CAR_Public/160310.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, March 10, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 50


                            Headlines


24HR HOMECARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Hayden" Suit Says
2651 HUNTINGDON: Faces "Pyatetsky" Suit Over ADA Violation
3018 WILD: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Wang" Action Claims
A-1 LIMOUSINE INC: Violated FLSA & Wage Law, "Kobren" Suit Claims
AFFYMETRIX INC: Breached Fiduciary Duties, "Merola" Suit Claims

ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Moves "Luna" Class Suit to C.D. California
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Removes "Luna" Suit to C.D. California
AMERIGAS PROPANE: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Jarrell" Suit Says
ANADIGICS INC: "Zalewski" Suit Removed to New Jersey Dist. Ct.
ARCELORMITTAL: Still Faces Class Suit by Direct Purchasers

ARCELORMITTAL: Brazil Unit Faces Class Suit
BALTIMORE, MD: Ex-Housing Authority Workers Sue for Defamation
BENCO DENTAL: Faces "Caspers" Suit Over Dental Supply Monopoly
BENOIT WELDING: "Raglin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
BTI SERVICES: "Watkins" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

BULLDOG WELL: Faces "Prado" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
BULLSEYE GLASS: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Emissions
CAMPBELL-EWALD: Ruling Leaves Class Action Issues on Table
CAVALIERS OPERATING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
CBC RESTAURANT: Removes "Yu" Suit to California Central District

CHECKERS DRIVE-IN: Faces "Singh" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CHECK INTO: Faces "Harvey" Suit for Racial Discrimination
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Bid-Rigging
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Leaseholders Ask Judge to Intervene in Suit
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Prosecutors Move to Drop McLendon Charges

CHICAGO, IL: Suit Seeks Midway Structure Administrative Review
COBALT INTERNATIONAL: To Seek Interlocutory Review
COLLECTO INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
CREDIT CONTROL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Dier" Action Claims
DESHI FOODS: Faces "Acostagalindo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

DIRECT DIGITAL: Supreme Court Denies Petition to Review Case
DOWNER EDI: Settles Shareholders' Class Action for $8.25MM
DRAFTKINGS INC: "Khirani" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL
DRG CONSTRUCTION: "Rosales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
EASTERN ACCOUNT: Bid to Deposit Funds Denied

EFT HOLDINGS: Court Granted "Wang" Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss
ERIN ENERGY: Faces "Lenois" Suit Over Allied Asset Purchase
EXPERIAN PLC: Illegally Procures Background Checks, Suit Claims
EXXONMOBIL CORP: Environmental Group Sues Over Emissions
FANDUEL INC: Faces "Fischler" Suit Over Fantasy Sports Site

FANDUEL INC: Faces "Cosper" Suit Over Fantasy Sports Site
FANDUEL INC: Faces "Holloway" Suit Over Fantasy Sports Site
FIRSTMERIT: Awaits Decision on Bid for Stay Pending Arbitration
FIRSTMERIT: Defendants Seek Dismissal of CRBC 401(k) Litigation
FIRSTMERIT: Faces Suits Over Huntington Merger

FLINT, MI: Faces Another Suit Over Water Crisis
FLOWERS FOODS: Business Model Seen as Major Obstacle After Suits
FREEDOM NATIONAL: Sued Over Electronic Fund Transfer Act Breach
FRESH & EASY: Judge Denies Former Employees' Class Actions
GALENA BIOPHARMA: June 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

GJG CAPITAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Dugger" Suit Claims
HANNIBAL, MO: BPW Faces Class Action Over Water Violations
HORRY COUNTY: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court OK
IAG: NZ Earthquake Claimants Vow to Launch Legal Action
IBIO INC: April 21 Final Settlement Hearing

IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in Solodyn(R) Suits
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Ill. Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Opana Suits
IMPAX LABORATORIES: "Aruliah" Settlement Has Final Approval
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Plumbers' Union, DVHCC File Class Actions
INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Faces Suit in Florida Over Subsys Fentanyl

INTEX RECREATION: Faces "Mirescu" Suit Over Air Mattresses Design
JACKSONS FARMING: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Action Claims
JCB ASSOCIATES: Faces "Nenos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
JP BRONXVILLE: "Wang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
KARL STORZ: Faces "Davies" Suit Over Defective Storz Morcellator

KARL STORZ: Faces "Ferrah" Suit Over Defective Storz Morcellator
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Faces Securities Class Action Over 2014 IPO
LOWES HOME: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Teschner" Action Claims
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Class Action Over Laminate Flooring
MAGIC GROUP: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Rosas" Suit Says

MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Plaintiffs Seek Approval of Settlement
MCWANE: June 8 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
MICHAELS STORES: Faces "Mora" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MICROSOFT CORP: Yesh Suit Over Xbox Music Settled-Out-of Court
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces FDCPA Class Action in New Jersey

MIDLAND CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Carey" Suit Claims
MINNESOTA TIMBERWOLVES: Faces Suit Over Digital Ticket Sales
MMIP DEALER: Illegally Collects Debt, "Maldonado" Suit Says
MOUNT SINAI HEALTH: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Latner" Claims
MULLOOLY JEFFREY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Bakuradze" Suit Says

MUSHROOM WISDOM: "Hoffman" Suit Removed to District of New Jersey
NASSAU COUNTY, NY: 2nd Cir. Affirms Ruling in Strip Search Case
NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE: 8th Cir. Affirms Ruling on "Dryer" Suit
NEW MAJORITY: "Stewart" Suit Transferred From New York to Ohio
NEW YORK: Faces Class Action Over "Tampon Tax"

NISSAN NORTH: "Batista" Class Suit Removed to E. Dist. Michigan
OAKLAND GARDENS: Faces "Warring" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
OIL STATES: Settlement of Class Suits Approved
ORKIDIA LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Makaron" Suit Claims
PALM BEACH, FL: Farmworkers Coalition Sues Over Protest Ban

PAVESTONE COMPANY: Sued in Cal. Over Defective Pavestone Polysand
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Faces Legal Woes Over Jail Overcrowding
PINK TACO: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Ajanovic" Suit Says
PIZZA 33: Faces "Tapia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Ordered to Stop Misleading Oil Spill Victims

PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Jones" Suit Claims
PTC THERAPEUTICS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
RAMOS FURNITURE: "Topete" Suit Transferred to E.D. Cal.
RESERVES NETWORK: Illegally Obtains Background Reports, Suit Says
RICHARD SOKOLOFF: Illegally Collects Debt, "Shedler" Suit Claims

SBE ENTERTAINMENT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
SECURITY FOREVER: Faces "Fuentes" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SEE'S CANDY: Falsely Marketed Assorted Chocolates, Suit Claims
SEI INVESTMENTS: Defending 6 Lawsuits in Louisiana
SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Settlement in "Lum" Suit Has Initial OK

SL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Wolfe" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: Faces Century Suit Over Aliso Gas Leak
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: Faces "Joe" Suit Over Aliso Gas Leak
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: Faces "Keenan" Suit Over Aliso Gas Leak
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: Faces "Park" Suit Over Aliso Gas Leak

STARKIST CO: "Vangemert" Antitrust Suit Consolidated in MDL 2670
STARKIST CO: "Yee" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2670
STORED VALUE CARDS: Bid to Compel Arbitration Denied
SUBWAY: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Get $525,000 Fees in Foot Long Suit
SUNEDISON INC: "Dull" Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Oral Argument Held in Plaintiff's Appeal
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Misclassification Suit in Discovery
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: April 25 Certification Hearing in "Burnell"
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Rudsell" Suit Remains Stayed
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Peck" Class Action Remains Stayed

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Seeks Dismissal of "Mares" Suit
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "McKinsty" Class Suit Remains Stayed
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Nilsen" Class Suit Remains Stayed
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Julian" FLSA Action in Delaware
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Deadlines Extended in Overtime Action

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Indiana FCRA Action to Move into Discovery
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: No Trial Date Set by Utah Case Arbitrator
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Defends Suit Over Pre-Employment Test
TEAM HEALTH: MOU Reached in Suit Related to IPC Transaction
TGI FRIDAYS: Faces "Calabrese" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

THIRD AVENUE: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
TRANSAM TRUCKING: Court Approves Proposed Opt-Out Class Notice
TRANSCARE CORP: Former Employees File Wage Class Action
TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR: "Borsuk" Suit Removed to C.D. California
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Attorneys Plan to Appeal Class Action Ruling

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers Challenge Bid to Toss Class Action
UNDER ARMOUR: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held
UNITED RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
VIKING CLIENT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
VOLKSWAGEN AG: MLG Email Breaches Carriage Order, Court Rules

VOLKSWAGEN AG: Uses "No Injury" Defense in Emissions Class Action

* New French Law May Spur Health-Related Class Actions


                            *********


24HR HOMECARE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, "Hayden" Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Hayden, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated v. 24HR Homecare, L.L.C., et al., Case No. BC610283 (Cal.
Super., February 16, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay the legally required minimum wage in violation of
the California Labor Code.

24HR Homecare, L.L.C. is a California limited liability company
and is one of the largest health care providers in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
     Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
     Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
     BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
     2255 Calle Clara
     La Jolla, CA 92037
     Telephone: (858) 551-1223
     Facsimile: (858) 551-1232


2651 HUNTINGDON: Faces "Pyatetsky" Suit Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Leonid Pyatetsky, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. 2651 Huntingdon Pike, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-
00865-GAM (E.D. Penn., February 23, 2016), alleges that the
Defendant failed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities
Act's regulations regarding handicap parking and has, therefore,
denied the Plaintiff full access to the Defendant's facilities.

2651 Huntingdon Pike, LLC is a commercial real estate parcel in
Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gerald D. Wells, Esq.
      Stephen E. Connolly, Esq.
      CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
      2200 Renaissance Boulevard, Suite 308
      King of Prussia, PA 19406
      Telephone: (610) 822-3700
      Facsimile: (610) 822-3800
      E-mail: sconnolly@cwg-law.com
              gwells@cwg-law.com


3018 WILD: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Wang" Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yong Xin Wang, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. 3018 Wild Ginger, Inc. d/b/a Wild Ginger,
3018 Japan Inc., d/b/a Wild Ginger, Yong Qiu, Jessica Susanto,
John Doe and Jane Doe # 1-10, Case No. 2:16-cv-00907 (E.D.N.Y.,
February 23, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each
workweek.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in New York City
located at 3018 Jericho Turnpike, East Northport, NY 11731.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


A-1 LIMOUSINE INC: Violated FLSA & Wage Law, "Kobren" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kobren, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. A-1 Limousine Inc., Michael Starr, and
Jeffrey Starr, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00516-FLW-DEA (D.
N.J., January 29, 2016), seeks all available relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.

A-1 Limousine operates as a ground transportation company in New
Jersey. It offers door-to-door services to business and leisure
destinations. The company's control and communications systems
track the locations and schedules of its vehicles, as well as
provide two-way communications between regional dispatch centers
and chauffeurs. It utilizes computerized reservation and billing
systems. The company also provides online reservation services. It
operates sedan, stretch limousine, super stretch limousine,
escalade SUV, limo-bus, shuttle bus, and luxury motor coach. The
Company was founded in 1964 and is based in Princeton, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
          Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884 2491

               - and -

          Richard E. Hayber, Esq.
          Anthony J. Pantuso III, Esq.
          THE HAYBER LAW FIRM, LLC
          221 Main Street, Suite 502
          Hartford, CT 06106

AFFYMETRIX INC: Breached Fiduciary Duties, "Merola" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Merola, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Affymetrix Inc., Jami Dover Nachsheim,
Frank Witney, Nelson C. Chan, Gary S. Guthart, Riccardo Pigliucci,
Merilee Raines, Robert H. Trice, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Inc.,
and White Birch Merger Co., the Defendants, Case No. 16CV290267
(Cal. Super Ct., County of Santa Clara, January 19, 2016), seeks
remedies for Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties arising out
of their attempt to sell the Company to Thermo Fisher Scientific
Inc. for inadequate consideration.

On January 8, 2015, Thermo Fisher and the Company announced a
definitive agreement under which Thermo Fisher, through its wholly
owned subsidiary White Birch Merger Co. will acquire all of the
outstanding shares of Affymetrix in exchange for $14 per share.

Affymetrix provides life science products and molecular diagnostic
products that enable parallel analysis of biological systems at
the gene, protein, and cell level primarily in the United States,
Europe, Latin America, and Asia. The company operates in two
segments, Affymetrix Core and eBioscience.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam McCall, Esq.
          Donald .T. Enright, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          445 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 985 7290
          Facsimile: (202) 333 2121
          E-mail: amccaJJ@zlk.com
                  denright@zlk.com


ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Moves "Luna" Class Suit to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Monica Luna, et al. v.
Albertsons Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. BC605621, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Los Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California (Western Division - Los Angeles).  The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-01107-JFW-RAO to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit alleges violations of labor laws.

Albertsons is one of the largest food and drug retailers in the
United States.  The Company operates 2,200+ across 33 states and
the District of Columbia under 18 well-known banners, including
Albertsons, Safeway, Vons, Jewel-Osco, Shaw's, ACME Markets, Tom
Thumb, Randalls, United Supermarkets, Pavilions and Star Market
and Carrs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Henry M. Willis, Esq.
          Michael D. Four, Esq.
          Steven M. Zimmerman, Esq.
          SCHWARTZ STEINSAPIR DOHRMANN AND SOMMERS LLP
          6300 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2000
          Los Angeles, CA 90048-5268
          Telephone: (323) 655-4700
          Facsimile: (323) 655-4488
          E-mail: hmw@ssdslaw.com
                  mdf@ssdslaw.com
                  smz@ssdslaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph L. Paller, Jr., Esq.
          Joshua F. Young, Esq.
          Robert A. Cantore, Esq.
          GILBERT AND SACKMAN
          3699 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90010-2732
          Telephone: (323) 938-3000
          Facsimile: (323) 937-9139
          E-mail: jlpaller@gslaw.org
                  jyoung@gslaw.org
                  rac@gslaw.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          R. Brian Dixon, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON
          650 California Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108-2693
          Telephone: (415) 433-1940
          Facsimile: (415) 399-8490
          E-mail: bdixon@littler.com


ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Removes "Luna" Suit to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Luna, et al. v. Albertsons
Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. BC605621, was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Southern Division - Santa Ana).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-00265 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.

Albertsons is one of the largest food and drug retailers in the
United States.  The Company operates 2,200+ across 33 states and
the District of Columbia under 18 well-known banners, including
Albertsons, Safeway, Vons, Jewel-Osco, Shaw's, ACME Markets, Tom
Thumb, Randalls, United Supermarkets, Pavilions and Star Market
and Carrs.


AMERIGAS PROPANE: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Jarrell" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jimmie Jarrell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Amerigas Propane, Inc., et al., Case No. RG16803843
(Cal. Super., February 16, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay the proper wage and overtime pay in
violation of the Federal Labor Standards Act, among others.

Amerigas Propane, Inc., is a Pennsylvania corporation authorized
to do business in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shaun Setareh, Esq.
     SETAREH LAW GROUP
     9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 997
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Telephone: (310) 888-7771
     Facsimile: (310) 888-0103
     E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com


ANADIGICS INC: "Zalewski" Suit Removed to New Jersey Dist. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Wes Zalewski, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Anadigics, Inc., et
al., Case No. SOM-C-16-12005, was removed from the Superior Court
of New Jersey Somerset County to the U.S. District Court, District
of New Jersey. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-
01019-FLW-LHG to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts a claim for violation of the Securities and
Exchange Act.

Anadigics, Inc. is a provider of semiconductor solutions to the
broadband wireless and wire line communications markets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Evan Jason Smith, Esq.
      BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
      1040 Kings Highway, North, Suite 601
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
      Telephone: (856) 795-7250
      E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


ARCELORMITTAL: Still Faces Class Suit by Direct Purchasers
----------------------------------------------------------
ArcelorMittal said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to
face a class action lawsuit filed by direct purchasers of steel
products.

On September 12, 2008, Standard Iron Works filed a purported class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois against ArcelorMittal, ArcelorMittal USA LLC,
and other steel manufacturers, alleging that the defendants had
conspired to restrict the output of steel products in order to
fix, raise, stabilize and maintain prices at artificially high
levels in violation of U.S. antitrust law. Other similar direct
purchaser lawsuits were also filed in the same court and were
consolidated with the Standard Iron Works lawsuit.

On May 29, 2014, ArcelorMittal and ArcelorMittal USA LLC entered
into an agreement to settle the direct purchaser claims for an
amount of 90 recognized in cost of sales. On October 17, 2014, the
court gave its final approval of the settlement and dismissed
ArcelorMittal and ArcelorMittal USA LLC from the lawsuit.

In September 2015, the court certified a class of direct
purchasers on whether there was a conspiracy, allowing the case to
proceed against the remaining defendants as a class action, but
did not certify a class on impact or damages. This ruling does not
affect the settlement.

Two putative class actions on behalf of indirect purchasers have
been filed and one has been dismissed for want of prosecution; the
remaining indirect purchasers' action is not covered by the
settlement of the direct purchaser claims or the court's class
certification decision.


ARCELORMITTAL: Brazil Unit Faces Class Suit
-------------------------------------------
ArcelorMittal said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that ArcelorMittal Brasil
continues to face a class action lawsuit commenced by the Federal
Public Prosecutor of the state of Minas Gerais related to alleged
violations investigated by CADE.

In September 2000, two construction trade organizations filed a
complaint with Brazil's Administrative Council for Economic
Defence ("CADE") against three long steel producers, including
ArcelorMittal Brasil. The complaint alleged that these producers
colluded to raise prices in the Brazilian rebar market, thereby
violating applicable antitrust laws.

In September 2005, CADE issued its final decision against
ArcelorMittal Brasil, imposing a fine of 38 (at December 31, 2015
values). ArcelorMittal Brasil appealed the decision to the
Brazilian Federal Court. In September 2006, ArcelorMittal Brasil
offered a letter guarantee and obtained an injunction to suspend
enforcement of this decision pending the court's judgment.

There is also a related class action commenced by the Federal
Public Prosecutor of the state of Minas Gerais against
ArcelorMittal Brasil for damages based on the alleged violations
investigated by CADE.

A further related lawsuit was commenced by four units of
Sinduscons, a civil construction trade organization, in federal
court in Brasilia against, inter alia, ArcelorMittal Brasil, in
February 2011, claiming damages based on an alleged cartel in the
rebar market as investigated by CADE.


BALTIMORE, MD: Ex-Housing Authority Workers Sue for Defamation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yvonne Wenger, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that two
former Housing Authority workers sue women for defamation over
sex-for-repairs allegations.

Two former Housing Authority of Baltimore City maintenance workers
who were fired for allegedly demanding that public housing tenants
perform sexual acts before they would make repairs are suing 17
women for defamation.

Charles Coleman, a maintenance supervisor hired by the agency in
2002, and Michael Robinson, a maintenance mechanic hired in 1991,
say they were fired based on false allegations the women
intentionally made for financial gain, according to court records
obtained on March 3 by The Baltimore Sun.

In the lawsuit filed in Baltimore Circuit Court in late January,
they say the women made them out "to be unprofessional and sexual
predators."

They want $6 million for compensatory damages and $30 million from
each of the defendants for punitive damages.  They claim damages
based on alleged defamation, casting the men in a false light and
causing intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Cary J. Hansel, an attorney for the women, called the suit
"absolutely outrageous" and said he plans to ask the court to
dismiss it.

Messrs. Coleman and Robinson are seeking a jury trial.  Their
attorney, Kerrie Campbell, did not immediately respond to a
request for comment.

The women filed a class-action lawsuit against the housing
authority last year alleging sexual assault and abuse.  The
authority settled for up to $8 million, and Housing Commissioner
Paul T. Graziano pledged sweeping changes to ensure that all
public housing tenants can live in "peace and dignity" without
being subjected to "the atrocious behavior of a group of people
who inflicted indignity of an indescribable nature."

Tenants who say they were sexually abused or harassed will be able
to join the initial lawsuit, but details on how to do so are
pending.  Tenants who join the suit will share in the settlement.

The women said maintenance workers at several complexes demanded
sex for repairs.  When they did not comply, the women said, they
were exposed to unsafe living conditions such as mold, lack of
heat and risk of electrocution.

Conditions of the settlement included firing the alleged abusers,
creating 50 more maintenance positions and coming up with a plan
to make repairs to complexes throughout the city, officials have
said.

Mr. Coleman, a Northeast Baltimore resident, and Robinson, who
lives in West Baltimore, say the women set out to harm them by
acting maliciously, willfully and intentionally.  Mr. Coleman also
goes by the first name Clinton.

"As a result of the false and defamatory statements made by the
defendants, the character and reputation of the plaintiffs were
harmed, their standing with their employer and in their
communities was impaired, and they suffered mental anguish and
personal humiliation," they say in their lawsuit.


BENCO DENTAL: Faces "Caspers" Suit Over Dental Supply Monopoly
--------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Caspers, D.D.S., P.S., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Patterson Companies, Inc., Henry Schein,
Inc., and Benco Dental Supply Company, Case No. 2:16-cv-00199
(W.D. Wash., February 9, 2016), arises out of the Defendants'
unlawful conspiracy to monopolize the Dental Supplies market in
the United States through group boycotting.

The Defendants are the three principal providers of dental
supplies in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
      Mark A. Griffin, Esq.
      Raymond J. Farrow, Esq.
      Amy N. L. Hanson, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101-3052
      Telephone: (206) 623-1900
      Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
      E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
              mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com
              rfarrow@kellerrohrback.com
              ahanson@kellerrohrback.com

         - and -

       David S. Preminger, Esq.
       KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
       1140 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 900
       New York, NY 10036
       Telephone: (646) 380-6690
       Facsimile: (646) 380-6692
       E-mail: dpreminger@kellerrohrback.com


BENOIT WELDING: "Raglin" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Treven Raglin, individually and on behalf of all current and
former employees v. Benoit Welding, Inc. d/b/a Xpertflo Oilfield
Services, Case No. 5:16-cv-00134 (W.D. Tex., February 8, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Benoit Welding, Inc. is an oilfield service company operating out
of Abbeville, Louisiana and servicing the entire Gulf Coast, Texas
and surrounding areas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clif Alexander, Esq.
      PHIPPS ANDERSON DEACON LLP
      819 N. Upper Broadway
      Corpus Christi, TX 78401
      Telephone: (361) 452-1279
      Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
      E-mail: calexander@phippsandersondeacon.com


BTI SERVICES: "Watkins" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Taylor Watkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BTI Services, Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-00352 (S.D. Tex.,
February 9, 2016) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

BTI Services, Inc. is a subsidiary of Superior Energy Services,
Inc. that provides various services to the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


BULLDOG WELL: Faces "Prado" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Prado and Joseph Cummings, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Bulldog Well Testing, LLC, Bull
Dorado Holdings, LLC, Barry Hamlin, Gordon Highfill, and Kirk
Miller, Case No. 7:16-cv-0005 (W.D. Tex., February 23, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are involved in the oilfield service industry,
providing well testing, frac support services, drill outs,
production testing and other services to oil and gas producers in
Oklahoma, Texas, and Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josh Borsellino, Esq.
      BORSELLINO, P.C.
      1020 Macon St., Ste. 15
      Fort Worth, TX 76102
      Telephone: (817) 908-9861
      Facsimile: (817) 394-2412
      E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com


BULLSEYE GLASS: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Emissions
-------------------------------------------------------
Tony Schick, April Baer and Cassandra Profita, writing for OPB,
report that seven plaintiffs have filed a class action lawsuit
against Bullseye Glass, a Southeast Portland manufacturer accused
of emitting unhealthy levels of toxic heavy metals into that air.

Environmental testing by the U.S. Forest Service recently revealed
the issue.  Researchers found that moss throughout Portland
pointed to "hot spots" with concentrations of toxic heavy metals
like cadmium, arsenic, nickel and lead.

The complaint, filed by Seattle law firm Keller Rohrback, said the
plaintiffs intend to seek damages to be specified later.  It cites
concentrations of cadmium and arsenic that were far above Oregon's
established safety levels.

State regulators have said Bullseye Glass was operating legally
according to its permit.

The complaint notes Bullseye successfully lobbied the
Environmental Protection Agency for exemption from rules that
would have limited some emissions.

Robert Krueger is a neighbor to Bullseye and one of the
plaintiffs.  He and his wife Alyssa bought their home 11 years
ago.  They have two children ages 6 and 3.

Mr. Kreuger said he wants to give Bullseye the benefit of the
doubt, but he doesn't want to live in a toxic environment.

"My hope with the lawsuit is I can be reassured or have my soil
replaced and grow vegetables again and not have to worry about
dust getting kicked up when my kids are playing," he said.

Mr. Kreuger said he also hopes to see better regulation of all
facilities.

A spokesman for Bullseye did not immediately respond to requests
for comment.

Since the issue came to light earlier this month, the company has
voluntarily suspended its use of arsenic and cadmium.

The suit acknowledges Oregon's Department of Environmental Quality
knew of the emissions, but Bullseye is the only defendant named.
The lawsuit seeks relief under Oregon's nuisance and trespass
laws.  Melissa Powers, associate professor at Lewis and Clark Law
School in Portland, said such cases have been on the rise in
recent years against a variety of facilities.

The basic idea, she said, is that because of loopholes in the
Clean Air Act, there is room for the injured parties to turn to
common law.

In the case of Bullseye, trespass would mean chemical compounds
entered neighbors' properties without permission.  Such cases date
back to the 1950s in Oregon, when a neighbor to the Reynolds'
aluminum plant near Troutdale said drifting fluorine emissions
sickened his cows.

Proving intent in a trespass case does not require that Bullseye
knew it was polluting specific neighbors' yards.

"If they were aware that their pollution was moving and depositing
somewhere else, that probably would be enough for intent," Powers
said.

A nuisance complaint involves interference with a person's use and
enjoyment of their property.  In this case, state officials have
cautioned residents inside heavy metals hotspots not to eat
vegetables from their gardens.  Parents like Krueger also say they
are afraid to let their children play in contaminated soil.


CAMPBELL-EWALD: Ruling Leaves Class Action Issues on Table
----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that in
January, the U.S. Supreme Court could have deemed an unaccepted
offer of complete relief to a named plaintiff in a putative class
action lawsuit moots the plaintiff's claim, very well changing the
future of class action lawsuits.

Instead, it found the opposite and, some argue, effectively left
most of the class action issues on the table.

Scott Pearson, a partner at Ballard Spahr LLP, explained that the
nation's highest court decided the case on "extremely narrow"
grounds.

"It basically didn't decide the key issues in the case," said
Pearson, whose practice focuses on complex business litigation and
regulatory enforcement matters with an emphasis on the financial
services industry.  He is particularly well known for his work in
lending disputes, real estate and consumer class actions.

On Jan. 20, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's 2014 decision in Gomez v.
Campbell-Ewald Co. was correct.  The Ninth Circuit vacated and
remanded a summary judgment ruling in favor of the defendant in a
case brought under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, or TCPA.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the majority opinion, joined by
justices Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and
Elena Kagan.  Justice Clarence Thomas authored his own concurring
opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by justices Antonin
Scalia and Samuel Alito, filed a dissenting opinion.

"We hold, in accord with Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, that an unaccepted settlement offer has no force,"
Ginsburg wrote in the 15-page ruling.  "Like other unaccepted
contract offers, it creates no lasting right or obligation. With
the offer off the table, and the defendant's continuing denial of
liability, adversity between the parties persists."

"The court correctly noted that when there's an offer and no
acceptance, there's no contract," Mr. Pearson said.  "No one
disputes that general legal principle."

But the court conveniently left a bulk of the class action issues
for another day, he argues.

"For example, it didn't reach the Genesis Healthcare questions
raised by the case," Mr. Pearson said of the justices' decision in
February.

In its 2013 ruling in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, the
court majority ruled that an unaccepted offer of full relief had
mooted the plaintiff's claim, because that issue had not been
disputed.

The majority held that the collective-action allegations were
moot, noting that "[w]hile settlement [with the named plaintiff]
may have the collateral effect of foreclosing unjoined claimants
from having their rights vindicated in respondent's suit, such
putative plaintiffs remain free to vindicate their rights in their
own suits.

"They are no less able to have their claims settled or adjudicated
following respondent's suit than if her suit had never been filed
at all."

February's majority opinion adopted Justice Kagan's dissent in
Genesis Healthcare, which concluded that "[a]n unaccepted
settlement offer -- like any unaccepted contract offer -- is a
legal nullity, with no operative effect."

The court said absent plaintiff Jose Gomez's acceptance, Campbell-
Ewald's settlement offer remained "only a proposal," binding
neither the company nor Gomez.

"In short, with no settlement offer still operative, the parties
remained adverse; both retained the same stake in the litigation
they had at the outset," Ginsburg wrote.

Gomez alleged Campbell-Ewald violated the TCPA by sending --
through a third-party vendor -- unsolicited text messages on
behalf of the U.S. Navy.

The TCPA restricts telephone solicitations, i.e. telemarketing,
and the use of automated telephone equipment.

In particular, the law limits the use of automatic dialing
systems, artificial or prerecorded voice messages, SMS text
messages and fax machines.  It also specifies several technical
requirements for fax machines, autodialers and voice messaging
systems -- principally with provisions requiring identification
and contact information of the entity using the device to be
contained in the message.

Generally, the act makes it unlawful "to initiate any telephone
call to any residential telephone line using an artificial or
prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the prior express
consent of the called party" except in emergencies or in
circumstances exempted by the Federal Communications Commission.

The law permits any "person or entity" to bring an action to
enjoin violations of the statute and/or recover actual damages or
statutory damages ranging from $500 to $1,500 per violation.

Campbell-Ewald offered Gomez full relief on his claims -- $1,503
per violation, plus reasonable costs -- but the offer was
rejected.

The Ninth Circuit, in its ruling, also held that the unaccepted
offer did not moot the named plaintiffs' individual claims or the
putative class claims.

However, the Supreme Court said in its ruling it would not decide
whether the result would be different if a defendant deposits the
full amount of the plaintiff's individual claim in an account
payable to the plaintiff, and the court then enters judgment for
the plaintiff in that amount.

"That question is appropriately reserved for a case in which it is
not hypothetical," Ginsburg wrote.

The majority also held that federal contractors -- like Campbell-
Ewald, in this case -- do not share the government's unqualified
immunity from liability and litigation for violating the TCPA by
sending text messages to unconsenting recipients.

Plaintiffs lawyers immediately applauded the Supreme Court's
ruling.

American Association for Justice CEO Linda Lipsen said the case
threatened the viability of class actions and could have resulted
in a rule that allowed defendants to "pick off" named plaintiffs
and extinguish the entire litigation.

"Class actions are necessary to help ensure fairness and
efficiency in our judicial system," she said in a statement.  "By
allowing groups of similarly-harmed individuals to join together,
the Supreme Court ensured that Americans with even the most
limited means can hold the most powerful corporations accountable
for wrongdoing.

"An alternative result in this case would have upended that
balance and, as Justice Ginsberg writes, 'would place the
defendant in the driver's seat' of the civil justice system."

Justice Roberts argued otherwise in his dissent, asserting that
the majority's decision transfers authority from the federal
courts and "hands it to the plaintiff."

"If there is no actual case or controversy, the lawsuit is moot,
and the power of the federal courts to declare the law has come to
an end," Justice Roberts wrote.  "Here, the District Court found
that Campbell agreed to fully satisfy Gomez's claims.  That makes
the case moot, and Gomez is not entitled to a ruling on the merits
of a moot case."

Jason Johnston, a law professor at the University of Virginia who
teaches courses on contracts, economic regulation and torts, among
others, found Roberts' dissent somewhat "odd."

Mr. Johnston, who is currently working on a study of consumer
class actions, said the chief justice seems to argue that the
Supreme Court's own precedents have established a constitutional
principle that the plaintiff does not need to accept a defendant's
offer of judgment to make a case moot.

"His dissent ignores the class action context in which these cases
are now arising: in that context, the plaintiff is suing, at least
in theory, to vindicate the rights of a class, and to provide
compensation to at least some class members," he said.

"An offer to pay full judgment to the named plaintiff cannot
provide any relief to the class, and for that reason, alone,
virtually all the lower courts have not allowed defendants to moot
class actions just by paying off the named plaintiff."

Mr. Johnston argues the question of mootness was a non-issue.

"Sophisticated class counsel would file a complaint and very soon
after file a motion to certify a class action," he explained.
"Once you had the motion for a class action, most federal trial
judges would say, 'well, even though I haven't decided whether
this can be certified as a class action, that is what the
plaintiff is seeking -- not an individual action -- and so the
defendant's offer to pay the full damages sought by the individual
plaintiff really is irrelevant and we still have a live issue.'"

