Wells Fargo Tower
     One East Broward Blvd., Ste. 700
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Tel: 954-356-0005
     E-mail: stevenfgrover@gmail.com


BOK FINANCIAL: Defending Suit Over Consumer Deposit Accounts
------------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Bank and the
Company were named on March 3, 2015, as defendants in a putative
class action alleging that the manner in which the Bank posted
charges to its consumer deposit accounts was improper from
September 1, 2011 through July 8, 2014, the period after which the
Bank and BOK Financial settled a class action respecting a similar
claim.


BOK FINANCIAL: Defending Suit Over Extended Overdraft Fees
----------------------------------------------------------
BOK Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on April 8, 2015, the
Bank was named as a defendant in a putative class action alleging
that the Extended Overdraft Fee charged customers who failed to
pay overdrafts after five days constituted interest and exceeded
permissible interest rates set by state and federal law.
Management has been advised by counsel that the Bank and the
Company have meritorious defenses to the actions.  A reasonable
estimate of losses, if any, cannot be made at this time.


BREATHLESS INC: "Moon" Alleges FLSA Violations
----------------------------------------------
Alissa Moon, Yasmeen Davis, and all others similarly-situated v.
Breathless, Inc. aka Vision Food & Spirits dba Breathless Men's
Club, Case No. 2:15-cv-06297 (D.N.J., August 19, 2015), is brought
against the Defendant for violating the Fair Labor Standards Act,
New Jersey's Wage Payment Law and Wage and Hour Law.

The violations include, but are not limited to:

   (a) failing to pay Plaintiffs and other dancers any wages, let
       alone the applicable hourly minimum wage;

   (b) failing to pay Plaintiffs and other dancers an overtime
       premium for every hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a
       work week;

   (c) requiring Plaintiffs and other dancers to pay a fee for
       the opportunity to work a shift;

   (d) requiring Plaintiffs and other dancers to wear, maintain,
       and pay for a uniform and costumes;

   (e) unlawfully demanding, retaining, and receiving tips;

   (f) requiring Plaintiffs to participate in an invalid tip
       pool;

   (g) failing to meet recordkeeping requirements; and

   (h) failing to meet posting requirements.

The Defendant operates night clubs and is doing business as
"Breathless Men's Club" in Rahway, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy E. Abay, Esq.
      SACKS WESTON MILLSTEIN DIAMOND, LLC
      1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1600
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 925-8200


CAFE VICO: Faces "Vieira" Suit Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Fernando Vieira, and all others similarly-situated v. Cafe Vico,
Inc. and Marcos Rodrigues, Case No. 0:15-cv-61737 (S.D. Fla.,
August 20, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime and unpaid wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate an Italian restaurant in Fort
Lauderdale, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Tel: (305) 503.5131
      Fax: (888) 270.5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


CELGENE CORPORATION: Faces Class Actions Over Receptos Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Receptos, Inc., on July 14, 2015, entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger with Celgene Corporation and Strix Corporation, a
wholly owned subsidiary of Celgene, as Purchaser.

Celgene said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, that a
putative class action, Scott v. Receptos, Inc., related to the
Merger Agreement was commenced on July 20, 2015, by the filing of
a complaint in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware,
Case No. 11316, against Receptos, members of its Board, Celgene as
Parent and Strix as 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
Receptos, members of its Board, Parent and Purchaser.

"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."


COCO ASIAN: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violations
-------------------------------------------
Jit Shi Goh, and all others similarly-situated v. Coco Asian
Cuisine, Inc. dba Coco Malaysian & Thai Cuisine and Fatt Seng Lim
aka David Lim, Case No. 2:15-cv-06310 (D.N.J., August 20, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, including all hours not paid at
least the minimum wage, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
prejudment and post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New Jersey
State Wage and Hour Law.

The Defendants own and operate an Asian restaurant in Edison, New
Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Hernandez, Esq.
      TROY LAW, PLLC
      41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Tel: (718) 762-1324
      Fax: (718) 762-1342
      E-mail: troylaw@troypllc.com


CSOS LLC: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Javier Hugo Sanchez, and all others similarly-situated v. CSOS,
LLC fka Cornell Solutions, LLC and Carlos I. Garza, III, Case No.
2:15-cv-00358 (S.D. Tex., August 20, 2015), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's
fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant is a mid-sized organization in the oil field
contractors and services industry located in Edinburg, Texas.
Carlos I. Garza, III was the person who determined and directly
controlled the employee compensation policies of Cornell.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DNA ASSOCIATES: Faces "Cruz" Suit Over FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------
Nekell Cruz v. DNA Associates, Inc. a Florida Corporation, and
Shiraaz N. Ali, Case 9:15-cv-81088-DMM (S.D. Fl. August 5, 2015)
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938.

The Defendant is an enterprise engaged in commerce or in the
production of goods for commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert S. Norell, Esq.
     ROBERT S. NORELL, P.A.
     300 N.W. 70th Avenue, Suite 305
     Plantation, FL 33317
     Tel: (954) 617-6017
     Fax: (954) 617-6018
     E-mail: rob@floridawagelaw.com


DWM PLLC: "Martinez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Martinez, and all others similarly-situated v. DWM, PLLC;
Marion J. Danna, D.C., a Professional Corporation; Chiropractic
Management, Inc.; Chiropractic Clinic of I-10, Ltd.; Marion J.
Danna, D.C., P.A. and Marion J. Danna, D.C., Case No. 4:15-cv-
02409 (S.D. Tex., August 20, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants provide professional chiropractic services to
patients throughout the greater Houston metropolitan area;

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Melissa Moore, Esq.
      MOORE & ASSOCIATES
      Lyric Center
      440 Louisiana Street, Ste 675
      Houston, TX 77002
      Tel: (713) 222-6775
      Fax: (713) 222-6739


EASTERN COMPANY: Court Okayed Stipulation and Order of Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Eastern Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended July 4, 2015, that on April 17, 2015,
Barington Companies Equity Partners, L.P. ("Barington") filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company and its board
of directors (the "Board") in the Superior Court of Waterbury,
Connecticut (the "Action").  The Action alleged, among other
things, that the Eastern Board breached its fiduciary duties by
amending the Company's bylaws to allow the Board to fill vacancies
resulting from an expansion of the number of Board seats.  The
Action also challenged the Board's announced intention to increase
the size of the Board and appoint a new director after the May 20,
2015 Annual Meeting, and sought, among other things, injunctive
relief preventing the Board from nominating a new director that is
the result of an expansion of the number of Board seats without
Shareholders voting on the appointment.

On April 17, 2015, Barington filed a motion for expedited
proceedings and discovery prior to the May 20, 2015 Annual
Meeting.  On April 29, 2015, the Court issued an Order holding
that the Action is derivative, and staying the case until July 11,
2015 pursuant to Connecticut law.

On July 13, 2015, the Court approved a Stipulation and Order of
Dismissal (the "Stipulation") entered into by the parties in
connection with the Action.  The Stipulation provides for, among
other things, the dismissal of the Action after the requisite
notice period to shareholders has expired.  The Company expensed
$320,500 in legal fees and settlement costs during the second
quarter of 2015 resulting from this lawsuit.  All costs and fees
related to this matter in excess of this amount have been paid by
the Company's insurance carrier.


EL CAMINO: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Becker" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Therese Becker, individually and on behalf of all other aggrieved
employees v. El Camino Hospital, Case No. 115-cv-285184 (D. Cal.,
September 2, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

El Camino Hospital is a multi-facility hospital providing a range
of inpatient and outpatient services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laura L. Ho, Esq.
      Andrew P. Lee, Esq.
      GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARlAN & HO
      300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 763-9800
      Facsimile: (510) 835-1417
      E-mail: lho@gbdhlegal.com
              alee@gbdhlegal.com


EL REY: Faces "Bue" Suit Under FLSA, Ill. Min. Wage Law
-------------------------------------------------------
Ismeal Bue, on behalf of himself, and all other plaintiffs
similarly situated, known and unknown, v. El Rey USA Meats and
Seafood, Inc., and Daniel Leon, Individually, Case: 1:15-cv-07039
(N.D. Ill., Aug. 12, 2015), was brought under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

El Rey USA Meats sells food to merchants in Chicagoland area and
the Midwest.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John William Billhorn, Esq.
     BILLHORN LAW FIRM
     53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 840
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Phone: (312) 853-1450


EMDEON INC: Social Service Coordinators Paid Full Amount in Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emdeon Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, that two
separate collective class action complaints were filed on December
10, 2010 and February 4, 2013, against Social Service
Coordinators, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California alleging the Company refused to pay
overtime compensation and to provide other benefits required by
law. A mediation to settle all wage and hour related current and
future disputes was held on April 16, 2014. These two cases were
settled (subject to court approval) for a total of $4,900,000,
including Plaintiff's attorney fees and costs. The Company is
required to separately pay all employer-side payroll taxes
associated with the Class Fund. A total of $5,040,000, including
payroll taxes, was accrued as of December 31, 2013. The Company
paid the full amount during 2014, as agreed upon in the
settlement.


ENVISION HEALTHCARE: Has Deal to Decertify and Dismiss Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the
Bartoni case, plaintiffs' counsel stipulated to decertify and
dismiss those claims as AMR's policy complies with a recent Court
of Appeals decision.

Four different putative class action lawsuits were filed against
AMR and certain subsidiaries in California alleging violations of
California wage and hour laws. On April 16, 2008, Laura Bartoni
commenced a suit in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Alameda; on July 8, 2008, Vaughn Banta filed
suit in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Los Angeles; on January 22, 2009, Laura Karapetian filed suit in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles; and on March 11, 2010, Melanie Aguilar filed suit in
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles.

The Banta, Aguilar and Karapetian cases have been coordinated in
the Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los
Angeles, and the Aguilar and Karapetian cases have subsequently
been consolidated into a single action.

In these cases, the plaintiffs allege principally that the AMR
entities failed to pay wages, including overtime wages, in
compliance with California law, and failed to provide required
meal breaks, rest breaks or pay premium compensation for missed
breaks. The plaintiffs are seeking to certify classes on these
claims and are seeking lost wages, various penalties, and
attorneys' fees under California law. The Court has certified
classes in the consolidated Karapetian/ Aguilar case on claims
alleging that AMR has not provided meal periods in compliance with
the law as to dispatchers and call takers, that AMR has an
unlawful time rounding policy, and that AMR has an unlawful
practice of setting rates for those employees; the Court denied
certification of the rest period claims of these employees.

In the Banta case, the Court denied certification of the meal and
rest period claims as to EMTs and paramedics, a decision that is
being appealed; the Court indicated that it would certify a class
on overtime claims, but plaintiff's counsel has indicated that
they intend to dismiss that claim as AMR's policy complies with a
recent Court of Appeals decision.

In the Bartoni case, the Court denied certification on the meal
and rest period claims of all unionized employees in Northern
California, a decision that is being appealed. While the Court
certified a class on the overtime claims, plaintiffs' counsel
stipulated to decertify and dismiss those claims as AMR's policy
complies with a recent Court of Appeals decision. The Company is
unable at this time to estimate the amount of potential damages,
if any.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Roberts" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Roberts, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Express Scripts Holding Company, Medco
Health Solutions, Inc., and Accredo Health Group, Inc., Case No.
4:15-cv-1368 (E.D. Mo., September 2, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendants' robo-calling practices and obtain redress for the
thousands of individuals injured by their conduct.

