CAR_Public/160407.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, April 7, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 70


                            Headlines


218 DUVAL: Violated FLSA, "Woodbury" Suit Claims
ALEXIAN BROTHERS: Illegally Charges Uninsured Patients, Suit Says
ALIMENTOS CONGELADOS: Recalls Broccoli Cuts Due to Listeria
ALLERGAN PLC: Bids to Dismiss Namenda Suits Await Ruling
ALLERGAN PLC: 3rd Cir. Appeal in Zymar/Zymaxid Case Pending

ALLERGAN PLC: Updates on Celexa/Lexapro Suits v. Forest Labs
ALLERGAN PLC: Units Dropped as Defendants in TCPA Class Suit
ALLERGAN PLC: Illinois Court Rejects RICO Claims in TRT Suit
ALLERGAN PLC: Employment Suit vs. Forest Labs in Discovery
ALLERGAN PLC: Actonel(R) Cases in Initial Discovery Phase

ALLERGAN PLC: 4 Actonel(R) Class Suits in Canada Pending
ALLERGAN PLC: Updates on Alendronate Litigation
ALLERGAN PLC: Discovery in Metoclopramide Case Ongoing
ALLERGAN PLC: Propoxyphene Plaintiffs Must Show Cause by April 18
ALLERGAN PLC: 287 Testosterone Products Suits Pending v. Actavis

ALLSTATE INSURANCE: MSPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
AMAYA INC: Faces "Weisman" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
ARM SOLUTIONS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Orozco" Action Claims
ASUDA HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Wages, "Foote" Suit Says
ATLANTIC CREDIT: Faces "Perry" Suit in New Jersey Dist. Ct.

ATLANTIC MANAGEMENT: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES: Storm Investors' Class Action Dismissed
B BRAUN MEDICAL: Recalls 5% Dextrose Injection
BLACK DIAMOND: Recalls Nylon Runners Due to Injury Risk
BRINKER ARKANSAS: Faces "Keller" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

BRIXMOR PROPERTY: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
C&J ENERGY: "Washburn" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
CABLE NEWS: Faces "Yi" Suit Over Constitutional Rights Violation
CADETE ENTERPRISES: Ruling in Dunkin' Donuts Suit Reversed
CHC WELLNESS: Fails to Pay Wages, "Lacriola" Suit Claims

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces "Cummings" Suit Over Exchange Offer
CHICAGO, IL: Plaintiff Attorney May Appeal Red-Light Camera Case
CLEAREDGE POWER: WARN Act Claims Compromise Approved
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation
COMPLETE ENERGY: Violated FLSA, "Tiner" Suit Claims

COMPUTER SYSTEMS INSTITUTE: Violated WARN Act, "Jackson" Claims
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
CREATING X: Recalls Footed Pajamas Due to Burn Hazard
CREATIVE HEALTH: "Leffler" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay
EATALY AMERICA: Website Not Friendly to Blinds, "Del-Orden" Says

ELEANOR ROSE: Recalls Children's Loungewear Due to Burn Risk
EXPEDITORS AND PRODUCTION: "Cox" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: A Third Look at the Implicit Guaranteee
FISKARS BRANDS: Recalls Bypass Lopper Shears Due to Injury Risk
FLOWERS FOODS: Recalls Cobblestone Wheat English Muffins

FREDERICK J. HANNA: Illegally Collects Debts, "Goodwin" Suit Says
GAMEWELL-FCI: Recalls Fire Alarm Panel Products
GARDEN FRESH: "Johnson" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay
GARMIN INT'L: Wins Class Action Over Personal Navigation Devices
GENERAL CHEMICAL: City of Everett Suit Transferred to New Jersey

GIVENCHY: Recalls Men's Silk T-shirts Due to Burn Hazard
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "Thatcher" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2657
GROSFILLEX INC: Recalls Side Chairs and Armless Bar Stools
GRUBHUB INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Action Claims
GUTHY-RENKER LLC: Defends Products Amid Wen Hair Loss Class Suit

HONDA NORTH AMERICA: Removes "Henriksen" Action to S.D. Florida
INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIR: Answer in "Callahan" Case Due July 1
INVISIBLU INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Continuum Labs LGD-Xtreme
JACKPOT JOANIES: Violated FLSA, "Littlefield" Suit Alleges
JANSSEN INC: Invokana Safe for Diabetes Patients, Doctor Says

KRAFT HEINZ: Violated UCL & CLRA, "Weiss" Suit Claims
LARRY STIGERS EQUIPMENT: "Grimes" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
LEE SEED: Recalls Yogurt Super Soynuts Products Due to Milk
LIFE PARTNERS: "Steuben" Suit Removed to Calif. Bankruptcy Court
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Skehan" Suit Over Toxic Flooring

M.L. ZAGER: Illegally Collects Debt, "Griffin" Complaint Says
MANHATTAN TOY: Recalls Table Top Toys Due to Chocking Hazard
MERCY HEALTH: Retirement Plan Underfunded, "Lupp" Suit Claims
MIDLAND CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Gabay" Suit Says
MONTEREY COLLECTION: "Laughner" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation

MOUNTAIN VIEW MEDICAL: Violated FLSA, "Vanauken" Suit Claims
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Concussions Research "Flawed, Incomplete"
NATIONWIDE CREDIT INC: Faces "Marinacci" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
NEKASA INC: "Sevilla" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay
NEW KO-SUSHI JAPANESE: Faces "Portillo" Suit in S.D.N.Y.

NEW TECH GLOBAL VENTURES: Faces "Clay" Wage & Hour Suit
NG & LIN CO: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Sir" Suit Claims
NORTHEASTERN ASSET RECOVERY: Violated FDCPA, "Evensen" Suit Says
OCEAN PROPERTIES: Faces "Bouton" Suit in S.D. Florida Ct.
OCWEN LOAN: Faces "Purnel" Suit in S.D. Mississippi

OMNINET VILLAGE: Faces "Stallworth" Suit Over Breach of Contract
PALOS VERDES, CA: More People Want to Join Lunada Bay Boys Suit
PJS OF PARMA: Faces "Calta" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
PLATFORM SPECIALTY: Faces "Dillard" Securities Class Action
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: "Nahari" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation

PULASKI COUNTY, AR: Faces Class Action Over Livestock Ban
QUALITY FOOD: Recalls Cranberry Chicken Salad Due to Pecans
RAPID ROD: Violated FLSA, "Salazar" Suit Claims
RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Faces "Giorgio" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
ROLAND FOODS: Recalls Roasted Red Pepper Strips Due to Glass

RW BAKERS: Recalls Plain Knot Rolls Due to Peanuts
SEAVAND CORPORATION: "Martin" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Faces "Lee" Class Action in N.D. Ga.
SHOP VAC: Settles Wet-Dry Vacuum Class Actions for $4.25 Million
SNYDER'S-LANCE: Recalls Roasted & Salted Cashew Products

SYSTEMS CONNECTION: "Johnson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
THAMES LANDSCAPE: Faces "Varela" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
TREMONT TOWING: Engaged in Illegal Towing, "Mas" Suit Claims
US BANK: Faces "Smith" Suit in Florida Over Breach of Contract
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: To Vigorously Defend Cold-fx Ad Suit

WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Franklin" Suit in Florida
WORTH FINANCE: "Garcia" Action Seeks Overtime Pay

* Senator Says Homeowners Need Coverage for Failing Foundations
* EPA to Set PFOA Permanent Health Advisory Amid Class Actions





                            *********


218 DUVAL: Violated FLSA, "Woodbury" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------
Monica Woodbury, and Lea Mackenzie-Kerr, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. 218 Duval
Street Corp., the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-10014-JLK (S.D.
Fla., April 1, 2016), asserts that the defendant improperly
designated its core revenue-generating employees as independent
contractors.  The plaintiff, therefore, seeks to recover mandatory
minimum wage and overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA).

218 Duval Street, doing business as Teaser's, is a highly erotic
nightclub with a cast of international dancing beauties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chad E. Levy, Esq.
          LEVY & LEVY, P.A.
          915 Middle River Drive, Suite 518
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33304
          Telephone: (954) 763 5722
          Facsimile: (954) 763 5723
          Email: chad@levylevylaw.com


ALEXIAN BROTHERS: Illegally Charges Uninsured Patients, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arshad Qureshi, for himself and on behalf of a class of all
persons similarly situated v. Alexian Brothers Health System, Case
No. 2016-CH-04557 (Ill. Cir. Ct., March 31, 2016), is an action
for damages as a result of the Defendant's practice of charging
uninsured patients double and triple the rates charged to insured
persons.

Alexian Brothers Health System is an Illinois Not-For-Profit
Corporation that provides health care services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Younes, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH YOUNES, P.C.
      166 W. Washington St., Suite 600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 372-112


ALIMENTOS CONGELADOS: Recalls Broccoli Cuts Due to Listeria
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alimentos Congelados, S.A. (Pinula) is voluntarily recalling 1,800
cases of Frozen Broccoli Cuts because it has the potential to be
contaminated with Listeria Monocytogenes, an organism which can
cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children,
frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.
Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal
pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

The Frozen Broccoli Cuts were distributed to stores in the
following states: Indiana, Kentucky, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia,
West Virginia, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, South Carolina and North
Carolina.

The affected Frozen Broccoli Cuts were distributed in poly bags
under the following label and code:

WYLWOOD Fresh Frozen Broccoli Cuts, NET WT. 16 OZ (1 LB), UPC
5193300110, with bag code: A25335P and A15335P

The company has not received any complaints in relation to this
product and is not aware of any illnesses associated with the
product to date.

The recall was the result of retail package of Frozen Broccoli
Cuts being tested by the State of Ohio Department of Agriculture.
The Frozen Broccoli Cuts had tested positive for Listeria
Monocytogenes. The company has ceased distribution of Frozen
Broccoli Cuts, and is fully cooperating with regulatory agencies.

Consumers who purchased the Frozen Broccoli Cuts are urged not to
consume this product and throw it away. Consumers requiring refund
or with questions can contact the company at 1-800-888-4646 and
ask for Consumer Affairs Monday thru Friday between 8:00AM and
5:00 PM EST.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/XOuFGA


ALLERGAN PLC: Bids to Dismiss Namenda Suits Await Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that the motions filed by Forest Laboratories and its co-
defendants to dismiss putative class action lawsuits by purchasers
of Namenda(R) remain pending.

On September 15, 2014, the State of New York, through the Office
of the Attorney General of the State of New York, filed a lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York alleging that Forest is acting to prevent or delay
generic competition to Forest's immediate-release product
Namenda(R) in violation of federal and New York antitrust laws and
committed other fraudulent acts in connection with its commercial
plans for Namenda(R) XR. In the complaint, the state seeks
unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief.

On September 24, 2014, the state filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction prohibiting Forest from discontinuing or otherwise
limiting the availability of immediate-release Namenda(R) until
the conclusion of the litigation. A hearing was held in November
2014 on the state's preliminary injunction motion.

On December 11, 2014, the district court issued a ruling granting
the state's injunction motion and issued an injunction on December
15, 2014.

On May 22, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
affirmed the preliminary injunction.

On June 5, 2015, Forest filed a petition with the Second Circuit
for rehearing en banc which was denied.  Forest and the New York
Attorney General reached a settlement on November 24, 2015.

On May 29, 2015, a putative class action was filed on behalf of a
class of direct purchasers and on June 8, 2015 a similar putative
class action was filed on behalf of a class of indirect
purchasers.  Since that time, additional complaints have been
filed on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect
purchasers.

The class action complaints make claims similar to those asserted
by the New York Attorney General and also include claims that
Namenda(R) patent litigation settlements between Forest and
generic companies also violated the antitrust laws.

On December 22, 2015, Forest and its co-defendants filed motions
to dismiss the pending complaints of the putative classes of
direct and indirect purchasers.  These motions remain pending.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend both its brand and generic defendant entities
vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely
affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: 3rd Cir. Appeal in Zymar/Zymaxid Case Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that Plaintiff's appeal in the Zymar(R)/Zymaxid(R) litigation
remains pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit.

On February 16, 2012, Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. filed a
complaint in the federal district court in Delaware against Senju
Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. ("Senju"), Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co.,
Ltd. ("Kyorin"), and Allergan, Inc. ("Allergan") alleging
monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act,
conspiracy to monopolize, and unreasonable restraint of trade in
the market for gatifloxacin ophthalmic formulations, which
includes Allergan's ZYMAR(R) gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.3%
and ZYMAXID(R)gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5% products.

On May 24, 2012, Allergan filed a motion to dismiss the complaint
to the extent it seeks to impose liability for alleged injuries
occurring prior to August 19, 2011, which is the date Apotex
obtained final approval of its proposed generic product. Allergan
and the other defendants also moved to dismiss. Defendants also
filed a motion to stay the action pending resolution of related
patent actions in the federal court in Delaware and in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

On February 7, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to stay
the proceedings pending resolution of the appeal in the patent
dispute and denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to
renew.

On September 18, 2014, defendants filed a new motion to dismiss
the Apotex plaintiffs' complaint. The court dismissed Allergan's
motion on May 2, 2015. Thereafter, Allergan filed an answer to
Apotex's complaint on June 1, 2015.

On June 6, 2014, a separate antitrust class action complaint was
filed in the federal district court in Delaware against the same
defendants as in the Apotex case. The complaint alleges that
defendants unlawfully excluded or delayed generic competition in
the gatifloxacin ophthalmic formulations market (generic versions
of ZYMAR(R) and ZYMAXID(R)).

On September 18, 2014, Allergan filed a motion to dismiss for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction and joined in co-defendants' motion
to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

On August 19, 2015, the court granted Allergan's motion to
dismiss.

On September 18, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if
successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Updates on Celexa/Lexapro Suits v. Forest Labs
------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited, in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
provided updates on various Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) class action
lawsuits involving Forest Laboratories.

Forest Laboratories and certain of its affiliates are defendants
in three federal court actions filed on behalf of individuals who
purchased Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R) for pediatric use, all of
which have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in an MDL
proceeding in the federal district court Massachusetts (the
"Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) MDL"). These actions, two of which were
originally filed as putative nationwide class actions, and one of
which is a putative California-wide class action, allege that
Forest marketed Celexa(R) and/or Lexapro(R)for off-label pediatric
use and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce
prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R).

The complaints assert various similar claims, including claims
under the state consumer protection statutes and state common
laws. Plaintiffs in the various actions sought to have certified
California, Missouri, Illinois and New York state-wide classes.
However, only the Missouri state class was certified. Forest
subsequently reached an agreement with the MDL plaintiffs to
settle the Missouri class claims, including claims by both
individuals and third party payors that purchased Celexa(R) or
Lexapro(R) for use by a minor from 1998 to December 31, 2013, for
$7.65 million with a potential to increase the amount to $10.35
million if settling plaintiffs meet certain thresholds.

On September 8, 2014 the court granted final approval for the
settlement.

Additional actions relating to the promotion of Celexa(R) and/or
Lexapro(R) have been filed all of which have been consolidated in
the Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) MDL.

On May 3, 2013, an action was filed in federal court in California
on behalf of individuals who purchased Lexapro(R) for adolescent
use, seeking to certify a state-wide class action in California
and alleging that the promotion of Lexapro(R) for adolescent
depression has been deceptive.

On March 5, 2014 the court granted Forest's motion to dismiss this
complaint. Plaintiff then appealed the district court's decision
to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and on February 20,
2015, the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint,
ruling that Plaintiffs' California state law claims were preempted
by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).

On November 13, 2013, an action was filed in federal court in
Minnesota seeking to certify a nationwide class of third-party
payor entities that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for
pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, alleging that
Forest engaged in an off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal
kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and
Lexapro(R). Forest moved to dismiss the complaint and on December
12, 2014, the court issued a ruling dismissing plaintiff's claims
under Minnesota's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, but denying the
remaining portions of the motion.

On March 13, 2014, an action was filed in the federal court in
Massachusetts by two third-party payors seeking to certify a
nationwide class of persons and entities that purchased Celexa(R)
and Lexapro(R)for use by pediatric use. The complaint asserts
claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, state consumer protection statutes, and state
common laws, alleging that Forest engaged in an off-label
marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to
induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R). The court
granted Forest's motion to dismiss this complaint in its December
12, 2014 ruling.

On August 28, 2014, an action was filed in the federal district
court in Washington seeking to certify a nationwide class of
consumers and subclasses of Washington and Massachusetts consumers
that purchased Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R) for pediatric use. The
complaint asserts claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, alleging that Forest engaged in
off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to
physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa(R) and Lexapro(R).
Forest's response to the complaint was filed on December 19, 2014.

On June 16, 2015, the court issued a ruling on the motion to
dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part.

Forest and certain of its affiliates are also named as defendants
in two actions filed on behalf of entities or individuals who
purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa(R) and
Lexapro(R) for pediatric use pending in the Missouri state court.
These claims arise from similar allegations as those contained in
the federal actions described in the preceding paragraphs. One
action, filed on November 6, 2009, was brought by two entities
that purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa(R)and/or
Lexapro(R). The complaint asserts claims under the Missouri
consumer protection statute and Missouri common law, and seeks
unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

The other action, filed on July 22, 2009, was filed as a putative
class action on behalf of a class of Missouri citizens who
purchased Celexa(R) for pediatric use. The complaint asserts
claims under the Missouri consumer protection statute and Missouri
common law, and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys' fees.

In October 2010, the court certified a class of Missouri
domiciliary citizens who purchased Celexa(R) for pediatric use at
any time prior to the date of the class certification order, but
who do not have a claim for personal injury. The Company reached
agreements with both sets of plaintiffs in the Missouri actions to
resolve each matter for payments that are not material to our
financial condition or results of operations.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against these
actions. At this time, the Company does not believe losses, if
any, would have a material effect on the results of operations or
financial position taken as a whole.


ALLERGAN PLC: Units Dropped as Defendants in TCPA Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that plaintiffs in a class action complaint alleging violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation have voluntarily
dismissed Allergan USA, Inc. and Actavis, Inc. as defendants from
the litigation.

A putative class action complaint against Anda, Inc. ("Anda"), a
subsidiary of the Company, was filed in Missouri state court
alleging claims for conversion and alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") and Missouri Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. An amended complaint
alleges that by sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements, Anda
misappropriated the class members' paper, toner, ink and employee
time when they received the alleged unsolicited faxes, and that
the alleged unsolicited facsimile advertisements were sent to the
plaintiff in violation of the TCPA and Missouri Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act. The complaint seeks to assert
class action claims on behalf of the plaintiff and other similarly
situated third parties.

On May 19, 2011, the plaintiff's filed a motion seeking
certification of a class of entities with Missouri telephone
numbers who were sent Anda faxes for the period January 2004
through January 2008 but the court vacated the class certification
hearing until the FCC Petition was addressed.

On May 1, 2012, a separate action was filed in federal court in
Florida, purportedly on behalf of the "end users of the fax
numbers in the United States but outside Missouri to which faxes
advertising pharmaceutical products for sale by Anda were sent."

On July 10, 2012, Anda filed its answer and affirmative defenses.
The parties filed a joint motion to stay the action pending the
resolution of the FCC Petition which the court granted.

In addition, in October 2012, Forest and certain of its affiliates
were named as defendants, in a putative class action in federal
court in Missouri. This suit alleges that Forest and another
defendant violated the TCPA and was filed on behalf of a proposed
class that includes all persons who, from four years prior to the
filing of the action, were sent telephone facsimile messages of
material advertising the commercial availability of any property,
goods, or services by or on behalf of defendants, which did not
display an opt-out notice compliant with a certain regulation
promulgated by the FCC.

On July 17, 2013, the district court granted Forest's motion to
stay the action pending the administrative proceeding initiated by
the pending FCC Petition and a separate petition Forest filed.

