CAR_Public/160412.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, April 12, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 73


                            Headlines


24 HOUR FITNESS: Faces Class Suit Over Hike in Renewal Fees
ABR PLUMBING: "Rivera" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
ALIN SUSHI: Faces Suit in N.Y. for Alleged Violation of FLSA
ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: No Trial Yet in PHI Lawsuit
AMAYA INC: "Carmack" Lawsuit Alleges Securities Act Violation

AMAYA INC: "Neuberger" Sues Over Share Price Drop
AMBEST INC: Court Declines to Enter Consent Judgment
AMN HEALTHCARE: Non-Union Nurses Sue Over Unpaid Overtime
ANHEUSER-BUSCH COS: Faces Second Class Action Over Beer Labeling
ARIZONA: Must Issue Driver's License to Immigrants, 9th Cir. Says

ATMEL CORPORATION: Faces Defective Airbag Suits in Fla. & Calif.
ATMEL CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of LFR Action
AUSNET: Maurice Blackburn Partners Get $16MM From Settlement
AVIVA PLC: "Silva" Suit Transferred to S.D. Iowa
BARCLAYS: Consumers Get Favorable Ruling in Mortgage Suit

BARKERVILLE GOLD: Faces Class Action Over Caribo Technical Report
BAYER HEALTHCARE: Recalls Essure Birth Control System
BEAZER: Extends Shingle Warranties After Homeowners' Complaints
BECO MOTORS: Recalls KYMCO 2015 Models Due to Injury Risk
BECTON DICKINSON: Recalls BD Angiocath IV Catheters

BIOMERIEUX SA: Recalls Vidas Lyme IGG II
BMW: Recalls X1 2016 Models Due to Injury Risk
BOK FINANCIAL: Discovery Ongoing in Class Action
BRICKELL 1414: "Gomez" Sues Over ADA Violation
BUNKING BAKERY: Recalls Bread Products Due to Allergens

CAPEX OILFIELD: "Hamilton" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
CC-PALO ALTO: Judge Dismisses Senior Citizens' Class Suit
CERINA GENERAL: "Guaillas" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
CHARTER COMMS: Sells Subscribers' Personal Info, Suit Alleges
CHENAL HEALTHCARE: Court Narrows Claims in "Tuohey" Suit

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: "Behrenbrinker" Alleges Price Manipulation
CHEVROLET: Recalls Malibu 2016 Models Due to Noncompliance
CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Judge Rejects "Gallagher" GMO Suit
CORE LABORATORIES: "Ashcraft" Suit Moved to S.D. Texas
COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: Driver's Suit Pending in Tennessee

CRESTWOOD EQUITY: Expects Settlement Okay During 1st Half 2016
CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over By-Laws in Delaware
DAIMLER AG: Mercedes Diesel Car Owners File Emissions Suit
DELOITTE & TOUCHE: Aequitas Investors Sue Over Ponzi Scheme
DEXCOM INC: Recalls Glucose Monitoring System, Receiver Kit

DOLLARAMA LP: Recalls Wooden Easy-Grab Puzzles
DOUBLE DOWN INTERACTIVE: "Phillips" Suit Dismissed
DOW CHEMICALS: Shareholders Sue Over $835M Settlement
ENZYMOTEC LTD: Co-Lead Counsel Provides Update on Class Action
ESSEX PROPERTY: Faces Suit Over March Data Breach

FLINT, MI: Snyder's Lawyers Seek Dismissal of Water Crisis Suit
FLORIDA: Class Action Over Child Healthcare Services Settled
FREIGHTLINER: Recalls Cascadia 2015 Models Due to Injury Risk
GEORGIA: Non-Profits Must Exhaust Admin Remedies, High Court Says
GRADIENT INSURANCE: Court Narrows Counterclaims in "Jacobs" Suit

GROUPE MARCELLE: Recalls Eye Makeup Remover Pads Due to Mould
GRUBE INC: "Osman" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
HAMILTON COUNTY, TN: WWTA Charge Class Action Back to Local Court
HAPPY PLANET: Recalls Protein Smoothie Products Due to Cashew
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Class Suit Challenges Global Payments Merger

HELIX ENERGY: Amend Complaint Filed in "Izadjoo" Suit
HOSPIRA HEALTHCARE: Recalls Levofloxacin Solution
HYUNDAI: Recalls Genesis 2012, 2011 Models Due to Crash Risk
IDAHO: Court Rules in Suit by Disabilities Program Participants
INFORM FOOD: Recalls Cheesy Pepper Tortilla Products

INSULET CORP: ATRS Lawsuit Remains Outstanding
IXIA: July 29 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
JAYCO: Recalls Travel Trailer 2016 Models Due to Injury Risk
L'OREAL CANADA: Recalls Moisture Dry and Sensitive Day Cream
LABORATORY CORP: Still Defends "Jansky" Action

LABORATORY CORP: Sandusky Wellness Files Appeal
LABORATORY CORP: Settlement in Bohlander & Andres Actions Pending
LABORATORY CORP: "Varsam" Action in California Resolved
LABORATORY CORP: Settlement in "Legg" Has Final Court Approval
LABORATORY CORP: Still Defends "Davis" Action in Florida

LABORATORY CORP: To Pay Plaintiffs' Atty Fees in LipoScience Case
LABORATORY CORP: To Pay Plaintiffs' Atty Fees in Covance Case
LAND OF LINCOLN: Seeks Dismissal of Insurance Class Action
LANNETT COMPANY: Pipe Trader Sues Over Digoxin Price-fixing
LEHMAN BROTHERS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Rinehart" Suit

LYFT: Judge Tosses $12.25MM Class Action Settlement
MACY'S MERCHANDISING: Recalls Stainless Steel Frying Pans
MANNARICH FOOD: Updates Recall on Fish Products
MDL 2371: J2 Global Appeal Remains Pending in 7th Cir.
MEDICINES COMPANY: June 7 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set

MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls 2016 Models Due to Crash Risk
MERILIN TRADING: Recalls White Pepper Salt Products
MGM RESORTS: Settlement in Securities Case Has Final Approval
MOBILE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT: Dismissal of Class Claims Upheld
MONDELEZ CANADA: Recalls Social Tea Biscuits

MONSTER BEVERAGE: 9th Circuit Heard Arguments in Appeal
NATIONAL FREIGHT: Notice of Removal in Wage Class Action Timely
NCAA: Judge Cuts Legal Fee Award in "O'Bannon" to $40.7M
NESTLE CANADA: Recalls Soup Mix and Gravy Products
NESTLE CANADA: Recalls Delissio Frozen Pizzas Due to Glass

NISSAN: Recalls Rogue 2014 Models Due to Crash Risk
NOVA: Recalls LFS and LFS Artic 2014 Models Due to Crash Risk
OCEAN PACKERS: Recalls Imitation Crab Sticks Due to Egg
OLD REPUBLIC: 2 Class Suits Against RMIC Pending in E.D. Pa.
OMRIX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls Pressure Regulators

OPKO HEALTH: Settlement in Bio-Reference Shareholder Suit Okayed
PFIZER INC: Judge Grants Request to Toss Zoloft MDL
PHILIP MORRIS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in "Lights" Class Action
RADIOSHACK CORP: July 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
SIRIUS XM: Enters Into MOU to Settle TCPA Class Action

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: Philadelphia Court Rejects Paxil Case
ST. JUDE MEDICAL: May 13 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
TERRAFORM POWER: "Chamblee" Sues Over Share Price Drop
TGI FRIDAYS: Appellate Court Reverses Class Certification
TNUVA: Court Certifies Class Action Over cottage Cheese Prices

TRANSUNION CORP: No Deal to Arbitrate With Sgouros, Says 7th Cir.
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Washington Post Seeks to Unseal Docs
U.S. BANCORP: "Podolski" Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Can Appeal Drivers Class Certification Ruling
UNITED PARCEL: 6th Cir. Narrows Claims in Solo & BleachTech Suit

UNITED STATES: Muslim-Americans Sue Over Terrorist Watch List
UNITED STATES: Immigration Sued Over Cash Bail Policy
USA WHEEL: Faces Suit in Tex. Court for Alleged FLSA Violation
VALEANT PHARMA: Lawyer Seeks Approval of Cold-Fx Class Action
VBI VACCINES: 2nd Amended Complaint in Furlong Fund Suit Tossed

VOLKWAGEN AG: Faces Another "Dieselgate" Class Action
WATTS WATER: To Settle "Ponzo" and "Klug" Cases
WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Bowman" Suit for FLSA Violation
WELLS FARGO BANK: Supreme Court Won't Hear Appeals
WILD PLANET: Faces Class Action Over Tuna Under-filling

WILLIS TOWERS: Motion to Dismiss Stockholders' Case Pending
WILLIS TOWERS: Updates on Stanford Financial-Related Suits
WWE: Faces Class Action in Connecticut Over Streaming Royalties
XPO LOGISTICS: Appeal Over Intermodal Drayage Claims Pending
XPO LOGISTICS: Settlement in "Molina" Action Approved

XPO LOGISTICS: "Arevalo" Lawsuit in Initial Pleading Stage
XPO LOGISTICS: Reached Deal Over Contract Carriers' Claims
XPO LOGISTICS: "Leung" Action in Initial Pleading Stage
XPO LOGISTICS: Continues to Defend "Pina" Suit in Calif.
XPO LOGISTICS: Con-way Acquisition Suit in Delaware Dismissed

YAHOO! INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Buch" Action
YAHOO! INC: Facing UCFW Local 1500 Pension Fund Action
YAHOO! INC: Appeal in TCPA Litigation Remains Pending
YUM! RESTAURANTS: Franchisees' Lose Class Action Bid
ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES: Parties to Complete Discovery by June 17


                            *********


24 HOUR FITNESS: Faces Class Suit Over Hike in Renewal Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that 24 Hour Fitness USA raised
annual renewal fees for customers with lifetime memberships,
according to a federal class action in San Francisco claim of
fraud and breach of contract.


ABR PLUMBING: "Rivera" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------
Richard Rivera, Plaintiff, v. ABR Plumbing & Heating Contractors
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01642 (E.D.N.Y., April 4,
2016), seeks unpaid wages plus liquidated damages, attorney's
fees, costs, and expenses incurred pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Laws.

ABR Plumping is located at 186 24th Street Brooklyn, New York
11232 where Plaintiff was employed as a helper. He was required to
work before the start of his official time but was not compensated
for this.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jesse Curtis Rose, Esq.
      THE ROSE LAW GROUP, PLLC
      3109 Newton Avenue, Suite 309
      Astoria, NY 11102
      Tel: (718) 989-1864
      Fax: (917) 831-4595
      Email: jrose@tpglaws.com


ALIN SUSHI: Faces Suit in N.Y. for Alleged Violation of FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Hai Zhong Chen and Wei Dong Cao, on behalf of themselves and all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Alin Sushi Inc.,
Rafael Nazariodefigueroa, "John" Lin, and John Does #1-10,
Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-02527 (S.D.N.Y., April 5, 2016), alleges
that pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, they are entitled
to: (i) compensation for wages paid at less than the statutory
minimum wage, (ii) unpaid wages from defendants for overtime work
for which they did not receive overtime premium pay as required by
law, and (iii) liquidated damages.

Alin Sushi Inc. is a Japanese restaurant.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

        - and -

     Vincent S. Wong, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT S. WONG
     39 East Broadway, Suite 306
     New York, NY 10002
     Phone: 212) 349-6099
     E-mail: vswlaw@gmail.com


ALLSCRIPTS HEALTHCARE: No Trial Yet in PHI Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
Allscripts Healthcare Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that no trial
date has been scheduled in the class action lawsuit filed by
Physicians Healthsource, Inc.

"On May 1, 2012, Physicians Healthsource, Inc. filed a class
action complaint in U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois against us," the Company said.  "The complaint alleges
that on multiple occasions between July 2008 and December 2011, we
or our agent sent advertisements by fax to the plaintiff and a
class of similarly situated persons, without first receiving the
recipients' express permission or invitation in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 (the
"TCPA"). The plaintiff seeks $500 for each alleged violation of
the TCPA; treble damages if the Court finds the violations to be
willful, knowing or intentional; and injunctive and other relief.
Discovery is proceeding. The plaintiff must file a motion for
class certification by March 31, 2016. No trial date has been
scheduled."

Allscripts Healthcare Solutions delivers information technology
("IT") and services to help healthcare organizations achieve
better clinical, financial and operational results.


AMAYA INC: "Carmack" Lawsuit Alleges Securities Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES CARMACK, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. AMAYA INC., DAVID BAAZOV, AND DANIEL
SEBAG, Defendants., Case 1:16-cv-01884-JHR-JS (D.N.J., April 5,
2016), was filed on behalf of a class consisting of all persons
other than Defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Amaya
securities between June 8, 2015 and March 22, 2016, both dates
inclusive, seeking to recover remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act.

Defendant Amaya provides technology-based products and services in
the global gaming and interactive entertainment industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Laurence Rosen, Esq.
     THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
     609 W. South Orange Avenue, Suite 2P
     South Orange, NJ 07079
     Phone: (973) 313-1887
     Fax: (973) 833-0399
     E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


AMAYA INC: "Neuberger" Sues Over Share Price Drop
-------------------------------------------------
Michael Neuberger, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Amaya Inc., David Baazov and
Daniel Sebag, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02500-UA (S.D.N.Y.,
April 4, 2016), seeks compensatory damages, interest reasonable
costs and expenses incurred including counsel fees and expert fees
and such other and further relief under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Amaya is a provider of technology-based products and services in
the global gaming and interactive entertainment industries.
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, failed to
disclose material adverse facts about its business, operations and
prospects, specifically that the Company's CEO, David Baazov, was
engaged in an insider trading scheme that involved influencing the
market price of the Company's securities and communicating
privileged information to third parties. Plaintiff alleges that
the Company lacked adequate internal controls.

Amaya's stock fell $3.07 per share, or more than 21%, to close at
$11.18 per share on March 23, 2016, on unusually heavy trading
volume. Plaintiff purchased Amaya common shares and lost
substantially.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

           - and -

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


AMBEST INC: Court Declines to Enter Consent Judgment
----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARK RUSHING, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMBEST,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 06-cv-7621-PJH (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denied the plaintiffs' motion for entry
of consent judgment, but granted the unopposed motion filed by the
defendant Chevron USA INC. for summary judgment against the
plaintiff Lesley Duke.

A conditional settlement was entered into on November 7, 2013
between Chevron and representatives of plaintiff classes, which
provided, among other things, that judgment was to be entered in
favor of Chevron as to claims arising under California law.  Duke,
however, did not agree to dismiss his claims against Chevron and
the other defendants.  Thus, the multi-district litigation court
severed those claims and remanded them to the district court.  The
court later granted Chevron's motion for entry of final judgment,
but stayed entry of that judgment pending final approval and
appeal, or expiration of the time to appeal, of the parties'
classwide settlement.  The final settlements are still on appeal
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

The settling plaintiffs sought entry of consent judgment in favor
of Chevron.  Judge Hamilton denied the motion, on the basis that
the settlement agreement provides that judgment shall not be
entered until after all appeals of final approval have been
resolved.

On the other hand, Chevron moved for summary judgment against
Duke.  Judge Hamilton granted the motion, finding that because
Duke did not opt out of any of the settlement classes, his claims
are covered and released by the class settlement.

A full-text copy of Judge Hamilton's March 25, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/FLnX1yfrom Leagle.com.

Mark Rushing, John Telles, Kenneth Becker, William Younger,
Charles Parrish, Roy Edson, John Taylor, Richard Galauski, Nathan
Butler, Plaintiffs, represented by Guy D. Calladine --
gcalladine@ccplaw.com -- Carlson, Calladine & Peterson LLP, Robert
Mark Peterson -- rpeterson@ccplaw.com -- Carlson Calladine &
Peterson LLP,David F. Engstrom, David C. Frederick --
dfrederick@khhte.com -- Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans and
Figel, PLLC, George Andrew Zelcs -- gzelcs@koreintillery.com --
Korein Tillery LLC, Gregory A. Lofstead, Howard Benson Becker,
Korein Tillery L.L.C., John Anton Libra --
jlibra@koreintillery.com -- Korein Tillery, LLC, Matthew D.
Hamrick, Michael Joseph Brickman -- mbrickman@rpwb.com --
Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman, LLC, Robert John
Cardillo & Stephen Matthew Tillery -- stillery@koreintillery.com -
- Korein Tillery, LLC.

William Boyd, Lewis Birckhead, Plaintiff, represented by Guy D.
Calladine, Carlson, Calladine & Peterson LLP & Robert Mark
Peterson, Carlson Calladine & Peterson LLP.

Chevron USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Kirsten Marie
Ferguson -- kirsten.ferguson@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP, Mary
Rose Alexander -- mary.rose.alexander@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins
LLP,Brendan Andrew McShane -- brendan.mcshane@lw.com -- Latham &
Watkins LLP, Darius C. Ogloza -- dogloza@oglozafortney.com --
Ogloza Fortney LLP, Garrett Stuart Long -- garrett.long@lw.com --
Latham & Watkins LLP, Heather Lynn-Thompson Potts, TurnerBoyd LLP
& Thomas J Heiden -- thomas.heiden@lw.com -- Latham and Watkins
LLP.

Citgo Petroleum Corporation, Defendant, represented by Terrence A.
Callan -- terrence.callan@pillsburylaw.com -- Pillsbury Winthrop
Shaw Pittman LLP.

TravelCenters of America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Rocky C.
Tsai -- rocky.tsai@ropesgray.com -- Ropes & Gray LLP.

Valero Marketing and Supply Company, Defendant, represented by
Reginald David Steer -- rsteer@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss
Hauer & Feld LLP, Chad Allen Stegeman, California Department of
Justice, Donald B. Craven, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP &
James P. Tuite -- jtuite@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer &
Feld LLP.

Motiva Enterprises LLC, 3rd party defendant, represented by
Kathryn Elizabeth McQueen Barnes, Esq., Thelen Reid Brown Raysman
& Steiner LLP.


AMN HEALTHCARE: Non-Union Nurses Sue Over Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Kaiser makes traveling nurses work over 12 hours without overtime
pay, and with some hours unpaid, they claim in Oakland, Calif. a
class action.

Lead plaintiff Evette Osuegbu sued AMN Healthcare and Kaiser
Permanente International in Alameda County Superior Court on April
6 on behalf of herself and all traveling nurses jointly employed
by both companies. The case is the Top Download for Courthouse
News on April 8.

"Defendants have engaged in a common scheme of routinely requiring
and/or suffering and permitting the traveling nurses to work in
excess of 12 hours per day without compensating them at the
statutorily-mandated double-time rate, and have failed to
compensate the traveling nurses at all for discrete periods of
work," the 27-page complaint states.

Traveling nurses work at various healthcare facilities throughout
the country that contract with AMN for around three-months, after
which they go to a new location, according to the complaint.

Nurses who work for both AMN and Kaiser are supposed to work four
12-hour shifts a week, but Osuegbu claims they routinely have to
work well over 12 hours a day without extra wages or normal
overtime pay.

She says traveling nurses have to attend mandatory staff meetings,
called "huddles," at the beginning of their shifts in which
supervisors discuss safety, show them how to use medical devices
and products, and "give motivational speeches. While the meetings
are scheduled to last only 15 minutes, they routinely last 30
minutes to an hour. As a result, traveling nurses are routinely
behind schedule from the start of their shifts."

They also have to "hand off" patients to the next shift of nurses,
which usually involves visiting around five patients with the
nurse scheduled to assume their care, filling out reports,
updating records, and briefing the new nurse on each patient's
health history and care plan - which can take up to two additional
hours, according to the complaint.

Though the defendants know huddles and hand-offs take can take
hours, they schedule only 30 minutes into each nurse's shift,
meaning traveling nurses often must wait 15 to 45 minutes for the
next shift's huddle to break up before they can start the hand-off
process. By that time, their own 12-hours shift has technically
concluded, the complaint states.

Osuegbu says she and other traveling nurses routinely work 13.5-
hour days despite being scheduled - and paid - for only 12 hours.

Even without the meetings and hand-offs, having five or more
patients per shift and the accompanying workload, such as taking
blood samples, writing records, filling out charts, administering
IVs, performing physical exams, and other duties, means that
nurses "typically cannot complete all of their duties within the
pre-allotted 12-hour shift time," the complaint states.

Kaiser requires traveling nurses to get a supervisor signature on
any double-time. But Kaiser supervisors routinely refuse to sign
off on the nurses' timecards, and Kaiser refuses to pay for their
overtime by citing lack of supervisor approval, making it "futile"
to report the true total number of hours worked, according to the
complaint.

However, when Kaiser's other nurses, who are unionized, request
double-time they are usually approved, the complaint states.

Osuegbu says she complained several times about not getting paid
all wages owed, but the defendants ignored her.

AMN did not immediately respond to an emailed comment request sent
April 7, afternoon. Kaiser responded that it had no knowledge of
the lawsuit.

Osuegbu seeks class certification, restitution for all wages owed,
and civil and statutory penalties for state labor code violations
and unfair business practices.

She is represented by Joshua Konecky --
jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com -- with Schneider, Wallace,
Cottrell, Konecky, Wotkyns of Emeryville, who also did not
immediately return comment requests.


ANHEUSER-BUSCH COS: Faces Second Class Action Over Beer Labeling
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Minsky, writing for Miami New Times, reports that on
April 1, a class-action complaint was filed by Dr. Henry Vazquez
against Anheuser-Busch Companies in United States District Court,
Southern District of Florida.  The suit alleges that the company's
Leffe beer hasn't been brewed by monks since the days of Marie
Antoinette.  The 51-page court document states:

"In reality, Leffe Beer has not been brewed at the Abbey of Leffe
since the Abbey was destroyed during the French Revolution.
Instead, Leffe Beer is mass-produced at the Stella Artois Brewery
industrial complex, not crafted in an abbey by monks with
centuries of skill at the craft.  In fact, the beer is produced
with little human involvement because the Stella Artois Brewery
is fully automated."

This is the second deceptive-labeling class action to be filed
this year against a major beer company, the fourth since 2013, and
the third filed against AB InBev in Miami.  Joaquin Lorenzo sued
MillerCoors in February, alleging Coors brands aren't brewed with
"pure Rocky Mountain spring water."

Like the others, the plaintiffs in the Leffe case accuse the
company of deceiving consumers of where the beer truly comes from.

Why are so many deceptive label lawsuits filed in Miami when the
major brewers aren't even headquartered here? It turns out there
may be several reasons.

Ross Appel, an attorney with Komlossy Law in Hollywood, Florida,
and provider of counsel to craft brewers, believes it might have
something to do with the success of the previous class actions,
two of which -- involving AB InBev's Kirin and Beck's brands --
were settled for basically the price of no more than a few cases
of beer.  However, attorneys handling the cases and class
representatives tend to make out a little better.

"My guess is that a couple of cases have resulted in large sum
settlements, so it seems that these consumers and their attorneys
see this as a favorable forum with at least a track record of some
success," Mr. Appel says.

According to Coral Gables attorney Ervin Gonzalez, it could simply
be that large cities such as Miami tend to have a higher
concentration of savvy consumers and attorneys who are proficient
in handling class actions. Gonzalez is representing Vazquez in the
Leffe case.

Deceptive-beer-label lawsuits are popping up elsewhere besides
Miami.  A New York man sued MillerCoors for its Fosters brand in
December 2015. In the same month, a Massachusetts plaintiff sued
Guinness' parent company, Diageo, claiming the beer isn't brewed
in Ireland.

"I think any large urban environment where you have a
sophisticated population and care about truth in advertising,
you're going to have a heightened level of litigation over these
types of issues," Mr. Gonzalez says.  "In the big cities, you'll
see a lot more class actions because lawyers understand the rules
of procedure and they can navigate those waters well."

One group of attorneys that's been getting some experience in the
beer label arena is Miami's Kozyak Tropin Throckmorton (KTT).  The
firm represented plaintiffs in the Kirin and Beck's cases. KTT
handles mostly commercial litigation that involves banks, although
the beer label cases were a little "off the beaten path," says KTT
attorney Thomas Tucker Ronzetti -- tr@kttlaw.com

All four Miami lawsuits center on customer deception; however, Mr.
Ronzetti says each case should be examined according to its own
merits.  For example, even though Kirin beer had its true origin
printed on the container itself, he argued that customers weren't
able to know this because the individual beers came bundled in
cases and the cases contained no information about the beer's
origin.

He says the Fosters case might be a little harder to prove
deception because the beers are typically sold in single, 32-ounce
cans with brewing origin information displayed, albeit it in fine
print.  Mr. Ronzetti says consumers shouldn't pay the premium
price for beer that's not imported.

By taking these cases, Mr. Ronzetti hopes to bring change to the
industry. But change in this sense may be a little hard to come by
with AB InBev.

New Times reached out to AB InBev.  Even after getting hit with a
third class action, the company stands by its labels.  Through
Lacey Drucker, a company spokeswoman, AB InBev simply said, "We
believe our labels are accurate and have no current plans to make
any changes."


ARIZONA: Must Issue Driver's License to Immigrants, 9th Cir. Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Arizona cannot deny drivers' licenses to some 26,000 undocumented
immigrants who were brought to the United States as children, the
Ninth Circuit ruled April 6.

The federal appeals court in Pasadena affirmed a permanent
injunction against the state's four-year effort to block so called
"Dreamers" -- young immigrants who have been granted Deferred
Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status - from receiving
drivers' licenses.

By creating its own class of immigrants, Arizona illegally usurped
an "exclusive federal authority," a unanimous three-judge panel
ruled.

In a state where commutes are often long, and reliable public
transit is spotty at best, the panel also found that the young
immigrants would be irreparably harmed if denied drivers'
licenses.

"Plaintiffs' inability to obtain drivers' licenses hinders them in
pursuing new jobs, attending work, advancing their careers, and
developing business opportunities," Judge Harry Pregerson wrote
for the panel. "They thus suffer financial harm and significant
opportunity costs. And as we have previously found, the
irreparable nature of this injury is exacerbated by plaintiffs'
young age and fragile socioeconomic status. Setbacks early in
their careers can have significant impacts on Plaintiffs' future
professions. This loss of opportunity to pursue one's chosen
profession constitutes irreparable harm."

The plaintiffs in the long-running case are five recipients of
deferred action under DACA, which President Barack Obama enacted
via executive order in 2012.

DACA defers removal for certain noncitizens who were under the age
of 16 when they came to the country, and have lived here since
2007.

Program recipients must be in school or have graduated or served
in the military, and must not commit any crimes.

Shortly after President Obama created the program, then-Arizona
Gov. Jan Brewer barred the Department of Transportation from
accepting Dreamers' Employment Authorization Documents as proof
that they were in the state legally, effectively denying them the
opportunity to obtain a drivers' license.

With the U.S. Supreme Court refusing to intervene, U.S. District
Judge David Campbell issued a permanent injunction against
Brewer's policy last year, finding that DACA recipients were no
different from other noncitizens who are eligible for drivers'
licenses.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed, nine months after it heard oral
arguments.

Pregerson agreed with Judge Campbell that "Arizona's disparate
treatment of DACA recipients may well violate the Equal Protection
Clause," but said the court's decision rested on the state's
"independent definition of 'authorized presence'" -- an authority
denied to the states under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

"Arizona has no cognizable interest in making the distinction it
has for drivers' licenses purposes," Pregerson wrote. "The federal
government, not the states, holds exclusive authority concerning
direct matters of immigration law."

Nephtali Moreno, a member of the Arizona Dream Act Coalition,
applauded the ruling.

"Everyone who knows how to drive and is otherwise eligible should
have the right to drive, regardless of the person's immigration
status," Moreno said in a statement. "As a DACA recipient, having
a license has allowed me to better contribute to my Arizona
community."

Daniel Scarpinato, a spokesman for Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey, told
Courthouse News on April 6, that the governor's office was
"reviewing the ruling."

The centerpiece of Obama's immigration reform plan, Deferred
Action for Parents of Americans, faces Supreme Court review later
this month.