Mr. Pearson said while the decision is a win for the class action
bar, it's a narrow and most likely short-lived victory.

The Supreme's Court decision, he argues, will open the floodgates
to a "whole new round" of Gomez litigation.

Defendants are going to tender a check to the plaintiff, pay money
into court or use Alito's suggested tactic of depositing the funds
with a "trusted intermediary," contingent on dismissal of the case
when the money is transferred.

"It's already happening," Mr. Pearson said.  "Here we are, a month
later, and there are already cases where this is being done.

"We're just going to go through the exercise again, for two or
three years, before [this issue] is eventually brought back to the
Supreme Court."

And it's hard to say how the high court will rule then, given
Justice Scalia's Feb. 13 death.

It's even difficult to predict how the court will decide the other
two class action-related cases currently before it, given Justice
Scalia's passing, Mr. Pearson said.

"If anyone on the court was going to support the industry's
position, Justice Scalia was at the top of the list," he said.


CAVALIERS OPERATING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Meier, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated v. Cavaliers Operating Company LLC, Case No. 8:16-cv-
00235 CJC-KES (C.D. Cal., February 10, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls.

Cavaliers Operating Company LLC owns and operates the Cleveland
Cavaliers professional basketball team and its home court, Quicken
Loans Arena.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Suzanne Havens-Beckman, Esq.
      PARISI AND HAVENS LLP
      212 Marine Street
      Santa Monica, CA 90405
      Telephone: (818) 990-1299
      Facsimile: (818) 501-7852
      E-mail: shavens@parisihavens.com


CBC RESTAURANT: Removes "Yu" Suit to California Central District
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Hae-Cherng Yu v. CBC Restaurant
Corp., et al., Case No. 30-02016-00829912-CU-WT-CJC, was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of Orange to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California.  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-
00274-JLS-JCG to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.

Based in Dallas, Texas, CBC Restaurant Corp. owns and operates
fast-casual restaurants offering, among other things, specialty
breads, hot breakfasts, seasonal soups, and freshly baked sweets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony B. Daye, Esq.
          THE DAYE FIRM PC
          321 5th Street
          Huntington Beach, CA 92648
          Telephone: (714) 988-9531
          Facsimile: (714) 988-9531
          E-mail: adaye@thedayefirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Luanne Sacks, Esq.
          Mike Scott, Esq.
          Hope Anne Case, Esq.
          SACKS RICKETTS AND CASE LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 650
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 549-0585
          Facsimile: (415) 549-0626
          E-mail: lsacks@sacksrickettscase.com
                  mscott@srclaw.com
                  hcase@sacksrickettscase.com


CHECKERS DRIVE-IN: Faces "Singh" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Balkar Singh, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. John Doe Inc., d/b/a Checkers Drive In Restaurant,
Checkers Drive-In Restaurant Inc., d/b/a Checkers Drive-In
Restaurant, Enrique Silva, Rajesh Kumar, and Kapal Kumar, Case No.
1:16-cv-01383 (S.D.N.Y., February 23, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own, operate and control a fast food restaurant
located at 225 1st Avenue, New York, New York 10003.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com


CHECK INTO: Faces "Harvey" Suit for Racial Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------
Christina Harvey, Dyrius Groomes, Tyrie Dedrick, Armond Person,
Deron Hollins, and Anthony Logan, on behalf of themselves and the
Class v. Check Into Cash, Inc., Check Into Cash of California,
Inc., and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. BC609540 (Cal. Super.
Ct., February 6, 2016), arises out of the Defendants' wrongful
conduct of denying the Plaintiffs and all persons of the
Plaintiffs' race and color full and equal accommodations,
advantages, facilities, privileges, and services of their business
establishments.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of offering to the
general public payday loans, online payday advances, title loans,
bills payment services, check cashing, reloadable prepaid debit
cards, and Western Union money transfers and money order services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark Mazda, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MARK MAZDA
      2040 Main Street, Suite 550
      Irvine, CA 92614
      Telephone (949) 222-9182
      Facsimile (949) 222-9199


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Bid-Rigging
----------------------------------------------------------------
News On 6 reports that a civil class action lawsuit has been filed
against Chesapeake, SandRidge and former SandRidge CEO Tom Ward.

The lawsuit was filed by a group of oil and gas royalty owners and
alleges violations of federal antitrust laws by bid-rigging and
limiting the competition for oil and gas leases in Northwest
Oklahoma.

The group is asking for three times what they believe they are
owed.

In a press release issued by Burns Charest, founder and co-
managing partner Warren Burns said:

"This case is about cleaning up the oil patch.  In a rush to reap
illegal profits, the defendants violated the trust and confidence
of these royalty owners.  Their actions demonstrate that they were
willing to betray my clients and violate the law.  We are suing to
recover damages and to promote legal competition in the oil and
gas industry."


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Leaseholders Ask Judge to Intervene in Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Candy Woodall, writing for PennLive, reports that thousands of
natural gas leaseholders in northeast Pennsylvania are asking a
federal judge to intervene with a court action filed by Attorney
General Kathleen Kane.

The leaseholders say the attorney general's case jeopardizes their
class-action settlement with Chesapeake Energy.

Ms. Kane's office in December asked a judge to reject the
settlement because it hurt the attorney general's lawsuit against
the company.

"We're concerned some language in the settlement would limit this
office in its efforts to protect other landowners and future
leaseholders," Kane spokesman Chuck Ardo said.

In an emergency motion filed on Feb. 26, the landowners asked U.S.
District Judge Malachy Mannion for court-ordered mediation with
the attorney general.  Specifically, they want the judge to order
all parties to meet with a mediator.

More than 9,000 state residents agreed to an $11 million
settlement in a lawsuit claiming the company shortchanged them on
royalty payments.

Ms. Kane in December sued Chesapeake, saying the Oklahoma-based
company pulled "a bait-and-switch" and deceived landowners as it
rushed to secure land during the Marcellus Shale boom.

Landowners in Bradford County were deceived in thousands of
transactions, she said.  They were promised certain amounts of
royalties in exchange for drilling on their land, but received
lower amounts once wells started producing gas, according to the
lawsuit.

Ms. Kane's office is seeking restitution for leaseholders, civil
penalties and legal costs.

The attorney general began investigating in 2014 at the request of
former Gov. Tom Corbett and state Sen. Gene Yaw, R-Lycoming.

Since Ms. Kane's office filed the lawsuit, Chesapeake's financial
situation has deteriorated. Its stock price dropped to the $2
range, it carried about $12 billion in debt in January, and in
February it closed its last rig in Pennsylvania.

The landowners asked for the emergency order because they're
worried the company will enter bankruptcy and they'll lose their
deal.

Chesapeake said in February it has to plans to file for
bankruptcy.

The company and landowners were supposed to appear in court Feb. 2
for final approval of the settlement, which Chesapeake agreed to
in 2014.  Once Ms. Kane filed the brief opposing the settlement,
attorneys for the plaintiffs and defendants asked to postpone the
hearing.

More than 12,000 landowners filed the class-action suit in August
2013.  Since then, some 3,000 landowners have opted out of the
class-action suit and can now individually pursue court action.

As the attorney general's case drags on, the settlement could take
years to resolve.  And if Chesapeake's financial situation gets
worse, the landowners are concerned they won't get the settlement
at all, according to court documents.

The court has not responded to the emergency request for
mediation.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Prosecutors Move to Drop McLendon Charges
------------------------------------------------------------
David Koenig and Tom Murphy, writing for The Associated Press,
report that as advanced drilling technology opened untapped
sources of oil and natural gas, it triggered fierce competition
among energy companies to scoop up rights to drill on vast swaths
of land across the country.

The rush caused lease prices to skyrocket in the most promising
fields.  In a few cases, gas companies responded by cutting secret
deals to rig the bidding and hold down their costs. Federal
officials are now investigating to see if these shady practices
are more common than believed.

The first big indictment of an executive came this week, when
former Chesapeake Energy Corp. CEO Aubrey McClendon was charged
with conspiring to rig bids for gas leases in Oklahoma from 2007
to 2012.  Prosecutors moved on March 3 to drop the charges after
Mr. McClendon died in a fiery crash one day after the indictment
was handed up by a federal grand jury in Oklahoma City.

Before Mr. McClendon's death, the Justice Department said that his
indictment was "the first case resulting from an ongoing federal
antitrust investigation into price fixing, bid rigging and other
anticompetitive conduct in the oil and natural gas industry."

No one else was charged in the indictment but two unnamed
companies and an unnamed co-conspirator were mentioned.  The
wording of the indictment made clear that Chesapeake was one of
the companies.  A Chesapeake Energy spokesman said the company
does not expect to face criminal prosecution or fines.

The Justice Department accused Mr. McClendon of orchestrating a
scheme in which the two companies would decide who would win a
particular bid.  The winner would then give the apparent loser an
interest in the lease.  Mr. McClendon denied the charges and vowed
to prove his innocence and clear his name.

Mr. McClendon protested that he was the first person accused of a
crime in relation to joint bidding on leases.  Joint bidding is
the practice of companies, often smaller ones, working together on
a bid.  It is more common in offshore leases such as the Gulf of
Mexico, and the bidders disclose that they are working together,
according to people in the industry.

A prominent Houston lawyer who advises energy companies told The
Associated Press that he had never heard of bid-rigging of the
sort described in the indictment.

An attorney who is suing the companies described the oil patch
differently.

"It's the wild, wild West out there," said Dallas attorney
Warren Burns.

Mr. Burns filed a civil antitrust lawsuit in federal court in
Oklahoma on March 3 against Chesapeake, SandRidge Energy Corp. and
former SandRidge CEO Tom Ward.  He believes SandRidge and Ward are
the other company and the co-conspirator mentioned but not
identified in the McClendon indictment.  Representatives of
SandRidge and Ward did not respond to several requests for
comment.

Landowners "can tell you that on one side of a dividing line is
Chesapeake's territory and on the other side is SandRidge's,"
Burns said.

SandRidge has disclosed in regulatory filings that it received a
subpoena from the Justice Department about an ongoing antitrust
investigation into land or mineral rights leases before 2012 --
coinciding with the time period in the McClendon indictment.
SandRidge also said it was told by the Justice Department that it
was the target of a grand jury investigation in Oklahoma.

For decades, the government did not intervene in the business of
how oil and gas companies bid for the right to drill.  That has
changed in the last few years, with some major cases.

Chesapeake Energy, the company that Mr. McClendon and Ward founded
and built into the nation's second-biggest producer of natural
gas, pleaded no contest to antitrust violations and agreed last
April to pay $25 million to settle charges that it conspired with
Encana Oil and Gas USA to rig bids in Michigan. Encana paid a $5
million fine.

Oil and gas leases fell from $1,510 to $40 an acre, and officials
said there were more than 700 victims of the scheme in Michigan.

In 2013, Gunnison Energy Corp. and SG Interests Ltd. agreed to pay
$275,000 each to settle a Justice Department lawsuit accusing them
of bid-rigging on federal land in Colorado.  Officials said the
companies agreed that only one would bid on leases but they would
split the acreage after paying as little as $2 an acre.

The Justice Department said the Colorado case marked the first
time it had challenged anticompetitive bidding for mineral-rights
leases.

Houston lawyer Philip Hilder, a former federal prosecutor, said he
expects more prosecutions. He said the energy sector has been
largely ignored by the antitrust division and that bid-rigging is
a widely accepted practice.

By winning an indictment of Mr. McClendon, prosecutors may have
made other potential targets of the investigation more willing to
cooperate, said David Weinstein, a Miami attorney and also a
former federal prosecutor.

Mr. McClendon, 56, started out as a landman, someone who calls and
knocks on the doors of mineral rights owners about letting oil and
gas companies drill under their land.  It's a bare-knuckles
business in which rivals try to beat each other to the doorsteps
of residents who may have no idea of the wealth beneath their
land.

If a landman moves into an area before competitors do, he can line
up cheap leases that become hugely profitable if his company
strikes oil or gas. Once a field becomes hot, however, landmen
from different companies swarm in, driving up lease prices.

Mr. McClendon resigned as CEO in 2013 after a revolt by activist
shareholders including Carl Icahn.  He started a new company,
American Energy Partners, less than a mile from Chesapeake's
headquarters in Oklahoma City.


CHICAGO, IL: Suit Seeks Midway Structure Administrative Review
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jose and Juana Garcia and Ofelia Gonzalez, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. City of Chicago, et al., Case
No. 2016CH02591 (Ill. Ch., Ct., February 23, 2016), seeks
administrative review of the Zoning Board of Appeal's decision
dated January 19, 2016, granting Midway Concessions, LLC's special
use application to establish a 1,100 space non-accessory parking
structure and a 500 space non-accessory parking lot at 5240 South
Cicero.

Chicago, on Lake Michigan in Illinois, is among the largest cities
in the U.S.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas S. Moore, Esq.
      Jane F. Anderson, Esq.
      ANDERSON & MOORE, P.C.
      111 West Washington Street Suite 1720
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 251-1500
      Facsimile: (312) 251-1509
      E-mail: email@andersonmoorelaw.com


COBALT INTERNATIONAL: To Seek Interlocutory Review
--------------------------------------------------
Cobalt International Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
Company intends to seek interlocutory appellate review of a court
order in a class action lawsuit.

"On November 30, 2014, two purported stockholders, St. Lucie
County Fire District Firefighters' Pension Trust Fund and Fire and
Police Retiree Health Care Fund, San Antonio, filed a class action
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of our
securities from February 21, 2012 through November 4, 2014 (the
"St. Lucie lawsuit")," the Company said.

"The St. Lucie lawsuit, filed against us and certain officers,
former and current members of the Board of Directors,
underwriters, and investment firms and funds, asserted violations
of federal securities laws based on alleged misrepresentations and
omissions in SEC filings and other public disclosures, primarily
regarding compliance with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
("FCPA") in our Angolan operations and the performance of certain
wells offshore Angola.

"On December 4, 2014, Steven Neuman, a purported stockholder,
filed a substantially similar lawsuit against us and certain of
our officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of our
securities from February 21, 2012 through August 4, 2014 (the
"Neuman lawsuit"). Like the St. Lucie lawsuit, the Neuman lawsuit
asserted violations of federal securities laws based on alleged
misrepresentations and omissions in SEC filings and other public
disclosures regarding our compliance with the FCPA in our Angolan
operations.

"On March 3, 2015, the Court entered an order consolidating the
Neuman lawsuit with the St. Lucie lawsuit. The consolidated matter
is captioned In re Cobalt International Energy, Inc. Securities
Litigation (the "Consolidated Action"). The same day, the Court
also entered an order in the Consolidated Action appointing Lead
Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel. Lead Plaintiffs filed their
consolidated amended complaint on May 1, 2015. Among other
remedies, the Consolidated Action seeks damages in an unspecified
amount, along with an award of attorney fees and other costs and
expenses to the plaintiffs.

"We filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint
on June 30, 2015, and the other defendants also filed motions to
dismiss. On January 19, 2016, the Court denied our motion to
dismiss.

"On February 3, 2016, we filed a motion requesting that the Court
certify its order on the motions to dismiss so that we may seek
interlocutory appellate review of the order; the other defendants
also filed motions requesting certification.  The matter remains
ongoing."

Cobalt is an independent exploration and production company with
operations currently focused in the deepwater U.S. Gulf of Mexico.


COLLECTO INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yitzchok Dick, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Collecto, Inc. d/b/a EOS CCA, Case No. 1:16-
cv-00873 (E.D.N.Y., February 22, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Collecto, Inc., doing business as EOS/CCA, Inc., operates as a
debt management and recovery resource company. It offers
receivables collection services for banks, colleges and
universities, student loan lenders, telecommunications companies,
and other companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CREDIT CONTROL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Dier" Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Avrohom Dier, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Credit Control Services, Inc., Case No.
1:16-cv-00466 (E.D.N.Y., January 29, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Credit Control Services, Inc. owns and operates a debt collection
services company in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DESHI FOODS: Faces "Acostagalindo" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Teodulo Acostagalindo v. Deshi Foods, Inc. and Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. BC609216 (Cal. Super. Ct., February 4, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Deshi Foods, Inc. is a grocery store in Los Angeles, California
that has a deli section that serves Bangladesh-style food.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack D. Josephson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES IF JOSEPHSON, APC
      3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1260
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 738-5225


DIRECT DIGITAL: Supreme Court Denies Petition to Review Case
------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the U.S. Supreme Court has denied a petition to review a
closely watched consumer case, raising speculation among the
defense bar that Justice Antonin Scalia's absence could make it
harder to get key class action issues decided.

Direct Digital LLC had petitioned the Supreme Court to overturn a
July 28 opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit that applied a more liberal standard than other circuit
courts in certifying a consumer fraud class action over the
glucosamine supplement Instaflex.

Direct Digital, backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other
business groups in amicus briefs, had insisted that the Seventh
Circuit's decision created a circuit split by not applying a
heightened standard to determine whether class members are
ascertainable at the time of certification.  On Feb. 29, the
Supreme Court denied its petition.

Although the Supreme Court doesn't discuss why it declines to hear
a case, Scalia's death likely played a major part in why a "prime
candidate for cert" was denied, said Burt Rublin, practice leader
of the appellate group at Ballard Spahr in Philadelphia who is
following the case.

Scalia authored some of the Supreme Court's most pivotal class
action decisions, including its 2011 ruling in Wal-Mart Stores v.
Dukes and a 2013 opinion in Comcast v. Behrend.  Wal-Mart found
that a class of female employees in a discrimination case didn't
have enough in common to be certified, while Comcast ruled that a
proposed damages model was inadequate in certifying a class of
cable television subscribers.

"The whole calculus changed once Scalia passed," Rublin said.
"Without seeing a clear path to five votes, you can speculate the
four conservative justices realized it wouldn't be advisable or
prudent to wade back in the class action thicket."

Although companies are unlikely to halt filing petitions before
the Supreme Court, "everybody's now cognizant that the odds of
getting cert granted are now more daunting than they were before,"
he said.

Justice Scalia's death also was cited by Thomas Girardi, a partner
at Girardi Keese, as a reason why the Supreme Court on Feb. 29
rejected his firm's petition challenging more than $10 million in
proceeds from a 2012 settlement involving the diabetes drug
Avandia and by The Dow Chemical Co. on Feb. 26 in announcing an
$835 million settlement of urethane class actions over which it
had a petition pending.

Direct Digital attorney Joshua Rosenkranz, head of Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe's Supreme Court and appellate litigation
practice, did not respond to a request for comment.

The issue in Direct Digital v. Mullins--how to identify who is a
class member--is of particular concern in cases involving low-
priced items for which consumers rarely keep receipts or other
purchase records.  Direct Digital claims the Seventh Circuit's
ruling split with the Third Circuit's 2013 decision in Carrera v.
Bayer, which required that plaintiffs provide a "reliable and
administratively feasible" method of identifying potential class
members.

Samuel Issacharoff, a professor at New York University School of
Law who represented the plaintiff, Vince Mullins, declined to
speculate about the influence Scalia's absence had on the Supreme
Court's decision.  But he suggested another reason for denial: As
a direct-marketing firm, Direct Digital would have had no problem
identifying potential class members.

"Modern marketing tracks people by their consumer behavior," he
said.


DOWNER EDI: Settles Shareholders' Class Action for $8.25MM
----------------------------------------------------------
Ben Butler, writing for The Australian, reports that Downer EDI
shareholders, whose holdings plummeted in value after the company
took a shock provision against its flagship Waratah train project
in 2010, are to receive compensation of 66c a share in a class
action settlement.

If the deal is approved by the Victorian Supreme Court, about
10,700 shareholders will share in $8.25 million, while the case's
funder, BSL Litigation Partners, will get $2.85m in fees and
costs.

BSL Litigation Partners' shareholders include the Hill family, who
control skatewear group Globe International, and Will Crothers of
Burra Foods.  The case, brought on behalf of shareholders by
Melbourne class-action specialist lawyer Mark Elliott, was settled
in February four days into a 10-day trial.

Downer shares lost nearly a quarter of their value on June 1,
2010, when the company took a $190m provision against the $1.9bn
Waratah contract.  It had previously insisted the project, to
build trains for the Sydney network, was on time and on budget.

However, evidence put before the court by Norman O'Bryan, SC,
counsel for the shareholders, showed that executives within Downer
warned of major delays and cost overruns a year before the company
came clean with the market.  Mr. Elliott said the deal was better
than a settlement, estimated at between $30m and $40m, obtained in
2014 by institutional shareholders represented by Slater & Gordon.

"This is twice as good for the mums and dads than the institutions
were able to get," he said.

He added that the Slater & Gordon deal was restricted to a few big
shareholders but his open class "basically scooped up everyone who
was left behind".  "These were people who were otherwise moribund
-- they missed out. They were never invited."

Mr. Elliott is also running a case against WorleyParsons in the
Victorian Supreme Court on the same open class basis as the Downer
case.  His case against WorleyParsons is running in competition
with a closed class action in the Federal Court, brought by Sydney
firm ACA Lawyers.

Mr. Elliott said that despite the Downer victory he didn't expect
defense lawyers in the big end of town to take him seriously.

"They'll underestimate me at their peril," he said.

"I'm not going anywhere and eventually if you don't take me
seriously I'll catch up with you."

Downer declined to comment.


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Khirani" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Aissa Khirani v. DraftKings, Inc.,
Case No. 1:15-cv-08193, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston).  The
Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-
10264-GAO to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Daily Fantasy Sports Litigation, MDL No. 2677.

The lawsuit involves allegations of improper or illegal conduct by
the nation's two largest operators of online daily fantasy sports
contests -- DraftKings, Inc. and FanDuel, Inc.

DraftKings, Inc. provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports
contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and
Canada.  The Boston, Massachusetts-based Company offers daily
leagues for fantasy football, baseball, basketball, hockey, golf,
college football, and college basketball.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brittany Sloane Weiner, Esq.
          IMBESI CHRISTENSEN AND MICHAEL
          450 7th Avenue
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: (212) 736-0007
          Facsimile: (646) 514-3888
          E-mail: brittany@lawicm.com

               - and -

          Jeanne Lahiff, Esq.
          WEISBERG & MYERS
          80 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          E-mail: rsvp2jeanne@gmail.com

               - and -

          Hunter Jay Shkolnik, Esq.
          NAPOLI BERN RIPKA& ASSOCIATES
          350 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10118
          Telephone: (212) 513-3700
          Facsimile: (212) 513-7320
          E-mail: hunter@napolilaw.com


DRG CONSTRUCTION: "Rosales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rossel Miguel Perdomo Rosales, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. DRG Construction, LLC d/b/a DRG House Lift,
D.R.G. Construction Corp. d/b/a DRG House Lift and Dennis Gunn,
Case No. 600856/2016 (N.Y. Super. Ct., February 9, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company located at
241 South Main Street, Freeport, NY 11520.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric S. Tilton, Esq.
      TILTON BELDNER, LLP
      626 Rxr Plaza
      Uniondale, NY 11556
      Telephone: (631) 629-5291
      E-mail: etilton@tiltonbeldner.com

         - and -

      Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Telephone: (516) 873-9550
      E-mail: dmarkowitz@leedsbrownlaw.com


EASTERN ACCOUNT: Bid to Deposit Funds Denied
--------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARIE SEVERNS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EASTERN ACCOUNT
SYSTEM OF CONNECTICUT, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 15-C-1168 (E.D.
Wis.), Judge Rudolph T. Randa denied the motion filed by Eastern
Account System of Connecticut for leave to deposit funds with the
court as contemplated by dicta in Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez.

In Campbell-Ewald, the court held that an unaccepted offer of
judgment may moot an individual claim if a dependent deposits the
full amount of the plaintiff's individual claim in an account
payable to the plaintiff, and the court enters judgment for the
plaintiff in that amount.

Judge Randa, however, held that the procedure for depositing funds
suggested in Campbell-Ewald cannot be used when a motion for class
certification is pending, as in the Severns case.

A full-text copy of Judge Randa's February 24, 2016 decision and
order is available at http://is.gd/wjYILKfrom Leagle.com.

Marie Severns, Plaintiff, represented by Denise L Morris --
dmorris@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, John D Blythin --
jblythin@ademilaw.com --  Ademi & O'Reilly LLP, Shpetim Ademi --
sademi@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP & Mark A Eldridge --
meldridge@ademilaw.com -- Ademi & O'Reilly LLP.

Eastern Account System of Connecticut Inc, Defendant, represented
by David J Hanus -- dhanus@hinsahwlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson
LLP.


EFT HOLDINGS: Court Granted "Wang" Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss
----------------------------------------------------------------
EFT Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2015, that the court has
granted Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss in part, in the "Wang et
al." class action lawsuit.

On January 30, 2015, a class action entitled Wang, et al. v. EFT
Holdings, Inc., et al. was filed on behalf of a putative class of
all purchasers of the Company's products against the Company and
certain of its current and former officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California. On April 14, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a first amended
complaint. On April 29, 2015, the court consolidated this action
with the Li, et al. v. Qin, et al. and Li, et al. v. EFT Holdings,
Inc., et al. actions.

On May 7, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification,
which the Company opposed. On May 11, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a
second amended and consolidated complaint, alleging claims for
operation of an endless chain scheme, deception and common law
fraud, unfair competition, false advertising, and RICO violations.

On August 11, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their third amended
complaint.  On September 1, 2015, the Company filed an answer to
the third amended complaint.  On September 22, 2015, the Company
filed an amended answer to the third amended complaint.  On
November 30, 2015, the Company filed, with leave of court, its
second amended answer to the third amended complaint.

On December 14, 2015, the court denied Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification. As a result of the court's denial of class
certification, on January 22, 2016, Plaintiffs moved to dismiss
their claims against the Company without prejudice and without
costs.

On February 12, 2016, the court granted Plaintiffs' motion to
dismiss in part, ordering that Plaintiffs may dismiss their claims
without prejudice upon payment of the Company's taxable costs.

The Company believes that Plaintiffs' claims are without merit
and, in the event they are not voluntarily dismissed, the Company
intends to defend against them vigorously.

EFT Holdings, Inc., formerly EFT Biotech Holdings, Inc., was
incorporated in the State of Nevada on March 19, 1992.  The
Company's business is classified by management into two reportable
segments: online and beverage. These reportable segments are two
distinct businesses, each with a different customer base,
marketing strategy and management structure. Substantially all of
the Company's revenue is generated from Mainland China.


ERIN ENERGY: Faces "Lenois" Suit Over Allied Asset Purchase
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Lenois, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Erin Energy Corporation, et al., Case No. 11963-VCMR
(Del. Ch., Ct., February 10, 2016), is brought on behalf of all
public stockholders of Erin Energy Corporation, to enjoin the
proposed transaction of purchasing certain oil assets from Allied
Energy Plc, through a flawed process and inadequate consideration.

Erin Energy Corporation is an independent oil and gas exploration
company focused on energy resources in sub-Saharan Africa.

Allied Energy Plc is engaged in the global oil and gas exploration
and production business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stuart M. Grant, Esq.
      Michael J. Barry (#4368)
      GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
      123 Justison Street
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Telephone: (302) 622-7000
      E-mail: mbarry@gelaw.com
              sgrant@gelaw.com

         - and -

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


EXPERIAN PLC: Illegally Procures Background Checks, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maribel X. Reyes, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Experian PLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00492-ADS-SIL
(E.D.N.Y., January 31, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to provide required disclosures prior to procuring
background reports on applicants and employees, and failure to
provide applicants and employees with pre-adverse action notice
and a copy of their consumer reports prior to taking adverse
action against them.

Experian plc is a global information services group with
operations in 40 countries, with corporate headquarters in Dublin,
Republic of Ireland and operational headquarters in Nottingham,
United Kingdom; Costa Mesa, California, United States; Sao Paulo,
Brazil; and Heredia, Costa Rica.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward B. Geller, Esq.
      EDWARD B. GELLER, Esq., P.C.
      15 Landing Way
      Bronx, NY 10464
      Telephone: (914) 473-6783
      E-mail: epbh@aol.com


EXXONMOBIL CORP: Environmental Group Sues Over Emissions
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Kunzelman, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
an environmental group's lawsuit claims ExxonMobil Corp. continues
to violate Clean Air Act regulations despite a 2014 settlement
over emissions from the company's Baton Rouge chemical plant.

The federal suit, filed on March 3 by the Louisiana Environmental
Action Network, alleges that pollution from the plant jeopardizes
the health of nearby residents of a predominantly black, low-
income area.

A 2014 settlement agreement with the state called for ExxonMobil
to pay more than $2.3 million to resolve alleged permit violations
over chemical releases and spills at four of its Louisiana
facilities.  The company agreed to pay a $300,000 civil penalty,
fund more than $1 million in "beneficial environmental projects,"
and spend at least $1 million on projects designed to prevent and
control spills at its Baton Rouge facility.

The Baton Rouge-based environmental group's lawsuit claims the
company has repeatedly violated permitted pollution limits and
failed to properly notify the state Department of Environmental
Quality about alleged infractions.

The plant's neighbors deserve to be "fully informed of the risks
they face," the suit says.

"Exxon's failure to properly report unauthorized discharges
exacerbates these concerns because Plaintiffs do not know how much
harmful pollution they are exposed to as a result of Exxon's
emission," the suit adds.

ExxonMobil spokesman Todd Spitler said in a statement that the
company's 2014 settlement agreement was "forceful and transparent"
and was believed to be the first of its kind in Louisiana.

"Through the settlement and stipulated penalty structure,
ExxonMobil worked with (the Department of Environmental Quality)
to identify ways we can go beyond regulatory and permit
requirements to continue to enhance our environmental performance
going forward," he said.

The lawsuit asks the court to impose civil penalties, payable to
the federal government, and set aside $100,000 in penalty proceeds
for "beneficial mitigation projects within the community."

A statement issued by the Department of Environmental Quality in
2014 said the settlement agreement also addressed a string of
alleged violations since 2008 at an ExxonMobil refinery, a resin
finishing plant and a tank farm facility in West Baton Rouge
Parish.


FANDUEL INC: Faces "Fischler" Suit Over Fantasy Sports Site
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Fischler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Fanduel, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00989-DAB (S.D.N.Y.,
February 9, 2016), seeks redress for the deceptive and collusive
practices committed by the Defendant in connection with their on-
line fantasy gambling enterprise, and to obtain full remuneration
for every dollar lost by players.

Fanduel, Inc. operates a fantasy sports website that permits
individuals to play one-day fantasy sports contests.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin Barrett, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
      209 Capitol Street
      Charleston WV 25301
      Telephone: (304) 345-6555
      Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
      E-mail: kbarrett@baileyglasser.com

         - and -

      John Roddy, Esq.
      Elizabeth Ryan, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
      99 High Street, Suite 304
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 439-6730
      Facsimile: (617) 951-3954
      E-mail: jroddy@baileyglasser.com
              eryan@baileyglasser.com


FANDUEL INC: Faces "Cosper" Suit Over Fantasy Sports Site
---------------------------------------------------------
Jon Cosper, individually and on behalf of All Others similarly
situated v. FanDuel, Inc. and DraftKings Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-
10376-GAO (D. Mass., February 22, 2016), seeks redress for the
deceptive and collusive practices committed by the Defendants in
connection with their on-line fantasy gambling enterprise, and to
obtain full remuneration for every dollar lost by players.

The Defendants operate a fantasy sports website that permits
individuals to play one-day fantasy sports contests.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R. Dugan II, Esq.
      David B. Franco, Esq.
      Lanson Leon Bordelon, Esq.
      THE DUGAN LAW FIRM
      365 Canal Street, Suite 1000
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Telephone: (504) 648-0180
      Facsimile: (504) 648-0181
      E-mail: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com
              dfranco@dugan-lawfirm.com
              lbordelon@dugan-lawfirm.com


FANDUEL INC: Faces "Holloway" Suit Over Fantasy Sports Site
-----------------------------------------------------------
Charles R. Holloway, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FanDuel, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-10370 (D.
Mass., February 22, 2016), seeks redress for the deceptive and
collusive practices committed by the Defendant in connection with
their on-line fantasy gambling enterprise, and to obtain full
remuneration for every dollar lost by players.

FanDuel, Inc. operates a fantasy sports website that permits
individuals to play one-day fantasy sports contests.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Johnna K. Ingalls, Esq.
      Samuel J. Cherry , Jr.
      CHERRY & IRWIN, PC
      163 West Main Street
      Dothan, AL 36301
      Telephone: (334) 793-1000
      E-mail: johnna@cherryirwin.com
              sam@cherryirwin.com


FIRSTMERIT: Awaits Decision on Bid for Stay Pending Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
FirstMerit said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that a motion asking the trial court to
stay class action lawsuits pending arbitration of claims has been
fully briefed and is awaiting a decision by the court.