On October 31, 2015, another class action complaint was filed in
Missouri state court against Allergan USA, Inc., Warner Chilcott
Corporation and Actavis, Inc. alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, the Missouri Consumer Fraud and
Protection Act and conversion on behalf of a putative nationwide
class of plaintiffs to who defendant Warner Chilcott Corporation
sent unsolicited facsimile advertisements.

Defendants removed this action to the federal district court for
the Western District of Missouri on December 10, 2015 and
responded to the complaint on February 8, 2016.

On February 17, 2016, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed defendants
Allergan USA, Inc. and Actavis, Inc. from the litigation.

In a related matter, in November 2010 Anda filed a petition with
the FCC, asking the FCC to clarify the statutory basis for its
regulation requiring "opt-out" language on faxes sent with express
permission of the recipient (the "FCC Petition"). On May 2, 2012,
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau of the FCC dismissed
the FCC Petition. On May 14, 2012, Anda filed an application for
review of the Bureau's dismissal by the full Commission,
requesting the FCC to vacate the dismissal and grant the relief
sought in the FCC Petition. The FCC did not rule on the
application for review. On June 27, 2013, Forest filed a Petition
for Declaratory Ruling with the FCC requesting that the FCC find
that (1) the faxes at issue in the action complied, or
substantially complied with the FCC regulation, and thus did not
violate it, or (2) the FCC regulation was not properly promulgated
under the TCPA.

On January 31, 2014, the FCC issued a Public Notice seeking
comment on several other recently-filed petitions, all similar to
the one Anda filed in 2010. On October 30, 2014, the FCC issued a
final order on the FCC Petition granting Anda, Forest and several
other petitioners a retroactive waiver of the opt-out notice
requirement for all faxes sent with express consent. The
litigation plaintiffs, who had filed comments on the January 2014
Public Notice, have appealed the final order to the Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia. Anda, Forest and other
petitioners have moved to intervene in the appeal seeking review
of that portion of the FCC final order addressing the statutory
basis for the opt out/express consent portion of the regulation.

Anda and Forest believe they have substantial meritorious defenses
to the putative class actions brought under the TCPA, and intend
to defend the actions vigorously. However, these actions, if
successful, could have a material adverse effect on the Company's
business, results of operations, financial condition and cash
flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Illinois Court Rejects RICO Claims in TRT Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that a federal court has granted, in part, and denied, in part,
defendants' motion to dismiss an amended complaint in the
Testosterone Replacement Therapy class action.

On November 24, 2014, the Company was served with a putative class
action complaint filed on behalf a class of third party payers in
federal court in Illinois. The suit alleges that the Company and
other named pharmaceutical defendants violated various laws
including the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and state consumer protection laws in connection
with the sale and marketing of certain testosterone replacement
therapy pharmaceutical products ("TRT Products"), including the
Company's Androderm(R)product. This matter was filed in the TRT
Products Liability multi-district litigation, notwithstanding that
it is not a product liability matter.

Plaintiff alleges that it reimbursed third parties for dispensing
TRT Products to beneficiaries of its insurance policies. Plaintiff
seeks to obtain certain equitable relief, including injunctive
relief and an order requiring restitution and/or disgorgement, and
to recover damages and multiple damages in an unspecified amount.

Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaint, after
which plaintiff amended its complaint.

Defendants then jointly filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part on
February 3, 2016.

The Court dismissed plaintiff's substantive RICO claims for mail
and wire fraud for failure to plead with particularity under Rule
9(b) but granted plaintiffs leave to replead.  The court also
dismissed plaintiff's state law statutory claims and common law
claims for fraud and unjust enrichment.  The Court declined to
dismiss plaintiff's conspiracy claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.
1962(d) and its claims for negligent misrepresentation.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to
the claims alleged and intends to vigorously defend the action.
However, an adverse determination in the case could have an
adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations,
financial condition and cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Employment Suit vs. Forest Labs in Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that the parties in an employment case against Forest Laboratories
are beginning to work on discovery matters.

In July 2012, Forest and certain of its affiliates were named as
defendants in an action brought by certain former company sales
representatives and specialty sales representatives in the federal
district court in New York. The action is a putative class and
collective action, and alleges class claims under Title VII for
gender discrimination with respect to pay and promotions, as well
as discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, and a collective
action claim under the Equal Pay Act.

The proposed Title VII gender class includes all current and
former female sales representatives employed by the Company
throughout the U.S. from 2008 to the date of judgment, and the
proposed Title VII pregnancy sub-class includes all current and
former female sales representatives who have been, are, or will
become pregnant while employed by the Company throughout the U.S.
from 2008 to the date of judgment.

The proposed Equal Pay Act collective action class includes
current, former, and future female sales representatives who were
not compensated equally to similarly-situated male employees
during the applicable liability period.

The Second Amended Complaint also includes non-class claims on
behalf of certain of the named Plaintiffs for sexual harassment
and retaliation under Title VII, and for violations of the Family
and Medical Leave Act.

On August 14, 2014, the court issued a decision on the Company's
motion to dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part,
striking the plaintiffs' proposed class definition and instead
limiting the proposed class to a smaller set of potential class
members and dismissing certain of the individual plaintiffs'
claims. Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of
an Equal Pay Act collective action on May 22, 2015 which the
Company has opposed.

On September 2, 2015, the court granted plaintiffs motion to
conditionally certify a collective action. The litigation is still
in its early stages and the parties are beginning to work on
discovery matters.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against this
action. At this time, the Company does not believe losses, if any,
would have a material effect on the results of operations or
financial position taken as a whole.


ALLERGAN PLC: Actonel(R) Cases in Initial Discovery Phase
---------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that Warner Chilcott is in the initial stages of discovery in the
product liability cases related to Actonel(R).

Warner Chilcott is a defendant in approximately 194 cases and a
potential defendant with respect to approximately 386 unfiled
claims involving a total of approximately 588 plaintiffs and
potential plaintiffs relating to Warner Chilcott's bisphosphonate
prescription drug Actonel(R). The claimants allege, among other
things, that Actonel(R)caused them to suffer osteonecrosis of the
jaw ("ONJ"), a rare but serious condition that involves severe
loss or destruction of the jawbone, and/or atypical fractures of
the femur ("AFF"). All of the cases have been filed in either
federal or state courts in the United States.


ALLERGAN PLC: 4 Actonel(R) Class Suits in Canada Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that Warner Chilcott is aware of four purported product liability
class actions that were brought against Warner Chilcott in
provincial courts in Canada alleging, among other things, that
Actonel(R) caused the plaintiffs and the proposed class members
who ingested Actonel(R) to suffer atypical fractures or other side
effects. It is expected that these plaintiffs will seek class
certification. Plaintiffs have typically asked for unspecified
monetary and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees. Warner
Chilcott is indemnified by Sanofi for certain Actonel claims
pursuant to a collaboration agreement relating to the two parties'
co-promotion of the product in the United States and other
countries.

In addition, Warner Chilcott is partially indemnified by the
Proctor & Gamble Company ("P&G") for ONJ claims that were pending
at the time Warner Chilcott acquired P&G's global pharmaceutical
business in October 2009. In May and September 2013, Warner
Chilcott entered into two settlement agreements which resolved a
majority of the then-existing ONJ-related claims which are subject
to the acceptance by the individual respective claimants.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to
these cases and intends to defend these claims vigorously. Warner
Chilcott maintains product liability insurance against such cases.
However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot
predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if
successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage
against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could
have a material adverse effect on the Company's business, results
of operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Updates on Alendronate Litigation
-----------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited, in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
provided updates on the Alendronate litigation.

Beginning in 2010, approximately 130 product liability suits on
behalf of approximately 175 plaintiffs have been filed against the
Company and certain of its affiliates, including Cobalt
Laboratories, as well as other manufacturers and distributors of
alendronate for personal injuries including atypical fractures of
the femur ("AFF") and osteonecrosis of the jaw ("ONJ") allegedly
arising out of the use of alendronate. The actions are pending in
various state and federal courts. Several of the cases were
consolidated in an MDL proceeding in federal court in New Jersey.
In 2012, the MDL court granted the Company's motion to dismiss all
of the cases then pending against the Company in the New Jersey
MDL. The Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal. Any new cases
against the Company filed in the MDL are subject to dismissal
unless plaintiffs can establish that their claims should be
exempted from the 2012 dismissal order. Other cases were
consolidated in an MDL in federal court in New York, where the
Company filed a similar motion to dismiss. The Court granted, in
part, the motion to dismiss which has resulted in the dismissal of
several other cases.

The Company has also been served with nine cases that are part of
a consolidated litigation in the California state court. In 2012,
the California court partially granted a motion filed on behalf of
all generic defendants seeking dismissal. Appeals in the
California cases have been exhausted and the Company has not yet
been able to determine how that will affect the cases filed
against it. The remaining active cases are part of a mass tort
coordinated proceeding in New Jersey state court.

In the New Jersey proceeding, the Court granted, in part, a motion
to dismiss. The Company believes that it has substantial
meritorious defenses to these cases and maintains product
liability insurance against such cases. However, litigation is
inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of
this litigation. These actions, if successful, or if our
indemnification arrangements or insurance do not provide
sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect
the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Discovery in Metoclopramide Case Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that discovery in the Metoclopramide litigation is in the
preliminary stages as the Company is actively moving to dismiss
the suits and either initiating or defending appeals on such
motions.

Beginning in 2009, a number of product liability suits were filed
against certain Company affiliates, including legacy Actavis and
Watson companies, as well as other manufacturers and distributors
of metoclopramide, for personal injuries allegedly arising out of
the use of metoclopramide.

Approximately 1,500 cases remain pending against Actavis, Watson
and/or its affiliates in state and federal courts, representing
claims by multiple plaintiffs.  Discovery in these cases is in the
preliminary stages as the Company is actively moving to dismiss
the suits and either initiating or defending appeals on such
motions.

The Company believes that, with respect to the majority of the
cases against the legacy Watson companies, it will be defended in
and indemnified by Pliva, Inc., an affiliate of Teva, from whom
the Company purchased its metoclopramide product line in late
2008.

With respect to the cases pending against the legacy Actavis
companies, the Company recently reached an agreement in principle
to resolve the majority of the matters. The Company believes that
it has substantial meritorious defenses to these cases and
maintains product liability insurance against such cases.

However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot
predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if
successful, or if our indemnification arrangements or insurance do
not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could
adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse
effect on the Company's business, results of operations, financial
condition and cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Propoxyphene Plaintiffs Must Show Cause by April 18
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that a Kentucky federal court has issued a Show Cause Order
requiring plaintiffs in the Propoxyphene litigation to show cause
on or before April 18, 2016 why their claims against the Generic
Defendants should not be dismissed.

Beginning in 2011, a number of product liability suits were filed
against Watson and certain of its affiliates, as well as other
manufacturers and distributors of propoxyphene, for personal
injuries including adverse cardiovascular events or deaths
allegedly arising out of the use of propoxyphene. Cases are
pending against Watson and/or its affiliates in various state and
federal courts, representing claims by approximately 1,400
plaintiffs. A number of the cases were consolidated in a multi-
district litigation in federal district court in Kentucky.

On June 22, 2012, the MDL court granted the generic defendants'
joint motion to dismiss the remaining MDL cases. On June 27, 2014,
the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal.

Plaintiffs did not file a petition for a writ of certiorari with
the United States Supreme Court.

In addition, approximately 35 cases were filed in California state
court. These cases were removed to federal district courts and,
after disputes over whether the cases should be remanded to state
court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that the
removals to federal court were proper. Many of the cases in
California federal courts were transferred to the U.S. Disctrict
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky and consolidated for
all pretrial proceedings in front of Judge Reeves, who presided
over the MDL proceedings.

The Court has issued a Show Cause Order requiring plaintiffs to
show cause on or before April 18, 2016 why their claims against
the Generic Defendants (including Watson) should not be dismissed
pursuant to the Court's prior order in the MDL dismissing all of
the claims against the Generic Defendants with prejudice.  Once
the remaining procedural matters are resolved, the defendants will
file demurrers and motions to dismiss the remaining suits.

In addition, approximately eight lawsuits have been filed in
Oklahoma which plaintiffs are seeking to have remanded from
federal to state court.

The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses
to these cases and maintains product liability insurance against
such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the
Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These
actions, if successful, or if insurance does not provide
sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect
the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: 287 Testosterone Products Suits Pending v. Actavis
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that Actavis, Inc. and/or one or more of its subsidiaries have
been served in approximately 287 currently pending actions related
to testosterone products, all of which are pending in federal
court in Illinois.

Beginning in 2014, a number of product liability suits were filed
against the Company and certain of its affiliates, as well as
other manufacturers and distributors of testosterone products, for
personal injuries including but not limited to cardiovascular
events allegedly arising out of the use of Androderm(R)
testosterone cypionate, AndroGel and/or testosterone enanthate.

Actavis, Inc. and/or one or more of its subsidiaries have been
served in approximately 287 currently pending actions, all of
which are pending in federal court. These actions have been
consolidated in an MDL in federal court in Illinois. The
defendants have responded to the plaintiffs' master complaint.

Plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss all claims relating to any of
Actavis' generic TRT products from the cases.  These cases are in
the initial stages and discovery is in the early stages. The
Company anticipates that additional suits will be filed.

The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses
to these cases and maintains product liability insurance against
such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the
Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These
actions, if successful, or if insurance does not provide
sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect
the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows.


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: MSPA Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned MSPA Claims 1, LLC
a Florida limited liability company, as assignee of Florida
Healthcare Plus, on behalf of itself and all other similarly
situated Medicare Advantage Organizations in the State of Florida
v. Allstate Insurance Company, Case No. 14-18500 CA 01, was
removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit of Florida to the U.S.
District Court Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-21148-RNS to the proceeding.

The suit asserts Medicare Recovery claims.

Headquartered in Northbrook, Illinois, Allstate Insurance Company
is the second largest personal lines insurer in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Hasan Ruiz, Esq.
      MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
      5000 SW 75th Ave, Suite 400
      Miami, FL 33155
      Telephone: (305) 614-2222
      Facsimile: (866) 582-0907
      E-mail: jruiz@msprecovery.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Rachel Marie La Montagne, Esq.
      SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP
      200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 4100
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 358-6300
      Facsimile: (305) 381-9982
      E-mail: rlamontagne@shutts.com


AMAYA INC: Faces "Weisman" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Harvey Weisman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Amaya Inc., David Baazov, and Daniel Sebag, Case No.
1:16-cv-02406 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 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.

Amaya Inc. is a Canadian company traded on exchanges in both
Canada and the United States, purporting to be a provider of
technology-based products and services in the global gaming and
interactive entertainment industries, and is the world's largest
online poker company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
      Matthew M. Guiney, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 545-4653
      E-mail: nespole@whath.com
              guiney@whath.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
      Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
      Bradley J. Vettraino, Esq.
      BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
      155 Federal Street Suite 400
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 398-5600
      Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
      E-mail: Jeff@blockesq.com
              Jake@blockesq.com
              Bradley@blockesq.com


ARM SOLUTIONS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Orozco" Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Orozco, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. A.R.M. Solutions, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00758-GPC-WVG
(S.D. Cal., March 31, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

A.R.M. Solutions, Inc. operates a collection agency providing
custom debt recovery solutions for companies of all sizes in
various markets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL G. SHAY
     409 Camino del Rio South, Suite 101B
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Telephone: (619) 222-7429
     Facsimile: (866) 431-3292
     E-mail: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com


ASUDA HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Wages, "Foote" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------
Thomas Foote and Sean McCall, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Asuda Holdings LLC and
Shamim M. Mohsin, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00180-O (N.D. Tex.,
March 3, 2016), alleges that Defendants violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., by failing to pay
their cashier employees for all hours worked and for overtime. The
Plaintiffs seek to recover the unpaid wages owed to them resulting
from this violation of law.

The case is assigned to Judge Reed C O'Connor.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jennifer J. Spencer, Esq.
     Mary L. Scott, Esq.
     James E. Hunnicutt, Esq.
     SPENCER SCOTT PLLC
     Two Lincoln Centre
     5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 300
     Dallas, TX 75240-6271
     Tel: (972) 458-5319
     Fax: (972) 770-2156
     Email: jspencer@spencerscottlaw.com
            mscott@spencerscottlaw.com
            jhunnicutt@spencerscottlaw.com


ATLANTIC CREDIT: Faces "Perry" Suit in New Jersey Dist. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Atlantic Credit and Finance
Incorporated. The case is captioned Elizabeth Perry, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Atlantic Credit and Finance Incorporated, and JOHN DOES 1-25, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01850-WJM-MF (D.N.J., Newark, April 3,
2016).

Atlantic Credit & Finance purchases and manages unsecured and
consumer-distressed assets. It also purchases various consumer-
distressed asset types, including credit card receivables, retail
credit card receivables, automotive deficiencies, healthcare
receivables, telecommunication receivables, and utilities
receivables. In addition, the company offers compensation and
benefits packages, as well as manages consumer accounts. Atlantic
Credit & Finance, Inc. was founded in 1996 and is headquartered in
Roanoke, Virginia with branch offices in Roanoke and Richmond,
Virginia; and Phoenix, Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Jarret Wolf, Esq.
          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES LLC
          555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 459 7971
          E-mail: bwolf@legaljones.com
                  jkj@legaljones.com


ATLANTIC MANAGEMENT: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Derby, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Atlantic Management Group, LLC, and Keith B. Cullen,
Case No. 16-1051-c (Cmmw. Mass., March 31, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum overtime wages
in violation of the Massachusetts Wage Act.

The Defendants operate a general contracting and construction
management company with several ongoing renovation projects within
the Commonwealth.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Preston W. Leonard, Esq.
      LEONARD LAW OFFICE, P.C.
      63 Atlantic Avenue 3rd Floor
      Boston, MA 0211
      Telephone: (617) 329-1295
      E-mail: pleonard@theleonardlawoffice.com


AUSTRALIAN SECURITIES: Storm Investors' Class Action Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moira Saville, Esq. -- moira.saville@au.kwm.com -- Chris Murphy,
Esq., and Liam Burgess, Esq., of King & Wood Mallesons, in an
article for Lexology, reports that early 2016 saw the failure of
the first class action brought against an Australian regulator (in
this case ASIC).  The 2009 collapse of Townsville based Storm
Financial Limited spawned several class actions against banks,
most of which have been settled.  In Lock v Australian Securities
and Investments Commission [2016] FCA 31 a group of Storm
investors sued ASIC alleging breach of a duty of care and
misfeasance in public office.  The investors alleged that ASIC
knew, or ought to have known, that Storm was failing to comply
with its obligations under the Corporations Act and that ASIC
should have warned investors of the risks, or taken regulatory
action against Storm, in order to protect investors from the
losses they suffered arising from their Storm investments.

The Court found that the plaintiffs' pleading was deficient and
failed to disclose any reasonable cause of action and therefore
struck out the pleading in its entirety. In striking out the
pleading, the Court refused leave for the plaintiffs to amend
their pleading.  The proceedings were subsequently dismissed by
consent (with the plaintiffs ordered to pay ASIC's costs of the
proceedings).  The case confirmed that ASIC does not owe a duty of
care to investors whose interests it exists to protect.

The result is also notable because very few class actions have
been struck out in their entirety.

In delivering its judgment, the Court considered in detail the
principles that will apply in determining whether a statutory
authority (like ASIC) will owe a party a duty of care.  The
general rule is that a statutory authority that is under no
positive legislative obligation to exercise a power will not have
a duty of care to third parties, unless by its conduct the
authority places itself in a position that attracts a duty of
care, and consequently calls for the exercise of that power.

The Court found that the plaintiffs in the proceedings had failed
to disclose a reasonable cause of action against ASIC in respect
of the alleged duty.  The alleged duty was to avoid causing
economic harm to the plaintiffs as investors, by ASIC exercising
its powers with reasonable care to disclose risks to investors
and/or by requiring Storm to minimize and avoid the risks.  The
Court held that it would be neither reasonable nor justifiable for
investors to have relied upon ASIC's regulation of Storm as a
basis for acting on Storm's advice, and that in any event the
pleadings wholly failed to explain how the alleged negligence
caused the plaintiffs' losses (or what those losses were).
Similarly, the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead the elements
necessary to make out the tort of misfeasance in public office.