The case captioned, ARIZONA DREAM ACT COALITION; CHRISTIAN JACOBO;
ALEJANDRA LOPEZ; ARIEL MARTINEZ; NATALIA PEREZ-GALLEGOS; CARLA
CHAVARRIA; JOSE RICARDO HINOJOS, Plaintiffs - Appellees, v. JANICE
K. BREWER, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her official
capacity; JOHN S. HALIKOWSKI, Director of the Arizona Department
of Transportation, in his official capacity; STACEY K. STANTON,
Assistant Director of the Motor Vehicle Division of the Arizona
Department of Transportation, in her official capacity,
Defendants - Appellants., No. 15-15307 (9th Cir.)


ATMEL CORPORATION: Faces Defective Airbag Suits in Fla. & Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Atmel Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that two substantially
identical putative class action lawsuits were filed on February 17
and 19, 2016, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida and the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against the Company and various
other defendants, including Continental AG and certain affiliates,
Honda Motor Co., Ltd. and an affiliate, and (with respect to the
Florida action only) Daimler AG and an affiliate.

The complaints-which include claims arising under federal and
Florida or California state law-allege that class members
unknowingly purchased or leased vehicles containing defective
airbag control units (allegedly incorporating defective
application specific integrated circuits manufactured by the
Company between 2006 and 2010), and thereby suffered financial
harm, including a loss in the value of their purchased or leased
vehicles. The plaintiffs in both suits are seeking unspecified
compensatory and exemplary damages, statutory penalties, pre- and
post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, and injunctive and other
relief. The Company intends to contest plaintiffs' claims
vigorously.


ATMEL CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of LFR Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Atmel Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that plaintiffs are appealing
the dismissal of the case, Southern District of New York Action by
LFoundry Rousset ("LFR") and LFR Employees.

On March 4, 2014, LFR and Jean-Yves Guerrini, individually and on
behalf of a putative class of LFR employees, filed an action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York (the "District Court") against the Company, our French
subsidiary, Atmel Rousset S.A.S. ("Atmel Rousset"), and LFoundry
GmbH ("LF"), LFR's German parent. The case purports to relate to
Atmel Rousset's June 2010 sale of its wafer manufacturing facility
in Rousset, France to LF, and LFR's subsequent insolvency, and
later liquidation, more than three years later. The District Court
dismissed the case on August 21, 2015, and plaintiffs are
appealing the dismissal.


AUSNET: Maurice Blackburn Partners Get $16MM From Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Hedley Thomas, writing for The Australian, reports that top
partners in a leading law firm have pocketed record dividends
totalling more than $16 million in one year arising from huge
settlements in class actions for the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires
in Victoria -- but the victims are yet to receive anything.

Several thousand survivors of the fires who signed up with law
firm Maurice Blackburn are still waiting for compensation, with
many in severe financial distress before, and since, a huge
financial settlement in 2014 and a second one last year were
entrusted to the firm to administer.

Some survivors of the fires were told two months ago they would
not see any funds until next year.

While the survivors wait, the richest dividend stream in Maurice
Blackburn's history began to flow to the firm's equity-owning
senior partners just days before a public announcement in July
2014 of a $494m settlement, the largest in Australia's class-
action history.

That settlement for the Kilmore East-Kinglake class action, which
was approved by a Supreme Court judge on December 23, 2014, was
followed by a $300m payout for the Murrindindi-Marysville class
action, which settled -- in February last year, and was approved
three months later.

The Weekend Australian can reveal that -- the dividends paid to
equity partners were $200,000 on July 1, 2014, followed by
$3,938,368 on July 9, $1.364m on October 31, $22,000 on November
7, $687,500 on December 23, $7,828,250 on February 18 last year,
and $2,029,500 on April 28 last year.

The windfall dividend payouts to the partners are disclosed in
financial documents filed by Maurice Blackburn Pty Ltd with the
Australian Securities & Investments Commission.

More dividends paid to the equity-owning partners in the 2015-16
financial year will be disclosed to ASIC later this year.

The firm, which employs more than 460 staff, reported a loss after
tax of about $7.5m, which it said was "driven by increased share-
based payment expenses and exit retirement benefits".

The $16,069,618 in dividends was not disclosed to most of the
firm's staff and it did not need to be disclosed to clients, who
knew that Maurice Blackburn would receive a lump sum of $60m from
the first class action to cover costs of running the risky case in
Victoria's Supreme Court.

A lump sum of $20.1m was also paid to the firm for the second
class-action settlement of $300m.

In addition to the $80m in lump-sum payments, Maurice Blackburn,
which is marketed with the motto "We Fight For Fair", is
continuing to earn millions of dollars in ongoing fees for
managing a lucrative scheme to determine payments to the victims
who signed up for the bushfires class actions.

The time taken to determine the sums has now surpassed the
forecast made by the firm in July 2014 that it would take 12-18
months to release the funds to the fire's victims and their
families.

Andrew Watson, who is in charge of Maurice Blackburn's class-
actions department, was appointed administrator of the Settlement
Distribution Scheme.  Other class-action schemes run by other
firms make interim payments to clients, but Maurice Blackburn did
not respond to questions about its policy.

The $16.069m in dividends in the last financial year compares with
$2.589m paid to the firm's senior equity partners in the previous
year, according to the firm's accounts with ASIC.

As the partner with the most shares in the firm, its chairman
Steve Walsh has been the biggest beneficiary from the dividends,
which are paid in addition to salaries and other benefits.

The firm's profits increase as the time taken to process the
individual claims drags on.  Documents based on orders by the
Supreme Court indicate that it is costing about $1m a month in
administration fees for clients of the first class action, and
legal sources estimate a similar sum for the second class action.

The Weekend Australian submitted 10 questions to Maurice
Blackburn.  The firm, which did not answer the questions, replied:
"Our sole focus since the start of the case and still to this day
has been to get the best outcome for clients as soon as possible -
- that is where all our energy is directed still to this day.  The
court has put on the record -- its satisfaction that we are doing
everything possible to expedite payments on the 10,000-plus claims
we are processing.  There has never been a class action in
Australia of this size and complexity and we will continue doing
everything we can to get this record settlement distributed as
quickly and as fairly as possible to our bushfire clients."

The lucrative case has its roots in the ignition of a bushfire
shortly before noon on February 7, 2009, as a result of a section
of power line at Kilmore East breaking and falling to the ground
during extreme weather conditions.  In December 2014, after the
first class action was settled, Supreme Court judge Robert Osborn
found: "In the course of the conflagration, 119 people died, more
than 1000 suffered serious injury, and approximately 1772 homes
and properties were destroyed or damaged."

The second class action arises from the Murrindindi-Marysville
blaze in northeast Victoria on the same day, which killed 40
people, damaged and destroyed more than 500 homes, schools,
community facilities, government buildings, businesses, livestock
and plantations and caused millions of dollars damage.

In a judgment in May approving the $300m settlement for the second
class action, judge Karin Emerton said: "There is plainly a
material advantage in the early receipt of funds pursuant to the
settlement, even if there were a possibility of obtaining greater
compensation at some uncertain time in the future."

The dividend sums pocketed by the partners who held the more
lucrative ordinary shares in the firm in the last financial year -
- Mr. Walsh, Josh Bornstein, Kathryn Booth, John Voyage (since
resigned), Rod Hodgson, John Salanitri, Bennett Slade, Liberty
Sanger, Mr. Watson and Peter Koutsoukis -- are not disclosed in
the financial accounts.

The first bushfires class-action claim, brought by the firm
against the owner and operator of the power line, a maintenance
contractor, and the state of Victoria, led to a trial lasting 208
days and settlement for just less than $500m.  In his judgment
approving the settlement, Justice Osborn said the survivors of the
fire had suffered immensely and needed the funds to pick up the
pieces of their lives.

"The experiences of the fire and its consequences have been
horrific for many group members," he found.  "The settlement will
materially reduce the stress and anxiety otherwise inherent in the
continuation of the proceedings and the need to establish the
extent of individual claims in an adversarial context."

In a subsequent ruling last May, judge Jack Forrest said that
"given the unprecedented size of the settlement sum, and the vast
number of claimants", it was important for the court to ensure the
settlement distribution "is undertaken in a timely, efficient and
cost-effective fashion".

Justice Forrest added: "Timeliness of distribution is particularly
significant in ensuring that claimants can get on with their lives
with some financial assistance and, inasmuch as it is possible to
do so, to put the events of Black Saturday behind them."

The ongoing settlement scheme run by Maurice Blackburn provides
that "all costs, expenses, taxes, levies, duties, charges, fees or
other imposts or obligations arising in connection with the
administration of the scheme . . . shall be paid from the (lump
sum) held by the scheme administrator from time to time".

Senior legal sources said schemes such as this were highly
lucrative, as law firms could charge fees of about $600 an hour
for essentially an administrative role, not a challenging legal
role.

A Maurice Blackburn spokesman said on April 8 that "all
administrative costs of conducting the distribution are subject to
assessment by an independent costs assessor and court approval".
He said Justice Forrest had indicated on March 31 his
"endorsement of our activity in this complex matter to date", and
cited the judge's comment the court was "satisfied that everything
is being done".


AVIVA PLC: "Silva" Suit Transferred to S.D. Iowa
------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RACHEL SILVA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AVIVA
PLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-02665-PSG (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Paul S. Grewal granted the motion filed by the defendants to
transfer the litigation to the Southern District of Iowa and
denied the motions to dismiss without prejudice to any renewed
motion after transfer.

Rachel Silva and Don Hudson filed a suit alleging that the seven
corporate defendants -- Aviva plc, along with various related and
successor entities -- used captive reinsurance transactions to
hide long-term liabilities and to defraud the plaintiffs and other
customers into buying tens of billions of dollars in overvalued
annuities.  The defendants argued that they did nothing wrong and
pointed out that state regulators approved each and every
transaction.

The defendants then moved to transfer the litigation to the
Southern District of Iowa, where several defendants are based and
many of the transactions at issue occurred.  Aviva plc also moved
to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, while the remaining
defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

Judge Silva determined that the defendants have shown that
transfer would be appropriate by identifying a number of
significant connections to the Southern District of Iowa.  The
judge found that two important defendants were headquartered and
domiciled in that district and all of the purportedly fraudulent
transactions occurred there.  Further, Judge Silva found that
plaintiffs' claims, although grounded in federal law, puts the
role and actions of Iowa insurance regulators and Iowa law
directly in dispute.  The defendants have also pointed to the
convenience of witnesses and, relatedly, the ease of access to
sources of proof.

A full-text copy of Judge Grewal's March 25, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/JmyEs4from Leagle.com.

Rachel Silva, Don Hudson, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew S.
Friedman -- afriedman@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman &
Balint, P.C, Charles John Crueger -- ccrueger@hrdclaw.com --
Hansen Reynolds Dickinson Crueger LLC, Erin K. Dickinson --
edickinson@hrdclaw.com -- Hansen Reynolds Dickinson Crueger LLC,
Francis Joseph Balint, Jr. -- fbalint@bffb.com -- Bonnett
Fairbourn Friedman & Balint, PC, Ingrid M. Evans --
ingrid@evanslaw.com -- The Evans Law Firm, Michael Aaron Levy,
Evans Law Firm, Inc., Sean R. Matt -- sean@hbslaw.com -- Hagens
Berman LLP, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP & Jeff D Friedman -- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Aviva PLC, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey B. Korn --
jkorn@willkie.com -- Willkie Farr and Gallagher LLP, Richard
Mancino -- rmancino@willkie.com -- Willkie Farr and Gallagher LLP,
Aaron Christopher Humes -- ahumes@sycr.com -- Stradling Yocca
Carlson & Rauth, P.C., Bruce Roger Braun -- bbraun@sidley.com --
Sidley Austin LLP & John Francis Cannon -- jcannon@sycr.com --
Stradling Yocca et al.

Athene Annuity and Life Company, Athene USA Corporation, Athene
Holding Ltd., Athene Life Re Ltd., Defendants, represented by
Bruce Roger Braun, Sidley Austin LLP, Hille von Rosenvinge
Sheppard -- hsheppard@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP,Joel Steven
Feldman -- jfeldman@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, Peter K.
Huston -- phuston@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP & Sarah Alison
Hemmendinger -- shemmendinger@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP.

Athene Asset Management, L.P., Defendant, represented by Bruce
Roger Braun, Sidley Austin LLP, Jessica Fitts --
jfitts@akingump.com -- Akin Gump, pro hac vice, Nicholas Cule
Adams -- nadams@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld LLP,
pro hac vice, Reginald David Steer -- rsteer@akingump.com -- Akin
Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP & Steven M Pesner --
spesner@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld LLP.

Apollo Global Management, LLC, Defendant, represented by Bruce
Roger Braun, Sidley Austin LLP, Jessica Fitts, Akin Gump, pro hac
vice, Nicholas Cule Adams, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld LLP, pro
hac vice & Steven M Pesner, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld LLP.


BARCLAYS: Consumers Get Favorable Ruling in Mortgage Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Burgen, writing for The Guardian, reports that banks
including Barclays and Santander face a EUR5bn (GBP4bn) bill after
a Spanish court ruled that millions of fixed minimum rate
mortgages were null and void because of the "lack of transparency"
in the way they were sold during the property boom.

The ruling in a Madrid commercial court comes in response to a
class action suit on behalf of 15,000 mortgage holders.  The
mortgages contain what is known as a clausula suelo, which fixes a
minimum monthly payment.  So, while still a variable rate
mortgage, the bank sets a cut-off point below which payments are
not allowed to fall.

Some 40 banks are involved, including Caixabank, Barclays, Bankia,
and Banco Santander.  Caixabank and Bankia abolished clausula
suelo mortgages last year.  The decision was anticipated by the
banking sector and many have already made provisions for a payout.
They have 20 days to appeal against the ruling.

The clauses were introduced to protect banks from negative
interest rates.

Most of the estimated 4m mortgages affected were sold during the
1997-2007 property boom when buyers were paying top prices for
their homes.  When the bubble burst they were unable to benefit
from falling interest rates.

It is estimated that those affected pay from EUR179 (Euribor
+0.5%) to EUR213 (Euribor +1%) more on a EUR150,000 mortgage than
they would if they didn't have a fixed minimum rate mortgage.

As the recession set in and people were unable to meet their
mortgage repayments, they were evicted in growing numbers, peaking
at an average of 500 a day in 2012.

Under Spanish law homeowners cannot claim bankruptcy over a
mortgage as it is regarded as personal debt.  So even after the
banks foreclose and repossess a property the former owner still
has to pay off the mortgage, as well as associated legal charges.

In May 2013, Spain's supreme court ruled that the mortgages of
this type provided by BBVA, Cajamar and NCG were "abusive".
The April 7 ruling handed down by judge Carmen Gonzalez goes
further, "condemning the banks in question to pay back the
quantities improperly charged under clauses declared null by the
supreme court".

This means the ruling is only retrospective to May 2013.  The
European court in Strasbourg is expected to rule on April 26
whether the banks' liability should extend beyond that date.  The
European commission has already said it believes the payments
should be backdated to the date the mortgage was signed, on the
grounds that if a clause is declared null, it's null from the
beginning.

The ruling does not outlaw this type of mortgage but says the
existing mortgages are null because of a lack of transparency on
the part of the banks which failed to adequately inform clients
what they were signing up to.

The class action suit was first brought five years ago by the
consumers action group ADICAE. Manuel Pardos, president of ADICAE,
praised the judge for her bravery.


BARKERVILLE GOLD: Faces Class Action Over Caribo Technical Report
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Barkerville Gold Mines Ltd. on April 8 disclosed that it has been
served with a proposed class action lawsuit that has been
commenced in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the "Notice of
Action") relating to an August 12, 2012, technical report prepared
by Peter T. George, P. Geo, concerning a mineral resource estimate
for the Cariboo Gold Project (the "Technical Report").  The Notice
of Action also names the Company's former President and CEO, James
Francis Callaghan, former CFO, Minaz Dhanani, the author of the
Technical Report Peter T. George and his consulting company, Geoex
Limited.

The representative plaintiff is requesting various orders and
declarations in the Notice of Action, including $9,900,000 in
damages, based on alleged misrepresentations in violation of
Canadian securities regulatory requirements relating to the
mineral resource estimate that was announced on June 28, 2012, and
incorporated into various disclosure documents, including but not
limited to, the Technical Report.

The Company has retained counsel and intends to vigorously defend
its interest and protect its rights.


BAYER HEALTHCARE: Recalls Essure Birth Control System
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 10, 2016
Posting date: March 29, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: Healthcare Professionals, General Public, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-57686

Notification to inform that women who undergo both an Essure
procedure and an endometrial ablation may be at increased risk for
certain events known to be associated with each procedure. This
notice provides advanced notification of an upcoming revision of
the Essure product instructions for use (IFU).

Endometrial ablation and the Essure procedure should not be
performed on the same day.

In women who have previously undergone an endometrial ablation,
the Essure procedure should only be performed if visualization and
accurate localization of the tubal ostia is possible. Performing
an Essure procedure after an endometrial ablation may be
associated with the following: unsatisfactory micro-insert
location and increased risk of perforation or creation of false
passage.

Endometrial ablation should be performed only after a satisfactory
Essure confirmation test to ensure the appropriate location of the
Essure micro-inserts.

Affected products:
A. ESSURE PERMANENT BIRTH CONTROL SYSTEM
Lot or serial number: All lots
Model or catalog number: ESS 305

Manufacturer: BAYER HEALTHCARE LLC
              1011 MCCARTHY BLVD
              MILPITAS
              95035
              California
              UNITED STATES


BEAZER: Extends Shingle Warranties After Homeowners' Complaints
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Proffitt and Rafael Sanchez, writing for The Indy Channel,
report that Beazer and Arbor Homes are extending shingle
warranties from one to four years after homeowners complained
about shingle and siding issues.

Beazer Homes will make the warranty retroactive to any home built
in the last four years that was damaged as a result of the 2016
storms.

Homeowners called and emailed The Indy Channel following its story
about wind damage to two Beazer Homes communities in Avon.  But
Avon wasn't the only community affected.

For Bruce Childs, it means the third shingle repair for his home.

"The consistent message from the company that's done the repairs
is that this is not a good shingle," Mr. Childs said.  "It's only
a 50 mph shingle, and we're having damage at less than 50 mph."

Owner after owner of Beazer Homes tells a similar story about
shingles that won't withstand higher winds.

Attorney Richard Shevitz filed a class-action lawsuit against
Beazer in 2004 over water damage to new homes. He won that case,
and says he's been hearing from more owners with shingle issues.

"With the recent disclosure of these problems with primarily
shingles and also siding, we're being told that there seems to be
some common or uniform defect in the way these homes were
constructed," Mr. Shevitz said.

Call 6 Investigates discovered Beazer has a troubled history with
Hoosier homeowners.

The company first began doing business in Indiana in 2002, when it
bought Crossman Homes for more than $600 million.

Before the purchase, there was a state investigation as a result
of 254 different homeowner complaints.

In 2004, Beazer found itself in another case involving
construction defects that impacted as many as 2,000 Central
Indiana homes under the Trinity Homes name.

The major problem involved bad brick work that allowed water to
leak into the homes. A class action lawsuit was filed in Hamilton
County, and Beazer set aside $24 million to fix the problem.

By all accounts, Beazer lived up to its previous legal agreements.

Attorney General Greg Zoeller said homeowners with new Beazer
issues need to file a complaint with his office.

"If there's warranties, if there's things that they have some
remedy at law, we can help at least through the mediation
process," Mr. Zoeller said.  "We also have a homeowner protection
unit that deals with these types of problems."


BECO MOTORS: Recalls KYMCO 2015 Models Due to Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 14, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: A.T.V.
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Engine
Units affected: 5
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016117TC
ID number: 2016117

On certain side-by-side off-road vehicles, water or moisture may
be able to enter the throttle cable housing due to its design and
location. If the vehicle were to be operated in freezing
conditions (below 0 degrees Celsius), the cable could freeze,
potentially causing the throttle to stick, which could result in a
loss of control and increase the risk of injury and/or damage to
property. Correction: Dealers will install and re-route a new
throttle cable.

  Make     Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----     -----      ----------------------
  KYMCO               2015


BECTON DICKINSON: Recalls BD Angiocath IV Catheters
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 10, 2016
Posting date: April 4, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-57748

There may be a hole in the catheter. In some instances, this
defect could result in catheter separation or breakage.

Affected products:
BD ANGIOCATH AUTOGUARD SHIELDED IV CATHETER
Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer.
Model or catalog number: 381700

Manufacturer: Becton Dickinson Infusion Therapy Systems Inc.
              9450 S. State Street
              Sandy
              84070
              Utah
              UNITED STATES

B. BD ANGIOCATH-N AUTOGUARD SHIELDED IV CATHETER
Lot or serial number: 3106688
                      3289840
                      4059581
                      4203557
                      5002915
                      5063827
                      5125565
Model or catalog number: 381720

Manufacturer: Becton Dickinson Infusion Therapy Systems Inc.
              9450 S. State Street
              Sandy
              84070
              Utah
              UNITED STATES


BIOMERIEUX SA: Recalls Vidas Lyme IGG II
----------------------------------------
Starting date: March 14, 2016
Posting date: April 4, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-57772

Some customers reported that they could not perform calibration.
Results of investigation reveal that calibration cannot be
performed due to S1 RFV signal which triggers "invalid
calibration" error.

Affected products:
VIDAS LYME IGG II
Lot or serial number: 1004127190
Model or catalog number: 417401

Manufacturer: Biomerieux Sa
              Chemin De L'orme
              Marcy-l'etoile
              69280
              FRANCE


BMW: Recalls X1 2016 Models Due to Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 3, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Seats And Restraints
Units affected: 1
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016107TC
ID number: 2016107

On certain vehicles, the screws securing the seat backrest and
lower seat belt anchor to the passenger front seat may be
incorrectly installed or missing due to a manufacturing process
error. In the event of a crash, the seat and seatbelt may not work
as intended, which could increase the risk of injury to the seat
occupant. Correction: Dealers will replace the screws that secure
the seat backrest and the lower seat belt anchor on the passenger
front seat.

  Make      Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----      ----------------------
  BMW       X1         2016


BOK FINANCIAL: Discovery Ongoing in Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Bok Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that discovery is on-
going in a class action lawsuit related to consumer deposit
accounts.

On March 3, 2015, the Bank and the Company were named as
defendants in a putative class action alleging (1) that the manner
in which the Bank posted charges to its consumer deposit accounts
was improper from September 1, 2011 through July 8, 2014, the
period after which the Bank and BOK Financial settled a class
action respecting a similar claim, and before it made changes to
its posting order, and (2) that the manner in which the Bank
posted charges to its small business deposit accounts was improper
from July 9, 2009 through July 8, 2014.

The Court has denied the Bank's motion to dismiss the claims as
pre-empted by federal law, but limited the plaintiffs' claim to a
breach of contract action involving only Oklahoma customers.
Discovery is on-going. A reasonable estimate of losses, if any,
cannot be made at this time.


BRICKELL 1414: "Gomez" Sues Over ADA Violation
----------------------------------------------
Andres Gomez, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all other
individuals similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Brickell 1414
Restaurant, L.L.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-21193-FAM (S.D.
Fla., April 4, 2016), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Title III of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 12181 et seq.

Gomez suffers from macular atrophy, refractive amblyopia, vitreous
detachment and high myopia thus rendering him legally blind. He
periodically attempts to review the Defendant's website to obtain
information about upcoming events, promotions, news and other
services offered but are unable to enjoy full and equal access
because numerous sections do not interface properly with and are
not readable using commercially available screen reader software.

Defendant is a Florida Limited Liability Company that owns and
operates Novecento Restaurant located at 1414 Brickell Ave.,
Miami, FL 33131 where in support of its business, it also offers
an internet website (http://www.novecento.com)which provides
information, specials, reservations, a copy of the menu and other
services to its patrons.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Louis I. Mussman, Esq.
     Brian T. Ku, Esq.
     KU & MUSSMAN, P.A.
     6001 NW 153rd Street, Suite 100
     Miami Lakes, FL 33014
     Tel: (305) 891-1322
     Fax: (305) 891-4512
     Email: louis@kumussman.com


BUNKING BAKERY: Recalls Bread Products Due to Allergens
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 10, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Soy, Allergen -
Sulphites, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: 501371 Ontario Ltd. (Bun King Bakeries Ltd.)
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10444

  Brand   Common    Size       Code(s) on        UPC
  name    name      ----       product           ---
  -----   ------               ----------
Bunking   Coconut   Variable   All codes where   None
Bakery    Buns      weight     milk, soy,
         (large)               sulphites and
                               wheat are not
                               declared on the
                               label
Bunking   Coconut   Variable   All codes where   None
Bakery    Buns      weight     milk, soy,
         (small)               sulphites and
                               wheat are not
                               declared on the
                               label
Bunking   Naan      Variable   All codes where   None
Bakery    Khatai    weight     milk, soy,
         (large)               sulphites and
                               wheat are not
                               declared on the
                               label
Bunking   Naan      Variable   All codes where   None
Bakery    Khatai    weight     milk, soy,
         (small)               sulphites and
                               wheat are not
                               declared on the
                               label
Bunking   Peanut    Variable   All codes where   None
Bakery    (jugu)    weight     milk, soy,
          Cake                 sulphites and
                               wheat are not
                               declared on the
                               label
Bunking   Jeera     Variable   All codes where   None
Bakery    Khari     weight     milk, soy,
                               sulphites and
                               wheat are not
                               declared on the
                               label
Bunking   Khara     350 g      All codes where   None
Bakery    Biscuit              milk, soy,
                               sulphites and
                               wheat are not
                               declared on the
                               label
Bunking   Twist     350 g      All codes where   None
Bakery    Khari                milk, soy,
                               sulphites and
                               wheat are not
                               declared on the
                               label
Bunking   Plain     Variable   All codes where   None
Bakery    Toast     weight     milk, soy,
                               sulphites and
                               wheat are not
                               declared on the
                               label
Bunking   Fennel     Variable  All codes where   None
Bakery    Seed       weight    milk, soy,
          Toast                sulphites and
                               wheat are not
                               declared on the
                               label


CAPEX OILFIELD: "Hamilton" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
Gregory Hamilton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Capex Oilfield Services, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00063-DLH-CSM (D.N.D., April 4, 2016), seeks
overtime compensation for all unpaid hours worked in excess of
forty hours including non-discretionary commissions or bonuses,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses, pre-judgment and post judgment interest and such other
relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a fluid specialist and claims of
not being paid overtime.

Capex Oilfield Services is a North Dakota corporation with its
principal place of business in Williston, North Dakota and into
oil field services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Tim Newsom, Esq.
      LOVELL, LOVELL, NEWSOM & ISERN, L.L.P.
      112 West Eighth Avenue, Suite 1000
      Eagle Centre Building
      Amarillo, TX 79101-2314
      Tel: (806) 373-1515
      Fax: (806) 379-7176
      Email: tim@lovell-law.net

           - and -

      Jeremi K. Young, Esq.
      Collin Wynne, Esq.
      THE YOUNG LAW FIRM, P.C.
      1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200
      Amarillo, TX 79101
      Tel: (806) 331-1800
      Fax: (806) 398-9095
      Email: jyoung@youngfirm.com
             collin@youngfirm.com


CC-PALO ALTO: Judge Dismisses Senior Citizens' Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge in San Jose dismissed senior citizens' putative
class action accusing a Palo Alto retirement community of
illegally funneling their six-figure entrance fees and four-figure
monthly fees to its corporate parent.

U.S. District Judge Edward Davila dismissed with prejudice 10 of
the 15 claims, and dismissed five claims with two weeks leave to
amend in his March 31 ruling.

Lead plaintiff Burton Richter et al. live at the VI at Palo Alto,
a 388-apartment independent living facility owned by lead
defendant CC-Palo Alto.

Davila found, in part, that the plaintiffs lack standing because
they allege hypothetical injuries rather than material harm.