The Defendants own and operate its own mail-order pharmacies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas P. Rosenfeld, Esq.
      Kevin P. Green, Esq.
      GOLDENBERG HELLER ANTOGNOLI & ROWLAND, P.C.
      1824 Chouteau Avenue
      St. Louis, MO 63103
      Telephone: (618) 656-5150
      Facsimile: (618) 656-6230
      E-mail: tom@ghalaw.com
              kevin@ghalaw.com

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
      HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
      Galleria Tower I
      2700 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 1120
      Houston, TX 77056
      Telephone: (713) 554-2377
      Facsimile: (888) 995-333
      E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com


FIRST INDEX: All American Painting Alleges Violation of TCPA
------------------------------------------------------------
All American Painting, L.L.C., individually and as a
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. First
Index, Inc., Case: 4:15-cv-01230 (E.D. Mo., Aug. 12, 2015), seeks
an award of statutory damages for alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by the Defendant.

First Index, Inc. provides online sourcing and marketplace
services to manufacturing companies, identify low cost suppliers
for various types of manufactured parts, in the United States and
internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
     Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
     ANDERSON + WANCA
     3701 Algonquin Rd., Ste. 760
     Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
     Tel: 847-368-1500

     Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
     Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
     James M. Smith, Esq.
     BOCK & HATCH, LLC
     134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Tel: 312-658-5500

     Max Margulis, Esq.
     MARGULIS LAW GROUP
     28 Old Belle Monte Rd.
     Chesterfield, MO 63017
     Tel: 636/536-7022
     E-mail: MaxMargulis@Margulislaw.com


FIRSTMERIT: Stipulation in Overdraft Suit Awaits Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
FirstMerit said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2015, that in the Overdraft Litigation, the parties
have stipulated to a revised class definition (without affecting
the pending motion to stay), and an order approving that
stipulation is awaiting court approval.

Commencing in December 2010, two separate lawsuits were filed in
the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and the Lake County Court
of Common Pleas against the Corporation and the Bank. The
complaints were brought as putative class actions on behalf of
Ohio residents who maintained a checking account at the Bank and
who incurred one or more overdraft fees as a result of the alleged
re-sequencing of debit transactions. The lawsuit that had been
filed in Summit County Court of Common Pleas was dismissed without
prejudice on July 11, 2011. The remaining suit in Lake County
seeks actual damages, disgorgement of overdraft fees, punitive
damages, interest, injunctive relief and attorney fees.

In December 2012, the trial court issued an order certifying a
proposed class and the Bank and Corporation appealed the order to
the Eleventh District Court of Appeals. In September 2013, the
Eleventh District Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed
in part the trial court's class certification order, and remanded
the case back to the trial court for further consideration, in
particular with respect to the class definition.

On October 9, 2013, the Bank and Corporation filed with the
Eleventh District Court of Appeals an application for
reconsideration and application for consideration en banc. On
November 20, 2013, the Eleventh District denied those
applications. On December 4, 2013, the Bank and Corporation filed
a notice of appeal with the Ohio Supreme Court, and on January 3,
2014, they filed with the Ohio Supreme Court a memorandum in
support of the Court's exercising its jurisdiction and accepting
the appeal.

The plaintiffs filed an opposition, and, on April 24, 2014, the
Ohio Supreme Court declined to accept jurisdiction. On August 6,
2014, the Bank and Corporation filed a motion asking the trial
court to stay the lawsuit pending arbitration of claims subject to
an arbitration agreement.

That motion has been fully briefed and is awaiting a decision by
the court. On August 25, 2014, the parties stipulated to a revised
class definition (without affecting the pending motion to stay),
and an order approving that stipulation is awaiting court
approval.


FIRSTMERIT: Settlement in Merger Litigation Becomes Final
---------------------------------------------------------
FirstMerit said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the quarterly period
ended June 30, 2015, that in the Merger Litigation, an appeal of
the settlement was dismissed and the settlement has become final.

Between September 17, 2012 and October 5, 2012, alleged
shareholders of Citizens filed six purported class action lawsuits
in the Circuit Court of Genesee County, Michigan, relating to the
proposed merger between Citizens and FirstMerit, which merger
closed in April 2013. The lawsuits were consolidated under the
caption In re Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc. Shareholder
Litigation, Case No. 12-99027-CK (the "Lawsuit"). The consolidated
complaint in the Lawsuit alleges that the former directors of
Citizens breached their fiduciary duties by failing to obtain the
best available price in the merger and by not providing Citizens
shareholders with all material information related to the merger,
and that FirstMerit and Citizens aided and abetted those alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty.  The Complaint sought declaratory and
injunctive relief to prevent the consummation of the merger,
rescissory damages and other equitable relief.

The plaintiffs and defendants have entered into a settlement of
the Lawsuit, which the court approved on September 20, 2013. Under
the settlement, the defendants amended the joint proxy
statement/prospectus relating to the merger to include certain
supplemental disclosures to shareholders of Citizens and agreed to
pay attorneys' fees and expenses as awarded by the court. An
appeal of the settlement was dismissed in March 2015 and the
settlement has become final.


FREEWAY INSURANCE: Sued in Cal. Over Inaccurate Wage Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Barrios, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Freeway Insurance Services, Inc. and Does 1 through
10, Case No. BC593102 (D. Cal., September 2, 2015), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to provide employees with
accurately itemized wage statements.

Freeway Insurance Services, Inc. owns and operates an auto
insurance agency doing business in Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roman Otkupman, Esq.
      Rita Leong, Esq.
      OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM, A LAW CORPORATION
      5950 Canoga Ave Suite 550
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Telephone: (818) 293-5623
      Facsimile: (888) 850-1310
      E-mail: Roman@OLFLA.com
              Rita@OLFLA.com


GARDEN PARTNERS: Faces "Najera" Suit Over Gender Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magdalena Erica Najera v. Garden Partners, LLC d/b/a Peacock
Garden Cafe, Case No. 31624129 (D. Fla., September 2, 2015), is an
action for damages as a result of the Defendant's sex
discriminatory practices.

Garden Partners, LLC owns and operates a landscaping company in
Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lawrence J. McGuinness, Esq.
      MCGUINNESS & GONZALEZ, P.A.
      3126 Center St.
      Coconut Grove, FL 33133
      Telephone: (305) 448-9557
      Facsimile: (305) 448-9559
      E-mail: 1jmpalaw@netzero.net


GOLDEN INVESTMENTS: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Simpson v. Golden Investments, Shankar Bhatta, Geetha
Madhavan, Sethu Madhaven, David Hutchison, Hutchison and Hutchison
Accountancy, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. BG593402
(D. Cal., September 2, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid minimum
wages, unpaid overtime wages, damages stemming from rent
overcharges pursuant to California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and manage a commercial property located at
1341 E. Avenue R, Palmdale, CA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clayeo C. Arnold, Esq.
      John T. Stralen, Esq.
      Joshua Watson, Esq.
      THE ARNOLD LAW FIRM
      865 Howe Avenue
      Sacramento, CA 95811
      Telephone: (916) 777-7777
      Facsimile: (916) 924-1829


INTEGRATED SILICON: Case Management Conference Set for October 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a case
management conference is currently scheduled for October 2, 2015,
in the stockholder class action litigation.

Beginning on April 1, 2015, three purported stockholder class
action complaints were filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California in the County of Santa Clara on behalf of a putative
class of ISSI stockholders and naming as defendants ISSI's Board
of Directors and Uphill: Richard Wilson III v. Jimmy S.M. Lee, et
al., Case No. 1-15-CV-278815 (filed April 1, 2015); Matthew
Sciabacucchi v. Jimmy S.M. Lee, et al., Case No. 1-15-CV-278812
(filed April 1, 2015); and Kathy Guerra v. Scott D. Howarth, et
al., Case No. 1-15-CV-279142 (filed April 8, 2015) (the "Guerra
Action"). On May 5, 2015, the actions were consolidated to form In
re Integrated Silicon Solution, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Lead
Case No. 1-15-cv-278812, and plaintiffs designated the complaint
filed in the Guerra Action as the operative complaint. The
operative complaint generally alleges that, in connection with the
proposed acquisition of ISSI by Uphill, the ISSI directors
breached their fiduciary duties owed to ISSI's stockholders by,
among other things, purportedly failing to take steps to maximize
the value of ISSI to ISSI's stockholders and agreeing to allegedly
preclusive deal protection devices in the Merger Agreement.

The operative complaint also alleges that the ISSI directors
breached their fiduciary duties by allegedly failing to disclose
material information to ISSI stockholders. The operative complaint
further generally alleges that Uphill aided and abetted the ISSI
directors in the alleged breaches of their fiduciary duties. The
operative complaint seeks, among other things, an order enjoining
the defendants from consummating the proposed transaction, or
alternatively, in the event that the proposed transaction is
consummated, an order rescinding it. A case management conference
is currently scheduled for October 2, 2015.


INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS: Action Alleges Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrei Savu, and all others similarly-situated v. Michael P. Cole,
Justin C. Dearborn, William J. Devers, Jr., Michael W. Ferro, Jr.,
Matthew M. Maloney, Richard A. Reck, Neele E. Stearns, Jr.,
International Business Machines Corporation and Datong Acquisition
Corp., Case No. 2015CH12408(Ill. Cir., August 19, 2015), asserts
claims against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duties and
aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duties to the
shareholders of Merge Healthcare Incorporated ("Merge").

The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin IBM's proposed acquisition of Merge.

Michael P. Cole is a Merge director and has been since April 2015.

Justin C. Dearborn is Merge's CEO and has been since August 2013,
previously serving in the role from June 2008 until November 2010;
Chief Executive Officer of Merge DNA and has been since May 20 12;
Corporate Secretary and has been since May 2013; President and has
been since November 2010; and director since his original
appointment as CEO in June 2008.

William J. Devers Jr. is a Merge director and has been since
February 2014.

Michael W. Ferro, Jr. is Merge's Chairman of the Board and
director and has been since November 2014. Defendant Ferro
previously served as Chairman of the Board and director from June
2008 until August 2013.

Matthew M. Maloney is a Merge director and has been since August
2012.

Richard A. Reck is a Merge director and has been since April 2003.

Neele E. Stearns, Jr. is a Merge director and has been since June
2008.

IBM is a New York corporation with principal executive offices
located at 1 New Orchard Road, Armonk, New York. IBM manufactures
and markets computer hardware, middleware, and software, and
offers infrastructure, hosting and consulting services in areas
ranging from mainframe computers to nanotechnology.

Datong Acquisition Corp. ("Merger Sub") is a Delaware corporation
and a wholly owned subsidiary of defendant IBM. Upon completion of
the proposed acquisition, defendant Merger Sub will merge with and
into Merge and cease its separate corporate existence.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward T. Joyce, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF EDWARD T. JOYCE
      & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      135 South La Salle St., Ste. 2200
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 641-2600
      Fax: (312) 641-0360

          - and -

      Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
      BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
      7817 Ivanhoe Ave., Ste 102
      La Jolla, CA 92037
      Tel: (858) 914-2001
      Fax: (858) 914-2002


ITG INC: Faces "Shah" Suit for Securities Law Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Rajesh Shah and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Investment Technology Group, Inc., Robert C. Gasser and Steven R.
Vigliotti, (C.D. Cal. August 5, 2015), was filed on behalf of a
purported class consisting of all persons and entities, other than
Defendants and their affiliates, who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of ITG from February 28, 2011 to July 29,
2015, inclusive.