Comments made by the Court regarding the personal responsibility
of investors are interesting in the context of investor class
actions. The Court noted that all class members were aware that
they were entering a "risk-laden field of endeavor", and that they
were acting in their own-self interest in taking advice from Storm
with the hope of a return on their investment.  Such an activity
is not one that is inherently safe.

The case is also a timely reminder that while regulatory bodies
play a significant role in maintaining an efficient market and
handling of enforcement in appropriate circumstances, investors
will face a difficult battle should they attempt to sue such a
regulator when things do go wrong.


B BRAUN MEDICAL: Recalls 5% Dextrose Injection
----------------------------------------------
B. Braun Medical Inc. of Irvine, CA is voluntarily recalling one
lot of 5% Dextrose Injection USP 100/150mL container (Lot #J5J706,
catalog #S5104-5264, NDC 0264-1510-32) to the consumer level. B.
Braun recently identified an adverse quality trend in customer
complaints reporting that some containers in lot J5J706 exhibited
leakage and, in a few instances, visible particulate matter
identified to be microbial growth. To date all failures have been
identified before the use of the product and there have been no
reports of adverse events associated with this issue.
A compromise of container integrity has the potential for leakage
of the solution, usually identified prior to the use of the
product. Leaking containers allow contamination of the solution,
which can and has led to microbial contamination. Intravenous
administration of a non-sterile product can result in serious
infections that may be life-threatening.

This product is intended for intravenous administration and may be
used as a diluent and delivery system for intermittent
administration of compatible drug additives. The product is
packaged in B. Braun's PAB(R) (Partial Additive Bag) container
with 64 units per case. The affected lot J5J706, which expires
10/31/2016, was distributed nationwide to licensed distributors,
hospitals, and pharmacies.

B. Braun is notifying its distributors and customers by certified
mail and is arranging for the return of all recalled product.
Distributors and customers that have inventory of lot J5J706, 5%
Dextrose Injection USP 100/150mL container, should discontinue use
immediately and contact B. Braun Medical Inc.'s Customer Support
Department at 1-800-227-2862 Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 6
p.m. (EST) for instructions for returning the affected product and
to arrange for replacement product.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact B.
Braun Medical Inc.'s Customer Support Department at 1-800-227-2862
Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. (EST). Consumers should
contact their physician or healthcare provider if they have
experienced any problems that may be related to taking or using
this drug product.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product should be reported to B. Braun's Clinical and
Technical Support Department at 1-800-854-6851. Additionally, any
adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting Program:

Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178
This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.

B. Braun Medical Inc., a leader in infusion therapy and pain
management, develops, manufactures, and markets innovative medical
products and services to the healthcare industry. The company is
committed to eliminating preventable treatment errors and
enhancing patient, clinician and environmental safety. B. Braun
Medical is part of the B. Braun Group of Companies in the U.S.,
which is headquartered in Bethlehem, Pa., and includes B. Braun
Interventional Systems, Aesculap(R) and CAPS(R).

Globally, the B. Braun Group of Companies employs more than 54,000
employees in more than 60 countries. Guided by its Sharing
Expertise(R) philosophy, B. Braun continuously exchanges knowledge
with customers, partners and clinicians to address the critical
issues of improving care and lowering costs. To learn more about
B. Braun Medical, visit www.BBraunUSA.com.


BLACK DIAMOND: Recalls Nylon Runners Due to Injury Risk
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Black Diamond Ltd., of Salt Lake City, Utah, announced a voluntary
recall of about 185,000 Nylon Runners (in addition, 23,600 were
sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

A nylon runner with a tape splice (two cut ends joined by masking
tape) will fail in normal use, posing a risk of death or injury
due to a fall.

This recall involves Black Diamond 18 mm wide nylon runners that
are 60 cm/24 inch or 120 cm/48 inches long that have a tape splice
(two cut ends joined by masking tape). The nylon runners were sold
in red, blue, gold, green, gray and purple. "CE 0333" and 2014 or
2015 are printed on the sewn-in label.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/XpMmAw

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Eastern Mountain Sports, Hansen Mountaineering, The Gear Coop,
Peak Experiences Inc., REI and other specialty outdoor stores
nationwide and online at Backcountry.com and BlackDiamond.com from
January 2014 through February 2016 for between $5 and $9.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled nylon
runners, inspect for the presence of a tape splice and contact
Black Diamond for instructions on obtaining a free replacement
nylon runner.


BRINKER ARKANSAS: Faces "Keller" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Keller, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Brinker Arkansas, Inc. and Brinker International,
Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-00172-BSM (Ark. Cir. Ct., March 31, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Russellville,
Arkansas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lydia H. Hamlet, Esq.
      Josh Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
      303 West Main Street Post Office Box 39
      Russell Ville, AR 72811
      Telephone: (479) 880-0088
      Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
      E-mail: lydia@sanfordlawfirm.com
              josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


BRIXMOR PROPERTY: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Westchester Putnam Counties Heavy & Highway Laborers Local 60
Benefit Funds, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Brixmor Property Group Inc., Michael Carroll, Michael
Pappagallo, and Steven Splain, Case No. 1:16-cv-02400 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 31, 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.

Brixmor Property Group Inc. is a publicly-traded real estate
investment trust that operates a wholly-owned portfolio of
grocery-anchored community and neighborhood shopping centers, with
518 properties located from California to Maine, including
retailers such as the TJX Cos Inc. and The Kroger Co.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Curtis V. Trinko, Esq.
      Jennifer E. Traystman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO, LLP
      16 West 46th Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 490-9550
      Facsimile: (212) 986-0158
      E-mail: Ctrinko@trinko.com

         - and -

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


C&J ENERGY: "Washburn" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Washburn and Aaron Hill, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. C&J Energy Services, Inc. and C&J
Spec-Rent Services, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00106 (S.D. Tex., March
31, 2016), seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages and other
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are providers of well construction, well
completions and well services to the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert R. Debes Jr., Esq.
      Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
      SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 621-2277
      Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
      E-mail: bdebes@eeoc.net
              rprieto@eeoc.net


CABLE NEWS: Faces "Yi" Suit Over Constitutional Rights Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chong Su Yi, and people of similarly situated v. Cable News
Network and United States of America, Case No. 8:16-cv-00963-tdc
(D. Md., March 31, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of Constitutional Rights.

Cable News Network operates a cable and satellite television
channel that is owned by the Turner Broadcasting System division
of Time Warner.

Chong Su Yi is a pro se plaintiff.


CADETE ENTERPRISES: Ruling in Dunkin' Donuts Suit Reversed
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark T. Kobata, Esq., and Marty Denis, Esq. of Barlow, Kobata and
Denis, in an article for Workforce, report that the proper
classification of employees as exempt remains one of the major
drivers of class-action litigation in the employment context.  The
recent case of Marzuq v. Cadete Enterprises Inc. illustrates the
difficulty of ensuring the proper classification of employees.
The plaintiffs in Marzuq worked as store managers at Dunkin'
Donuts.  Their employers classified them as exempt executive
employees based on their status as store managers.

The plaintiffs contended that they had been misclassified as
exempt because of the significant amounts of time they spent on
nonexempt duties.  The trial court granted summary judgment in the
defendant's favor on the question of whether the plaintiffs were
properly classified as exempt, finding that the plaintiffs were
primarily engaged in bona fide executive activities as a matter of
law, relying on Donovan v. Burger King Corp., 672 F.2d 221(1st
Cir. 1982).

The plaintiffs appealed and the 1st Court of Appeals reversed the
decision.  Among other issues, the court of appeals focused on the
fact that the allegedly exempt plaintiffs were paid at rates
comparable to their nonexempt subordinates.  It noted that "[i]f,
on an hourly basis, a manager's salary for performing a high
percentage of nonexempt work is about the same as the wages of
crew members for such work, the justification for exempting the
manager from overtime pay is weakened." Marzuq v. Cadete
Enterprises Inc., 807 F.3d 431 1st Cir. (Dec. 9, 2015).

Impact: In evaluating whether employees have been properly
classified as exempt, similarities in duties and pay between
exempt and nonexempt workers should signal to the employer that
exempt status is questionable and further scrutiny of the criteria
for exempt status is warranted.


CHC WELLNESS: Fails to Pay Wages, "Lacriola" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Lacriola, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs, v. CHC
Wellness, Inc., and Patrick Angelo III., Defendants, Case No.
16-cv-02826 (N.D. Ill., March 3, 2016), alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff all the wages he earned
pursuant to the agreement between him and Defendants. Plaintiff
also raises a claim under the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection
Act for Defendants' unlawful termination of his employment after
Plaintiff opposed Defendants' conduct and demanded payment of his
earned wages. Plaintiff also brings a claim for breach of
contract.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
     Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
     Sarah J. Arendt, Esq.
     Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
     WERMAN SALAS P.C.
     77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Tel:(312) 419-1008
     Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
            msalas@flsalaw.com
            sarendt@flsalaw.com
            zflowerree@flsalaw.com


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces "Cummings" Suit Over Exchange Offer
------------------------------------------------------------
Alyece Cummings and Daniel Lapka, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02338 (S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2016),
contends that Chesapeake's exchange offer impairs the rights of
Plaintiffs and other Class members to received principal and
interest and reduce the value of the notes held by the Class
members.

Plaintiffs seek to represent all persons who beneficially held
Chesapeake's (i) 6.875% senior notes due 2020 (CUSIP #165167BU0)
(the "6.875% Notes") and (ii) 6.125% senior notes due 2021 (CUSIP
#165167CG0) -- Class Notes -- from December 31, 2015 to the
present.  The 6.125% Notes were issued pursuant to an August 2,
2010 Indenture and a February 11, 2011 Fifth Supplemental
Indenture thereto, while the 6.875% Notes were issued pursuant to
a November 8, 2005 Indenture, each between Chesapeake, the
Guarantors party thereto, and The Bank of New York Mellon Trust
Company, N.A., as trustee.  The Class Notes are senior unsecured
obligations of Chesapeake, which rank equally in right of payment
with all of the Defendant's existing and future senior unsecured
indebtedness.

Chesapeake on December 2, 2015, announced a proposed private debt
exchange whereby it would exchange and replace certain Class Notes
as well as certain 6.625% Notes, 5.375% Notes, 6.25% Notes, 6.5%
Notes, 7.25% Notes, Floating Rate Notes, 4.875% Notes, and 5.75%
Notes, for newly-issued 8.00% Second Lien Senior Secured Notes due
2022.  The Exchange Offer was consummated on December 31, 2015.
Specifically, $3.856 billion in aggregate principal amount of the
notes was exchanged in the Exchange Offer for $2.369 billion of
8.00% 2L Notes.

While approximately $1.5 billion aggregate principal amount of
Class Notes was outstanding prior to the Exchange Offer,
approximately $606.5 million aggregate principal amount of Class
Notes was tendered in the Exchange Offer.  Thus, approximately
$893.5 million in principal value of Class Notes was not tendered
in the Exchange Offer.

Even though the Class Notes were registered securities under the
Securities Act, either at issuance or sold and later registered
pursuant to a registration statement, Chesapeake made the Exchange
Offer under exemptions to the Securities Act.  Only holders of
Class Notes who were eligible to participate in the Exchange Offer
were QIBs within the meaning of Rule 144A of the Securities Act
and non-U.S. persons within the meaning of Rule 902(k) of
Regulation S of the Securities Act ("non-U.S. persons").  To be a
QIB, an entity must, generally, own and invest, on a discretionary
basis, at least $100 million in securities.  For a broker-dealer,
the threshold for QIB status is $10 million, and banks and savings
and loan associations must also have a net worth of at least $25
million to satisfy the QIB criteria.

The Defendant's decision created two classes of holders of Class
Notes with very unequal rights not based on any specific term of
the Indentures. On one hand, the QIBs were entitled to exchange
Class Notes for new, secured 8.00% 2L Notes.  On the other hand,
the non QIBs were denied the opportunity to participate in the
Exchange Offer.

According to the lawsuit, Chesapeake stridently disclosed the
risks to holders of Class Notes if they did not exchange their
bonds for 8.00% 2L Notes in the Exchange Offer, while
simultaneously denying Class members the opportunity to
participate in the Exchange Offer.

The direct effect of the Exchange Offer and the issuance of the
8.00% 2L Notes is that the obligations evidenced by the Class
Notes are now subordinate to the obligations evidenced by the
8.00% 2L Notes.  While the Class Notes are senior unsecured
obligations of Chesapeake, which rank equally in right of payment
with all of Defendant's existing and future senior indebtedness,
the Exchange Offer subordinates the Class Notes held by Class
members to the QIBs who elected to exchange their Class Notes for
8.00% 2L Notes.  In doing so, Chesapeake impaired Class members'
right to receive payment of the principal and interest under the
Class Notes and the right to institute suit to compel such
payment.  This disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs and other
holders of Class Notes violated Section 316(b) of the Trust
Indenture Act of 1939, 15 U.S.C. Sections 77aaa-77bbbb, and the
Indentures themselves.

The lawsuit contends that the Defendant's decision to pursue this
transaction benefiting only themselves and a minority of holders
of Class Notes violated the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing.  The decision of Chesapeake to engage in a private
exchange offer for existing notes open only to QIBs,
notwithstanding the fact that the Class Notes were sold pursuant
to registration statements and purchased by non-QIBs, was unfair
to holders of Class Notes who were excluded from the Exchange
Offer.  The risk of such a private exchange offer was not
disclosed by Chesapeake in their offering prospectuses for the
Class Notes, nor could it have been foreseen by Plaintiffs or the
other Class members at the time they purchased their Class Notes.

Chesapeake Energy Corporation is a producer of oil and gas.

The other defendants are: AMGS, L.L.C., Carmen Acquisition,
L.L.C., Chesapeake Acquisition, L.L.C., Chesapeake AEZ
Exploration, L.L.C., Chesapeake Appalachia, L.L.C., Chesapeake
Eagle Canada Corp., Chesapeake Energy Louisiana Corporation,
Chesapeake Energy Marketing,Inc., Chesapeake Eno Acquisition,
L.L.C., Chesapeake EP, L.L.C., Chesapeake E&P Holding Corporation,
Chesapeake Exploration Limited Partnership, Chesapeake
Exploration, L.L.C., Chesapeake Land Company, L.L.C., Chesapeake
Land Development Company, L.L.C., Chesapeake Louisiana,L.P.,
Chesapeake Midstream Development, L.L.C., Chesapeake Midstream
Holdings, L.L.C., Chesapeake Midstream Management L.L.C.,
Chesapeake NFW, L.P., Chesapeake NG Ventures Corporation,
Chesapeake Operating, Inc., Chesapeake Orc, L.L.C., Chesapeake
Permian, L.P., Chesapeake Plaza, L.L.C., Chesapeake PRH Corp.,
Chesapeake Royalty, L.L.C., Chesapeake Sigma, L.P., Chesapeake
South Texas Corp., Chesapeake VRT, L.L.C., Chesapeake West Texas
Gathering, L.L.C., Chesapeake Zapata, L.P., Chesapeake-Clements
Acquisition, L.L.C., Chesapeake-Staghorn Acquisition L.P., CHK
Energy Holdings Corporation, CHK Holdings Corporation, CHK
Holdings, L.L.C., Compass,

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Meagan Farmer, Esq.
   Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
   James S. Notis, Esq.
   GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
   Tower 56
   126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor
   New York, NY 10022
   Tel: 212-905-0509
   Fax: 212-905-0508
   Email: mgardy@gardylaw.com
          jnotis@gardylaw.com
          mfarmer@gardylaw.com

              - and -

   Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
   Gordon Z. Novod, Esq.
   GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
   485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
   New York, NY 10017
   Tel: 646-722-8500
   Fax: 646-722-8501
   Email: jeisenhofer@gelaw.com
          gnovod@gelaw.com


CHICAGO, IL: Plaintiff Attorney May Appeal Red-Light Camera Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Brockway, writing for DNAinfo, reports that the plaintiffs
also argued Chicago did not re-enact its own municipal law after
the state passed its red-light camera law in 2006.  They also
claim because the law was crafted to only apply in Cook, DuPage,
Kane, Lake, Madison, McHenry, St. Clair and Will counties -- and
not in all Illinois counties -- the law violated Illinois'
constitution.

But the judge shot down these arguments as well and agreed with
city lawyers who argued the state law was constitutional and the
city's law was still valid.

Lead plaintiff attorney Patrick Keating was disappointed in the
judge's ruling.

"We're a disappointed and a little surprised by the ruling," he
said.

Steve Patton, the city's Corporation Counsel, was happy with the
judge's decision to dismiss this case.

"We are pleased that the court dismissed this lawsuit and found
the red-light automated enforcement program to be legal and
constitutionally sound," Mr. Patton said in a statement.

The suit also contended the city had issued 77,000 tickets
improperly at intersections where yellow light times were below
the 3-second minimum set by federal transportation standards, with
some yellow light times as low as 2.89 seconds.

While Mr. Novak conceded the possible safety issues with short
yellow light times, she agreed with the city's argument that
there's no legal force behind the U.S. Department of
Transportation's guidelines on street light timing as there's no
law on the books mandating minimum yellow light times.

Mr. Keating was not sure if they'll appeal the Novak's ruling, but
is leaving all possibilities on the table.

"The option at this point would be a motion to reconsider and
possibly an appeal to the Illinois Appellate Court," he said.
"We're still evaluating those options."

Just six weeks ago, Judge Kathleen Kennedy dealt a blow to the
city when she allowed a separate lawsuit challenging how the city
administrates its red light and speed camera program to move
forward.  That lawsuit alleges the city did not follow its own
municipal code when it didn't mail a second notice of violation
and then prematurely doubled fines at 21 days instead of the 25
days spelled out in the law.

Chicago's red-light camera program is the nation's largest with
302 cameras at 147 intersections.


CLEAREDGE POWER: WARN Act Claims Compromise Approved
----------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles Novack on March 21, 2016, approved the settlement
that CEP Reorganization, Inc., formerly known as ClearEdge Power,
Inc., and its affiliate, CEP Reorganization, LLC, entered into
with class representative, Peter Wojciechowski.

As reported in the March 15, 2016 edition of the TCR, the
Settlement Agreement resolves the claims alleged in Adversary
Proceeding No. 14-4152, entitled Peter Wojciechowski v. ClearEdge
Power, Inc., ClearEdge Power, LLC.

Mr. Wojciechowski filed the Adversary Proceeding, alleging that
CEP and CEP, LLC failed to provide 60 days written notice to its
employees before ordering mass layoffs and plant closings, as
required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
("WARN Act"). Mr. Wojciechowski sought payment for himself and the
Class Members for all unpaid wages, including unpaid accrued
vacation pay and fringe benefits.

Mr. Wojciechowski contends that should he prevail in the
litigation, the WARN Act priority claim of the approximately 260
Class Members for 60 days wages and benefits would be
approximately $4.9 million.  The total damages within the priority
cap of $12,450 for the class members is approximately $3.2
million, assuming no other priority wages are owed, plus
attorneys' fees and expenses, and that such claims are entitled to
priority status.

The Debtors relate that litigation of the WARN Class Action would
be protracted and expensive.  They contend that the terminations
were caused by sudden and dramatic events outside of their control
and that at the time WARN notice was due, CEP and CEP, LLC were
actively seeking capital or financing that would have allowed it
to avoid the terminations.  The Debtors further contend that
unforeseeable business circumstances and faltering company
exceptions to the WARN Act excused CEP and CEP, LLC from providing
60 days written notice to their employees in advance of their
termination.

The Settlement Agreement contains, among others, the following key
terms:

     (a) Settlement Amount: The Settlement Class will have an
allowed claim under 11 U.S.C. Section 507(a)(4) in the total
amount of $1,300,217, from which the Class Representative Payment
and Class Counsel's fees and expenses shall be paid, to the extent
approved by the Bankruptcy Court.