Richter and five other named plaintiffs claimed that CC-Palo
Alto's policy of sending their one-time entrance fees to its
parent corporation would make it difficult for the complex to meet
its debt obligations to those residents.

The VI at Palo Alto charges entrance fees of $745,500 to $4.6
million, depending on the number of rooms in the apartment, and
monthly fees of $4,320 to $9,320, according to the complaint.

The entrance fees are called loans, 75 to 90 percent of which will
be paid back when residents move out, or will be returned to their
loved ones when they die, Judge Davila wrote in summarizing the
complaint. Over time, the refundable percentage of the fee
decreases.

CC-Palo Alto argued that none of the six plaintiffs was denied or
was awaiting the promised refund. Their argument hinges on an
alleged lack of financial reserves and the danger that the refunds
might not be paid.

Davila agreed.

"In order to have standing, plaintiffs' interest must have been
harmed," Davila wrote in his 35-page ruling. "Plaintiffs again
fail to allege any such harm."

Richter also claimed the monthly fees were "artificially
inflated," so they could contribute toward the corporation's
property taxes, earthquake insurance and marketing costs.

But Davila found that the residency contract clearly stipulates
that monthly fees can be used for operating costs, including
taxes, insurance and marketing.

"Because these costs were expressly provided for by the plain
language of the contract, plaintiffs have not alleged an injury
arising from their monthly fees," Davila wrote.

Plaintiffs' attorney Ann Marie Murphy said that though she was
disappointed with the ruling, the judge did find the retirement
community is subject to laws guiding the establishment of reserves
due to the nature of the refundable entrance fee contract.

"While we are disappointed in the decision, Judge Davila's Order
resolves a crucial issue in favor of the residents of the VI at
Palo Alto," Murphy told Courthouse News.

"Specifically, the continuing care contracts at issue are
'refundable contracts' under California's CCRC Law [Continuing
Care Retirement Community], and are therefore subject to legal
requirements for cash reserves."

Murphy said her clients are considering whether to file an amended
complaint.

CC-Palo Alto's lead attorney James McManis did not immediately
respond to an emailed request for comment.

Davila dismissed with prejudice the claims of financial abuse of
elders, concealment, negligent misrepresentation, breach of duty,
breach of contract, and breach of faith among others. He gave them
until April 15 to amend creditor claims of breach of fiduciary
duties or aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duties, payment
of illegal dividends, fraudulent transfer and corporate waste.

Murphy is with Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy.

The case captioned, BURTON RICHTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CC-PALO
ALTO, INC., et al., Defendants., Case No. 5:14-cv-00750-EJD (N.D.
Cal.).


CERINA GENERAL: "Guaillas" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
Ugalde Guaillas, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs
and the Class, Plaintiff, v. Cerina General Contracting, Inc. and
Ivan Cerina, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01633-DLI-RER (E.D.
N.Y., April 5, 2016), seeks injunction against Defendants,
recovery of unpaid overtime compensation due under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, statutory penalties,
liquidated and/or punitive damages from failure to pay overtime
compensation pursuant, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
costs and expenses of this action together with reasonable
attorneys' and expert fees and statutory penalties under the Fair
Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Laws.

Guaillas was hired by Defendants to work as a construction helper
for their construction business located at 41-08 Berrian
Boulevard, Queens, New York 11105. He claims to have rendered in
excess of 40 hours per work week without overtime compensation.

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


CHARTER COMMS: Sells Subscribers' Personal Info, Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Charter Communications fails
to disclose that it sells subscribers' personal information to
third parties, a class action claims in St. Louis Federal Court.


CHENAL HEALTHCARE: Court Narrows Claims in "Tuohey" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge J. Leon Holmes granted in part and denied, in part, the
motion to dismiss all counts other than Count III for ordinary
negligence in the case captioned BRENDA TUOHEY, as Personal
Representative of the Estate of Mildred May Bryant and on behalf
of the wrongful death beneficiaries of Mildred Mae Bryant, and
MALVORN MAY, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Charles
R. Stills and on behalf of the wrongful death beneficiaries of
Charles R. Stills and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
CHENAL HEALTHCARE, LLC, d/b/a CHENAL REHABILITATION AND HEALTHCARE
CENTER, et al., Defendants, No. 4:15CV00506 JLH (E.D. Ark.).

Brenda Tuohey and Malvorn May, individually and on behalf of all
residents and estates of residents who resided at Chenal
Rehabilitation and Healthcare Center, a nursing home in Little
Rock, from July 23, 2010 through the present, commenced a putative
class action, alleging that the Center was chronically
understaffed in violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act (ADTPA), the admission agreement, and the Center's
provider agreements, that the failure to staff the Center
adequately constituted ordinary negligence, that the defendants
participated in a conspiracy to understaff the Center, and that
the defendants were unjustly enriched.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss all counts other than
Count III -- ordinary negligence -- pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

As to Count I, Judge Holmes held that the ADTPA does not apply to
the defendants because of the "safe harbor provision" that
precludes actions pursuant to the ADTPA against regulated entities
engaged in regulated conduct.  The judge pointed out that the
defendants were engaged in actions permitted by a regulatory body
by operating a nursing home.

Judge Holmes also held that Count II states a claim for breach of
contract against the Center based on the admission agreement, but
fails as a matter of law against the other defendants.  The judge
explained that the contractual duties created by the admission
agreement may not be imposed on the other defendants, who are not
parties to the agreement.

Judge Holmes found that Count III fails to state a claim because
the provider agreement is not an enforceable contract.  The judge
explained that the provider agreement, which allows the Center to
participate in the Arkansas Nursing Home Program administered by
the Office of Long Term Care under Medicaid, is a statutory
entitlement contingent upon the Center's compliance with the
responsibilities outlined in the provider agreement.  A failure to
fulfill those responsibilities can result in sanctions or the
termination of reimbursement payments, but not in a claim by the
benefits recipients for breach of contract.

Judge Holmes also concluded that Count V fails to state a claim
for civil conspiracy because a civil conspiracy claim under
Arkansas law must be based on an underlying tortious activity and
cannot be based on a breach of contract.

Lastly, Judge Holmes held that Count VI for unjust enrichment
fails as a matter of law because generally, unjust enrichment does
not apply when an express contract exists.  The judge, however,
stated that any payments the Center received and retained are
recoverable damages arising from its alleged breach of contract.

A full-text copy of Judge Holmes's March 25, 2016 opinion and
order is available at http://is.gd/b0FbFxfrom Leagle.com.

Brenda Tuohey, Plaintiff, represented by Brent Lee Moss, Reddick
Moss PLLC, Brian David Reddick, Reddick Moss PLLC, Daniel K. Yim,
Reddick Moss PLLC, Howard Gregory Campbell, Campbell Law Firm
P.A., Joshua C. Rovelli, Reddick Moss PLLC, Robert William
Francis, Reddick Moss PLLC & Matthew David Swindle, Reddick Moss
PLLC.

Malvorn May, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew David Swindle,
Reddick Moss PLLC.

Chenal Healthcare LLC, LaVie Care Centers LLC, CMC II LLC,
Centennial Healthcare Corporation, Centennial Healthcare
Management Corporation, Centennial Healthcare Investment
Corporation, Shoreline Healthcare Management LLC, Coastal
Administrative Services LLC, Centennial Healthcare Holding Company
LLC, Centennial Healthcare Properties LLC, Centennial Newco
Holding Company LLC, ALG LaVie LLC, FC Investors XXI LLC, LV
Investment LLC, LV Operations I LLC, LV Operations II LLC,
Hilltopper Holding Corp, MCP LaVie LLC, Say La Vie LLC, Senior
Care LaVie LLC, Centennial Master Tenant LLC, Ralph Johnson,
Bonnie Wyoma Hayes, Defendants, represented by Gary D. Marts, Jr.
-- gmarts@wlj.com -- Wright, Lindsey & Jennings & Jerry Jon
Sallings -- jsallings@wlj.com -- Wright, Lindsey & Jennings.

Diamond Senior Living LLC, Defendant, represented by Jess L.
Askew, III -- jess.askew@kutakrock.com -- Kutak Rock LLP, Jeffrey
M. Fletcher -- jeffrey.fletcher@kutakrock.com -- Kutak Rock LLP &
Samantha Leflar -- samantha.leflar@kutakrock.com -- Kutak Rock
LLP.

Dana Thompson-Barker, Jill R Madden, Marilyn Files, Roseann Dawson
Owens, Denita Ann Takasaki, Defendants, represented by Jerry Jon
Sallings, Wright, Lindsey & Jennings.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: "Behrenbrinker" Alleges Price Manipulation
-------------------------------------------------------------
CATHERINE JAUNITA BEHRENBRINKER, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORP.,
CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION, L.L.C., as successor by merger to
CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION, L.P., SANDRIDGE ENERGY CORP., TOM L. WARD,
AND JOHN DOES 1-50, Case 5:16-cv-00320-D (W.D. Okla., April 5,
2016), alleges that Defendants have combined, conspired and agreed
to rig bids and depress prices for purchases of oil and natural
gas leasehold interests and properties containing and producing
oil and natural gas wells in violation of the Sherman Act, and the
Clayton Act.

Chesapeake Energy Corporation is a producer of natural gas, oil
and natural gas liquids (NGL) in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Noble K. McIntyre, Esq.
     Jeremy Thurman, Esq.
     MCYNTYRE LAW, P.C.
     8601 South Western Avenue
     Oklahoma City, OK 73139
     Phone: (405) 917-5250
     Fax: (405) 917-5405
     E-mail: Noble@McIntyreLaw.com
     Jeremy@McIntyrelaw.com

        - and -

     Lynn L. Sarko, Esq.
     Mark A. Griffin, Esq.
     Derek Loeser, Esq.
     Raymond J. Farrow, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Phone: (206) 623-1900
     Fax: (206) 623-3384
     E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
             mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com
             dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
             rfarrow@kellerrohrback.com


CHEVROLET: Recalls Malibu 2016 Models Due to Noncompliance
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 11, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Compliance Mfr
System: Structure
Units affected: 105
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016116TC
ID number: 2016116
Manufacturer recall number: 31820

Certain vehicles may not comply with the side impact protection
requirements of United States Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard 214, which is voluntarily-adopted in Canada. The two weld
studs that mount the front and rear side impact airbag ("SIAB")
inflators to the seat frame may fracture and separate during
airbag deployment. If the vehicle is involved in a crash that
warrants side airbag deployment, and both weld studs were to
fracture, the inflated cushion may not remain in its intended
position and may separate from the seat, increasing the risk of
injury to vehicle occupants. Correction: Dealers will inspect and
replace the affected side airbag modules as necessary, which may
include any combination of left, right, front, and/or rear side
airbag modules.



  Make           Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----           -----        ----------------------
  CHEVROLET      MALIBU       2016


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Judge Rejects "Gallagher" GMO Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge in San Francisco, April 4, dismissed without
prejudice a class action against Chipotle over its anti-GMO ad
campaign, in light of the recent withdrawal of the lead plaintiff
and her attorneys' attempts to add new claims.

Colleen Gallagher sued Chipotle in August 2015 over its "Food With
Integrity" campaign.  Through ads using phrases such as
"G-M-Over It," the fast food chain touted itself as the first in
the United States to use only ingredients derived from non-
genetically modified sources.  But Gallagher claimed that "among
other things, Chipotle serves meat products that come from animals
which feed on GMOs, including corn and soy. Chipotle's tacos and
burritos are also usually served with sour cream and cheese from
dairy farms that feed animals with GMOs. And, Chipotle also sells
Coca-Cola and other soft drinks that are made with corn syrup -- a
GMO."

Gallagher dropped out of action, for unknown reasons. Her
attorney, Lawrence King, did not respond to an inquiry on her
notice for voluntary dismissal.

U.S. District Judge Gilliam Haywood Jr. on April 4, dismissed the
action, noting that the first amended complaint that added six
class representatives and several new claims under Maryland,
Florida, and New York laws "went well beyond the scope of the
court's leave to amend."  Plaintiff's voluntary dismissal of her
case, coupled with the Court's order striking the new class
representatives and claims, means that nothing remains of this
action," Haywood concluded. "The additional class representatives
named for the first time in the FAC may file a new action against
defendant if they wish. However, they may not plead around the
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) by
substituting themselves for plaintiff without leave from the Court
or written consent from the opposing party, when plaintiff clearly
no longer wishes to prosecute her claims."

Chipotle attorney Charles Cavanagh did not reply to a request for
comment.

The case captioned, COLLEEN GALLAGHER, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. CHIPOTLE MEXICAN GRILL, INC., Defendant., Case No. 15-cv-
03952-HSG (N.D. Cal.)


CORE LABORATORIES: "Ashcraft" Suit Moved to S.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Philip E. Ashcraft, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CORE LABORATORIES LP, et al., Defendants, No. 2:15-cv-03192 (S.D.
W.Va.), Judge Thomas E. Johnston granted the defendants' motion to
transfer the case to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.

On March 16, 2015, Philip E. Ashcraft and Christopher D. Gandara
filed a complaint against Core Laboratories LLC, Core LP,
ProTechnics, and others alleging that the defendants failed to pay
overtime wages to the plaintiffs as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The defendants filed a motion to transfer the case on April 24,
2015 on the ground of forum non conveniens, arguing that venue
lies in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of Texas.

Judge Johnston agreed with the defendants, finding that all of the
contested actions or omissions giving rise to the plaintiffs'
claim occurred in the transferee district.  The judge noted that
the plaintiffs' wages were paid from the defendants' headquarters
in the Southern District of Texas and the determinations and
policies regarding these payments were also developed in that
district.  Judge Johnston further found that a substantial portion
of the relevant evidence in this case is located in the transferee
district and that a related matter is currently pending there.

A full-text copy of Judge Johnston's March 28, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/eu9vZi from
Leagle.com.

Philip E. Ashcraft, Christopher D. Gandara, Plaintiffs,
represented by Maria W. Hughes, HUGHES & GOLDNER & Mark Goldner,
HUGHES & GOLDNER.

Core Laboratories LP, Core Laboratories LLC, John Kalika,
Defendants, represented by Ethel J Johnson -- ejjohnson@shb.com
-- Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP & Richard F. Shearer, SHOOK HARDY &
BACON.


COVENANT TRANSPORTATION: Driver's Suit Pending in Tennessee
-----------------------------------------------------------
Covenant Transportation Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a class
action lawsuit by a company driver is now pending in the U.S.
District Court in the Eastern District of Tennessee.

"We are defendant in a lawsuit that was filed on August 17, 2015
in the Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles
County.  This lawsuit arises out of the work performed by the
plaintiff as a company driver for Covenant Transport during the
period of August, 2013 through October, 2014.  Plaintiff is
seeking class action certification under the complaint," the
Company said.

The case was removed from state court in September, 2015 to the
U.S. District Court in the Central District of California, and
subsequently, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court
in the Eastern District of Tennessee on October 5, 2015 where the
case is now pending.

The complaint asserts that the time period covered by the lawsuit
is "the four (4) years prior to the filing of this action through
the trial date" and alleges claims for failure to properly pay for
rest breaks, inspection time, waiting time, fueling and paperwork
time, meal periods  and other related wage and hour claims under
the California Labor Code.

"Based on our present knowledge of the facts and, in certain
cases, advice of outside counsel, management believes the
resolution of open claims and pending litigation, taking into
account existing reserves, is not likely to have a materially
adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements," the
Company said.


CRESTWOOD EQUITY: Expects Settlement Okay During 1st Half 2016
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crestwood Equity Partners LP and Crestwood Midstream Partners LP
said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that the defendants in a merger class
action lawsuit expect the court to grant final approval of the
settlement of the case during the first half of 2016.

On May 20, 2015, Lawrence G. Farber, a purported unitholder of
Crestwood Midstream, filed a complaint in the Southern District of
the United States, Houston Division, as a putative class action on
behalf of Crestwood Midstream's unitholders, entitled Lawrence G.
Farber, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Crestwood Midstream Partners LP, Crestwood Midstream
GP LLC, Robert G. Phillips, Alvin Bledsoe, Michael G. France,
Philip D. Gettig, Warren H. Gfellar, David Lumpkins, John J.
Sherman, David Wood, Crestwood Equity Partners LP, Crestwood
Equity GP LLC, CEQP ST Sub LLC, MGP GP, LLC, Crestwood Midstream
Holdings LP, and Crestwood Gas Services GP LLC. This complaint
alleges, among other things, that Crestwood Midstream's general
partner breached its fiduciary duties, certain individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and due
care, and that other defendants have aided and abetted such
breaches.

On July 21, 2015, Isaac Aron, another purported unitholder of the
Crestwood Midstream, filed a complaint in the Southern District of
the United States, Houston Division, as a putative class action on
behalf of Crestwood Midstream's unitholders, entitled Isaac Aron,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated vs.
Robert G. Phillps, Alvin Bledsoe, Michael G. France, Philip D.
Getting, Warren H. Gfeller, David Lumpkins, John J. Sherman, David
Wood, Crestwood Midstream Partners, LP Crestwood Midstream
Holdings LP, Crestwood Midstream GP LLC, Crestwood Gas Services
GP, LLC, Crestwood Equity Partners LP, Crestwood Equity GP LLC,
CEQP ST Sub LLC and MGP GP, LLC. The complaint alleges, among
other things, that Crestwood Midstream's general partner and
certain individual defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 by filing an
alleged incomplete and misleading Form S-4 Registration Statement
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

On August 12, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to consolidate
the Farber and Aron cases, which the court granted on September 4,
2015. Farber subsequently dismissed his claims against all the
defendants on September 16, 2015. Aron filed a motion for
temporary restraining order and requested an expedited preliminary
injunction hearing, which was scheduled for September 23, 2015.

On September 22, 2015, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) with respect to a proposed settlement of the
Aron lawsuit. The settlement contemplated by the MOU is subject to
a number of conditions, including notice to the class, limited
confirmatory discovery and final court approval of the settlement.
The defendants expect the court to approve the final settlement
during the first half of 2016.

"The anticipated settlement of the MOU has not and will not have a
material impact to our consolidated financial statements," the
Company said.

Crestwood Equity, a Delaware limited partnership formed in March
2001, is a master limited partnership (MLP) that develops,
acquires, owns or controls, and operates primarily fee-based
assets and operations within the energy midstream sector.


CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over By-Laws in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------
Cryo-Cell International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a class action
complaint was filed on January 20, 2016, in the Court of the
Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company and certain
current officers and directors of the Company (Case No. 11915-
VCG). The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties and is
seeking appropriate injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment
against defendants that a certain provision of the Company's
Amended and Restated Bylaws, as amended through September 22, 2014
is in violation of Section 141(k) of the Delaware General
Corporation Law.

The Company believes the litigation is without merit and intends
to defend the litigation vigorously. The Company's maximum
deductible under its Directors and Officers insurance policy for
this claim is $500,000.


DAIMLER AG: Mercedes Diesel Car Owners File Emissions Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Georgina Prodhan and Edward Taylor, writing for Reuters, report
that owners of Mercedes diesel cars filed a new class-action
lawsuit in the United States saying the vehicles likely contained
a "defeat device" used to cheat emissions testing, an accusation
that Daimler, which owns the carmaker, denied.

U.S. law firm Hagens Berman, which had already filed a complaint
in February, said new tests had shown that Mercedes BlueTEC cars
produced nitrogen oxide emissions in virtually all road tests that
were far higher than in controlled lab tests.

"The fact that Mercedes passed the dynamometer test in all tests,
but failed the real world test, is suggestive that like VW,
Mercedes is implementing a 'defeat device'," it said in its
complaint filed in the District Court of New Jersey.

Daimler said in a statement on April 8: "We consider this class
action lawsuit to be unfounded. Our position remains unchanged: A
component that inadmissibly reduces emissions is not used in
Mercedes-Benz vehicles."

BlueTEC is a filter system which uses urea to help rid exhaust
fumes of health threatening nitric oxides.  It is fairly costly
and used mainly in heavier cars like Diamler's large limousines or
sports utility vehicles, which are equipped with powerful diesel
engines.

The complaint previously filed by Hagens Berman was more limited,
alleging that Daimler knowingly programmed its so-called clean
diesel vehicles to emit illegal levels of nitrogen oxide in low
temperatures.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said at the time it had
requested information from Daimler in light of the lawsuit but had
not opened an official investigation.

VW, Europe's biggest carmaker, is facing its biggest crisis in
recent memory after it acknowledged last September that it had
rigged exhaust emission tests for up to 11 million vehicles
worldwide.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE: Aequitas Investors Sue Over Ponzi Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence P. Ciuffitelli, for himself and as Trustee of Cuiffitelli
Revocable Trust, Greg and Angela Julien, James and Susan
Macdonald, as Co-Trustees of the Macdonald Family Trust, R.F.
Macdonald Co., Andrew Nowak, for himself and as Trustee of the
Andrew Nowak Revocable Living Trust and William Ramstein,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, Eisneramper LLP, Sidley
Austin LLP and Tonkon Torp LLP, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-
00580-AC (D. Or., Portland Division, April 4, 2016), seeks relief,
consideration paid for the securities and interest, reasonable
attorney fees, and such other and further relief pursuant to
Oregon Securities Law.

Courthouse News Service reported that investors blame Deloitte &
Touche, Sidley Austin et al. for missing a $350 million Ponzi
scheme for which the SEC has blamed Aequitas Management.

Aequitas Management, LLC is the parent entity of affiliated
Aequitas entities that sold securities through their "Private
Notes" program and various Aequitas funds. Aequitas allegedly
failed to disclose that a significant portion of investors' money
was used to fund various Aequitas-related or sponsored companies,
without receiving fair value. Nor did Aequitas disclose the
substantial commissions it paid to Aequitas employees. Aequitas
spent money lavishly, and Aequitas' business operations did not
generate sufficient income to pay its obligations. Aequitas
manufactured an appearance of financial strength by manipulating
the value of assets carried on its books, frequently through
inter-company transactions Plaintiffs allege that Deloitte &
Touche, EisnerAmper LLP, Sidley Austin LLP and Tonkon Torp LLP
participated and aided in the unlawful sales of Aequitas
securities.

Plaintiffs purchased Aequitas and lost substantially upon
corrective disclosures were made public.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy S. DeJong, Esq.
      Keith A. Ketterling, Esq.
      Timothy S. DeJong, Esq.
      Jacob S. Gill, Esq.
      Nadia H. Dahab, Esq.
      STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.
      209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
      Portland, OR 97204
      Telephone: (503) 227-1600
      Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
      Email: kketterling@stollberne.com
             tdejong@stollberne.com
             jgill@stollberne.com
             ndahab@stollberne.com

           - and -

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


DEXCOM INC: Recalls Glucose Monitoring System, Receiver Kit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 15, 2016
Posting date: March 30, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type I
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-57700

Audiable alert and alarms on the Dexcom G4 and G4 PLATINUM CGM
system receiver may fail (intermittent audio and no audio).

Affected products:
A. Dexcom G4 Continuous Glucose Monitoring System - Receiver
Lot or serial number: More than 100 numbers, contact manufacturer.

Model or catalog number: STK-GL-105

Manufacturer: DEXCOM, INC.
              6340 SEQUENCE DRIVE
              SAN DIEGO
              92121-4356
              California
              UNITED STATES

B. DEXCOM G4 CONTINUOUS GLUCOSE MONITORING SYSTEM - Replacement
Lot or serial number: More than 100 numbers, contact manufacturer.
Model or catalog number: STR-GL-101

Manufacturer: DEXCOM, INC.
              6340 SEQUENCE DRIVE
              SAN DIEGO
              92121-4356
              California
              UNITED STATES

C. DEXCOM G4 PLATINUM RECEIVER KIT
Lot or serial number: More than 100 numbers, contact manufacturer.
Model or catalog number: STK-GL-113
                         STR-GL-102

Manufacturer: DEXCOM, INC.
              6340 SEQUENCE DRIVE
              SAN DIEGO
              92121-4356
              California
              UNITED STATES


DOLLARAMA LP: Recalls Wooden Easy-Grab Puzzles
----------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 1, 2016
Posting date: March 1, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Toys
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Choking Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-57268

This recall involves Wooden Easy-Grab Puzzles.  The 3 piece
puzzles depict various animals (farm, garden, ocean and jungle
animals themes) and have wooden knobs.  The products are intended
for children 24 months and older and can be identified by item
#08-3032698 and UPC 6 67888 17495 9.  Puzzle pieces showing the
end of a metallic peg on the underside are not included in this
recall.

The wooden knobs may separate from the puzzle pieces, posing a
choking hazard to young children.

Dollarama has received one report of a knob detaching from a
puzzle piece, with no reported injuries.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of these products.

Consumers can find information on how to choose safe toys and
protect their children when they play by visiting the General toy
safety tips page on the Healthy Canadians website.

Approximately 23,952 of the recalled puzzles were sold in Canada.

The recalled puzzles were sold from June 2015 to January 2016 in
Dollarama stores across Canada.

Manufactured in China.

Importer: Dollarama L.P/S.E.C.
          Montreal
          Quebec
          CANADA

Manufacturer: Zhejiang Huangyan Hongni Arts & Craft factory
              Zhejiang Province
              Taizhou
              CHINA


DOUBLE DOWN INTERACTIVE: "Phillips" Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARGO PHILLIPS, Plaintiff, v. DOUBLE DOWN
INTERACTIVE LLC, Defendant, No. 15 C 04301 (N.D. Ill.), Judge
Edmond E. Chang granted Double Down Interactive LLC's motion to
dismiss all counts in Margo Phillips' First Amended Complaint.

Phillips brought a proposed class-action suit against Double Down,
alleging that its online casino games are not just games but
unlawful gambling devices under Illinois state law.  Phillips
sought to force Double Down to stop operating those alleged
devices and to recover all lost monies paid to the online casino.
In her amended complaint, Phillips asserted causes of action for
violation of the Illinois Loss Recovery Act (Counts 1 and 2),
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act (ICFA)(Count 3), and for unjust enrichment (Count
4).

Judge Chang held that Counts 1 and 2 of the complaint fail because
Double Down's online casino games do not have a "loser" or a
"winner," as those terms are used in the Illinois Loss Recovery
Act.

Likewise, Judge Chang dismissed the ICFA claim in Count 3 because
Phillips failed to satisfactorily allege that Double Down's
conduct was offensive to public policy, immoral, unethical,
oppressive, or unscrupulous, or causes substantial injury to
consumers so as to be considered as "unfair" business practice
under the ICFA.

Lastly, Judge Chang also dismissed Phillips' unjust enrichment
claim because it rests on the same conduct alleged in Phillips'
first three counts, all which have already been found invalid.

A full-text copy of Judge Chang's March 25, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/8E3tMHfrom
Leagle.com.

Margo Phillips, Plaintiff, represented by Courtney Christine Booth
-- cbooth@edelson.com -- Edelson P.C., Amir Cheyenne Missaghi --
amissaghi@edelson.com -- Edelson PC, Benjamin Harris Richman --
brichman@edelson.com -- Edelson PC & Rafey S. Balabanian, Edelson
PC.

Double Down Interactive LLC, Defendant, represented by Eric Neal
Macey -- emacey@novackmacey.com -- Novack and Macey, LLP,
Christopher S. Moore -- cmoore@novackmacey.com -- Novack and
Macey, LLP, Joshua Edward Liebman -- jliebman@novackmacey.com --
Novack and Macey, LLP & Rebekah Hava Parker --
rparker@novackmacey.com -- Novack and Macey LLP.


DOW CHEMICALS: Shareholders Sue Over $835M Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Dow Chemical's board of directors wasted corporate assets by
fighting price-fixing allegations for 10 years before agreeing to
a $835 million settlement, a shareholder claims in court.

The shareholder derivative action filed on behalf of The Dow
Chemical Company in Detroit Federal Court is an example of how the
death Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia is having consequences
on litigation throughout the federal court system.

In 2005, Dow, BASF, Huntsman International and Lyondell Chemical
Co. were accused in a class action of conspiring to artificially
inflate polyurethane prices.

Dow was the only defendant that refused to settle.