The Defendant operates as an independent broker-dealer and dark
pool operator.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
     L.A., CA 90071
     Tel: (213) 785-2610
     Fax: (213) 226-4684
     E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


ITT EDUCATIONAL: 3-Month Stay Entered in NY Securities Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the New York
Securities Litigation, the court has entered a stipulation and
order providing for a three-month stay of all proceedings.

The Company said, "On March 11, 2013, a complaint in a securities
class action lawsuit was filed against us and two of our current
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York under the following caption: William
Koetsch, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc., et al. (the "Koetsch
Litigation")."

"On April 17, 2013, a complaint in a securities class action
lawsuit was filed against us and two of our current executive
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York under the following caption: Massachusetts
Laborers' Annuity Fund, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc., et al (the
"MLAF Litigation").

"On July 25, 2013, the court consolidated the Koetsch Litigation
and MLAF Litigation under the following caption: In re ITT
Educational Services, Inc. Securities Litigation (the "New York
Securities Litigation"), and named the Plumbers and Pipefitters
National Pension Fund and Metropolitan Water Reclamation District
Retirement Fund as the lead plaintiffs. On October 7, 2013, an
amended complaint was filed in the New York Securities Litigation,
and on January 15, 2014, a second amended complaint was filed in
the New York Securities Litigation. The second amended complaint
alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended
(the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by:

     * our failure to properly account for the 2007 RSA, CUSO RSA
and PEAKS Program;

     * employing devices, schemes and artifices to defraud;

     * making untrue statements of material facts, or omitting
material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which they were made, not
misleading;

     * making the statements intentionally or with reckless
disregard for the truth;

     * engaging in acts, practices, and a course of business that
operated as a fraud or deceit upon lead plaintiffs and others
similarly situated in connection with their purchases of our
common stock;

     * deceiving the investing public, including lead plaintiffs
and the purported class, regarding, among other things, our
artificially inflated statements of financial strength and
understated liabilities; and

     * causing our common stock to trade at artificially inflated
prices and causing the plaintiff and other putative class members
to purchase our common stock at inflated prices."

The Company said, "The putative class period in this action is
from April 24, 2008 through February 25, 2013. The plaintiffs
seek, among other things, the designation of this action as a
class action, an award of unspecified compensatory damages,
interest, costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert
fees, and such equitable/injunctive and other relief as the court
deems appropriate. On July 22, 2014, the district court denied
most of our motion to dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims for
failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. On
August 5, 2014, we filed our answer to the second amended
complaint denying all of the plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs filed
their motion for class certification on March 27, 2015. On June
16, 2015, to facilitate the parties' efforts to resolve this
action by mediation, the court entered a stipulation and order
providing for a three-month stay of all proceedings. All of the
defendants have defended, and intend to continue to defend,
themselves vigorously against the allegations made in the second
amended complaint.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Indiana Securities Action Stayed Until Oct. 13
---------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the Indiana
Securities Litigation, to facilitate the parties' efforts to
resolve this action by mediation, the court granted a joint motion
for a stay of proceedings until October 13, 2015.

The Company said, "On September 30, 2014, a complaint in a
securities class action lawsuit was filed against us and two of
our current executive officers in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana under the following caption:
David Banes, on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly
Situated v. Kevin M. Modany, et al. (the "Banes Litigation"). On
October 3, 2014, October 9, 2014 and November 25, 2014, three
similar complaints were filed against us and two of our current
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana under the following captions: Babulal
Tarapara, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc. et al. (the "Tarapara
Litigation"), Kumud Jindal, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. Kevin Modany, et al. (the "Jindal
Litigation") and Kristopher Hennen, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc. et
al. (the "Hennen Litigation").

On November 17, 2014, the Tarapara Litigation and the Jindal
Litigation were consolidated into the Banes Litigation. On January
21, 2015, the Hennen Litigation was consolidated into that
consolidated action (the "Indiana Securities Litigation").

On December 1, 2014, motions were filed in the Indiana Securities
Litigation for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel.
On March 16, 2015, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel. Subsequently, the caption for the Indiana Securities
Litigation was changed to the following: In re ITT Educational
Services, Inc. Securities Litigation (Indiana).

On May 26, 2015, an amended complaint was filed in the Indiana
Securities Litigation. The amended complaint alleges, among other
things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
knowingly or recklessly making false and/or misleading statements
and failing to disclose material adverse facts about our business,
operations, prospects and financial results. Plaintiffs assert
that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme and course of
business and that alleged misstatements and/or omissions by the
defendants caused members of the putative class to purchase our
securities at artificially inflated prices. The amended complaint
includes allegations relating to:

     * the performance of the PEAKS Program and the CUSO Program;

     * our guarantee obligations under the PEAKS Program and the
CUSO Program;

     * our accounting treatment of the PEAKS Program and the CUSO
Program;

     * consolidation of the PEAKS Trust in our consolidated
financial statements;

     * the impact of the PEAKS Program and the CUSO Program on our
liquidity and overall financial condition;

     * our compliance with Department of Education financial
responsibility standards; and

     * our internal controls over financial reporting.

The putative class period in the Indiana Securities Litigation is
from February 26, 2013 through May 12, 2015. The plaintiffs in the
Indiana Securities Litigation seek, among other things, the
designation of the action as a proper class action, an award of
unspecified compensatory damages against all defendants, interest,
costs, expenses, counsel fees and expert fees, and such other
relief as the court deems proper. On July 14, 2015, to facilitate
the parties' efforts to resolve this action by mediation, the
court granted a joint motion for a stay of proceedings until
October 13, 2015. All of the defendants have defended, and intend
to continue to defend, themselves vigorously against the
allegations made in the amended complaint.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Continues to Defend Against "Gallien" Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company intends
to continue to defend vigorously against the allegations made in
the so-called Gallien Litigation.

The Company said, "On December 17, 2013, a complaint was filed
against us in a purported class action in the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Los Angeles under the
following caption: La Sondra Gallien, an individual, James
Rayonez, an individual, Giovanni Chilin, an individual, on behalf
of themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v.
ITT Educational Services, Inc., et al. (the "Gallien Litigation").
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 13, 2014.
The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that under
California law, we:

     * failed to pay wages owed;

     * failed to pay overtime compensation;

     * failed to provide meal and rest periods;

     * failed to provide itemized employee wage statements;

     * engaged in unlawful business practices; and

     * are liable for civil penalties under the California Private
Attorney General Act.

The purported class includes recruiting representatives employed
by us during the period of December 17, 2009 through December 17,
2013. The amended complaint seeks:

     * compensatory damages, including lost wages and other
losses;

     * general damages;

     * pay for missed meal and rest periods;

     * restitution;

     * liquidated damages;

     * statutory penalties;

     * interest;

     * attorneys' fees, cost and expenses;

     * civil and statutory penalties;

     * injunctive relief; and

     * such other and further relief as the court may deem
equitable and appropriate.

"We have defended, and intend to continue to defend, ourselves
vigorously against the allegations made in the amended complaint,"
the Company said.


IXIA: Parties at Mediation Fail to Reach Agreement
--------------------------------------------------
IXIA said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, that on July 23, 2015, the
Company agreed in principle to resolve and settle the consolidated
shareholder derivative action, captioned In re Ixia Shareholder
Derivative Litigation, that is currently pending against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California. The agreement in principle was reached in connection
with a voluntary mediation held to explore a possible settlement
of both the shareholder derivative action and a purported
securities class action.

The settlement will not become effective until the parties agree
on a formal Stipulation of Settlement and such Stipulation is
approved by the court. The settlement will require that the
Company implement certain corporate governance measures and will
also provide that the plaintiffs' counsel may apply to the court
for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of
$575,000. The Company expects that any fees and expenses awarded
by the court to the plaintiffs' counsel will be paid by one of the
Company's insurance carriers. The settlement will not include any
admission of wrongdoing or liability on the part of the Company or
the individual defendants and will include a full release of all
defendants in connection with the allegations made in the
derivative action.

The parties at the mediation did not reach an agreement to resolve
and settle the purported securities class action, captioned Felix
Santore v. Ixia, Victor Alston, Atul Bhatnagar, Thomas B. Miller,
and Errol Ginsberg, that is currently pending against the Company
and certain of its current and former officers and directors in
the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.


JE-GO CORP: Faces "Garcia" Suit Seeking Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vivian Garcia, and other similarly situated individuals v. Je-Go
Corporation, Rafael Tapanes, individually, and Nereida Tapanes,
individually, Case 1:15-cv-22811-JEM (S.S.Fla., July 29, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Je-Go Corporation operates in the grocery stores industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
     Anaeli C. Petisco, Esq.
     REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
     44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
     Miami, FL 33130
     Tel: 305-416-5000
     Fax: 305-416-5005


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hearing to Reconsider Class Certification Held
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2015, that a hearing to reconsider
class certification took place at the District Court in July 2015
and the parties are awaiting a decision.

In June 2009, following the public announcement that Ortho-
Clinical Diagnostics, Inc. (OCD) had received a grand jury
subpoena from the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust
Division, in connection with an investigation that has since been
closed, multiple class action complaints were filed against OCD by
direct purchasers seeking damages for alleged price fixing. These
cases were consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as
In re Blood Reagent Antitrust Litigation. Following the
divestiture of OCD, Johnson & Johnson retains any liability that
may result from these cases. In August 2012, the District Court
granted a motion filed by Plaintiffs for class certification. In
April 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit reversed the class certification ruling and remanded the
case to the District Court for further proceedings. A hearing to
reconsider class certification took place at the District Court in
July 2015 and the parties are awaiting a decision.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Oct. 2015 Class Cert. Hearing on Field Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2015, that a hearing to class
certification of the so-called BC Civl Claim will be held next
month.

In September 2011, Johnson & Johnson, Johnson & Johnson Inc. and
McNeil Consumer Healthcare Division of Johnson & Johnson Inc.
received a Notice of Civil Claim filed by Nick Field in the
Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada (the BC Civil Claim).
The BC Civil Claim is a putative class action brought on behalf of
persons who reside in British Columbia and who purchased during
the period between September 20, 2001 and in or about December
2010 one or more various McNeil infants' or children's over-the-
counter medicines that were manufactured at the Fort Washington
facility. The BC Civil Claim alleges that the defendants violated
the BC Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, and other
Canadian statutes and common laws, by selling medicines that were
allegedly not safe and/or effective or did not comply with
Canadian Good Manufacturing Practices. The class certification
hearing is scheduled for October 2015.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Class Action Cases Transferred to Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2015, that in March and April
2015, over 30 putative class action complaints were filed by
contact lens patients in a number of courts around the United
States against Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc. (JJVCI), other
contact lens manufacturers, distributors and retailers, alleging
vertical and horizontal conspiracies to fix the retail prices of
contact lenses. The complaints alleged that the manufacturers
reached agreements between each other and certain distributors and
retailers concerning the prices at which some contact lenses could
be sold to consumers. The plaintiffs are seeking damages. All of
the class action cases were transferred to the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida in June 2015
along with the related case filed by Costco Wholesale Corporation.