     (b) Distribution of Settlement Amount: Distributions to
individual Eligible Class Members shall be allocated to each Class
Member on a pro rata basis based on the relationship that such
Class Member's potential damages under the WARN Act bears to the
aggregate potential damages of all Class Members under the WARN
Act and shall be made contemporaneously with the payment of Class
Counsel's Fees and Expenses and the Class Representative Payment.

     (c) Payment to Class Representative: A one-time payment in
the amount of $10,000, payable from the Settlement Amount to the
Class Representative Peter Wojciechowski, as compensation for his
services to the Class in addition to his pro rata share of the
Settlement Amount.

     (d) Class Counsel's Fees: Provides for attorneys' fees in the
amount of one-third, net of litigation expenses, from the
Settlement Amount.

     (e) Release of Defendants: Upon the Effective Date of the
Settlement Agreement, the Class Members shall release Defendants
CEP and CEP, LLC and their respective bankruptcy estates, each of
the Defendants' current and former shareholders, officers,
directors, employees, accountants and attorneys, among others,
excluding any third parties which may or may not be affiliated
with Defendants including Kohlberg Ventures LLC of any and all
claims which relate or are based on the WARN Action or claim under
federal, state or local law or regulation arising out of the
termination of the Class Members' employment by Defendants.

Sunnyvale, California-based ClearEdge Power Inc. and two other
affiliates filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (Bankr. N.D.
Cal. Lead Case No. 14-51955) on May 1, 2014, in San Jose.
Affiliates ClearEdge Power, LLC, and ClearEdge Power International
Service, LLC, are based in South Windsor, Connecticut, where the
manufacturing operations are located.

Privately held ClearEdge designs, manufactures, sells and services
distributed generation fuel cell systems for commercial,
industrial, utility and residential applications.  ClearEdge
bought United Technologies Corp.'s UTC Power division in late
2012. ClearEdge sought bankruptcy protection just a week after
shutting operations.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Ann McNutt, Bobbie Jean Richard, Dallas Richard, Steve
Percox, Martin Griffin, Ashley Veciana, Richard Dale Floyd,
Melissa Cooper, Melissa Cooper, Jane Angel-Lopez, Joan Crespin,
Barbara Lujan, Lisa Maes, Myrtle Keene, Myrtle Keene, Cynthia
Horgan, William Lutz, David Smith, and Cynthia Ann Martin
Stonestreet, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Community Health Systems, Inc., Community Health
Systems Professional Services Corporation, Case No. 3:16-cv-00698
(M.D. Tenn., April 1, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The Defendants are providers of general hospital healthcare
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher T. Hellums, Esq.
      PITTMAN, DUTTON, HELLUMS, P.C.
      2001 Park Pl, #1100
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com

         - and -

      Christopher J. Zulanas, Esq.
      Jeffrey E. Friedman, Esq.
      John Michael Bowling, Esq.
      FRIEDMAN, DAZZIO, ZULANAS & BOWLING, P.C.
      3800 Corporate Woods Drive
      Birmingham, AL 35242
      E-mail: czulanas@friedman-lawyers.com
              jfriedman@friedman-lawyers.com
              mbowling@friedman-lawyers.com

         - and -

      Clinton H. Scott, Esq.
      GILBERT RUSSELL MCWHERTER PLC
      101 North Highland Ave
      Jackson, TN 38301
      Telephone: (731) 664-1340
      Facsimile: (731) 664-1540
      E-mail: cscott@gilbertfirm.com

         - and -

      Donald W. Stewart, Esq.
      Dylan Reeves, Esq.
      STEWART & STEWART PC
      1826 3rd Avenue North, Suite 300
      Bessemer, AL 35021
      E-mail: donaldwstewart5354@yahoo.com
              dreeves@stewartandstewart.net

         - and -

      Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
      Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
      100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com
              kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com

         - and -

      Mary Lou Boelcke, Esq.
      Turner W. Branch, Esq.
      THE BRANCH LAW FIRM
      2025 Rio Grande Boulevard NW
      Albuquerque, NM 87104
      Telephone: (505) 243-3501
      Facsimile: (505) 243-3534
      E-mail: mlboelcke@branchlawfirm.com
              tbranch@branchlawfirm.com


COMPLETE ENERGY: Violated FLSA, "Tiner" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------
Adam Tiner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Complete Energy Services, Inc. d/b/a
Superior Fluid Management, Inc. and Superior Energy Services,
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00885 (S.D. Tex., Houston Div,
April 1, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Complete Energy Services provides well services. The Company
offers drilling rigs and rig manufacturing services to develop
hydrocarbon reserves, reduce cost, and enhance production.
Complete Energy Services operates in the State of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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


COMPUTER SYSTEMS INSTITUTE: Violated WARN Act, "Jackson" Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Jackson, Nevia Saucedo, Jason Combes, Tinka Randle, Jamieta
Hoskins, and Tianna Caeser, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Computer Systems Institute,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02798 (N.D. Ill., March 3,
2016), alleges that former employees of the Defendant have been
subject to a mass layoff that was not the result of a plant
closing and which resulted in the termination of the employment of
over one-third of CSI's workforce, and over 50 employees.
Plaintiffs and the putative class allege that CSI failed to
provide them with 60 days' notice as required by the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, in violation of the
law.

The Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all claims.

Defendant CSI does business in Illinois, operates campuses in
Illinois, and is registered with the Illinois Secretary of State.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Alejandro Caffarelli, Esq.
     Lorrie T. Peeters, Esq.
     Alexis D. Martin, Esq.
     CAFFARELLI & ASSOCIATES LTD.
     224 N. Michigan Ave., Ste. 300
     Chicago, IL 60604
     Tel: (312) 763-6880


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bibi Singh, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01810-
SDW-LDW (D.N.J., April 1, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. operates a third party collection
agency in New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



CREATING X: Recalls Footed Pajamas Due to Burn Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Creating X LLC, of Carson City, Nev., announced a voluntary recall
of about 5,400 Children's footed pajamas. Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The pajamas fail to meet the federal flammability standards for
children's sleepwear, posing a risk of burn injuries to children.

This recall involves two styles of children's footed pajamas. The
first style is a child's 100% cotton one-piece, long-sleeved
footed pajama with a zip-up closure starting from above the left
ankle. The second style is a child's 100% cotton one-piece, long-
sleeved footed pajama with a hood, two front pockets and a zip-up
closure starting from the left ankle. The pajamas were sold in a
variety of colors and patterns including solids, stripes, plaids,
hearts, white snowflakes, yellow moon and white and blue stars,
white bunnies and colored Easter eggs. The pajamas were sold in
sizes infant large through kids large.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/fCxQdj

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold Online
at www.Amazon.com, www.footedpajamas.com, www.sears.com and
www.Zulily.com for $20 for infant sizes, $25 for toddler sizes and
$30 for kid's sizes.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled pajamas away from
children, stop using them and contact Creating X for instructions
on receiving a store credit towards another Creating X product.
Creating X is contacting all purchasers of the recalled pajamas
directly.


CREATIVE HEALTH: "Leffler" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Audrey Leffler, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated current and former employees v. Creative Health
Services, Inc., Andrew Trentacoste, Kathy Kumitis, Tim Aleva and
Karen Becker, Defendants, Case No. 161443 (E.D. Penn., March 30,
2016), seeks payment of wages, overtime pay and ERISA protected
rights.

Defendants willfully, intentionally and falsely recorded and
reported Plaintiff's and similarly situated "independent
contractors" work time and hours worked for the purpose of
wrongfully denying pay for all hours worked and to deny premium
pay for all hour worked in excess of 40 hours in any given work
week.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Robert C. Drake, Esq.
   Bebe H. Kivitz, Esq.
   Jacob Kivitz, Esq.
   JACOBS KIVITZ & DRAKE, LLC
   1525 Locust Street, 12th Floor
   Philadelphia, PA 19102
   Tel: (215) 732-2656
   Fax: (215) 600-3534
   Email: bkivitz@jacobs-kivits-drake.com


EATALY AMERICA: Website Not Friendly to Blinds, "Del-Orden" Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Del-Orden, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Eataly America, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-02361 (S.D.N.Y., March 30, 2016), is brought against the
Defendant for denying blind individuals throughout the United
States equal access to the goods and services to their non-
disabled customers through http://www.eataly.com.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C.K. Lee, Esq.
   Anne Seelig, Esq.
   LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
   30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: 212-465-1188
   Fax: 212-465-1181
   Email: cklee@leelitigation.com


ELEANOR ROSE: Recalls Children's Loungewear Due to Burn Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Eleanor Rose, of Natchez, Miss., announced a voluntary recall of
about 5,900 Children's loungewear. Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The loungewear fails to meet federal flammability standards for
children's sleepwear, posing a risk of burn injuries to children.

This recall involves two different styles of Eleanor Rose
loungewear, including a girl's gown and a boy or girl's top and
pants set. The loungewear was sold in sizes 12 months through size
12. "Eleanor Rose" is printed on a tag sewn into the neck of the
garments and on the back outside of the pants. The style number is
on a tag sewn into the side seam or inside the back of the pants.
The recalled loungewear style names and numbers include:

  Style Name                       Style Number
  ----------                       ------------
  Holly Child's lounge set         36-PP05
  Nutcracker Clara gown            37-NC01 and 60-RN02
  Nutcracker lounge set            37-NC02
  Noel child's lounge set          39-NI04
  Nutcracker striped lounge set    39-PJ01
  Be Mine child's lounge set       40-BM05
  Be Mine Rose gown                40-BM15
  Be Mine striped gown             40-BM16
  Nutcracker boy's lounge set      60-RN04
  Child's lounge set               63-SN03
  Silent Night gown                63-SN13

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/gBY0Ki

The recalled products were manufactured in El Salvador and sold
Online at www.eleanorrose.com from November 2014 through February
2016 for about $30.


EXPEDITORS AND PRODUCTION: "Cox" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Cox, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Expeditors And Production Services
Company, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00154-LF-KBM (D.N.M., March
3, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq.,
and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act, NMSA Section 50-4-19 et seq.

The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Laura Fashing.

EPS is an oil and gas service company providing flowback, well
testing, gate guard, and other oilfield related services to
clients throughout the United States. To provide these services,
EPS employs numerous oilfield employees who set up, operate, and
break down EPS's equipment in the oilfield.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Justin R. Kaufman, Esq.
     Rosalind B. Bienvenu, Esq.
     HEARD ROBINS CLOUD, LLP
     505 Cerrillos Road, Suite A209
     Santa Fe, NM 87501
     Tel: (505) 986-0600
     Fax: (505) 986-0632
     Email: jkaufman@heardrobins.com
            rbienvenu@heardrobins.com

          - and -

     Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
     Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
     Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
     FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND
     BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
     1150 Bissonnet St.
     Houston, Texas 77005
     Tel: (713) 751-0025
     Fax: (713) 751-0030
     Email: mjosephson@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, Texas 77046
     Tel: (713) 877-8788
     Fax: (713) 877-8065
     Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: A Third Look at the Implicit Guaranteee
-----------------------------------------------------------------
We reported in the Tuesday edition of the Class Action Reporter,
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac preferred shareholder Joshua J. Angel
appeared in In re Third Amendment Litigation, MDL No. 2713
(J.P.M.L.), last week, with a collection of government documents
supporting his contention that:

    (A) the government's implicit guarantee of preferred shares
        has always been in place;

    (B) that implicit guarantee did not change when the GSEs
        were placed into conservatorship; and

    (C) the guaranty is still in place today.

It's important to understand that Mr. Angel does not challenge or
contest the imposition of the conservatorship in 2008 nor does he
want to unwind the Net Worth Sweep imposed in 2012.  The
conservatorship and Third Amendment make no difference to Mr.
Angel.  He wants the government to honor its promises.  He wants
Fannie and Freddie's directors to do their jobs and fulfill their
fiduciary duties to preferred shareholders, and he's preparing to
sue them individually if they don't.

Today, we step through the documents Mr. Angel's unearthed.

Mr. Angel's starting point is a Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System Internal Discussion Paper (IFDP 1045) dated Mar.
2012.

That paper -- available at http://goo.gl/O26TsE-- explores how
hundreds of U.S. banks owned GSE preferred stock and that they
were allowed to treat those riskless securities as Tier I
capital.  Without the government's implicit guarantee of the GSEs'
preferred stock, the Tier I classification would be impossible.

Mr. Angel then turns to the GSEs' sale of $22 billion of preferred
stock within a year of entering conservatorship and a sale of $4.8
billion less than four months prior to entering conservatorship.
But for the government's implicit guarantee, the GSEs' ability to
sell, at par, twice as much preferred stock as it had outstanding
a year earlier would have been impossible.

Mr. Angel examines price movements of Fannie Mae's Series T
Preferred shares as the housing finance giant marched toward
conservatorship. The securities maintained 60% of their value as
Treasury Secretary Paulson announced the conservatorship plan --
prices reflecting the government's implicit guarantee of GSE
preferred securities.

Mr. Angel observes that after Fannie Mae entered conservatorship,
it timely made Treasury-directed payments totaling $413 million to
certain holders of its preferred shares.  This is the "Animal Farm
equality, where all preferred shareholders are equal, but some are
more equal than others," to which Mr. Angel refers and was
mentioned in Tuesday's newsletter.

Mr. Angel also points to a Treasury-issued news release -- see
https://goo.gl/ZO00N4 -- dated Sept. 11, 2008, that affirmed the
implicit guarantee when it said, "[T]he U.S. Government stands
behind the preferred stock purchase agreements and will honor its
commitments.  Contracts are respected in this country as a
fundamental part of rule of law."

As every corporate restructuring professional knows, the
government's warrants for 79.9% of the GSEs' common stock have no
value whatsoever unless and until the GSEs honor their obligations
to the companies' pre-conservatorship preferred shareholders.  No
rational person at the U.S. Treasury Department would allow those
warrants to expire out of the money when there are a handful of
tried and true ways to realize hundreds of millions of dollars of
value on their account.

Mr. Angel's decades of corporate restructuring experience tell him
there's significant economic value in the GSEs' preferred
securities and speculative Fifth Amendment taking value in the
GSEs' common stock.  And Mr. Angel isn't speaking hypothetically
or otherwise pontificating.  He has his own money invested in
Fannie and Freddie's preferred securities and he expects the U.S.
government to honor its contractual obligations.

On Mar. 1, 2016, Mr. Angel sent letters to each of Fannie and
Freddie's directors urging them to "seek and obtain clarification
from outside counsel regarding your duties and liabilities . . .
and to begin taking steps to behave as an informed, active
board."  Mr. Angel's received nothing in response -- not even FHFA
general counsel's one-page form letter saying HERA prohibits
shareholder lawsuits.

At http://gselinks.com/pdf/Govt_Perfidy_Angel.pdfis a copy of Mr.
Angel's paper entitled "Government Perfidy and Mismanagement of
the GSEs in Conservatorship" released in late-Feb. 2016 and
provided by Mr. Angel to each current GSE director on Mar. 1.

As we said, it is interesting to us that Mr. Angel is the only
party focused on the overnment's implicit guarantee of the GSEs'
preferred shares.  But one of our readers told us we shouldn't be
surprised because Mr. Angel is the first corporate restructuring
professional to arrive at a courthouse.

Mr. Angel is represented by:

          Hanh V. Huynh, Esq.
          HERRICK, FEINSTEIN LLP
          2 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 592-1482
          E-mail: hhuynh@herrick.com


FISKARS BRANDS: Recalls Bypass Lopper Shears Due to Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Fiskars Brands Inc., of Madison, Wis., announced a voluntary
recall of about 277,000 Fiskars(R) 32-Inch Bypass Lopper Shears
(in addition, 11,000 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The lopper handles can break when attempting to cut branches,
posing a risk of serious injury and laceration.

This recall involves Fiskars Titanium Bypass Lopper shears with
model number 6954. The lopper shears have 32-inch dark orange
steel handles and black rubber grips with a gray strip. Plastic
gears connected to the pruning blades allow the consumers to open
and close the pruning blades by moving the handles.  "FISKARS" is
printed on one handle and product identification information,
including model number 6954, is printed on a label on the opposite
handle above the barcode.

The firm has received a total of 33 reports of incidents, of which
10 occurred after the October 2014 recall announcement.  The
reports include pinched fingers, bruising and injuries to the head
and face, some required stitches.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/G1yCQn

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Home
Depot stores nationwide and online at HomeDepot.com from May 2011
through June 2014 for about $40.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled lopper shears
and contact Fiskars to receive a free replacement lopper.


FLOWERS FOODS: Recalls Cobblestone Wheat English Muffins
--------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. (NYSE: FLO) is voluntarily recalling
Cobblestone Bread Co. Wheat English Muffins with the UPC # 0 72250
01316 1 and best by dates of October 28, 2015 through April 10,
2016 because they contain undeclared milk. People who have
allergies to dairy products run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products. No
illnesses have been reported to date.

The recalled product involves distribution to retail stores in:
Connecticut, Delaware, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont,
Virginia, Washington DC, and West Virginia.

The voluntary recall was initiated after Flowers discovered that
product containing milk was distributed in packaging that did not
reveal the presence of milk.

Approximately 10,000 packages of English muffins are involved in
the recall. Flowers issued the voluntary recall and is advising
its trade customers to withdraw this product from sale. The
company is in the process of recovering the product involved and
is in contact with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to ensure
the continued safety of those consumers who may be impacted by
this issue. The company has also reported the recall to FARE (Food
Allergy Research & Education).

Consumers who have purchased Cobblestone Bread Co. Wheat English
Muffins with the UPC and dates noted are urged to return to the
place of purchase for product replacement or refund. No other
Cobblestone Bread Co. brand products are included in this recall.

Consumers with questions may call Flowers' Consumer Relations
Center at 1-866-245-8921. The center is open Monday through Friday
from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern. Consumers also may contact
the center via e-mail by visiting the Contact Us page at
http://www.flowersfoods.com.

Headquartered in Thomasville, Ga., Flowers Foods, Inc. (NYSE: FLO)
is one of the largest producers of fresh packaged bakery foods in
the United States, with 2015 sales of $3.8 billion. Flowers
operates bakeries across the country that produce a wide range of
bakery products. Among the company's top brands are Nature's Own,
Wonder, and Tastykake. Learn more at www.flowersfoods.com.


FREDERICK J. HANNA: Illegally Collects Debts, "Goodwin" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Goodwin, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Frederick J. Hanna & Associates, P.C.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01071 (E.D.N.Y., March 3, 2016),
alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
     Sanders Law, PLLC
     100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 50
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Tel: (516) 203-7600
     Fax: (516) 281-7601
     Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


GAMEWELL-FCI: Recalls Fire Alarm Panel Products
-----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Gamewell-FCI of Northford, Conn., announced a voluntary recall of
about 1,000 Gamewell-FCI fire alarm panels (ILI-MB-E3 and ILI-S-
E3). Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

When configured in a certain way, the panels can become non-
responsive and connected detectors in the area can fail to detect
and respond to an alarm.

This recall is for the ILI-MB-E3 and ILI-S-E3 Gamewell-FCI fire
alarm panels in commercial buildings. This issue is limited to a
specific configuration of Signaling Line Circuit (SLC) devices. To
occur, the SLC must include at least two of the following
detectors in any combination: Acclimate, 4-Warn, Photo/CO and
iFAAST. The issue would occur only if the detectors are addressed
within the same FlashScan polling group. Detectors installed in a
different combination are not affected.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/gxhh2q

The recalled products were manufactured in U.S. and sold at
Authorized distributors from May 2015 through August 2015 for
about $800.

Consumers should immediately contact the distributor to obtain the
free repair, a firmware upgrade.