A Kansas jury found the chemical company liable in 2013, and Dow
appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.  But the death of Justice
Antonin Scalia left Dow with a slim chance of victory. Its briefs
relied heavily on two rulings authored by Scalia regarding class
action law, one in favor of Wal-Mart, and another in favor of
Comcast.

In February, Dow agreed to pay $835 million to settle the case.

"While Dow is settling this case, it continues to strongly believe
that it was not part of any conspiracy and the judgment was
fundamentally flawed as a matter of class action law," the company
said in a statement announcing the settlement.

Shareholder S.M. Levine sued the Dow CEO Andrew Liveris and the
company's board on April 6, alleging that "Dow's Board and
knowledgeable senior officers, out of misguided loyalty to
defendant Andrew N. Liveris, Dow's Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, conspired to acquiesce in and 'cover up' massive,
unjustified, multi-year misuse of Dow's assets by him."

The lawsuit describes Liveris has having "complete hegemony over
the company and fellow directors."

Levine says Liveris wasted Dow's assets by exposing the company to
almost $1 billion in damages in the polyurethane class action,
which "could have, and should have, been settled for far less
and/or not brought in the first place had adequate internal
controls and antitrust compliance procedures been in place to
prevent the wrongdoing."

Liveris, a 40-year veteran at Dow, plans to retire by mid-2017,
following the completion of Dow's prospective merger with DuPont
Company. At the time, he will reportedly receive $53 million in
cash and stock.

Dow's CEO faced a whistleblower action filed in 2014 by a 25-year
employee of Dow accusing him of substantially misusing corporate
assets. This case settled after a judge denied Dow's motion to
dismiss, but Levine says he will seek to have the complaint
unsealed to determine the extent of Liveris's abuses, and the
amount the company spent to defend the suit.

Liveris allegedly repaid Dow a portion of the misused assets, but
there has been no complete accounting, the shareholder says.

Levine seeks damages on behalf of Dow for breach of fiduciary duty
and waste of corporate assets, and a court order for the reform of
the company's internal control procedures.

He is represented by:

     Michael Pitt, Esq.
     PITT, MCGEHEE, PALMER & RIVERS
     117 West 4th Street Suite 200
     Royal Oak, MI 48067


ENZYMOTEC LTD: Co-Lead Counsel Provides Update on Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Co-Lead Counsel in the securities class action lawsuit pending in
the District of New Jersey, which was filed in September 2014,
provide this update to purchasers of Enzymotec Ltd.'s
("Enzymotec") common stock during the Class Period between
September 27, 2013 and August 4, 2014, inclusive, and also to
purchasers of Enzymotec shares pursuant and/or traceable to the
Company's initial public offering of its common stock (the "IPO")
on or about September 27, 2013 and the Company's secondary public
offering ("SPO") on or about February 27, 2014.

The lawsuit, In re Enzymotec Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:14-cv-05556, alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933 against Enzymotec and
several of its executives and directors, and has been assigned to
United States District Judge John Michael Vazquez.  A copy of the
Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal
Securities Laws filed by Co-Lead Counsel is available on Saxena
White's website at www.saxenawhite.com

In its December 14, 2015 Order denying in part Defendants' motion
to dismiss, the Court stated that determining whether Lead
Plaintiffs have standing to represent claims in connection with
the SPO is an issue "to be resolved through discovery, as to
whether plaintiffs can demonstrate that the shares they allegedly
purchased are in fact traceable to the registration statement
alleged to be false and misleading."  In their motion to dismiss,
Defendants' argued, and are expected to continue arguing, that
"because there were already Enzymotec shares available in the
market," Plaintiffs' claims in connection with the SPO should fail
because Plaintiffs did not "purchase [] shares on the date that
the secondary offering went effective [] at the price at which
shares were offered in the secondary offering."

If Defendants are successful in their standing argument, certain
class members may not be able to recover their losses stemming
from their purchases of Enzymotec securities in the SPO.  If you
purchased Enzymotec common stock directly in the IPO and/or SPO
and suffered losses in connection therewith, you may qualify to
serve as a representative plaintiff in this action.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning your rights or interests with respect to these matters,
please contact Donald A. Ecklund (973-994-1700) at Carella, Byrne,
Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello, P.C., Lester R. Hooker (561-206-
6708) at Saxena White P.A., or Richard A. Maniskas (484-588-5516)
at Ryan & Maniskas LLP.

Based in Roseland, New Jersey and assisting clients nationwide,
the law firm of Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello,
P.C. provides services in litigation, intellectual property,
transactional, administrative, government and public policy,
health care, bond counseling, environmental, bankruptcy, and class
action matters.

Saxena White P.A., located in Boca Raton, focuses its practice in
prosecuting securities fraud and complex class actions on behalf
of institutions and individuals. Currently serving as lead counsel
in numerous securities fraud class actions nationwide, the firm
has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of injured
investors and is active in major litigation pending in federal and
state courts throughout the United States.
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is a national shareholder litigation firm.
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is devoted to protecting the interests of
individual and institutional investors in shareholder actions in
state and federal courts nationwide.

CONTACT INFORMATION

Donald A. Ecklund
decklund@carellabyrne.com
Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, New Jersey 07068
Tel: (973) 994-1700
Fax: (973) 994-1744
http://www.carellabyrne.com

Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
lhooker@saxenawhite.com
Saxena White P.A.
5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601
Boca Raton, FL 33486
Tel: (561) 206-6708
Fax: (866) 290-1291
http://www.saxenawhite.com

Richard A. Maniskas
rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP
995 Old Eagle School Rd., St. 311
Wayne, Pennsylvania 19087
Tel: (484) 588-5516
Fax: (484) 450-2582
http://www.rmclasslaw.com


ESSEX PROPERTY: Faces Suit Over March Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Essex Property Trust exposed
1,500 employees to identity theft in a March data breach, a class
action claims in San Francisco Federal Court.


FLINT, MI: Snyder's Lawyers Seek Dismissal of Water Crisis Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Chambers, writing for The Detroit News, reports that
lawyers for Gov. Rick Snyder want a proposed class action lawsuit
filed by Flint residents over water contamination dismissed
because it was not filed within six months of the city's April
2014 water switch.

Filed on April 4 in the Michigan Court of Claims, Snyder's
attorneys argue that plaintiffs Melissa Mays and nine other Flint
residents filed their claim for damages on Jan. 15, 2016, when the
"cause of action" occurred -- use of the Flint River water without
corrosion treatment -- on April 25, 2014.

The lawsuit says either the claim itself or a notice of intent to
file the claim must be filed within six months of the event that
gave rise to the cause of action.

"Plaintiffs did not give timely notice of their claims.  There is
no legal basis for extending the notice period," the complaint
said.

Ms. Mays sued Gov. Snyder, the Michigan departments of
Environmental Quality and Health and Human Services as well as two
of Flint's former emergency managers -- Darnell Earley and Jerry
Ambrose -- seeking damages for living in a city with a poisoned
water system.

In their motion for summary disposition, attorneys for Snyder and
others say the Flint water crisis is a significant and serious
public health issue.

"Some may view this lawsuit as an appropriate response to the
public-health crisis confronting Flint and the State.  But these
concerns do not displace the requirements of our judicial system,"
the suit reads.

"Parties must give the State adequate notice before filing suit.
And even where such notice is given, the party still must state a
claim on which relief can be granted in avoidance of State
Defendants' immunity. With those requirements in mind, this
lawsuit is not the proper mechanism to resolve Flint's water
crisis."

The purpose of the notice requirement, attorneys say, is "not only
to provide potential plaintiffs the assurance that their claim is
timely, but to, among other things, notify the State where to
invest limited state resources in anticipation of litigation."

The state health department downplayed independent research
suggesting a rise in lead exposure among Flint children as late as
September 2015, a finding it would later confirm on or about Oct.
1, prompting an elevated response from the Snyder administration.

Deborah A. La Belle, attorney for Ms. Mays and the other
plaintiffs, said Snyder's claims are disingenuous.  Her clients
filed their lawsuit when they became aware of the problem.

"There are questions of fraudulent concealment (by the governor)
and I don't think you can claim on the one hand people have not
timely filed when you concealed the information that would later
lead them to the danger," Ms. La Belle said.

"I would ask the governor why he didn't take steps earlier to
raise the issue," she said.

Ms. Mays filed her lawsuit in the Court of Claims after filing
similar lawsuit in U.S. District Court and in Genesee County
Circuit Court.

Ms. Mays' federal case was the first to seek class action status
on behalf of Flint residents.

The federal suit claims state and local officials failed to
properly monitor and sample the water and delayed notifying the
public of serious safety and health risks.

"For more than 18 months, state and local government officials
ignored irrefutable evidence that the water pumped from the Flint
River exposed the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class to extreme
toxicity, causing serious and dire injury and health hazards, and
property damage to the Flint water users," the federal suit reads.


FLORIDA: Class Action Over Child Healthcare Services Settled
------------------------------------------------------------
Consuella Pachico, writing for Legal Reader, reports that an
eleven-year-old Florida class action lawsuit has settled. "Florida
will increase access to healthcare and dental insurance for poor
children," the groups behind the legal action said.

The class action lawsuit was filed in 2005.  The plaintiffs
accused Florida officials of failing to adequately pay doctors for
providing two million children with healthcare services.  The
failure to properly pay doctors discourages physicians from
providing poor children with sufficient medical services.

The settlement forces the state of Florida to increase payments to
physicians who treat poor children and sets benchmarks for
preventative and dental treatment to be met over five years,
according to the Philadelphia based Public Interest Law Center,
which represented the plaintiffs.

Florida health officials, attorneys for the plaintiffs, and the
Florida chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics, were
ordered to negotiate a settlement in December 2014, after a U.S.
district court judge found that Florida fell short of federal
standards for providing healthcare to poor children.

"Nearly 80 percent of children with government supported
healthcare in Florida were never able to see a dentist," the judge
said in his ruling.

"The agreement marks a significant step forward in improving
access to medical care for poor children in Florida,"
Tommy Schechtman, president of the Florida chapter of the American
Academy of Pediatrics, said in a statement.

The settlement must still get final approval from a judge.

Children should be provided with regular and preventative
healthcare as well as dental care.  If a child is not provided
with preventative care, emergency room visits may increase.
Emergency room visits can become very expensive and even more
expensive if the bill is partially paid or never paid.  And
because Doctors know they will not be adequately compensated for
their service, they may provide mediocre care.


FREIGHTLINER: Recalls Cascadia 2015 Models Due to Injury Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 8, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Heater And Defroster
Units affected: 1282
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016113TC
ID number: 2016113
Manufacturer recall number: FL-703

On certain vehicles equipped with Bergstrom Parksmart HVAC units,
there maybe be inadequate electrical contact within the connector
at the top of the compressor. This could cause an increased
resistance in the circuit resulting in localized heating, which
would increase the risk of fire causing injury and/or damage to
property. Correction: Dealers will remove the open style design
connector cap and replace it with an improved closed design cap,
and will also inspect the compressor connector terminal for any
signs of heat discolouration and replace the harness if
discolouration is found.

  Make           Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----           -----        ----------------------
  FREIGHTLINER   CASCADIA     2015


GEORGIA: Non-Profits Must Exhaust Admin Remedies, High Court Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF BEHAVIORAL HEALTH AND
DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES et al. v. UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY OF
GEORGIA, INC. et al., S15G1183 (Ga.), the Supreme Court of Georgia
reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals which held that the
defendants' alleged failure to give the plaintiffs proper notice
of adverse agency decisions excused the plaintiffs from the
requirement to exhaust administrative remedies.

The United Cerebral Palsy of Georgia, Inc. and three other Georgia
nonprofit corporations that provide services to Medicaid patients
with intellectual and developmental disabilities, along with four
individuals who receive those services, filed a putative class
action complaint against the Department of Community Health (DCH),
the Georgia Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental
Disabilities (DBHDD), and their commissioners.  The complaint
alleged that since 2008, the defendants have used various
unapproved and secretive methods to avoid paying providers the
approved reimbursement rates and to limit the amount of services
that recipients can receive, sometimes below the amount that is
medically necessary.  The plaintiffs did not seek any formal
administrative review of their claims, but took their case
directly to the trial court.

The trial court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the case
for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.  The ruling was
reversed by the Court of Appeals which held that the defendants'
alleged failure to give the plaintiffs proper notice of adverse
agency decisions excused the plaintiffs from the exhaustion
requirement.

The Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the judgment of the Court of
Appeals, stating that aggrieved parties cannot justify going
straight to court merely by alleging that the agency "failed to
meet certain statutory procedural requirements."  Thus, the
Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs were required to present
their claims regarding improper notice of rate reductions and
service limitations to DCH for administrative review before filing
the lawsuit.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court of Georgia's March 25, 2016
ruling is available at http://is.gd/HYJjHYfrom Leagle.com.


GRADIENT INSURANCE: Court Narrows Counterclaims in "Jacobs" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Hollie Jacobs, Plaintiff, v. Gradient
Insurance Brokerage, Inc. dba Gradient Annuity Brokerage and
Gradient Life Brokerage, and Gradient Financial Group, LLC,
Defendants, Civil No. 15-3820 (DSD/TNL) (D. Minn.), Judge David S.
Doty granted in part the motion filed by Hollie Jacobs to dismiss
the defendants' counterclaims.

Am employment dispute arose from Jacob's tenure as vice president
of marketing with Gradient Insurance Brokerage, Inc. and Gradient
Financial Group, LLC.  At the start of her employment with
Gradient, Jacobs signed a non-solicitation agreement, a
confidentiality agreement, and an employment agreement.  On August
3, 2015, Jacobs resigned her position and allegedly began working
for a competitor.

On October 18, 2015, Jacobs filed a putative class action
complaint alleging that Gradient violated the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) by failing to pay her and other non-exempt employees
for overtime hours worked.  Gradient responded by bringing
counterclaims against Jacobs for breach of contract,
misappropriation of trade secrets, and conversion.  Jacobs moved
to dismiss the misappropriation and conversion counterclaims.

Judge Doty found that Gradient has adequately pleaded its
misappropriation of trade secrets claim, having alleged that
Jacobs' employment with Gradient gave her access to confidential
and proprietary information relating to Gradient's operations,
that Jacobs e-mailed a list of documents containing confidential
information to her personal account, and that Jacobs is using the
information to compete with Gradient.

Judge Doty, however, dismissed Gradient's conversion claim because
the facts on which it is based are identical to the facts
underlying the misappropriation claim.  The judge explained that
under well-established Minnesota law, Gradient may not maintain a
conversion claim based on Jacobs' alleged misappropriation of its
intangible property interests, in this case, its confidential
information.  Moreover, the judge stated that Gradient also failed
to allege that it has been deprived of the use of its information.

A full-text copy of Judge Doty's March 25, 2016 order is available
at http://is.gd/IoYm9nfrom Leagle.com.

Hollie Jacobs, Plaintiff, represented by Eleanor Emmons Frisch --
efrisch@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP, Jason Hungerford --
jhungerford@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP & Matthew H Morgan --
morgan@nka.com -- Nichols Kaster, PLLP.

Gradient Financial Group, LLC, Gradient Insurance Brokerage, Inc.,
Defendants, represented by David A Schooler --
dschooler@briggs.com -- Briggs & Morgan, PA, Ellen A Brinkman --
ebrinkman@briggs.com -- Briggs & Morgan, PA & Michael C Wilhelm
-- mwilhelm@briggs.com -- Briggs & Morgan, PA.


GROUPE MARCELLE: Recalls Eye Makeup Remover Pads Due to Mould
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 4, 2016
Posting date: March 4, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Cosmetics
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Microbial Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-57380

This voluntary recall involves Marcelle Instant Eye Makeup Remover
Pads. These products are sold in cylindrical plastic containers
with a safety seal containing 80 non-woven pads saturated with
makeup-remover lotion.

The recalled product had the following UPC codes (on the back of
the container): 056599673521 and 056599679424.

This recall applies to the following lot numbers (printed in black
ink on the bottom of the container): (L)15J1394, (L)15K1394 and
(L)15L1394.

Quality control analyses carried out by Groupe Marcelle Inc. have
revealed that the eye makeup remover pads may be contaminated with
mould.

Neither Groupe Marcelle Inc. nor Health Canada have received any
reports of incidents or injuries concerning the use of these eye
makeup remover pads.

Groupe Marcelle Inc. sold and distributed 23,050 units of this
product in Canada.

The recalled product was sold from December 9, 2015, to February
16, 2016.

The product was manufactured in Canada.

Manufacturer: Groupe Marcelle Inc.
              9200 Chemin de la C“te de Liesse
              Lachine
              Quebec
              CANADA

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/mmUv77


GRUBE INC: "Osman" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------
Sara Osman, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated Plaintiff v. GRUBE, INC. and Scarlet &
Gray Enterprises, Ltd, Defendants, Case 3:16-cv-00802 (N.D. Ohio,
Western Division, April 4, 2016), seeks minimum wages for all time
worked, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs
and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Defendant Scarlet and Grube own and operate franchised Buffalo
Wild Wings restaurants, including but not limited to locations in
Maryland, Ohio, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. Grube
is an Ohio corporation with its principal place of business at
8329 Fox Chase Lane, Defiance, OH 43512. Scarlet is an Ohio
corporation with its principal place of business at 2948 Allentown
Rd, Lima, OH 45805.

Defendants employed Plaintiff at their Buffalo Wild Wings
restaurant in Lima, Ohio, as a server. They allegedly paid
Plaintiff a sub-minimum, tip-credit hourly rate of pay to work as
a server and bartender.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Drew Legando, Esq.
      Jack Landskroner, Esq.
      LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC
      1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Tel: (216) 522-9000
      Fax: (216) 522-9007
      Email: drew@lgmlegal.com
             jack@lgmlegal.com

           - and -

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      Zachary C. Floweree, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 West Washington, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel. (312) 419-1008
      Email: dwerman@flsalaw.com
             zflowerree@flsalaw.com


HAMILTON COUNTY, TN: WWTA Charge Class Action Back to Local Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Green, writing for Times Free Press, reports that after five
years of preliminary court proceedings, the operators of an East
Ridge apartment complex and the Hamilton County Waste Water
Treatment Authority are essentially back at square one in their
fight over an $8 monthly charge the WWTA introduced in 2011 to pay
for infrastructure upgrades.

The Supreme Court of Tennessee said on April 8 that American
Heritage Apartments Inc. can file suit against the WWTA in court.
The Court of Appeals previously ruled that the apartment owners
could sue in a class action suit, but WWTA had appealed to the
higher court.

The Supreme Court decision also kicked back to a local trial court
the decision of whether to allow class action status on the suit.

American Heritage's complaint is rooted in the monthly $8 charge
WWTA introduced in 2011 to its 26,000 customers to spread the
costs of doing mandatory infrastructure upgrades as ordered by the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation following
storm and rainwater issues addressed in 2008.

American Heritage challenged the new $8 monthly charge in 2011,
which would cost its property, Park Ridge Apartments in East
Ridge, an estimated $289,000 over the span of 20 years.

The apartment complex said at 90 percent occupancy, it would have
to pay the new $8 a month charge 151 times every month, for 20
years.

American Heritage also sought class action status to sue the WWTA
on behalf of other affected parties, which would potentially add
up to 26,000 plaintiffs to the complaint.

The WWTA, in return, asked that American Heritage's complaint be
dismissed, citing the Utility District Law of 1937, which requires
utility customers to take certain "administrative remedies" and
deal directly with a utility provider before taking legal
complaints to court.

The Supreme Court's April 8 ruling carried with it positives for
both sides, as American Heritage's complaint was again upheld, but
also as the class action status it seeks was put back into the
hands of a local trial court to decide.

Mike Moon, local volunteer chairman of the WWTA board, said on
April 8 that "WWTA is happy with the decision of the Supreme Court
to rule that the class-action suit was improperly certified and
remand it back to trial court."

Legal representatives for WWTA and American Heritage Apartments
were not available for comment on April 8.


HAPPY PLANET: Recalls Protein Smoothie Products Due to Cashew
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 4, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Tree Nut
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Happy Planet Foods Inc.
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10440

Happy Planet Foods Inc. is recalling Happy Planet brand Chocolate
banana protein smoothie from the marketplace because it contains
cashew which is not declared on the label. People with an allergy
to cashew should not consume the recalled product described below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to cashew, do not consume the recalled
product as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of this product.

This recall was triggered by the company. The Canadian Food
Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand    Common      Size     Code(s) on        UPC
  name     name        ----     product           ---
  -----    ------               ----------
  Happy    Chocolate   900 mL   SWANN 2016AL27    7 79172 22328 8
  Planet   banana
           protein
           smoothie

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


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Class Suit Challenges Global Payments Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is
defending a class action lawsuit related to the merger with Global
Payments Inc.

"On December 15, 2015, we entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Global Payments Inc., a
Georgia corporation ("Global"), Data Merger Sub One, Inc., a
Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Global
("Merger Sub One") and Data Merger Sub Two, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company and wholly owned subsidiary of Global
("Merger Sub Two", and together with Merger Sub One, the "Merger
Subs")," the Company said.

The Company, its Board of Directors, Global, Merger Sub One, and
Merger Sub Two have been named as defendants in a putative class
action lawsuit, brought by a purported Company stockholder,
challenging the merger.  The suit was filed in the New Jersey
Superior Court, Mercer County, Civil Division, and is captioned
Kevin Merchant v. Heartland Payment Systems, et al., L-45-16
(filed January 8, 2016).  The complaint alleges, among other
things, that the directors of the Company breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company's stockholders by agreeing to sell the
Company for inadequate consideration, agreeing to improper deal
protection terms in the merger agreement, and failing to properly
value the Company.  The complaint also alleges that the Company,
Global, Merger Sub One, and Merger Sub Two aided and abetted these
purported breaches of fiduciary duty.  Plaintiff seeks, among
other things, an injunction barring the merger, recession of the
merger or rescissory damages to the extent the merger is already
implemented, and an award of damages and attorney's fees.

The Company believes the suit is without merit.

Heartland Payment Systems's primary business is to provide Payment
Processing services to merchants throughout the United States.


HELIX ENERGY: Amend Complaint Filed in "Izadjoo" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Helix Energy Solutions Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a
purported stockholder, Parviz Izadjoo, filed on July 31, 2015, a
class action lawsuit styled Parviz Izadjoo v. Owen Kratz and Helix
Energy Solutions Group, Inc. against the Company and Owen Kratz,
the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas on behalf
of a putative class of all purchasers of shares of common stock
between October 21, 2014, and July 21, 2015, inclusive.

The Company said, "The lawsuit asserts violations of Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange
Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5 as to both us and Mr. Kratz, and Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act against Mr. Kratz based on alleged
misrepresentations and omissions in SEC filings and other public
disclosures regarding projections for 2015 dry docks of two of our
vessels working in the Gulf of Mexico that allegedly caused the
price at which putative class members bought stock during the
proposed class period to be artificially inflated. The deadline to
apply for appointment as lead plaintiff was September 29, 2015."

On January 28, 2016, the judge approved a motion for the
appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel, and the plaintiff
was given until March 14, 2016 to amend the complaint.

The Plaintiff filed the amended complaint that day.

Counsel for Plaintiff:

     Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
     THE BILEK LAW FIRM, L.L.P.
     700 Louisiana, Suite 3950
     Houston, Texas 77002
     Tel: (713) 227-7720

Of Counsel:

     Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
     Julia J. Sun, Esq.
     Adam M. Apton, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
     30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Telephone: (212) 363-7500
     Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
     E-mail: NPorritt@zlk.com
             jsun@zlk.com
             aapton@zlk.com

"We believe this lawsuit to be without merit and intend to
vigorously defend against it," the Company said.


HOSPIRA HEALTHCARE: Recalls Levofloxacin Solution
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 2, 2016
Posting date: March 17, 2016
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-57514
Reason Depth of distribution Affected products
Affected Products

Recall due to a potential contact with foreign substance during
manufacturing.

Depth of distribution: Hospitals (including Pharmacies),
Wholesalers

Affected products: Levofloxacin
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02314932
Dosage form: Solution
Strength: 5 mg/mL
Lot or serial number: 49118JT

Recalling Firm: Hospira Healthcare Corporation
                2600 Alfred-Nobel Bvld, Suite 500
                Saint-Laurent
                H4S 0A9
                Quebec
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Hospira Healthcare Corporation
                                2600 Alfred-Nobel Bvld, Suite 500
                                Saint-Laurent
                                H4S 0A9
                                Quebec
                                CANADA


HYUNDAI: Recalls Genesis 2012, 2011 Models Due to Crash Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 7, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Electrical
Units affected: 1223
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016112TC
ID number: 2016112
Manufacturer recall number: R0108

On certain vehicles, the cover seal of the windshield wiper motor
could degrade over time. This could result in moisture ingress,
which could lead to corrosion on the wiper motor's circuit board.
If the corrosion were to progress, the windshield wipers could
function intermittently or become inoperative, which could limit
the driver's visibility under certain operating conditions and
increase the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to
property. Correction: Dealers will replace the windshield wiper
motor with a revised wiper motor.

  Make      Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----        ----------------------
  HYUNDAI   GENESIS      2012, 2011


IDAHO: Court Rules in Suit by Disabilities Program Participants
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge B. Lynn Winmill ruled on numerous motions filed by both
sides in the case captioned K.W., by his next friend D.W., et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD ARMSTRONG, in his official capacity as
Director of the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare; PAUL
LEARY, in his official capacity as Medicaid Administrator of the
Idaho Department of Health and Welfare; and the IDAHO DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH AND WELFARE, a department of the State of Idaho,
Defendants. TOBY SCHULTZ, et al. Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD ARMSTRONG,
et al., Defendants, Case Nos. 1:12-cv-00022-BLW, 3:12-CV-58-BLW
(D. Idaho).

The plaintiffs, who are participants in Idaho's Developmental
Disabilities Waiver Program ("DD Waiver program"), brought an
action against the Idaho Department of Health & Welfare (IDHW),
alleging, among other things, that the notices sent by IDHW
informing them of the reductions to their Medicaid payments were
insufficient.  The court enjoined the reductions.  The case was
later consolidated with a nearly identical case by another group
of named plaintiffs entitled Schultz v. Armstrong, CV-12-58-BLW.
Upon plaintiffs' motion, the court certified a class and extended
the existing preliminary injunction to all members of the class.

The parties filed the following motions before the court: (1)
cross-motions for summary judgment on the class-wide claims; (2)
cross-motions for summary judgment on the individual claims; (3)
joint motion for preliminary approval of partial settlement; (4)
motions to strike; (5) plaintiffs' motion for interim attorney
fees.

Judge Winmill rules as follows:

          -- that plaintiffs' motion for interim attorney fees is
             GRANTED, and that plaintiffs have from defendants
             the sum of $400,234.26 in attorney fees and $481.46
             in cost.

          -- that the motion for summary judgment on class-wide
             claims filed by defendants is DENIED.

          -- that the motion for summary judgment on individual
             claims filed by defendants is GRANTED IN PART AND
             DENIED IN PART. It is granted to the extent it seeks
             to dismiss plaintiffs' claim of facial
             discrimination. It is denied in all other respects.

          -- that the motion for partial summary judgment on
             class-wide claims and individual claims filed by
             plaintiffs is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
             The motion is granted to the extent it seeks to
             compel IDHW to file within 90 days the following:
             (1) A plan for participants to view all portions of
             the SIB-R necessary to fully challenge a budget
             reduction and to present any challenged portion of
             the SIB-R analysis to a hearing officer or other
             decision maker during an appeal; (2) A plan to
             ensure that all participants receive a commitment
             from a suitable representative to assist the
             participant before proceeding to informal review and
             taking any action to confirm a budget reduction
             produced by the budget tool; (3) A plan defining the
             phrase "health and safety" and describing the
             documentation and other material required of the
             participant to satisfy that standard; (4) A plan to
             improve the budget tool and conduct regular testing
             of the tool to ensure its accuracy. The motion is
             denied in all other respects.

          -- that the joint motion for entry of judgment and
             preliminary approval of settlement is GRANTED.