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 is a $25.5 billion bank holding company organized in
1981 under the laws of the State of Ohio and registered under the
Bank Holding Company Act of 1965 (The "BHCA").


FIRSTMERIT: Defendants Seek Dismissal of CRBC 401(k) Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
FirstMerit said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that defendants have filed a motion to
dismiss the CRBC 401(k) Litigation.

Participants in the Citizens Republic Bancorp 401(k) Plan filed a
lawsuit in the United States Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan in 2011, alleging that Citizens and certain of its
officers and directors violated the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act by offering Citizens common stock as an investment
alternative in the Plan during periods when it was imprudent to do
so and by failing to adequately monitor fiduciaries responsible
for administering the Plan. The lawsuit, captioned Kidd v.
Citizens Republic Bancorp, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:11-cv-11709,
asserts claims for monetary and injunctive relief on behalf of a
purported class of participants and beneficiaries in the Plan who
held Citizens stock in their Plan accounts during the period from
April 17, 2008 to "the present." The plaintiffs filed a third
amended complaint in November 2015, and the defendants have filed
a motion that the complaint be dismissed.

FirstMerit is a $25.5 billion bank holding company organized in
1981 under the laws of the State of Ohio and registered under the
Bank Holding Company Act of 1965 (The "BHCA").


FIRSTMERIT: Faces Suits Over Huntington Merger
----------------------------------------------
FirstMerit said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that on February 11, 2016 and February
17, 2016, two putative derivative and class action lawsuits were
filed by separate shareholders of FirstMerit Corporation in the
Summit County Common Pleas Court, Ohio, entitled W. Patrick Murray
vs. Huntington Bancshares Incorporated, Case No. CV-2016-02-0917
and The Robinson Family Trust vs. Paul Greig, Case No. CV-2016-02-
0981 (the "Lawsuits"), relating to the proposed merger between
Huntington Bancshares, Inc. and FirstMerit.  The Murray complaint
alleges that the individual board of directors of FirstMerit
breached their fiduciary duties by approving a proposed merger
that allegedly undervalues FirstMerit and purportedly provides the
directors with benefits not afforded FirstMerit shareholders.  It
is also alleged that the Board, FirstMerit and Huntington aided
and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  The
Robinson complaint makes similar allegations, and also alleges
that the board approved deal protection devices to allegedly
ensure that the acquisition would be consummated.  The Complaints
seek  declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the
consummation of the merger, monetary damages, an award of fees and
costs and other equitable relief.

FirstMerit is a $25.5 billion bank holding company organized in
1981 under the laws of the State of Ohio and registered under the
Bank Holding Company Act of 1965 (The "BHCA").


FLINT, MI: Faces Another Suit Over Water Crisis
-----------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a mother who testified on
Capitol Hill about Flint's lead-contaminated water crisis has
filed a lawsuit against government officials and corporate
entities.

The Flint Journal reports LeAnne Walters' suit was filed on
March 3 in Genesee County Circuit Court.  Those named include
firms hired to evaluate the city's water services as well Flint's
former public utilities director, a former Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality spokesman and the state's chief medical
executive.

She says the individuals and companies were negligent and
responsible for the high lead levels to which her four children
have been exposed.

State representatives declined to comment.  Lockwood, Andrews &
Newnam, one of the firms sued, says its services were limited and
not related to overall water quality.

Attorneys representing Walters have filed similar complaints on
behalf of other Flint parents.

The federal government is extending Medicaid health insurance to
Flint residents up to age 21 and to pregnant women who were
exposed to lead in the city's water supply.

Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell says 15,000
people will qualify and 30,000 current Medicaid recipients will be
eligible for more services.  They'll qualify for lead monitoring
of their blood as well as behavioral health services.

Flint used the Flint River for drinking water for 18 months, but
the corrosive water allowed lead to leach from old plumbing.  The
city switched water sources last fall.

Gov. Rick Snyder's office says Medicaid coverage will be available
to people of all incomes, but some people at certain levels may
need to pay to get full benefits.

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder is seeking additional federal funding to
help protect public health and safety in Flint amid the city's
crisis with lead-tainted water.

Gov. Snyder says he submitted an appeal on March 3 to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency for assistance that was denied under
an original emergency request.  In a statement, Snyder notes water
quality is improving but that there's "a long road ahead for
Flint's recovery."

FEMA earlier approved an emergency declaration but denied an
appeal by Snyder for additional aid for Flint through a disaster
declaration.

The latest appeal requests funding from the Category B program for
emergency protective measures, which would cover costs of food,
water and other essential needs; and the Individuals and
Households Program, which could help homeowners repair water
systems.

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder has hired two outside lawyers to assist
with civil representation and to search and process emails and
other records connected to Flint's lead-tainted water crisis.

Gov. Snyder spokesman Ari Adler confirmed in an email on March 3
that Eugene Driker and Brian Lennon have each been awarded a
contract worth $249,000 through Dec. 31.

The contracts were first reported on March 2 by Crain's Detroit
Business.

The office of Michigan's attorney general is representing the
Republican governor and others in lawsuits filed over the water
situation.

If consumed, lead can cause developmental delays and learning
disabilities.

Separately, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
announced on March 2 that $3.6 million in emergency funds will be
used to expand Head Start and Early Head Start services for Flint
children.


FLOWERS FOODS: Business Model Seen as Major Obstacle After Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seeking Alpha reports that Flowers Foods is the second-largest
producer of fresh packaged breads under the brand names of
Nature's Own, Wonderbread, and Tastycake.  Shares are down nearly
30% in the last three months due to a host of execution issues and
lawsuits.  The bakery business is a low-margin, highly-competitive
business that depends significantly on distribution to leverage
their performance.  The lawsuits continue to compound as their
distribution model of classifying their workers as independent
contractors has been granted class-action status.

Seeking Alpha said "While we think the firm's 2016 guidance is
achievable given the low-bar they set, we believe the premium
valuation that the shares receive will be eliminated.  We simply
see no reason for such a low barrier-to-entry business to be
trading at a premium to their long-term growth rate.  In addition,
we believe that growth rate is likely in jeopardy, given the
probability that they are forced to change their business model
which impacts EBITDA margins considerably."

Business Model

"There has been a significant amount of consolidation in the
industry over the last few years eliminating a bunch of the
competition.  Pricing has become more rational although we think
that competition is likely to heat back up.  Hostess Brands was
liquidated in 2012 and Flowers was able to purchase the bread
assets two years ago.  Many of the weaker competitive players have
exited and margin expansion has been well-known by investors as
production scale is optimized to the new environment.

The business has also benefited from lower raw material prices
including their main ingredient, wheat.  This aided the margin
expansion thesis.  When Hostess stumbled and then eventually
exited the market, the company was able gobble up market share
driving EPS growth of 44% CAGR during the past five years.  We
think this main driver of their growth is now over as the
established players have moved in and occupied the vacuum.  Also,
we believe the notion that the pricing environment has become much
more rationale could evaporate should wheat pricing rebound,
kicking off promotional activity in order to sustain current
volumes and share.

"In addition, as they've been able to reintroduce the Hostess
brands, a well-known cakes and bakery goods label, they've
realized a natural volume lift.  The bulls would cite the volume
opportunity as they distribute the Hostess brand and recapture the
lost market share that the brand lost over the last several years.
But, we think the bakery segment is facing a secular headwind due
to a shift towards healthy foods and internally baked goods at
supermarkets.  In addition, TreeHouse Foods has made a big push
nationally taking up some of the slack in demand from the decline
of Hostess. We think re-taking this lost market share will be much
harder than the market currently believes.

Rehberg v. Flowers Foods

"Most importantly, Flowers has been able to achieve the growth
they have and receive the premium valuation, simply due to the
company's drivers.  These are the blue collar workers who drive
the trucks and deliver the baked goods to the retail stores.  The
company classifies these workers as independent contractors rather
than regular full-time employees.  This distribution model allows
the firm to sustain a much lower cost profile than their
competition, which we think could be worth as much as 500 bps of
margin -- a massive amount in a low-margin business.

"By classifying the workers as independent contractors, the
company has been able to avoid paying wages including overtime,
pensions and other benefits such as health care, to their workers.
In doing so, they may have violated the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act and state wage and hour laws.  In the Spring of last
year, the US District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina granted the pending lawsuits brought by 200 workers
'class-action' status, which rids the potential for hundreds of
individual litigation cases.  This was a major blow to Flowers as
many more plaintiffs pile on, increasing the eventual penalty.  We
believe this is likely to lead to a change in their business model
over time, eliminating that margin advantage and with it, the
premium valuation.

"Most think the drivers have the advantage in the litigation as
this past July, the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division of
the Department of Labor seemed to side with the workers stating
that most workers are employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act
and that a worker is an employee of the company based on the
economic realities test and not simply by a job title or some
third-party agreement between parties.

"In early December, three additional misclassification suits were
filed against the company, all by the same law firm that filed the
original class action suit.  In all likelihood, the plaintiff's
attorney likes their chances in the case and is piling on
additional plaintiffs and resources in order to make the judgment
more expensive for the company, and ultimately their payout.
There are now nineteen class-action suits, up from just three a
year ago and eleven three months ago.  Plaintiffs also scored a
win in December on a summary judgment on the issue of denying
Flowers the right to exclude former employees (independent
contractors) the right to sue because they signed their exit
agreement which stated they couldn't bring suit.  This potentially
adds a significant amount of new plaintiffs to the case and was a
major defeat for the company.

"The growth in the number of suits and the number of workers that
have been added to the class-action case, poses a significant
threat to Flowers.  We think it could pose an existential threat
to the business as well although that, as of now, is a lower
probability.  But with the company compounding higher legal costs
by the day, and management focused on the lawsuit, we think the
core business is likely to suffer.  We also believe that the
market is not considering the existential risk to the business nor
the likely extended legal costs that the business is expected to
face.

What Will The Business Look Like Without Their Distribution Model?

"On top of the legal issues that the company faced in the fourth
quarter, they reported a significant quarterly revenue miss as
guidance was too aggressive.  Some of the miss, approximately 20%
of the midpoint of management's guidance and the company's fourth-
quarter sales figure was a result of anticipated Alpine sales
being delayed into the current quarter.  The remaining 80% was
simply due to a much weaker than expected foodservice environment
and overly exuberant guidance by management.

"Given the likely legal losses they face, we think the business
model is going to have to change or further challenges and legal
costs will pile up and substantially impact the business.  Near-
term pricing trends in the fresh bakery business and the company's
inability to be proactive in reacting to competitive moves are
also headwinds to the core business.  More importantly, much of
the bull case rests on the margin expansion story driven by
further acquisitions and pricing. With 50% of the market already,
additional acquisitions are unlikely to be very large.

"The sell side is factoring in EBITDA margin expansion of over 100
bps over the next two years.  The company already boasts a
significant margin advantage over Grupo Bimbo by over 200 bps.  We
attribute this advantage due to their distribution model, which we
believe is more likely than not going away. As such, we think
additional margin expansion over their already industry-leading
margins are not very likely.

"Consensus has a mid-single digit revenue growth rate, which, with
acquisitions could be possible.  Organic growth has been stagnant
at flat-to-low single digits but the company has been able
historically to augment that growth with M&A activity. Through
these accretive acquisitions, they have been able to consolidate
their industry and rationalize the pricing environment, driving a
10% bottom-line growth rate.  However, our bear thesis rests on
them not only seeing slower overall organic growth but not being
able to engage in the same amount of M&A activity as they have
historically.

"That thesis is based on the notion that the industry is now
fairly consolidated with the top two players controlling more than
half of the market.  Second, the balance sheet is now levered over
2.0x and we think the business is going to need to hoard cash and
revolver space for their legal costs and eventual settlements.

Valuation

"We think the shares represent a value trap and are only a value
if the company wins the lawsuit.  While we are not lawyers nor
legal experts, to us this appears to be a loser for them. The
legal costs associated with this are likely to be manageable but
the judgment (or settlement) could be significant.  Our base case
is not considering a bankruptcy protection (existential threat)
move by the company but it does assume that they are forced to
change their business model incurring significantly higher labor
costs.

"Given the size advantage of Grupo Bimbo at nearly 54x the size of
Flowers Foods, they should have a competitive edge when it comes
to scale.  But the distribution model that Flowers has used has
altered that framework.  If we model in the elimination of 200 bps
of margins due to a forced shift in the business model resulting
in much higher labor costs, than we see 2017 EBITDA margins of
9.6% on our expected sales of $4.1 billion, resulting in EBITDA of
$394 million.

"This doesn't even factor in any transition costs associated with
the model nor any additional legal expenses.  The current multiple
is 10.7x ttm EV/EBITDA, which we think fails to incorporate the
potential existential risks and large judgments facing the firm.
This is especially true when you consider that the long-term
growth rate expectations for earnings, ex- the lawsuits, is
approximately 9.7%, or less than the EV/EBITDA multiple.  Our
general rule of thumb is that the multiple should be less than or
equal to (in the case of very defensive businesses with strong
brands) than the growth rate.

"While the business is one of the two large players in the space,
the industry is a slow grower and the barriers to entry fairly
weak, especially on a localized basis.  Thus, the defensiveness of
the business shouldn't warrant such a valuation multiple, in our
opinion.  We used an 8.5x multiple in our analysis which with the
current net debt assumptions and our $394 million in EBITDA
forecast equates to a sub-$12 valuation, for downside of one-
third.  Again, we think EBITDA could underperform that number
should a large judgment be ruled against them -- although this is
likely at least 18 months out given how slow the Justice
Department runs.

Conclusion

"We think the business model for Flowers Foods, which had been an
advantage for the company for the last decade capitalizing on a
lower-cost profile, is likely to become a major obstacle in the
not-too-distant future.  We believe a change of that business
model is imminent, either through enforcement by the courts or
through a settlement which makes them true independent
contractors.  Such a change would be expensive and cut into
margins while disrupting their execution. Otherwise, we think they
become real full-time employees which would even be more expensive
and cut EBITDA margins by at least 200 bps (but likely more).
There is also a small risk that the business becomes permanently
impaired and is forced to sell assets, further reducing the
intrinsic value calculation.  But we would caution investors to
avoid this value trap."


FREEDOM NATIONAL: Sued Over Electronic Fund Transfer Act Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Jordan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Freedom National Insurance Services Incorporated, Case
No. 2:16-cv-00362-DLR (D. Ariz., February 9, 2016), is brought
against the Defendant for violation of the Electronic Fund
Transfer Act.

Freedom National Insurance Services Incorporated operates an
insurance company headquartered in Newport Beach, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Russell Snow Thompson IV, Esq.
      THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP PLLC
      5235 E Southern Ave., Ste. D106-618
      Mesa, AZ 85206
      Telephone: (602) 388-8898
      Facsimile: (866) 565-1327
      E-mail: tclg@consumerlawinfo.com


FRESH & EASY: Judge Denies Former Employees' Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------
Tom Corrigan, writing for Dow Jones, reports that Fresh & Easy LLC
cleared a number of major hurdles on March 3 when a bankruptcy
judge agreed to shield the former supermarket operator from
several potentially onerous and expensive lawsuits.

Following a hearing on March 3, Judge Brendan Shannon of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Del., denied two class-action
requests from former employees who sued the company, saying the
litigation "would disrupt the progress of the case."


GALENA BIOPHARMA: June 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON

IN RE GALENA BIOPHARMA, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION,

Case No.:3:14-cv-00367-SI

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED PARTIAL SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION,
MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES,
AND FINAL APPROVAL HEARING

TO:    ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED GALENA BIOPHARMA,
INC., ("GALENA") COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM AUGUST 6,
2013 THROUGH MAY 14, 2014, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS
PERIOD").

EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS ARE DEFENDANTS, THE OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS
OF GALENA, AND THEIR FAMILIES AND AFFILIATES.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the District of Oregon, that a hearing will be held on
June 23, 2016, at 3:30 p.m., before the Honorable Michael H.
Simon, United States District Judge, at the courthouse for the
United States District Court, District of Oregon, Portland
Division, 1000 Southwest Third Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204, for
the purpose of determining, among other things,: (1) whether the
proposed Settlement of the Class's claims against the Settling
Defendants for $19 million in cash and $1 million in Galena common
stock should be approved as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2)
whether the Plan of Allocation is fair and reasonable, and should
be approved; (3) whether the application by Co-Lead Counsel for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses in the amount of 25% of the
settlement amount ($4.75 million in cash and $250,00 in Galena
common stock) should be approved; (4) whether the Lead Plaintiff's
application for reimbursement of costs and expenses in an amount
not to exceed $475,000 should be granted; (5) whether the Lead
Plaintiffs' application for an incentive award in the amount of
$5,000 for each one of the four Lead Plaintiffs should be granted
and (6) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice
against the Settling Defendants as set forth in the Settlement
Stipulation filed with the Court.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Galena common stock between
August 6, 2013 and May 14, 2014, both dates inclusive, your rights
may be affected by this Action and the Settlement thereof.  If you
have not received the detailed Notice Of Proposed Partial
Settlement Of Class Action, Motion For Attorneys' Fees And
Expenses, And Final Approval Hearing (the "Notice") and Proof of
Claim and Release Form, you may obtain them free of charge by
contacting the Claims Administrator, by mail at: In re Galena
Biopharma Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o KCC Class Action
Services, PO Box 40007, College Station, TX 77842-4007; by
telephone at (844) 830-5235; or by visiting the website at:
www.galenasecuritieslitigation.com

If you are a member of the Class and wish to share in the
Settlement money, you must submit a Proof of Claim no later than
April 16, 2016 establishing that you are entitled to recovery.  As
further described in the Notice, you will be bound by any judgment
entered in the Action, regardless of whether you submit a Proof of
Claim, unless you exclude yourself from the Class, in accordance
with the procedures set forth in the Notice, by no later than June
2, 2016.

You have the right to object to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation
or the request for attorneys' fees and expenses and incentive
awards to Lead Plaintiffs.  Any objections to the Settlement, Plan
of Allocation, or requests for attorney's fees and expenses or
incentive awards to Lead Plaintiffs must be filed with, or mailed
to, the Court, in accordance with the procedures set forth in the
Notice, no later than June 9, 2016.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Co-
Lead Counsel for the Class: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq., The Rosen Law
Firm, P.A., 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, New York, NY 10016,
lrosen@rosenlegal.com; or Leigh Handelman Smollar, Esq. Pomerantz
LLP, 10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505, Chicago, IL 60603,
lsmollar@pomlaw.com

INQUIRIES SHOULD NOT BE DIRECTED TO THE COURT, THE
CLERK'S OFFICE, THE DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL

DATED:   February 16, 2016
BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR DISTRICT OF OREGON


GJG CAPITAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Dugger" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Blake Dugger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GJG Capital, Inc., d/b/a Student Aiding Relief, Case
No. 8:16-cv-00234-AG-DFM (C.D. Cal., February 10, 2016), seeks to
stop the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls.

GJG Capital, Inc. operates a financial advisory firm with
headquarters in Saint Louis, Missouri.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
      Meghan Elisabeth George, Esq.
      Todd M Friedman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN PC
      324 South Beverly Drive Suite 725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com
              mgeorge@toddflaw.com
              tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


HANNIBAL, MO: BPW Faces Class Action Over Water Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Danny Henley, writing for Hannibal Courier-Post, reports that a
class-action lawsuit filed on Feb. 29 alleges the Hannibal Board
of Public Works (BPW) knowingly provided non-potable water to
ratepayers in Hannibal for years, exposing them to "probable human
carcinogens" and causing financial loss. Beyond the BPW, the
lawsuit claims the Missouri Department of Natural Resources
(MoDNR) failed to protect Hannibal residents from harmful water
and collected fees off of ratepayers through the BPW in its
advisory role over water safety.

The six-count complaint, filed by four Hannibal residents on
behalf of two classes of people, seeks a jury trial to award
compensatory damages to the plaintiffs.  The City of Hannibal is
also named as a defendant in the lawsuit.

Plaintiffs Oliver "O.C." Latta, Vickie Brooks, Crystal Stephens
and Christine Stolte have been vocal opponents to the addition of
chloramines, beginning in October 2015, as a disinfection method
in Hannibal's water system.  The lawsuit does not address
chloramines, but rather the chronic violations that occurred in
the years prior to chloramination.

"I think, the simple answer, is that the plaintiffs just want
clean, safe drinking water that's in compliance with the federal
guidelines," Chris Nidel, one of the attorneys on the case, said.

Dating back to September 2011, the water provided by the BPW
exceeded the federally-mandated threshold for total
trihalomethanes (TTHMs), a specific disinfection byproduct
including chloroform and bromoform.  According to court documents,
the maximum contaminant level for TTHMs is 80 parts per billion.

According to the lawsuit document, BPW water contained contaminant
levels as high as 126 parts per billion in 2012 and 157 parts per
billion in 2014.  The most recent violation occurred in September
2015, a month before the new disinfection methods went live.

The lawsuit does not have any actual health claims.  Mr. Nidel
said water consumers would need medical monitoring.

"Even if you're meeting the MCL (maximum contaminant level), it
doesn't guarantee safety.  An MCL is an established government
limit that based in part of safety and technological feasibility,"
Mr. Nidel said.  "We're talking about violations well above an
acceptable level that isn't totally safe."

The utility provider regularly issued statements to customers
explaining the violations as well as how it planned to remedy the
issue.  By providing water in violation of federal regulations,
the BPW breached its contract with ratepayers, the lawsuit
alleges.  An implication exists, attorneys argue, that the BPW
"promised fitness of the water for use."

According to the complaint, "Plaintiffs were forced to pay for a
polluted, toxic and carcinogenic water supply that bore no
resemblance to the healthy and potable water source that they had
contracted to receive."

The suit places blame on MoDNR for permitting the continued use of
water in violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act and "did not
take the necessary and sufficient steps under its authority and
mandate to protect Class Members" despite collecting a primacy fee
imposed on community water users to enforce safe drinking
standards.


HORRY COUNTY: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Court OK
---------------------------------------------------------
Myrtle Beach Online reports that Horry County State Bank has
reached a stock purchase agreement with Castle Creek Capital
Partners and other investors to raise $45 million through the sale
of common and preferred stock.

Some of that money will be used to repurchase outstanding stock
that was issued to the U.S. Treasury under the Troubled Asset
Relief Program at a 99 percent discount, and trust preferred
securities at a 90 percent discount.

The troubled Loris-based bank also announced that president and
CEO Jimmy Clarkson is stepping down and will be replaced by
Jan Hollar, who has been a consultant with the bank since August
2014. A class-action lawsuit was brought by holders of
subordinated debt notes in 2012.

The bank received final court approval on March 2 to settle the
lawsuit, and will pay each class member 20 percent of the
subordinated debt note.

The bank said it will conduct a $3 million public offering to
allow existing shareholders and others to purchase the common
stock at the same price as investors, at 10 cents a share.

"Our legacy shareholders and subordinated debt holders have stood
by our side during the prolonged economic downturn," said
Mike Addy, the chairman of the bank's board.  "It was important
for us to provide these shareholders the opportunity to purchase
additional shares at the same price as the investments made by
Castle Creek and the other institutional investors."


IAG: NZ Earthquake Claimants Vow to Launch Legal Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Emily Murphy, writing for Newstalk ZB, reports that after five
long years, a group of fed-up Canterbury claimants are vowing to
take IAG to court.

From March 4, earthquake claimants in dispute with IAG have the
option of joining a group action against the insurer.

Earthquake claimants still in dispute with IAG are being invited
to sign on to a bulk packaged legal deal, which will allow
individual claimants to file their own claims at a discounted
price.

While all the claims will be from different people, they will all
focus on one key issue.

Class action group spokesperson Philippa Coory said IAG has a
history of assessing earthquake damage against slackened MBIE
guidelines, rather than giving claimants what they're entitled to
under their policy.

She said she's ready for pay-back.

"It will be like a freight train coming.  That's what we are
expecting is the amount of people that are just so fed up with
what is going on and they all want resolution and what they are
entitled to in their policy".

"When multiple people are saying this is not acceptable, one after
the other, after the other, after the other, it means it will get
the attention that it needs."


IBIO INC: April 21 Final Settlement Hearing
-------------------------------------------
iBio, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2015, that a court has scheduled a final
settlement hearing for April 21, 2016, in the class action lawsuit
filed by Juan Pena.

On October 24, 2014, a putative class action captioned Juan Pena,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
iBio, Inc. and Robert B. Kay was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware. The action alleged
that the Company and its Chief Executive Officer made certain
statements in violation of federal securities laws and sought an
unspecified amount of damages.

On February 23, 2015, the Court issued an order appointing a new
lead plaintiff. On April 6, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended
class action complaint in the same matter captioned Vamsi
Andavarapu, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Situated v.
iBio, Inc., Robert B. Kay, and Robert Erwin. The action alleged
that the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, and its President
made certain statements in violation of federal securities laws
and sought an unspecified amount of damages.

On May 6, 2015, the Company, Mr. Kay, and Mr. Erwin filed a motion
to dismiss the amended class action complaint. On September 15,
2015, after voluntary mediation, the Plaintiffs and the Company
reached an agreement-in-principle to settle the action.

On December 16, 2015, the Plaintiffs and the Company entered a
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement that provides, among other
things, for settlement payments totaling $1,875,000 in exchange
for the releases described therein.  That stipulation was filed
with the Court on December 18, 2015 and, on December 22, 2015, the
Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and
scheduling a final settlement hearing for April 21, 2016.

The terms of the settlement are subject to final approval by the
Court.  The Company expects that the settlement will be funded by
the Company's insurance carrier.

iBio, Inc. and Subsidiaries is a biotechnology company focused on
the commercialization of its proprietary plant-based protein
expression technologies -- the iBioLaunch(TM) platform for
vaccines and therapeutic proteins and the iBioModulator(TM)
platform for vaccine enhancement -- and on developing and
commercializing select biopharmaceutical product candidates.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Discovery Ongoing in Solodyn(R) Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that discovery is ongoing
in the consolidated antitrust class actions related to Solodyn(R),
and no trial date has been scheduled.

From July 2013 to January 2016, 18 complaints were filed as class
actions on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, as well as by
certain direct purchasers, against manufacturers of the brand drug
Solodyn(R) and its generic equivalents, including the Company.

On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff United Food and Commercial Workers
Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On July 23, 2013, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a
direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated. On August 29, 2013, this
Plaintiff withdrew its complaint from the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, and on August 30,
2013, re-filed the same complaint in the United States Court for
the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On August 9, 2013, Plaintiff Local 274 Health & Welfare Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 12, 2013, Plaintiff Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 25
Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On August 27, 2013, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Fort
Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On August 29, 2013, Plaintiff Heather Morgan, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 30, 2013, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178
Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly
situated.

On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a direct
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated.

On September 24, 2013, Plaintiff City of Providence, Rhode Island,
an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 2, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health & Welfare Trust
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 7, 2013, Painters District Council No. 30 Health and
Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 25, 2013, Plaintiff Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund,
an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 13, 2014, Plaintiff Allied Services Division Welfare
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On February 25, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred
to the District of Massachusetts for coordinated pretrial
proceedings, as In Re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride)
Antitrust Litigation.

On March 26, 2015, Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB
Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, direct purchasers, filed a
separate complaint in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania. On April 8, 2015, the Judicial
Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the action be
transferred to the District of Massachusetts, to be coordinated or
consolidated with the coordinated proceedings. The original
complaint filed by the plaintiffs asserted claims only against
defendant Medicis. On October 5, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint asserting claims against the Company and the
other generic defendants.

On April 16, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp,
direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On May 1,
2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the
action be transferred to the District of Massachusetts, to be
coordinated or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings.

The original complaint filed by the plaintiffs asserted claims
only against defendant Medicis. On October 5, 2015, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint asserting claims against the Company
and the other generic defendants.

On January 25, 2016, CVS Pharmacy, Inc. filed a separate complaint
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania.  The complaint asserts claims against the Company,
Medicis, and the other generic defendants.

The consolidated amended complaints allege that Medicis engaged in
anticompetitive schemes by, among other things, filing frivolous
patent litigation lawsuits, submitting frivolous Citizen
Petitions, and entering into anticompetitive settlement agreements
with several generic manufacturers, including the Company, to
delay generic competition of Solodyn(R) and in violation of state
and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including
disgorgement and restitution.

On August 14, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints.
Discovery is ongoing. No trial date has been scheduled.

Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Ill. Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Opana Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that an Illinois court,
overseeing lawsuits over the sales of Opana ER(R), has:

     -- denied defendants' motion to dismiss the direct
        purchasers' consolidated amended complaint.

     -- granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion
        to dismiss the indirect purchasers' consolidated amended
        complaint.

From June 2014 to April 2015, 14 complaints were filed as class
actions on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, as well as by
certain direct purchasers, against the manufacturer of the brand
drug Opana ER(R) and the Company.

On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge
20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a
direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On June 6, 2014, Plaintiff Value Drug Company, a direct purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated. On June 26, 2014, this Plaintiff
withdrew its complaint from the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, and on July 16, 2014, re-
filed the same complaint in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On June 19, 2014, Plaintiff Wisconsin Masons' Health Care Fund, an
indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On July 17, 2014, Plaintiff Massachusetts Bricklayers, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf
of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust
Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On September 19, 2014, Plaintiff Meijer Inc., a direct purchaser,
filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and
others similarly situated.

On October 3, 2014, Plaintiff International Union of Operating
Engineers, Local 138 Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On November 17, 2014, Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company
d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United Stated
District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on behalf of
itself and others similarly situated.

On December 19, 2014, Plaintiff Kim Mahaffay, an indirect
purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of
the State of California, Alameda County, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated. On January 27, 2015, the Defendants
removed the action to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

On January 12, 2015, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178
Health & Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class
action complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated.

On December 12, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred
to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial
proceedings, as In Re Opana ER Antitrust Litigation.

On March 26, 2015 Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB
Grocery Company L.P., Albertson's LLC, direct purchasers, filed a
separate complaint in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

On April 23, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp,
direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

On February 1, 2016, CVS Pharmacy, Inc. filed a separate complaint
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in an
anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an
anticompetitive settlement agreement with the Company to delay
generic competition of Opana ER(R) and in violation of state and
federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things,
unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including
disgorgement and restitution. Consolidated amended complaints were
filed on May 4, 2015. Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaints on July 3, 2015.

On February 10, 2016, the Court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss the direct purchasers' consolidated amended complaint. On
the same date, the Court granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motion to dismiss the indirect purchasers'
consolidated amended complaint. In particular, the Court dismissed
with prejudice the indirect purchasers' claims under the state
laws of Illinois, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, Kansas and
Mississippi and gave the indirect purchasers 21 days to re-plead
other state law claims. The Court has not ruled on defendants'
separate motion to dismiss the retailers' complaints. Discovery
has not commenced. No trial date has been scheduled.

Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: "Aruliah" Settlement Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Court has
granted final approval of the settlement in the Aruliah class
action.

On August 13, 2014, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company and certain current and former officers and directors of
the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California by Linus Aruliah, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated ("Aruliah Class Action").
The complaint alleged that the Company and those named officers
and directors violated the federal securities laws by making
materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose material adverse facts to the public in connection with
manufacturing deficiencies at the Company's Taiwan manufacturing
facility, including but not limited to the impact the deficiencies
would have on the Company's ability to gain approval from the FDA
for the Company's then branded product candidate, Rytary(R) (which
was subsequently approved by the FDA on January 7, 2015).

On January 13, 2015, the Company, together with certain current
and former officers and directors of the Company, agreed to settle
this securities class action, without any admission or concession
of wrongdoing or liability by the Company or the other defendants.
Pursuant to the settlement, the Company paid $4.75 million for a
full and complete release of all claims that were or could have
been asserted against the Company or other defendants in this
action.

On June 22, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement. On December 21, 2015, the Court granted final approval
of the settlement. The Company did not take any charges for the
settlement as the settlement amount will be paid for and covered
by the Company's insurance policies.

Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Plumbers' Union, DVHCC File Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Impax Laboratories, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Plumbers' Local
Union No. 690 Health Plan and others similarly situated filed on
December 30, 2015, a class action against several generic drug
manufacturers, including the Company, in the Court of Common Pleas
of Philadelphia County, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania,
Civil Trial Division, alleging that the Company and others
violated the law, including the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection law, by inflating the Average
Wholesale Price ("AWP") of certain generic drugs.

On February 5, 2016, Delaware Valley Health Care Coalition filed
suit asserting similar allegations against the same defendants in
the same court.

Impax Laboratories, Inc. is a specialty pharmaceutical company.