GARDEN FRESH: "Johnson" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Ariell Johnson, et al., Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Garden Fresh Restaurant Corp.dba
Souplantation and Sweet Tomatoes, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-
00845 (S.D. Tex., March 30, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant Garden Fresh Restaurant Corp., dba Souplantation, owns
various restaurants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Taft L. Foley, II, Esq.
   THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
   3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
   Houston, TX 77054
   Tel: (832) 778-8182
   Fax: (832) 788-8353
   Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


GARMIN INT'L: Wins Class Action Over Personal Navigation Devices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Garmin International Inc., a subsidiary of Garmin Ltd., on
April 4 disclosed that it prevailed on summary judgment in a
purported class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Kansas in Meyers v. Garmin International, Inc.
Case No. 13-CV-2416.

The plaintiff alleged that the lithium ion batteries in certain
Garmin personal navigation devices were prone to fail prematurely.
The court granted summary judgment to Garmin on all remaining
asserted claims after the plaintiff abandoned most of his claims.
The court found that the undisputed evidence showed that, even
after four years of use, the battery in plaintiff's device had not
reached the end of its useful life.  The judgment is subject to
appeal.

"Garmin is very pleased with the court's dismissal of this
purported class action lawsuit.  Many people don't understand that
class action litigation often provides disproportionate financial
benefits to the plaintiffs' attorneys who file these cases, often
without a reasonable analysis of the merits of the case," said
Andrew Etkind, Garmin's vice president and general counsel.  "This
ruling demonstrates the steadfast determination by Garmin to fight
any and all baseless claims."

Garmin is a pioneer in GPS navigation and wireless devices and
applications that are designed for people who live an active
lifestyle.  Garmin serves five primary business units, including
automotive, aviation, fitness, marine, and outdoor recreation.

                         About Garmin

Garmin International Inc. is a subsidiary of Garmin Ltd. (Nasdaq:
GRMN). Garmin Ltd. is incorporated in Switzerland, and its
principal subsidiaries are located in the United States, Taiwan
and the United Kingdom. Garmin is a registered trademark of Garmin
Ltd.


GENERAL CHEMICAL: City of Everett Suit Transferred to New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
City of Everett, Plaintiff, v. General Chemical Corporation,
General Chemical Performance Products, LLC, Chemtrade Logistics
Inc., Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation, Chemtrade Chemicals US,
LLC, Gentek, Inc., Kemira Chemicals, Inc., and Frank A. Reichl,
and John Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01198 (W.D.
Wash., February 5, 2016), seeks treble damages, costs of suit, and
other relief as maybe determined appropriate, on behalf of a Class
of persons and entities who purchased liquid aluminum sulfate
pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Sections 4 and 16 of
the Clayton Act.

On March 3, 2016, the case was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, Case No. 2:16-cv-01198-JLL-
JAD, and assigned to Judge Jose L. Linares and referred to
Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson.

General Chemical Corporation, nka General Chemical USA, operates
over 40 facilities across the United States, which sell products
for a wide range of uses, including municipal water treatment,
general industrial production, pulp and paper, food and beverage,
agriculture and pharmaceuticals.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
     Mark A. Griffin, Esq.
     Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
     Raymond J. Farrow, Esq.
     Daniel P. Mensher, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
     Seattle, WA 98101-3052
     Tel: (206) 623-1900
     Fax (206) 623-3384
     Email: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
            mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com
            dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
            rfarrow@kellerrohrback.com
            dmensher@kellerrohrback.com


GIVENCHY: Recalls Men's Silk T-shirts Due to Burn Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Givenchy, of New York, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall of about
60 Givenchy men's silk T-shirts. Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The T-shirts fail to meet the federal flammability standard for
wearing apparel and pose a run of burn injury to consumers.

This recall involves three styles of Givenchy-branded 100% silk T-
shirts for men. The short-sleeve T-shirts are sheer and were sold
in blue and black plaid, black and white stripes and black with an
image of Jesus on the cross. They were sold in sizes XXS through
L. The style number 16J7127135, 16J6218886 or 16J7205877 is
printed on a tag sewn into the side seam.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/DIU4Th

The recalled products were manufactured in Portugal and Tunisia
and sold at Barneys New York, Givenchy Boutiques, Maxfield and
Forward, Neiman Marcus and Nordstrom stores nationwide from
February 2016 through March 2016 for between $685 and $1,350.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled T-shirts and
return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Givenchy
is directly contacting consumers who bought the recalled T-shirts.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "Thatcher" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2657
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Glaxosmithkline LLC. The case is
captioned Kristin Thatcher and Paul Thatcher, both individually
and on Behalf of C.T., their minor child, the Plaintiffs, v.
Glaxosmithkline LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-10639-FDS (D.
Mass., April 1, 2016).

The Plaintiffs seek to recover for compensatory and punitive
damages, and such other relief deemed just and proper arising from
the injuries to C.T. as a result of his prenatal exposures to the
Zofran, also known as ondansetron.

Zofran is a powerful drug developed by GSK to treat only those
patients who were afflicted with the most severe nausea imaginable
-- that suffered as a result of chemotherapy or radiation
treatments in cancer patients.

GlaxoSmithKline is a Delaware corporation, and is based in
Wilmington, Delaware. The company, through its division Cerenex
Pharmaceuticals, authored original package insert and labeling for
Zofran, including warnings and precautions attendant to its use.

The Thatcher case is being consolidated with MDL 2657 in re:
Zofran (Ondansetron) Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on November 13, 2015. It consists of
factual questions arising from allegations that Zofran and its
generic equivalent, a prescription medication for the treatment of
nausea, causes birth defects in children when their mothers ingest
the drug while pregnant. In its November 13, 2015 Order, the MDL
Panel found that the actions in this litigation involve common
questions of fact, and that centralization in the District of
Massachusetts will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. F. Dennis Saylor
IV, United States District Judge. The lead case is Lead case:
1:15-md-02657-FDS.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert K. Jenner
          Brian D. Ketterer
          Kimberly A. Dougherty
          JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
          1777 Reisterstown Road, Suite 165
          Baltimore, MD 21208
          Telephone: (410) 653 3200
          Facsimile: (410) 653 9030
          E-mail: rjenner@myadvocates.com


GROSFILLEX INC: Recalls Side Chairs and Armless Bar Stools
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Grosfillex Inc., of Robesonia, Pa., announced a voluntary recall
of about 92,000 Havana side chairs and armless bar stools.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The backrest can crack and detach, posing a fall hazard to the
user.

This recall involves the Grosfillex Havana commercial side chairs
and armless bar stools. They were sold in charcoal, espresso,
tobacco and white. The high-backs and seats are covered with woven
plastic wicker and have aluminum legs. The side chairs measure
about 35 1/2 inches tall by 18 1/2 inches wide and 22 inches deep.
The bar stools measure about 45 1/2 inches tall by 20 inches wide
by 24 inches deep. Grosfillex and CE # 2194 is molded on the
underside of the seat.

The firm has received three reports of incidents, including neck
and shoulder injuries.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/E6acmD

The recalled products were manufactured in France and United
States and sold at Distributors and dealers nationwide in the food
service and hospitality industries from April 2008 through August
2015 for between $75 and $150.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled chairs and
stools and contact Grosfillex for free replacements if the product
is under the three-year warranty or for a product voucher for
recalled products no longer under warranty.


GRUBHUB INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Flores, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Grubhub Inc. (Ill. Cir. Ct., March 31,
20160), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of sending
unauthorized text message calls to consumers' cellular telephones
advertising its restaurant partners.

Grubhub Inc. operates an online platform that allows consumers to
order food from more than 40,000 restaurants in more than 1,000
cities throughout the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay Edelson, Esq.
      Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
      Courtney C. Booth, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 589-6370
      Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
              brichman@edelson.com
              cbooth@edelson.com


GUTHY-RENKER LLC: Defends Products Amid Wen Hair Loss Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charissa Echavez, writing for HealthAim, reports that celebrity
hair brand Wen is under fire for allegedly causing hair loss among
its users that persist even after discontinuation of use of its
famous hair care products.  The brand is popularized by its
celebrity brand endorsers and its creator, celebrity stylist Chaz
Dean and Guthy-Renker LLC of the Proactiv fame.

The complaints, including a class-action lawsuit from California
in 2014, have now involved about 200 consumers from 40 states
around U.S. against the renowned million dollar brand, ranging
from scalp irritation and irreparable damage to gradual hair loss.

The lawsuit filed through Christiansen Davis' law firm stated that
the product's "active ingredients act as a depilatory and caustic
agent, either by causing a chemical reaction that damages the hair
strand and/or follicle."  Surprisingly, this fact was allegedly
also known by the manufacturer but has failed to do any actions
including the removal of such harmful chemical.

Though it failed to specify which product was the alleged cause of
the hair loss, the brand stated that their product works as an all
purpose hair product, including a shampoo, conditioner and even
detangler, urging consumers to use it in generous amounts every
day.

Complaints started when consumers noticed irritation to the
products resulting in alarming hair loss, in which one consumer
lost about a third of her hair, according to a class action
lawsuit in July 2014 that announced in August that same year.
However, the issue has only gained popularity in social media in
February 2015 when a blog post was mistook as a news article and
has been circulated by various accounts of hair styling pages and
salons in Facebook and Twitter.

"There is no scientific evidence to support any claim that our
hair care products caused anyone to lose their hair.  There are
many reasons why individuals may lose their hair, all unrelated to
Wen hair products," Chaz Dean and the products parent company
Guthy-Renker LLC told NBC News.  "We intend to vigorously contest
the allegations made against our products. And we encourage any
customer with any questions to contact us."

In the press statement Dean stated that there are still a lot of
consumers who continue to use their product and have expressed
their support.


HONDA NORTH AMERICA: Removes "Henriksen" Action to S.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Honda North America, Inc., by and through undersigned
counsel, removed the state court action captioned Brooke Angel
Henriksen and Maria McArdle, on their own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Honda North America, Inc., a
corporation; Honda of America Manufacturing, Inc., a corporation;
Honda Trading Corp.; a corporation; Continental Automotive
Systems, a corporation; Continental AG, a corporation; and
Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc., in the Circuit Court in
and for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County,
Florida, Case No. 502016CA000333XXXXMB, to the District Court for
the Southern District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections
1332(d), 1441(b), 1446, and 1453, and assigned Case No. 9:16-cv-
80319-DMM (S.D. Fla., March 3, 2016).

The case is assigned to Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Donald R. Fountain , Jr., Esq.
     CLARK, FOUNTAIN, LA VISTA, PRATHER, KEEN & LITTKY-RUBIN, LLP
     1919 No. Flagler Drive, Suite 200
     West Palm Beach, FL 33407
     Tel: (561) 899-2100
     Fax: (561) 832-3580
     Email: dfountain@clarkfountain.com

          - and -

     Geoffrey S Stahl, Esq.
     LIGGIO BENRUBI, P.A.
     1615 Forum Place, Suite 3B
     West Palm Beach, FL 33401
     Tel: (561) 616-3333
     Email: gstahl@liggiolaw.com

          - and -

     Jeffrey M. Liggio, Esq.
     LIGGIO BENRUBI
     1615 Forum Place, Suite 3-B
     West Palm Beach, FL 33401-2737
     Tel: (561) 616-3333
     Fax: (561) 616-3266
     Email: jliggio@liggiolaw.com

          - and-

     Poorad Razavi, Esq.
     RUDD & DIAMOND PA
     150 W Flagler Street, Suite 1450
     Miami, FL 33130
     Tel: (561) 899-2133
     Fax: (561) 832-3580
     Email: prazavi@rudddiamond.com

Defendant, Honda North America, Inc., is represented by:

     Iain Leslie Cooper Kennedy, Esq.
     SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
     201 S. Biscayne Boulevard
     Miami Center, Suite 3200
     Miami, FL 33131
     Tel: (305) 358-5171
     Fax: (305) 358-7470
     Email: ikennedy@shb.com


INFRASTRUCTURE REPAIR: Answer in "Callahan" Case Due July 1
-----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants have until July 1, 2016, to file an answer in the case,
Frank Callahan, on behalf of Himself and all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Infrastructure Repair
Technologies Inc., and Jeff Ewing, Defendants, Case No.
1684CV00706, (Massachusetts Superior Court, Suffolk County, March
3, 2016).

Final Pre-Trial Conference is set for June 26, 2017; and judgment
is due March 5, 2018.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael C. Forrest, Esq.
     Matthew Thomas LaMothe, Esq.
     Brian McNiff, Esq.
     Paul Francis Xavier Yasi, Esq.

The Defendants are represented by:

     William McClare Dunham, Esq.
     Richard D. Glovsky, Esq.
     NATHANAEL JACKSON COCHRANE NICHOLS
     111 Huntington Ave
     Boston, MA 02199-7610
     Tel: (617) 239-0820


INVISIBLU INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Continuum Labs LGD-Xtreme
----------------------------------------------------------
Invisiblu International LLC is voluntarily recalling one lot of
Continuum Labs LGD-Xtreme, 3 mg to the retail and consumer level.
The product has been found to contain LGD-4033 Ligandrol.
Risk Statement: The risks of using this product are unknown.
Invisiblu International has not received any reports of adverse
events related to this recall.

LGD-Xtreme is marketed as a dietary supplement to promote gains of
lean muscle mass. The product is packaged in a dark amber plastic
bottle with ninety capsules. The affected LGD-Xtreme lot numbers
are 21511166 with expiration dates of 11/2018.The product can be
identified by its black label with gold trim and the Continuum
Labs logo. LGD-Xtreme was sold to select end consumers in the
United States via the Internet, and was exported to wholesalers in
Brazil.

Invisiblu International LLC is notifying its distributors and
customers by this press release and e-mail, and is asking anyone
in possessing of this product to stop using and discard any unused
capsules.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact
Invisiblu International LLC by calling (954) 233-2673, extension
1, Monday through Friday, from 9 AM to 5 PM EDT, or by sending an
e-mail to: inquiry@continuum.com. Consumers should contact their
physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced any
problems that may be related to taking or using this drug product.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

Online:www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm1
Regular Mail: use postage-paid, pre-addressed Form FDA 3500
available at: www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm. Mail to address
on the pre-addressed form.
Fax: 1-800-FDA-0178
This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/ATdJ6a


JACKPOT JOANIES: Violated FLSA, "Littlefield" Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
Heather Littlefield, an individual, Plaintiff, v. Jackpot Joanies
T.J., LLC; Jackpot Joanies C.R., LLC; Jackpot Joanies E.H., LLC;
Jackpot Joanies, FP, LLC; Eclipse Gaming SHMP, LLC; and Mar-Lar-
Char, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00471 (D. Nev., March, 3,
2016), alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., the Nevada Constitution, Article 15,
Section 16.

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury in this action.

Jackpot Joanies T.J., LLC is a casino operator in Las Vegas,
Nevada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark J. Bourassa, Esq.
     Trent L. Richards, Esq.
     THE BOURASSA LAW GROUP
     8668 Spring Mountain Road, Suite 101
     Las Vegas, NV 89117
     Tel: (702) 851-2180
     Fax: (702) 851-2189
     Email: mbourassa@bourassalawgroup.com
            trichards@bourassalawgroup.com


JANSSEN INC: Invokana Safe for Diabetes Patients, Doctor Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for LawyersandSettlements.com, reports that
when a woman from Ontario, Canada, launched her blockbuster $1
billion Invokana side effects lawsuit last September, a diabetes
specialist based in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, weighed in, suggesting
that in her view Invokana represents no threat to the kidneys of
patients suffering from type 2 diabetes.  "We know that even if
you use it in people with reduced kidney function, it does no
further harm to the kidneys," said Dr. Debbie Knight, in comments
published by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC 9/17/15).

"I think it's safe, yes. If I didn't think it was safe, I don't
think I'd use [Invokana] in any of my patients."

Dr. Knight should know, having spent 35 years in the treatment of
diabetes.  The CBC noted that Knight also works as a consultant
for Janssen, the pharmaceutical giant that manufactures Invokana
and one of the defendants in the Ontario lawsuit.  The CBC report
did not detail any further specifics of Knight's relationship with
the Invokana manufacturer.

However, the plaintiff in the proposed class action in Canada
believes headlines that suggest "Invokana Linked with
Cardiovascular Injuries and Kidney Failure," have merit.

Rosalba Joudry should know: within several months of beginning
treatment with Invokana to rein in her blood sugar levels,
Ms. Joudry underwent tests that suggested the early stages of
kidney failure.

Needless to say, Ms. Joudry takes no comfort in the words of
Dr. Knight.  Ms. Joudry, having launched her Invokana side effects
lawsuit in September of last year, is seeking general damages in
excess of $500 million, together with special damages also in
excess of $500 million.

The Canadian lawsuit -- which is mirrored by several similar
lawsuits in both Canada and the United States -- comes at an
inopportune time for the pharmacare program of Nova Scotia, one of
Canada's eastern provinces. Nova Scotia recently included Invokana
in its pharmacare formulary on the first of September last year,
following similar moves by Quebec and Ontario.

Ms. Joudry, who hails from the Ontario suburb of Scarborough,
claims to have had no knowledge of the potential for Invokana side
effects relating to kidneys and ketoacidosis when she was
prescribed the drug.  According to the CBC, her first exposure to
suggestions that Invokana could be harmful came from a television
ad trolling for plaintiffs on a US TV station.  Ms. Joudry looked
into the matter further, and after her doctor took Ms. Joudry off
the medication, underwent tests. Results suggested that
Ms. Joudry was in the early stages of kidney failure.

US-based lawsuits are alleging similar injuries.  In May of last
year, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued its warning
that SGLT2 inhibitors, such as Invokana (canagliflozin), may
increase a patient's risk of ketoacidosis, a dangerous condition
related to high acidity in the blood.

The next month, the Canadian health regulatory authority (and a
counterpart to the FDA), Health Canada, launched a safety review
of SGLT2 inhibitors with regard to diabetic ketoacidosis.

Jennifer McCormack, spokeswoman for Janssen Inc., said in an
e-mail to the CBC, "We continue to work with Health Canada in
their class assessment of the potential risk of diabetic
ketoacidosis (DKA) with SGLT2 inhibitor use.

"Invokana (canagliflozin) provides important benefits to patients
with Type 2 diabetes and we remain confident in the overall safety
profile of Invokana," she said.

The lawsuit is Rosalba Joudry v. Janssen Inc., Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Ortho LLC, Johnson & Johnson, and
Johnson & Johnson Inc., Case No. W-15-536111, filed September 10,
2015 in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.


KRAFT HEINZ: Violated UCL & CLRA, "Weiss" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Adam Weiss and Patty Morelos, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. The Kraft Heinz
Company, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-00605 (C.D. Cal.,
Southern Div., April 1, 2016), seeks to recover damages due to
Defendant's misbranding and false advertising of its "100% Grated
Parmesan Cheese", pursuant to the Unfair Competition Law (UCL),
Business & Professions Code, and Consumers Legal Remedies Act
(CLRA).

Defendant's label and advertisements alledgedly claimed the
Product's grated cheese is "100%" parmesan cheese. Defendant's
claims, however, are false, misleading, and reasonably likely to
deceive the public because the Product is not 100% cheese.
Defendant manufactures, markets, sells, and distributes the
Product. Through an extensive, integrated, and widespread
nationwide marketing campaign, Defendant promises that the Product
is 100% parmesan cheese.