          -- that the motion to approve the notice of the
             preliminary approval of settlement is GRANTED.

          -- that the motion for judgment is GRANTED subject to
             the hearing on the final approval of the class
             settlement.

          -- that the motions to strike are DEEMED MOOT.

          -- that the motion to strike is DENIED.

A full-text copy of Judge Winmill's March 28, 2016 memorandum
decision and order is available at http://is.gd/xju6zmfrom
Leagle.com.

K W, Christie Mathwig, C L, A L, K S, N R, Matthew S, T F, T M, B
B, R P, Marcia S, E L, Toby Schultz, Breanna Mullic, Caleb Hall,
Plaintiffs, represented by James Marshall Piotrowski, HERZFELD &
PIOTROWSKI, Marty Durand, Herzfeld & Piotrowski, LLP & Richard
Alan Eppink, American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho Foundation.

Richard Armstrong, Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Lisa
Hettinger, Defendants, represented by Brian V Church, Office of
the Attorney General, Civil Litigation Division, Clay R Smith,
OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, Cynthia Lin Yee-Wallace, Office of
Attorney General &W Scott Zanzig, Office of the Idaho Attorney
General, Civil Litigation.

Idaho Care Providers Network, Amicus, represented by James
Marshall Piotrowski, HERZFELD & PIOTROWSKI & Marty Durand,
Herzfeld & Piotrowski, LLP.


INFORM FOOD: Recalls Cheesy Pepper Tortilla Products
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 10, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Extraneous Material
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Inform Food Brokerage Inc.
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail,
Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number: 10447

  Brand       Common         Size    Code(s) on   UPC
  name        name           ----    product      ---
  -----       ------                 ----------
  Ruiz Foods  Cheesy Pepper  2 kg    15329        None
              Jack Wrapped           0700-1700
              in a Battered          86044
              Flour Tortilla


INSULET CORP: ATRS Lawsuit Remains Outstanding
----------------------------------------------
Insulet Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the class action lawsuit
by Arkansas Teacher Retirement System remains outstanding.

Between May 5, 2015 and June 16, 2015, three class action lawsuits
were filed by shareholders in the U.S. District Court,
Massachusetts, against the Company and certain individual current
and former executives of the Company. Two suits subsequently were
voluntarily dismissed.

Arkansas Teacher Retirement System v. Insulet, et al., 1:15-cv-
12345, which remains outstanding, alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by making allegedly false and misleading statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. The lawsuit seeks,
among other things, compensatory damages in connection with the
Company's allegedly inflated stock price between May 7, 2013 and
April 30, 2015, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

Due in part to the preliminary nature of this matter, the Company
currently cannot reasonably estimate a possible loss, or range of
loss, in connection with this matter.

Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, Plaintiff, is represented by
Berman DeValerio, LLP's Glenn DeValerio, Esq. --
gdevalerio@bermandevalerio.com

Insulet et al., Defendants, are represented by Deborah S.
Birnbach, Esq. -- dbirnbach@goodwinprocter.com -- Katherine G.
McKenney, Esq. -- kmckenney@goodwinprocter.com -- and Adam
Slutsky, Esq. -- aslutsky@goodwinprocter.com -- at Goodwin
Procter, LLP

Insulet is primarily engaged in the development, manufacturing and
sale of proprietary OmniPod Insulin Management System (the
"OmniPod System"), an innovative, discreet and easy-to-use
continuous insulin delivery system for people with insulin-
dependent diabetes.


IXIA: July 29 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------
IXIA said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that a court has scheduled a hearing for
July 29, 2016 to consider final approval of the settlement
agreement in a securities class action.

The Company said, "On November 14, 2013, a purported securities
class action complaint captioned Felix Santore v. Ixia, Victor
Alston, Atul Bhatnagar, Thomas B. Miller, and Errol Ginsberg was
filed against us and certain of our current and former officers
and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California. The lawsuit purports to be a class action brought
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities during the
period from April 10, 2010 through October 14, 2013."

The initial complaint alleged that the defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"),
by making materially false and misleading statements concerning
the Company's recognition of revenues related to its warranty and
software maintenance contracts and the academic credentials and
employment history of the Company's former President and Chief
Executive Officer, Victor Alston. The complaint also alleged that
the defendants made false and misleading statements, and failed to
make certain disclosures, regarding the Company's business,
operations and prospects, including regarding the financial
statements and internal financial controls that were the subject
of the Company's April 2013 restatement of certain of its prior
period financial statements.

The complaint further alleged that the Company lacked adequate
internal financial controls and issued materially false and
misleading financial statements for the fiscal years ended
December 31, 2010 and 2011, and the fiscal quarters ended March
31, 2011, June 30, 2011, September 30, 2011, March 31, 2012, June
30, 2012, and September 30, 2012. The complaint, which purported
to assert claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, sought, on
behalf of the purported class, an unspecified amount of monetary
damages, interest, fees and expenses of attorneys and experts, and
other relief.

On March 24, 2014, following a proceeding to select a lead
plaintiff in the matter, the court issued an order appointing
Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System and Oklahoma Law
Enforcement Retirement System (the "Oklahoma Group") as lead
plaintiffs.

On June 11, 2014, the Oklahoma Group filed a first amended
complaint, which asserted claims against the same defendants under
the same legal theories set forth in the initial complaint. The
first amended complaint also contained allegations that certain of
the individual defendants increased their trading in the Company's
stock during February, March, April and May of 2011 and during
February and March of 2013, and that the defendants sought to
inflate the Company's reported deferred revenues during the period
of February 4, 2011 through April 3, 2013.

On July 18, 2014, all named defendants moved to dismiss the first
amended complaint for failure to state a claim under the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and the Private Securities Law Reform Act
of 1995 ("PSLRA"). After briefing and a hearing on October 6,
2014, the court issued an order dismissing the first amended
complaint in its entirety without prejudice. The court gave the
Oklahoma Group 30 days in which to file an amended complaint.

On November 5, 2014, the Oklahoma Group filed a second amended
complaint. On January 6, 2015, the named defendants moved to
dismiss the second amended complaint. After briefing and a hearing
on April 13, 2015, the court issued an order dismissing the second
amended complaint in its entirety without prejudice. The court
gave the Oklahoma Group 30 days in which to file an amended
complaint.

On April 24, 2015, the court issued an order staying the class
action until July 31, 2015, pending the outcome of a voluntary,
non-binding mediation scheduled for July 23, 2015 to explore a
possible settlement of both the purported securities class action
and the shareholder derivative action.

On July 23, 2015, the parties conducted the scheduled mediation
with respect to the purported class action but did not reach an
agreement to resolve and settle the litigation. However,
settlement discussions continued after the mediation session, and
on August 14, 2015, the parties agreed in principle to settle the
purported securities class action litigation.

On November 17, 2015, the Company entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement, dated November 11, 2015 relating to the
proposed settlement of the class action (the "Class Action
Settlement Agreement"). This Class Action Settlement Agreement
would resolve all of the claims asserted against the defendants in
the Class Action and was entered into subject to the Court's
preliminary and final approval.

The Class Action Settlement provides, among other terms, for a
settlement payment of $3.5 million, which the Company expects
would be paid in full by one of the Company's insurance carriers.
The Class Action Settlement Agreement does not include any
admission of wrongdoing or liability on the part of the Company or
the individual defendants, and upon final approval of the
settlement by the Court, provides for a dismissal of, and a
release of all claims asserted against the defendants in, the
class action.

At a hearing on February 26, 2016, the Court stated that it will
grant preliminary approval of the Class Action Settlement
Agreement -- subject to the Court's issuance of a formal order
evidencing such preliminary approval -- and scheduled a hearing
for July 29, 2016 to consider the final approval of the Class
Action Settlement Agreement.

The Company has accrued a liability of $3.5 million related to
this matter as a component of Accrued expenses and other in the
accompanying consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2015.
The Company has also recorded an offsetting receivable for $3.5
million in Prepaid expenses and other current assets in the
accompanying consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2015,
as the Company deems recovery of the related insurance proceeds
probable.

IXIA provides physical and virtual network application performance
and security resilience solutions.


JAYCO: Recalls Travel Trailer 2016 Models Due to Injury Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 1, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Travel Trailer
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Electrical
Units affected: 374
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016101TC
ID number: 2016101

On certain travel trailers, the wiring going from the battery box
to the roof mount solar fixture may not have been connected to a
30 amp breaker during the manufacturing process. Under certain
circumstances, it could cause the wires to melt and/or short to
ground increasing the risk of fire causing injury and/or damage to
property. Correction: Dealers will tie the unprotected circuit to
an existing 30 amp breaker.

  Make      Model                          Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----                          ----------------------
  JAYCO     EAGLE TRAVEL TRAILER           2016
  JAYCO     EAGLE HT FIFTH WHEEL TRAILER   2016


L'OREAL CANADA: Recalls Moisture Dry and Sensitive Day Cream
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 4, 2016
Posting date: March 4, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Cosmetics
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Chemical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-57378

This voluntary recall involves L'Oreal Ideal Moisture Dry and
Sensitive Day cream with the lot number 20K609. This cream is sold
in 50 ml white jars with a screw top. The lot number is printed on
the back label of the jar, and embossed on the bottom flap of the
carton.

The recalled lot of cream contains the preservative
methylisothiazolinone (MI) at a concentration exceeding the
current limit set out by Health Canada. MI is a strong sensitizer
which may pose a significant risk of inducing allergic reactions
and skin irritation.

Neither L'Oreal Canada nor Health Canada have received any reports
of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of this
product.

Approximately 57,447 units of the recalled cosmetic products were
sold at retail stores across Canada.

The recalled cosmetics were sold from July 2013 to February 2016.

Product manufactured in United States.

Distributor: L'Oreal Canada
             Montreal
             Quebec
             CANADA

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


LABORATORY CORP: Still Defends "Jansky" Action
----------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that the Company continues to defend against the lawsuit by Yvonne
Jansky.

On June 7, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Yvonne Jansky v. Laboratory Corporation of
America, et al., filed in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Francisco. The lawsuit alleges that the
defendants committed unlawful and unfair business practices, and
violated various other state laws by changing screening codes to
diagnostic codes on laboratory test orders, thereby resulting in
customers being responsible for co-payments and other debts. The
lawsuit seeks injunctive relief, actual and punitive damages, as
well as recovery of attorney's fees, and legal expenses.

In June 2015, Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification was
denied. The Plaintiff has appealed the denial of class
certification, and the trial court has stayed the case pending
resolution of the appeal. The Company will vigorously defend the
lawsuit.


LABORATORY CORP: Sandusky Wellness Files Appeal
-----------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that the plaintiff in the case, Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, et
al. v. MEDTOX Scientific, Inc., et al., has filed an appeal.

On August 24, 2012, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Sandusky Wellness Center, LLC, et al. v. MEDTOX
Scientific, Inc., et al., filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota. The lawsuit alleges that on
or about February 21, 2012, the defendants violated the U.S.
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by sending unsolicited
facsimiles to Plaintiff and more than 39 other recipients without
the recipients' prior express invitation or permission. The
lawsuit seeks the greater of actual damages or the sum of $0.0005
for each violation, subject to trebling under the TCPA, and
injunctive relief.

In September of 2014, Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification
was denied. In January of 2015, the Company's Motion for Summary
Judgment on the remaining individual claim was granted.

Plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal. The Company will
vigorously defend the lawsuit.


LABORATORY CORP: Settlement in Bohlander & Andres Actions Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that final settlement approval in the Bohlander and Andres class
action lawsuits remains pending.

The Company was a defendant in two separate putative class action
lawsuits, Christine Bohlander v. Laboratory Corporation of
America, et al., and Jemuel Andres, et al. v. Laboratory
Corporation of America Holdings, et. al., related to overtime pay.
After the filing of the two lawsuits on July 8, 2013, the
Bohlander lawsuit was consolidated into the Andres lawsuit and
removed to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. In the consolidated lawsuit, the
Plaintiffs alleged on behalf of similarly situated phlebotomists
and couriers that the Company failed to pay overtime, failed to
provide meal and rest breaks, and committed other violations of
the California Labor Code.

On May 28, 2015, the District Court issued a preliminary approval
of the class action settlement and notice of the settlement terms
has been sent to putative class members.

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


LABORATORY CORP: "Varsam" Action in California Resolved
-------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that the class action lawsuit by Rita Varsam has been settled.

The Company is a defendant in two additional putative class action
lawsuits alleging similar claims to the Bohlander/Andres
consolidated lawsuit. The lawsuit of Rachel Rabanes v. California
Laboratory Sciences, LLC, et al., was filed in April 2014 in the
Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, and
the lawsuit Rita Varsam v. Laboratory Corporation of America DBA
LabCorp, was filed in June 2014 in the Superior Court of
California for the County of San Diego. As a result of the Andres
settlement, the Plaintiff in the Rabanes case dismissed her case
in June 2015. The Varsam case was settled in November 2015.


LABORATORY CORP: Settlement in "Legg" Has Final Court Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that the District Court has entered a final order approving the
settlement in the class action lawsuit by Christopher W. Legg.

On July 9, 2014, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Christopher W. Legg, et al. v. Laboratory
Corporation of America, filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida. The Complaint alleges that
the Company willfully violated the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act by allegedly providing credit card expiration
date information on an electronically printed credit card receipt.
The lawsuit sought damages of not less than $0.0001 but not more
than $0.01 per violation, and punitive damages, injunctive relief,
and attorney's fees.

On November 4, 2015, the District Court issued preliminary
approval of the class action settlement and notice of the
settlement was sent to putative class members. On February 18,
2016, the District Court entered a final order approving the
settlement.


LABORATORY CORP: Still Defends "Davis" Action in Florida
--------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that the Company continues to defend against the lawsuit by Patty
Davis.

On August 31, 2015, the Company was served with a putative class
action lawsuit, Patty Davis v. Laboratory Corporation of America,
et al., filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial
Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida. The complaint alleges
that the Company violated the Florida Consumer Collection
Practices Act by billing patients who were collecting benefits
under the Workers' Compensation Statutes. The lawsuit seeks
injunctive relief and actual and statutory damages, as well as
recovery of attorney's fees and legal expenses. The Company will
vigorously defend the lawsuit.

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


LABORATORY CORP: To Pay Plaintiffs' Atty Fees in LipoScience Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that in the case, In re LipoScience, Inc. Stockholder Litigation,
the Company has agreed to pay $0.2 million to Plaintiffs' counsel
for attorney's fees and expenses in full satisfaction of their
claim for attorney's fees and expenses in the action.

On September 24, 2014, LipoScience and the Company entered into a
Merger Agreement pursuant to which the Company through its
subsidiary, Bear Acquisition Corp, would acquire all of the
outstanding shares of LipoScience at a purchase price of $5.25 per
share in cash for each outstanding share of LipoScience (Merger).
Prior to the closing of the Merger on November 20, 2014, purported
stockholders of LipoScience filed four putative class action
lawsuits against LipoScience, members of the LipoScience board of
directors, the Company and Bear Acquisition Corp. in the Delaware
Court of Chancery and, with respect to one of the lawsuits, in the
Superior Court of Wake County, North Carolina. The lawsuits
alleged breach of fiduciary duty and/or other violations of state
law arising out of the Merger. Each suit sought, among other
things, injunctive relief enjoining the Merger.

On October 23, 2014, the case in North Carolina was voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice by the Plaintiff.

On October 29, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated
the remaining three actions under the caption In re LipoScience,
Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 10252-VCP.
After limited discovery, the parties agreed on certain additional
disclosures to the Company's definitive proxy statement filed on
October 20, 2014, which were made in a supplement to the
definitive proxy statement filed on November 10, 2014 (LipoScience
Supplemental Disclosures).

On November 30, 2015, the Court approved a stipulation under which
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice as
to all Plaintiffs and any other putative class member. The Court
retained jurisdiction solely for the purpose of adjudicating
Plaintiffs' counsel's anticipated application for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses in connection with
the LipoScience Supplemental Disclosures.

The Company subsequently agreed to pay $0.2 million to Plaintiffs'
counsel for attorney's fees and expenses in full satisfaction of
their claim for attorney's fees and expenses in the action. The
Court has not been asked to review, and will pass no judgment on,
the payment of the attorney's fees and expenses or their
reasonableness. Contact information for counsel is Brian D. Long
-- BDL@rl-legal.com -- for Plaintiffs and Raymond J. DiCamillo --
dicamillo@rlf.com -- for the Company.


LABORATORY CORP: To Pay Plaintiffs' Atty Fees in Covance Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that in the class action lawsuit related to the acquisition of
Covance, the Company has agreed to pay $0.2 million to Plaintiffs'
counsel for attorney's fees and expenses in full satisfaction of
their claim for attorney's fees and expenses in the action.

On November 2, 2014, the Company entered into a definitive Merger
Agreement to acquire Covance for $6,150.7 milion in cash and
Company common stock (Merger). The Merger closed on February 19,
2015. Prior to the closing of the Merger, purported stockholders
of Covance filed two putative class action lawsuits.

One of the lawsuits, captioned Berk v Covance Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 10440-VCL, was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on
December 9, 2014. The other lawsuit, captioned Ojeda v. Herring et
al., No. MER-C-92-14, was filed in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Chancery Division, Mercer County, New Jersey, on November
12, 2014. Both suits named as defendants Covance, members of the
Covance board of directors, the Company and Neon Merger Sub, Inc.,
a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company that was merged out of
existence in connection with the Merger. The lawsuits alleged
breach of fiduciary duty and/or other violations of state law
arising out of the Merger. Each suit sought, among other things,
injunctive relief enjoining the merger.

On January 21, 2015, the case in New Jersey was voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice by the Plaintiff. After limited
discovery, the parties agreed on certain additional disclosures to
the Company's definitive proxy statement filed on November 26,
2014, which were made in a supplement to the definitive proxy
statement filed on February 9, 2015 (Covance Supplemental
Disclosures).

On December 1, 2015, the Court approved a stipulation under which
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the action, with prejudice as to
the named Plaintiff only. The Court retained jurisdiction solely
for the purpose of adjudicating Plaintiffs' counsel's anticipated
application for an award of attorney's fees and reimbursement of
expenses in connection with the Covance Supplemental Disclosures.

The Company subsequently agreed to pay $0.2 million to Plaintiffs'
counsel for attorney's fees and expenses in full satisfaction of
their claim for attorney's fees and expenses in the action. The
Court has not been asked to review, and will pass no judgment on,
the payment of the attorneys' fees and expenses or their
reasonableness.


LAND OF LINCOLN: Seeks Dismissal of Insurance Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that on
the heels of announcing it had resumed covering patients seeking
health care through University of Chicago Medicine, Land of
Lincoln Health has asked a Cook County judge to dismiss a class
action lawsuit brought by two of its former customers who alleged
the provider of Obamacare health insurance policies had misled
people into buying policies under false premises.

"There is no question of fact to resolve here," Land of Lincoln
Health wrote in its April 1 motion to dismiss.  "The University of
Chicago contracts are renewed for 2016. Plaintiffs cannot plead or
prove otherwise nor would they want to."

The lawsuit, brought by plaintiffs Daniel Blumenthal and
Michael Hartzmark, who live in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood,
alleged Land of Lincoln had fraudulently led them to believe
health care services they received through University of Chicago
Medicine, for either themselves or their spouses, would be covered
through Land of Lincoln policies in 2016.  However, in early 2016,
the men said they received notice Land of Lincoln would be
dropping coverage for University of Chicago Medicine, effective
March 1, indicating Land of Lincoln and University of Chicago had
failed to reach agreement on reimbursement rates.  The men said
they then purchased additional coverage at a much higher cost to
make sure they could continue to receive coverage for health care
at University of Chicago, and filed suit, accusing Land of Lincoln
of a "bait and switch."

However, Land of Lincoln recently announced it had reached an
agreement with University of Chicago Medicine, and had again added
the university medical system to its roster of covered providers.
The health insurer then moved to dismiss the legal action against
it over the now-resolved dispute.

In its motion, Land of Lincoln said the court should dismiss the
action because the renewal of University of Chicago and the
insurer's sustained efforts to negotiate the reimbursement
agreement, belie the plaintiffs' assertions the insurer intended
to deceive or defraud its insured.

"Lincoln could not have engaged in consumer fraud or deceptive
business practices as to any representation that the University of
Chicago would be in network for 2016," Land of Lincoln said in its
motion.  "Any such representations have turned out not to be
true."

Land of Lincoln conceded it "did erroneously notify some insureds
who had claim histories using the University of Chicago's services
that they would no longer be in-network as of March 1," explaining
the "statements were erroneously made without any understanding of
the University of Chicago provider contract termination
provisions."

But Land of Lincoln said the plaintiffs chose independent of Land
of Lincoln's actions to "leave the plan" and buy other, more
expensive health insurance coverage.

"Any damages they purportedly incurred were based on their own
choice, not any fraud by Lincoln," the motions said.  "Further,
Lincoln could not be unjustly enriched as to these two named
plaintiffs as they got what they bargained for -- for the two
months they were in the plan they received in-network care by the
University of Chicago."

Land of Lincoln is represented in the action by attorneys with the
firm of Barnes & Thornburg, of Chicago.

Attorneys with the firm of Krislov & Associates, of Chicago, did
not reply to requests for comment on Land of Lincoln's recent
actions and on plaintiffs' intentions concerning their lawsuit.


LANNETT COMPANY: Pipe Trader Sues Over Digoxin Price-fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pipe Trades Services MN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lannett Company, Inc., Impax
Laboratories, Inc., West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corporation,
Allergan PLC; Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Par Pharmaceutical
Companies, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01534-CMR (E.D. Pa.,
April 4, 2016), seeks damages, permanent enjoinment, restitution,
disgorgement of profits and attorney's fees and costs resulting
from unfair competition and acts of unjust enrichment and in
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Pipe Trades Services MN provides health benefits, including
prescription drug benefits to its employees, their spouses,
dependents as well as and retirees. It purchased generic digoxin
and doxycycline manufactured by one or more Defendants at supra-
competitive prices and accuses the Defendants of price-fixing.

Lannett is a Delaware corporation with principal place of business
in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It is a distributor of generic
digoxin and doxycycline.

Impax is a Delaware corporation with principal place of business
in Hayward, California. Its generics division is called Global
Pharmaceuticals and is a manufacturer and distributor of generic
digoxin.

Par is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
in Chestnut Ridge, New York. It entered into an exclusive United
States supply and distribution agreement with Covis Pharma to
distribute the authorized generic version of digoxin tablets. It
also manufactures generic doxycycline.

West-Ward is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Eatontown, New Jersey. West-Ward is the United States
agent and subsidiary of Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC, a London-based
global pharmaceutical company, manufacturer and distributor of
generic digoxin.

Allergan is an Irish corporation that has its global headquarters
in Dublin, Ireland and its administrative headquarters in
Parsippany-Troy Hills, New Jersey. It sold generic digoxin and
generic doxycycline to customers in this District and other
locations in the United States.

Mylan is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Canonsburg, Pennsylvania. It sold generic digoxin and
generic doxycycline.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony J. Bolognese, Esq.
      Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
      BOLOGNESE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
      1500 J FK Boulevard, Suite 320
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Tel: (215) 814-6750
      Fax: (215) 814-6764
      Email: jgrabar@boliognese-law.com

- and -

      Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
      Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
      W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
      Richard A. Lockridge, Esq.
      Kate M. Baxter-Kauf
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
      100 Washington Ave. S., Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Tel: (612) 339-6900
      Fax: (612) 339-0981
      Email: hmsilton@locklaw.com
             khriebel@locklaw.com
             wjbruckner@locklaw.com
             ralockridge@locklaw.com
             kmbaxter-kauzl@locklaw.com

- and -

      Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH LTD
      PNC Park
      115 Federal Street, Suite 210
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Tel: (412) 322-9243
      Fax: (412) 231-0246
      Email: glvnch@earlsonlynch.com


LEHMAN BROTHERS: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Rinehart" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judges Dennis Jacobs, Richard C. Wesley and Debra Ann Livingston
of the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, affirmed the dismissal of
the third consolidated amended complaint (TCAC) filed in the class
action on behalf of a putative class of former participants in an
employee stock ownership plan ("ESOP") invested exclusively in
Lehman's common stock.

After the September 2008 bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings,
Inc. (Lehman), Plaintiffs-Appellants brought suit on behalf of a
putative class of former participants in an employee stock
ownership plan (ESOP) invested exclusively in Lehman's common
stock. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants, who were fiduciaries of
this ESOP, breached their duty of prudence under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. Sections
1001 et seq., by continuing to permit investment in Lehman stock
in the face of circumstances arguably foreshadowing its eventual
demise. Plaintiffs also alleged that Lehman's former directors,
including Lehman's former chairman and chief executive officer,
Defendant-Appellee Richard S. Fuld (Defendant Fuld), violated
ERISA by failing to keep the Plan Committee Defendants apprised of
material, nonpublic information that could have affected their
evaluation of the prudence of investing in Lehman stock.

Judge Kaplan of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York dismissed Plaintiffs' consolidated amended
complaint (CAC) and second consolidated amended complaint (SCAC)
for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). On July 1, 2014, the Supreme Court granted Plaintiffs'
petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated the judgment in
Rinehart, and remanded the case for further consideration in light
of Fifth Third. Rinehart v. Akers, 134 S.Ct. 2900 (2014). The
District Court allowed Plaintiffs to replace the SCAC with a third
consolidated amended complaint (TCAC) that narrowed their claims
and shortened the class period. On July 10, 2015, the District
Court dismissed the TCAC, again holding that Plaintiffs had failed
to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).

In the Per Curiam dated March 18, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/JHL5JXfrom Leagle.com, Judges Jacobs, Wesley and
Livingston agreed with the district court that Plaintiffs have
failed to plead plausibly that the Plan Committee Defendants
breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by failing to
recognize the imminence of Lehman's collapse and that Plaintiffs
have not adequately shown that the Plan Committee Defendants
should be held liable for their actions in attempting to meet
their fiduciary duties under ERISA while simultaneously offering
an undiversified investment option for employees' retirement
savings.