INSYS THERAPEUTICS: Faces Suit in Florida Over Subsys Fentanyl
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dina Gusovsky, writing for CNBC, reports that America's opioid
addiction is headed for a court date, and the case could set a
legal precedent as American businesses and families attempt to
slow the nation's newest drug epidemic, which has claimed a record
number of deaths in recent years.

A recently filed Florida lawsuit pits one of the biggest sellers
of highly addictive painkillers, Insys Therapeutics, against a
family-owned central Florida fire sprinkler company, Wayne
Automatic Fire Sprinklers, which alleges that the spouse of an
employee covered by its health insurance plan became addicted to
opioids as a result of fraudulent Insys prescriptions.

The case alleges that Insys -- which has grown into a billion-
dollar publicly traded company on the back of a single painkiller
-- engaged in a "massive fraud scheme and criminal enterprise to
obtain money from Wayne for illegally prescribed painkillers
through Wayne's employee health insurance plan."

Several legal experts told CNBC that the Wayne case is a unique
use of a law in Florida designed to protect consumers from fraud
and could set a precedent for how employers fight back against a
drug epidemic that one recent study estimated could be plaguing 80
percent of U.S. workplaces.

If the allegations are true, "The extent of the scheme appears to
be shocking.  Abuse is rampant," said Steven Kramer, founder of
central Florida firm Kramer Law, which has expertise in business
law

Insys was the subject of a recent CNBC investigation covering
allegations against the company in at least six U.S. states.
Subsys is also on a "drugs of concern" list kept by the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services' Inspector General office.
The publicly traded company also faces class-action legal
challenges from shareholders.

The painkiller in question is Subsys Fentanyl, an opiate 100 times
more potent than morphine, which the FDA has indicated should only
be used for late-stage breakthrough cancer pain.

Insys reported full year 2015 revenue of $330.8 million, though
after growing in recent years, sales of Subsys hit a plateau in
the fourth quarter, showing no increase from the previous quarter,
at $91.1 million in revenue for the painkiller.

Wayne has 500 employees and has $75 million in annual revenue. The
insurance plan offered to Wayne's employees is self-funded by the
company -- typical for a company of its size -- so aside from
employee contributions, like deductibles, Wayne pays all the costs
of the health plan from its own coffers.

Wayne's case alleges that Insys worked with the help of a Florida-
based physician and clinic, Gessler Clinic and physician Dr.
Edward Lubin.  Additionally, two other companies, UMR and OptumRX,
are defendants in Wayne's case alleging illegal prescribing and
dispensing of Subsys "with the sole motivation of financial gain
including kickbacks."

UMR and OptumRX are third-party administrators to the Wayne health
plan, contracted mainly to evaluate and process insurance and
benefits claims.  OptumRX is an affiliate of UMR.

"Dr. Lubin and the Practice illegally prescribed Subsys to an
individual [the spouse of a Wayne employee] who was covered under
Wayne's employee health insurance plan but did not have cancer,
let alone breakthrough cancer pain."

An Insys spokeswoman said the company had only recently received a
copy of the complaint and was in the process of reviewing the
allegations.  The company plans to vigorously defend itself in the
lawsuit, the spokeswoman said.

Gessler Clinic declined to comment on specific allegations, citing
patient privacy and other legal constraints, though Gessler
administrator Sharon Hart said patient care has always been the
first priority for the clinic.  She said the clinic's attorneys
will be responding to the complaint and it remains confident that
it will prevail in the litigation.

The lawsuit discusses an incident where an individual, who
identified himself as "David," told OptumRX's prior authorization
department that the patient had been diagnosed with malignant
cancer pain by Dr. Lubin in order to get reimbursement for Subsys.

About a year after that phone call was made, Wayne learned that
the patient had never actually been diagnosed with cancer and had
become addicted to Subsys and was "debilitated due to her
addiction."

In November 2014, UMR and OptumRX acknowledged that, based upon
records they had obtained from Dr. Lubin, the patient had never
been diagnosed with breakthrough cancer pain.  Wayne alleges that
it was not until after it had pressed its concerns with the third-
party administrators over a long period of time that UMR and
OptumRX finally found issues with the Insys prescription.

Insys' prior authorization unit and the extent of sales it derives
from prior authorization prescriptions was also a subject of the
CNBC investigation.

Wayne's claim was made under the Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act, which is a consumer protection law
(businesses can be considered consumers).

The case could set a precedent, said Suzanne Meehle, founder of
small-business law firm Meehle Law.  "The employer is saying, 'We
paid for this. . . . You engaged in off-label prescribing here to
take our money.'"

While doctors can prescribe drugs for off-label use legally, it is
illegal for a company to market off-label.  Insys has been subject
to a high level of scrutiny for the practice.

Amy Tingley of Stovash, Case & Tingley, an attorney for Wayne,
said she was not aware of any cases under the Florida Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act for off-label prescribing of drugs
such as Subsys, though she could not rule out that a similar case
could exist.  She said Wayne and its lawyers would not be able to
comment in any more detail about the case.

"It's a good use of the act. It's a broad statute, so not
surprised they are using this," Kramer said, explaining that the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act was designed as a
catch-all and he has seen many novel uses of it.

Florida AG takes notice

Wayne's lawyers are also likely attempting to get the attention of
the U.S. Attorney General or Florida State Attorney, according to
legal experts, because the complaint includes charges under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which
has both federal and state precedents.

Wayne's case says it paid out $200,000 related to the Subsys
prescriptions, and it is also seeking in excess of $75,000 in
damages under the Florida RICO Act.  Ms. Meehle said that $75,000
is only the threshold for a case to be considered in federal
court, so the company could ultimately seek more in damages.

In response to a request from CNBC, Kylie Mason, the press
secretary for the Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, said, "While
we do not have a consumer protection investigation against Insys
Therapeutics at this time, we are aware and looking into the
matter."

Dr. Edward Lubin received more than $100,000 from pharmaceutical
companies in 2014 alone, according to Open Payments, a federal
government site that tracks payments made to physicians.  A
majority of that money was given to him by Insys for things like
speaker fees, travel and meals. Some payments exceeded $3,000 on a
single day.

In 2013, Dr. Lubin was given more than $11,000 from pharmaceutical
companies, one of which was Insys.
Dr. Lubin did not return calls.

OptumRX declined to comment.  UMR did not return calls seeking
comment.


INTEX RECREATION: Faces "Mirescu" Suit Over Air Mattresses Design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Georgeta Mirescu, individually and, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Intex Recreation Corp., et al., Case No.
BC609522 (Cal. Super. Ct., February 8, 2016), arises out of the
Defendants' design, manufacture, marketing, advertising, sale,
purchase, and use of defective Intex inflatable air mattresses.

The Airbeds are defective in that they leak air, burst, and suffer
from frequent internal chamber separation that results in large
bulges or bubbles in the Airbeds, and thus fail in their essential
purpose.

Intex Recreation Corp. sells plastic goods, including indoor and
outdoor Airbeds, through its website and through retailers such as
Wal-Mart.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam M. Tamburelli, Esq.
      Charles T. Spagnola, Esq.
      Eliot F. Krieger, Esq.
      SULLIVAN, KRIEGER, TRUONG, SPAGNOLA & KLAUSNER, LLP
      444 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1700
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 597-7070
      Facsimile: (562) 597-7772
      E-mail: adam@sullivankrieger.com
              charles@sullivankrieger.com
              eliot@sullivankrieger.com

         - and -

      Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr., Esq.
      Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
      ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
      77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 440-0020
      Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
      E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
              matt@attorneyzim.com


JACKSONS FARMING: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Constantino Sanchez Rodriguez, Jose Alberto Aguilera
Hernandez, Ulises Edgardo Cruz Gonzalez, Esmith Gonzalez
Rodriguez, Valentin Alvarado Hernandez, Daniel Rodriguez Garcia,
and Esdras Sahi Mendiola Bordes, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Jacksons Farming Company of Autry-
Ville a/k/a Jackson's Farming Company of Autryville, William Brent
Jackson, and William Rodney Jackson, Case No. 7:16-cv-00028-F
(E.D. N.C., February 23, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay the required minimum hourly wage  and the
promised adverse effect wage rate disclosed to the workers when
that wage was due under the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act.

The Defendants own and operate a farm located at 3171 Ernest
Williams Rd, Autryville, NC 28318.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert J. Willis, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. WILLIS, P.A.
      P.O. Box 1269
      Raleigh, NC 27602
      Telephone: (919) 821-9031
      Facsimile: (919)821-1763
      E-mail: rwillis@rjwillis-law.com


JCB ASSOCIATES: Faces "Nenos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Meghan Nenos, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated v. JCB Associates, Inc., Bagel And Deli
Creations, LLC, Robert Bunt, Case No. 600842/2016 (N.Y. Super.
Ct., February 9, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 320 Central
Park West, Apt 10A New York, NY 10025.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
      Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
      LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
      One Old Country Road, Suite 347
      Carle Place, NY 11514
      Telephone: (516) 873-9550


JP BRONXVILLE: "Wang" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Yong Xin Wang, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. JP Bronxville, Inc. d/b/a Haiku Asian Bistro
Bronxville, Michael Lee, John Ching, Peter Diana, John Doe and
Jane Doe # 1-10, Case No. 7:16-cv-01410 (S.D.N.Y., February 23,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime  wages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment  and  post-judgment interest, and  attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Westchester located
at 56 Pondfield Rd, Bronxville, NY 10708.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


KARL STORZ: Faces "Davies" Suit Over Defective Storz Morcellator
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Davies, individually and as administrator of the
estate of Nancy E. Lincoln, Deceased, v. Karl Storz Endoscopy-
America, Inc., et al., Case No. BC609423 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
February 5, 2016), is an action for damages resulting from the
spread of Ms. Lincoln's cancer and more specifically the
disseminating, seeding, and upstaging of malignant cells caused by
and as a result of the use of the Defendants' Storz Morcellator.

Karl Storz Endoscopyamerica, Inc. is engaged in the business of
manufacturing, marketing, testing, promoting, selling, and
distributing Storz Morcellators.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Andrews, Esq
      John C.Thornton, Esq.
      Lila Razmara, Esq.
      ANDREWS & THORNTON
      2 Corporate Park, Suite 110
      Irvine, CA 92606
      Telephone: (949)748-1000
      Facsimile: (949) 315-3540
      E-mail: aa@andrewsthornton.com
              ict@andrewsthornton.com
              lr@andrewsthornton.com

         - and -

      Michelle A. Parfitt, Esq.
      Drew La Framboise, Esq.
      ASHCRAFT & GEREL, LLP
      4900 Seminary Rd., Suite 650
      Alexandria, VA 22311
      Telephone: (703)931-5500
      Facsimile: (703) 820-1656
      E-mail: mparfitt@ashcraftlaw.com
              dlaframboise@ashcraftlaw.com


KARL STORZ: Faces "Ferrah" Suit Over Defective Storz Morcellator
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bahia Ferrah v. Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc., et al., Case
No. BC609616 (Cal. Super. Ct., February 9, 2016), is an action for
damages resulting from the spread of Ms. Ferrah's cancer and more
specifically the disseminating, seeding, and upstaging of
malignant cells caused by and as a result of the use of the
Defendants' Storz Morcellator.

Karl Storz Endoscopyamerica, Inc. is engaged in the business of
manufacturing, marketing, testing, promoting, selling, and
distributing Storz Morcellators.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aimee H. Wagstaff, Esq.
      Sean O. McCrary, Esq.
      7171 W.Alaska Dr.
      Lakewood, CO 80226
      Telephone: (720) 208-9403
      Facsimile: (303) 276-6361
      E-mail: Aimee.Wagstaff@AndrusWagstaff.com
              Sean.McCrarv@.AndrusWagstaff.com

         - and -

       Willard J. Moody, Esq.
       Jonathan A. Hogins, Esq.
       THE MOODY LAW FIRM
       500 Crawford Street, Ste. 200
       Portsmouth, VA 23704
       Telephone: (757) 393-6020
       Facsimile: (757)399-3019


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Faces Securities Class Action Over 2014 IPO
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors of class
action against LendingClub Corporation ("LendingClub" or the
"Company").  The class action has been filed on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased LendingClub
securities pursuant to and/or traceable to LendingClub's
December 11, 2014 Initial Public Offering (the "IPO").

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

LendingClub is a US peer-to-peer lending company, headquartered in
San Francisco, California.  LendingClub operates an online lending
platform that enables borrowers to obtain a loan, and investors to
purchase notes backed by payments made on loans.

The complaint alleges that the documents filed in association with
the IPO contained materially false and misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) LendingClub had an
unmaintainable business model reliant on on its ability to
distribute loans with usurious rates; (2) LendingClub's loan
investors would not be able to impose the high rates because they
were illegal; (3) without the penny-pinching rates, LendingClub's
loans and marketplace would not attract  investors because of its
high credit risk; and (4) a considerable amount of LendingClub's
loans were distributed with rates in excess of those allowed by
applicable state usury laws.  When the true details were made
public, investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint and join the action, visit the
firm's website: http://www.bgandg.com/#!lc/qq203

To discuss this action, or have any questions, please contact
Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael
Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or
via email info@bgandg.com

Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.  If you suffered a loss in
LendingClub you can request that the Court appoint you as lead
plaintiff.  Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require
that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Its primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of our clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.


LOWES HOME: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Teschner" Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Teschner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Lowes Home Centers, LLC, et al., Case No. CV16859100
(Ohio Com. Pleas, February 16, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

Lowes Home Centers, LLC, is a North Carolina corporation and is
engaged in home improvement hardware stores including interior and
exterior installation services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas J. Connick, Esq.
     Edward A. Proctor, Esq.
     Gary A. Vick, Jr., Esq.
     CONNICK LAW, LLC
     25550 Chagrin Blvd., Suite 101
     Cleveland, Ohio 44122
     Telephone: (216) 364-0512
     Facsimile: (216) 609-3446
     E-mail: tconnick@connicklawllc.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Class Action Over Laminate Flooring
-------------------------------------------------------------
According to Business Report's Penny Font, the first local class
action lawsuits were filed on March 2 in Baton Rouge federal court
against Lumber Liquidators, a national hardwood flooring company
under fire for allegations that it sold Chinese-made laminates
possibly containing dangerous levels of formaldehyde.

The Becnel law firm in Reserve filed two separate lawsuits--one on
behalf of Benjamin Turner of Baton Rouge; the other on behalf of
Earl and Shirley Wells of Baker, and Theresa DeVillier of
Slaughter, who is also represented by New Orleans attorney Morris
Bart.  Both claims are proposed as class actions.

The allegations against the company detailed in the lawsuits
include violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the
Louisiana Products Liability Act and the Unfair Trade Practices
and Consumer Protection Law.

A 60 Minutes report last year exposed a high cancer risk from
laminate flooring made in China and sold in Lumber Liquidators'
stores, and the company halted sales of the products soon after.
In February, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control noted that the
health risk of the laminate flooring was three times higher than
it had initially estimated, with formaldehyde levels that would
cause six to 30 cancer cases per 100,000 people.

The chain posted a loss of $19.8 million in the fourth quarter, or
73 cents a share, a year after recording net income of $17.3
million, or 64 cents a share.


MAGIC GROUP: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Rosas" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Rosas, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown v. Magic Group USA, Inc., and
Bojana Dordevic, Case No. 1:16-cv-02516 (N.D. Ill., February 23,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Magic Group is a multifaceted construction company offering a
variety of construction related services in and around the
Chicagoland area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raisa Alicea, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 800-1017
      E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Plaintiffs Seek Approval of Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
MagnaChip Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
plaintiffs in a consolidated securities class action are seeking
preliminary approval of a settlement.

On March 12, 2014, a purported class action was filed against the
Company and certain of the Company's now-former officers. On April
21, 2015, a related purported class action lawsuit (Okla. Police
Pension & Retirement Sys. v. MagnaChip Semiconductor Corp., et
al., No. 3:15-cv-01797) was filed against the Company, certain of
the Company's current directors and former and now-former
officers, a shareholder of the Company, and certain financial
firms that acted as underwriters of the Company's public stock
offerings.

On June 15, 2015, these two class action lawsuits were
consolidated. On June 26, 2015, an amended complaint was filed in
the consolidated action, against the Company, certain of the
Company's current directors and former officers, a shareholder of
the Company, and certain financial firms that acted as
underwriters of the Company's public stock offerings on behalf of
a putative class consisting of all persons other than the
defendants who purchased or acquired the Company's securities
between February 1, 2012 and February 12, 2015 and a putative
subclass consisting of all purchasers of the Company's common
stock pursuant to or traceable to a shelf registration statement
and prospectus issued in connection with the Company's February 6,
2013 public stock offering. The consolidated amended complaint
asserts claims on behalf of the putative class for (i) alleged
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the Company and certain of the Company's
current directors and former officers, (ii) alleged violations of
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by certain of the Company's
current directors and former officers, and (iii) alleged
violations of Sections 20(a) and 20(A) of the Exchange Act by a
shareholder. The consolidated amended complaint also asserts
claims on behalf the subclass for (i) alleged violations of
Section 11 of the Securities Act by the Company, certain of the
Company's current directors and former officers, and certain
financial firms that acted as underwriters of the Company's public
stock offerings, (ii) alleged violations of Section 12 of the
Securities Act by the Company, certain of the Company's current
directors and former officers, a shareholder of the Company, and
certain financial firms that acted as underwriters of the
Company's public stock offerings, (iii) alleged violations of
Section 15 of the Securities Act by the Company, certain of the
Company's former officers, and a shareholder of the Company.

On December 10, 2015, the Company and certain of its current and
former officers and directors entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding with the plaintiffs' representatives to memorialize
an agreement in principle to settle the consolidated securities
class action lawsuit, Thomas, et al. v. MagnaChip Semiconductor
Corp. et al., Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-01160-JST, pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "Class Action Litigation").

On February 5, 2016, the plaintiffs in the consolidated securities
class action filed a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement, as well as the stipulation and agreement of settlement
and related exhibits.

The stipulation and agreement of settlement releases all claims
asserted against all defendants in the Class Action Litigation
except for Avenue Capital Management II, L.P. and does not release
claims asserted in the derivative actions Hemmingson, et al. v.
Elkins, et al., No. 1-15-CV-278614 (PHK) (Cal. Super. Ct. Santa
Clara Cnty.) and Bushansky v. Norby, et al., No. 1-15-CV-281284
(PHK) (Cal. Super. Ct. Santa Clara Cnty.). The stipulation and
agreement of settlement provides for an aggregate settlement
payment by the Company of $23.5 million, which includes all
attorneys' fees, costs of administration and plaintiffs' out-of-
pocket expenses, lead plaintiff compensatory awards and
disbursements.

The Company expects the settlement will be fully funded by
insurance proceeds. The settlement includes the dismissal of all
claims against the Company and the named individuals in the Class
Action Litigation without any liability or wrongdoing attributed
to them. The settlement remains subject to stockholder notice,
court approval and other customary conditions.

MagnaChip is a Korea-based designer and manufacturer of analog and
mixed-signal semiconductor products for consumer, computing,
communication, industrial, automotive and Internet of Things
("IoT") applications.


MCWANE: June 8 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
If You Indirectly Purchased Ductile Iron Pipe Fittings between
January 11, 2008, and December 31, 2013, You Could Be Affected by
Proposed Class Action Settlements

The following statement is being issued by Garden City Group, LLC
regarding the In re Ductile Iron Pipe Fittings ("DIPF") Indirect
Purchaser Antitrust Litigation.

Please read the entire Notice carefully, as these Settlements may
affect your rights.

What Is This Lawsuit About?

The Proposed Settlements are in a class action lawsuit called In
re Ductile Iron Pipe Fittings ("DIPF") Indirect Purchaser
Antitrust Litigation, which is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.  The lawsuit
alleges that (i) Defendants entered into price-fixing agreements
for DIPF in the United States in violation of state and federal
antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws, (ii) McWane
monopolized the alleged market for Domestic DIPF in the United
States in violation of federal and state laws, and (iii) SIGMA and
McWane conspired to restrain trade and to monopolize the alleged
market for Domestic DIPF in the United States in violation of
federal and state laws.  The lawsuit claims that plaintiffs paid
more for DIPF and Domestic DIPF they purchased than they otherwise
would have paid.  Defendants deny all of plaintiffs' allegations.
The Court has not made any decision as to the merits of the
plaintiffs' allegations.  The Defendants are: SIGMA Corporation,
SIGMA Piping Products Corporation, Star Pipe Products, Ltd.,
McWane, Inc., and its divisions, Clow Water Systems Co., Tyler
Pipe Company, and Tyler Union.

Why Are There Proposed Settlements With SIGMA and Star?

Both SIGMA and Star have denied all liability and wrongdoing in
this case and have asserted various defenses to the plaintiffs'
claims.  The Court did not decide in favor of the plaintiffs or
SIGMA and Star.  Instead, both sides agreed to the SIGMA and Star
Settlements to avoid the cost and risk of a trial, and so the
class members affected will get compensation.  The class
representatives and class counsel think the SIGMA and Star
Settlements are the best result for all class members. The case is
continuing against McWane.

Am I a Class Member?

The SIGMA Settlement has two classes: All persons or entities that
reside or have a place of business in the 29 affected States (full
list available at www.DIPFIndirectSettlement.com): (1) that
purchased DIPF indirectly from any defendant at any time from
January 11, 2008, through June 30, 2011; or (2) that purchased
Domestic DIPF indirectly from McWane or SIGMA at any time from
September 17, 2009, through December 31, 2013.

The Star Settlement has only one class: All persons or entities
that reside or have a place of business in the 29 affected States
(full list available at www.DIPFIndirectSettlement.com) that
purchased DIPF indirectly from any defendant at any time from
January 11, 2008, through June 30, 2011.

What Do The Settlements Provide and How Do I Get a Payment?

Under the respective Settlements, SIGMA has agreed to pay
$2,005,000 in cash and Star has agreed to pay $641,250 in cash. If
you are a class member and do not exclude yourself from the
Settlements, you may be eligible to receive a payment.  The SIGMA
amount is subject to possible reduction under paragraph 51 of the
Settlement Agreement.

To participate in the Settlements, you must send in a valid Claim
Form, available at www.DIPFIndirectSettlement.com

Be sure to sign the Claim Form and mail it by first-class mail
postmarked no later than June 9, 2016 to DIPF Indirect Purchaser
Antitrust Litigation, c/o GCG, P.O. Box 10251, Dublin, OH 43017-
5751.

If the Court approves the Settlements, payments from the SIGMA
Settlement Fund and Star Settlement Fund will be distributed in
the future to members of each class who submit valid and timely
claims.

Can I Exclude Myself?

If you want to keep the right to sue or continue to sue SIGMA or
Star (or both of them) about the legal issues in this case, then
you must exclude yourself from the Settlement Class with SIGMA and
Star.  If you exclude yourself from either or both Settlement
Classes, you will not get any payment from the Settlement(s) from
which you are excluded.

To exclude yourself, you must send a letter saying that you want
to be excluded.  Important instructions about how to exclude
yourself can be obtained from www.DIPFIndirectSettlement.com.
Your letter must be postmarked by May 3, 2016.

How Do I Object?

You can object to either or both of the Settlements if you are a
class member and have not excluded yourself.

To object, you must send a letter to the Court. Instructions about
how to object may be obtained from www.DIPFIndirectSettlement.com

Your letter must be filed with the Court by May 19, 2016.

What If I Do Nothing?

If you do nothing, you will remain in the classes for both the
SIGMA and Star Settlements.  If you remain in the classes, to
qualify for a payment you must send in a Claim Form.

Who Represents Me?

The Court has appointed Joseph C. Kohn of Kohn Swift & Graf, P.C.;
Robert S. Kitchenoff of Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher, LLC; and
David Kovel of Kirby McInerney, LLP ("Class Counsel") to represent
the Settlement Classes for purposes of the SIGMA and Star
Settlements.  If you want to be represented by your own lawyer
concerning the Settlements, you may hire one at your own expense.

These lawyers will ask the Court to approve an award to pay for
expenses incurred and that will be incurred in the prosecution of
the lawsuit in the amount of $459,250 (approximately twenty
percent of the SIGMA and Star Settlements).  The request for
expenses will be available for viewing on the website once it is
filed with the Court.  The lawyers are not currently seeking an
award of attorneys' fees or incentive awards for the class
representatives. Any request for attorneys' fees will not exceed
one-third of the Settlement funds.  You will be given notice if a
request for an award of attorneys' fees or incentive awards is
made.

When Will The Judge Decide?

The Court will hold a fairness hearing at 10:00 a.m. on June 8,
2016, at the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, 402 East State Street, Trenton, NJ 08608.  If there
are objections, the Court will consider them at this time.  You
may appear at the hearing, but you are not required to do so.  The
hearing may be moved to a different date or time without notice.
You should check the Settlement Website for updates.

This Notice is only a summary.  For more information visit
www.DIPFIndirectSettlement.com


MICHAELS STORES: Faces "Mora" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Mora, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Michaels Stores Procurement Company, Inc.
and Does 1 through 100, Case No. BC611282 (Cal. Ch. Ct., February
23, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages
pursuant to the California Labor Code.

Michaels Stores Procurement Company, Inc. owns and operates a
hobby, toy & game shop in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul K. Haines, Esq.
      Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
      BOREN, OSHER & LUFTMAN LLP
      222 N. Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 2222
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (310) 322-2220
      Facsimile: (310) 322-2228
      E-mail: phaines@bollaw.com
              fschmidt@bollaw.com


MICROSOFT CORP: Yesh Suit Over Xbox Music Settled-Out-of Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Resnikoff, writing for Digital Music News, reports that the
Yesh Music lawsuit against Microsoft focused on Xbox Music,
recently rebranded as Groove Music.  That service is bundled with
every single Windows operating system, not to mention Xbox home
entertainment consoles.  Groove is additionally available across
Android and iOS, not to mention earlier Windows and Xbox versions,
making it a far bigger target than Tidal.

The Microsoft case, which has now been settled out-of-court for
undisclosed terms, narrowly focused on mechanical licenses.  That
is a specific type of publishing royalty that seems to be getting
overlooked by nearly every streaming service, but could now cause
hundreds of millions, even billions, in collective liabilities.

"The MICROSOFT Service allows the user to pick which song the user
wants to hear, and is therefore an interactive service pursuant to
17 U.S.C. Sec. 114(j)(7) of the Copyright Act," the initial
complaint reads.  "As such, MICROSOFT was obligated to obtain
licenses for both the sound recordings ("Master Recording
License") and compositions ("Mechanical License") for every song
it offers on its service."

Importantly, Yesh noted that its digital distributor Tunecore only
licenses the recording portion of a song, not the whole enchilada.
"The license for the physical sound recordings
here -- Master Recording License -- was granted to MICROSOFT
through TuneCore," the complaint continued.  "TuneCore functions
like a music label, allowing artists to submit the master
recordings through TuneCore to various "Digital Stores" for
review.

"At no time did TuneCore hold itself out as conveying a mechanical
license for the compositions submitted on behalf of Plaintiff.
Further, it is axiomatic that a mechanical license to record and
distribute the songs must be obtained in order to lawfully make
the recordings available for temporary stream or permanent
download."

The Yesh lawsuit is part of a growing surge of lawsuits
surrounding the alleged non-payment of mechanicals.  That includes
a $150 million class action lawsuit against Spotify initiated by
David Lowery in late 2015, and subsequent, $200 million class
action copycat lodged in January.

Yesh is the publishing entity for The American Dollar, with
percussionist and keyboardist John Emanuele initiating the mass-
action in New York federal court.  The action against Tidal was
specifically filed against Aspiro AB, S. Carter Enterprises and
Black Panther Bidco, with Tidal bluntly calling the case frivolous
and an abuse of the legal system.  "This is the first we have
heard of this dispute and Yesh Music, LLC should be engaging Harry
Fox Agency if they believe they are owed the royalties claimed,"
the company stated.

"They especially should not be naming S Carter Enterprises, LLC,
which has nothing to do with Tidal. This claim serves as nothing
other than a perfect example of why America needs Tort reform."


Meanwhile, Emanuele is on a warpath, with Microsoft potentially a
bloody scalp to bring into battle.  On March 1st, a Yesh filing
against Google came to light, with Google Play and YouTube
potentially liable for massive copyright damages.  The Google
complaint seeks class action status.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces FDCPA Class Action in New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------
John Kennedy, writing for Law360, reports that a New Jersey woman
hit embattled debt collection company Midland Credit Management
Inc. with a putative class action in federal court on March 3,
saying the company violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
by omitting key information about her debt in an attempt to
collect it.

Shelly Gabay, whose debt Midland acquired from FIA Card Services
NA, accused Midland of sending written collection notices that
made false representations in an effort to collect debt,
misrepresented the legal status of debt and otherwise used unfair
means to collect from consumers.

"The Federal Trade Commission has determined that 'most consumers
do not know their legal rights with respect to collection of old
debts past the statute of limitations,'" Ms. Gabay said, quoting
the FTC.  "'When a collector tells a consumer that she owes money
and demands payment, it may create the misleading impression that
the collector can sue the consumer in court to collect that
debt.'"

In her complaint, Ms. Gabay pointed to an October 2015 letter sent
by Midland that offered several repayment options for her debt.
She could either pay about $8,000 and save about $5,600 if she
paid by mid-November, or make 12 monthly payments of about $880 --
totaling about 25 percent of her debt -- or set up a payment plan.

The letter also acknowledged that due to the age of the debt, it
wasn't being reported on credit reports and paying or not paying
it wouldn't affect Ms. Gabay's credit score.

What the letter didn't say, Ms. Gabay claims, is that if she chose
to accept any of the offers, the applicable statute of limitations
on the FIA debt -- which had expired -- could reset or start anew.
It also didn't say that if the statute of limitations did reset,
Midland or another creditor could sue her, because as long as debt
was time-barred, so was her potential liability, she said.

The complaint didn't say whether Ms. Gabay had accepted any of the
offers in the October letter, just that Midland's attempt to
entice her into a plan without explaining the possible
consequences was an unfair way to attempt to collect the debt.

Ms. Gabay seeks to represent a class of New Jersey consumers who
were, in the past year, sent similar letters from Midland about
debt owed to Midland Funding LLC, as long as that debt originated
with FIA and the letter contained at least one of Ms. Gabay's
alleged violations of the FDCPA.

Midland Funding is also facing an usury class action that's made
its way to the U.S. Supreme Court as the collection agency seeks
National Bank Act protection.  The consumers who brought that suit
told the high court in mid-February not to take the case because
Midland Funding isn't a national bank and forcing it to adhere to
New York state law wouldn't significantly interfere with any
national bank's business -- the only way they say the NBA would
preempt state usury laws.

Ms. Gabay is represented by Joseph K. Jones and Glen Chulsky of
Jones Wolf & Kapasi LLC and Lawrence C. Hersh.

The case is Gabay v. Midland Credit Management Inc., et al., case
number 2:16-cv-01219, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Jersey.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Carey" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Carey, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:16-cv-00706-KM-MAH (D.N.J., February 9, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. operates a financial services
company that helps consumers resolve past-due financial
obligations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
      JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
      375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
      Fairfield, NJ 07004
      Telephone: (973) 227-5900
      Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
      E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


MINNESOTA TIMBERWOLVES: Faces Suit Over Digital Ticket Sales
------------------------------------------------------------
Sporting News reports that The Timberwolves thought they were
being environmentally friendly when they switched to digital-only
ticket sales.  Their fans are not happy.

A group of Minnesota fans has filed a class-action lawsuit against
the NBA team, claiming its exclusive use of the digital
marketplace Flash Seats makes it difficult for fans to exchange
tickets, sell them on the secondary market or even give them away.

Flash Seats was founded by Cavaliers owner Dan Gilbert and lists
the Cavaliers, Jazz, Nuggets and Rockets among its clients.

The suit identifies season-ticket holders GLS Companies of
Brooklyn Park, Minn., and James Mattson as the lead plaintiffs and
was filed by law firm Zimmerman Reed of Minneapolis, according to
the St. Paul Pioneer Press.

The Timberwolves and their WNBA counterpart, the Lynx, scrapped
paper tickets last year in a move to eliminate waste while making
business more difficult for scalpers.

Fans are not happy that the teams "arbitrarily imposed" a basement
price of 75 percent of the face value for an NBA team that is 19-
42 this season and hasn't made the playoffs since 2004. One
Timberwolves fan told the Pioneer Press in January it was a
"ridiculous policy."

The suit calls the policy "Draconian" and "cumbersome."  It also
claims it produces "economic harm" and violates contracts, state
trade acts and antitrust laws.

"The Timberwolves and Lynx organizations are confident that Flash
Seats supplies the best possible experience for our fans,"
Timberwolves president Chris Wright said in a statement.  "Flash
Seats gives our ticket holders the maximum possible convenience
and complete control over their Timberwolves and Lynx tickets.  We
are committed to continuing to give our fans the best possible
experience."