MARATHON PETROLEUM: Class Action Filed Challenging Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Marathon Petroleum Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in July 2015, a
purported class action lawsuit asserting claims challenging the
proposed merger of MPLX LP and MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P.
("MWE") was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware by a purported unitholder of MWE. The lawsuit alleges
that the individual members of the board of directors of MarkWest
Energy GP, L.L.C. the general partner of MWE, breached their
fiduciary and/or contractual duties to the unitholders of MWE and
that MPLX, MPC and Sapphire Holdco LLC, a subsidiary of MPLX,
aided and abetted those breaches. The complaint seeks to enjoin
the proposed merger or, if the merger is consummated, to rescind
the transaction or recover rescission damages. The lawsuit also
seeks an accounting and recovery of attorneys' fees, experts'
fees, and other litigation costs.

"We believe the allegations in the complaint are without merit,"
the Company said.


MEDICAL INFORMATICS: Faces "Young" Suit Over Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
James Young, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Medical Informatics Engineering, Inc., USDC IN/ND case
1:15-cv-00197-WCL-SLC (N.D.Ind., July 29, 2015), asserts claims
for alleged violations of Indiana's consumer laws, negligence,
breach of implied contract, bailment, and unjust enrichment as a
result of a data breach when hackers stole the personal financial
and protected health information of numerous individuals whose
information was used in a MIE electronic health record.

MIE is a software developer that provides technical solutions
targeted to the healthcare industry.  MIE also provides an
electronic medical record system.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MERGE HEALTHCARE: Faces "Molinaro" Suit Over Mulled IBM Takeover
----------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Molinaro, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Merge Healthcare Incorporated, et al., Case No. 11458
(D. Del., September 2, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the
public stockholders of Merge Healthcare Incorporated to enjoin the
proposed acquisition of Merge by International Business Machines
Corporation for an unfair price and inadequate consideration.

Merge Healthcare Incorporated is a provider of medical imaging
software solutions.

International Business Machines Corporation is a technology and
consulting corporation that manufactures and markets computer
hardware, middleware, and software, and offers infrastructure,
hosting, and consulting services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
      ROSENTHAL, MONHAIT & GODDESS, P.A.
      Citizens Bank Center
      919 N. Market Street, Suite 1401
      P.O. Box 1070
      Wilmington, DE 19899-1070
      Telephone: (302) 656-4433
      E-mail: ckeener@rmgglaw.com

         - and -

      Robert I. Harwood, Esq.
      Peter W. Overs Jr., Esq.
      HARWOOD FEFFER LLP
      488 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 935-7400
      E-mail: rharwood@hfesq.com
              povers@hfesq.com


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces "Williams" ERISA Suit Over Hershey Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carmela Williams v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Case
1:15-at-00678 (E.D.Cal., Aug. 12, 2015), was brought under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act by a purported participant
of The Hershey Company Program of Flexible Benefits ("The Plan").

Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company issued a Group
Policy to Hershey and thereby insured The Plan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert J. Rosati, Esq.
     Thornton Davidson, Esq.
     ERISA Law Group
     6485 N. Palm Ave.
     Fresno, CA 93704
     Tel: (559) 478-4119
     Fax: (559) 478-5939
     E-mail: robert@erisalg.com
             thornton@erisalg.com


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces "Moeller" ERISA Suit Over Sutter Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Insook Moeller v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Case 2:15-
cv-01717-GEB-CKD (E.D.Cal., Aug. 12, 2015), was brought under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act by a purported participant
of the Master Plan For The Sutter Health Sponsored Welfare Benefit
Plans.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company issued Group Policy to Sutter
Health and thereby insured The Plan for Long Term Disability
benefits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert J. Rosati, Esq.
     Thornton Davidson, Esq.
     ERISA LAW GROUP
     6485 N. Palm Ave.
     Fresno, CA 93704
     Tel: (559) 478-4119
     Fax: (559) 478-5939
     E-mail: robert@erisalg.com
             thornton@erisalg.com


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Faces "Williams" ERISA Suit Over Hershey Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carmela Williams v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Case
1:15-cv-01252---SKO (E.D.Cal., Aug. 12, 2015), was brought under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act by a  purported
participant of The Hershey Company Program of Flexible Benefits
("The Plan").

Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company issued a Group
Policy to Hershey and thereby insured The Plan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert J. Rosati, Esq.
     Thornton Davidson, Esq.
     ERISA Law Group
     6485 N. Palm Ave.
     Fresno, CA 93704
     Tel: (559) 478-4119
     Fax: (559) 478-5939
     E-mail: robert@erisalg.com
             thornton@erisalg.com


MICROSOFT CORP: Total Remaining Settlement Cost Pegged at $200MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, that in the Antitrust, Unfair
Competition, and Overcharge Class Actions, the Company estimates
the total remaining cost of settlements is approximately $200
million, all of which had been accrued as of June 30, 2015.

The Company said, "A large number of antitrust and unfair
competition class action lawsuits were filed against us in various
state, federal, and Canadian courts on behalf of various classes
of direct and indirect purchasers of our PC operating system and
certain other software products between 1999 and 2005."

"We obtained dismissals or reached settlements of all claims made
in the U.S. Under the settlements, generally class members can
obtain vouchers that entitle them to be reimbursed for purchases
of a wide variety of platform-neutral computer hardware and
software. The total value of vouchers that we may issue varies by
state. We will make available to certain schools a percentage of
those vouchers that are not issued or claimed (one-half to two-
thirds depending on the state). The total value of vouchers we
ultimately issue will depend on the number of class members who
make claims and are issued vouchers. We estimate the total
remaining cost of the settlements is approximately $200 million,
all of which had been accrued as of June 30, 2015."

"Three similar cases pending in British Columbia, Ontario, and
Quebec, Canada have not been settled. In 2010, the court in the
British Columbia case certified it as a class action. After the
British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the case, in 2013 the
Canadian Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and reinstated
part of the British Columbia case, which is now scheduled for
trial in 2016. The other two cases are inactive."


MICROSOFT CORP: Trial Remains Stayed in US Phone Product Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, that in the U.S. cell phone
product-related litigation, trial court proceedings are stayed
pending resolution of the appeal.

Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network
operators, is a defendant in 19 lawsuits filed in the Superior
Court for the District of Columbia by individual plaintiffs who
allege that radio emissions from cellular handsets caused their
brain tumors and other adverse health effects.

"We have assumed responsibility for these claims as part of the
NDS acquisition and have been substituted for the Nokia
defendants," the Company said.

Nine of these cases were filed in 2002 and are consolidated for
certain pre-trial proceedings; the remaining 10 cases are stayed.

In a separate 2009 decision, the Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia held that adverse health effect claims arising from
the use of cellular handsets that operate within the U.S. Federal
Communications Commission radio frequency emission guidelines
("FCC Guidelines") are pre-empted by federal law. The plaintiffs
allege that their handsets either operated outside the FCC
Guidelines or were manufactured before the FCC Guidelines went
into effect. The lawsuits also allege an industry-wide conspiracy
to manipulate the science and testing around emission guidelines.

In September 2013, defendants in the consolidated cases moved to
exclude plaintiffs' expert evidence of general causation on the
basis of flawed scientific methodologies. In March 2014,
defendants filed a separate motion to preclude plaintiffs' general
causation testimony. In August 2014, the court granted in part
defendants' motion to exclude plaintiffs' general causation
experts. The plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal. In December
2014, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals agreed to hear en
banc defendants' interlocutory appeal challenging the standard for
evaluating expert scientific evidence. Trial court proceedings are
stayed pending resolution of the appeal.


MICROSOFT CORP: Canadian Cell Phone Class Action Still Inactive
---------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the
fiscal year ended June 30, 2015, that the Canadian cell phone
class action is not yet active as several defendants remain to be
served.

Nokia, along with other handset manufacturers and network
operators, is a defendant in a 2013 class action lawsuit filed in
the Supreme Court of British Columbia by a purported class of
Canadians who have used cellular phones for at least 1,600 hours,
including a subclass of users with brain tumors. Microsoft was
served with the complaint in June 2014 and has been substituted
for the Nokia defendants.


MILLER'S CROSSING: Faces "Banuelos" Suit for Unpaid OT Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Heleodoro Banuelos and all others similarly situated v.
Miller's Crossing, LLC, Mark Shklar, Case: 4:15-cv-01202, (E.D.
Mo., August 5, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation
under the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Plaintiff are represented by:

     Kevin J. Dolley, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN J. DOLLEY, LLC
     2726 S. Brentwood Blvd.
     St. Louis, MO 63144
     Tel: (314) 645-4100
     Fax: (314) 736-6216
     E-mail: kevin@dolleyla\v.cotn

              - and -

     Richard B. Hein, Esq.
     THE HEIN LAW FIRM, L.C.
     7750 Clayton Road, Suite 102
     St. Louis, MO 63117
     Tel: (314) 645-7900
     Fax: (314)645-7901
     E-mail: rhein@heinlegal.cotn


MONEYGRAM INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiff Filed Motion to Remand
---------------------------------------------------------
Moneygram International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the Class Action
Securities Litigation, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand the
case back to Delaware State Court.

On April 15, 2015, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, County of
New Castle, against MoneyGram, all of its directors, certain of
its executive officers, THL, Goldman Sachs and the underwriters of
the secondary public offering of the Company's common stock that
closed on April 2, 2014 (the "2014 Offering"). The lawsuit was
brought by the Iron Workers District Council of New England
Pension Fund seeking to represent a class consisting of all
purchasers of the Company's common stock pursuant and/or traceable
to the Company's registration statement and prospectus, and all
documents incorporated by reference therein, issued in connection
with the 2014 Offering. The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly
false and misleading statements in connection with the 2014
Offering and seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

On May 19, 2015, MoneyGram and the other defendants filed a notice
of removal to the federal district court of the District of
Delaware. On June 18, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand
the case back to Delaware State Court. The Company believes that
the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend
against the lawsuit.


NATALIA CO: "Lobut" Suit Seeks Damages for Alleged FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mustafa Lobut v. The Natalia Company, Inc., Natalia Morozova and
Vladislavas Borisevic, Case 1:15-cv-22942-KMW (S.D. Fl., August 5,
2015) seeks to be paid for damages exceeding $15,000 for unpaid
wages under Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant is an active carrier, licensed to carry hazmat rated
materials from the general freight, cargo categories.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
     Anaeli C. Petisco, Esq.
     REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
     44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
     Miami, FL 33130
     Tel: 305-416-5000
     Fax: 305-416-5005


NAVIENT CORP: Court Denied Request to Amend "Ubaldi" Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the case, Tina M.
Ubaldi v. SLM Corporation et. al., the Court has denied
Plaintiffs' request to amend the complaint again.

On March 18, 2011, a student loan borrower filed a putative class
action complaint against Old SLM in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California. The complaint was captioned
Tina M. Ubaldi v. SLM Corporation et. al., Case No. C-11-01320EDL.
The plaintiff brought the complaint on behalf of a class
consisting of other similarly situated California borrowers. The
complaint alleged, among other things, that Old SLM's practice of
charging late fees proportional to the amount of missed payments
constituted liquidated damages in violation of California law; and
Old SLM engaged in unfair business practices by charging daily
interest on private educational loans. Following motion practice
and additional amendments to the complaint, which added usury
claims under California state law and two additional defendants
(Sallie Mae, Inc., now known as Navient Solutions, Inc. ("NSI"),
and SLM PC Student Loan Trust 2004-A), a Modified Third Amended
Complaint was filed on December 2, 2013. Plaintiffs sought
restitution of late charges and interest paid by members of the
class, injunctive relief, cancellation of all future interest
payments, treble damages as permitted by law, as well as costs and
attorneys' fees, among other relief.