Kraft Heinz Foods produces and markets food products in the United
States and internationally. It offers ketchups, sauces,
condiments, tomato products, and pasta sauces under Heinz, Lea &
Perrins, Quero, Classico, ABC, Master, and Pudliszki brand names;
and tomato and vegetable-based snacks, prepared meals, frozen
potatoes, frozen snacks and entrees, and other products under the
brand names of Heinz, Quero, ABC, Ore-Ida, Bagel Bites, T.G.I.
Friday's, Smart Ones, and Weight Watchers.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq.
          Camille S. Bass, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
          701 B Street, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338 1100
          Facsimile: (619) 338 1101
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                  toreardon@bholaw.com
                  cbass@bholaw.com

               - and -

          David Markham, Esq.
          Peggy Reali, Esq.
          THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
          750 B Street, Suite 1950
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 399 3995
          Facsimile: (619) 615 2067
          E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com
                  preali@markham-law.com

               - and -

          Walter L. Haines, Esq.
          UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC
          5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201
          Huntington Beach, CA 92649
          Telephone: (562) 256 1047
          Facsimile: (562) 256 1006
          E-mail: walter@whaines.com


LARRY STIGERS EQUIPMENT: "Grimes" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Grimes, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated v. Larry Stigers Equipment, Trailers & Trucks,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00025-GFVT (March 30, 2016), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant sells trucks, trailers and associated equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
   MORGAN & MORGAN
   20 N Orange Ave Ste 1600
   Orlando, FL 32801
   Tel: (407) 420-1414
   Email: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com


LEE SEED: Recalls Yogurt Super Soynuts Products Due to Milk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lee Seed Company, Inc. of Inwood, Iowa is recalling Yogurt Super
Soynuts because the product contains undeclared milk. People who
have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the risk of
serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
these products.

Yogurt Super Soynuts were packaged in clear plastic 16 oz. bags.
Yogurt Super Soynuts were also included in seven-inch, four-
section holiday tins (decorated with a golden swirl design or a
horse & sleigh image). The product was sold on-line via the
company's website, www.soynuts.com, and distributed nationwide by
mail order. All Yogurt Super Soynuts shipped from November 2013
through March 2016 is impacted.

To date, there have been no reports of illnesses in connection
with use of this product.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the product
label on the dairy-containing product did not reveal the presence
of milk.

This voluntary recall has been issued by Lee Seed Company, Inc. to
ensure the safety of customers. Consumers affected by this recall
of Yogurt Super Soynuts should contact the company for a full
refund at 1-800-736-6530 Monday through Friday, 8 AM - 5 PM,
Central Daylight Savings Time (CDT).

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/ecoLHW


LIFE PARTNERS: "Steuben" Suit Removed to Calif. Bankruptcy Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Steuben, On behalf of herself and other California
citizens similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Life Partners, Inc.,
and United States Trustee (LA), Defendants, has been removed on
March 3, 2016, from state court to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the Central District of California and assigned Adv. Proc. No.
2:16-ap-01109-ER (C.D. Cal., March 3, 2016), before Bankruptcy
Judge Ernest M. Robles.

On November 8, 2011, a putative class action suit was filed,
styled Marilyn Steuben, on behalf of herself and all other
California citizens similarly situated v. Life Partners, Inc.,
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles Court, Case No. BC472953. This suit asserts claims of
fiduciary duty, breach of contract, and violations of California's
Unfair Competition law based upon the alleged overpayment of
premiums to the insurance company, that is, the alleged failure to
engage in "premium optimization."

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Charles Miller, Esq.
     6363 N Highway 161 Ste 450
     Irving, TX 75038

          - and -

     James Orr, Esq.
     6363 N. Highway 161 Ste 450
     Irving, TX 75038


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "Skehan" Suit Over Toxic Flooring
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Skehan & Jeffery Lee Larkins v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc.,
Lumber Liquidators Leasing, LLC, Lumber Liquidators Holdings,
Inc., and Lumber Liquidators Services, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-
02780-AJT-TRJ (E.D. Lo., March 1, 2016), alleges that the
Defendants manufactured, labeled and sold Chinese Flooring that
fails to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde
standards. The Chinese Flooring emits and off-gasses excessive
levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human
carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and
the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

The Defendants are retailers of hardwood flooring in the United
States, with more than 360 stores in 46 states and annual revenues
of more than one billion dollars.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Russ M. Herman, Esq.
      Leonard A. Davis, Esq.
      Stephen J. Herman, Esq.
      HERMAN, HERMAN & KATZ, LLC
      820 O'Keefe Ave.
      New Orleans, LA 70113
      Telephone: (504) 581-4892
      Facsimile: (504) 561-6024
      E-mail: rherman@hhklawfirm.com
              ldavis@hhklawfirm.com
              sherman@hhklawfirm.com


M.L. ZAGER: Illegally Collects Debt, "Griffin" Complaint Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Doris Griffin, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. M.L. Zager, P.C., and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01234-ES-MAH (D.N.J., March 3, 2016),
alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The case is assigned to Judge Esther Salas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Glen H. Chulsky, Esq.
     375 Passaic Avenue
     Fairfield, NJ 07004
     Email: g.chulsky@att.net

          - and -

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


MANHATTAN TOY: Recalls Table Top Toys Due to Chocking Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
The Manhattan Toy Company, of Minneapolis, announced a voluntary
recall of about 2,100 Busy Loops table top toys (in addition, 448
were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The round plastic beads can break, posing a choking hazard.

Busy Loops table top toys have orange, green, blue and purple
plastic tubing with plastic beads threaded on the tubing that can
slide up and down. The tubes sit on a blue plastic base with an
orange plastic suction cup. The toy is about 4.5" W x 4.5" L x 7"
H. The model number 700470 and lot code FH are printed on the
bottom of the blue base.

The firm has received two reports of beads breaking off the toy.
No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/7tb2QW

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
BuyBuy Baby and other toy stores nationwide, and online at
Amazon.com and Kohls.com from September 2015 through January 2016
for about $15.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled toy and
return it to the store where it was purchased or contact Manhattan
Toy for a full refund.


MERCY HEALTH: Retirement Plan Underfunded, "Lupp" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Lupp, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Mercy Health, The Mercy Health
Partners Retirement Plan Committee and John Does 1-20, Defendants,
Case 1:16-cv-00441-SJD (S.D. Ohio, March 30, 2016), contends that
as of December 31, 2014, the Mercy Health Partners Retirement
Plan was underfunded by $209.761 million.  Defendants purport to
justify the severe underfunding on the grounds that the Plan is a
"Non-ERISA Church Plan" and therefore is exempt from the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1001, et
seq.  To the contrary, the Plan does not meet ERISA's requirements
for the "church plan" exemption, because it was not "established,"
and is not "maintained" by a church. Rather, the Plan was
established and is maintained by Mercy Health, which is a large
healthcare company -- not a church or a convention or association
of churches. As a result of its spurious claim that it is a
church, the Company avoids its statutory retirement plan funding
obligations to employees and thereby obtains a competitive
advantage over other healthcare providers who meet their financial
obligations to their employees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Ronald R. Parry, Esq.
   Robert R. Sparks, Esq.
   STRAUSS TROY CO., LPA
   The Federal Reserve Building
   150 East Fourth Street
   Cincinnati, OH 45202-4018
   Tel: (513) 621-2120
   Fax: (513) 241-8259
   Email: rrparry@strausstroy.com
          rrsparks@strausstroy.com

              - and -

   Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
   Donna Siegel Moffa, Esq.
   Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
   Julie Siebert-Johnson, Esq.
   KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
   280 King of Prussia Road
   Radnor, PA 19087
   Tel: (610) 667-7706
   Fax: (610) 667-7056
   Email: eciolko@ktmc.com
          dmoffa@ktmc.com
          mgyandoh@ktmc.com
          jsjohnson@ktmc.com

              - and -

   Robert A. Izard, Esq.
   Mark P.Kindall, Esq.
   IZARD NOBEL LLP
   29 South Main Street
   Suite 305
   West Hartford, CT 06107
   Tel: (860) 493-6292
   Fax: (860) 493-6290
   Email: rizard@izardnobel.com
          mkindall@izardnobel.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Gabay" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Shelly Gabay, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., and John
Does 1-25, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01219-MCA-LDW (D.N.J.,
March 3, 2016), alleges violation of 15 U.S.C. Section 1692 et
seq., the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, which prohibits debt
collectors from engaging in abusive, deceptive and unfair
practices.

The case is assigned to Judge Madeline C. Arleo.

Midland is a business that uses the mail, telephone, and facsimile
and regularly engages in business the principal purpose of which
is to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another.

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

            - and -

       Glen Chulsky, Esq.
       JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
       375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
       Fairfield, NJ 07004
       Tel: (973) 227-5900
       Fax: (973) 244-0019

            - and -

       Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
       Attorney at Law
       17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
       Rutherford, NJ 07070
       Tel:  (201) 507-6300
       Fax: (201) 507-6311


MONTEREY COLLECTION: "Laughner" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Jackalynn L. Craven Laughner, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Monterey Collection
Services aka Monterey Financial Services, LLC, and John Does 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00361 (D. Conn., Mar 3, 2016),
alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
     MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC
     1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
     Ocean, NJ 07712
     Tel: (347) 526-4093
     Fax: (732) 298-6256
     Tel: yzelman@MarcusZelman.com


MOUNTAIN VIEW MEDICAL: Violated FLSA, "Vanauken" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Dianna Vanauken, Matt Smith, and Nicalene Dooley, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Mountain View Medical Group, P.C., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-
cv-00766 (D. Col., April 1, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).

Mountain View Medical Group is a Colorado professional corporation
that provides health care services at different facilities
throughout the Pikes Peak region.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ian D. Kalmanowitz, Esq.
          CORNISH & DELL'OLIO, P.C.
          431 N. Cascade Ave. Suite 1
          Colorado Springs, CO 80903
          Telephone: 719 475 1204
          Facsimile: 719-475-1264
          E-mail: ikalmanowitz@cornishanddellolio.com


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Concussions Research "Flawed, Incomplete"
---------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Young, writing for Dallas Observer, reports that on
April 1, The New York Times, hit the NFL hard, reporting that the
NFL's research into player concussions was "was deeply flawed and
incomplete" and that the league hired attorneys and other
personnel affiliated with the tobacco industry to help oversee
that research.  The implication made by the Times was clear, the
NFL, in attempting to keep its product palatable to fans, had used
similar tactics to those used by the tobacco industry to keep its
product palatable to smokers.  The NFL -- which gingerly admitted
in March that playing football may lead to brain damage --
demanded a retraction from the Times, which turned the league down
flat.

Whatever the league says notwithstanding, it is clear from
research into football injuries and the number of former players
who suffer from chronic traumatic encephalopathy, the degenerative
brain condition commonly know as CTE, that something has to be
done, especially at the youth and high school levels, to reduce
instances of repeated blows to players' heads without proper
protection.  On April 1, as part of a Texas Lyceum conference on
the business of football in the 21st century in Fort Worth,
researchers deeply involved in the crisis discussed what changes
the game must make to remain viable.

"We've been wanting people to say 'a concussion is a brain injury,
it's not that you rang your bell, it's something to be taken
seriously.' I'm so excited now that we're finally recognizing that
it is a brain injury," said Sandra Bond Chapman, the founder and
chief director of the Center for Brain Health at the University of
Texas at Dallas.

Ms. Chapman and researchers at the Center for Brain Health were
among the first to study the lasting effects of concussions on
youths, monitoring some kids who'd picked up concussions over a
period of 25 years for lasting symptoms.  Somewhat surprisingly,
despite what she's found and witnessed, Ms. Chapman said on
April 1 that she was not for keeping younger players away from the
game.

"When people hear what I do, they say, 'You, you've, been saying
concussions are brain injuries, you must be against young people
playing.' I say, 'Well, if we take football away then we'll have
concussions from jumping on cars or rollerblading," she said.

Kids are going to do risky things, she said, so a better solution
is changing the game in fundamental ways -- like creating safer
artificial turf, mandating increased safety equipment and changing
football's most dangerous play, the kickoff -- to make it safer
and following up concussions just as one would with other
injuries, like a broken arm.

One of the companies attempting to promote player safety -- and
catch the crest was what's sure to be a pretty big wave of
business -- is VICIS.  VICIS specializes in designing impact-
reduction football helmets, decreasing to the chance for a shock
injury to the brain.

"[Today's standard football helmets] are designed mainly to
prevent skull fractures and they do a pretty good job of that,"
Clark Hood, vice president of VICIS southwest division said. "It's
a two-layer system.  You've got the outer shell and the padding
inside. Those helmets were not designed to reduce the acceleration
and the forces that can occur during impact."

VICIS' helmets have four layers.  Basically, the company adds to
layers on top of what would've been the outer shell on a
traditional helmet.  Those aren't rigid and reduce acceleration at
impact, much like the crumple zone on a car.

Mr. Hood admitted that his company's helmets couldn't stop
concussions, but Mathew Matheny, the Beaumont-based lead
plaintiff's counsel a class-action concussion lawsuit against,
says even a helmet which can lessen the effect of hits that don't
generate concussions is important.

"Concussion has become a buzzword.  Just because someone doesn't
sustain a technical concussion does not mean that they haven't put
themselves in place where they could be sustaining long-term brain
damage," Mr. Matheny said.  "If we can develop technology that's
even going to lessen the impact of a sub-concussive blow, we're
going to make giant strides in preventing long-term brain damage,
which was really the thrust of what our litigation was about.
That's CTE, the big buzzword you hear from the NFL now."

Mr. Matheny helped his class of former NFL player clients get a
nearly $1 billion settlement from the league in April 2015.  Under
the settlement, the league didn't admit anything, but
Mr. Matheny says his clients' case at least started the
conversation that's continued since the lawsuit was settled.

"The first player to hire me was [former Cowboys great] Lee Roy
Jordan.  He said, 'I want to know if I have brain damage, and I
want to know if something can be done so that my grandchild
doesn't have to be concerned that they have brain damage.' That's
been the motivation of the people we've represented."


NATIONWIDE CREDIT INC: Faces "Marinacci" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit, Inc. The case
is captioned Brenda Marinacci, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Nationwide Credit, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01610 (E.D.N.Y., Central Islip, April
1, 2016).

Nationwide Credit, a collection agency, provides customer
relationship and accounts receivable management services. The
company specializes in collecting delinquent and defaulted
accounts. Its customer relationship management services include
inbound/outbound customer care and back office services; and
accounts receivable management services comprise pre charge-off
collections, post charge-off recoveries, charge-off mortgage
collections, and an attorney network. Nationwide Credit serves
customers in automotive, banking and credit card, healthcare,
insurance, mortgage, retail, telecommunication, and utilities
industries worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          Sanders Law, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 50
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281 7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


NEKASA INC: "Sevilla" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Berenice Diego Sevilla, et al., Plaintiffs, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Nekasa Inc. (d/b/a AAA
Laundromat), 5-126 Laundromat Inc. (d/b/a NYC Laundromat), 123
Laundromat Corp. (d/b/a 123 Laundromat), Royal Impex Inc. (d/b/a A
1 Laundromat), Imran Farooq, Neil Kapre, Anibal Hernandez and
Miguel Santana, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02368 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 30, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Michael A. Faillace, Esq.
   MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATE, P.C.
   60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2020
   New York, NY 10165
   Tel: (212) 317-1200
   Fax: (212) 317-1620
   Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com


NEW KO-SUSHI JAPANESE: Faces "Portillo" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against New Ko-Sushi Japanese Restaurant,
Inc. The case is captioned Miguel Cisneros Portillo, Cesar
Tenorio, Eugenio Ortega Vasquez, Gilberto Huelitl, Gilmar Sontay
Tzun, Jose Portillo Robles, Enrique Moran Perez also known as
Freddy, and Andres Reyes, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. New Ko-Sushi Japanese
Restaurant, Inc., doing business as: Ko Sushi Japanese Restaurant,
New Ko Sushi II Japanese Restaurant Inc., doing business as: Ko
Sushi Japanese Restaurant, Hui Chen, Meiyu Chen, Jim Cai Wang,
also known as Tommy, and Mai Jiang Zhu, also known as Jimmy Chen,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02429 (S.D.N.Y., Foley Square,
April 1, 2016).

New Ko-Sushi Japanese Restaurant offers standard Japanese menu
with lunch specials. The Restaurant is located in New York, New
York.

Plaintiff Gilmar Sontay Tzun appears pro se.


NEW TECH GLOBAL VENTURES: Faces "Clay" Wage & Hour Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael D. Clay, Larre G. Butler, and Clayton Shamsie individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. New
Tech Global Ventures, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-00296 (W.D.
La., March 3, 2016), seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, attorney fees, and costs permitted by the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury.

New Tech Global Ventures, LLC provides workers and their services
to major energy companies including the following nonexclusive
services: Engineering, environmental, mudtech, directional, NTG-
RHS LATAM, midstream, safety and staffing services. Defendant
maintains locations throughout Louisiana, Texas and Gulf of Mexico
as well as Colorado and Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


NG & LIN CO: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Sir" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------
Alvaro Yovani Bellon Sir and Pablo Bellon Micar, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Ng &
Lin Co, Inc. (d/b/a Szechuan Kitchen), Sammy Lin and Chung Ng,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02424 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum, overtime wages, liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the N.Y. Labor Law (NYLL)

Defendants own, operate, or control a Chinese restaurant located
at 1518 First Avenue No. 1, New York, NY 10075 under the name
Szechuan Kitchen.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


NORTHEASTERN ASSET RECOVERY: Violated FDCPA, "Evensen" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosemary Evensen, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Northeastern Asset Recovery,
Inc., JTM Capital Management, LLC, Claire Higgins, and Steve
Larkin, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01070 (E.D.N.Y., March 3,
2016), alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
     BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
     100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Tel: (516) 203-7600
     Fax: (516) 706-5055
     Email: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com

          - and -

     David M. Barshay, Esq.
     BARSHAY SANDERS, PLLC
     100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Tel: (516) 203-7600
     Fax: (516) 706-5055
     Email: dbarshay@sanderslawpllc.com


OCEAN PROPERTIES: Faces "Bouton" Suit in S.D. Florida Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Ocean Properties, Ltd.  The case
is captioned Justin Bouton, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ocean Properties, Ltd., a
foreign corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 9:16-cv-80502-BB
(S.D. Fla., West Palm Beach, April 1, 2016).

Ocean Properties provides hotel services. The Company offers short
term room rental, spa, restaurant, gym, and shopping center. Ocean
Properties serves customers throughout the United States and
Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bret Leon Lusskin, Jr., Esq.
          BRET LUSSKIN, P.A.
          20803 Biscayne Blvd., Ste 302
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (954) 454 5841
          Facsimile: (954) 454 5844
          E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com

               - and -

          Scott David Owens, Esq.
          SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A.
          3800 S. Ocean Drive, Suite 235
          Hollywood, FL 33019
          Telephone: (954) 589 0588
          Facsimile: (954) 337 0666
          E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com


OCWEN LOAN: Faces "Purnel" Suit in S.D. Mississippi
---------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC.  The
case is captioned Leroy Purnell and Brenda Purnell, individuals
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00234-DPJ-FKB
(S.D. Miss., Northern Jackson April 1, 2016). The assigned
Presiding Judge is Hon. Daniel P. Jordan, III.

Ocwen Loan Servicing offers and services residential mortgage
loans. Its loan servicing includes customer service, collections,
investor accounting, escrow, loss mitigation, foreclosure, and
property disposition. The company services mortgage backed
securitized and unsecuritized loans and securities. The company
was founded in 1989 and is based in West Palm Beach, Florida.
Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC operates as a subsidiary of Ocwen
Financial Corp.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


OMNINET VILLAGE: Faces "Stallworth" Suit Over Breach of Contract
----------------------------------------------------------------
Donell Stallworth, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Omninet Village, L.P. d/b/a Village Lakes
Apartments, Omninet Village Lake, LLC, Omninet Property
Management, Inc. d/b/a Pioneer Properties, Case No. 6:16-cv-00546-
GAP-DAB (M.D. Fla., March 31, 2016), arises out of the Defendant's
alleged breach of contract.

The Defendants own and operate a real estate company in Orlando,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Coleman Washington Watson, Esq.
      WATSON LLP
      121 S. Orange Ave Ste. 1500
      Orlando, FL 32801-3586
      Telephone: (407) 377-6634
      Facsimile: (407) 377-6688
      E-mail: coleman@watsonllp.com


PALOS VERDES, CA: More People Want to Join Lunada Bay Boys Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Walkter, writing for Independent.co.uk, reports that Lunada
Bay, an out-of-the-way cove on the Palos Verdes peninsula south of
Los Angeles, is one of the best big-wave surfing spots in
California.  In the shelter of its steep, semi-circular cliffs are
a pristine beach and the promise of 20-foot winter swells. And,
unlike so many other prime breaks on the US west coast, its waves
are miraculously uncrowded.