MMIP DEALER: Illegally Collects Debt, "Maldonado" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sigifredo Del Rio Maldonado, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. MMIP Dealer Corp. I, et al., Case No.
16CV291522 (Cal. Super., February 16, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

MMIP Dealer Corp. I, is a California corporation and is engaged in
the business of buying, repairing and re-selling used vehicles to
the general public, and, taking vehicles in trade.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Louis A. Liberty, Esq.
     553 Pilgrim Drive, Suite A
     Foster City, CA 94404
     Telephone: (650) 341-0300
     Facsimile: (650) 403-1783
     E-mail: lou@carlawyer.com


MOUNT SINAI HEALTH: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Latner" Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Latner, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Mount Sinai Health System, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-
00683-AKH (S.D.N.Y., January 29, 2016), seeks to put an end to the
Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls.

Mount Sinai Health System, Inc. operates a health care system
providing medical care to local and global communities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Jackson Bilsborrow, Esq.
      WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
      700 Broadway
      New York, NY 10003
      Telephone: (212) 558-5856
      E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com


MULLOOLY JEFFREY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Bakuradze" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lamzira Bakuradze, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn LLP, Case
No. 1:16-cv-00681 (E.D.N.Y., February 9, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn LLP owns and operates a law firm
in Glen Cove, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maxim Maximov, Esq.
      MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
      1701 Avenue P
      Brooklyn, NY 11229
      Telephone: (718) 395-3459
      Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
      E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


MUSHROOM WISDOM: "Hoffman" Suit Removed to District of New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Hoffman v. Mushroom Wisdom, Inc.,
Case No. L-608-16, was removed from the Superior Court of Bergen
County to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Newark).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-
00768-WJM-MF to the proceeding.

Mushroom Wisdom, Inc., formerly known as Maitake Products, Inc.,
develops and produces mushroom supplements.  The Company was
founded in 1991 by CEO Mike Shirota, and is headquartered in East
Rutherford, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harold M. Hoffman, Esq.
          240 Grand Avenue
          Englewood, NJ 07631
          Telephone: (201) 569-0086
          Facsimile: (201) 221-7890
          E-mail: hoffman.esq@verizon.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Richard D. Kraus, Esq.
          One University Plaza, Suite 14
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (973) 487-2870
          E-mail: rdkraus@earthlink.net


NASSAU COUNTY, NY: 2nd Cir. Affirms Ruling in Strip Search Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the
judgment of the district court in the case captioned IN RE NASSAU
COUNTY STRIP SEARCH CASES. IN RE NASSAU COUNTY STRIP SEARCH CASES
GARDY AUGUSTIN, HEIDI KANE, MARY KATHERINE PUGLIESE, GREGG WILLS,
STEVEN ROTH, OSCAR AVELAR, RALPH DILIELLO, JOHN IAFFALDANO,
FRANCIS O'DAY, AND STUART MOSKOWITZ, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND
OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants,
v. NASSAU COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, DIVISION OF CORRECTION,
NASSAU COUNTY, AND JOSEPH JABLONSKY, NASSAU COUNTY SHERIFF,
Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, Nos. 14-1388-cv (Lead), 14-
1437-cv (XAP) (2nd Cir.).

In Shain v. Ellison, 53 F.Supp.2d 564 (E.D.N.Y. 1999), the
district court held, and the Second Circuit affirmed, that a
"blanket policy" at a local correctional facility like NCCC
wherein persons charged with misdemeanor unrelated to weapons or
drugs and thereafter strip searched, without individualized
suspicion, violated clearly established Fourth Amendment law.

In the wake of Shain, the plaintiffs brought an action alleging
that their strip searches violated 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, the
Fourth, Fifth, Eight, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United
States Constitution, and Article 1, Section 12 of the New York
State Constitution.  The defendants recognized that they are bound
by Shain under the doctrine of collateral estoppel.  The district
court thereafter certified a class as to liability and "entered
summary judgment on liability for all strip searches upon
admission to the NCCC" with respect to the plaintiffs' federal and
state claims.

Almost five-and-a-half years later, however, the Supreme Court
decided Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of
Burlington, 132 S.Ct. 1510 (2012), in which it ruled that
undoubted security imperatives involved in jail supervision do not
override the assertion that some detainees must be exempt from
strip searches absent reasonable suspicion of a concealed weapon
or other contraband."

In light of the Florence decision, the defendants "assert[ed]
that. . . Florence represents an intervening change of controlling
law that should lead the district court to vacate its prior order
granting summary judgment for plaintiffs on the issue of liability
and to instead enter summary judgment for defendants dismissing
the case."

The district court found that Florence represented an intervening
change of controlling law with respect to plaintiffs' federal-law
claims, but not with respect to plaintiffs' state-law claims.

The Second Circuit agreed, failing to see how Florence -- in which
the United States Supreme Court interpreted the Fourth Amendment
to the United States Constitution -- could possibly control the
meaning of Article I, Section 12 of the New York State
Constitution, absent extraordinary circumstances.

With respect to the federal-law question, however, the Second
Circuit noted that the questions presented in Shain and Florence
were virtually identical.  Thus, the appellate court affirmed the
district court and concluded that Florence represents an
intervening change of controlling law with respect to the
plaintiffs' federal-law claims.

A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's February 26, 2016 summary
order is available at http://is.gd/CrxJPEfrom Leagle.com.

ROBERT L. HERBST, Herbst Law PLLC, New York, NY., Jeffrey G.
Smith, Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, New York, NY.,
Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP, New
York, NY., Jonathan C. Moore, Beldock Levine & Hoffman LLP, New
York, NY., for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

ROBERT F. VAN DER WAAG, for Carnell T. Foskey, Nassau County
Attorney, Mineola, NY., for Defendants-Appellants.


NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE: 8th Cir. Affirms Ruling on "Dryer" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned John Frederick Dryer, Elvin Lamont Bethea,
and Edward Alvin White, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The National
Football League, Defendant-Appellee, No. 14-3428 (8th Cir.), the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district
court's grant of summary judgment to the National Football League
("NFL") on the plaintiff-appellants' right-of-publicity and Lanham
Act claims.

A putative class-action lawsuit was brought against the NFL by 23
former NFL players, claiming that films produced by NFL-affiliate
NFL Films violated the players' rights under the right-of-
publicity laws of various states as well as their rights under the
Lanham Act.  The players settled their dispute with NFL, except
for John Frederick Dryer, Elvin Lamont Bethea, and Edward Alvin
White who opted out of the settlement and pursued their individual
right-of-publicity and Lanham Act claims against the NFL's use of
their images in the films.  The district court granted NFL's
motion for summary judgment on these claims.

The Eighth Circuit agreed with the district court's finding that
the NFL films at issue are work within the subject matter of
copyright and that the Copyright Act preempted the appellant's
right-of-publicity claims.

The Eighth Circuit also held that the appellant's claims for false
endorsement under the Lanham Act fails as a matter of law because
the appellants provided no evidence that the films contain
"misleading [or] false statements" regarding their current
endorsement of the NFL.

A full-text copy of the Eight Circuit's February 26, 2016 opinion
is available at http://is.gd/u6EneIfrom Leagle.com.


NEW MAJORITY: "Stewart" Suit Transferred From New York to Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Stewart v. New Majority Holdings,
LLC, et al., Case No. 14-cv-1905, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (Youngstown).
The Ohio District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:16-mc-00005-JRA
to the proceeding.

New Majority owns several Papa John's pizza restaurants.


NEW YORK: Faces Class Action Over "Tampon Tax"
----------------------------------------------
Barbara Goldberg and Karen Freifeld, writing for Reuters, report
that New York state's "tampon tax" reflects a double standard that
applies the sales tax to menstrual products used by women while
exempting items typically used by men, such as Rogaine and
condoms, according to a class-action lawsuit filed on March 3.

"It's a tax on women for being women.  And that's wrong," said
Ilann Maazel -- imaazel@ecbalaw.com -- a lawyer representing the
five women who filed the class action in state Supreme Court in
Manhattan.

New York is one of 40 states that levy a sales tax on feminine
sanitary products, and Mr. Maazel said he hoped suing the New York
State Department of Taxation and Finance would trigger a national
rollback of what he said are illegal taxes.

The five women who filed the lawsuit include an actor,
photographer, law school professor, church program coordinator and
data scientist.

The lawsuit seeks to end the tax and to refund money to the
estimated 5 million women who purchase menstrual products in the
state.

The 4 percent state sales tax applied to tampons, sanitary napkins
and other products used by women during their monthly menstrual
cycle amounts to $14 million a year in New York,
Mr. Maazel said.

Menstrual products should be included on the list of items exempt
from the sales tax because they are deemed necessary to human
health.  That exemption is already granted to Rogaine, condoms,
foot powder, dandruff shampoo, acne soap, incontinence pads and
other items, the lawsuit said.

"These are not luxury items, but a necessity for women's health,"
the lawsuit said.

Women spend an average of $70 each year on tampons and pad,
according to the lawsuit.

"Without access to tampons and sanitary pads, women are forced to
use unsanitary and dirty rags -- which can lead to infections and
an increased risk of diseases such as cervical cancer -- or have
nothing at all to staunch the blood -- which poses a risk to the
health of women and the public," the suit says.

A spokesman for the state tax department, Geoff Gloak, declined
comment.

New York, California and several other states have introduced
legislation to exempt menstrual products from their sales tax.


NISSAN NORTH: "Batista" Class Suit Removed to E. Dist. Michigan
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Kenai Batista, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated v. Nissan North America, Inc.
and Jatco USA, Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-24728-RNS, was removed from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-mc-50277-SFC-RSW to
the proceeding.

Nissan North America, Inc. operates an automobile manufacturing
factory headquartered in Franklin, Tennessee.

Jatco USA, Inc. is a tier-one automotive supplier and a
manufacturer of high-tech automatic transmissions.

Kenai Batista is a pro se plaintiff.

The Defendant is represented by:

      Michael R. Williams, Esq.
      BUSH SEYFERTH & PAIGE PLLC
      3001 W. Big Beaver, Suite 600
      Troy, MI 48084
      Telephone: (248) 822-7804
      Facsimile: (248) 822-7804
      E-mail: williams@bsplaw.com


OAKLAND GARDENS: Faces "Warring" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Darryl Warring v. Oakland Gardens Inc., d/b/a Oakland Gardens
Apartments, and Jack Ackerman, Case No. 1:16-cv-01024-RMB-JS
(D.N.J., February 23, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate an apartment complex that provides
housing for people throughout the State of New Jersey as well as
neighboring states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
      JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
      301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
      Princeton, NJ 08540
      Telephone: (201) 687-9977
      Facsimile: (201) 595-0308
      E-mail: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


OIL STATES: Settlement of Class Suits Approved
----------------------------------------------
Oil States International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a Court has
approved the settlement of employee class action lawsuits against
the Company.

During 2014 and early 2015, a number of lawsuits were filed by
current and former employees, in Federal Court against the Company
and or one of its subsidiaries, alleging violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The plaintiffs seek 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 plaintiffs
are seeking recovery on their own behalf as well as a class of
similarly situated employees.

Settlement of the class action against the Company was approved
and a judgment was entered November 19, 2015. The Company has
settled the vast majority of these claims and is evaluating
potential settlements for the remaining individual plaintiffs'
claims which are not expected to be significant.

Oil States International, Inc., through its subsidiaries, is a
leading provider of specialty products and services to oil and
natural gas companies throughout the world.


ORKIDIA LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Makaron" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Makaron, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Orkidia LLC, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00925-ODW-AFM
(C.D. Cal., February 10, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's
practice of making unsolicited calls.

Orkidia LLC operates a physical fitness facility located in Los
Gatos, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
      Meghan Elisabeth George, Esq.
      Todd M Friedman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD FRIEDMAN PC
      324 South Beverly Drive Suite 725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com
              mgeorge@toddflaw.com
              tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


PALM BEACH, FL: Farmworkers Coalition Sues Over Protest Ban
-----------------------------------------------------------
Terry Spencer, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
U.S. farmworkers coalition is suing Palm Beach, alleging the
wealthy town's ordinances effectively bar the group from its
constitutional right to hold a protest near the home of a
billionaire fast-food executive.

The Coalition of Immokalee Workers, representing about 40,000
field workers, wants a federal judge to allow a planned
demonstration March 12 near the home of Wendy's Company board
chairman Nelson Peltz.  At issue is the company's refusal to pay a
penny-per-pound fee for its tomatoes to supplement some
farmworkers' wages. No hearing date has been set.

The coalition says that while Palm Beach's ordinances expressly
permit demonstrations, others are an effective ban, violating
First Amendment rights of free speech and peaceful assembly.
According to the lawsuit, those ordinances say demonstrations
cannot: make any noise that annoys the community or disturbs the
peace; impede foot or vehicle traffic; use amplification, banners
and non-government flags.

Palm Beach Town Manager Tom Bradford said he doesn't understand
why the lawsuit was filed.  He said the town is willing to allow
the protest but "they aren't happy it wouldn't be in the exact
manner they want." He said he plans to sign the special event
permit.

"They have to follow our rules. We have to treat everyone
equally," Mr. Bradford said.

He added this would be the first demonstration in Palm Beach since
at least 2000.

Of the 590 Florida cities, towns and unincorporated areas with at
least 1,000 households the U.S Census Bureau tracks, Palm Beach is
10th in median household income at $105,700 and has a year-round
population of about 8,700 that swells in winter.  Current and
former residents and property owners include the Kennedy family,
Donald Trump, commentators Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter and
entertainers Jimmy Buffett, John Lennon and Rod Stewart.

Immokalee, the southwest Florida farming town about 100 miles from
Palm Beach where the coalition is based, is 575th with median
household income of $25,725.

The coalition has used demonstrations and sometimes consumer
boycotts against the five largest fast-food companies -- Wendy's,
McDonalds, Burger King, Subway and Taco Bell -- to pressure them
into joining its "Fair Food Program."  All but Wendy's eventually
joined.  The coalition announced a boycott against Wendy's on
March 3.

Participating companies pay the extra penny-per-pound to their
tomato growers to supplement field worker wages in Florida and six
other states: Georgia, the Carolinas, Maryland, Virginia and New
Jersey.

Tomato harvesters make an average of about $10,000 during the six-
month season, getting paid 50 cents for every 32-pound basket they
fill.  The coalition says the program can add $20 to $150 per week
to their checks.

Mr. Peltz, a 73-year-old investor, has a net worth of $1.35
billion and is the 423rd richest American, according to Forbes
Magazine. One of his companies, Triarc, bought Wendy's in 2008 for
$2.3 billion and he became chairman. Wendy's did not make him
available for comment.

University of Florida media law professor Lyrissa Lidsky, who
isn't involved in the case, said that under the First Amendment
and applicable court rulings, cities and towns must allow peaceful
demonstrations. Any restrictions must be reasonable and narrow,
such as banning the use of bullhorns in residential areas
overnight.  Restrictions cannot be so vague as to give town
officials discretion to ban speech they don't like.

"Anything that unduly denies the right to protest is
unconstitutional," she said.

Coalition attorney Steve Hitov said the group has never sued a
city to hold a demonstration in its two decades. He says
negotiations with Palm Beach took most of January and February.

Mr. Hitov said no one has ever been arrested at a coalition
demonstration nor has there been any violence or vandalism.  About
500 people are expected at the Palm Beach demonstration, Mr. Hitov
said, which would include a march and closing waterfront park
rally involving amplified speakers, banners and signs. The park is
near Mr. Peltz' home.

"We hold professional, joyous marches that convey the message to
the public that certain corporate purchasing practices make the
lives of real persons worse," Mr. Hitov said.

Wendy's spokesman Bob Bertini said the coalition has demanded the
Dublin, Ohio-based company pay an additional fee directly to the
tomato harvesters who work for suppliers contracted by the chain.

"These individuals are not Wendy's employees, and we have not
thought it appropriate to pay another company's workers -- just as
we do not pay factory workers, truck drivers or maintenance
personnel that work for our other suppliers," his statement said.


PAVESTONE COMPANY: Sued in Cal. Over Defective Pavestone Polysand
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Danny Abdulla v. Pavestone Company d/b/a Pavestone LLC and Does 1-
100, inclusive, Case No. BC609764 (Cal. Super. Ct., February 9,
2016), is an action for damages as a proximate result of the
Defendants' placement for sale of defective Pavestone Polysand,
which bleached the surface of the pavers/stones and left a hazy
semi-transparent white-like film on the pavers/stone despite being
used and handled in the normal and foreseeable fashion.

Pavestone Company is engaged in the business of designing,
manufacturing, and assembling a multitude of pavers, stones,
outdoor living systems, polymeric jointing compounds, and concrete
paving products for sale.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Natan Davoodi, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF NATAN DAVOODI, ESQ.
      3580 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1260
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (310) 889-4554
      Facsimile: (213) 382-4083


PHILADELPHIA, PA: Faces Legal Woes Over Jail Overcrowding
---------------------------------------------------------
Maura Ewing, writing for The Atlantic, reports that before even
being sworn into office, newly-minted mayor Jim Kenney promised to
reduce the city of Philadelphia's jail population by one third in
the next three years.  The jails have been at over-capacity for
decades, causing many inmates to be housed three to a two-person
cell, a practice known as triple-celling, "which means there are
two bunkbeds, and at night they put down a piece of foam on the
floor for the third person, whose head is about a foot from the
toilet," said David Rudovsky, a civil-rights attorney.

As of mid-January, there were approximately 1,380 people in triple
cells, according to Mr. Rudovsky.  He has been a head litigator
for four out of the five class-action lawsuits brought against the
city for jail overcrowding.  The suits date back to 1969.  The
lead plaintiff in a 2006-2007 class action suit, Lee Bowers, gave
vivid testimony about the crowded conditions he endured in a
holding cell during his relatively brief but, by his own account,
traumatic detainment.  He was arrested on a court non-appearance
warrant related to payment for his children's health insurance.
For three days he was held in a series of 9-by-13-foot cells --
about the size of a small single bedroom -- packed with 30 men.
Those who got a spot on a bench were lucky, Mr. Bowers said.

"People were sitting on the floor, standing up, standing over by
the toilets, sitting up on the wall that separated the toilets,"
Bowers told the court.  The heat, he said, was unbearable.  He
estimated 90 to 100 degrees. One fellow inmate passed out; he was
dragged away by guards to be revived.  After three days of this he
saw a judge and was sent home, his bench warrant lifted.  Several
days after he was released from jail, Mr. Bowers entered the local
hospital for treatment of his leg which was still swollen after he
spent a night without drinking anything and curled under a jail
bench, cramped by other inmates. He was treated for a severe blood
clot.

The most recent overcrowding class-action case, Williams et. al.
v. City of Philadelphia, was temporarily resolved in 2008 with a
settlement which allowed lawyers for the plaintiffs to monitor the
jail-system conditions.  But conditions worsened and the jail
population again grew; the case was reopened in 2012 at the
request of Mr. Rudovsky and his colleagues.  One response from the
city has been to simply build more cells.  "When I started this
litigation, in '69, there was a capacity in the prison system of
about 2,700," Mr. Rudovsky says. Today the capacity is 6,500.  "So
they've added a lot of beds, but that is both expensive and I say
it just invites more people to be in the prison system." (The
city-jail system--where people are held pretrial or for short
sentences--is officially called the Philadelphia Prison System.)
The problem is, he said, "over-reliance on pretrial incarceration
for a lot of people who are not a danger to the community, but are
locked up anyway."

The situation has gotten better over the past few years.  The jail
system's inmate population reached a peak in 2009 with 9,800
inmates, nearly 3,000 of whom were triple-celled--more than twice
as many as there are today.  Since then, the jail population has
decreased due to a series of factors including several pretrial
reforms, such as an increase of diversion programs, more use of
home monitoring rather than keeping people in on a low bail, and a
"Video Crash Course" program through which probation and parole
hearings for minor offenses can be held in local precinct
stations, accelerating the disposition of these cases.

Still, the number of people held in the Philadelphia jail system
today is far from acceptable, Mr. Rudovsky said.  But if this
administration is as serious about reform as it claims, he said,
he's hopeful that the problem will be alleviated without
litigation. The city already received $150,000 from the MacArthur
Foundation to study reducing its jail population.  "We are
positioned to have some short term goals and gains," said Council
President Darrell Clarke, who has been leading reform efforts
alongside Kenney. "I don't understand why it has taken so long,"
he said.  A city council Special Committee on Criminal Justice
Reform, which Mr. Clarke proposed, was formally launched in
February.

The city has a grant application for up to $4 million pending with
the MacArthur Foundation. Elected officials have been tight lipped
about the proposal's specifics, but have indicated that it
generally focuses on decreasing reliance on cash bail, bolstering
diversion programs to decrease pretrial detainment, and enhancing
mental-health services for defendants awaiting trial.  The grant
recipients are expected to be announced mid-March.  Regardless of
whether the money is granted, both Messrs. Kenney and Clarke agree
that the reforms are necessary and will continue -- though perhaps
on a slower timeline. "It's all about priorities,"
Mr. Clarke said.  "If these are the things that we need to change,
we're going to change them."


PINK TACO: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Ajanovic" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nikole Ajanovic, for herself and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Pink Taco of Los Angeles, LLC, BTR Sunset Strip, LLC,
Harry Morton, and Does 1-100, Case No. BC611380 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
February 23, 2015) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime
wages, missed meal and rest breaks, statutory damages and
penalties, prejudgment interest, costs, attorneys' fees,
restitution, and other appropriate relief for the Defendants'
violations of various sections of California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 8225 Sunset
Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90046.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Ryu, Esq.
      Jack Bazerkanian, Esq.
      SHINRYU BAZERKANIAN LLP
      714 W. Olympic Boulevard, Ste. 714
      Los Angeles, CA 90015
      Telephone: (213) 986-3430
      Facsimile: (213)986-9860
      E-mail: lawyers@srb-law.com


PIZZA 33: Faces "Tapia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baltazar Tapia, on behalf of others similarly situated v. Pizza 33
Corp., d/b/a Pizza 33 and Reno Lacerra, Case No. 1:16-cv-01394
(S.D.N.Y., February 23, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Pizza 33 Corp. operates a restaurant in New York.

Baltazar Tapia is a pro se plaintiff.


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Ordered to Stop Misleading Oil Spill Victims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Coast Business Times reports that a U.S. District Court
ordered Plains All American Pipeline to stop misleading claimants
seeking to recover interim damages from the Refugio oil spill and
invalidate releases that preclude them from joining the class-
action lawsuit and recouping further compensation.

"The Court finds that Defendants are engaged in misleading conduct
by using the OPA claims process -- a process intended to
compensate oil spill victims -- to steer those victims towards
unwittingly waiving their rights to full recovery," the March 3
order reads.

Judge Philip Gutierrez ruled that the Oil Protection Act enacted
after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in 1989 did not intend to force
victims to choose between partial payment now and full payment
later.  Both Plains' advertisements and actions have mislead the
victims of the oil spill by requiring them to sign away their
rights to obtain short-term claims or omitting information about
the current class-action lawsuit, according to the order.

"The OPA legally obligates responsible parties to pay victims
short-term damages, and responsible parties cannot shirk that
obligation out of fear that they will later be forced to answer
for the full extent of their liability," the order reads.

The court ordered Plains to send claimants "curative notices"
conveying their right to participate in ongoing and future
litigation.  It prohibited Plains from misleading claimants,
obtaining releases forfeiting rights without legal consent and
telling them about the pending class action. The court also voided
previous releases.

"The Court finds these cures necessary to guard against the
likelihood that the class action process has been abused," the
order reads.

Keller Rohrback, Cappello & Noel and Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein amended a class-action lawsuit in December to attempt to
prevent Plains All American, the Houston-based energy producer
responsible for the Refugio oil spill, from misleading claimants
who were allegedly duped into taking short-term damages and
forgoing their rights.

"Defendants' actions are all the more suspicious in light of their
own representation that continuing the process will foreclose the
need for a class action.  Defendants have used a statutorily-
mandated process which explicitly preserves a victim's claims to
pick off unrepresented victims in hopes of defeating numerosity
down the line," the order reads.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Jones" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC, et al., Case No.
4:16-cv-00411-RBH (D.S.C., February 10, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC operates a debt collection
agency headquartered at 120 Corporate Boulevard, Norfolk, Virginia
23502.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Andrew Maxfield, Esq.
      DAVID MAXFIELD LAW OFFICE
      5217 N Trenholm Road, Suite B
      Columbia, SC 29206
      Telephone: (803) 509-6800
      E-mail: dave@consumerlawsc.com


PTC THERAPEUTICS: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP on March 3 disclosed that it has filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of persons or entities ("the
Class") who purchased or otherwise acquired PTC Therapeutics, Inc.
("PTC" or the "Company") securities between May 6, 2014 and
February 23, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period).

If you are a member of the Class, you may move the Court no later
than 60 days from the date of this notice to serve as lead
plaintiff. Please contact Lesley Portnoy at 888-773-9224 or 310-
201-9150, or at shareholders@glancylaw.com
to discuss this matter.

On February 23, 2016, pre-market, PTC disclosed that the Company
had received a Refuse to File letter from the United States Food
and Drug Administration ("FDA") regarding PTC's New Drug
Application for Translarna(TM) (ataluren), an oral, first-in-
class, protein restoration therapy for the treatment of nonsense
mutation Duchenne muscular dystrophy.  The FDA contends in the
Refuse to File letter that the application was partially
incomplete, making the FDA's substantive review of Translarna
virtually impossible.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that
the Company's NDA for Translarna that it submitted to the FDA was
not sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review of the
application; (2) that, as such, the application would not be
reviewed nor approved by the FDA; (3) that the impending non-
approval of the NDA would have a negative material impact on the
Company's operations and prospects; and (4) that, as a result of
the foregoing Defendants' statements about PTC Therapeutics'
business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this
time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and
remain an absent member of the Class.  If you wish to learn more
about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of Glancy Prongay
& Murray LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles,
California 90067, at (310) 201-9150, by e-mail to
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com

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


RAMOS FURNITURE: "Topete" Suit Transferred to E.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARISOL TOPETE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. RAMOS
FURNITURE, Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-00845-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted the stipulation between plaintiffs
Marisol Topete and Rosalba Maldonado and defendant Ramos
Furniture, transferring the venue of the case to the Eastern
District of California.

Judge Gilliam found that transferring the wage-and-hour putative
class action, which was brought under federal and state law on
February 25, 2015, to the Eastern District of California is
appropriate because the Eastern District is the center of gravity
of the action, both plaintiffs are residents of Fresno County in
the Eastern District, and most of the putative class members,
third-party witnesses, and physical evidence are in the Eastern
District where four of the key stores at issue are located.

A full-text copy of Judge Gilliam's February 25, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/09Y3T1from Leagle.com.

Marisol Topete, Rosalba Maldonado, Plaintiffs, represented by
Angela E. Martinez, Wagner, Jones, Kopfman, & Artenian LLP, Daniel
Myers Kopfman, Law Offices of Wagner Jones, Nicholas John Paul
Wagner, Law Offices of Wagner & Jones & Andrew Butler Jones, Esq.,
Wagner & Jones.

Ramos Furniture, Defendant, represented by Paul Joseph Bauer --
pbauer@w2blaw.com --  Walter & Wilhelm Law Group.


RESERVES NETWORK: Illegally Obtains Background Reports, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Londell Easley, individually and as a representative of the
Classes v. The Reserves Network, Inc., Case No. CV 16 858592 (Ohio
Cmmw., February 5, 2016) is brought against the Defendant for
failure to provide required disclosures prior to procuring
background reports on applicants and employees, and failure to
provide applicants and employees with pre-adverse action notice
and a copy of their consumer reports prior to taking adverse
action against them.

The Reserves Network, Inc. operates a staffing services company
that is headquartered in Fairview Park, Ohio, and has more than 40
branch locations throughout Ohio, Illinois, and several other
states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew A. Dooley, Esq.
      O'TOOLE MCLAUGHLIN DOOLEY & PECORA CO LPA
      5455 Detroit Rd, (Route 254)
      Sheffield Village, OH 44054
      Telephone: (440) 930-4001
      Facsimile: (440) 934-7205
      E-mail: mdooley@omdplaw.com


RICHARD SOKOLOFF: Illegally Collects Debt, "Shedler" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Teresa M. Shedler, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated v. Richard Sokoloff d/b/a Richard Sokoloff Attorney At
Law, Case No. 2:16-cv-00728-MCA-MAH (D.N.J., February 9, 2016),
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.

Richard Sokoloff operates a law firm in Medford, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
      17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
      Rutherford, NJ 07070
      Telephone: (201) 507-6300
      E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com


SBE ENTERTAINMENT: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Deric Walintukan, on behalf of himself, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. SBE Entertainment
Group, LLC, et al., Case No. CIV537393 (Cal. Super., February 16,
2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making
unsolicited calls.

SBE Entertainment Group, LLC is a California limited liability
company with its principal place of business located at 5900
Wilshire Boulevard, Thirty-First Floor, Los Angeles, California.
SBE Entertainment Group operates in hospitality, real estate
development, and entertainment businesses in Southern California.

Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
     Marc L. Godino, Esq.
     Mark S. Greenstone, Esq.
     GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
     1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Telephone: (310) 201-9150
     Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
     E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

          - and -

     Michael J. Jaurigue, Esq.
     Abigail A. Zelenski, Esq.
     David Zelenski, Esq.
     JAURIGUE LAW GROUP
     114 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 200
     Glendale, CA 91203
     Telephone: (818) 630-7280
     Facsimile: (888) 879-1697
     E-mail: michael@jlglawyers.com
             abigail@jlglawyers.com
             david@jlglawyers.com


SECURITY FOREVER: Faces "Fuentes" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Rodriguez Fuentes, Noel Rodriguez Pena Baez, Zayda Maibel
Gonzalez Rodriguez, Alexis Rodriguez Fuentes, and all others
similarly situated v. Security Forever LLC, Luis Llanes, Juan
Awais, and Daysi Morell, Case No. 1:16-cv-20483-RNS (S.D. Fla.,
February 9, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a security guard services company
located at 19805 NW 78th Ave, Hialeah, FL 33015.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SEE'S CANDY: Falsely Marketed Assorted Chocolates, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avi Weiss, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. See's Candy Shops Inc., and See's Candies
Inc., and Does 1 through 5, Case No. 4:16-cv-00661-DMR (N.D. Cal.,
February 9, 2016), is brought on behalf of all consumers who
purchased the Defendants' Classic Red Heart Assorted Chocolates,
that were falsely marketed as Kosher certified goods.

The Defendants own and operate over 200 See's Candy stores across
the nation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David C. Parisi, Esq.
      Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
      PARISI & HAVENS LLP
      Santa Monica, CA 90405
      Telephone: (818) 990-1299
      Facsimile: (818) 501-7852
      E-mail: dparisi@parisihavens.com
              shavens@parisihavens.com

         - and -

      Yitzchak H. Lieberman, Esq.
      Grace E. Parasmo, Esq.
      PARASMO LIEBERMAN LAW
      7400 Hollywood Blvd, #505
      Los Angeles, CA 90046
      Telephone: (917) 657-6857
      Facsimile: (877) 501-3346
      E-mail: ylieberman@parasmoliebermanlaw.com
              gparasmo@parasmoliebermanlaw.com


SEI INVESTMENTS: Defending 6 Lawsuits in Louisiana
--------------------------------------------------
SEI Investments Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that SEI has been named
in six lawsuits filed in Louisiana.

Five lawsuits were filed in the 19th Judicial District Court for
the Parish of East Baton Rouge. One of the five actions purports
to set forth claims on behalf of a class and also names SPTC as a
defendant. Two of the other actions also name SPTC as a defendant.

All five actions name various defendants in addition to SEI, and,
in all five actions, the plaintiffs purport to bring a cause of
action against SEI and/or SPTC under the Louisiana Securities Act.
Two of the five actions include claims for violations of the
Louisiana Racketeering Act and possibly conspiracy.

In addition, another group of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the
23rd Judicial District Court for the Parish of Ascension against
SEI and SPTC and other defendants, asserting claims of negligence,
breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violations of the
uniform fiduciaries law, negligent misrepresentation, detrimental
reliance, violations of the Louisiana Securities Act and Louisiana
Racketeering Act, and conspiracy.

The underlying allegations in all actions relate to the purported
role of SPTC in providing back-office services to Stanford Trust
Company. The petitions allege that SEI and SPTC aided and abetted
or otherwise participated in the sale of "certificates of deposit"
issued by Stanford International Bank.