Prior to the formation of Sallie Mae Bank in 2005, Old SLM
followed prevalent capital market practices of acquiring and
securitizing private education loans purchased in secondary
transactions from banks who originated these loans. Plaintiffs
alleged that the services provided by Old SLM and Sallie Mae, Inc.
to the originating banks resulted in Old SLM and Sallie Mae, Inc.
constituting lenders on these loans.

Since 2006, Sallie Mae Bank originated the vast majority of all
private education loans acquired by Old SLM. The claims at issue
in this case expressly exclude loans originated by Sallie Mae Bank
since its inception. Named defendants are subsidiaries of Navient
and as such the Ubaldi litigation will remain the sole
responsibility of Navient Corporation. Plaintiffs filed their
Motion for Class Certification on October 22, 2013.

On March 24, 2014, the Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification without prejudice, but granted plaintiffs leave to
file an amended Motion for Class Certification. On June 20, 2014,
a Complaint in Intervention was filed on behalf of two additional
customers representing a proposed usury sub-class. On June 23,
2014, Plaintiffs filed a Renewed Motion for Class Certification.
On December 19, 2014, the court granted plaintiffs' Renewed Motion
for Class Certification regarding the claims concerning late fees,
but denied the motion as to the usury claims.

On January 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to
file another amended complaint. On March 24, 2015, the Court
denied Plaintiffs' motion, denying their request to amend the
complaint again.

"It is not possible at this time to estimate a range of potential
exposure, if any, for amounts that may be payable in connection
therewith," the Company said.


NAVIENT CORP: Bids to Dismiss 2nd Amended "Blyden" Suit Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
Navient Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the putative class
action filed by Marlene Blyden, the Court granted Defendants'
Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint.

On November 26, 2014, Marlene Blyden filed a putative class action
suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California against Navient Corporation, Navient, LLC, Navient
Solutions, Inc., Navient Credit Finance Corporation, Navient
Investment Corporation, SLM Corporation, Bank of New York, and the
Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. The complaint was
captioned Marlene Blyden v. Navient Corporation et. al., Case No.
5:14-CV-2456.

On December 2, 2014, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.
The plaintiff purports to bring the First Amended Complaint on
behalf of a class consisting of other similarly situated
California borrowers. The First Amended Complaint alleged that
plaintiff and members of the asserted class were charged and/or
paid interest at a rate above that permitted under California law.

On February 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed her Second Amended Complaint,
which drops SLM Corporation as a defendant, adds various
securitization trusts as defendants, and adds claims for
conversion and for money had and received. Defendants filed
Motions to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on March 6, 2015.
The plaintiff filed her Opposition on April 16, 2015, and
Defendants filed Replies on April 20, 2015. On July 23, 2015, the
Court granted Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second
Amended Complaint but permitted certain amendments to be made by
Plaintiff no later than August 4, 2015.

"It is not possible at this time to estimate a range of potential
exposure, if any, for amounts that may be payable in connection
therewith," the Company said.


NEWPARK RESOURCES: Trial of "Davida" Case Set for September 2016
----------------------------------------------------------------
Newpark Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that trial of the case,
Davida v. Newpark Drilling Fluids LLC, has been scheduled for
September 2016.

On June 18, 2014, Jesse Davida, a former employee of Newpark
Drilling Fluids LLC filed a purported class action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio
Division, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"). The plaintiff seeks damages and penalties for the
Company's alleged failure to: properly classify its field service
employees as "non-exempt" under the FLSA; and, pay them on an
hourly basis (including overtime). The plaintiff seeks recovery on
his own behalf, and seeks certification of a class of similarly
situated employees.

On January 6, 2015, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion to
"conditionally" certify the class of fluid service technicians
that have worked for Newpark Drilling Fluids over the past three
years. Beginning in early March of 2015, notification was given to
658 current and former fluid service technician employees of
Newpark regarding this litigation and those individuals were given
the opportunity to "opt-in" to the Davida litigation. The opt-in
period closed in early May of 2015 and a total of 91 individuals
have joined the Davida litigation. The Court has given the
plaintiffs' attorneys until September 2015 to add state law claims
to the litigation (if any). The trial of the case has been
scheduled for September 2016.

"We have a number of defenses we can assert against these claims
including that these employees are properly classified as exempt
employees. We have retained counsel with experience in cases of
this nature, and intend to vigorously defend this litigation," the
Company said.


NEWPARK RESOURCES: Retained Counsel in "Christiansen" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Newpark Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that in the case,
Christiansen v. Newpark Drilling Fluids LLC, the Company has
retained counsel with experience in cases of this nature, and
intend to vigorously defend this litigation.

On November 11, 2014, Josh Christiansen filed a purported class
action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division, alleging violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The plaintiff seeks damages and
penalties for the Company's alleged failure to: properly classify
him as an employee rather than an independent contractor; properly
classify its field service employees as "non-exempt" under the
FLSA; and, pay them on an hourly basis (including overtime) and
seeks damages and penalties for the Company's alleged failure to
pay him and the others in the proposed class on an hourly basis
(including overtime). Following the filing of this lawsuit, five
additional plaintiffs joined the proceedings. The plaintiff seeks
recovery on his own behalf, and sought certification of a class of
similarly situated individuals.

In March of 2015, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
conditional class certification. Counsel for the plaintiffs did
not appeal that ruling and have now filed individual cases for
each of the original plaintiffs plus one new plaintiff, leaving a
total of seven separate independent contractor cases pending.

"We have retained counsel with experience in cases of this nature,
and intend to vigorously defend this litigation," the Company
said.


NOBLE CASING: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, "Cooper" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tyeler Cooper, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
persons v. Noble Casing, Inc., Case No. 1:15-cv-01907 (D. Colo.,
September 3, 2015), is brought against the Defendant for failure
to pay straight time pay and time and one-half premium pay for all
regular and overtime hours in violation of the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Noble Casing, Inc. is an oilfield casing company providing
services in North Dakota, Wyoming and Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
      123 North College Avenue, Suite 200
      Fort Collins, CO 80524
      Telephone: (970) 212-4665
      Facsimile: (303) 539-9812
      E-mail: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com


NORTEK INC: No Arguments with Respect to Class Action Status
------------------------------------------------------------
Nortek, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 27, 2015, that no arguments or ruling
with respect to class action status have occurred to date in
either of the class actions.

The Company said, "Nortek Global HVAC LLC ("Nordyne"), our wholly
owned subsidiary, is the defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit in Florida, Harris, et al. v. Nordyne, LLC, Case No. 1:14-
cv-21884-BB, filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.  In addition, Nortek, Inc., Nortek
Global HVAC LLC and Nortek Global HVAC Latin America, Inc. are the
defendants in a putative class action lawsuit in Tennessee, Bauer,
et al. v. Nordyne, LLC et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-01940, filed in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee."

"These lawsuits allege that evaporator and condenser coils in
Nordyne's residential heating and cooling products are susceptible
to a type of potential corrosion of the copper tubing in the units
that can result in coil leaks and/or failure of the units.  The
Florida action was initiated on May 21, 2014 and seeks
compensatory damages associated with Nordyne's alleged wrongdoing,
injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees and costs.  The Tennessee
action was initiated on October 3, 2014 and seeks damages
associated with repairing, retrofitting and/or replacing the
allegedly defective products, the loss of value due to the alleged
defect, property damages associated with the alleged defect,
injunctive relief, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs. No arguments or ruling with respect to class action status
have occurred to date in either of these actions.

"While these actions are in their initial stages, the Company
believes it has meritorious defenses against these complaints.  At
this time, the Company believes that the likelihood of a material
loss in such matters is remote and has not recognized a loss or
liability in these actions; however, it is possible that events
could occur that would change the likelihood of a material loss,
which could ultimately have a material impact on our business.
The Company will continue to assess the likelihood of a material
loss as the actions progress."


OCH-ZIFF CAPITAL: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Minakshi Kumari, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v.  OCH-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC, et
al., Case No. 653016 (D.N.Y., September 2, 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.

OCH-Ziff Capital Management Group LLC is a Delaware corporation
that provides investment advisory services for its clients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Evan J. Smith, Esq.
      BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
      240 Mineola Boulevard
      Mineola, NY 11501
      Telephone: (516) 714-4799
      Facsimile: (516) 741-0626
      E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


OCWEN FINANCIAL: To Defend Against Suit by Altisource Investors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for
the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that Ocwen was named as
a defendant in a separate consolidated securities fraud class
action that has been brought on behalf of a putative class of
Altisource shareholders.

The Company said, "Following our announcement on August 12, 2014
that we intended to restate our financial statements for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 and the quarter ended March
31, 2014, and amend our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2013 and our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended March 31, 2014, putative securities fraud
class action lawsuits have been filed against Ocwen and certain of
its officers and directors regarding such restatements and
amendments. Those lawsuits have been consolidated and are pending
in federal court in Florida. After Ocwen signed a Consent Order
with the NYDFS on December 22, 2014, the consolidated class action
complaint was amended to include allegations relating to that
Consent Order and other matters.

"In January 2015, Ocwen was named as a defendant in a separate
consolidated securities fraud class action that has been brought
on behalf of a putative class of Altisource shareholders.

"Ocwen and the other defendants intend to vigorously defend
against these lawsuits."


OLD NATIONAL: Indiana Supreme Court Won't Accept Case Transfer
--------------------------------------------------------------
Old National Bancorp said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Indiana Supreme
Court declined to accept transfer of the class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "In November 2010, Old National was named in a
class action lawsuit in Vanderburgh Circuit Court challenging our
checking account practices associated with the assessment of
overdraft fees. The theory set forth by plaintiffs in this case is
similar to other class action complaints filed against other
financial institutions in recent years and settled for substantial
amounts. On May 1, 2012, the plaintiff was granted permission to
file a First Amended Complaint which named additional plaintiffs
and amended certain claims. The plaintiffs seek damages, and other
relief, including treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Indiana Crime Victim's Relief Act. On June 13,
2012, Old National filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended
Complaint, which was subsequently denied by the Court. On
September 7, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which was granted on March 20, 2013, and provides
for a class of "All Old National Bank customers in the State of
Indiana who had one or more consumer accounts and who, within the
applicable statutes of limitation through August 15, 2010,
incurred an overdraft fee as a result of Old National Bank's
practice of sequencing debit card and ATM transactions from
highest to lowest."

Old National sought an interlocutory appeal on the issue of class
certification on April 2, 2013, which was subsequently denied. On
June 11, 2013, Old National moved for summary judgment asserting
the law as applied to the material facts not in dispute should
result in judgment in favor of Old National. On September 16,
2013, a hearing was held on the summary judgment motion and the
Motion was denied by the Circuit Court on April 14, 2014.