That's because anyone who wants to surf there must first get past
the Lunada Bay Boys, an infamous local surfing clique known
routinely to chase off outsiders with threats, harassment and, in
some cases, violence.  At the top of the dirt path that leads down
to the beach, the Bay Boys once posted a sign that warned:
"Unlocals will be hassled."

Last week, though, it is the Bay Boys who are under threat, after
they were targeted by "unlocal" surfers with a class-action
lawsuit, which seeks to classify the group as a criminal street
gang.  If successful, the suit would see the Bay Boys banned from
gathering at their coveted surf spot, and ordered to pay fines and
compensation to the plaintiffs.

Unwanted visitors to Lunada Bay claim to have been pelted with
rocks and had their tires slashed.  According to the lawsuit, the
gang's members "dangerously disregard surfing rules when it comes
to visitors . . . run over visitors with their surfboards, push
visitors, hit visitors, slap visitors, harass visitors by circling
them, and hold visitors underwater."

Contrary to the image of a typical LA gang, the Bay Boys are
largely white and affluent, like their Lunada Bay neighbours.
Among the 100 or more members of the group are firemen and school-
teachers, said Vic Otten, the lawyer who filed the suit. "What's
really shocking," he added, "is that in many cases these are men
in their 50s and 60s."

Among the plaintiffs in the case are a police officer from nearby
El Segundo, who says he was hassled by the Bay Boys while trying
to surf at Lunada Bay last year, and Diana Reed, a filmmaker who
claims to have been sexually harassed while visiting the beach in
January.  The gang members are "certainly obnoxious," said
Mr. Otten, "but some are also dangerous."

One Bay Boy "shook up a can of beer and sprayed Reed and her
camera with it, and poured beer on Reed's arm," the lawsuit
alleges.  "They told her they thought she was 'sexy,' and filmed
her while they told her she 'excited them'. . .[A Bay Boy] briefly
exposed himself to Reed while he was changing into his wetsuit."

Since local media first reported the lawsuit, Mr. Otten said he
had received more than a dozen calls per day from other potential
plaintiffs.  "These are people who've been harassed over the
course of 20 years," he said.  "They're upstanding citizens who
are angry and who want to join the lawsuit."

In fact, the allegations of intimidation stretch back several
decades.  Local activist Geoff Hagins, now 60, said he was first
attacked by locals at Lunada Bay in 1969, when he was a teenager.
"I went there to surf and got caught on the side of the cliff for
20 minutes while they threw rocks the size of softballs at me," he
said.

In 1995, when his 10-year-old nephew was threatened by the Bay
Boys, Mr. Hagins went to Lunada Bay with a local news crew,
causing an altercation that was caught on camera.  He won a
$15,000 out-of-court settlement from one of the gang members and a
restraining order that banned the group from threatening
outsiders. Clearly, it didn't last.

Surf culture may have a reputation for being mellow, but it also
contains a strain of aggressive, so-called "localism": surfers
often protect their native breaks from interlopers to prevent them
becoming overcrowded.  Another notorious group, the Silver Strand
Locals, are known to patrol their beach in Oxnard, 70 miles up the
coast from Palos Verdes.

The Oxnard punk band Aggression encapsulated the Silver Strand
Locals' mindset with its 2003 track "Locals Only", which features
lyrics such as: "Going into my waters and what do I see / Out-of-
town goons in front of me / All I wanna know is what they're doing
on my waves / Gonna have to show them how we behave."

The Bay Boys rule their fiefdom from an open-air clubhouse on the
rocks above the beach, a stone and wood structure built, needless
to say, without official permits.  From this stronghold, they
reportedly drink and hurl abuse at visitors or each other.  "Most
of them aren't even good surfers," Mr. Hagins said.  "They spend
most of their time drinking."

Recently, the California Coastal Commission demanded local
officials crack down on the gang for restricting access to what is
supposedly a public beach, and urged them to either approve the
clubhouse as a public space, or tear it down.  The Palos Verdes
authorities have been accused of spinelessness and even complicity
in their attitude to the Bay Boys.

That is reflected in the lawsuit, which names police chief
Jeff Kepley as a defendant, and asks a judge to order police to
investigate the gang's alleged crimes.  "Palos Verdes Estates has
a long history of deliberate indifference in not investigating or
otherwise policing acts of violence and vandalism against visiting
beachgoers," the suit claims.

After he took charge of the Palos Verdes Estates police department
last year, Chief Kepley promised to step up patrols at Lunada Bay.
But in an interview with radio station KPCC, he said the Bay Boys'
activities were simply not violent enough to prosecute. "There's
not shooting and stabbings and things that you typically associate
with street gangs," he said.

One unnamed Bay Boy addressed the lawsuit, in an interview with
the surfing website Surfline.com.  "If you're down there and we
don't know you, then someone or multiple people are going to say
something to you and at the very least make your whole session
completely miserable," the man said.

He added, however, that he was "not aware of anyone being
physically assaulted [at Lunada Bay] in years . . . The reason why
nobody has been arrested at the bay is because there hasn't been
an incident that has warranted an arrest."

The lawsuit initially named eight members of the Bay Boys,
including four men from two generations of the same family.
Mr. Otten said more defendants would soon be added to the suit,
but described the eight in question as "the worst of the worst".
Several of the men named in the suit reportedly have criminal
records.

One is linked to the recent violent robbery of a local off-
license.  Another, 27-year-old Michael Papayans, pleaded not
guilty in March to an assault at an LA Dodgers baseball game. His
grandmother, Sheila Papayans, told local paper the Daily Breeze
that the lawsuit was ridiculous.  "Most of these people have been
to college.  They all have good jobs. [Surfing] is their hobby,
just like fishing and swimming," she said . "They are not a gang."

Mr. Hagins agreed with her, up to a point.  "Most of them are
normal citizens with families and wives and respectable
businesses," he said.  "But at the bay, they turn into bullies and
criminals."


PJS OF PARMA: Faces "Calta" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Calta and Dustin Wylie, Plaintiffs, all others similarly
situated v. PJS of Parma, Inc. d/b/a Stancato's Italian Restaurant
and Lorraine Stancato, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00779 (N.D.
Ohio, March 30, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  The Complaint asserts that the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated employees were not tipped employees and are
entitled to minimum wage.

PJS of Parma, Inc. owns and operates the Stancato's Italian
Restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PLATFORM SPECIALTY: Faces "Dillard" Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brenda Dillard, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Platform Specialty Products
Corporation, Rakesh Sachdev, Daniel H. Leever, Sanjiv Khattri and
Frank J. Monteiro, Defendants, Case No. 9:16-cv-80490-DMM (S.D.
Fla., March 30, 2016), seeks compensatory damages for Defendants'
materially false and misleading statement issued during the class
period.

The Plaintiff brings this securities class action on behalf of all
purchasers of Platform securities between February 17, 2015 and
March 14, 2016, inclusive. During the Class Period, Defendants
materially misled the investing public, thereby inflating the
price of Platform's securities, by publicly issuing false and/or
misleading statement and/or omitting to disclose material facts
necessary to make Defendants' statement, as set forth hereon, not
false and/or misleading.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
   POMERANTZ LLP
   1792 Bell Tower Lane, Suite 203
   Weston, FL 33326
   Tel: (954) 315-3454
   Fax: (954) 315-3455
   Email: jagoldstein@pomlaw.com

              - and -

   Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
   J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
   Marc Gorrie, Esq.
   POMERANTZ LLP
   600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: (212) 661-1100
   Fax: (212) 661-8665
   Email: jaliebermann@pomlaw.com
          ahood@pomlaw.com
          mgorrie@pomlaw.com

              - and -

   Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
   POMERANTZ LLP
   10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
   Chicago, IL 60603
   Tel: (312) 377-1181
   Fax: (312) 377-1184
   Email: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

              - and -

   Michael Goldberg, Esq.
   Brian Schall, Esq.
   GOLDBERG LAW PC
   13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Ste. 1404
   Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
   Tel: 800-977-7401
   Fax: 800-536-0065
   Email: michael@goldberglawpc.com
          brian@goldberglawpc.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: "Nahari" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Tiran Nahari, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Portfolio Recovery Associates LLC, and
Forster, Garbus & Garbus, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01236-WJM-
MF (D.N.J., March 3, 2016), alleges violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The case is assigned to Judge William J. Martini.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


PULASKI COUNTY, AR: Faces Class Action Over Livestock Ban
---------------------------------------------------------
Emily Walkenhorst, writing for ArkansasOnline, reports that
Pulaski County breached its contracts with several lessees of
garden space at Two Rivers Park in Little Rock by deciding earlier
this year not to allow people to keep chickens on their garden
plots any longer, nine lessees argued in a lawsuit.

Chris Attig, Christopher L. Calvert, Jennifer Faulkner, David Fox,
Charles Freville, Tim Lincoln, James Newman, Eddie Rodgers and
Jennifer Rodgers filed a lawsuit on March 30 seeking class-action
status against Pulaski County, County Judge Barry Hyde, County
Attorney Adam Fogleman and county staff attorney Will Gruber.

Pulaski County revised the terms of its garden leases in February,
according to records obtained by the Arkansas
Democrat-Gazette, to include "No animals may be kept by a gardener
on any plot.  Animals' include, but are not limited to, domestic
pets, livestock and wild game."

By "unilaterally changing the terms of the 2016 lease as to some
(but not all) named Plaintiffs and putative class members, one or
more Defendants have breached or caused a breach of a contractual
relationship between Pulaski County and names Plaintiffs and the
putative class," the lawsuit reads.

The lawsuit contends further that the change is a breach of the
Arkansas Right to Farm law -- which states that local ordinances
that effectively declare an agricultural operation a nuisance are
void -- and that the county violated the open-meetings provision
of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act when forming the
policy.

Plaintiffs said that because county officials met to discuss
banning livestock at the gardens without notifying the public, the
county violated the open-meetings provision.  But the lawsuit does
not state who was present at those meetings or whether they were
members of a governing body.

The open-meetings provision says that "all meeting, formal or
informal, special or regular, of the governing bodies" of public
institutions -- such as quorum courts or city boards -- are open
meetings with the exception of executive session for discussion of
issues with specific personnel.

Pulaski County spokesman Cozetta Jones said no board or other
governing body was involved in the decision in Pulaski County,
which was not passed in an ordinance.

She said the regulatory history of the gardens, which were started
in the 1970s, is "really nonexistent" but that Hyde didn't think
having chickens on garden plots seemed to fit the gardens'
purpose.

Ms. Jones said notice was given to people who had chickens on
their plots, but she said she didn't know in what way people were
notified.

"There wasn't a memo that went out," she said.

In Little Rock, the Animal Services Advisory board held meetings
to discuss restricting the number of chickens people could have on
properties smaller than an acre.  In March, the board voted to
send a set of recommendations -- specifically limiting the number
of fowl to 12 -- to the city Board of Directors to consider.

In 2015, as in years prior at the Two Rivers Park Garden Center,
people were allowed to keep chickens and other animals on their
garden plots. Leases for 2015 garden plots ran Jan. 1 through Dec.
31, and leases for 2016 run Jan. 1 of this year through
Dec. 31.  People can renew their leases as long as fees of $50 per
tract are paid by March 1, according to the agreements.

Because the decision to not allow animals on the garden plots
wasn't made until Feb. 5, anyone who signed a lease or renewed a
lease in January or early February signed a contract that did not
specifically prohibit keeping animals on their garden plots.

Numerous leases for 2016 obtained by the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette
do not have the provision barring the keeping of animals on garden
plots, and numerous others signed later in February had that
provision.

The lawsuit contends that James Newman, who signed a lease that
doesn't include that provision, was sent a letter from Gruber
telling him to remove his chickens from his property by the end of
March.  The complaint further states that not everyone was given
notice that they had to remove chickens from their garden plots.

Judge Hyde told at least one of the defendants that the garden
area was an eyesore and that the "chicken experiment" had failed.


QUALITY FOOD: Recalls Cranberry Chicken Salad Due to Pecans
-----------------------------------------------------------
QFC said it had recalled its Fresh Food Market Cranberry Chicken
Salad that is sold in QFC stores, located in Oregon and
Washington. The product may be mislabeled and may contain pecans,
wheat, and soy not listed on the label.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to pecans, wheat,
or soy run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume this product.

For consumers who are not allergic to pecans, wheat, or soy, there
is no safety issue with the product. There have been no illnesses
related to recalled product reported to date.

QFC has removed this item from store shelves after our employees
noticed the scale printing error. QFC initiated its customer
recall notification system that alerts customers with QFC
Advantage Cards who may have purchased recalled product through
register receipt tape messages and phone calls.

QFC is recalling the following item:

  Product           UPC            Codes          Size
  -------           ---            -----          ----
Fresh Food Market   207063-4XXXX   Sell By:       varies
Cranberry Chicken                  MAR 28, 2016
Salad                              AND BEFORE

Customers can return the product to any QFC store for a full
refund or replacement.

Customers who have questions may contact QFC at 1-800-576-4377,
Monday through Friday, 8am - Midnight, EST and Saturday and
Sunday, 8am - 9:30pm EST.

Founded in Seattle 60 years ago, QFC is headquartered in Bellevue,
Washington and operates 65 stores in Western Washington and in
Portland, Oregon. QFC has a long history as a neighborhood grocer,
offering the highest quality products, exceptional service, and
the finest shopping experience in the market. For more
information, please visit our web site at www.qfc.com.


RAPID ROD: Violated FLSA, "Salazar" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------
Felipe Salazar, Cody Shautteet, and Santos S. Dominguez,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Rapid Rod Service, LLC, Pelican Rapid Rod Service,
LLC, Rapid Rod North Holdings, Inc., Rapid Rod Service, Ltd, and
Pelican Rapid Rod Holding Company, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
5:16-cv-00323 (W.D. Tex., San Antonio Div., April 1, 2016), seeks
to recover unpaid back wages and liquidated damages equal in
amount to the unpaid compensation, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

Rapid Rod Service operates as an oilfield service company in
Western Canada. The company services wells with conventional and
continuous sucker rods. Its equipment includes rod rigs, truck
mounted xcelerators, welding, and coiled rods. The company serves
senior and junior oil and gas producers. It services wells in
Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia. The company
was founded in 2008 and is based in Okotoks, Canada.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Philip J. Moss, Esq.
          EQUAL JUSTICE CENTER
          8301 Broadway St., Ste. 309
          San Antonio, TX 78209
          Telephone: (210) 308 6222
          Facsimile: (210) 308 6223
          E-mail: www.equaljusticecenter.org
                  pmoss@equaljusticecenter.org

               - and -

          Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq.
          MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
          13590 Ranch Road 12
          Wimberley, TX 78676
          Telephone: (512) 782 0567
          Facsimile: (512) 782 0605
          E-mail: edmond@morelandlaw.com


RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Faces "Giorgio" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Receivables Performance
Management, LLC. The case is captioned Stephen Giorgio,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Receivables Performance Management, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01608 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2016).

Receivable Performance Management is an accounts receivable
management company. The company was incorporated in 2002 and is
based in Lynwood, Washington.

The Plaintiff appears pros se.


ROLAND FOODS: Recalls Roasted Red Pepper Strips Due to Glass
------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Foods, LLC, of New York, NY, in cooperation with the
manufacturer in Peru, is initiating a voluntary recall of specific
lots of Roland(R) Fire Roasted Red Pepper Strips due to the
possible presence of glass fragments in the product, therefore
posing a potential health hazard.

Roland(R) Fire Roasted Red Pepper Strips were distributed
nationwide and to Canada to food distributors, food service
customers, and super market chains for further distribution or
use.

The following product is subject to the voluntary recall:

Roland(R) Fire Roasted Red Pepper Strips, NET Wt. 5 LB. 8 OZ. can
Item #: 45628
Lot #s: 427, 428, 432, 437
UPC #: 10041224456287 (carton) and 041224456280 (can)
Pack Size: 6 x 5 LB. 8 OZ. cans per shipping carton
Production Codes (code is ink jet printed on the top of the can):
G1 MSS 1 P0929 and G1 MSS 2 P0929
Carton Markings: ITEM 45628
LOT #s: 427, 428, 432, 437
Fire Roasted Red Pepper Strips
Roland(R)
UPC: 10041224456287

No other sizes of Roland(R) Fire Roasted Red Pepper Strips or
products are affected by the voluntary recall.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after the firm received customer
complaints of glass in the product. The recalling firm has
notified the manufacturer of the findings in order to conduct an
investigation as to what caused the problem.

Consumers can visit www.rolandfood.comdisclaimer icon, or contact
its Consumer Hotline at 1-800.221.4030 ext. 222, Monday - Friday,
9am-5pm EST, for further information about the voluntary recall
and for instructions on obtaining replacement product.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/axvw98


RW BAKERS: Recalls Plain Knot Rolls Due to Peanuts
--------------------------------------------------
R.W. Bakers Co. of Muskegon, MI, is recalling its 8 ct. packages
of "Meijer Plain Knot Rolls" and 8 ct. packages of "Assorted
Dinner Rolls 128 ct." because they may contain trace amounts of
undeclared peanuts. People who have allergies to peanuts run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products.

The recalled "Meijer Knot Rolls" were distributed in Meijer retail
stores in Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and
Kentucky and sold between the dates of 3/6/16 and 3/28/16. The
"Meijer Plain Knot Rolls" product comes in an 8 ct., clear plastic
bag package. The lot number on the master case 16061 with a
production date of 3/1/16. The UPC code is 0-41250-09971-0 and is
located at the bottom of the package label underneath the bar
code.

The recalled "Assorted Dinner Rolls 128 ct." were distributed to
food service distributors in Michigan and Wisconsin. The "Assorted
Dinner Rolls 128 ct." product comes in an 8 ct., clear plastic bag
package. The lot number is 16041 with a production date of
2/10/16. This information is found on the master case of the
product.

No confirmed illnesses have been reported to date in connection
with this problem. The recall was initiated after it was
discovered that there could be a potential for cross contamination
with peanuts and the packaging statement did not reveal the
presence of peanuts. Subsequent investigation indicates the
problem was caused by a temporary breakdown in R.W. Bakers
production and packaging processes.

Consumers who have purchased 8 ct. packages of "Meijer Knot Rolls"
and 8 ct. packages of "Assorted Dinner Rolls 128 ct." are urged to
return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers
with questions may contact R.W. Bakers Co. at 231-799-9360 Monday-
Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm eastern time.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/dSzT44


SEAVAND CORPORATION: "Martin" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
Lindsey Martin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Seavand Corporation and Siamack Assad,
individually and as Officer and Director of Seavand Corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00119-KGB (E.D. Ark., March 3, 2016),
seeks declaratory judgment; monetary damages; liquidated damages;
prejudgment interest; costs; and a reasonable attorney's fee, as a
result of Defendant's policy and practice of failing to pay
Plaintiff proper overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq., and under the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-4-201, et
seq., within the applicable statutory limitations period.

Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, also seeks punitive damages for Defendants' violations
of the AMWA based on the principles found in the Civil Justice
Reform Act, Ark. Code Ann. Section 16-55-206.

The case is assigned to Judge Kristine G. Baker.

The Defendants operated at least three Great American Cookies
franchise locations in Arkansas, including locations at the Park
Plaza Mall in Little Rock, McCain Mall in North Little Rock, and a
location at 605 Salem Building B, Suite 1, Conway, Arkansas,
within the three years preceding the filing of the Complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua West, Esq.
     Josh Sandford, Esq.
     SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
     One Financial Center
     650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
     Little Rock, AR 72211
     Tel: (501) 221-0088
     Fax: (888) 787-2040
     Email: west@sanfordlawfirm.com
            josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


SELECT PORTFOLIO: Faces "Lee" Class Action in N.D. Ga.
------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc.
The case is captioned Daniel Lee, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Select Portfolio
Servicing, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01080-CC-WEJ
(N.D. Ga., Atlanta, April 1, 2016). The assigned Presiding Judge
is Hon. Clarence Cooper.