The Second Circuit appeal is, ALEX E. RINEHART, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, JO ANNE BUZZO, MONIQUE
MILLER FONG, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
MARIA DESOUSA, LINDA DEMIZIO, Plaintiffs-Appellants. LOCALS 302
AND 612 OF THE INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERS-
EMPLOYERS CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY RETIREMENT FUND, CITY OF SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO, CITY OF LONG BEACH, COUNTY OF TUOLUMNE, CITY OF
FREMONT, NEW JERSEY CARPENTERS HEALTH FUND, BOILERMAKER-BLACKSMITH
NATIONAL PENSION TRUST, NEW JERSEY CARPENTERS HEALTH FUND, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, AMERICAN
NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, AMERICAN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY OF TEXAS, COMPREHENSIVE INVESTMENT SERVICES INC., THE
MOODY FOUNDATION, WASHINGTON STATE INVESTMENT BOARD, CHRISTOPHER
CORDARO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, SYLVIA REMER, ED DAVIS, JUAN TOLOSA, ARTHUR SIMONS,
RALPH ROSATO, TRUSTEE J. HARRY PICKLE, ZENITH INSURANCE CO., STATE
OF NEW JERSEY, DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, DIVISION OF INVESTMENT,
LINDA HARRIS, An Individual, MARIA LANE, Individually and as
Trustee of the Lane Family Trust UAD 2004, MICHAEL LANE,
Individually and as Trustee of the Lane Family Trust UAD 2004,
STEPHEN P. GOTT, MOHAN ANANDA, RICHARD BARRETT, NEEL DUNCAN, NICK
FOTINOS, FRED MANDELL, BARBARA MOSKOWITZ, STACEY OYLER, RONALD
PROFILI, LAWRENCE ROSE, JOE ROTTMAN, ROY WIEGERT, MIRIAM WOLF,
ISLAND MEDICAL GROUP RETIREMENT TRUST, f/b/o Irwin Ingwer, DAVID
KOTZ, CARLA LA GRASSA, STUART RATNOW, SYDNEY RATNOW, STATE
COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND, CITY OF CERRITOS, CITY OF AUBURN,
CITY OF BURBANK, CITY OF SAN BUENAVENTURA, CONTRA COSTA WATER
DISTRICT, SAN MATEO COUNTY INVESTMENT POOL, VALLEJO SANITATION &
FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT, MARY A. ZEEB, BEN JOSEPH TRUST, EPSTEIN
TRUST, STICHTING PENSIOENFONDS ABP, ALISON CHARLES, RENAUD
FOURNIER, LYDIA LOSCHIAVO, ALAMEDA COUNTY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT
ASSOCIATION, AMERICAN EUROPEAN INSURANCE COMPANY, GOVERNMENT OF
GUAM RETIREMENT FUND, INTER-LOCAL PENSION FUND GRAPHIC
COMMUNICATIONS CONFERENCE OF THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF
TEAMSTERS, MARSHA KOSSEFF, NORTHERN IRELAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION COMMITTEE, OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL 3
TRUST FUND, OPERATIVE PLASTERERS AND CEMENT MASONS INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION LOCAL 262 ANNUITY FUND, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM
OF THE CITY OF DETROIT, TEAMSTERS ALLIED BENEFIT FUNDS, THE CITY
OF EDINBURGH COUNCIL AS ADMINISTERING AUTHORITY OF THE LOTHIAN
PENSION FUND, THE PENSION FUND GROUP, BROCKTON CONTRIBUTORY
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, RICK FLEISCHMAN, STEPHEN GOTT, ISLAND MEDICAL
GROUP, KARIM KANO, MICHAEL KARFUNKEL, ANN LEE, FRANCISCO PEREZ,
RONALD PROFILI, SHEA-EDWARDS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, FRED TELLING,
GRACE WANG, ZAHNISER TRUST, ANTHONY PEYSER, On behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, STEPHEN P. GOTT, On behalf of
himself, All others similarly situated, BELMONT HOLDINGS CORP.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, KATHY
ROONEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
JEFFREY STARK, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, STANLEY TOLIN, ENRIQUE AZPIAZU, STUART BREGMAN, ROBERTA
CIACCI, ROBERT FEINERMAN, IRWIN INGWER, PHYLLIS INGWER, ISLAND
MEDICAL GROUP PENSION PLAN, f/b/o Irwin Ingwer, FRANKLIN KASS,
CHRISTOPHER LEWIS, on behalf of himself and The Entertainment
Group, AURORA PEREZ, CUAUHTEMOC PEREZ, DIANA PEREZ, TRUSTEE J.
HARRY PICKLE, GASTROENTEROLOGY ASSOCIATES PROFIT SHARING TRUST FBO
CHARLES M. BROOKS M.D., ALEJANDRO SILVA, DAVID SOSNA, MORTGAGE
TRUST 2007-6, ALASKA ELECTRICAL PENSION FUND, On behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, FOUNDATION PROPERTY MANAGEMENT,
INC., RHF FOUNDATION INC., RETIREMENT HOUSING FOUNDATION, COUNTY
OF ALAMEDA, BERNICE KAUFMAN, as trustee of the Irene Kaufman
Trust, IRENE KAUFMAN, as trustee of the Irene Kaufman Trust,
ARTHER N. ABBEY, FIFTH-NINTH STREET INVESTORS LLC, ADINA SCHRON,
JTWROS, AVI SCHRON, JOSEPH P. DANIS, RENA CALDWELL, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, GLEN DEATHROW, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, MADELINE
DIMODICA, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated,
BARBARA KATTELL, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated, CECIL MEASE, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, HENRY NAPIRALA, LINDA NAPIRALA, MICHAEL
SHIPLEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS INC., RICHARD S.
FULD, JR., MACOMBER, ERIN M. CALLAN, WENDY M. UVINO, THE EMPLOYEE
BENEFIT PLANS COMMITTEE, JOHN DOE, 1-10, MARY PAT ARCHER, AMITABH
ARORA, MICHAEL BRANCA, EVELYNE ESTEY, ADAM FEINSTEIN, DAVID
ROMHILT, Defendants-Appellees. LEHMAN BROTHERS HOLDINGS INC.,
EMPLOYEE BENEFIT PLANS COMMITTEE, BOARD OF DIRECTORS LEHMAN
BROTHERS HOLDINGS, INC., BENEFITS COMMITTEE, MOODY'S INVESTORS
SERVICE, INC., McGRAW-HILL COMPANIES, INC., MOODY'S CORPORATION,
ERNST & YOUNG, LLP, BRIAN M. CLARKSON, MICHAEL KANEF, MOODY'S
INVESTORS SERVICE, INC., FIDELITY MANAGEMENT TRUST COMPANY, ANZ
SECURITIES, INC., CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., RBC CAPITAL
MARKETS CORPORATION, ABN AMRO INCORPORATED, WILLIAMS CAPITAL GROUP
L.P., BBVA SECURITIES INC., GREENWICH CAPITAL MARKETS, INC.,
SUNTRUST CAPITAL MARKETS, INC., CIBC WORLD MARKETS CORP., HSBC
SECURITIES (USA) INC., HVB CAPITAL MARKETS, INC., M.R. BEAL &
COMPANY, BNP PARIBAS S.A., ING FINANCIAL MARKETS LLC, MELLON
FINANCIAL MARKETS, LLC, NATIXIS BLEICHROEDER INCORPORATED,
SANTANDER INVESTMENT SECURITIES INC., SG AMERICAS SECURITIES
HOLDINGS, LLC, WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC, NATIONAL AUSTRALIA
CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, CAJA DE AHORROS Y MONTE DE PIEDAD DE MADRID,
HARRIS NESBITT CORP., DZ FINANCIAL MARKETS LLC, FORTIS SECURITIES,
LLC, RBS GREENWICH CAPITAL, BMO CAPITAL MARKETS CORP., MIZUHO
SECURITIES USA, INC., MURIEL SIEBERT & CO., INC., SCOTIA CAPITAL
(USA) INC., SOVEREIGN SECURITIES CORPORATION, LLC, UTENDAHL
CAPITAL PARTNERS, L.P., BANK DEFENDANTS, BANKIA, S.A., RAYMOND
McDANIEL, JR., RBS WCS HOLDING COMPANY, DAIWA CAPITAL MARKETS
EUROPE LIMITED, BNY CAPITAL MARKETS, INC., WACHOVIA CAPITAL
MARKETS, LLC, BNY MELLON CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, McGRAW-HILL
COMPANIES, INC., A.G. EDWARDS & SONS, INC., BANC OF AMERICA
SECURITIES LLC, BBVA SECURITIES INC., COMMERZBANK CAPITAL MARKETS
CORP., FIDELITY CAPITAL MARKETS, LOOP CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, MORGAN
STANLEY & CO. LLC, RAYMOND JAMES & ASSOCIATES, INC., UBS
SECURITIES LLC, WACHOVIA SECURITIES, LLC, ZIONS DIRECT, INC.,
CALYON SECURITIES (USA) INC., COUNTRYWIDE SECURITIES CORPORATION,
HYPO CAPITAL MARKETS, INC., LASALLE FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC.,
EDWARD D. JONES & CO., L.P., NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED, RBC
DAIN RAUSCHER INCORPORATED, BANK OF NEW YORK CAPITAL MARKETS,
INC., CIBC WORLD MARKETS CORP., DNB NOR MARKETS INC., MERRILL
LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, SIEBERT CAPITAL
MARKETS, STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY,
INC., TD SECURITIES (USA) LLC, J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LLC,
CITIGROUP INC., RBS SECURITIES INC., HARRIS NESBITT, SOCIETE
GENERALE CORPORATE & INVESTMENT BANKING, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS
REALTY CORP., BBVA SECURITIES INC., BANC OF AMERICA SECURITIES
LLC, CABRERA CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, D.A. DAVIDSON & CO., DAVENPORT
& COMPANY LLC, FERRIS, BAKER WATTS, INC., FIFTH THIRD SECURITIES,
INC., FIXED INCOME SECURITIES, INC., H & R BLOCK FINANCIAL
ADVISORS, INC., JACKSON SECURITIES LLC, JANNEY MONTGOMERY SCOTT
LLC, KEEFE, BRUYETTE & WOODS, INC., KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS, INC.,
MAXIM GROUP LLC, MESIROW FINANCIAL, INC., MORGAN KEEGAN & COMPANY,
INC., NATIONAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC, OPPENHEIMER & CO.,
INCORPORATED, ROBERT W. BAIRD & CO. INCORPORATED, SMH CAPITAL
INC., SCOTT & STRINGFELLOW, INC., STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY,
INCORPORATED, STONE & YOUNGBERG LLC, TD AMERITRADE HOLDING
CORPORATION, VINING SPARKS IBG, LP, ZIONS DIRECT, INC., WACHOVIA
CAPITAL FINANCE, B.C. ZIEGLER AND COMPANY, CREDIT SUISSE
SECURITIES (USA) LLC, PIPER JAFFRAY & CO., DZ FINANCIAL MARKETS
LLC, LANA FRANKS, EDWARD GRIEB, RICHARD McKINNEY, KRISTINE SMITH,
JAMES J. SULLIVAN, SAMIR TABET, MARK L. ZUSY, ABN AMRO HOLDING
N.V, CABRERA CAPITAL MARKETS LLC, CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC.,
NABCAPITAL SECURITIES, LLC, THE WILLIAMS CAPITAL GROUP, L.P.,
PIPER JAFFRAY & CO., DAVID GOLDFARB, HERBERT H. McDADE, III,
THOMAS RUSSO, MARK WALSH, JERRY GARCIA, An Individual, BNP
PARIBAS, KATHLEEN FULD, JOHN C. ANDERSON, JAMES ESPOSITO,
FINANCIAL ASSETS SECURITIES CORPORATION, GREENWICH CAPITAL
ACCEPTANCE, INC., NOW KNOWN A RBS ACCEPTANCE INC., GREENWICH
CAPITAL FINANCIAL PRODUCTS, INC., now known as RBS Financial
Products Inc., GREENWICH CAPITAL MARKETS, INC., now known as RBS
Securities Inc., CAROL P. MATHIS, ROBERT J. McGINNIS, JOSEPH N.
WALSH, III, BANCA IMI, S.P.A., ARKANSAS ACTIONS BANK DEFENDANTS,
ARKANSAS ACTIONS INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, WSIB ACTION BANK
DEFENDANTS, ANICO ACTION BANK DEFENDANTS, PEARSON PLAINTIFFS'
ACTIONS BANK DEFENDANTS, STATE FUND ACTION INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS,
RHF ACTION INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, REMER ACTION INDIVIDUAL
DEFENDANTS, A/S ACTIONS INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, THE LEHMAN BROTHERS
SAVINGS PLAN, ERIN CALLAN, JOSEPH M. GREGORY, IAN LOWITT, MIZUHO
SECURITIES USA, INC., UBS FINANCIAL SERVICES INC., CHRISTOPHER M.
O'MEARA, MICHAEL L. AINSLIE, JOHN F. AKERS, ROGER S. BERLIND,
THOMAS H. CRUIKSHANK, MARSHA JOHNSON EVANS, SIR CHRISTOPHER GENT,
JERRY A. GRUNDHOFER, RONALD A. HERNANDEZ, HENRY KAUFMAN AND JOHN
D. MACOMBER, Defendants. BNC MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-1, BNC
MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-2, FIRST FRANKLIN MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST
2006-FF12, FIRST FRANKLIN MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-FF2, FIRST
FRANKLIN MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-FFA, FIRST FRANKLIN MORTGAGE
LOAN TRUST 2006-FFB, GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING TRUST SERIES
2006-AR4, GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING TRUST SERIES 2006-AR5,
GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING TRUST SERIES 2006-AR7, GREENPOINT
MORTGAGE FUNDING TRUST SERIES 2006-HE1, GREENPOINT MORTGAGE
FUNDING TRUST SERIES 2006-AR6, GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING TRUST
SERIES 2006-AR8, GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING TRUST, SERIES 2007-
AR1, GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING TRUST, SERIES 2007-AR3, LEHMAN
MORTGAGE TRUST 2006-2, LEHMAN MORTGAGE TRUST 2006-5, LEHMAN
MORTGAGE TRUST 2006-6, LEHMAN MORTGAGE TRUST 2006-7, LEHMAN
MORTGAGE TRUST 2006-8, LEHMAN MORTGAGE TRUST 2006-9, LEHMAN
MORTGAGE TRUST 2007-1, LEHMAN MORTGAGE TRUST 2007-2, LEHMAN
MORTGAGE TRUST 2007-3, LEHMAN MORTGAGE TRUST 2007-4, LEHMAN
MORTGAGE TRUST 2007-5, LEHMAN XS TRUST 2005-4, LEHMAN XS TRUST
2005-5N, LEHMAN XS TRUST 2005-6, LEHMAN XS TRUST 2005-7N, LEHMAN
XS TRUST 2005-8, LEHMAN XS TRUST 2005-9N, LEHMAN XS TRUST 2006-1,
LEHMAN XS TRUST 2006-11, LEHMAN XS TRUST 2006-13, LEHMAN XS TRUST
2006-14N, LEHMAN XS TRUST 2006-15, LEHMAN XS TRUST 2006-16N,
LEHMAN XS TRUST 2006-17, LEHMAN XS TRUST 2006-18N, LEHMAN XS TRUST
2006-19, LEHMAN XS TRUST 2006-20, LEHMAN XS TRUST 2006-2N, LEHMAN
XS TRUST 2006-3, LEHMAN XS TRUST 2006-4N, LEHMAN XS TRUST 2006-5,
LEHMAN XS TRUST 2006-GP1, LEHMAN XS TRUST 2006-GP2, LEHMAN XS
TRUST 2007-1, LEHMAN XS TRUST 2007-10H, LEHMAN XS TRUST 2007-11,
LEHMAN XS TRUST 2007-12N, LEHMAN XS TRUST 2007-2N, LEHMAN XS TRUST
2007-4N, LEHMAN XS TRUST 2007-5H, LEHMAN XS TRUST 2007-6, LEHMAN
XS TRUST 2007-7N, LEHMAN XS TRUST 2007-9, LEHMAN XS TRUST SERIES
2005-5N, LEHMAN XS TRUST SERIES 2005-7N, LEHMAN XS TRUST SERIES
2005-9N, LEHMAN XS TRUST SERIES 2006-16N, LEHMAN XS TRUST SERIES
2006-2N, STRUCTURED ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-10,
STRUCTURED ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-11, STRUCTURED
ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-12, STRUCTURED ADJUSTABLE
RATE MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-2, STRUCTURED ADJUSTABLE RATE
MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-3, STRUCTURED ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGE
LOAN TRUST 2006-4, STRUCTURED ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST
2006-8, STRUCTURED ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-9,
STRUCTURED ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-1, STRUCTURED
ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-2, STRUCTURED ADJUSTABLE
RATE MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-3, STRUCTURED ADJUSTABLE RATE
MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-4, STRUCTURED ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGE
LOAN TRUST 2007-5, STRUCTURED ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST
2007-6, STRUCTURED ASSET INVESTMENT LOAN TRUST 2006-2, STRUCTURED
ASSET INVESTMENT LOAN TRUST 2006-BNC1, STRUCTURED ASSET INVESTMENT
LOAN TRUST 2006-BNC3, STRUCTURED ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION,
STRUCTURED ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-
BC1, STRUCTURED ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST
2006-BC2, STRUCTURED ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION MORTGAGE LOAN
TRUST 2006-BC3, STRUCTURED ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION MORTGAGE
LOAN TRUST 2006-BC4, STRUCTURED ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION
MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-BC5, STRUCTURED ASSET SECURITIES
CORPORATION MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-BC6, STRUCTURED ASSET
SECURITIES CORPORATION MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-S1, STRUCTURED
ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-S3,
STRUCTURED ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2006-
S4, STRUCTURED ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST
2006-WF1, STRUCTURED ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION MORTGAGE LOAN
TRUST 2006-WF3, STRUCTURED ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION MORTGAGE
LOAN TRUST 2007-BC1, STRUCTURED ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION
MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-BC2, STRUCTURED ASSET SECURITIES
CORPORATION MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-BC3, STRUCTURED ASSET
SECURITIES CORPORATION MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-EQ1, STRUCTURED
ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-OSI,
STRUCTURED ASSET SECURITIES CORPORATION MORTGAGE LOAN TRUST 2007-
WF1, DOES 1-20, GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING GRANTOR TRUST 1-A1A,
SERIES 2006-AR6, GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING GRANTOR TRUST 1-A2A2,
SERIES 2006-AR5, GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING GRANTOR TRUST 1-A3A2,
SERIES 2006-AR5, GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING TRUST 1-A2A2, SERIES
2006-AR6, GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING TRUST 1-A2B, SERIES 2006-
AR6, GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING TRUST 1-A3B, SERIES 2006-AR6,
GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING TRUST 1-A3B, SERIES 2006-AR6, LEHMAN
BROTHERS INC., LEHMAN MORTGAGE TRUST 2007-6, LEHMAN MORTGAGE TRUST
MORTGAGE PASS-THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2007-4, Consolidated-
Defendants, Case No. 15-2229 (2nd Cir.).

Plaintiffs-Appellants Alex E. Rinehart, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Jo Anne Buzzo, Monique Miller Fong,
on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Maria DeSousa,
and Linda DeMizio, are represented by Daniel W. Krasner, Esq. --
krasner@whafh.com -- & Matthew M. Guiney, Esq. -- guiney@whafh.com
-- WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP & Thomas J. McKenna,
Esq. -- tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- & Gregory Egleston, Esq. --
gegleston@gme-law.com -- GAINEY MCKENNA & EGLESTON

Defendants-Appellees Mary Pat Archer, Amitabh Arora, Michael
Branca, Evelyne Estey, Adam Feinstein, David Romhilt, and Wendy M.
Uvino, are represented by Jonathan K. Youngwood, Esq. --
jyoungwood@stblaw.com -- & Janet Gochman, Esq. --
jgochman@stblaw.com -- & Alexander Li, Esq. --
zander.li@stblaw.com -- SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP


LYFT: Judge Tosses $12.25MM Class Action Settlement
---------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullin, writing for Ars Technica, reports that a deal between
Lyft and lawyers representing some drivers, in which the ride-
hailing app would pay $12.25 million to end a lawsuit, has been
thrown out by the federal judge overseeing the case.

In a 21-page order, US District Judge Vince Chhabria says that the
$12.25 million payment seriously shortchanges the proposed class
of drivers and the state of California.  Plaintiffs' lawyers said
the $12.25 million was a reasonable cut for the $64 million that
drivers deserved for mileage reimbursements they would have
received as employees.  But Judge Chhabria's calculation of that
reimbursement, using the drivers' own methodology, was that it's
worth more than $126 million.

"The drivers were therefore shortchanged by half on their
reimbursement claim alone," he concludes.

In addition, the drivers had a claim for penalties under the
Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), a law that allows for
private enforcement of state labor laws with the state receiving
75 percent of the proceeds.  Under the proposed deal, the PAGA
portion of the claim was discounted to $122,250, less than 1
percent of the total settlement.

Judge Chhabria says the PAGA penalty "makes no sense" and was
created with an "arbitrary" calculation.  "Nor did either side
have a rational explanation for the value assigned to the PAGA
claim, or for why they attributed such a minuscule portion of the
settlement to that claim."

If all drivers in the class had made a claim, the $12.25 million
settlement would have resulted in an average payout of $53.02 to
part-time drivers and $676.19 to full-time drivers.  That figure
gives a 50 percent "premium" to the full-time drivers' claims,
since in the judge's view they likely had a stronger case for
being misclassified as contractors.

The relatively low sum of money could be explained away if the
non-monetary terms of the settlement were significant,
Judge  Chhabria notes.  But they aren't.  The lawsuit claimed that
Lyft drivers were really employees who had been misclassified as
independent contractors and said they weren't properly paid for
their expenses, among other things.  Those things won't change
under the proposed agreement, which instead focused on when and
how Lyft can terminate drivers.

The Teamsters union, which is seeking to represent Lyft drivers,
also objected to the settlement, saying that it should have
changed the drivers' classification to employees.  Judge Chhabria
mostly discounts the Teamsters' claims, saying they are policy
concerns better directed to the legislature.  He says the union's
assertion that the changes are "largely illusory" is likely an
overstatement.  "The changes aren't revolutionary, but they are
not nothing, either," Judge Chhabria writes.

More money, fewer problems

Overall, Judge Chhabria sees serious problems with this deal. But
they're largely, if not entirely, concerns that can be solved with
money.  The mileage reimbursement and PAGA valuations are the
"fundamental defects" that need to be corrected.

Former Lyft drivers Patrick Cotter and Alejandra Maciel sued Lyft
in 2013, saying they shouldn't have been classified as
contractors.  The suit said they were denied breaks, overtime pay,
and other benefits of being an employee.

One of the problems assessing proper compensation for the drivers
is that the proposed class is so disparate.  Only 755 members of
the 150,000-person class are full-time drivers, defined as driving
at least 30 hours per week for at least half of the weeks they
worked for Lyft.  More than two-thirds of the class drove less
than 60 hours for Lyft in total.

The settlement discussion is an odd one, because both the judge
and lawyers are effectively trying to guess what a jury would do
if the case went to trial.  "A jury might be reluctant to conclude
that Lyft 'employs' people who only give occasional rides when
their schedules permit," Judge Chhabria wrote.  "But the outcome
either way is far from assured."

In a separate action, Lyft's bigger competitor Uber reached a deal
with the Los Angeles and San Francisco district attorneys on April
7, in which the company will pay $25 million to settle a lawsuit
claiming that its background checks on drivers were insufficient.
The lawsuit also said that a $4 fee for trips to airports should
have been paid to the airports but wasn't.

Under the deal, Uber will pay $10 million within 60 days, and $15
million will be waived if Uber follows the settlement terms for
two years.


MACY'S MERCHANDISING: Recalls Stainless Steel Frying Pans
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 15, 2016
Posting date: March 15, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Burn Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-57522

This recall involves the 8-inch and 10-inch stainless steel frying
pans in the Martha Stewart Collection 10-piece stainless steel
cookware sets. The frying pans have two rivets that attach the
frying pan to the handle.  The rivets have stainless steel discs
on top of them.

The following UPC numbers are included in this recall and can be
found on the product packaging:

0733003518899
0733003623326
0766370840959
0766370980334

The following date codes are included in this recall and can be
found inscribed on the bottom of the frying pans:

70118
70138
70218
70228
70318
70328
70338
70418
70428
70438
70518
70528
70618
70628
70718
70728
70818
70828
70918
70928
71018
71108
71118
71208
71218
HF10114
HF10414
HF10513
HF10514
HF10613
HF10614
HF10713
HF10813
HF10913
HF11113

The metal discs covering the rivets on the frying pans can pop
off, posing a burn hazard.

Neither Health Canada nor Borderfree, Inc. has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
these frying pans in Canada.

Approximately 24 of the recalled cookware sets were sold online at
www.macys.com and shipped through Borderfree, Inc.

The recalled cookware sets were sold from January 2011 to
September 2015.

Manufactured in China.

Distributor: Macy's Merchandising Group, Inc.
             New York
             New York
             UNITED STATES

Retailer: Borderfree, Inc.
          New York
          New York
          UNITED STATES

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/s3dtCC


MANNARICH FOOD: Updates Recall on Fish Products
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 4, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg, Allergen - Wheat
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Mannarich Food Inc.
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10436

The food recall warning issued on February 26, 2016 has been
updated to include additional product information. This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Mannarich Food Inc. is recalling Mannarich Food, Mannarich Food
Stop and Ocean Chinese Food Products brand fish products from the
marketplace because they contain egg and wheat which are not
declared on the label. People with an allergy to egg or wheat
should not consume and retailers, hotels, restaurants and
institutions should not sell, serve or use the recalled products
described below.

These products may have been sold in bulk or in smaller packages
with or without a label and may not bear the same product names as
described below. Consumers who are unsure if they have purchased
the affected products are advised to contact their retailer.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to egg or wheat, do not consume the
recalled products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening
reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

This recall was triggered by CFIA test results. The CFIA is
conducting a food safety investigation, which may lead to the
recall of other products. If other high-risk products are
recalled, the CFIA will notify the public through updated Food
Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand       Common      Size       Code(s) on         UPC
  name        name        ----       product            ---
  -----       ------                 ----------
  Mannarich   Cheese      4 x 3 kg   All codes where    None
  Food        Fishball               egg is not
                                     declared on the
                                     label
  Mannarich   Crab        4 x 3 kg   All codes where    None
  Food        Nugget                 egg is not
                                     declared on the
                                     label

  Mannarich   Crispy      4 x 3 kg   All codes where    None
  Food        Tofu Ball              egg is not
                                     declared on the
                                     label
  Mannarich   Cuttlefish  4 x 3 kg   All codes where    None
  Food        Ball (L)               egg is not
                                     declared on the
                                     label
  Mannarich   Cuttlefish  4 x 3 kg   All codes where    None
  Food        Ball (S)               egg is not
                                     declared on the
                                     label
  Mannarich   Fish Ball   4 x 3 kg   All codes where    None
  Food        (L)                    egg is not
                                     declared on the
                                     label
  Mannarich   Fish Ball   4 x 3 kg   All codes where    None
  Food        (S)                    egg is not
                                     declared on the
                                     label
  Mannarich   Fish        400 g      All codes where    None
  Food        Beancurd               egg is not
             (Steamboat)             declared on the
                                     label
  Mannarich   Fried Fish  4 x 3 kg   All codes where    None
  Food        Ball (L)               egg is not
                                     declared on the
                                     label
  Mannarich   Fried Fish  4 x 3 kg   All codes where    None
  Food        Ball (S)               egg is not
                                     declared on the
                                     label
  Mannarich   Fried       4 x 3 kg   All codes where    None
  Food        Shrimp Ball            egg is not
                                     declared on the
                                     label
  Mannarich   Fried Yi    4 x 3 kg   All codes where    None
  Food        Teow                   egg is not
              (Fish Long)            on the
                                     label
  Mannarich   Lobster     4 x 3 kg   All codes where    None
  Food        Flavored               egg is not
              Ball                   on the
                                     label

  Mannarich   Shrimp Ball 4 x 3 kg   All codes where    None
  Food                               egg is not
                                     on the
                                     label
  Mannarich   Singapore   4 x 3 kg   All codes where    None
  Food        Fishcake               egg is not
                                     on the
                                     label
  Mannarich   Taro Fish   4 x 3 kg   All codes where    None
  Food        Ball                   egg is not
                                     on the
                                     label
  Mannarich   Thai-Veggie 4 x 3 kg   All codes where    None
  Food        Ball                   egg is not
                                     on the
                                     label
  Mannarich   Cuttlefish  2.5 lb     All codes where    0 68636-
  Food        Balls-                 egg is not         02630 6
  Stop        Party Pack             on the
                                     label
  Mannarich   Fish Balls- 2.5 lb     All codes where    0 68636-
  Food        Party Pack             egg is not         02630 6
  Stop                               on the
                                     label
  Mannarich   Fried Fish  2.5 lb     All codes where    0 68636-
  Food        Balls-                 egg is not         03650 3
  Stop        Party Pack             on the
                                     label
  Mannarich   Fried Shrimp 160 g     All codes where    0 68636-
  Food        Flavoured              egg is not         02020 5
              Fish Balls             on the
                                     label
  Mannarich   Fried Shrimp 2.5 lb    All codes where    0 68636-
  Food        Balls -                egg is not         02620 7
  Stop        Party Pack             on the
                                     label
  Mannarich   Lobster      220 g     All codes where    0 68636-
  Food        Flavoured              egg is not         03432 5
              Balls                  on the
                                     label
  Mannarich   Lobster      220 g     All codes where    0 68636-
  Food        Flavoured              egg is not         57610 8
  Stop        Balls-                 on the
              Party Pack             label

  Mannarich   Shrimp       4 x 5 lb  All codes where    None
  Food        Flavoured              egg is not
              Fish Balls             on the label
  Ocean       Cuttlefish   180 g     All codes where    6 77825-
  Chinese     Balls                  egg is not         40022 5
  Food                               declared on
  Products                           the label
  Ocean       Fish Balls   180 g     All codes where    6 77825-
  Chinese                            egg is not         40015 7
  Food                               declared on
  Products                           the label
  Ocean       Fried Fish   160 g     All codes where    6 77825-
  Chinese     Balls                  egg is not         40076 4
  Food                               declared on
  Products                           the label
  Ocean       Fried Shrimp 160 g     All codes where    6 77825-
  Chinese     Flavored               egg is not         40021 8
  Food        Fish Balls             declared on
  Products                           the label
  Ocean       Shrimp       180 g     All codes where    6 77825-
  Chinese     Flavored               egg is not         40021 1
  Food        Fish Balls             declared on
  Products                           the label

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


MDL 2371: J2 Global Appeal Remains Pending in 7th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------
j2 Global Inc., said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that an appeal in the multi-
district litigation in the Northern District of Illinois (No.
1:12-cv-06286) remains pending.