Subsequently, Old National sought and was granted leave to appeal
the denial of its Motion for Summary Judgment. On July 11, 2014,
the Indiana Court of Appeals accepted the appeal and the parties
fully briefed the matter as of February 23, 2015. On April 23,
2015, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part
the Circuit Court's denial of Old National's Motion for Summary
Judgment and remanded the case to the Circuit Court for further
proceedings. Specifically, the Court of Appeals rejected Old
National's contention that all of plaintiffs' claims were
preempted by federal law but did agree that plaintiffs' state law
claims of conversion, unconscionability and unjust enrichment were
unsupported under Indiana law. The dismissal of these claims
removes any claims which would entitle plaintiffs to treble
damages. The Court of Appeals determined Old National had not
negated plaintiffs' state law claim for breach of a duty of good
faith and fair dealing as to the deposit account agreement and
remanded that claim back to the Circuit Court.

On May 22, 2015, Old National filed a Petition to Transfer the
Case to the Indiana Supreme Court in which it asked the Court to
accept an appeal of the remaining count. On July 23, 2015, the
Indiana Supreme Court declined to accept transfer of the case. The
case will now return to the trial court for further proceedings on
the sole remaining count. At this phase of the litigation, it is
not possible for management of Old National to determine the
probability of a material adverse outcome or reasonably estimate
the amount of any loss.


OLD REPUBLIC: "Markocki" Class Action Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
31, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a
certified class action lawsuit is pending against the Company's
principal title insurance subsidiary, Old Republic National Title
Insurance Company ("ORNTIC"), in a federal district court in
Pennsylvania (Markocki et al. v. ORNTIC, U.S. District Court,
Eastern District, Pennsylvania, filed June 8, 2006). The
plaintiffs allege that ORNTIC failed to give consumers reissue
and/or refinance credits on the premiums charged for title
insurance covering mortgage refinancing transactions, as required
by filed rate schedules. The suit also alleges violations of the
federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act ("RESPA"). ORNTIC
challenged the certification of the consumer protection class and
the RESPA class based on more recent case precedents. On May 28,
2015, the consumer protection class was decertified and ORNTIC's
motion for summary judgment on the RESPA claim was granted and
that claim was dismissed. The individual consumer protection claim
alleged against ORNTIC remains.


OLD REPUBLIC: RMIC Filed Motions to Dismiss RESPA Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July
31, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that RMIC
has filed motions to dismiss RESPA-related class action cases.

On December 30, 2011 and on January 4, 2013, purported class
action suits alleging RESPA violations were filed in the Federal
District Court, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania targeting
RMIC, other mortgage guaranty insurance companies, PNC Financial
Services Group (as successor to National City Bank) and HSBC Bank
USA, N.A., and their wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiaries.
(White, Hightower, et al. v. PNC Financial Services Group (as
successor to National City Bank) et al.), (Ba, Chip, et al. v.
HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al.). The lawsuits are two of twelve
against various lenders, their captive reinsurers and the mortgage
insurers, filed by the same law firms, all of which were
substantially identical in alleging that the mortgage guaranty
insurers had reinsurance arrangements with the defendant banks'
captive insurance subsidiaries under which payments were made in
violation of the anti-kickback and fee splitting prohibitions of
Sections 8(a) and 8(b) of RESPA. Ten of the twelve suits have been
dismissed. The remaining suits seek unspecified damages, costs,
fees and the return of the allegedly improper payments. A class
has not been certified in either suit and RMIC has filed motions
to dismiss the cases.


PARAMOUNT FOODS: Faces "Basurto" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Angel Basurto, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Paramount Foods Inc. (d/h/a Baluchi's) and
Rakesh Aggarwal, Case 1:15-cv-05937 (S.D.N.Y., July 29, 2015),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, New York Labor Law and New York Code Rules and
Regulations.

Baluchi's is an Indian Restaurant owned by Rakesh Aggarwal at
First Avenue, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PARK PIZZA: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages & Damages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ponciano Villalva-Zeferino, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. Park Pizza, Inc. and Arturo Ientile,
Case No. 1:15-cv-06932-JMF (S.D.N.Y., September 3, 2015), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at
1233 First Avenue, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John M. Guirrieri, Esq.
      Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
      Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, PC
      277 Broadway, Suite 408
      New York, NY 10007-2036
      Telephone: (212) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
              bsherr@zellerlegal.com
              jazeller@zellerlegal.com


PHILADELPHIA: Police Department Sued Over Civil Rights Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tanya Brown-Dickerson, on behalf of others similarly situated v.
City of Philadelphia, Nicholas Carrelli, and Heng Dang, Case No.
2:15-cv-04940-SD (E.D. Penn., September 2, 2015), arises out of
The Philadelphia Police Department's use of force training,
policies, practices that violate the Plaintiff's federal civil
rights and the Pennsylvania Constitution.

City of Philadelphia is a municipality duly existing under and by
virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian R. Mildenberg, Esq.
      MILDENBERG LAW FIRM, P.C.
      1735 Market Street, Suite 3750
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 545-4870
      E-mail: brian@mildenberglaw.com


PJS OF PARMA: Accused of Violating Min. Wage Laws on Tips/Credits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carol Carter, Destiny Armelli, Mary Heuser, Carrie Hejduk, Judith
Lauber, Dawn Melvin, Jeannette McDaniel, Melanie Moyers, Stephanie
Sir Louis, Jennifer Welz, Jenny Zellers, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. PJS of Parma, Inc., Stancato's
Italian Restaurant and Lorraine Stancato, Case: 1:15-cv-01545,
(N.D.Ohio, August 5, 2015) alleges violations of federal and state
minimum wage laws regarding tips and tip
credits.

The Defendants own and operate an Italian restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephan I. Voudris, Esq.
      Alix Noureddine, Esq.
      VOUDRIS LAW LLC
      8401 Chagrin Road, Suite 8
      Chagrin Falls, OH 44023
      Tel: 440-543-0670
      Fax: 440-543-0721
      E-mail: svoudris@voudrislaw.com
              anoureddine@voudrislaw.com


PLAINS ALL: Sued in Texas Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jacksonville Police and Fire Pension Fund, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Plains All American
Pipeline, L.P., et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-02540 (S.D. Tex.,
September 2, 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.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas R. Ajamie, Esq.
      Dona Szak, Esq.
      AJAMIE LLP
      Penzoil Place - South Tower
      711 Louisiana, Suite 2150
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 860-1600
      Facsimile: (713) 860-1699
      E-mail: tajamie@ajamie.com
              dszak@ajamie.com

         - and -

      Gerald H. Silk, Esq.
      Avi Josefson, Esq.
      Michael D. Blatchley, Esq.
      BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
      1285 Avenue of the Americas
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 554-1400
      Facsimile: (212) 554-1444
      E-mail: jerry@blbglaw.com
              avi@blbglaw.com
              michaelb@blblgaw.com

         - and -

      Robert D. Klausner, Esq.
      KLAUSNER, KAUFMAN, JENSEN & LEVINSON
      7080 NW 4th Street
      Plantation, FL 33317
      Telephone: (954) 916-1202
      Facsimile: (954) 916-1232
      E-mail: bob@robertdklausner.com


QEP RESOURCES: Court Order Regarding Class Certification Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
QEP Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a court order regarding
class certification is pending in the case, Yannick Gagne and
others similarly situated v. QEP Resources, Inc., et al., No. 480-
06-1-132, Superior Court, Province of Quebec, Canada.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons who sustained
damages as a result of the July 6, 2013 train derailment in Lac-
Megantic, Quebec, which resulted in substantial loss of life and
property. The fourth amended motion to authorize the bringing of a
class action was filed on February 19, 2014, and names numerous
defendants, including the rail company that transported the crude
oil (which filed for bankruptcy protection in August 2013). The
plaintiffs contend that QEP, and other producer defendants, sold
Bakken crude oil to third-party purchasers in North Dakota, who
resold the oil and transported it on the derailed train.
Plaintiffs alleged that QEP and the producer defendants, among
other things, failed to ensure that the oil was adequately
processed to remove volatile gases and vapors, knowingly added
volatile light end petroleum liquids and/or vapors or blended the
crude with condensate, failed to conduct adequate well site
testing to determine the proper hazard classification of the oil,
failed to properly classify the shipping requirements for the oil,
failed to take reasonable care to ensure that the oil was properly
labeled and shipped, failed to identify the risk of the train
derailment and take action to prevent it, and failed to adopt,
implement and enforce rules and procedures pertaining to the safe
shipment of the oil. The plaintiffs seek damages, but specific
monetary damages are not asserted.

Class certification hearings took place in June 2014, and a court
order regarding class certification is pending. Many of the
defendants, including QEP, and their insurers have reached an
agreement with Trustees in both Canadian and U.S. Bankruptcy
Courts to resolve all of these claims. The terms of the agreement
are confidential and are contingent upon the approval of the
courts.


QEP RESOURCES: Audet Case Stayed Pending Yannick Gagne Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
QEP Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that on July 15, 2015, QEP
was served with a complaint entitled Samuel Audet, et al. vs.
Devlar Energy Marketing, LLC, et al., No. DC-15-06428, District
Court of Dallas County, Texas, 95th Judicial District. The
plaintiffs, defendants, allegations, and damages sought are
materially similar to those in the Yannick Gagne case, and
plaintiffs state that this lawsuit is filed to preserve claims
under the applicable two-year statute of limitations. Plaintiffs
also filed a motion to stay proceedings in this case for 90 days
pending the outcome of the global settlement discussions in the
Yannick Gagne case. The court's order on this request for a stay
is pending.


QUICKEN LOANS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Newhart" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Darren Newhart, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Quicken Loans, Inc. and Seterus, Inc., Case No. 9:15-cv-81250-
RSR (S.D. Fla., September 2, 2015), arises out of the Defendants'
alleged illegal telemarketing practices via unsolicited automated
or prerecorded telephone calls.

Quicken Loans, Inc. is one of the largest mortgage lenders in the
United States.

Seterus, Inc. is a leading specialty loan servicing company, with
a principal place of business in Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq.
      James L. Kauffman, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
      1054 31st Street, Suite 230
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 463-2101
      Facsimile: (202) 342-2103
      E-mail: jmarshall@baileyglasser.com
              jkauffman@baileyglasser.com


RC NYC: Faces Suit by "Pilch" for Alleged FLSA and NYLL Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Pilch individually and on behalf of all others similarly v.
RC NYC Holdings LLC, Rieder Communities LLC, and Leslie Rieder,
Case 1:15-cv-06143 (S.D.N.Y. August 05, 2015), seeks payment for
all hours worked pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
overtime pay of one and a half times the regular rate, straight
time, timely wages, pay notice or proper paystubs as required by
New York Labor Law and the New York Commissioner of Labor's Wage
Order.

The Defendant is a non-bank holding, domestic limited liability
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Allan Serrins, Esq.
     Corey M. Stein, Esq.
     SERRINS FISHER LLP
     233 Broadway, Suite 2340
     New York, NY 10279
     Tell:  (212) 571-0700


RESTAURANT BRANDS: Settlement Received Final Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
Restaurant Brands International Limited Partnership said in its
Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on July 31, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015,
that the parties in a class action lawsuit finalized a settlement
agreement which received final court approval on April 15, 2015.