The case filed in Ascension Parish was removed to federal court
and transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas. The schedule for responding to that petition has not yet
been established.

The plaintiffs in two of the cases filed in East Baton Rouge have
granted SEI and SPTC an indefinite extension to respond to the
petitions.

In a third East Baton Rouge action, brought as a class action, SEI
and SPTC filed exceptions, which the Court granted in part,
dismissing the claims under the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices
Act. Plaintiffs then filed a motion for class certification, and
SEI and SPTC also filed a motion for summary judgment.

The Court deferred the motion for summary judgment, stating that
the motion would not be set for hearing until after the hearing on
class certification. After the Court held a hearing on class
certification, it certified a class composed of persons who
purchased or renewed any Stanford International Bank certificates
of deposit (SIB CDs) in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and
February 13, 2009 or any person for whom the Stanford Trust
Company purchased SIB CDs in Louisiana between January 1, 2007 and
February 13, 2009. SEI and SPTC filed motions for appeal from the
class certification judgments.

On February 1, 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for Leave to File a
First Amended and Restated Class Action Petition in which they
asked the Court to allow them to amend the petition and add claims
against certain of SEI's insurance carriers. On February 5, 2013,
the Court granted two of the motions for appeal and the motion for
leave to amend. On February 28, 2013, SEI responded to the First
Amended and Restated Class Action Petition by seeking dismissal of
the action.

On March 11, 2013, the newly-added insurance carrier defendants
removed the case to the Middle District of Louisiana. SEI notified
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) of this case
as a potential tag-along action. Plaintiffs filed a motion to
remand the action to state court. On March 25, 2013, SEI filed a
motion requesting that the federal court decline to adopt the
state court's order regarding class certification, which the court
dismissed without prejudice to renew upon a determination of the
jurisdictional issue.

On August 7, 2013, the MDL Panel transferred the matter against
SEI to the Northern District of Texas. On October 1, 2014, SEI
filed a renewed motion to dismiss in the Northern District of
Texas, and on October 6, 2014, the District Court denied
plaintiffs' motion to remand.

On June 17, 2015, the Court denied the motion to dismiss, and on
June 24, 2015 set a briefing schedule for SEI and SPTC's motion
challenging the Louisiana court's decision to certify a class,
which motion was filed on July 15, 2015. SEI and SPTC filed their
answer on July 1, 2015, and this case is now pending in the
Northern District of Texas. On July 15, 2015, SEI and SPTC also
filed motions seeking reconsideration of the District Court's June
17 denial of the motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, seeking
leave to pursue an interlocutory appeal of certain elements of the
denial, as well as a motion seeking partial judgment on the
pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) with
respect to claims brought under Section 712(D) of the Louisiana
Securities Law.

On September 22, 2015, the District Court granted SEI and SPTC's
motion for reconsideration of the June 17 denial of the motion to
dismiss and dismissed plaintiffs' claims under Section 714(A) of
the Louisiana Securities Law, but declined to dismiss, or certify
for interlocutory appeal, plaintiffs' claims under Section 714(B)
of the Louisiana Securities Law. On November 4, 2015, the District
Court granted SEI and SPTC's motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims
under Section 712(D) of the Louisiana Securities Law.

Consequently, the only claims of plaintiffs still pending before
the District Court are plaintiff's claims for secondary liability
against SEI and SPTC under Section 714(B) of the Louisiana
Securities Law.

Identifying information for the this case is Lillie v. Stanford
Trust Company, et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Civil Action No: 3:13-CV-03127.

In the two other cases filed in East Baton Rouge, brought by the
same counsel who filed the class action, virtually all of the
litigation to date has involved motions practice and appellate
litigation regarding the existence of federal subjection matter
jurisdiction under the federal Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act (SLUSA). After the matter was removed to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, that
court dismissed the action under SLUSA. The Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit reversed that order, and the Supreme Court of
the United States affirmed the Court of Appeals judgment on
February 26, 2014. The matter was remanded to state court and no
material activity has taken place since that date.

While the outcome of this litigation is uncertain given its early
phase, SEI and SPTC believe that they have valid defenses to
plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously.
Because of the uncertainty of the make-up of the classes, the
specific theories of liability that may survive a motion for
summary judgment or other dispositive motion, the lack of
discovery regarding damages, causation, mitigation and other
aspects that may ultimately bear upon loss, the Company is not
reasonably able to provide an estimate of loss, if any, with
respect to the foregoing lawsuits.

SEI (NASDAQ: SEIC) is a global provider of investment processing,
investment management and investment operations solutions.


SERVICE EMPLOYEES: Settlement in "Lum" Suit Has Initial OK
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JEFFREY LUM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SERVICE
EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 521, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 14-CV-05230-LHK (N.D. Cal.), Judge Lucy H. Koh issued an order
granting provisional class certification and preliminary approval
of a settlement agreement entered into between plaintiffs Jeffrey
Lum and Andrew Li, individually and in their representative
capacities on behalf of the settlement class, and defendants
Service Employees International Union Local 521, the County of
Santa Clara, and Alan Minato, in his official capacity as the
Controller-Treasurer of the County.

Judge Koh conditionally certified for settlement purposes only,
the settlement class which was defined to include: "[A]ll
nonmember Employees who, between December 1, 2012, and the date of
final approval of this Agreement by the District Court, have
timely and properly objected to paying non-chargeable fees to
Local 521." "Employee" is defined as "a public sector employee who
is represented in collective bargaining by Local 521."  The
settlement class consists of 3,959 members.

Judge Koh found that the settlement agreement falls within the
range of possible approval as fair, reasonable, adequate, and in
the best interests of the settlement class and meets all
applicable requirements of law.

Judge Koh further ordered that the amended notice shall be mailed
and emailed to all settlement class members by April 18, 2016.
Objections by any settlement class member must be postmarked on or
before May 18, 2016, and mailed to Judge Koh's Case System
Administrator at the United States Courthouse, 280 South 1st
Street, Room 2112, San Jose, CA 95113 or filed personally at any
location of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The Final Approval Hearing shall be held on June 30, 2016, at 1:30
p.m. in Courtroom 8 of the United States Courthouse, 280 South 1st
Street, 4th Floor, San Jose, CA 95113.

A full-text copy of Judge Koh's February 25, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/4NmqNYfrom Leagle.com.

Jeffrey Lum, Andrew Li, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Richard
Burlingham, Gary Till and Burlingham, Milton L. Chappell, National
Right to Work Legal & Nathan John McGrath.

Service Employees International Union Local 521, Employee
organization, Defendant, represented by Kerianne Ruth Steele --
ksteele@unioncounsel.net -- Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld, Jeffrey
B. Demain -- jdemain@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler Berzon LLP &
Scott Alan Kronland -- skronland@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler
Berzon LLP.

County of Santa Clara, Alan Minato, Defendants, represented by
Nancy Joan Clark, Office of County Counsel.


SL MANAGEMENT: Faces "Wolfe" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maryrose Wolfe and Cassie Klein, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SL Management Services, LLC, d/b/a
Sapphires Gentleman's Club, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00139-WCG
(E.D. Wis., February 9, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

SL Management Services, LLC owns and operates a gentleman's club
and restaurant at W7191 HWY 10-114, Menasha, Wisconsin 54952.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
      Summer Murshid, Esq.
      Timothy Maynard, Esq.
      HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
      222 East Erie, Suite 210 P.O. Box 442
      Milwaukee, WI  53201-0442
      Telephone: (414) 271-8650
      Facsimile: (414) 271-8442
      E-mail: ljohnson@hq-law.com
              smurshid@hq-law.com
              tmaynard@hq-law.com


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: Faces Century Suit Over Aliso Gas Leak
---------------------------------------------------------------
Century Auto Repair, Inc., d/b/a Brake Master Northridge,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Southern California Gas Company, Sempra Energy, and Does 1 through
100, Inclusive, Case No. BC609370 (Cal. Super. Ct., February 5,
2016), arises out of the massive methane gas leak at the
Defendants' Aliso Canyon Storage Facility, located just north of
Porter Ranch and Northridge near Los Angeles, California.

The Defendants store and sell natural gas in California and
transmits such through the City of Los Angeles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raymond P. Boucher, Esq.
      Maria L. Weitz, Esq.
      Priscilla Szeto, Esq.
      BOUCHER LLP
      21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367-4903
      Telephone: (818)340-5400
      Facsimile: (818)340-5401
      E-mail: ray@boucher.la
              weitz@boucher.la
              szeto@boucher.la

         - and -

      Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
      18250 Ventura Boulevard
      Tarzana, CA 91356
      Telephone: (818)609-0807
      Facsimile: (818)609-0892
      E-mail: sahagii@aoI.com


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: Faces "Joe" Suit Over Aliso Gas Leak
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hyun Joe v. Southern California Gas Company and Sempra Energy, and
Does 1-100, Case No. BC609526 (Cal. Super. Ct., February 8, 2016),
arises out of the massive methane gas leak at the Defendants'
Aliso Canyon Storage Facility, located just north of Porter Ranch
and Northridge near Los Angeles, California.

The Defendants store and sell natural gas in California and
transmits such through the City of Los Angeles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bonny E. Sweeney, Esq.
      HAUSFELD
      600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 633-1908
      Facsimile: (415) 358-4980
      E-mail: bsweeney@hausfeld.com

         - and -

      Richard Lewis, Esq.
      Kristen Ward Broz, Esq.
      HAUSFELD
      1700 K St. NW, Suite 650
      Washington, D.C. 20006
      Telephone: (202) 540-7200
      Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
      E-mail: rlewis@hausfeld.com
              kward@hausfeld.com


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: Faces "Keenan" Suit Over Aliso Gas Leak
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shaun Keenan, Zachary Keenan, and Barry Keenan, and Phillip
Brothman as trustee of the Brothmankeenan Property Trust, dated
July 31, 2015 v. Sempra Energy, Southern California Gas Company
and Does 1-100, Case No. BC609820 (Cal. Super. Ct., February 9,
2016), arises out of the massive methane gas leak at the
Defendants' Aliso Canyon Storage Facility, located just north of
Porter Ranch and Northridge near Los Angeles, California.

The Defendants store and sell natural gas in California and
transmits such through the City of Los Angeles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neville L. Johnson, Esq.
      Douglas L. Johnson, Esq.
      Jordanna G. Thigpen, Esq.
      JOHNSON & JOHNSON LLP
      439 N. Canon Drive Suite 200
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (310) 975-1080
      Facsimile: (310)975-1095
      E-mail: njohnson@jjllplaw.com
              djohnson@jjllplaw.com
              jthigpen@jjllplaw.com


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: Faces "Park" Suit Over Aliso Gas Leak
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hansin Park, et al. v. Sempra Energy, Southern California Gas
Company and Does 1-100, Case No. BC609288 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
February 9, 2016), arises out of the massive methane gas leak at
the Defendants' Aliso Canyon Storage Facility, located just north
of Porter Ranch and Northridge near Los Angeles, California.

The Defendants store and sell natural gas in California and
transmits such through the City of Los Angeles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth T. Haan, Esq.
      Kenneth A. Levine, Esq.
      KENNETH T. HAAN & ASSOCIATES
      A Professional Law Corporation
      3699 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 860
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 639-2900
      Facsimile: (213) 639-2909
      E-mail: kthaan@ltaanlaw.com
              kenlevlne@Jiaanlaw.com


STARKIST CO: "Vangemert" Antitrust Suit Consolidated in MDL 2670
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Vangemert v. Starkist Company et
al., Case No. 3:15-cv-05279, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-00155-
JLS-MDD to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the suit is filed pursuant to the
Clayton Act to obtain equitable relief, as well as to recover
treble damages, costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees for
Defendants' violations of the Sherman Act.

The Vangemert case is being consolidated with MDL 2670 in re:
Packaged Seafood Products Antitrust Litigation. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on January 21, 2016. In its January 21,
2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL
involve questions of fact that are common to the actions
previously transferred to the Southern District of California and
assigned to Presiding Judge, Hon. Janis L Sammartino, United
States District Judge. Lead case: 3:15-md-02670-JLS-MDD.

StarKist Co. produces, distributes, and markets shelf-stable
seafood products for customers in the United States and
internationally. The company offers a line of lightly marinated
tuna products, including canned tuna, pouch products, tuna
pouches, and meal kits. It serves customers through grocery
stores. The company was incorporated in 1918 and is based in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania with facility locations in Pago Pago,
American Samoa; and Guayaquil, Ecuador. StarKist Co. operates as a
subsidiary of Dongwon F&B Co., Ltd.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis Onofrei Scarpulla, Esq.
          Patrick Bradford Clayton, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF FRANCIS O. SCARPULLA
          456 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 788 7210
          Facsimile: (415) 788 0706
          E-mail: fos@scarpullalaw.com
                  pbc@scarpullalaw.com

               - and -

          Amelia F. Burroughs, Esq.
          W Timothy Needham, Esq.
          JANSSEN MALLOY LLP
          730 fifth Street
          Eureka, CA 95501
          Telephone: (707) 445 2071
          Facsimile: (707) 445 8305
          E-mail: aburroughs@janssenlaw.com
                  tneedham@janssenlaw.com


STARKIST CO: "Yee" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2670
------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Yee v. Starkist Company et al.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-05282, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-
cv-00157-JLS-MDD to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff seeks to obtain equitable relief, as well as to
recover treble damages, costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys'
fees for Defendants' alleged violations of the Clayton Act and
Sherman Act.

The Yee case is being consolidated with MDL 2670 in re:
Packaged Seafood Products Antitrust Litigation. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on January 21, 2016. In its January 21,
2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL
involve questions of fact that are common to the actions
previously transferred to the Southern District of California and
assigned to Presiding Judge, Hon. Janis L Sammartino, United
States District Judge. Lead case: 3:15-md-02670-JLS-MDD.

StarKist Co. produces, distributes, and markets shelf-stable
seafood products for customers in the United States and
internationally. The company offers a line of lightly marinated
tuna products, including canned tuna, pouch products, tuna
pouches, and meal kits. It serves customers through grocery
stores. The company was incorporated in 1918 and is based in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania with facility locations in Pago Pago,
American Samoa; and Guayaquil, Ecuador. StarKist Co. operates as a
subsidiary of Dongwon F&B Co., Ltd.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis Onofrei Scarpulla, Esq.
          Patrick Bradford Clayton, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF FRANCIS O. SCARPULLA
          456 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 788 7210
          Facsimile: (415) 788 0706
          E-mail: fos@scarpullalaw.com
                  pbc@scarpullalaw.com

               - and -

          Gerald Maltz, Esq.
          HARALSON, MILLER, PITT, FELDMAN & MCANALLY, P.L.C.
          One South Church Avenue, Suite 900
          Tucson, AZ 85701-1620
          Telephone: (520) 792 3836
          Facsimile: (520) 624 5080
          E-mail: gmaltz@hmpmlaw.com


STORED VALUE CARDS: Bid to Compel Arbitration Denied
----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DANICA LOVE BROWN, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff(s), v. STORED
VALUE CARDS, INC. (d/b/a NUMI FINANCIAL); and CENTRAL NATIONAL
BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, ENID, OKLAHOMA, Defendants, Case No. 3:15-
cv-01370-MO (D. Or.), Judge Michael W. Mosman denied the
defendants' motion to compel arbitration and ordered that the case
proceed to trial on the issue of arbitrability.

Danica Love Brown initiated a class action suit opposing the
imposition of fees on her and other similarly situated plaintiffs,
from the use of a preloaded NUMI debit card which she received
when she was released from the Multnomah County jail.  The
defendants Stored Value Cards, Inc. ("SVC") and Central National
Bank and Trust Company, Enid, Oklahoma moved to compel arbitration
in accordance with the terms of the NUMI Prestige Prepaid
MasterCard Cardholder Agreement and Brown's use of the card.
Brown, however, claimed she received neither the cardholder
agreement nor terms and conditions with her NUMI card and
therefore, she could not have agreed to it.

Judge Mosman found that there were unresolved factual issues in
the case as to whether the parties had an agreement to arbitrate,
considering that Brown lacked real alternatives when she accepted
the card, as she had to take the card and had to work through the
defendants' system in order to get her money back.  Judge Mosman
thus found it appropriate to deny the defendants' motion to compel
arbitration and ordered that the case proceed to trial on the
issue of arbitrability.  The judge also added that if, after trial
on the issue of arbitrability, arbitration is ordered, SVC is to
be a party to the arbitration, being the card servicer.

A full-text copy of Judge Mosman's February 25, 2016 opinion and
order is available at http://is.gd/5AYiNJfrom Leagle.com.

Danica Love Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Wright
Haile, Portland Law Collective, LLP, Lance Weber, Human Rights
Defense Center, pro hac vice, Raymond Audain --
raudain@gslawny.com -- Giskan Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart LLP,
pro hac vice, Sabarish Neelakanta, Human Rights Defense Center,
pro hac vice,Catherine A. Highet, Portland Law Collective, LLP &
Phil Goldsmith, Law Office of Phil Goldsmith.

Stored Value Cards, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew J.
Scavotto, Stinson Leonard Street LLP, pro hac vice, Jeffrey G.
Mason -- jeffrey.mason@stinson.com  Stinson Leonard Street LLP,
pro hac vice, Shannon L. Armstrong --
shannonarmstrong@markowitzherbold.com -- Markowitz Herbold PC,
Todd A. Noteboom -- todd.noteboom@stinson.com -- Stinson Leonard
Street LLP, pro hac vice & Emily Teplin Fox --
emilyfox@markowitzherbold.com -- Markowitz Herbold PC.

Central National Bank and Trust Company, Enid, Oklahoma,
Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Scavotto --
andrew.scavotto@stinson.com -- Stinson Leonard Street LLP, pro hac
vice,Eric J. Nystrom -- enystrom@lindquist.com -- Lindquist &
Vennum LLP, pro hac vice, John C. Ekman -- jekman@lindquist.com --
Lindquist & Vennum LLP, pro hac vice & James L. Hiller --
jhiller@hittandhiller.com -- Hitt Hiller & Monfils, LLP.


SUBWAY: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Get $525,000 Fees in Foot Long Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Fisher, writing for Dayton Daily News, reports that customers
who claimed that Subway restaurants' "Foot-long" sandwiches didn't
measure up came away nearly empty-handed in a court-approved
settlement of their class-action lawsuit against the sandwich
chain.

The federal judge who oversaw the case did not have a high opinion
of the quality of the customers' arguments that they were somehow
harmed -- and should collect damages -- because the "foot-long"
sandwiches they purchased came up short.

"By the time the initial mediation session was over, the
plaintiffs realized that their claims were quite weak,"
Lynn Adelman, U.S. District Court judge in the Eastern District of
Wisconsin, wrote in a decision and order.

Out of a settlement of $525,000, attorneys were awarded $520,000,
or more than 99 percent, while each of the 10 customers who sued a
Subway franchisor in the consolidated class-action lawsuit walked
away with $500 each.

The case had its roots in a photo that an Australian teenager
posted on Facebook in January 2013 of a Subway Footlong sandwich
he purchased that was only 11 inches long.  The image became a
social media phenomenon, and prompted attorneys in several states
to file lawsuits under state consumer-protection laws.  The
lawsuits were consolidated in Wisconsin.

Although the lawsuit didn't bring riches to the complaining
customers, the plaintiffs' attorneys did secure an agreement from
Subway's franchisor to take steps to ensure that all bread sold at
Subway restaurants is at least 12 inches long, and to post notices
to customers indicating that, due to natural variability in the
bread-baking process, the size and shape of bread may vary.  So
the judge ruled that the plaintiffs' attorneys should be awarded
legal fees, which ultimately took up nearly all of the settlement
amount.

Although the basis of the lawsuit may sound trivial, the legal
aspects were fully explored in the judge's 29-page decision and
order.  Here's an excerpt that explains why the judge felt the
case was weak:

"First, the plaintiffs learned that (the Subway franchisor's) own
testing showed that the vast majority of bread sold in Subway
restaurants was at least 12 inches long, and that most of the
bread that happened to be shorter than 12 inches was less than
1/4-inch shorter.

"Second, the plaintiffs learned that all of the raw dough sticks
used to bake Subway bread weigh exactly the same.  The dough
sticks arrive at the restaurants frozen, and are then thawed,
stretched, allowed to rise and baked. Due to natural variability
in this process, the final loaves may have slightly different
shapes.  Some loaves will be slightly shorter and wider than
others.  But because all loaves are baked from the same quantity
of dough, each loaf contains the same quantity of ingredients.
Thus, a customer who received a baked loaf that was shorter than
12 inches did not receive any less bread than he or she would have
if the loaf had measured exactly 12 inches.

"Third, the plaintiffs learned that the amount of meat and cheese
included with each sandwich is standardized.  Thus, a sandwich
that is slightly shorter than 12 inches contains the same amount
of meat and cheese as it would have had it measured exactly 12
inches.

"It is theoretically possible that a sandwich made on a slightly
shorter loaf would contain a slightly diminished quantity of
toppings -- a sandwich that was 1/4-inch shorter than advertised
might be missing a few shreds of lettuce or a gram or two of
mayonnaise.  However, Subway sandwiches are made to order in front
of the customer, and if the customer asks for more of any
particular topping, the employee making the sandwich will add more
of that topping to the sandwich.  Thus, the plaintiffs learned
that, as a practical matter, the length of the bread does not
affect the quantity of food the customer receives."


SUNEDISON INC: "Dull" Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
---------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dull and Eric O'Day, individually and on behalf of the
SunEdison Retirement Savings Plan, and all other similarly
situated Plan participants and beneficiaries v. SunEdison, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-00173 (E.D. Miss., February 9, 2016),
arises out of the Defendants' alleged breach of their fiduciary
duties, specifically by retaining SunEdison common stock as an
investment option under the Plan, when a reasonable fiduciary
using the care, skill, prudence, and diligence that a prudent man
acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would
have done otherwise.

SunEdison, Inc. operates a renewable energy company headquartered
in Saint Peters, Missouri.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Francis A. Bottini Jr., Esq.
      Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
      Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
      BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
      7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
      La Jolla, CA  92037
      Telephone: (858) 914-2001
      Facsimile: (858) 914-2002
      E-mail: mail@bottinilaw.com


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Oral Argument Held in Plaintiff's Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in the so-called
Arizona Owner-operator Class Action Litigation, oral argument was
scheduled for February 17, 2016, on Plaintiff's Petition for
Special Action with the Arizona Court of Appeals.

On January 30, 2004, a class action lawsuit was filed by Leonel
Garza on behalf of himself and all similarly-situated persons
against Swift Transportation: Garza v. Swift Transportation Co.,
Inc., Case No. CV7-472 (the "Garza Complaint"). The putative class
originally involved certain owner-operators who contracted with
the Company under a 2001 Contractor Agreement that was in place
for one year. The putative class is alleging that the Company
should have reimbursed owner-operators for actual miles driven
rather than the contracted and industry standard remuneration
based upon dispatched miles.

The trial court denied plaintiff's petition for class
certification. The plaintiff appealed and on August 6, 2008, the
Arizona Court of Appeals issued an unpublished Memorandum Decision
reversing the trial court's denial of class certification and
remanding the case back to the trial court.

On November 14, 2008, the Company filed a petition for review to
the Arizona Supreme Court regarding the issue of class
certification as a consequence of the denial of the Motion for
Reconsideration by the Court of Appeals. On March 17, 2009, the
Arizona Supreme Court granted the Company's petition for review,
and on July 31, 2009, the Arizona Supreme Court vacated the
decision of the Court of Appeals, opining that the Court of
Appeals lacked automatic appellate jurisdiction to reverse the
trial court's original denial of class certification and remanded
the matter back to the trial court for further evaluation and
determination.

Thereafter, the plaintiff renewed the motion for class
certification and expanded it to include all persons who were
employed by Swift as employee drivers or who contracted with Swift
as owner-operators on or after January 30, 1998, in each case who
were compensated by reference to miles driven.

On November 4, 2010, the Maricopa County trial court entered an
order certifying a class of owner-operators and expanding the
class to include employees. Upon certification, the Company filed
a motion to compel arbitration, as well as filing numerous motions
in the trial court urging dismissal on several other grounds
including, but not limited to the lack of an employee as a class
representative, and because the named owner-operator class
representative only contracted with the Company for a three-month
period under a one-year contract that no longer exists.

In addition to these trial court motions, the Company also filed a
petition for special action with the Arizona Court of Appeals,
arguing that the trial court erred in certifying the class because
the trial court relied upon the Court of Appeals ruling that was
previously overturned by the Arizona Supreme Court.

On April 7, 2011, the Arizona Court of Appeals declined
jurisdiction to hear this petition for special action and the
Company filed a petition for review to the Arizona Supreme Court.
On August 31, 2011, the Arizona Supreme Court declined to review
the decision of the Arizona Court of Appeals.

In April 2012, the trial court issued the following rulings with
respect to certain motions filed by Swift: (1) denied Swift's
motion to compel arbitration; (2) denied Swift's request to
decertify the class; (3) granted Swift's motion that there is no
breach of contract; and (4) granted Swift's motion to limit class
size based on statute of limitations.

On November 13, 2014, the court denied plaintiff's motion to add
new class representatives for the employee class and therefore the
employee class remains without a plaintiff class representative.
On March 18, 2015, the court denied Swift's two motions for
summary judgment (1) to dismiss any claims related to the employee
class since there is no class representative; and (2) to dismiss
plaintiff's claim of breach of a duty of good faith and fair
dealing. On July 14, 2015, the court granted Swift's motion to
decertify the entire class.

On December 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a Petition for Special
Action with the Arizona Court of appeals. That petition has been
fully briefed and oral argument was scheduled for February 17,
2016.

Swift is a multi-faceted transportation services company,
operating one of the largest fleets of truckload equipment in
North America from over 40 terminals near key freight centers and
traffic lanes.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Misclassification Suit in Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the so-called
Ninth Circuit Owner-Operator Misclassification Class Action
Litigation remains pending in the district court and is currently
in discovery.

On December 22, 2009, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Swift Transportation and IEL: Virginia VanDusen, John Doe 1 and
Joseph Sheer, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-
situated persons v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., Interstate
Equipment Leasing, Inc., Jerry Moyes, and Chad Killebrew, Case No.
9-CIV-10376 filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (the "Sheer Complaint"). The
putative class involves owner-operators alleging that Swift
Transportation misclassified owner-operators as independent
contractors in violation of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), and various New York and California state laws and that
such owner-operators should be considered employees. The lawsuit
also raises certain related issues with respect to the lease
agreements that certain owner-operators have entered into with
IEL.

At present, in addition to the named plaintiffs, approximately 450
other current or former owner-operators have joined this lawsuit.
Upon Swift's motion, the matter was transferred from the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York to the
United States District Court in Arizona.

On May 10, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally
certify an FLSA collective action and authorize notice to the
potential class members. On September 23, 2010, plaintiffs filed a
motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin Swift and
IEL from collecting payments from plaintiffs who are in default
under their lease agreements and related relief. On September 30,
2010, the district court granted Swift's motion to compel
arbitration and ordered that the class action be stayed, pending
the outcome of arbitration. The district court further denied
plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction and motion for
conditional class certification. The district court also denied
plaintiff's request to arbitrate the matter as a class.

The plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals asking that the district court's
September 30, 2010 order be vacated. On July 27, 2011, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiff's petition for writ
of mandamus and thereafter the district court denied plaintiff's
motion for reconsideration and certified its September 30, 2010
order.

The plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals to overturn the district court's September 30,
2010 order to compel arbitration, alleging that the agreement to
arbitrate is exempt from arbitration under Section 1 of the
Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") because the class of plaintiffs
allegedly consists of employees exempt from arbitration
agreements.

On November 6, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed
and remanded, stating its prior published decision, "expressly
held that a district court must determine whether an agreement for
arbitration is exempt from arbitration under Section 1 of the FAA
as a threshold matter." As a consequence of this determination by
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals being different from a decision
of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on a similar issue, on
February 4, 2014, the Company filed a petition for writ of
certiorari to the United States Supreme Court to address whether
the district court or arbitrator should determine whether the
contract is an employment contract exempt from Section 1 of the
Federal Arbitration Act. On June 16, 2014, the United States
Supreme Court denied the Company's petition for writ of
certiorari.

The matter remains pending in the district court and is currently
in discovery.

The Company also filed a writ of mandamus and appeal from the
district court's order that effectively denied the Company's
motion to compel arbitration. The Ninth Circuit held oral argument
on November 16, 2015 and the parties await a decision from the
Court.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against any proceedings.
The final disposition of this case and the impact of such final
disposition cannot be determined at this time.

Swift is a multi-faceted transportation services company,
operating one of the largest fleets of truckload equipment in
North America from over 40 terminals near key freight centers and
traffic lanes.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: April 25 Certification Hearing in "Burnell"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a class
certification briefing schedule has been set in the "Burnell"
class action lawsuit, and a class certification hearing is
scheduled on April 25, 2016.

On March 22, 2010, a class action lawsuit was filed by John
Burnell, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-
situated persons against Swift Transportation: John Burnell and
all others similarly-situated v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc.,
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Bernardino (the "Burnell Complaint").

On September 3, 2010, upon motion by Swift, the matter was removed
to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Case No. EDCV10-809-VAP. The putative class includes
drivers who worked for Swift during the four years preceding the
date of filing alleges that Swift failed to pay the California
minimum wage, failed to provide proper meal and rest periods and
failed to timely pay wages upon separation from employment.

On April 9, 2013, the Company filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings, requesting dismissal of plaintiff's claims related to
alleged meal and rest break violations under the California Labor
Code alleging that such claims are preempted by the Federal
Aviation Administration Authorization Act.

Swift is a multi-faceted transportation services company,
operating one of the largest fleets of truckload equipment in
North America from over 40 terminals near key freight centers and
traffic lanes.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Rudsell" Suit Remains Stayed
---------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the "Rudsell"
class action complaint remains stayed pending a resolution of the
class action complaint by John Burnell.

On April 5, 2012, the Company was served with a class action
lawsuit, alleging facts similar to those as set forth in the
Burnell Complaint: James R. Rudsell, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly-situated v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona,
LLC and Swift Transportation Company, in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Bernardino (the "Rudsell Complaint").

On May 3, 2012, upon motion by Swift, the matter was removed to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Case No. EDCV12-00692-VAP. The Rudsell Complaint was
stayed on April 29, 2013, pending a resolution of the Burnell
Complaint.

Swift is a multi-faceted transportation services company,
operating one of the largest fleets of truckload equipment in
North America from over 40 terminals near key freight centers and
traffic lanes.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Peck" Class Action Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the "Peck" class
action complaint remains stayed pending a resolution of the
"Burnell" and "Rudsell" class action complaints.

On September 25, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed by
Lawrence Peck on behalf of himself and all other similarly-
situated persons against Swift Transportation: Peck v. Swift
Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC in the Superior Court of
California, County of Riverside (the "Peck Complaint"). The
putative class, which includes current and former non-exempt
employee truck drivers who performed services in California within
the four-year statutory period, alleges that Swift failed to pay
for all hours worked (specifically that pay-per-mile fails to
compensate drivers for non-driving related services), failed to
pay overtime, failed to properly reimburse work-related expenses,
failed to timely pay wages and failed to provide accurate wage
statements. On October 24, 2014, upon motion by Swift, the matter
was removed to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, Case No. 14-CV-02206-VAP.  The Peck
Complaint was stayed on April 6, 2015, pending a resolution of the
earlier filed cases.

Swift is a multi-faceted transportation services company,
operating one of the largest fleets of truckload equipment in
North America from over 40 terminals near key freight centers and
traffic lanes.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Seeks Dismissal of "Mares" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Swift has filed
a Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, to stay the "Mares"
Complaint, based on the similarities between the Mares Complaint
and the Burnell, Rudsell and Peck Complaints, which is currently
pending before the Court.

On February 27, 2015, Sadashiv Mares filed a complaint alleging
five Causes of Action arising under California state law on behalf
of himself and a putative class against Swift Transportation Co.
of Arizona, LLC, in the Superior Court of California, County of
Alameda (the "Mares Complaint").  On July 13, 2015, upon motion by
Swift, the matter was removed to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, Case No. 2:15-CV-03253-
JSW. Upon the Parties stipulation, on October 17, 2015, the case
was transferred to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, Case No. 2:15-CV-07920-VAP.

Swift is a multi-faceted transportation services company,
operating one of the largest fleets of truckload equipment in
North America from over 40 terminals near key freight centers and
traffic lanes.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "McKinsty" Class Suit Remains Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the "McKinsty"
class action complaint remains stayed pending a resolution of
earlier filed cases.