On October 16, 2013, a j2 Global affiliate entered an appearance
as a plaintiff in a multi-district litigation pending in the
Northern District of Illinois (No. 1:12-cv-06286). In this
litigation, Unified Messaging Solutions, LLC ("UMS"), a company
with rights to assert certain patents owned by the j2 Global
affiliate, has asserted five j2 Global patents against a number of
defendants. While claims against some defendants have been
settled, other defendants have filed counterclaims for, among
other things, non-infringement, unenforceability, and invalidity
of the patents-in-suit.

On December 20, 2013, the Northern District of Illinois issued a
claim construction opinion and, on June 13, 2014, entered a final
judgment of non-infringement for the remaining defendants based on
that claim construction.

UMS and the j2 Global affiliate filed a notice of appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 27, 2014
(No. 14-1611). The appeal remains pending.

j2 Global, Inc., together with its subsidiaries, provides cloud
services to businesses of all sizes, from individuals to
enterprises, and license its intellectual property ("IP") to third
parties.


MEDICINES COMPANY: June 7 Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Medicines Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Court has set a
final approval hearing for June 7, 2016, on the settlement of a
class action lawsuit.

"On February 21, 2014, a class action lawsuit was filed against us
and certain of our current and former officers in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey by David Serr
on behalf of stockholders who purchased or otherwise acquired our
common stock between February 20, 2013 through February 12, 2014,
which we refer to as the class period," the Company said.

"On July 22, 2014, the Court entered an order appointing one of
our stockholders, Warren H. Schuler, the lead plaintiff and
Pomerantz LLP the lead counsel.

"Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 17, 2014,
which asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, including
allegations that our stock was artificially inflated during the
class period because we and certain current and former officers
allegedly made misrepresentations or did not make proper
disclosures regarding the results of clinical trials, which tested
the efficacy and safety of cangrelor.

"Specifically, the amended complaint alleges that statements made
throughout the class period about the trials were misleading
because they failed to disclose that cangrelor did not show
superiority to the drug clopidogrel, that the clinical trials were
unethically and inappropriately administered, that clopidogrel was
not administered optimally, and that cangrelor patients exhibited
higher bleeding rates. The amended complaint seeks, among other
relief, class certification of the lawsuit, unspecified damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs.

"On November 17, 2014, we and certain of our current and former
officers moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed
an opposition to the motion to dismiss on December 19, 2014 and we
filed a reply brief in further support of the motion on January
16, 2015.

"Briefing is now complete. On July 16, 2015, the court heard oral
argument on the motion, which remains under consideration by the
court.

"On February 12, 2016, the parties executed a stipulation for a
proposed class settlement, subject to court approval. On February
25, 2016, the court preliminarily approved the settlement and set
a final approval hearing for June 7, 2016."


MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls 2016 Models Due to Crash Risk
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 10, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Electrical
Units affected: 35
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016115TC
ID number: 2016115

On certain vehicles, the wiring harness for the steering column
switch module may have been incorrectly routed during
manufacturing. This could cause the harness to chafe on the
steering column adjustment, which could affect or cause one or
more of the following systems to fail: turn signals, gear
selector, Electric Power Steering (EPS) or Electronic stability
control functions. Additionally, this condition could potentially
cause the engine to stall, and could affect proper airbag
deployment or cause an airbag to deploy inadvertently. These
potential outcomes in conjunction with traffic and road
conditions, and the driver's reactions, could increase the risk of
a crash causing injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers
will inspect, repair and reroute the wiring harness as necessary.

  Make              Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----              -----        ----------------------
  MERCEDES-BENZ                   2016


MERILIN TRADING: Recalls White Pepper Salt Products
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 3, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Gluten
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Merilin Trading Co.
Distribution: Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10430

  Brand     Common name    Size   Code(s) on      UPC
  name      -----------    ----   product         ---
  -----                           ----------
  Wu Hsing  White Pepper   75 g   All codes where 4 710868 801027
            Salt                  gluten is not
                                  declared on the
                                  label


MGM RESORTS: Settlement in Securities Case Has Final Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re MGM MIRAGE Securities Litigation, Case No.
2:09-cv-01558-GMN-LRL (D. Nev.), Chief District Judge Gloria M.
Navarro in Nevada has entered an order approving Lead Plaintiffs'
Motion for Approval of the Plan of Allocation of Settlement
Proceeds.  Specifically, the Court held that the formula for the
calculation of the claims of Authorized Claimants provides a fair
and reasonable basis upon which to allocate the proceeds of the
Net Settlement Fund established by the Settlement Agreement among
Class Members.

A copy of that order dated Feb. 23, 2016, is available at
http://is.gd/GCJ67cfrom Leagle.com.

In a separate order also dated Feb. 23, Judge Navarro granted Lead
Plaintiffs' Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses.
Specifically, the Court awarded Lead Counsel attorneys' fees of
25% of the Settlement Amount and expenses of $1,937,528.73
together with the interest earned thereon for the same time period
and at the same rate as that earned by the Settlement Amount until
paid.

The Court awarded Lead Plaintiffs for their costs and expenses
directly related to their representation of the Class as follows:

     $11,853.00 to Arkansas Teacher Retirement System;
      $4,400.00 to Philadelphia Board of Pensions and Retirement;
      $5,075.00 to Luzerne County Retirement System; and
     $11,300.00 to Stichting Pensioenfonds Metaal en Techniek.

A copy of the Fee Order is available at http://is.gd/GPI6CIfrom
Leagle.com.

According to MGM Resorts International, in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, the U.S.
District Court for Nevada in November 2009 consolidated the Robert
Lowinger v. MGM MIRAGE, et al. (Case No. 2:09-cv-01558-RCL-LRL,
filed August 19, 2009) and Khachatur Hovhannisyan v. MGM MIRAGE,
et al. (Case No. 2:09-cv-02011-LRH-RJJ, filed October 19, 2009)
putative class actions under the caption "In re MGM MIRAGE
Securities Litigation." The cases name the Company and certain
former and current directors and officers as defendants and allege
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

After transfer of the cases in 2010 to the Honorable Gloria M.
Navarro, the court appointed several employee retirement benefits
funds as co-lead plaintiffs and their counsel as co-lead and co-
liaison counsel.

In January 2011, lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint, alleging that between August 2, 2007 and March 5, 2009,
the Company, its directors and certain of its officers violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.

In September 2013, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' amended complaint. Defendants answered the amended
complaint, the court entered a scheduling order and discovery
commenced. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification in
November 2014. Defendants filed their opposition to class
certification in February 2015. The court heard oral argument on
the class certification motion on April 21, 2015 and took the
matter under advisement.  No trial date was set in this case.

In July 2015, the lead plaintiffs and defendants agreed in
principle to settle the securities class actions. In August 2015,
the lead plaintiffs and defendants entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement (the "Settlement Agreement"). Under the
terms of the Settlement Agreement, the claims against the Company
and the named former and current directors and officers will be
dismissed with prejudice and released in exchange for a $75
million cash payment by the Company's directors and officers
liability insurers.

In August 2015, the lead plaintiffs filed with the court an
Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement
Agreement. In September 2015, the court entered an Order
Preliminarily Approving Settlement, preliminarily certified the
class for settlement purposes only, established class notification
procedures and scheduled a hearing for December 15, 2015 to
determine whether to grant final approval to the settlement.

On December 7, 2015, the court entered an order on a stipulation
by the parties, which, among other things, continued the approval
hearing to January 29, 2016 to allow additional time to provide
notice of the settlement to class members. On January 21, 2016,
the court again continued the hearing for final settlement
approval, to allow the court time to first resolve a then-pending
motion by a non-party to compel certain discovery from the lead
plaintiffs' counsel. On January 27, 2016, the court denied the
motion to compel. The hearing for final settlement approval was
scheduled for March 1, 2016.

Information about the settlement is available at:

     http://www.mgmmiragesecuritieslitigation.com/

Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs:

     KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
     Eli R. Greenstein, Esq.
     Jennifer L. Joost, Esq.
     Paul A. Breucop, Esq.
     One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Telephone: 415/400-3000
     415/400-3001 (fax)

          - and -

     KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
     Gregory M. Castaldo, Esq.
     280 King of Prussia Rd.
     Radnor, PA 19087
     Telephone: 610/667-7706
     610/667-7056 (fax)

          - and -

     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     Arthur C. Leahy, Esq.
     Ellen Gusikoff Stewart, Esq.
     Brian O. O'Mara, Esq.
     Ryan A. Llorens, Esq.
     Matthew I. Alpert, Esq.
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: 619/231-1058
     619/231-7423 (fax)

          - and -

     NIX PATTERSON & ROACH, LLP
     Bradley E. Beckworth, Esq.
     Jeffrey J. Angelovich, Esq.
     Susan Whatley, Esq.
     Lisa P. Baldwin, Esq.
     205 Linda Drive
     Daingerfield, TX 75638
     Telephone: 903/645-7333
     903/645-4415 (fax)


MOBILE COMMUNITY MANAGEMENT: Dismissal of Class Claims Upheld
-------------------------------------------------------------
Associate Judge Patricia D. Benke of the California Court of
Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of class allegations
in the case captioned, JEFFREY SCHERMER et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants, v. THOMAS T. TATUM et al., Defendants and Respondents,
Case No. D067807 (Cal. Ct. App.).

Plaintiffs and proposed class representatives Jeffrey Schermer,
David Moravee, Tom Fisher, Janice Wenhold, Karen Vielma, Gloria
Carruthers and George Rivera brought a class action on behalf of
residents who live in mobilehome parks. Plaintiffs alleged they
were subjected to uniform unconscionable lease agreements and
leasing practices by defendants. Plaintiffs' 48-page operative
complaint alleged among others causes of action (1) unfair
business practices; (2) breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment;
(3) breach of duty of good faith and fair dealing; and (4) fraud
and deceit.

Plaintiffs' second amended complaint involves 18 mobilehome parks
allegedly owned and/or operated by defendants Thomas T. Tatum
(Tatum) and Jeffrey A. Kaplan (Kaplan), which plaintiffs allege
were managed through defendant Mobile Community Management Company
(MCM). Also named as defendants are 18 "single-purpose" business
entities that plaintiffs allege each owned one mobilehome park in
California.

In sustaining, without leave to amend, defendants' demurrer to the
class action allegations, the court ruled the plaintiffs' second
amended complaint failed to "allege facts sufficient to establish
a community of interest in the elements of the class claims."
Regarding the lack of commonality, the court noted the "problem is
that while defendants may have had standard procedures, products
or policies in place, the claims of plaintiffs revolve around
individual application or use of the policies."

On appeal, plaintiffs contend that the trial court prematurely
dismissed their class allegations because their operative
complaint adequately pleaded "a community of interest with typical
class representatives and predominately common questions of law
and fact" with respect to their four causes of action; and that in
so doing, the court improperly assessed its action "on the merits
and failed to properly credit plaintiffs' unambiguous allegations,
which were supported by the actual form lease agreements attached
to the SAC.

In his Order dated March 17, 2016 available at http://is.gd/fvdIm0
from Leagle.com, Judge Cox found that the lower court properly
sustained without leave to amend the demurrer to the class
allegations in each of the four causes of action at issue, when it
found there was no reasonable possibility plaintiffs could satisfy
the community of interest requirement for class certification.

Plaintiffs are represented by Robbins Arroyo's Brian J. Robbins,
George C. Aguilar, Michael J. Nicoud, Leonid Kandinov; Allen,
Semelsberger & Kaelin's George H. Kaelin III, James C. Allen,
David Semelsberger, Jessica S. Taylor; and the Law Offices of
George W. Cochran.

Defendants are represented by Phil Woog, Esq. --
pwoog@cookseylaw.com -- & Matthew R. Pahl, Esq. --
mpahl@cookseylaw.com -- COOKSEY, TOOLEN, GAGE, DUFFY & WOOG


MONDELEZ CANADA: Recalls Social Tea Biscuits
--------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 9, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Extraneous Material
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Mondelez Canada Inc.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Quebec,
Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10450

  Brand       Common      Size    Code(s) on    UPC
  name        name        ----    product       ---
  -----       ------              ----------
  Mr.
  Christie's  Social Tea  350 g   2016 SE 18    0 66721 01129 9
              Biscuits
  Mr.         Social Tea  1.4 kg  2016 OC 05    0 66721 01816 8
  Christie's  Biscuits


MONSTER BEVERAGE: 9th Circuit Heard Arguments in Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
Dave Tartre, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Monster Beverage asked the Ninth Circuit on April 6, to stop San
Francisco from telling it how much caffeine to put in its energy
drinks.

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera told Monster in 2012
that he was investigating the safety and marketing of its drinks.
He demanded that Monster "reformulate its products to safe
caffeine levels, provide adequate warning labels, and cease
promoting over-consumption."

Before the city could sue, Monster sued Herrera and San Francisco
in Federal Court, seeking to stop the investigation. It accused
Herrera, in his official capacity, of trying to force it into
compelled speech, unconstitutional vagueness, and arrogating
federal powers to himself.

"Defendant's attempt to arrogate to himself the power to determine
the content and labeling of plaintiff's energy drinks and to usurp
FDA's regulatory authority is contrary to well-settled principles
of federal preemption and primary jurisdiction," Monster said in
its April 29, 2013 lawsuit in Sacramento Federal Court.

It sought an order barring Herrera "from enforcing his arbitrary
and discriminatory demands."

It called Herrera's demand for a "safe" level of caffeine
"hopelessly vague," and asked why San Francisco singled out
Monster, though 16 ounces of Starbucks coffee contains more
caffeine than Monster's products.

In late 2013, U.S. District Judge Virginia Phillips ruled that the
case belonged in state court.  Citing the Younger doctrine,
Phillips said a federal court should abstain from a case if
litigation was filed in a state court before the federal court got
to the merits.  Phillips ruled that though Monster filed in
Federal Court before Herrera filed in state court, Herrera's
filing came before the federal court could hold a "proceeding of
substance on the merits."  Food safety is a compelling state
interest and it is not "readily apparent" that all of Herrera's
claims are preempted by the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act,
the judge found.  A California court could adequately handle
constitutional claims, and under the Anti-Injunction Act, her
court will refrain from enjoining a state proceeding in the spirit
of comity, equity and federalism.

On April 6, Monster's attorney told a three-judge panel of Ninth
Circuit that Phillips should have exercised federal jurisdiction
because the issue at hand it is purely federal.

"There is a comprehensive set of food safety statutes and
regulations. One of those is the Nutrition Labeling and
Enforcement Act, which talks about what shows up on a can. But
beyond that, Congress has entrusted and authorized the FDA and the
FDA alone to police whether or not a product is generally
recognized as safe," Monster attorney Dan Marmalefsky said.

He called Phillips's decision to abstain a misapplication of the
Younger doctrine. The Ninth Circuit has held that a federal court
can abstain only in narrow circumstances, Marmalefsky said: when
state interests are vital to operation of the state government.
Otherwise the Federal Court is obligated to exercise jurisdiction.
A citizen can petition the FDA, and Herrera did ask FDA to
intervene, but it is up to the FDA to take action he said.

"You can search every case book: You will not find any reported
decision where a court is adjudicating the safety of an ingredient
in a food product where the plaintiff is not the United States of
America," Marmalefsky said. "The city attorney does not have the
right to bring that claim."

But Deputy City Attorney Tara Steeley told the court that a
California state court is capable of hearing the case and has
jurisdiction.

"That's what's really at stake here: Who gets to hear this case?
Who gets to decide? Under Younger and under the AIA, it's the
state court that gets to decide," Steeley said.

Prompted by a question from Judge Joseph Farris, Steeley said that
Monster could face claims in all 50 states, just like the tobacco
industry did.

The hearing was Marmalefsky's second that day in back-to-back
Monster cases at the Ninth Circuit.

Earlier, Marmalefsky -- dmarmalefsky@mofo.com -- with Morrison &
Foerster, told the same three appeals judges that a district court
had properly dismissed a class action claiming Monster had
targeted young people with a false and deceptive energy drink
marketing campaign.

In that argument, Marmalefsky said that caffeine is well
understood by the public, having been the subject of scientific
and legislative attention "So there is nothing concealed here."


NATIONAL FREIGHT: Notice of Removal in Wage Class Action Timely
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
New Jersey federal court ruled that a notice of removal, filed by
defendants in a class action over wage rates, was timely even
though it was filed 128 days after service of the complaint.

The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied the
plaintiffs' motion to remand in its March 15 opinion.

Chief Judge Jerome Simandle, relying on opinions by the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, said neither the complaint nor the
plaintiffs' briefing on the defendants' motion to dismiss
triggered the 30-day time period for removal under the Class
Action Fairness Act.

Under CAFA, a federal district court has subject matter
jurisdiction "over class actions involving at least 100 members
and over $5 million in controversy when minimal diversity is met
(between at least one defendant and one plaintiff-class member)."

"This Court joins Roth and Cutrone in concluding that if the
removal periods of 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1446(b)(1) and (b)(3) have not
been triggered (by one of the plaintiff's litigation documents), a
defendant may remove a case when the fruits of its own independent
investigation demonstrate that the case satisfies CAFA's
requirements," Judge Simandle wrote in the 25-page opinion.

From 2009 to 2014, plaintiffs John F. Portillo, Rafael Suarez,
Martin Duran, German Bencosme, Edin Vargas, Luis A. Hernandez,
Josue Paz and Alvaro Castaneda performed deliveries to Trader
Joe's stores throughout Massachusetts on behalf of defendants
National Freight Inc. and NFI Interactive Logistics Inc.

During this period, the plaintiffs claim the defendants
misclassified them as independent contractors rather than
employees and made unlawful deductions from their wages, in
violation of Massachusetts General Law.

As a result, the plaintiffs filed suit in New Jersey Superior
Court on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated
delivery drivers.

Upon completion of the parties' briefing on the defendants' motion
to dismiss -- and on the eve of the state court return date -- the
defendants removed the suit under the expanded diversity
provisions of CAFA.  The plaintiffs' motion to remand followed.

In seeking to remand, the plaintiffs challenged the defendants'
removal on timeliness grounds, and on the basis that their removal
notice fails to sufficiently demonstrate that the action meets the
jurisdictional amount in controversy requirement -- of $5 million
-- under CAFA.

The defendants, on the other hand, argued the plaintiffs'
submissions during the state court proceedings failed to
sufficiently tip them off to federal CAFA jurisdiction.

Rather, the defendants claimed they only learned that the action
satisfied the CAFA requirements through their own internal
investigation into the plaintiffs' allegations.  They also argued
that their removal notice, together with their supplemental
declaration on damages, easily satisfies their burden of
demonstrating that the amount in controversy exceeds the $5
million threshold.

The federal court sided with the defendants, denying the
plaintiffs' motion to remand to the state court.

"In the face of an indeterminate pleading, the 30-day removal
clock does not begin to run until litigation documents, subsequent
to the initial pleading, reveal facts supporting removal," Judge
Simandle wrote.  "As a result, a defendant may be able to remove
an action under CAFA well into the course of the litigation."

The judge continued, "Here, although the parties quibble over what
a pleading must contain to trigger the 30-day removal period,
neither party genuinely advances the position that the Complaint,
standing alone and without the benefit of Defendants' records,
discloses a basis for removal under CAFA, nor that Plaintiffs'
dismissal briefing otherwise clarified the complexion of this
litigation."

Judge Simandle said even a "cursory inspection" of the class
action complaint reveals that it fails to describe a basis for
federal jurisdiction.

"The Complaint discloses only minimal diversity, but provides no
clue as the numeric composition of the proposed class, nor to the
aggregate damages sought by the unquantified class," he wrote.

The judge said because neither the plaintiffs' complaint nor their
subsequent dismissal submissions provided the defendants with
facts demonstrating federal jurisdiction under CAFA, the 30-day
removal clocks have not been triggered.

Removal depends on the results of the defendants' own independent
investigation, he said.

In this case, the federal court found that the defendants' removal
was timely and met the damages requirement.

"In the declaration of Peter H. Vink, Mr. Vink explains that
Defendants 'review[ed] the records of just 34 of the over 100
independent contractors' encompassed by the proposed class, and
determined that their claimed damages alone 'resulted in potential
damages in excess of $5,000,000," Judge Simandle wrote.
"Mr. Vink then provides a lengthy spreadsheet, i.e., a factual
basis, substantiating this assertion.

"Plaintiffs do not contest the facts and assumptions behind
Defendants' $5 million-plus amount in controversy computation.  In
that way, Defendants' objective and factually-grounded estimates
easily meet their burden of establishing the requisite amount in
controversy by a preponderance of the evidence."


NCAA: Judge Cuts Legal Fee Award in "O'Bannon" to $40.7M
--------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
despite rejecting nearly all of the NCAA's objections to
attorneys' fees awarded the legal team for college athletes
seeking a cut of broadcast revenue, a federal judge in San
Francisco reduced the award by nearly $4 million -- to $40.7
million.

UCLA basketball star Ed O'Bannon led the class action against the
NCAA, demanding a share in the television broadcast revenue for
the use of their names, images and likenesses. The case was filed
in 2009 and took five years to get to trial. By then more than 30
law firms had signed on to O'Bannon's team.

In August 2014, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken ruled that the
NCAA violated antitrust law by imposing rules that kept student
athletes from receiving such compensation.

In July 2015, Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins awarded
O'Bannon's lawyers, led by Hausfeld LLP, $44.4 million in fees and
$1.5 million for expenses. He rejected the attorneys' request for
$3.7 million for expert fees.

The NCAA fought vigorously to whittle down the award, arguing that
O'Bannon's attorneys should not recover fees for time spent on
class claims that were unsuccessful. These included efforts on
behalf of former college athletes who were prevented from
licensing their names, images and likeness after they stopped
playing college sports.

Wilken modified the award to $40.7 million on March 31.

She found the O'Bannon team recorded nearly 8,000 hours working on
claims against the Collegiate Licensing Commission and Electronic
Arts, a video game company whose college sports-themed games were
the subject of a separate right-of-publicity lawsuit settled in
2013.

The NCAA also faulted Cousins for failing to discuss 6,086
disputed entries for clerical tasks that it believed did not merit
a fee award.

But Wilken wrote that it was "unreasonable for the NCAA to expect
Magistrate Judge Cousins to discuss even a fraction of the more
than 6,000 entries it identified." She added: "This is
particularly true when many of the entries identified are
unquestionably for substantive work."

Wilken found only a small portion of those entries were for purely
clerical things such as copying and making travel arrangements.
She reduced that fee by $34,391 - not the $1.7 million reduction
the NCAA sought.  Wilken rejected most of the NCAA's other fee-
reduction requests, finding Cousins' 2015 order fair and
reasonable.

The case captioned, EDWARD O'BANNON, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION; ELECTRONIC ARTS INC.;
and COLLEGIATE LICENSING COMPANY, Defendants., No. C 09-3329 CW
(N.D. Cal.).


NESTLE CANADA: Recalls Soup Mix and Gravy Products
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 9, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Extraneous Material
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Nestle Canada Inc.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia,
Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and Labrador
Extent of the product distribution: Hotel/Restaurant/Institutional
CFIA reference number: 10445

  Brand     Common    Size        Code(s) on   UPC
  name      name       ----        product     ---
  -----     ------                 ----------
  Tim       Chicken    8 x 481 g   60070443,   0 00 55000 69827 6
  Hortons   Noodle                 60080443
            Soup Mix
  Trio      Brown      467 g       60200443
            Gravy -
            Flavoured
            gravy mix


NESTLE CANADA: Recalls Delissio Frozen Pizzas Due to Glass
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 10, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Extraneous Material
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Nestle Canada Inc.
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10466

Nestle Canada Inc. is recalling certain Delissio brand frozen
pizzas from the marketplace due to possible presence of pieces of
glass. Consumers should not consume the recalled products
described below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Consumers
who haveDelissio Pizzeria Vintage Tuscan Style Chicken and
Delissio Thin Crispy Crust Grilled Chicken Tomato & Spinach pizzas
with the affected batch codes should contact Nestle Canada
Consumer Services for reimbursement at 1-855-395-1238 and then
dispose of the product. The hours for Consumer Services hours are:

March 10 and 11 from 9 a.m. - 9 p.m. ET
March 12 from 9 a.m. - 6 p.m. ET
March 14 onwards (Monday - Friday a.m. - 6 p.m. ET)

There have been no reported injuries associated with the
consumption of these products in Canada.

This recall was triggered by a recall in the United States.The
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand      Common       Size    Code(s) on      UPC
  name       name         ----    product         ---
  -----      ------               ----------
  Delissio   Pizzeria     547 g   6017525952      0 71921 72358 3
             vintage              BB/MA 2016NO12
             Tuscan-Style
             Chicken
             Pizza
  Delissio   Thin Crispy  600 g   53625273C1      0 71921 76481 4
             Crust                BB/MA 2016JL25
             Grilled
             Chicken
             Tomato &
             Spinach Pizza

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/IjhbS3


NISSAN: Recalls Rogue 2014 Models Due to Crash Risk
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 14, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Fuel Supply
Units affected: 12193
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016118TC
ID number: 2016118

On certain vehicles, improper nickel plating of certain fuel pump
internal components could contaminate the pump, potentially
resulting in an inoperative fuel pump. This could result in a no-
start condition, or an engine stall without warning and without
the ability to restart the vehicle, which could increase the risk
of a crash. Correction: Dealers will replace the fuel pump. Note:
This is an expansion of Recall 2015-140.

  Make        Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----        ----------------------
  NISSAN      ROGUE        2014


NOVA: Recalls LFS and LFS Artic 2014 Models Due to Crash Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 3, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Bus
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Visual System
Units affected: 818
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016104TC
ID number: 2016104
Manufacturer recall number: CR3601

On certain vehicles, the pin that attaches to the windshield wiper
idler arm could strip. If the pin were to become stripped, it
would result in the driver side windshield wiper to become
inoperable. Loss of windshield wiping capability, should it occur
during a rainy/snowy day, may compromise the driver's ability to
see the road and its users, which could result in a crash causing
property damage and/or injury. Correction: Dealers will replace
the the suspect idler arm of the windshield wiper assembly.

  Make      Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----        ----------------------
  NOVA      LFS          2014
  NOVA      LFS ARTIC    2014


OCEAN PACKERS: Recalls Imitation Crab Sticks Due to Egg
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 11, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Ocean Packers Inc.
Distribution: Ontario, Possibly National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10446

Ocean Packers Inc. is recalling Crown brand Imitation Crab Sticks
from the marketplace because they may contain egg which is not
declared on the label. People with an allergy to egg should not
consume the recalled products described below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to egg, do not consume the recalled
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

This recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency
(CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand    Common      Size     Code(s) on        UPC
  name     name        ----     product           ---
  -----    ------               ----------
  Crown    Imitation   500 g    All codes where   8854241 001942
           Crab Stick           egg is not
                                declared on the
                                label
  Crown    Imitation   500 g    All codes where   8854241 001935
           Crab Stick           egg is not
                                declared on the
                                label

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/nESzZ1


OLD REPUBLIC: 2 Class Suits Against RMIC Pending in E.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic International Corporation said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that two class action lawsuits against Republic Mortgage Insurance
Company ("RMIC") remains pending.