On March 1, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
against BKC in the U.S. District Court of Maryland. The complaint
alleges that BKC and/or its agents sent unsolicited advertisements
by fax to thousands of consumers in Maryland and elsewhere in the
United States to promote its home delivery program in violation of
the Telephone Consumers Protection Act. The plaintiff sought
monetary damages and injunctive relief. On August 19, 2014, BKC
agreed to pay $8.5 million to settle the lawsuit. On December 2,
2014, the parties finalized a settlement agreement which received
final court approval on April 15, 2015.


ROADRUNNER TRANSPORTATION: Defendant in 3 Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------
Roadrunner Transportation Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August
3, 2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the
Company is a defendant in three purported class-action lawsuits in
California alleging violations of various California labor laws.
The plaintiffs in each of these lawsuits seek to recover
unspecified monetary damages and other items. In addition, the
California Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement has brought
administrative actions against the Company on behalf of six
individuals alleging that the Company violated California labor
laws. Given the early stage of all of the proceedings, the Company
is not able to assess with certainty the outcome of these
proceedings or the amount or range of potential damages or future
payments associated with these proceedings at this time. The
Company believes it has meritorious defenses to these actions and
intends to defend these proceedings vigorously.


SABI VENTURES: Faces "Welch" Suit Seeking Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Randi Welch, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
Sabi Ventures, Inc., Muhammad Faisal, individually and 7-Eleven,
Inc., Case 8:15-cv-01755-RAL-MAP (M.D.Fla., July 29, 2015), seeks
damages exceeding $15,000 exclusive of interest and costs, and for
declaratory relief, under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
common law for unpaid wages.

7-Eleven Inc. is a franchisor in Texas.  Sabi Ventures Inc. is a
7-Eleven franchisee, with multiple gas station/convenience stores
in and around Manatee County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     201 N. Franklin Stret, #700
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Tel: 813.223.5505
     Fax: 813-257-0572
     E-mail: Medelman@forthepeople.com


SAC INC: "Stecco" Suit Seeks Damages for Alleged TCPA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Stecco on behalf of himself and all others similarly-
situated, v. Student Aid Center, Inc., Case 0:15-cv-61610-WJZ
(S.D. Fla. August 5, 2015) alleges willful and/or knowing
violations under the U.S. Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and
thus seeks statutory damages.

The Defendant is a self-described industry leader in the federal
student loan debt relief industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David P. Milian, Esq.
     Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
     Ernesto M. Rubi
     CAREY RODRIGUEZ O'KEEFE MILIAN GONYA, LLP
     1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 700
     Miami, FL 33131
     Tell: (305) 372-7474
     Fax:  (305) 372-7475
     E-mail: dmilian@careyrodriguez.com
             fhedin@careyrodriguez.com
             erubi@careyrodriguez.com


SANDRIDGE ENERGY: "Peck" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mickey Peck, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SandRidge Energy, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-00950-F (W.D.
Okla., September 2, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

SandRidge Energy, Inc. owns and operates an oil and natural gas
company and maintains its principal place of business in Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Leah Roper, Esq.
      Mark Hammon, Esq.
      HAMMONS, GOWENS, HURST & ASSOCIATES
      325 Dean A. McGee Ave
      Oklahoma City, OK 73102
      Telephone: (405) 235-6100
      Facsimile: (405) 235-6111
      E-mail: leah@hammonslaw.com
              mark@hammonslaw.com

         - and -

      Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
      Alex M. Baggio, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      4600 IDS Center
      80 South 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 256-3200
      Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
      E-mail: fisher@nka.com
              abaggio@nka.com


SAVIENT PHARMACEUTICALS: Securities Fraud Action Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gregory M. Sleet of the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware granted Louis Ferrari, et. al.'s motion to
dismiss the amended complaint for securities fraud filed by Matz
Johansson.

Defendants Louis Ferrari, et. al., were the former directors and
officers of Savient Pharmaceuticals.

Johansson contends that two categories of disclosures in the
April, May, and August 2013 SEC filings ("class period filings")
were violations of Rule 10b-5:

     (1) Savient's failure to update the public concerning the
directors' evaluation of potential strategic alternatives; and

     (2) Savient's cash projections indicating that it could
operate at least into the second quarter of 2012.

The Defendants argue that Johansson's Amended Complaint does not
state a claim for either category because Johansson failed to
allege an actionable misrepresentation or omission and failed to
allege sufficient facts to support a "strong inference" of
scienter.

Judge Sleet agreed with the Defendants' argument. He held that
because Johansson has not alleged an actionable material omission
concerning Savient's strategic alternatives, his claim must fail.
He further held that the allegations in the complaint fail to
support a strong inference of scienter -- that the Defendants knew
or recklessly disregarded the possibility that their omission was
misleading to the public.

The case is MATZ JOHANSSON, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LOUIS FERRARI, GINGER
CONSTANTINE, M.D., STEPHEN O. JAEGER, DAVID P. MEEKER, M.D., DAVID
Y. NORTON, ROBERT G. SAVAGE, VIRGIL THOMPSON, RICHARD CROWLEY,
JOHN P. HAMILL, PHILIP K. YACHMETZ, and DAVID G. GI ON CO,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-42-GMS.

A full-text copy of Judge Gregory M. Sleet's Memorandum dated
August 20, 2015, is available at http://is.gd/o1TXxTfrom
Leagle.com.

Matz Johansson is represented by:

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302)295-5310
          Facsimile: (302)654-7530
          Email: sdr@rl-legal.com
                 bdl@rl-legal.com
                 gms@rl-legal.com

Louis Ferrari, et al., are represented by:

          Robert Scott Saunders, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM
          One Rodney Square
          920 N. King Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302)651-3000
          Facsimile: (302)651-3001
          Email: rob.saunders@skadden.com

            About Savient Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Headquartered in Bridgewater, New Jersey, Savient Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. -- http://www.savient.com/-- is a specialty
biopharmaceutical company focused on developing and
commercializing KRYSTEXXA(R) (pegloticase) for the treatment of
chronic gout in adult patients refractory to conventional therapy.
Savient has exclusively licensed worldwide rights to the
technology related to KRYSTEXXA and its uses from Duke University
and Mountain View Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

The Company and its affiliate, Savient Pharma Holdings, Inc.,
sought protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr.
D. Del. Case No. 13-12680) on Oct. 14, 2013.  In its schedules,
Savient Pharmaceuticals listed $43,065,650 in total assets and
$284,078,461 in total liabilities.

The Debtors are represented by Kenneth S. Ziman, Esq., and David
M. Turetsky, Esq., at Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, in
New York; and Anthony W. Clark, Esq., at Skadden Arps Slate
Meagher & Flom LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware.  Cole, Schotz,
Meisel, Forman & Leonard P.A., also serves as the Company's
conflicts counsel, and Lazard Freres & Co. LLC serves as its
financial advisor.  GCG Inc. serves as the Debtors' claims agent.
Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP is the Debtors' special
intellectual property counsel.

U.S. Bank National Association, as Indenture Trustee and
Collateral Agent, is represented by Clark T. Whitmore, Esq., at
Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand, LLP, in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

The Unofficial Committee of Senior Secured Noteholders is
represented by Andrew N. Rosenberg, Esq., Elizabeth McColm, Esq.,
and Jacob A. Adlerstein, Esq., at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP, in New York; and Pauline K. Morgan, Esq., at Young,
Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP, in Wilmington, Delaware.

The Troubled Company Reporter reported on Jan. 15, 2014, that
Savient Pharmaceuticals has completed the sale of substantially
all of its assets, including all KRYSTEXXA assets, to Crealta
Pharmaceuticals for gross proceeds of approximately $120.4
million.

Savient Pharmaceuticals has filed with the Bankruptcy Court a plan
of liquidation following the sale to Crealta.  The Plan impairs
senior secured noteholder claims and general unsecured claims.
The Plan also impairs intercompany claims, subordinated 510(c)
claims and subordinated 510(b) claims, although holders of these
claims are not entitled to vote on the Plan.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: AirTran to Defend Agaisnt Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that AirTran intends to
defend vigorously any and all such allegations in a class action
lawsuit.

A complaint alleging violations of federal antitrust laws and
seeking certification as a class action was filed against Delta
Air Lines, Inc. and AirTran in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta on May 22, 2009.
The complaint alleged, among other things, that AirTran attempted
to monopolize air travel in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman
Act, and conspired with Delta in imposing $15-per-bag fees for the
first item of checked luggage in violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act. The initial complaint sought treble damages on behalf
of a putative class of persons or entities in the United States
who directly paid Delta and/or AirTran such fees on domestic
flights beginning December 5, 2008. After the filing of the May
2009 complaint, various other nearly identical complaints also
seeking certification as class actions were filed in federal
district courts in Atlanta, Georgia; Orlando, Florida; and Las
Vegas, Nevada. All of the cases were consolidated before a single
federal district court judge in Atlanta.

A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed in the consolidated
action on February 1, 2010, which broadened the allegations to add
claims that Delta and AirTran conspired to reduce capacity on
competitive routes and to raise prices in violation of Section 1
of the Sherman Act. In addition to treble damages for the amount
of first baggage fees paid to AirTran and to Delta, the
Consolidated Amended Complaint seeks injunctive relief against a
broad range of alleged anticompetitive activities, as well as
attorneys' fees.

On August 2, 2010, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims that
AirTran and Delta had violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act; the
Court let stand the claims of a conspiracy with respect to the
imposition of a first bag fee and the airlines' capacity and
pricing decisions. On June 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion
to certify a class, which AirTran and Delta have opposed. The
parties have submitted briefs on class certification, and AirTran
filed a motion to exclude the class certification reports of
plaintiffs' expert.

The Court has not yet ruled on the class certification motion or
the related motion to exclude plaintiffs' expert. The parties
engaged in extensive discovery, which was extended due to
discovery disputes between plaintiffs and Delta, but discovery has
now closed.

On June 18, 2012, the parties filed a Stipulation and Order that
plaintiffs have abandoned their claim that AirTran and Delta
conspired to reduce capacity. On August 31, 2012, AirTran and
Delta moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiffs' remaining
claims, but discovery disputes between plaintiffs and Delta have
delayed further briefing on summary judgment.

On December 2, 2013, plaintiffs moved for discovery sanctions
against Delta, and the Court suspended further briefing on (i) the
motion for summary judgment, (ii) the motion for class
certification, and (iii) the motion to strike plaintiffs' expert
on class certification, until the sanctions motion is resolved.

On May 14, 2014, the Court referred the sanctions dispute to a
special master. The special master has issued a series of reports
and recommendations, and the Court is considering objections filed
by plaintiffs and Delta to the special master's reports and
recommendations. AirTran denies all allegations of wrongdoing,
including those in the Consolidated Amended Complaint, and intends
to defend vigorously any and all such allegations.


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: MDL Panel Will Hold Hearing on October 1
------------------------------------------------------------
Southwest Airlines Co. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the MDL panel will hold
a hearing to consider requests to transfer on October 1, 2015.

On July 1, 2015, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
putative classes of consumers alleging collusion among the
Company, American Airlines, Delta Airlines, and United Airlines to
limit capacity and maintain higher fares in violation of Section 1
of the Sherman Act. Since then, a number of similar class action
complaints have been filed in multiple jurisdictions, including
the United States District Courts for the Central District of
California, the Northern District of California, the District of
Columbia, the Northern District of Georgia, the Northern District
of Illinois, the Southern District of Indiana, the District of
Minnesota, the Eastern District of New York, the Southern District
of New York, the Northern District of Oklahoma, the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, the Northern District of Texas, and the
Eastern District of Wisconsin. The complaints seek treble damages
for periods that vary among the complaints, costs, attorneys'
fees, and injunctive relief. The time for the Company to respond
to the complaints varies by case and has not yet expired.