On April 15, 2015, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of
California, County of San Bernardino: Rafael McKinsty et al. v.
Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, et al. (the "McKinsty
Complaint").  The McKinsty Complaint, a purported class action,
alleges violation of California rest break laws and is similar to
the Burnell, Rudsell, Peck and Mares Complaints.  On July 2, 2015,
upon motion by Swift, the matter was removed to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Case No.
15-CV-1317-VAP. The McKinsty Complaint was stayed on August 19,
2015, pending a resolution of the earlier filed cases.

Swift is a multi-faceted transportation services company,
operating one of the largest fleets of truckload equipment in
North America from over 40 terminals near key freight centers and
traffic lanes.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Nilsen" Class Suit Remains Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the "Nilsen"
class action complaint remains stayed pending a resolution of
earlier filed cases.

On October 15, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of Riverside: Thor Nilsen v.
Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC (the "Nilsen Complaint").
The Nilsen Complaint alleges violations of California law similar
to the Burnell, Rudsell, Peck, Mares, and McKinsty Complaints. On
December 9, 2015, upon motion by Swift, the matter was removed to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Case No. 15-CV-02504-VAP. The Parties are currently
discussing a stay of the Nilsen Complaint, pending a resolution of
the earlier filed cases.

"The issue of class certification must first be resolved before
the court will address the merits of these cases, and the Company
retains all of its defenses against liability and damages, pending
a determination of class certification," the Company said.

"The Company intends to vigorously defend against certification of
the class in all of these matters, as well as the merits of these
matters, should the classes be certified. The final disposition of
these cases and the impact of such final dispositions of these
cases cannot be determined at this time," the Company added.

Swift is a multi-faceted transportation services company,
operating one of the largest fleets of truckload equipment in
North America from over 40 terminals near key freight centers and
traffic lanes.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Julian" FLSA Action in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is
facing a Fair Labor Standards Act Class Action in Delaware.

On December 29, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed by Pamela
Julian, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-situated
persons against Swift Transportation, Inc., et al. in the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware, Case No. 1:15-
CV-01212-UNA. The complaint alleges that Swift violated the FLSA
by failing to pay its trainee drivers minimum wage for all work
performed and by failing to pay overtime. Swift expects to file a
responsive pleading to the complaint. The Company retains all of
its defenses against liability and damages. The Company intends to
vigorously defend against the merits of these claims and to
challenge certification. The final disposition of this case and
the impact of such final disposition of this case cannot be
determined at this time.

Swift is a multi-faceted transportation services company,
operating one of the largest fleets of truckload equipment in
North America from over 40 terminals near key freight centers and
traffic lanes.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Deadlines Extended in Overtime Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that as a result of
the substitution of counsel for both parties in the overtime class
action in Washington, the court has extended all existing dates by
ten months.

On September 9, 2011, a class action lawsuit was filed by Troy
Slack and several other drivers on behalf of themselves, and all
similarly-situated persons, against Swift Transportation: Troy
Slack, et al. v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC and
Swift Transportation Corporation in the State Court of Washington,
Pierce County (the "Slack Complaint"). The Slack Complaint was
removed to federal court on October 12, 2011, case number 11-2-
114380. The putative class includes all current and former
Washington state-based employee drivers during the three-year
statutory period prior to the filing of the lawsuit, and through
the present, and alleges that they were not paid minimum wage and
overtime in accordance with Washington state law and that they
suffered unlawful deductions from wages.

On November 23, 2013, the court entered an order on plaintiffs'
motion to certify the class. The court only certified the class as
it pertains to "dedicated" drivers and did not certify any other
class, including any class related to over-the-road drivers. The
parties dispute the definition of "dedicated" as used by the court
and a class notice has not yet been issued.

On September 2, 2015, new counsel was appointed for Plaintiffs and
on November 16, 2015, new legal counsel was substituted for the
Company. As a result of the substitution of counsel for both
parties, the court has extended all existing dates by ten months.

The matter is now anticipated to move into discovery. The Company
retains all of its defenses against liability and damages.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the merits of
these claims and to challenge certification. The final disposition
of this case and the impact of such final disposition of this case
cannot be determined at this time.

Swift is a multi-faceted transportation services company,
operating one of the largest fleets of truckload equipment in
North America from over 40 terminals near key freight centers and
traffic lanes.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Indiana FCRA Action to Move into Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Indiana Fair
Credit Reporting Act Class Action Litigation is anticipated to
move into discovery.

On March 18, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed by Melvin
Banks, individually and on behalf of all other similarly-situated
persons against Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Case
No. 2:15-CV-00105. The complaint alleges that Central violated the
Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to provide job applicants
with adverse action notices and copies of their consumer reports
and statements of rights.

At this time, the size of the potential class is unknown. The
matter is now anticipated to move into discovery. The Company
retains all of its defenses against liability and damages. The
Company intends to vigorously defend against the merits of these
claims and to challenge certification. The final disposition of
this case and the impact of such final disposition of this case
cannot be determined at this time.

Swift is a multi-faceted transportation services company,
operating one of the largest fleets of truckload equipment in
North America from over 40 terminals near key freight centers and
traffic lanes.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: No Trial Date Set by Utah Case Arbitrator
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that no trial date
has been set by the arbitrator in the Utah collective action.

On June 1, 2012, Gabriel Cilluffo, Kevin Shire and Bryan Ratterree
filed a putative class and collective action lawsuit against
Central Refrigerated Service, Inc., Central Leasing, Inc., Jon
Isaacson, and Jerry Moyes (collectively referred to herein as the
"Central Parties"), Case No. ED CV 12-00886 in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California. Through
this action, the plaintiffs alleged that the Central Parties
misclassified owner-operator drivers as independent contractors
and were therefore liable to these drivers for minimum wages and
other employee benefits under the FLSA. The complaint also alleged
a federal forced labor claim under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1589 and 1595,
as well as fraud and other state-law claims.

Pursuant to the plaintiffs' owner-operator agreements, the
district court issued an Order compelling arbitration and directed
that the plaintiffs' causes of action under the FLSA should
proceed to collective arbitration, while their forced labor, fraud
and state law claims would proceed as separate individual
arbitrations. A collective arbitration was subsequently initiated
with the American Arbitration Association ("AAA"). Notice of the
collective arbitration was sent to more than 3,000 owner-operators
who worked for Central Refrigerated Service, Inc. and leased a
vehicle from Central Leasing, Inc. on or after June 1, 2009. The
parties are currently conducting discovery. No trial date has been
set by the arbitrator.

Swift is a multi-faceted transportation services company,
operating one of the largest fleets of truckload equipment in
North America from over 40 terminals near key freight centers and
traffic lanes.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Still Defends Suit Over Pre-Employment Test
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company
continues to defend a California class and collective action for
pre-employment physical testing.

On October 6, 2014 Robin Anderson filed a putative class and
collective action against Central Refrigerated Service, Inc.,
("Central Refrigerated") Case No. 5:14-CV 02062 in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California (the
"Anderson Complaint"). In this action, plaintiff alleges that pre-
employment tests of physical strength administered by a third
party on behalf of Central Refrigerated had an unlawfully
discriminatory impact on female applicants and applicants over the
age of 40. The suit seeks damages under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, the Age Discrimination Act, and parallel
California state law provisions, including the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act.

Upon the acquisition of Central Refrigerated by Swift
Transportation Company, Plaintiff was allowed to amend her
complaint in October 2015 to include Swift Transportation Company
and Workwell Systems, Inc. as additional defendants. Workwell
Systems, Inc. is the company that provided the physical testing
service used by Central Refrigerated. The litigation is still at a
very preliminary stage and plaintiff has not yet effected service
on the newly added defendants. Discovery has not yet commenced in
the case and no trial date has been set. There is not currently
any information available regarding the number of potential
members of the putative class or collective actions.

Central Refrigerated and Swift intend to vigorously defend against
the merits of plaintiff's claims. The final disposition of this
case and the impact cannot be determined at this time.

Swift is a multi-faceted transportation services company,
operating one of the largest fleets of truckload equipment in
North America from over 40 terminals near key freight centers and
traffic lanes.


TEAM HEALTH: MOU Reached in Suit Related to IPC Transaction
-----------------------------------------------------------
Team Health Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a Memorandum of
Understanding has been reached in the consolidated class action
related to the acquisition of IPC Healthcare, Inc.

On August 14, 2015, prior to the closing of the Transaction, a
purported shareholder of IPC filed a complaint in the Delaware
Court of Chancery captioned Smukler v. IPC Healthcare, Inc., et
al. (Case No. 11392-CB), on behalf of a purported class of  IPC
shareholders. The lawsuit names as defendants IPC, each of its
directors at the time the merger with the Company was announced
(the Individual Defendants), the Company, and Intrepid Merger Sub,
Inc. (Sub).

The August 14, 2015 complaint alleged that the Individual
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things,
failing to take appropriate steps to maximize the value of IPC to
its shareholders, failing to value IPC properly, and taking steps
to avoid competitive bidding by alternate potential acquirers. The
complaint also alleged that IPC, the Company, and Sub aided and
abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
Individual Defendants. The complaint sought, among other things,
certification of the action as a class action; injunctive relief
enjoining the merger; an accounting of all damages purportedly
suffered by the plaintiff and the class (including rescissory
damages in favor of the plaintiff and the class); and the fees and
costs associated with the litigation.

On August 18, 2015, an additional lawsuit was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery, asserting similar claims and
allegations to those in the Smukler lawsuit and seeking similar
relief on behalf of the same putative class. Crescente v. Singer,
et al. (Case No. 11405-CB).

Additionally, on August 19, 2015, prior to the closing of the IPC
Transaction, a lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court for the
State of California in Los Angeles County. Khemthong v. IPC
Healthcare Networks, Inc., et al. (No. BC 591953). The lawsuit
asserted similar claims and allegations to those in the Smukler
lawsuit and sought similar relief on behalf of the same putative
class. On August 27, 2015, the plaintiff filed a request for
voluntary dismissal of the suit without prejudice, and on August
28, 2015, the court entered an order granting that request.

Pursuant to a September 11, 2015 order from the Delaware Court of
Chancery (the Consolidation Order), the Smukler and Crescente
actions were consolidated, and all further litigation relating to
or arising out of the Company's merger with IPC were directed to
be consolidated with such actions under the caption In re IPC
Healthcare, Inc. Stockholders Litigation (Case No. 11392-CB) (the
Consolidated Action).

On September 17, 2015, an action captioned Spencer v. IPC
Healthcare, Inc. (Case. No. 11516-CB) was filed in the Delaware
Court of Chancery. Under the Consolidation Order, such action is
required to be consolidated with the previously-filed actions.

On September 18, 2015, a verified consolidated class action
complaint was filed in the Consolidated Action (the Consolidated
Complaint).  The Consolidated Complaint alleges substantially the
same breaches of fiduciary duty as the August 14, 2015 complaint
in the Smukler action, and additionally alleges that the
Individual Defendants breached their duty of disclosure by failing
to disclose to IPC shareholders all material information necessary
for them to evaluate the merger.

On October 2, 2015, the defendants in the Consolidated Action
moved to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.

"On November 6, 2015, we and the other defendants in the
Consolidated Action entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
with the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action providing for the
settlement and the release of all claims that were or could have
been brought against us and the other defendants in the
Consolidated Action based upon a duty arising under Delaware law
to disclose or not omit material information in connection with
the IPC Transaction, upon entry of a final order by the Delaware
Court of Chancery approving the settlement," the Company said.

The Memorandum of Understanding contemplates that, subject to
completion of certain confirmatory discovery by counsel to the
plaintiffs, the parties will enter into a stipulation of
settlement. There can be no assurance that the parties will
ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the
Delaware Court of Chancery will approve the settlement even if the
parties enter into such a stipulation. If the Delaware Court of
Chancery does not approve the settlement, such proposed
settlement, as contemplated by the Memorandum of Understanding,
may be terminated.

The Company is one of the largest suppliers of outsourced
healthcare professional staffing and administrative services to
hospitals and other healthcare providers in the United States,
based upon revenues, patient visits, and number of clients.


TGI FRIDAYS: Faces "Calabrese" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Calabrese, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TGI Fridays Inc., Sentinel Capital Partners,
Triartisan Capital Partners, Carlson Companies, and Doe Defendants
1-10, Case No. 2:16-cv-00868-JCJ (E.D. Penn., February 23, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a chain of TGI Fridays restaurant
in Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arkady "Eric" Rayz, Esq.
      Demetri A. Braynin, Esq.
      1051 County Line Road, Suite "A"
      Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
      Telephone:  (215) 364-5030
      Facsimile:  (215) 364-5029
      E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com
              dbraynin@kalraylaw.com

         - and -

      Gerald D. Wells III, Esq.
      Robert J. Gray, Esq.
      CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
      2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 308
      King of Prussia, PA 19406
      Telephone: (610) 822-3700
      Facsimile: (610) 822-3800
      E-mail: gwells@cwg-law.com
              rgray@cwg-law.com


THIRD AVENUE: Sued in C.D. Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Suprabha Bhat, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Third Avenue Management LLC, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-
00904 (C.D. Cal., February 9, 2016), 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.

Third Avenue Management LLC operates an open-end management
investment company that consists of different investment series.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Valerie L. Chang, Esq.
       SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP
       11755 Wilshire Blvd., 15th Floor
       Los Angeles, CA 90025
       Telephone: (323) 510-4060
       Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
       E-mail:  vchang@sfmslaw.com

          - and -

       Rose F. Luzon, Esq.
       SHEPHERD FINKELMAN MILLER & SHAH LLP
       401 West A Street, Suite 2550
       San Diego, CA 92101
       Telephone: (619) 235-2416
       Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
       E-mail: rluzon@sfmslaw.com

          - and -

       Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
       LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
       733 Summer Street, Suite 304
       Stamford, CT 06901
       Telephone: (203) 992-4523
       Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
       E-mail: shopkins@zlk.com


TRANSAM TRUCKING: Court Approves Proposed Opt-Out Class Notice
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LARRY BLAIR and CHARLIE DAVIS, On Behalf Of
Themselves And All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs,
v. TRANSAM TRUCKING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 09-2443-EFM (D.
Kan.), Judge Eric F. Melgren approved the plaintiffs' Opt-Out
Class Notice and revised the Supplemental Scheduling Order.  The
judge also granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs'
motion for leave to send postcards.

Transam Trucking objected to the plaintiffs' proposed Rule 23 opt-
out class notice, in that no self-addressed stamped envelope is
provided for class members to  mail in their opt-out request,
should any of them choose to opt-out.  Transam Trucking argued
that, because such an envelope was provided with the opt-in notice
previously sent by the plaintiffs for their FLSA claim, equal
treatment should be given to both notices "to ensure balance and
fairness."

The plaintiffs countered that the inclusion of a self-addressed
stamped envelope for any opt-out class member would be burdensome
and unnecessary because, unlike a collective FLSA action, a
certified Rule 23 class automatically includes each individual in
the class, providing them protection that does not exist in an
FLSA collective action.

Judge Melgren did not find the plaintiffs' position to be
unbalanced or unfair, and overruled Transam Trucking's objection.
The Supplemental Scheduling Order was also modified to require
that service on potential opt-out plaintiffs be completed by March
10, 2016, and that the opt-out period will close on June 24, 2016.

The plaintiffs also sought to mail follow up postcards to class
members who had not responded.  However, Judge Melgren agreed with
Transam Trucking that the response rate was not outside of normal
expectations, and that postcard mailings should only be allowed to
those class members whose initial notice was returned as
undeliverable.

A full-text copy of Judge Melgren's February 24, 2016 memorandum
and order is available at http://is.gd/qncPWVfrom Leagle.com.

Larry Blair, Plaintiff, represented by Athena M. Dickson, Siro
Smith Dickson, PC, Eric W. Smith, Siro Smith Dickson, PC, Michael
F. Brady -- brady@mbradylaw.com -- Brady & Associates Law Office,
Raymond A. Dake, Siro Smith Dickson, PC, Rik N. Siro, Siro Smith
Dickson, PC, Teresa A. Woody, Woody Law Firm PC & Mark A. Kistler
-- mkistler@mbradylaw.com -- Brady & Associates Law Office.

Charlie Davis, Plaintiff, represented by Athena M. Dickson, Siro
Smith Dickson, PC, Eric W. Smith, Siro Smith Dickson, PC, Michael
F. Brady, Brady & Associates Law Office, Rik N. Siro, Siro Smith
Dickson, PC, Teresa A. Woody, Woody Law Firm PC & Mark A. Kistler,
Brady & Associates Law Office.

Elhajj M. Alston, Plaintiff, represented by Athena M. Dickson,
Siro Smith Dickson, PC, Eric W. Smith, Siro Smith Dickson, PC,
Michael F. Brady, Brady & Associates Law Office, Rik N. Siro, Siro
Smith Dickson, PC & Teresa A. Woody, Woody Law Firm PC.

Reginald Harris, Rob Hanneken, James Sturgeon, Patrick Kelley,
Ronald Aguillard, Chad Frobos, Scott Ross, James Thomas, Michael
E. Walker, Randy Hemingway, Tracy Durant, Michael Jenkins, William
Mallett, Daniel Tolliver, Craig Davis, Luis B. Chevalier, James
Knox, Charles Lawrence, James Levenson, Alexander Reed, John A.
Whitmore, Aaron Ballard, Alan Zdanuk, Alvin Haymer, Jr., Amanda
Tinsley, Andrew Burkhart, Andrew Goforth, Andrew Sinclair, Andrew
Ward, Andrew Woodman, Jr., Angel L. Cordero, Anthony Bates,
Anthony Burnett, Anthony Passarelli, Anthony Terry, Anthony
Torres, Anthony Welch, AntonioMoreno, Jr., Anthony Patrick,
Apollos Smith, Arlean Wright, Armand Shope, Arthur Crouthers,
Arthur Kimmer, Barry Strothmann, Bernard Hughes, Billy Coleman,
Bill Henderson, Billy Harris, Billy Iser, Billy Slone, Branden
Harris, Brandon Boone, Brandon Grant,Brandon Moss, Brandon Pope,
Braulio Alvarez, Brent Callon, Brian Bailey, Brian Chandler, Brian
Lowry, Brian Mergenthaler, Brian Mack, Brian Young, Britt Jones,
Bryan Canady, Caesar Venable, Carl Crews, Carl Flourney, Carvin
Bethea, Casey Walters, Cecil Lees, Cedric Firth, Cedric Holloway,
Cedric Porter, Cedric Stevens, Charles Dennis, Charles Dickinson,
Charles Glover, Charles Grant, Charles Wadsworth, Charlie Lowe,
Chester Wright, Chris Ruhlman, Christopher Lawler, Christopher
McMahan, Christopher York, Clint Terrill, Corey Browning, Corey
Smith, Cornelius Hawkins, Cory Dewey, Craig Davis, Curtis Brown,
Curtis Williams, Cynthia Mauk, Dale Roketa, Reonard Huston, Daniel
Nelson, Daniel Pearson, Danny Stretch, Darnell Sutton, David
Bishop, David Collins, David Curelop, David Fricke, David Hegarty,
David Leavitt, David Lewis, David Maxwell, David Morgan, David
Mosley, David Norman, David Nosal, David Qualls, David Riggleman,
David Smith, David A. Ward, Deborah Hendley, DeMario Burrell,
Dennis McKinley, Dennis Ruffing, DerekClark, DeSean Anderson,
Dewey Nabors, D'Kari Dorsey-Allen, Dominick Lombardi, Donald
Boisvert, Donald Ray Croslin, Douglas Barnes, Douglas Barrow, Ed
Bradshaw, Earl Keyser, Ebony Gardner, Wiley Eddie Wayne Merritt,
Eddy Brown, II, Edmund Raheem, EdwardCrawford, Edward Evans, Sr.,
Edward Hill, Edward Mills, IV, Edward Zimmerman, Edwin Wilson,
Elbert Bounds, Elezer Caceres, Eljah Dillahunt, Jr., Eric Wilson,
FoySinquefield, Frank Wilcox, Franklin Lindsey, Jr., Franklin
Vasquez, Fred Thomas, Freddie Booker, III, Frederick King, Frisnel
Beniste, Garvin Reynolds, Gary Hadnott, GaryLopez, ary Reese, Gary
Salisbury, Gary Syphax, Gary Thomas, Gary Wrobel, GeorgeDavis,
George Horton, George Mills, George Stackman, George Walla, III,
GeraldMatthews, Germaine Miller, Glenn Pearson, Gregory Hill, Greg
Klikno, Gregory Klingbeil, Greg Locke, Gregory Smith, Gregory
Walsh, Jr., Guillermo Cepeda, HaciFevzioglu, Harold Gammon, Hector
Juarez-Bautista, Herbert Fisher, Ide Singletary, Sabroutev Ivan
Nikolov, J. R. Pace, Jack Frese, Jaime R. Matos, Jamaal Mutrie,
JameelJackson, James Davis, James Fretwell, James Harnois, James
Lesseler, James Lewis, James Morris, James Nelms, James Piselli,
James Polk, James Scotland, James Shantz, Jamie Burton, Jamil
James, Jason Bauch, Jason Bonewitz, Jason Crosby, Jason Greene,
Jason McCamey, Jason Stidham, Jay Janzen, Jeffory Brewer, Jeffrey
James, Jr., JeffreyMcChord, Jeffrey Ebey, Jeffrey Lloyd, Jeffrey
Osborne, Jeffrey Rexroad, Jeff Rice, Jeffrey Rye, Jeff Thomas,
Jeff Yearwood, Jennifer Lomaglio, Jeremy Jacobs, Jeremy Mogel,
Jerone Patterson, Jerre Ford, III, Jerry Boone, Jesse Lambert,
Jevaun Johnson, JimmyWilliams, Joseph Carroll, Joe Collins, Joe
Johnson, James Sharp, John W. Brown, John Burns, John Thomas Carr,
John Davis, John Hefner, John Omstead, John Schiermeier, John
Whitmore, John Parton, Johnny Sargent, John Scazzafavo, Jr.,
Johnny Webb, JonSkinnerup, Jonathan Suss, Jonathan Corvea,
Jonathan Fleming, Jonathan Goldsmith, Jonathan Pratt, Jon-Michael
Britain, Jon-Michael Robbins, Joseph Gossett, Joseph Petrick,
Joseph Williams, Joseph Hill, Joshua Middleton, Joshua Sanfilippo,
Jovan Collick, JulianVasquez, Julie McNabb, Junior Rose, Justin
Fanelle, Justin Ogumiloro, Justin Norris, Justin Safari, Kane
Parrish, Keavin Jackson, Keith Guizard, Kenneth DeGroat,
KennethDoucet, Kenneth Hefter, Kenneth Little, Kevin Norton, Kevin
Rawlings, Kim Thomas, Kristopher Costello, Larry Menery, Larry
Roetzel, Lawrence Ferguson, LeeAllen Baggs, LeeSchreiber, Lincoln
Burrell, Linda Dockery, Logan Johnson, Longe Lukalema, Loren
DeThample, Lorenzo Lewis, Lynsey Jungemann, Manweld Bright, Mark
Gibbs, Mark Gibson, Marlo Jones, Marquis Mckinney, Marshall Scott,
Marshall Webb, Martin Pearce, MarvinFlowers, Mary Lou Baniata,
Matthew Gappiello, Melissa Peters, Mervin Lee, Michael Banks,
Michael Barwick, Michael Campbell, Michael Cheatham, Michael
Eason, Michael Hill, Michael Smith, Michael Steffey, Michael
Trusty, Michael Wheelhouse, MichaelWhited, Michael Whitfield,
Michael Whitley, Monte Mitchell, Murphey Lee Akers, Nathan Clark,
Nathan Hickman, Nicholas Simpson, Noah Zeigler, Norman Jacobs,
Jr., Patrick Henry, Patrick Morris, Patrick Seay, Paul Cochran,
Paul Matthews, Paul Pomilla, Paul Sypolt, Phanuel Laurent, Rae
Anne Bowser, Ralph Spearman, Randall Melton, Randolph Williams,
Randy Domurad, Randy Love, Randy Wright, Raymond Wemyss, Raymond
Lowe, Raymond Ortiz, Raymond Scales, Regina Sumner, Huston
Reonard, ReynoldCousino, Richard Allen, Richard Cappello, Richard
Childers, Richard Dupuis, Richard Furr, Richard Hyatt, Richard
Micciche, Richard West, Richard White, icky Newsome, Robert
Barker, Robert Bradley, Robert Burns, Robert Caye, Robert DeYoung,
Robert Dyer, Robert Godsey, Robert Hawes, Robert Legg, Robert
Merricks, Robert Mitchell, Jr., RobinsonFernandez, Rodney
O'Bryant, Rodney Turner, Rodriguez Butler, Roger Hatfield, Ronald
Bowens, Ronald Mackey, Ronald Winstead, Ronaldo Dapaixao, Ronlin
Hinton, Roosevelt Granville, Ryan Taylor, Sandera Johnson, Sandra
Ledbetter, Sandra Whitley, Scott Schroeder, Sean Cunningham, Seth
Yoder, Shannon Southern, Shawn Miller, Shawn Tartt, Simie Moore,
Simone Cooper, Stephan Duncan, Steve Bearden, Steven Delacruz,
StevenGraves, Steve Mossbacher, Steven Thomas, Tauheedah Barrett,
Teddy Padilla, Terrance McKinley, Terry Taylor,Jesse Brown, Thomas
Cagley, Thomas Clark, Jr., homas DeGarmo, Tim Hickman, Timmy
Dorris, Tommie Cox, Toney Cobb, Toran Bell, TorranceMiller, Trevor
Ebare, Tyreell Ashford, Tyrone Hughes, Ulyses Flemming,
Victor Roach, Vince Pelly, Vonde Barrow, Walter Heller, Walter
Riley, Warren Bruen, WarrenSchoch, Waverly Harris, Wayne Zoeteman,
Wendell Fitzpatrick, Wesley Pierce, William Allen, William Call,
William Diel, William Jones, William Morris, William Thomas,
William Wilson, William Woolard, Willie Adams, Willie Thigpen,
Abelardo Zorrilla, Adran Brooks, Alphonso Lee, Andrew Sharp,
Anthony Hardmon, Anthony Ives, Anthony McCreary, Anthony
Muresheski, Antonio Hambright, Antonio Tuck, Archie Alexander,
Sr., Arnold Brown, Babatunda Douglas, Benjamin Autrey, Benjamin
Browne, Benjamin Penn, Beverly Amerson, Billy Billiter, II, Brad
Hoben, Brian Boineau, Brian Lichlyter, Brian Stowe, Bruce Allen,
Bruce Nelson, Bryan Segars, Cameron Harris, Candice Montero, Carlo
Narcisse, CarlosPena, Carol Berney, Charles Robert Curry, Charles
Bridges, Charles Harvath, Charles Hodgson, Charles Kominek, Jr.,
Charles Powell, Robert Rush, Christopher Conner, Christopher
Coomes, Christopher Fudge, Christopher Hoskins, Christopher Legus,
Christopher Osborne, Christopher Perry, Cleve Boettcher, Sr.,
Clifton Garner, ConnorBergeron, Courtney Grandberry, Craig
Gustafson, Craig Stefanovich, Dale Lanham, Damon Allen, Daniel
Beavers, III, Daniel Berthiaume, Daniel Brown, Daniel Ramsay,
DanielStalnaker, Dannie Bowens, Darius Pittman, Dave Robbins,
David Bortz, DavidHamsher, David Lane, David Metcalf, Jr., David
Neumeyer, David Schreiner, DavidStinespring, David Ward, David
Yingling, Debra Andreas, Delbert Sanders, DemetriosCombis, Derek
Sachs, Derreck Andrews, Devon Hollenbach, Dimitra Seas,
DonaldBrown, Donald Keeton, Dustin Parker, Donald E. Rien, Jr.,
Duane Alsobrooks, DontaScurles, Earl Durham, Earl Grooms, Jr.,
Earl Horton, IV, Eddie Moses, DwayneNorman, Edward Belford, Edward
Harbin, Eric Jackson, Elizabeth Price, EdwardSchoonover, Eric
Johnson, Frank Kuzmanic, Eules Mayes, Francis Moomaw, Frederick
Ratliff, Gary Ellison, Gary Foster, Garry Ingham, George Bryan,
III, GeneCampbell, Gavin Galette, Gerry Jones, Gilberto Tirado,
Gregory Cooper, Harry Gay, Gregory Griffin, Glenn Maners, Gregg
Petrich, Herman Cogdell, Henry Jackson, Jr., HomerMaxcey, Harry
Waddell, James Cates, James Copeland, James Dzierzanowski,
JamesGillespie, James Jackson, James Mayer, James Miller, Jason
Henthorne, James Nutt, Jason Perry, James Robison, James Stephens,
Jr., Jeffrey Davis, Jay Jackson, JeffreyJernigan, Jeffrey
Sallette, Sr., Jason Schuman, Jimmy Grantham, Jerry Martin,
JeffreySmith, Joe Zimmerman, John Birch, John Carr, John Clark,
Jr., John Davis, JohnBass,Sr., John F. Davis, John Gamble, John
Helton, Jr., Jonathan Chandler, JonathanDees, Johnny Probus, Jr.,
Johnson Shelton, John Whitmire, Joseph Berna, JonathanDukes,
Joseph Hall, Jonathan McGraw, Joseph Paone, Kenneth McGee,
JoshuaCampos, Kenneth Pinson, Juan Vega, Kendrick Williams, Kent
Jones, Kevin Parker, Kenneth Tullos, Kevin Baumann, Keny Belamour,
Albert Caudle, Adam Lenkoff, Alex Metcalf,
Aaron Nuspl, Albert Washington, Jr., Angelo Clark, Anthony Kegler,
Wayne Shoffner, Anthony Kirksey, Bobby Burge, Antonio Camacho,
Brian Moore, Arthur Allen, Charles Mullennix, Calvin Sessions,
Jr., Chad Simmons, Chris Ellis, Cornell Irving, Corry Morgan,
Craig Todd, Clifton Waltman, Daniel Butler, Darnell Lifred, Daniel
Sherer, Dana Siemers, DarlendoValente, Jr., David Gilbert, David
Reeves, Devon Goodman, Derek Kiser, Dominique Montgomery, David
Vaughn, Dennis White, Earl Harris, Durward Maddox, Jr., Dwayne
Allen, Donald Arnold, Donaldson Bauvoir, Everett Madison, Evan
Martin, EdwardStevens, Fred Wildoner, Frederick Woods, Glenn Cook,
Gary Guerra, Gerald Jones, Glenn Rice, Garett Westover, Harold
Ousley, Gregory Simpson, Herb Blount, James Haines,Sr., James
Harrison, Jr., James Henderson, Jamar Oakley, Hermane Auguste,
JasonHouston, James Roberson, James Rogers, James Szakalun, Jason
Wilson, JasperFoster, Jay Krzeminski, Jeff Merchant, Jeff Myers,
Jeffrey Ward, Jerome Carr, Jerrod Colson, JessieConnor, John
Fuller, Joel Benefield, Jordan Cummings, Joshua Goodspeed,
JohnnySmith, Keith Garrison, Juan Jerez, Joshua Jones, Jourdan
Penn, Joshua Richards, Kenneth Broome, Ken Frye, Kip Kidder,
Kenneth Vest, Kenneth Williams, Larry D. Jones, LaVail Lanier,
Sr., Lawrence Nord, Kirk Smith, LeWarren Wells, Marques Channey,
MarkDurham, Lonnie Fear, Lorraine Hale, Marcell Ross, Matthew
VanDyke, Mary Watts, Nathan Benson, Michael Lujan, Michael
McCallum, Michael Moore, Michael Wear, RandyButdorff, Rahsahan
Ackerman, Patrick Penkala, Nykolus Richburg, Olen Smith, Reginald
Greene, Richard Hallenbeck, Jr., Ricky Luce, Richard Morgan,
Raymond Winkler,Jr., Robert Hotchkin, Ronald Roberts, Sr., Roger
Bales, Robert Thornton, RobertWalker, Jr., Ronnie Henson, Ron
Traxler, Roy Crumley, Sammy Johnson, Sr., SaulJones, Roy
Boardwine, Ryan Schaad, Tammy Duffield, Sean Foster, Steven
Martin, Stanley Popin, Stephen Sperfslage, Thomas Badoniec, Thomas
Crespo, Timothy Rhinehart, Troy Anderson, Vernon Thompson, Larry
G. Hay, Mark Turner, Winfred Avant, Albert Brant, Vickey Ward,
Brian Haley, Allen Swike, Benjamin Walton, Edward Burns, Jr.,
DavidCrawford, Darius Jean, Charles (nmi) Miller, Craig Twombly,
James C. Hill, EugeneLyons, James L. Smith, Faraji Tucker, Gary
Whitmire, John Adams, LaShunn McRae, John "JR" Rouse, Josh Smith,
Kevin Thoeny, Mike Dayus, Michael Fleeman, MichaelJohnston, Lutalo
O. Modzimoyo, Mark Morris, Raelyn R. Boyd, Robert Grippando,
Reginald Huffman, Todd Nelson, Torry Reid, Raymond Sweatman,
Shadrach Alexander, James Barnett, Alfonzo Green, Alex Morrow,
William Scott, Aaron Allred, Alfred Vargas, Antwan Young, Anthony
McCraney, Sr., Andre Smith, Brian Cornell, Brent Holloman,
Brandell Moore, Augustine Santoya, Arthur Whitehead, Charles
Calhoun, Carl Curry, Cameron Jones, Cheryl Ann Mitchell, Bruce
Palmer, Jr., Chris Crissey, Conney Gregory, Chiloe Pinkston,
Christopher Whitaker, Clodis Yarber, Cortlandt Florence, Cordero
Hall, Curtis Keels, Jr., Damond Mason, Daniel McNeil, Darryl
Leonard, David Rico, DarrellSalzman, Earnest Foster, III, Douglas
France, Edward Morales, Dimitri Nesmith, Edward Rose, Jr., Eric
Burdine, Fito Fontil, Floyd Massey, Eric Skorpil, Edward Wilkins,
Gene Lee Earl, Gabriel Negron, James B. Seifers, Hubert Thompson,
Henry Wentworth, James Brown, Jason Clemons, James McClendon,
Jeremiah Richardson, Jarrett Blair, JohnSailer, Joseph Teague,
Jimmy Bailey, Justin Call, Joshua Drake, Joseph Willoughby,
Linwood Eason, Larry Edge, Lane Heebink, Mark Barnes, Lloyd
Theriault, MatthewDeardorff, Mark Diggs, Matthew Garreau, Mark
Maddox, Mathew Norman, RandyBarnes, Mayme Lunsford, Neville
McLaren, Michael Mehrwerth, Robinson Michael, Richard King,
Richard Nelson, Ricky Williams, Rino Bobo, Roy Brackett, Ronnie
Durbin, Roger Farley, Jr., Roy Rogers, Jr., Shaughn Alston, Shane
Asbury, Ryan Powers, ShaneQuinn, Stephen Sanders, Terry Baker,
Tremain Davis, Terrence Johnson, Terrence Sherman, TimothySwanson,
Tristan Armwood, William Barrick, WiIlliam Bryson, William Hardin,
William Taylor, Zeljko Pavlovic, Todd Hill, Tommy Lounsbury,
Thomas Manuel, Tim Sechrest, Todd Arcand, William Couch, Jr.,
Vincent Imes, Jr., William Porter, Zacheriah Schaneberger, Ty
Wright, Robert Crowell, Richard Ferran, Jr., Raymond Silvis, Jr.,
RIck Snow, RandyZehner, Samone Brantley, Robert Fitzpatrick,
Russell Greer, Sam Jeter, Robert Swan, Terrance Bowens, Theodore
Burgess, Jr., Michael D. Cook, Michael Deering, StevenSaltsman,
Myron Barber, Michael Hightower, Miguel Santos, Michael Spence,
MichaelVervaecke, Noris Cormer, Ralph Johnson, Peter Schober,
Nicholas Williams, OtisWilliams, John Kessler, Jonathan Dunn,
Joshua Hankins, Keith Matlock, KeithMaydwell, Jonathan Tompkins,
Larry Franke, Leslie McGill, Lamont Moore, Larry Slape,
KennethWells, Maninderpal Bains, Melisa Jordon, Markita Matthews-
Scott, Marcus Price, Lorenzo Stewart, Evan Lessa, Frank Martin,
Howard Peart, Glen Rakes, Hermenegildo Candelario, JamesCurtis,
James Davis, Jeffrey Hunter, James Mickles, James Berryman, Jeff
Maxwell, Christopher Barr, John Conroy, Charles Gurr, Jr., Charles
Harris, Charles Jacobs, DanielDuncan, Christopher McFarlane, Cliff
Baker, Jr., Damon Varnado, Daniel Wilbanks, Donald Ewing, Derrick
Patton, David Poole, Donald Rolle, Duane Vinson, Jr,
AlemayehuGetachew, Anthony Oldham, Edward Pearl, Sr., Anthony
Roehr, Adam Young, Antonio Boutros, Brandon Crayton, Brian
Leverett, Antoine Pless, Brian Schrock, BruceMcCuistion, Cathlene
Blevins, Carlton Colbree, Samuel DeGeorge, Ricky Lawrence, Ronald
Pack, Chris Walker, Robert Wilson, Timothy Cantirino, Robert Zani,
Terry Stanley, Mark Gilman, Leonard Goldman, William Harris,
Thomas Mendez, Troy Nelson, MichaelDay, Nico Hosley, Melvin Jones,
Matt Nichols, Michael Allen, Ralph Carter, JeanCelestin, Richard
McAbee, Pedro Perez, Ralph Bowen, Jeffrey Light,
JoaquinPangelinan, Jeff Rexrode, Jeremy Vollmer, John Dykes,
Johnathan Lewis, JohnPonder, David Goedecke, Denzel Burrell, Ken
Campbell, Joshua Solomons, La'NardWright, Emanuel Lopes, George
McNair, Jr., George Neel, Garland Roberson, Gordon Scott, James
Giaurtis, Herman Hall, Harry Pressley, II, Brandon Allinder,
HaroldWright, Christopher Brown, Charles Zehel, Casey Henson,
Charles Hromek, Brian McKindley-Byrd, Cody Husson, Collins McGee,
III, Cornellius Wright, Al Gnuschke, CowboiBaldwin, Jr., Alex
Benko, Craig McAughey, Curtis Turner, Jr., Anthony Billups,
Antonio Catron, Anthony Gee, Alvin Hemphill, Antonio McBride, Brad
Archer, James Young, Kenneth Brown, Kenneth Gault, William Gill,
William Weatherford, Terry Zeger, LenardCamphor, Kyle Hess, LeMar
Turner, Malcolm Brown, Maurice Burton, Mark Diffee, Mark Judge,
Michael Turner, Paul Caraglio, Raul Delacruz, Randi Hedges,
NelsonPatterson, Nebraska Tharrington, Richard Bunkley, Charles
Conyers, Charlparis Gittens, RonaldPerrault, II, Richard Reid,
David Busey, Donell Duckett, George Hance, Dendol Lee, Gerald
Porzadek, Greg Allwein, Isaac Buckley, Jr., James Lemke, Jason
Punte, Jeffrey Myers, Jeffrey Storrs, Jeffrey Taylor, Jeremy
Warpool, Jason Willis, Jesse Cobb, John Koons, JordanMaeen, Johnny
Taylor, Aaron Watterson, Billy Bruce, Albert Cardosa, Brian Hurt,
Anthony Smith, Cash Young, Rodney Coleman, Eugene Hinton, Jr., Pam
Hoffman, NathanielSchaeffer, Douglas Turner, Teddy Dye, Scott
Slye, Antonio Bowers, AnthonyMaiorano, Christopher Matthews, Chris
Roberts, Craig Snyder, Freddy Carter, Demetria Plummer, Dariel
Underwood, Javaughn Cobb, Johndell Patterson, NicholasPrather,
Matthew Rinehart, Jerry Talbert, Trec Berry, Ricky Coleman,
RonaldFyock, Reynaldo Lopez, Randall Smith, Darrell Bizzell,
Daniel Calk, Eddie Collins, Dennis Froelich, Decktrick Smith, Klay
Beitel, Kirk Cepavicius, Kelvin Daniels, Jeffery Joe Gertiser,
GilbertRiggs, Paul Cole, Jr., Robert Harris, Mark Hatfield,
Michael MacGregor, ThomasDeason, Seth Decker, Timothy Mitchell,
Robin Troy, Anthony Alexander, RichardAvery, Donald Coston, Jr.,
Albert Field, Dave Messmann, Benjamin Oree, CharlesWeston, Darrell
Williams, Pedro J. Caamano, John Coggin, John M. Franks,
TonyGalloway, Cornell Jones, Thomas Jordan, Steven Lauziere,
Reginald Markham, MelodyMarshall, Jerryse Mitchell, Gordon
Pearson, Rane L. Pineda, Richard Sexton, Nicholas Sheffield, Jaron
St. Juste, Jeffrey Stacey, Michael Trem, Yvonne C. Vallott,
JesusVillarreal, Crayton Barnes, Brian Benkert, Anthony Burrell,
Corey Foster, CharlesHudgins, III, David O'Donoghue, Brian Semon,
Antonio Torney, Junior M. Adkins, Jeremy Alexander, Richard
Bussell, John Campagna, Neil Comtois, Richard Eichler,
NestorFigueroa, Steven Fox, Ion Hallahan, Renee Hendrian, Shane
Kelly, Robert Kendrick, James Kittrell, Raymond Lathbridge, James
Min, James Parker, Eric Peterson, Erich Pond, David M. Price,
Khalil Rahaman, John Rooney, Leonard Tallman, Matthew Verstreet,
FaithWeyandt, Wardell Driver, Victor L. Hite, William Houlberg,
Tony Hutchins, TommyMartin, Kearfer KuShawn Medlock, Alvanzia
Moncrief, Tim Ogle, Michael Phillips, Gerald M. Shelton, Terry
Sterling, Wilbert Summers, Timothy N. Tibbits, Albert Scott
Bennett, Artur Deminski, Antrione Foster, Brian Harrell, Alan
Howard, Andrew Lamb, DarrellPhillippe, Nelson Torres, Bobby
Washington, Charles Blevins, Curtis Branum, DestryBurt, John Cole,
John David Conn, Christopher Cooley, James R. Davidson,
DavidDobbs, Drew Edwards, Henry Ellis, Chad Hutson, Frederick E.
Jones, Jr., DavidKoller, David Krause, John A. Laubacker, Douglas
Nelson, Herson Ortiz, Danny James Peters, JerryD. Roberson, Ernest
Scott, III, Frank H. Simmons, Jr., James March Simpson,
GaryWestberry, James Mark Wisecarver, Michael Belcher, Nicholas
Bishop, Jose DeJesusCamerena, Kelly Chapman, Peter Close, Paul E.
Cox, Jose Del Rosario, JohnnyEdgett, Randall Farr, Mike Flesher,
Nicholas Habersham, Marshall Lewis, LarryLongendyke, John
McCauley, Robert McClendon, Justin Miney, Randy Murray, JosephV.
Ortega, Orrin Parker, II, Rodney Pashia, John Tower, Leander J.
Upperman, Philmore White, Kevin Williams, Timothy Babb, Anthony
Bridgett, Roger Brown, WendyBrowning, Teena Burris, Stephen Wayne
Dowdy, Stephen Falleaf, Thomas Gilbert, Eddie Johnson, Wilford
Earl Long, Sachlegina Nazario-Chan, Timothy A. Sims,
TerranceThomas, Ryan Thurmond, William P. Van Scoter, Zachary
Washington, TerranceAdams, Stuart Ahnert, Andrew Arthur, Brian
Cowell, Anthony Hannah, Billy R.Harris, Albert H. Nelson, Assanti
Paige, Brandon Scallia, Anthony Smith, Alan Tibbetts, Deji Bobo,
Cologne Caldwell, Charles L. Carter, James C. Coan, Jr., Cedric
Foster, GregoryL. George, Eddie Hensley, Jacob E. Kist, James J.
Markel, Carroll Martin, Jr., BrianMcClane, James F. McDole, Jr.,
David Murphree, Ilaz Neziri, Jared Pease, George V.Rowe, Carl
Snowden, Elliot Taylor, Gary Thompson, Charles Turner, Derrick
Victor, GeraldK. Waldron, Darren Williams, Carl Wirick, Michael S.
Brackett, Morris F. Culp, Jr., Jerry Dawson, Kal L. Dye, Joseph
Ferrari, Michael Gamblin, Michael Garrison, MarioGonzalez, Jonel
Hicks, Jason M. Jenkins, Kenneth D. Jones, Jr., Jordan L. Jostes,
JohnLorasch, Joseph W. Lowe, Keesha I. Marshall, Milly Melendez,
Javier Guerrero Mireles, Michael A. Morgan, Lori Palmer, Maurice
J. Perry, Jr., Jason Wayne Williams, ThomasAshley, Ricardo
Campbell, Phillip Couch, Patrick Dudley, Tracy Durant,
RobertGarrett, Dennis M. Griffin, Steve Hartsell, Stefanie Hodapp,
William A. Hubbard, Terry Johnson, Rudy K. Jones, Willie A. Jones,
Gregory Jordan, Timothy Kahney, William S.Kelley, Patrick
Markowitz, Ratonda McCloud, William Mobley, James A. Monroe, Jr.,
William A. Navarro, Terry Noah, Stephen Phillips, Timothy Powell,
Haitham Samir Rabie, Patrick D. Ray, James R. Richmond, Roger
Snell, Timothy M. Wilson, Wesley Wilson, Kenneth Pedro,
Plaintiffs, represented by Teresa A. Woody, Woody Law Firm PC.