Select Portfolio Servicing operates a mortgage servicing company
in the United States. The company specializes in the servicing of
single-family residential mortgage loans. It manages the day-to-
day administration of mortgage accounts; and offers assistance
programs, including home retention and home non-retention options
for homeowners. The company also provides home ownership
assistance for active service members and veterans of the United
States military. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. was formerly
known as Fairbanks Capital Corp. and changed its name to Select
Portfolio Servicing, Inc. in July 2004.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harlan Stuart Miller III, Esq.
          Miller Legal, P.C.
          3646 Vineville Avenue
          Macon, GA 31204
          Telephone: (478) 216 8529
          Facsimile: (866) 704 3161
          E-mail: hmiller@pcwlawfirm.com


SHOP VAC: Settles Wet-Dry Vacuum Class Actions for $4.25 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Beauge, writing for PennLive, reports that a proposed $4.25
million nationwide settlement has been reached in multiple federal
class-action lawsuits that claimed popular Shop Vac Corp wet-dry
vacuums do not live up to their advertised specifications.

U.S. Middle District Judge Yvette Kane on April 1 was asked to
approve the settlement that was reached through mediation and
without Shop Vac admitting any liability.

Lowe's Home Centers Inc. and Lowe's HIW Inc. also are defendants
because in addition to carrying regular Shop Vac vacuums, they
sell those manufactured to their specifications.

Terms include an award of up to $4.25 million and Shop Vac
agreeing to extend its warranty on the motors of the vacuums by
two years.

The $4.25 million would cover attorney fees and costs plus an
award not to exceed $5,000 each for the named plaintiffs.

For those whose warranty has expired there will be a two-year
extension from the effective date of the settlement.

Shop Vac has agreed to alter the manner in which peak horsepower
and tank size ratings are labeled and marketed.

The proposed settlement would resolve suits that alleged Shop Vac
overstated the peak horsepower ratings and provided misleading
marketing information about the canister size measurement.

Shop Vac, which is headquartered in Williamsport, denied the
allegations and claimed no customers were deceived.

But, a plaintiff's expert concluded based on tests he conducted
the vacuums were incapable of reaching even half their advertised
peak horsepower and the automatic shutoff feature causes them to
stop working when the tanks reached between 47 and 83 percent of
capacity.

If approved, the settlement would affect the thousands in the
United States who since Jan. 1, 2006, purchased or acquired a wet-
dry Shop Vac vacuum.

The motion filed on April 1 asks Judge Kane to preliminary approve
the proposed settlement and certify the class it affects.

She also is asked to approve the form and manner of the notice to
inform class members of the settlement and schedule a hearing to
determine its fairness.

Notice of the settlement, once approved, will be sent to class
members who can be identified through defendants' records.

Notices also will be on www.shopvacphpsettlement.com, published in
magazines including People and placed on the Conversant Ad Network
and Facebook.

According to the terms, the defendants have waived their right to
appeal any order related to the court's determination of
attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses or awards to
plaintiffs.

The original suit was filed in 2012 with a consolidated complaint
following in 2013. A court document notes more than 85,000 pages
of documents were reviewed during the litigation.

Plaintiffs sought unspecified punitive and compensatory damages
for alleged breach of warranty and violations of consumer fraud
laws of all states except New Jersey.

Proceedings in a parallel suit in New Jersey state court were
stayed pending completion of the federal litigation.


SNYDER'S-LANCE: Recalls Roasted & Salted Cashew Products
--------------------------------------------------------
Snyder's-Lance, Inc. is initiating a voluntary recall for a
limited amount of Emerald(R) 100 Calorie Pack Roasted & Salted
Cashew Halves & Pieces product, distributed nationwide, due to the
possible presence of small glass pieces. This voluntary recall
covers only specific production codes of the following product:

Emerald(R) 100 Calorie Pack Roasted & Salted Cashew Halves &
Pieces 7 Packs / 0.62oz

No injuries have been reported to date. We are recalling these
products because they may contain small pieces of glass that could
potentially cause injury. Although our investigation is ongoing,
we believe the source of the glass to be the raw cashews received
from one of our suppliers under a specific lot code.

We are taking this action out of an abundance of caution after
receiving a consumer complaint.

Consumers who may have purchased the product listed above should
not consume it but should contact Consumer Affairs for a full
refund online at http://www.emeraldnuts.com/contact-emerald/or by
calling 503-364-0399 between 8am and 5pm Pacific Time, Monday -
Friday.

The voluntary recall is limited to the production codes listed
below. To locate the production code on the carton or inner
package, consumers should look next to the nutrition facts panel.
No other production codes, sizes or varieties of Emerald products
are affected by this recall.

Information regarding Emerald product affected by this recall:

Product Name:  Emerald 100 Calorie Packs Roasted & Salted Cashew
------------   Halves & Pieces

  Retail Carton UPC Code: 0 10300 33324 1
  -----------------------
  Retail Carton Best Before Date: 12 DEC 16
  ------------------------------  13 DEC 16
                                  18 DEC 16
                                  21 DEC 16
  Inner Package UPC Code: 0 10300 33399 9
  ----------------------
  Inner Package Production Code: 15346D346S
  -----------------------------  15347D346S
                                 15352D346S
                                 15355D346S

The quality and safety of our products are the top priority for
our company. We apologize to our retail customers and consumers
and sincerely regret any inconvenience created by this recall. We
are working and cooperating fully with the U. S. Food & Drug
Administration on this voluntary recall.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/50qkKp


SYSTEMS CONNECTION: "Johnson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Johnson and Vincent Smith, Plaintiffs, v. Systems
Connection of Maryland, Inc., Defendant, case No. 1:16-cv-00630-
JKB (D. Md., March 3, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs under Section 16(b) of the Federal Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201, et seq.; and
unpaid wages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under
Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Maryland Code Annotated, Labor and
Employment Article Sections 3-401, et seq.; and unpaid wages,
treble damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
under the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, Maryland Code
Annotated, Labor and Employment Article Sections 3-501, et seq.

The case is assigned to Judge James K. Bredar.

Pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Plaintiffs request that a jury of their peers hear and decide all
possible claims brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and those
similarly situated.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Joseph Spicer, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
     36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
     Baltimore, MD 21201
     Tel: (410) 244-7005
     Fax: (410) 244-8454
     E-mail: jspicer@nicholllaw.com


THAMES LANDSCAPE: Faces "Varela" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Varela, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated v. Thames Landscape And Design, Inc., and John F. Thames,
Case No. 1:16-cv-03914 (N.D. Ill., March 31, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing landscaping and
maintenance services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Meghan A. VanLeuwen, Esq.
      FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT
      33 N. LaSalle, Suite 900
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 784-3541
      E-mail: mvanleuwen@flapillinois.org


TREMONT TOWING: Engaged in Illegal Towing, "Mas" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Ratjl Mas, a Florida Resident, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. Tremont Towing,
Inc., Tremont Towing Investment, LLC, City of Miami Beach, a
Florida municipal corporation, the Defendants, the Defendants,
Case No. 2016-008314-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Miami-Dade County,
April 1, 2016), seeks declaratory relief and damages due to
alleged illegal non-consent towing of the Plaintiff's automobile.

The complaint says the Defendants inappropriately profited from
illegal nonconsent towing in clear violation of statutorily-
prescribed towing practices, including, but not limited to failure
to obtain express written authorization from property owners to
perform nonconsent towing of vehicles and failure to provide
documentary proof of express written authorization to vehicle
owners.

Tremont Towing operates a vehicle towing business in Miami Beach,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ervin A. Gonzalez, Esq.
          COLSON, HICKS, EIDSON, COLSON
          MATTHEWS, MARTINEZ, GONZALES,
          KALBAC & KANE
          255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 476 7400
          Facsimile: (305) 476 7444
          E-mail: Ervin@colson.com


US BANK: Faces "Smith" Suit in Florida Over Breach of Contract
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Smith, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons v. U.S. Bank, N.A., Case No. 1:16-cv-21146-MGC
(S.D. Fla., March 31, 2016), arises out of the Defendant's alleged
breach of contract.

U.S. Bank, N.A. operates a commercial banking service company
headquartered in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brett Michael Amron, Esq.
      BAST AMRON LLP
      One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 1400
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 379-7904
      Facsimile: (305) 379-7905
      E-mail: bamron@bastamron.com


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: To Vigorously Defend Cold-fx Ad Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Geordon Omand, writing for the Canadian Press, reports that the
makers of Cold-fX are in court fighting allegations they ignored
their own research and misled consumers about the short-term
effectiveness of the popular cold and flu remedy.

Valeant Pharmaceuticals was in British Columbia Supreme Court on
April 4, opposing an application to grant the lawsuit class-action
status.

Vancouver Island resident Don Harrison launched a claim in 2012
against Valeant and its subsidiary, Afexa Life Sciences, over
advertising saying that Cold-fX offered "immediate relief of cold
and flu symptoms" if taken over a three-day period at the first
sign of illness.

Mr. Harrison's notice of claim said Valeant and Afexa continued to
"knowingly or recklessly" promote Cold-fX despite evidence the
natural-health product only had a possible positive impact after
being taken daily for prolonged periods of two-to-six months.

"The gist of the case is that people paid money for a worthless
product . . . and the money they spent should be returned," said
Mr. Harrison's lawyer, John Green, in an interview.

Valeant also unnecessarily exposed its customers to a health
threat by distributing a useless drug with a risk of adverse side
effects, he said.

The Laval, Que.,-based company denied the accusations in a
statement and said it will fight the application for class-action
certification.

"Valeant believes the suit is without merit and is vigorously
defending this matter," said the document.

None of the allegations have been tested in court.

Afexa is the original manufacturer and license holder of Cold-fX
and was bought by Valeant in 2011.

Valeant has been marred by a succession of controversies in recent
months that have sapped its stock value and hammered its
reputation, leading the CEO of the embattled Quebec drugmaker to
step down in March.

The series of setbacks include gouging customers by hiking drug
prices and filing misstated earnings, the latter of which it
blames on its former chief financial officer.

Mr. Green also alleged Valeant and Afexa kept quiet about an
internal study conducted in the early 2000s that contradicted the
health claims around Cold-fX.

"The defendants knew at least as early as 2004, when they had a
study done themselves, that Cold-fX might be even less effective
than a placebo," he said.

"The study actually showed the placebo to be more effective at
relieving (some) cold symptoms than Cold-fX."

The study found the product effectively reduced the severity of a
runny nose during the early days of a respiratory infection, but
that it had limited efficacy in treating other symptoms,
particularly a cough and stuffy nose.

If the case receives class-action approval, anyone who bought
Cold-fX for the short-term relief of cold and flu symptoms will be
able to apply to a fund that will be created to get their money
back, said Mr. Green.

He estimated the total to be refunded would amount to about $500
million.  That calculation uses $50 million per year in estimated
revenues for Valeant from Cold-fX, then assumes a 100-per-cent
markup, over a five-year time period.

Because of differences in provincial law, a court victory in B.C.
wouldn't allow people outside the province who bought Cold-fX to
make a claim, said Mr. Green.  For that reason, an identical
lawsuit has been launched in Saskatchewan, where a positive ruling
would apply to everyone across the country.

A successful judgment from a B.C. representative plaintiff could
be taken to Saskatchewan to bolster the case in that province, he
said.

Valeant was expected to begin its defense on April 5 or April 6.


WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Franklin" Suit in Florida
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wal-Mart Stores and
Kraft Heinz.  The case is captioned as Tara Franklin, individually
and obo similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
and Kraft Heinz Foods Company, Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-00515-
JSM-EAJ (M.D. Fla., March 3, 2016).

The case is assigned to Judge James S. Moody, Jr.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Richard J. Lantinberg, Esq.
     THE WILNER FIRM, PA
     2nd Floor, 444 E Duval St
     Jacksonville, FL 32202
     Tel: (904) 446-9817
     Fax: (904) 446-9825
     Email: Rlantinberg@wilnerfirm.com


WORTH FINANCE: "Garcia" Action Seeks Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------
Jessica Garcia, and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Worth Finance Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00268 (W.D.
Tex., March 3, 2016), seeks damages for unpaid overtime,
liquidated damages, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and a
reasonable attorney's fee and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq.

Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues so triable.

Worth Finance Corporation provides personal installment loans
throughout the state of Texas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
     Daniel B. Ross, Esq.
     ROSS LAW GROUP
     1104 San Antonio Street
     Austin, TX 78701
     Tel: (512) 474-7677
     Fax: (512) 474-5306
     Email: Charles@rosslawpc.com


* Senator Says Homeowners Need Coverage for Failing Foundations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen McWilliams, writing for Hartford Courant, reports that
Sen. Chris Murphy said on April 2 that homeowners need coverage
for their failing concrete foundations.

"People need a level of protection," Sen. Murphy told eight
homeowners grappling with the issue.  "You assume it [homeowners
insurance] covers your house.  If you advertise a homeowners
insurance policy that it covers your entire home.  To call it a
homeowners policy when it only covers two-thirds of your home is
wrong."

Sen. Murphy met with eight homeowners on April 3 in the basement
of Willington resident Tim Heim's basement to learn more about the
issue and hear directly from homeowners.

"We are all the same here, we all get dressed the same, we are all
middle class," Heim said to the Senator.  "No middle class citizen
has $200,000 to pay for this."

As of March 30, 168 homeowners have filed complaints with the
Department of Consumer Protection alleging their foundations are
failing.  A dozen homeowners have sued their insurance companies
for refusing their claims and four others have filed a class-
action law suit against 111 active insurance companies in
Connecticut.

Sen. Murphy said he thought the best solution for homeowners would
come from a cooperative agreement with the insurance companies.

"It may be that the best way to solve this it to negotiate with
the insurance companies, but right now the state's leverage with
the insurance companies is small because we don't have the scope,"
Sen. Murphy said.

Like Sen. Richard Blumenthal and Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, Murphy
encouraged the homeowners present to get other homeowners with the
issue to file a complaint with the DCP.

"It's very hard to pitch solutions if we don't know the scope,"
Sen. Murphy said.

Homeowners impressed upon the senator, the urgency of their
situation.

Wally Brisson, a Stafford resident, said his house is showing
signs of its foundation failing.

"I don't have time to take a chance on this," Mr. Brisson said. "I
can't wait, I have to figure something out now."


* EPA to Set PFOA Permanent Health Advisory Amid Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff McMenemy writing for Fosters, reports that the Environmental
Protection Agency could be just weeks away from developing a
lifetime health advisory for a toxin that closed the city-owned
Haven well and has contaminated a growing number of water supplies
in New Hampshire.

Jim Murphy, the team leader for community involvement and
government relations for the EPA's Boston office, said "we're
hoping it's just a matter of weeks now" before his agency sets the
permanent health advisory for PFOA.

The city of Portsmouth closed the Haven well in May 2014 after the
Air Force found levels of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid 12.5 times
higher than the EPA's PHA.

The EPA classified PFOS and perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, which
was also found in Haven well but below health advisory levels, as
"contaminants of emerging concern."  PFOS and PFOA are a class of
chemicals known as perfluorochemicals.  PFCs were also found in
the city-owned Smith and Harrison wells at Pease International
Tradeport but never above the PHA.

The EPA has not set an enforceable drinking water standard for
PFOA under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, the state
Department of Environmental Services said in a recent press
release about PFOA found in wells in Merrimack and Litchfield.

EPA's Office of Water has, however, established a Provisional
Health Advisory (PHA) of 400 parts per trillion for PFOA, but that
level is only for short-term contact, it acknowledged.
DES is now providing bottled water for anyone whose wells test
above 100 parts per trillion.

That action comes as both Gov. Maggie Hassan and U.S. Sen. Kelly
Ayotte, R-N.H., have called on the EPA to expedite its effort to
set a lower health advisory for PFOA because of the potentially
dangerous and serious health effects from exposure to the
contaminant.

Shawn Garvin, Region III EPA administrator, said the "EPA is in
the process of developing an updated lifetime health advisory for
PFOA based on the best available science."

Mr. Garvin, in a letter to attorney Robert Bilott of Cincinnati,
Ohio, who has represented thousands of people exposed to PFOA,
said that once the lifetime health advisory is established, it
will "supersede the agency's provisional value for PFOA."
He predicted the lifetime health advisory would be set "this
spring."

Mr. Bilott, in a letter to Tom Burak, commissioner of
New Hampshire's Department of Environmental Services, said the
science panel was established after a class action lawsuit was
filed because of PFOA exposure Ohio and West Virginia.

As part of the settlement of the case filed by about 70,000
people, the so-called "C-8 science panel" spent more than seven
years and $30 million studying the effects of PFOA exposure, he
said in the letter.

The panel determined human exposure to even low levels of PFOA
caused "six serious diseases," Mr. Bilott said, including kidney
and testicular cancer, thyroid disease, hypertension and high
cholesterol.

He chided the DES for saying health effects from PFCs are
inconclusive, saying that claim is "inaccurate and ignores the
vast wealth of published, peer reviewed and independent C-8
Science Panel Research."

In the letter, Mr. Bilott also noted that EPA's Science Advisory
Board "recommended that PFOA be characterized as a 'likely' human
carcinogen almost a decade ago."

"Given the biopersistent nature of PFOA -- meaning that even the
tiniest, barely detectable amounts in drinking water will build up
in the human body over time -- and the finding of adverse health
effects in laboratory studies at lower and lower dose levels, many
scientists are questioning how a 'safe' level can ever be set for
PFOA in drinking water," Mr. Bilott said in the March 8 letter.

Sarah Vose, state toxicologist for Vermont, confirmed that her
state set its PFOA drinking water guidelines at 20 parts per
trillion, well below the 400 parts per trillion PHA set by the
EPA.

Vermont's level was set after looking at the draft health effects
determined by the EPA in 2014, Ms. Vose said.

"You take a look at the toxicity value and you combine that with
the exposure and that gives you the value," she said.  She noted
PFOA exposure is "particularly concerning" because "it has a very
long half life in the body."

She also pointed to the correlation of adverse health effects
caused by PFOA exposure.

"When you combine that with the fact it's in your body two to four
years, those two things led us to the conclusion this should be
mitigated," Ms. Vose said.

The level of concern people exposed to PFOA should have should be
based "on what level is found in their water and how long they've
been drinking it," Ms. Vose said.

Andrea Amico, the Portsmouth mother whose two children attend day
care at the former Pease Air Force Base where PFCs led to the
closure of the Haven well, said she applauds "the efforts of
Sen. Ayotte and the governors of New York, Vermont and New
Hampshire in their recent letters to the EPA advocating for an
expeditious decision on lower standards for PFOA."

"If the EPA continues to delay their decision on standards, I
would like to see New Hampshire take a much more proactive and
progressive stance and set their own standards for PFCs as seen in
other states such as New York, New Jersey and Vermont,"
Ms. Amico said.

She noted the former Pease Air Force Base, which is now a
Superfund cleanup site is "not the only New Hampshire community
facing PFC contamination in their drinking water."

"The state owes it to the many communities dealing with PFCs in
their drinking water to have standards that are protective of our
health and should not delay setting a standard any longer,"
Ms. Amico said.

Portsmouth's Deputy Public Works Director Brian Goetz acknowledged
that if the EPA lowered the PFOA standard, it could have wide-
ranging implications on communities.

"You've got something now that's in the news and there's a lot of
sites being tested," Mr. Goetz said.

He noted the city is working to design a new carbon filter system
to treat all three city-owned wells at Pease.

City officials are still searching for a site for another well,
but he acknowledged the Air Force shifted its priorities to treat
the tainted wells at Pease first.

"The city will get that volume of water through treatment of the
Haven Well," Mr. Goetz said.

The city still hopes to have test wells established for a new
water source by the fall, noting "treatment isn't going to happen
right away."


                            *********

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  * * *