Requests to transfer the pre-trial proceedings of these cases into
to a single federal court have been filed with the Judicial Panel
on Multi-District Litigation ("MDL Panel"). As of July 16, 2015,
motions have been filed asking the MDL Panel to transfer to (i)
the District of Columbia; (ii) the Northern District of Illinois;
(iii) the Eastern District of New York; (iv) the Southern District
of New York; and (v) the Northern District of Texas. The MDL panel
has set an August 4, 2015 deadline for all such requests and has
notified the parties that it will hold a hearing to consider the
requests on October 1, 2015. The Company intends to vigorously
defend these civil cases.


TETRA TECH: Class Action Against BPR Officially Closed
------------------------------------------------------
Tetra Tech, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 28, 2015, that the class action filed
against BPR Inc., is officially closed.

On April 19, 2013, a class action proceeding was filed in Montreal
in which BPR Inc., BPR's former president, and other Quebec-based
engineering firms and individuals are named as defendants.  The
plaintiff class includes all individuals and entities that have
paid real estate or municipal taxes to the city of Montreal.  The
allegations include participation in collusion to share contracts
awarded by the City of Montreal, conspiracy to reduce competition
and fix prices, payment of bribes to officials, making illegal
political contributions, and bid rigging.  A class certification
hearing was held in March 2014, and on May 7, 2014, the court
dismissed the action.  On June 5, 2014, the plaintiff filed an
appeal, and on November 3, 2014, the court dismissed this appeal.
The plaintiff filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Canada,
and on April 23, 2015, the court dismissed the application.
Accordingly, this matter is officially closed.


TIME WARNER: Faces "Byrd" Suit in Cal. Over Automated Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Damon Byrd, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 2:15-
cv-06831 (C.D. Cal., September 2, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of placing calls on consumers' cellular
telephone using an artificial or prerecorded voice.

Time Warner Cable, Inc. offers satellite television services and a
variety of consumer and business related satellite television
services.

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: Faces 2nd "Byrd" Suit in Cal. Over Automated Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Damon Byrd, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Time Warner Cable, Inc. and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 2:15-
cv-06834 (C.D. Cal., September 2, 2015), seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of placing calls on consumers' cellular
telephone using an artificial or prerecorded voice.

Time Warner Cable, Inc. offers satellite television services and a
variety of consumer and business related satellite television
services.

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


VBI VACCINES: Disputes Claims Asserted in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
VBI Vaccines Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31, 2015, for the
quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the Company disputes
the claims asserted in a putative class action case and is
vigorously contesting the matter.

On November 26, 2014, a putative class action complaint was filed
in the United States District Court, Southern District of New
York, Case No. 14-cv-9435, as amended on February 11, 2015 and
March 25, 2015, on behalf of pre-Merger shareholders of Paulson
Capital (Delaware) Corp. who held shares on October 11, 2013 and
were entitled to vote at the 2013 Shareholder Meeting, against the
Company and certain individuals who were directors as of the date
of the vote, in a matter captioned Furlong et al. v. VBI Vaccines,
Inc. et al., making claims arising under Section 20(a) and Section
14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.14a-
9, promulgated thereunder by the SEC. The claims allege false and
misleading information provided to investors in the Definitive
Proxy Statement on Schedule 14A filed by the Company with the SEC
on October 18, 2013 related to the solicitation of votes from
shareholders to authorize the Board to pursue potential
restructuring transactions. If the plaintiffs were able to prove
their allegations in this matter and to establish the damages they
assert, then an adverse ruling could have a material impact on the
Company. However, the Company disputes the claims asserted in this
putative class action case and is vigorously contesting the
matter.


VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Arkansas Teachers Group to Lead Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that a court
has entered an order appointing Arkansas Teachers Retirement
System lead plaintiff in the case, Tom Cummins v. Virtus
Investment Partners Inc. et al.

On February 20, 2015, a putative class action complaint alleging
violation of the federal securities laws was filed by an
individual shareholder against the Company and certain of the
Company's current officers (the "defendants") in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
complaint was purportedly filed on behalf of all purchasers of the
Company's common stock between May 28, 2013 and December 22, 2014,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The complaint alleges that, during
the Class Period, the defendants disseminated materially false and
misleading statements and concealed material adverse facts
relating to certain funds subadvised by F-Squared. The complaint
alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5. The plaintiff
seeks to recover unspecified damages on behalf of the class
members.

On April 21, 2015, three plaintiffs, including the original
plaintiff, filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff. One of
the motions has been withdrawn and on May 7, 2015, the other
applicant filed a statement of non-opposition to the motion of
Arkansas Teachers Retirement System to be appointed lead
plaintiff.

On June 9, 2015, the court entered an order appointing Arkansas
Teachers Retirement System lead plaintiff. The Company believes
that the suit is without merit and intends to defend it
vigorously. The Company believes that there is not a material loss
that is probable and reasonably estimable related to this claim.


VIRTUS INVESTMENT: Lead Plaintiff Named in "Youngers" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on July 31,
2015, for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2015, that the court
has granted the motion, appointing movants as lead plaintiff in
the case, Mark Youngers v. Virtus Investment Partners, Inc. et al.

On May 8, 2015, a putative class action complaint alleging
violations of certain provisions of the federal securities laws
was filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California by an individual who alleges he is a former
shareholder of one of the Virtus mutual funds formerly subadvised
by F-Squared and formerly known as the AlphaSector Funds. The
complaint purports to allege claims against the Company, certain
of the Company's officers and affiliates, and certain other
parties (the "defendants"). The complaint was purportedly filed on
behalf of purchasers of the AlphaSector Funds between May 8, 2010
and December 22, 2014, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
complaint alleges that during the Class Period the defendants
disseminated materially false and misleading statements and
concealed or omitted material facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading.

On June 7, 2015, a group of three individuals, including the
original plaintiff, filed a motion to be appointed lead plaintiff.
No other motions to be appointed lead plaintiff were filed. On
July 27, 2015, the court granted the motion, appointing movants as
lead plaintiff. Also, on July 27, 2015, the court issued an order
to show cause requiring lead plaintiff to explain no later than
July 31, 2015, why his claims should not be transferred and
consolidated with the Cummins action.

The Company believes the plaintiff's claims asserted in the
complaint are frivolous and intends to defend it vigorously. The
Company believes that there is not a material loss that is
probable and reasonably estimable related to this claim.


WAL-MART STORES: Removed "Mesa" Class Suit to S. District Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Walmart Stores, Inc. removed the class action lawsuit captioned
Brynner Mesa, and other similarly situated individuals v. Wal-Mart
Stores East LP, d/b/a Wal-Mart Supercenter, Case No. 2015-
016115CA01 from the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, in Miami-Dade
County, Florida to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 1:15-cv-23311-CMA to the proceeding.

The complaint asserts a claim for alleged unpaid wages pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason S. Remer, Esq.
      Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC,
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: jsr@rgpattorneys.com
              bms@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Christopher P. Hammon, Esq.
      Gregory R. Hawran, Esq.
      OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
      701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1600
      Miami, FL 33131-2813
      Telephone: (305) 374-0506
      Facsimile: (3050 374-0456
      E-mail: chris.hammon@ogletreedeakins.com
              gregory.hawran@ogletreedeakins.com



WAYFAIR INC: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Dingee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Wayfair Inc., Niraj Shah, and Michael Fleisher, Case
No. 1:15-cv-06941 (S.D.N.Y., September 2, 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 following its initial public offering
("IPO").

Wayfair Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
executive offices situated at 4 Copley Place, 7th Floor, Boston,
MA. Wayfair is purportedly one of the largest online retailer of
home goods.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 686-1060
      Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
              pkim@rosenlegal.com



WESTSIDE DONUT: Faces "Parenteau" Suit Under ADA, Rights Law
------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Parenteau v. Westside Donut 8th Ave. Ventures LLC, d/b/a
Dunkin' Donuts #344936, and 265 W. 37th Street LLC, Case 1:15-cv-
06363 (S.D.N.Y., Aug. 12, 2015), seeks injunctive relief,
attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the United States Code, the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and the New York City
Human Rights Law and the New York State Human Rights Law.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     B. Bradley Weitz, Esq.
     THE WEITZ LAW FIRM, P.A.
     Bank of America Building
     18305 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 214
     Aventura, FL 33160
     Tel: (305) 949-7777
     Fax: (305) 704-3877
     E-mail: bbw@weitzfirm.com


YELP INC: Hearing Held on Motion to Dismiss Securities Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yelp Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015, that in August 2014, two putative
class action lawsuits alleging violations of federal securities
laws were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, naming as defendants the Company and
certain of its officers. The lawsuits allege violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, by the Company and
its officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and operations between
October 29, 2013 and April 3, 2014. These cases were subsequently
consolidated and, in January 2015, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint seeking unspecified monetary damages and
other relief. Following the court's dismissal of the consolidated
complaint on April 21, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a first amended
complaint on May 21, 2015. On June 26, 2015, the Company and the
other named defendants filed a motion to dismiss the first amended
complaint, and a hearing on this motion has been scheduled for
September 10, 2015.


YELP INC: Plaintiffs Filed First Amended Complaint v. Eat24
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yelp Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015, that on April 23, 2015, a putative
class action lawsuit was filed by former Eat24 employees in the
Superior Court of California for San Francisco County, naming as
defendants the Company and Eat24. The lawsuit asserts that the
defendants failed to permit meal and rest periods for certain
current and former employees working as Eat24 customer support
specialists, and alleges violations of the California Labor Code,
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and the
California Business and Professions Code. The plaintiffs seek
monetary damages in an unspecified amount and injunctive relief.
On May 25, 2015, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint
asserting an additional cause of action for penalties under the
Private Attorneys General Act.


YELP INC: Former Eat24 Sales Employee Filed Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Yelp Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on August 3, 2015, for the quarterly
period ended June 30, 2015, that on June 24, 2015, a former Eat24
sales employee filed a lawsuit, on behalf of herself and a
putative class of current and former Eat24 sales employees,
against Eat24 in the Superior Court of California for San
Francisco County. The lawsuit alleges that Eat24 failed to pay
required wages, including overtime wages, allow meal and rest
periods and maintain proper records, and asserts causes of action
under the California Labor Code, applicable Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders and the California Business and Professions
Code. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages and penalties in
unspecified amounts, as well as injunctive relief.


YODLEE INC: Faces "Inala" Suit Over Proposed Envestnet Takeover
---------------------------------------------------------------
Suman Inala, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Yodlee, Inc., et al., Case No. 11461 (D. Del.,
September 2, 2015), is brought on behalf of all the public
stockholders of Yodlee Inc. to enjoin the proposed acquisition of
Yodlee by Envestnet, Inc., for an unfair price and inadequate
consideration.

Headquartered in Redwood City, California, Yodlee Inc. is a
technology and application software company which provides digital
financial services in the cloud.

Envestnet, Inc. is a financial services company that provides
wealth management software and services to independent financial
advisors and financial institutions.

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

                            *********

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  * * *