Timothy S. Allor, Plaintiff, represented by Michael F. Brady,
Brady & Associates Law Office & Teresa A. Woody, Woody Law Firm
PC.

TransAm Trucking, Inc., Defendant, represented by Frederick H.
Riesmeyer, II -- friesmeyer@sb-kc.com -- Seigfreid Bingham PC,
Rachel H. Baker -- rbaker@sb-kc.com -- Shannon Cohorst Johnson --
sjohnson@sb-kc.com -- Seigfreid Bingham, PC & Sharon A. Coberly.


TRANSCARE CORP: Former Employees File Wage Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael D'Onofrio, writing for lohud, reports that former
employees for a regional ambulance service that suddenly shut down
filed class-action federal lawsuits seeking two months' wages and
benefits for 1,200 employees who lost their jobs.

Warren Eisenstadt, 52, was one of hundreds of employees fired in a
mass layoff on Feb. 25 by TransCare Corporation, a for-profit
ambulance company that serviced Westchester County, New York City,
Long Island and other states. Eisenstadt worked at TransCare as a
transport emergency medical technician in Brooklyn since 2002.

On Feb. 29, Mr. Eisenstadt filed a class-action lawsuit in
Brooklyn federal court against Patriarch Partners LLC, a private
equity fund.  The lawsuit alleges Patriarch, whose portfolio
includes TransCare, owns TransCare.  The suit also mentions a
tweet posted by Patriarch CEO Lynn Tilton about the February
bankruptcy.

In addition, the lawsuit names "XYZ Entities 1-10," which are
"unknown entities which Patriarch lent to, acquired, or otherwise
controlled TransCare."

Mr. Eisenstadt's lawsuit seeks 60 days' wages and benefits for at
least 1,200 employees who were laid off.  The lawsuit claims
employees were fired without cause or notice in violation of
federal employment law and the state WARN Act.

Mr. Eisenstadt's lawsuit also alleges employees have not been paid
for the work they performed shortly before they were fired, and
some employees' paychecks have bounced.

Patriarch said in a statement that the lawsuit was "meritless."

"The plaintiffs' claims of violation of the WARN Act are meritless
since neither Patriarch Partners nor Lynn Tilton were the employer
here," Patriarch said in a released statement.  "We will
vigorously defend ourselves against these lawsuits."

TransCare did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

A similar class-action lawsuit was filed against Patriarch on
behalf of Dalibel Garcia, who was also an employee at TransCare
fired on Feb. 25.

On TransCare's website, Patriarch and Tilton are mentioned
multiple times.  On TransCare's homepage, there is a link that
reads, "About Patriarch Partners," that leads to an information
page about Patriarch accompanied by a picture of Tilton.  In
addition, there is a link that reads, "A Lynn Tilton Company,"
which leads to Tilton's life story on Patriarch's own website.

When Mr. Eisenstadt found out he was going to lose his job, he
said, ""I thought it wasn't real.  It was surreal, like it wasn't
happening."

Mr. Eisenstadt, who lives in Brooklyn, said he went to the
TransCare office on Hamilton Avenue around 1:00 a.m. on Feb. 26 to
try to get his final paycheck, which he managed to get.

Mr. Eisenstadt said he and other employees immediately went to
cash their checks "because we thought the banks were bouncing
them."

Mr. Eisenstadt's lawsuit alleges TransCare attempted to convince
employees that the company was solvent, even as red flags
continued to be raised.  TransCare hired numerous employees about
a month before the shutdown, who were only to be laid off weeks
later.

When TransCare filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection on
Feb. 24, the company notified employees that the restructuring
would take place during the next "several months," the lawsuit
says.

Ms. Tilton even went so far as to post on Twitter: "The legacy &
heart of Transcare will live on in business units & 700 jobs we
saved. Very sad certain businesses will wind down," according to
the lawsuit.

However, TransCare suddenly shut down much of its operations in
the region the next day.

Mr. Eisenstadt, who has a wife and two children, said he has
managed to find full-time work at other nearby ambulance
companies, who have been "very sympathetic."

"Even though they were competitors, the employees weren't
competitors," Mr.  Eisenstadt said of other ambulance companies.

TransCare provided ambulance services in Westchester County,
including White Plains, Mount Vernon and New Rochelle.  When
TransCare notified its employees by email that it was ceasing
operations on Feb. 25, it sent municipalities scrambling. Many in
Westchester signed emergency contracts with Empress EMS.

The TransCare management team cited financial difficulties, and
said it was spinning off some services, including paratransit
services in New York City and ambulance services in Dutchess
County and Pittsburgh.


TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR: "Borsuk" Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Borsuk, et al. v. The
Transportation Corridor Agencies, et al., Case No. 30-02015-
00812981, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Orange to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California (Southern Division - Santa
Ana).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-00262 to
the proceeding.

The lawsuit is brought pursuant to the Civil Rights Act.

The Transportation Corridor Agencies are the two joint-power
agencies -- the Foothill/Eastern Transportation Corridor Agency
and the San Joaquin Hills Transportation Corridor Agency -- formed
in 1986 to manage the planning, financing, construction and
operation of State Routes 73, 133, 241 and 261.  The
Transportation Corridor Agencies operate a 51-mile toll road
network in Orange County, California, with 270,000 transactions a
day and $240 million in annual toll revenue.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Attorneys Plan to Appeal Class Action Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Cleary, writing for Heavv.com, reports that lawsuits in
New York state court and California federal court are moving
forward against Trump University, the now-defunct real estate
training program started by Donald Trump in 2005.  Mr. Trump has
vigorously defended himself against attacks from his opponents
about the program, saying it was successful and that the lawsuits
are not a big deal.

"It's something I could have settled many times," Mr. Trump said
during the last Republican debate.  "I could settle it right now
for very little money, but I don't want to do it out of principle.
The people that took the course all signed, most, many, many
signed report cards saying it was fantastic, it was wonderful, it
was beautiful.  And believe me, I'll win that case."

The first lawsuit was filed in 2013 by New York Attorney General
Eric Schniederman, who called the real estate program a "bait and
switch scheme."  According to the New York Times, the suit seeks
$40 million in restitution for 600 New Yorkers who
Mr. Schneiderman claims were defrauded by Trump University.  The
attorney general said the school made "false promises" and
convinced people to "spend tens of thousands of dollars they
couldn't afford for lessons they never got."

According to the Times, a New York appeals court ruled on March 1
that the lawsuit may go forward.  Mr. Trump's attorneys plan to
appeal that decision.

Across the country, a federal class-action lawsuit filed against
Trump University by a group of students in 2010 could go to trial
by this summer.  According to online court documents, the final
pre-trial conference in the hearing is set for May 6.

Mr. Trump is on the witness list for the trial.  No court date has
been set.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers Challenge Bid to Toss Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Boyle, writing for Law360, reports that Uber drivers told
a California federal court on March 2 that the company's bid to
toss class action allegations that it cheated them out of tips
misses the point of the suit, which says the company violated
state law, not that it committed fraud.

The drivers brushed aside as irrelevant Uber's argument that they
can't show that riders decided not to leave tips because Uber
fraudulently said its fares included gratuities.  Their claim,
they said, is that Uber actually collected gratuities but didn't
forward all that money to drivers.

"We do not need to show (nor do we contend) that drivers relied on
Uber's statements that tip is included in the fare," Shannon Liss-
Riordan, an attorney for the drivers, told Law360.  "Our
contention is that reasonable customers understood that based on
Uber's marketing."

The drivers said their claim involves a statutory violation of the
California Labor Code, which says an employer cannot take part or
all of a gratuity that was left for an employee.  The drivers'
lawsuit, which says Uber misclassified them as contract workers,
includes allegations that before paying the drivers what it owed
them, Uber deducted a commission from the total, including tips.

They said Uber's contention that the fares did not in fact include
gratuities conflicts with statements in company communications to
customers, including through its website and mobile app.  Saying a
tip is included means a tip is included, and failing to give the
full tip to the worker violates state law, they said.

"According to this [Uber's] logic, an employer could inform
customers that part of the charge they were paying constituted a
gratuity for the workers, but then could later say that this was
not the case simply because it chose not to remit the gratuity to
the workers," the drivers said.

The named plaintiffs also don't have to show that any of their
specific riders believed the fare they paid included a gratuity,
as Uber said they must do in order to have standing to bring the
suit, the drivers said.  They said they just need to show that
Uber made that claim to riders.

While Uber amended its customer contracts in November 2014 to
include a disclaimer that the fares don't include tips, that
doesn't justify its request to dismiss all claims involving tips
after that date, the drivers said.  They said a judge or jury
should decide whether the disclaimer negates the more recent
claims or amount to "too little too late."

Uber had also asked the court to reverse class certification on
grounds that there are insufficient common issues among the
drivers because the company has not uniformly or consistently told
riders that tips are included in fares.  The drivers said on March
2 that the court has already rejected these arguments, and
specifically countered that they don't have to show that every
customer was exposed to the same message about gratuities.

The suit is among a host of claims in courts around the country
that Uber misclassified its drivers as independent contractors and
owes them more money.  In February, the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation said it won't consolidate this and more
than a dozen similar suits because state laws are too varied to
justify a consolidated case.

An attorney for Uber did not respond to a request for comment.

The drivers are represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan and Adelaide
Pagano of Lichten & Liss-Riordan PC, and Matthew Carlson of
Carlson Legal Services.

Uber is represented by Theodore J. Boutrous Jr. of  Gibson Dunn.

The case is Douglas O'Connor et al. v. Uber Technologies Inc. et
al., case number 3:13-cv-03826, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California.


UNDER ARMOUR: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held
----------------------------------------------------
Under Armour, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 22, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a Maryland court was
expected to determine whether to grant final approval of a class
action settlement at hearing on February 29, 2016.

Following the Company's announcement of the creation of a new
class of common stock, referred to as the Class C common stock,
par value $0.0003 1/3 per share, four purported class action
lawsuits were brought against the Company and the members of the
Company's Board of Directors on behalf of the stockholders of the
Company, the first of which was filed on June 18, 2015. These
lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland (the "Court"), and were consolidated into one action, In
re: Under Armour Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 24-C-15-003240.
The lawsuits generally alleged that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with approving the
creation of the Class C common stock, as well as in connection
with recommending for approval by stockholders certain governance
related changes to the Company's charter.

On October 7, 2015, the Company announced that it had reached an
agreement on settlement terms with the lead plaintiff.  The Court
has preliminarily approved the settlement terms, and was expected
to determine whether to grant final approval of the settlement at
hearing on February 29, 2016.

Under the terms of the settlement, following the initial
distribution of the Class C common stock, the Company has agreed
to issue additional consideration to the holders of Class C common
stock in the form of a dividend with a value of $59 million, which
will be payable in the form of the Company's Class A common stock,
Class C common stock, cash or a combination thereof, to be
determined at the sole discretion of the Company's Board of
Directors.  This dividend must be authorized by the Board of
Directors within approximately 60 days following the initial
distribution of the Class C common stock.  Additionally, the
settlement agreement includes certain non-monetary remedies,
including an amendment to the Confidentiality, Non-Competition and
Non-Solicitation Agreement between the Company and Kevin A. Plank,
the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and an
agreement that the Company's Board of Directors will undertake
certain considerations when using more than a specified amount of
shares of Class C common stock as consideration in certain
acquisition transactions.

No further updates were provided in the Company's Report.

Under Armour's principal business activities are the development,
marketing and distribution of branded performance apparel,
footwear and accessories for men, women and youth.


UNITED RECOVERY: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bassheva Hess, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. United Recovery Systems LP, Case No. 1:16-
cv-00800 (E.D.N.Y., February 16, 2016) accuses the Defendant of
violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

United Recovery Systems, LP is a Texas-based Limited Partnership
headquartered in Houston, Texas, with offices in Arizona,
Kentucky, and Oklahoma.  URS provides collection services to its
clients.


VIKING CLIENT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rosendo Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Viking Client Services, Inc., Case No. 0:16-cv-00336-
SRN-TNL (D. Minn., February 10, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Viking Client Services, Inc. operates a collection agency in
Minnesota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anna P. Prakash, Esq.
      Brock J. Specht, Esq.
      Kai H. Richter, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      80 S. 8th St., Ste 4600
      Mpls.,, MN 55402-2242
      Telephone: (612) 256-3200
      Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
      E-mail: aprakash@nka.com
              bspecht@nka.com
              krichter@nka.com

         - and -

      Carl E. Christensen, Esq.
      CHRISTENSEN LAW OFFICE, PLLC
      800 Washington Ave N Ste 704
      Mpls, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 823-4427
      Facsimile: (612) 823-4777
      E-mail: carl@clawoffice.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: MLG Email Breaches Carriage Order, Court Rules
-------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Lockwood, Esq., and Aislinn E. Reid, Esq. of Osler Hoskin &
Harcourt LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that as
anticipated, the multiplicity of class actions commenced in Canada
in the Volkswagen Litigation has given rise to carriage wars
across the country.

Contested Carriage of Ontario Class Action

In November 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice heard a
motion to determine carriage of the proposed Volkswagen national
class action in Ontario.  Two firms contested carriage: a national
consortium of class action firms (the "Consortium") and The
Merchant Law Group ("MLG").  MLG also filed class actions against
Volkswagen in other Canadian provinces, and is engaged in ongoing
carriage battles with the Consortium in respect of those class
actions.

On December 4, 2015, Justice Belobaba granted carriage of the
Ontario Volkswagen Class Action to the Consortium.  MLG agreed not
to contest carriage in Ontario, and its Ontario action was stayed.

However, on January 22, 2016, MLG sent an email to approximately
9500 potential class members, including 3500 Ontario residents,
requesting them to sign a "Contingency Fee Arrangement and
Instructions."  The email did not make any reference to the fact
that MLG does not have carriage of the Ontario class action.  In
response to this email, 150 Ontario residents signed a retainer
agreement.

The Consortium brought a motion before Justice Belobaba raising a
number of concerns regarding the MLG email, claiming breach of the
carriage order, seeking an injunction preventing MLG from sending
similar emails in the future, and other relief.

Breach of Carriage Order "Reprehensible"

Justice Belobaba held that the MLG email breached the carriage
order and was an "undisguised attempt to scoop potential class
members with misleading information."  The Court ordered MLG to
send a court-approved "clarifying email" to the 9500 recipients of
the MLG email.  Although an injunction was not ultimately granted
against MLG, the Court held that any further breaches of the Court
Order could be addressed with a motion for contempt of court.  The
Court also ordered that MLG will not execute the 150 retainer
agreements. Finding MLG's conduct "deserving of censure and
condemnation, and therefore, by definition, reprehensible",
Justice Belobaba ordered MLG to pay $40,000 in substantial
indemnity costs to the Consortium.

The outcomes of Saskatchewan and Alberta carriage motions between
MLG and the Consortium are pending, but will certainly be closely
followed, as will the outcome of the Ontario Volkswagen Class
Action certification motion scheduled to be heard on June 7 and
June 8, 2016.

Certainty of Representation

Justice Belobaba's decision is instructive insofar as it confirms
that class representation, once confirmed by a judicial order in
the context of a contested carriage fight, is not subject to
collateral attack thereafter.  This is particularly helpful from
the perspective of putative class defendants, who are entitled to
certainty that class counsel is able to take a position on behalf
of the entirety of the class without fear of having such positions
"second-guessed" or opposed by counsel purporting to represent
particular constituents of the class.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Uses "No Injury" Defense in Emissions Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Babboni, Esq. of Shapiro Goldman Babboni & Walsh, in an
article for Lawyers.com, reports that last year, Volkswagen was
caught using hidden code in diesel cars that allowed the cars to
pass emissions tests even though in real-world driving the cars
were far too dirty to meet United States emissions
standards.  Volkswagen has admitted that millions of diesel cars
they sold worldwide have this software installed.

Volkswagen sold 11 million of the cars, advertising them as "clean
diesel" cars to environmentally-conscious car buyers. Unwitting
buyers got cars equipped with software that sensed when the cars
where being tested.  During a test, the cars ran clean enough to
past the required emission test.  After the test, this same code
allowed emissions to go up by 10 to 40 times as much pollution as
the law allowed.

In short, Volkswagen lied to regulators and customers about those
diesel cars and got caught.

On the road testing in 2014 led officials with the California Air
Resources Board (CARB)to start an investigation of VW cars with
four-cylinder diesel engines.  Tests revealed nitrogen oxide
emissions up to 40 times the amount permitted by law.

In a November op-ed piece for the National Law Journal, Arthur H.
Bryant describes the damaged caused by Volkswagen's actions and
the implications of their legal defense strategy.  VW asserts that
it did not cause any physical harm by lying about the performance
of their diesel vehicles.  Their defense hinges on the invention
of something called a "no injury" class action.
Mr. Bryant points out that only three classes of injury count,
according to corporate defenders:

1. Physical injury
2. Economic loss
3. Emotional harm resulting in provable symptoms

The Volkswagen strategy is to prove they are not liable for any
damages because none of those injuries resulted.

This is not entirely true though. Bryant argues that Volkswagen
lied and got customers to pay a premium for "cleaner" cars that
were actually more damaging to the environment than competitors.
Those diesel emissions lowered air quality, contributed to global
warming, and increased cardiovascular problems.  The company also
lied to millions of consumers and earned billions in excess
profits by selling what amounts to a fraudulent product.

The diesel Volkswagen have been shown to pose a real threat to
public health as well.  A peer-reviewed study by researchers at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Harvard University
finds that 59 people died due to exposure to those excess
emissions.

There is a very recent precedent for Volkswagen's approach to this
emissions scandal.  In a case currently before the Supreme Court,
Thomas Robbins alleges that a "people search engine" company
shared false information about him, causing monetary injury, harm
to his employment prospects and anxiety about his "diminished
employment prospects".  The defendant, Spokeo, argues that Robbins
suffered no "real-world injury" so there is no grounds for a
damage award.  The defense attorneys argue
that the United States Constitution does give Congress the power
to pay so-called statutory damages.

If Volkswagen attorneys use a similar defense they will be in
serious trouble because their case would have the same serious
weaknesses.  One, everyone who bought one of those diesel cars did
suffer a monetary loss, and health problems in some cases. Second,
the courts do have the power to award compensation for a simple
violation of rights.  There is no legal requirement for "real
world harm" in other words.

Available evidence makes it clear that Volkswagen imposed health
and financial costs on the public, and especially on customers who
bought efficient and "clean" diesel cars.  The car company also
misrepresented their cars, based on the results of those CARB
emission tests.  The documented deaths add to the real-world cost
of Volkswagen's marketing campaign.

The Volkswagen strategy of calling any class action a "no injury"
suit seems doomed to fail because of those damages and because of
legal precedent.  Even if Volkswagen did no real harm, a simple
violation of rights all the courts require to judge in favor of
the members of a class action suit.

If you own a VW "Clean diesel" and are looking for answers in
recovering damages, contact the Lawyers of Shapiro Goldman Babboni
& Walsh or visit or VW class action page at:

http://www.getmejustice.com/vw-settlement

Shapiro Goldman Babboni & Walsh
6446 Central Ave., St. Petersburg FL, 33707
Local: 727-381-9200


* New French Law May Spur Health-Related Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------
Fabrice Fages, Esq. -- fabrice.fages@lw.com -- Julie Ladousse,
Esq. -- julie.ladousse@lw.com -- Myria Saarinen, Esq. --
myria.saarinen@lw.com -- of Latham & Watkins LLP, in an article
for JDSupra, report that the number of eligible associations and
the law's broad scope could portend a significant number of
health-related class actions.

A new law, referred to as Loi Sante No. 2016-41 and enacted on 26
January 2016, contains provisions enlarging the scope of class
action litigation in France to include health-related claims. Such
provisions will enter into force after the French government
publishes an implementing decree, expected by 1 July 2016 at the
latest.



                            *********

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 2016. 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  * * *