On December 30, 2011 and on January 4, 2013, purported class
action suits alleging RESPA violations were filed in the Federal
District Court, for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania targeting
RMIC, other mortgage guaranty insurance companies, PNC Financial
Services Group (as successor to National City Bank) and HSBC Bank
USA, N.A., and their wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiaries.
(White, Hightower, et al. v. PNC Financial Services Group (as
successor to National City Bank) et al.), (Ba, Chip, et al. v.
HSBC Bank USA, N.A., et al.).

The lawsuits are two of twelve against various lenders, their
captive reinsurers and the mortgage insurers, filed by the same
law firms. All of these lawsuits were substantially identical in
alleging that the mortgage guaranty insurers had reinsurance
arrangements with the defendant banks' captive insurance
subsidiaries under which payments were made in violation of the
anti-kickback and fee splitting prohibitions of Sections 8(a) and
8(b) of RESPA. Ten of the twelve suits have been dismissed. The
remaining suits seek unspecified damages, costs, fees and the
return of the allegedly improper payments. A class has not been
certified in either suit and RMIC has filed motions to dismiss the
cases.


OMRIX BIOPHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls Pressure Regulators
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 14, 2016
Posting date: April 4, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-57738

The current recommendation of spraying EVICEL (Fibrin Sealant)
with the 45 cm tip during laparoscopy surgery is at a pressure
range of 1.4 to 1.7bar. The European Medicines Agency have
clarified their recommendation for pressure to be used when
spraying EVICEL with the 45 cm tip during laparoscopic surgery
from a range of 1.4-1.7 bar to 1.4 bar only. A similar approach
has been taken in Canada. Thus, the labelling of the pressure
regulators will be updated and the sticker label on each pressure
regulator will be replaced to reflect this change.

Affected products:
PRESSURE REGULATOR
Lot or serial number: All lots.
Model or catalog number: EVRC67

Manufacturer: Omrix Biopharmaceuticals Ltd.
              5510801
              ISRAEL


OPKO HEALTH: Settlement in Bio-Reference Shareholder Suit Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------------
OPKO Health, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Court has approved
the settlement in the case, In re Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation.

Following the announcement of entry into an agreement and plan of
merger with Bio-Reference, four putative class action complaints
challenging the merger were filed in the Superior Court of New
Jersey in Bergen County (the "Court"). The parties executed a
stipulated consent order that the actions would be consolidated
for all purposes, including trial, in the Chancery Division under
Docket No. C-207-15, bearing the caption In re Bio-Reference
Laboratories, Inc. Shareholder Litigation (the "Consolidated
Action"). The complaints name Bio-Reference, OPKO, a wholly-owned
merger subsidiary of OPKO ("Merger Sub") and members of the Bio-
Reference board as defendants. The complaints generally allege,
among other things, that members of the Bio-Reference board
breached their fiduciary duties to Bio-Reference's shareholders by
agreeing to sell Bio-Reference for an inadequate price and
agreeing to inappropriate deal protection provisions in the merger
agreement that may preclude Bio-Reference from soliciting any
potential acquirers and limit the ability of the Bio-Reference
board to act with respect to investigating and pursuing superior
proposals and alternatives.

In August, the parties executed a memorandum of understanding
reflecting terms of a settlement, which was replaced in September
2015 by a stipulation and agreement of compromise, settlement and
release resolving all matters between them.  In January 2016, the
Court entered an order finally approving the settlement.

"The settlement did not have a material impact on our business,
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows," the
Company said.


PFIZER INC: Judge Grants Request to Toss Zoloft MDL
---------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the federal judge presiding over the Zoloft multidistrict
litigation has granted Pfizer's request to toss the MDL on the
grounds that the plaintiffs couldn't muster an expert to
illustrate a link between the drug and birth defects.

On April 5, U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe of the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania effectively ended the MDL -- pending any
appeals to the Third Circuit -- which has been going on for over
three years.  According to Judge Rufe's order, the clerk was
instructed to close all but 23 of the more than 300 remaining
cases, which were against defendants other than Pfizer and co-
defendant Wolters Kluwer Health.

Lead plaintiffs' counsel Dianne Nast of NastLaw and Pfizer did not
respond to requests for comment by press time.

Judge Rufe wrote in her opinion that while it hasn't been proven
that Zoloft doesn't cause birth defects, the attempts in court to
prove that it does have failed.

"Dismissal without prejudice under the circumstances of this MDL
and in the face of this essential defect of proof would work
against the fair administration of justice," Judge Rufe said.
"The court recognizes that the final scientific verdict as to
whether Zoloft can cause birth defects may not be delivered for
many years.  Nevertheless, plaintiffs chose when to file their
cases, and the court concludes that for the plaintiffs who have
continued to pursue their claims, the litigation gates must be
closed."

She added, "At the end of the day, plaintiffs have failed to raise
a jury question on the necessary predicate to success in any case:
that Zoloft was capable of causing their injuries."

The plaintiffs have had difficulty in offering causation experts,
with Judge Rufe shooting down one after the other.

In December, Judge Rufe barred the testimony of the plaintiffs'
general causation expert, Dr. Nicholas Jewell, a professor of
biostatistics at the University of California, Berkeley.
Judge  Rufe's ruling came after the dismissal of hundreds of
noncardiac birth-defect cases in the litigation over the summer--
halving the litigation in size.  Dr. Jewell was put forth as the
expert for the remaining, cardiac-related cases.  At its peak, the
MDL numbered around 600 cases.

As a statistics expert, Judge Rufe said Dr. Jewell would have to
explain why he believes that the positive associations between
mothers' use of Zoloft and cardiac birth defects, reported in some
studies, are accurate and not the result of statistical flaws or
biases and reconcile those studies that claimed there was no
increased risk of cardiac birth defects with his opinion.

According to Judge Rufe's prior opinion, Dr. Jewell "has deviated
from or downplayed certain well-established principles of his
field, and has inconsistently applied methods and standards to the
data so as to support his a priori opinion.  It is improper for an
expert to take a results-driven approach to a question, molding
his methodology and selectively relying upon data so as to confirm
his preconceived opinion."

Earlier in the litigation, Judge Rufe had barred testimony from
the plaintiffs' noncardiac birth injury expert, Dr. Anick Berard.


PHILIP MORRIS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in "Lights" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
RTTNews.com reports that a St. Louis jury returned a verdict for
Philip Morris USA or PM USA in a Missouri class-action "Lights"
cigarette trial.  The jury rejected plaintiffs' request for as
much as $1.8 billion in compensatory damages plus punitive
damages.

"The jury correctly rejected plaintiffs' allegations of
misrepresentation and damages," said Murray Garnick, Altria Client
Services senior vice president and associate general counsel,
speaking on behalf of PM USA.

The case was filed in 2000. Plaintiffs alleged that PM USA
violated the state's Merchandising Practices Act in marketing
Marlboro Lights.  Class members include Missouri residents who
purchased Marlboro Lights from 1995-2003.


RADIOSHACK CORP: July 18 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------
The following is being released by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP pursuant to Order of the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas in In re 2014 RadioShack ERISA
Litigation, No. 4:14-cv-00959-O.

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO WERE PARTICIPANTS IN OR BENEFICIARIES OF THE
RADIOSHACK 401K PLAN AND RADIOSHACK PUERTO RICO 1165(E) PLAN
(COLLECTIVELY, THE "PLANS") AT ANY TIME FROM NOVEMBER 30, 2011
THROUGH JANUARY 7, 2016 ("CLASS PERIOD"), AND WHOSE ACCOUNTS IN
THE PLANS INCLUDED INVESTMENTS IN RADIOSHACK STOCK.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.  A FEDERAL COURT AUTHORIZED
THIS NOTICE.

A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court, Northern District of Texas by former employees of
RadioShack Corporation, which now goes by the name RS Legacy
Corporation ("RadioShack"), against members of the RadioShack
401(k) Plan Administrative Committee, the RadioShack Puerto Rico
Plan Administrative Committee, James F. Gooch, Joseph C. Magnacca,
Robert E. Abernathy, Frank J. Belatti, Julia A. Dobson, Daniel A.
Feehan, H. Eugene Lockhart, Jack L. Messman, Thomas G. Plaskell,
Edwina D. Woodbury, Mark Barfield, Karina Davis, Eric Hales,
Justin Johnson, Michael Keyser, Kevin Krautkramer, Martin Moad,
Sri Reddy (together, the "RadioShack Defendants"), and Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A. and Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (the "Trustee
Defendants), who were all alleged to be fiduciaries of the Plans.
The litigation (the "Action") alleged that defendants breached
their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA").  A Settlement has been
reached between Plaintiffs and the Trustee Defendants ("Settling
Parties") for the amount of $900,000.00 (Nine Hundred Thousand
U.S. Dollars) in cash (the "Settlement Payment").  To be clear,
the allegations against the RadioShack Defendants (the "Non-
Settling Defendants") have not been settled and are continuing.
The Settlement Payment will be held in a Qualified Settlement Fund
and will be allocated pursuant to a Court-approved Plan of
Allocation to Plan participants who were invested in RadioShack
Stock during the Class Period.  A fairness hearing (the "Fairness
Hearing") will be held on July 18, 2016, at 10:00 a.m. before the
Honorable Reed O'Connor, United States District Court Judge, to
determine, among other things (as set forth in the Settling
Parties' proposed Final Approval Order): (1) whether the proposed
Settlement should be granted final approval; (2) whether the
proposed Plan of Allocation is fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3)
whether Class Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees,
expenses and for Case Contribution Awards to the Named Plaintiffs
relating to their representation of the Settlement Class should be
approved; (4) whether to approve the Bar Order (a) precluding
Plaintiffs, Non-Settling Defendants, RadioShack and all other
third parties from seeking relief from the Trustee Defendants in
connection with the Claims alleged in the Action, and (b) ordering
that any judgments entered against the Barred Persons under the
Complaint will be subject to a Judgment Reduction pursuant to a
proportionate offset method; and (5) whether the claims of the
Settlement Class members against the Trustee Defendants should be
dismissed on the merits with a direction to the Clerk of the Court
to enter final judgment, finding that there is no just reason for
delay of enforcement or appeal of the Order as set forth in the
Stipulation filed with the Court.  The Fairness Hearing will be
held at the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Texas, Fort Worth Division, 501 W. 10th St., Room 201, the
courtroom of Judge Reed O'Connor, or such other courtroom as the
Court may designate.

You are a member of the Settlement Class if you fall within the
definition of the Settlement Class preliminarily approved by Judge
Reed O'Connor:

All Persons who were participants in or beneficiaries of the
RadioShack 401(k) Plan and RadioShack Puerto Rico 1165(e) Plan at
any time from November 30, 2011 through January 7, 2016, and whose
accounts in the Plans included investments in RadioShack Stock.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class as defined above, your
rights may be affected by the proposed Settlement and release of
Parties and claims, as set forth in the Stipulation.

You do not have the right to exclude yourself from the Settlement
in this case, but you do have the right to object by writing to
the Court.  Any objection to the Settlement must be filed with the
clerk of the Court and served upon each of the following law firms
no later than June 20, 2016, at the addresses listed below:

CLERK
Clerk of the Court
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas
501 W. 10th St. #310, Room 310
Fort Worth, TX 76102-3673

CLASS COUNSEL
Edward W. Ciolko
Mark K. Gyandoh
Julie Siebert-Johnson
KESSLER TOPAZ
MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone:  (610) 667-7706
Facsimile:  (610) 667-7056

Gerald D. Wells, III
Robert J. Gray
CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY LLP
2200 Renaissance Boulevard
Suite 308
King of Prussia, PA  19406
Telephone:  (610) 822-3700
Facsimile:  (610) 822-3800

Michael J. Klein
STULL, STULL & BRODY
6 East 45th Street
New York, NY  10017
Telephone:  (212) 687-7230
Facsimile:  (212) 490-2022

WELLS FARGO COUNSEL
Russell L. Hirschhorn
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
Eleven Times Square
New York, NY  10036
Telephone:  (212) 969-3286
Facsimile:  (212) 969-2900

Howard Shapiro
Stacey C.S. Cerrone
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
650 Poydras Street, Suite 1800
New Orleans, LA  70130
Telephone:  (504) 310-4085
Facsimile:  (504) 522-5771

BANCO POPULAR COUNSEL
Nancy J. Sennett
Aaron R. Wegrzyn
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
777 East Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, WI  53202-5306
Telephone:  (414) 297-5522 (NJS)
Telephone:  (414) 319-7028 (ARW)
Facsimile:  (414) 297-4900

If the Settlement is approved by the Court and you are a
Settlement Class member, you will receive any Settlement payment
you are entitled to receive under the Stipulation without having
to file a claim.

If you are a Settlement Class member and have not yet received the
Notice, or if you want more information regarding anything in this
Notice, you may obtain such information by visiting
www.RSHTrusteeSettlement.com calling toll-free 877-522-0442, by
writing to Class Counsel listed above or sending an email to
RSHTrusteeSettlement@ktmc.com.

DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, RADIOSHACK, OR THE TRUSTEE DEFENDANTS OR
THEIR COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.  THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO
ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.

Dated: April 8, 2016
By Order of the United States District Court,
Northern District of Texas


SIRIUS XM: Enters Into MOU to Settle TCPA Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Sirius XM disclosed that on April 5, 2016 subsidiary, Sirius XM
Radio Inc., entered into a memorandum of understanding to settle
the purported class action suits that allege that it, or call
center vendors acting on its behalf, made calls which violate
provisions of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991.

These purported class action cases are titled Erik Knutson v.
Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 12-cv-0418-AJB-NLS (S.D. Cal.), Francis
W. Hooker v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 4:13-cv-3 (E.D. Va.), Yefim
Elikman v. Sirius XM Radio Inc. and Career Horizons, Inc., No.
1:15-cv-02093 (N.D. Ill.), and Anthony Parker v. Sirius XM Radio
Inc., No. 8:15-cv-01710-JSM-EAJ (M.D. Fla), and are described in
Item 3., Legal Proceedings, in the Company's Annual Report on Form
10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015.  The settlement is
expected to resolve the claims of consumers for the period
February 2008 through the present relating to telemarketing calls
to their mobile telephones.

As part of this settlement, Sirius XM will agree to pay $35
million in cash (from which notice, administration and other costs
and attorneys' fees will be paid), to offer participating class
members the option of receiving three months of its Select service
for no charge, and to enter into agreements to make certain
modifications to the system architecture of certain call center
vendors.  The memorandum of understanding is subject to the
execution of a definitive settlement agreement and court approval,
neither of which can be assured.


SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: Philadelphia Court Rejects Paxil Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the first of several Paxil birth-defect cases expected to hit
trial may have ended abruptly, but court watchers do not expect
the litigation to be coming to an end so soon.

On April 4, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Kenneth
Powell Jr. dismissed the case Rader v. Smithkline Beecham, after
finding that the plaintiff did not present enough evidence to send
the case to the jury.  The decision came after about five years of
pretrial venue issues and two weeks of trial.

The ruling specifically hinged on the judge's determination that
the plaintiffs did not present sufficient evidence to show the
prescribing physician would have made a different prescribing
decision based on additional information the plaintiffs have
argued should have been included on the drug's label.

According to court watchers, because the ruling hinged on a very
fact-specific issue, it is unlikely the dismissal will have a
broad effect on the eight related Paxil birth-defect cases that
remain in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.

"You can't extrapolate from this particular case to say others
will end up the same way," said Duane Morris attorney Alan Klein -
- AKlein@duanemorris.com -- who represents both plaintiffs and
defendants in pharmaceutical products liability cases.  "A lot
will depend on the testimony of the treating and prescribing
physicians and what went into his or her decision.  It's a very
fact-specific inquiry."

Jamie Sheller -- jlsheller@sheller.com -- of Sheller P.C., who
handled prior Paxil birth-defect cases and has served as liaison
counsel to the state's mass tort litigation, but was not involved
in the Rader case, said many of the doctors in the cases she
handled, including a suit that came to a $2.5 million verdict in
2009, had been "upset and concerned" when confronted with
additional prescribing information about the drug.

"That's true in a lot of pharma cases," Ms. Sheller said.
Adam Peavy of Bailey Peavy Bailey Cowan Heckaman in Houston, who
represented plaintiff Braden Rader, said he plans to appeal Judge
Powell's order, which, he contended, was in error under state case
law.

According to Mr. Peavy, Judge Powell had previously ruled to
exclude any mention of the defendant's subsequent remedial
measures, which are typically not allowed as evidence in
establishing liability.  That ruling, Mr. Peavy said, required the
court to exclude portions of the prescribing doctor's videotaped
testimony in which Mr. Peavy asked the doctor about whether the
doctor would have changed his prescribing decision based on a
subsequent label change.

Mr. Peavy said that while generally subsequent remedial measures,
such as label changes, are not allowed into evidence for liability
purposes, there is an exception when establishing a
prescribing doctor's decisions.

"It's a pretty simple appeal," Mr. Peavy said.

He added that he is seeking guidance from Judge Arnold New, who is
supervising the mass tort program, about whether the evidentiary
ruling will apply to other cases, which could necessitate a stay
in the litigation.  According to Mr. Peavy, the ruling could cause
further liability issues if applied to all cases, the next of
which is expected to begin in May.

Although GSK did not specifically comment on how the recent
dismissal may affect the eight additional cases gearing up for
trial in Philadelphia, the company said in a statement that it has
a strong defense against the heart defect claims.


ST. JUDE MEDICAL: May 13 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

F™RSTA AP-FONDEN AND DANSKE
INVEST MANAGEMENT A/S, Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,

                        Plaintiffs,

            v.

ST. JUDE MEDICAL, INC., DANIEL J.
STARKS, JOHN C. HEINMILLER, ERIC S.
FAIN, MICHAEL T. ROUSSEAU, and
DONALD J. ZURBAY,

                       Defendants.

Civil No. 12-3070 (JNE/HB)

CLASS ACTION


SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

TO:
ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED ST.
JUDE MEDICAL, INC. COMMON STOCK DURING THE PERIOD FROM FEBRUARY 5,
2010 THROUGH NOVEMBER 20, 2012, AND WHO WERE DAMAGED THEREBY (THE
"CLASS").1

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota, that the above-captioned
action (the "Action") against St. Jude Medical, Inc. ("St. Jude")
and the individual defendants, officers of St. Jude, has been
certified as a class action on behalf of the Class, except for
certain persons and entities that are excluded from the Class by
definition as set forth in the full printed Notice of Pendency of
Class Action (the "Notice").  Lead Plaintiffs F”rsta AP-fonden and
Danske Invest Management A/S have been certified by the Court to
represent the Class.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THIS LAWSUIT.  The full printed Notice is currently being mailed
to known Class Members.  If you have not yet received a full
printed Notice, you may obtain a copy by downloading it from
www.stjudesecuritieslitigation.com or by contacting the
Administrator:

F”rsta AP-Fonden and Danske Invest Management A/S v. St. Jude
Medical, Inc.
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173010
Milwaukee, WI  53217
(866) 905-8130

If you did not receive the full printed Notice by mail, and you
are a member of the Class, please send your name and address to
the Administrator so that if any future notices are disseminated
in connection with the Action, you will receive them.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to
Court-appointed Class Counsel:

Gregory M. Castaldo, Esq.
Joshua E. D'Ancona, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER &
CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA  19087
Telephone:   (610) 667-7706
Facsimile:     (610) 667-7056
www.ktmc.com

Gregg S. Levin, Esq.
Joshua C. Littlejohn, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
28 Bridgeside Blvd.
Mt. Pleasant, SC  29464
Telephone:   (843) 216-9000
Facsimile:     (843) 216-9450
www.motleyrice.com

If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether to
remain a member of the Class.  If you choose to remain a member of
the Class, you do not need to do anything at this time other than
retain your documentation reflecting your transactions in St. Jude
common stock.  You will automatically be included in the Class,
and you will be bound by the proceedings in this Action, including
all past, present and future orders and judgments of the Court,
whether favorable or unfavorable.  If you are a Class Member and
do not wish to remain a member of the Class, you must take steps
to exclude yourself from the Class.

If you timely and validly ask to be excluded from the Class, you
will not be bound by any orders or judgments in the Action, and
you will not be eligible to receive a share of any money which
might be recovered in the future for the benefit of the Class.  To
exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request
for exclusion postmarked no later than May 13, 2016 in accordance
with the instructions set forth in the full printed Notice.
Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
it is within the Court's discretion as to whether a second
opportunity to request exclusion from the Class will be allowed if
there is a settlement or judgment in the Action.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the
Administrator or visiting the website
www.stjudesecuritieslitigation.com

Please Do Not Call or Write the Court with Questions.

DATED:  APRIL 8, 2016
BY ORDER OF THE COURT

United States District Court

District of Minnesota
Contact -- Gregory M. Castaldo, Esq. or Joshua E. D'Ancona, Esq.
(610) 667-7706 and Gregg S. Levin, Esq. (843) 216-9000

1 At all relevant times, St. Jude Medical, Inc. common stock
traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol
"STJ."


TERRAFORM POWER: "Chamblee" Sues Over Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------
John Chamblee, Plaintiff, v. Terraform Power, Inc., Carlos
Domenech Zornoza and Alejandro Hernandez, Defendants, Case No.
8:16-cv-00981-PWG (D. Md., April 4, 2016), seeks to recover
damages, equitable and injunctive relief in connection with the
purchases of TerraForm Global shares under the Securities Act of
1933.

The class action arises out of an alleged deliberate effort to
conceal information regarding the Initial Public Offering of
TerraForm. SunEdison, the IPO's sponsor, sustained considerable
financial losses prior to the IPO and whose condition was not made
known to the shareholders. Chamblee acquired TerraForm Global
Class A common shares pursuant to the Offering Materials, and
claims to have lost money in the transaction.

TerraForm Global owns and operates renewable energy generation
assets worldwide. The Company generates electricity through solar,
wind, and hydro-electric projects and serves utility, commercial,
industrial and government customers. TerraForm Global holds wind
and solar projects in South Africa, India and China.

Carlos Domenech Zornoza was, at the time of the offering, Chief
Executive Officer and director of the Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

           - and -

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

           - and -

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

           - and -

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ, & GROSSMAN, LLC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 697-6484
      Facsimile: (212) 697-7296
      Email: peretz@bgandg.com


TGI FRIDAYS: Appellate Court Reverses Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------
Gregory J. Hauck, Esq. -- hauckg@pepperlaw.com -- of Pepper
Hamilton LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that the
Appellate Division's opinion in Dugan will undoubtedly hinder
future plaintiffs who seek certification in New Jersey consumer
class action cases.

Defending against consumer class actions in New Jersey just got a
little bit easier.  In Dugan v. TGI Fridays, Inc., the Appellate
Division of the New Jersey Superior Court recently reversed class
certification of claims that had been brought under the Consumer
Fraud Act (CFA) and the Truth in Consumer Contract Warranty and
Notice Act (TCCWNA).  The Appellate Division held that class
certification was improper because the plaintiffs had failed to
show that they could prove the causation element of their claims
with common proof.

Trial Court's Decision

The case arose from several restaurant outings during which the
plaintiffs placed drink orders at various TGI Fridays (TGIF)
restaurants.  The plaintiffs claimed that TGIF violated the CFA
and TCCWNA by failing to list the prices for beer, mixed drinks
and soda on its restaurant menus.  By their plain terms, the CFA
requires retailers to disclose the price of merchandise, and the
TCCWNA prohibits retailers from suppressing material facts in
connection with the sale of merchandise.  The plaintiffs sought to
recover damages from TGIF measured as the difference between the
price they paid for each beverage and the price each beverage was
actually worth.

Following a lengthy period of discovery, the trial court granted
the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  The court defined
the class to include all customers who purchased an unpriced beer,
mixed drink or soda from any one of 14
company-owned TGIF restaurants over a more than 10-year period.
Notably, the court held that individual class members did not need
to show that they had relied on a TGIF menu when ordering their
drinks.

Appellate Division's Reversal

On appeal, TGIF argued that class certification was improper
because the plaintiffs had failed to establish that questions of
fact common to the class predominated over questions affecting
individual class members.  TGIF contended that the trial court
should not have certified the class because the plaintiffs had
failed to show that they could use classwide evidence to prove
that each class member had read the menu before purchasing an
unpriced beverage.  TGIF asserted that class members who never
received a menu were incapable of establishing a causal connection
between the alleged violation (i.e., the restaurant's failure to
list the beverage price in the menu) and their alleged loss (i.e.,
the amount the class member overpaid for the beverage).

The Appellate Division agreed and reversed class certification. In
its March 24, 2016 opinion, the Appellate Division began by
examining the elements of the plaintiffs' claims, pointing out
that both the CFA and the TCCWNA require a consumer to show that a
defendant's unlawful conduct caused a plaintiff's loss.  The
Appellate Division then determined that the trial court erred by
finding that common issues of fact predominated with respect to
whether class members suffered a loss that was caused by the
restaurant's failure to list beverage prices in the menu.  The
Appellate Division determined that the trial court's finding was
inappropriate because many class members may have chosen to
purchase a beverage for any number of reasons that had nothing to
do with the lack of menu pricing.

In reaching its decision, the Appellate Division found the trial
court's analysis deficient for several reasons.  For example, the
Appellate Division explained that the trial court's class
definition improperly included customers who never received a
menu.  If a customer had never looked at the menu, TGIF's failure
to list the price in the menu would not have caused the customer
to sustain a loss (because the customer's decision to purchase the
beverage would not have been driven by the pricing information the
menu contained).  Likewise, the Appellate Division explained that
the class definition improperly included customers who knew the
price of the beverage when they placed their order.  If a customer
had asked a waiter for the price of the beverage when placing his
order, TGIF's failure to list the price in the menu would not have
caused the customer to sustain a loss (because the customer would
have known the price before purchasing his beverage).

The plaintiffs tried to avoid a reversal of the trial court's
holding by relying on the restaurant's policies.  They argued that
they could prove the causation element of their claims using
common evidence because TGIF had a policy of instructing its
servers to hand opened menus to all customers.  In rejecting this
argument, the Appellate Division reasoned that the plaintiffs had
no way of demonstrating that the servers always followed the
policy.  The Appellate Division theorized that there may have been
instances in which a server accidentally forgot to provide the
menu or a customer told the server he did not want a menu.  In the
end, the Appellate Division concluded that class certification was
not warranted because individualized inquiries would be necessary
to determine whether each class member reviewed a menu that lacked
beverage pricing.

Conclusion

The Appellate Division's opinion in Dugan will undoubtedly hinder
future plaintiffs who seek certification in New Jersey consumer
class action cases.  The Appellate Division reaffirmed the notion
that certifying courts must rigorously analyze the evidence to
determine whether the class certification requirements have been
satisfied.  In applying the rigorous analysis standard here, the
Appellate Division refused to allow the plaintiffs to rely merely
on a restaurant policy that required servers to provide customers
with menus.  The Appellate Division demanded more, insisting on
evidence that every class member actually received and reviewed a
menu.  Because the plaintiffs were unable to produce such evidence
without having the case devolve into a series of mini trials, the
Appellate Division found the court erred by allowing the
plaintiffs to maintain a class action to pursue their claims.

In many consumer class action cases, defendants attack the
plaintiffs' ability to satisfy the class certification standards
by contending that the plaintiffs are unable to derive a method
for proving causation with common proof.  Defendants can now make
it even more challenging for plaintiffs by citing the Appellate
Division's holding in Dugan and insisting that the trial court
carefully scrutinize the plaintiffs' evidence at the class
certification stage.  Although the Dugan decision by no means
eliminates the risk of being targeted in a class action, it should
function as a serious obstacle that plaintiffs will need to
overcome before obtaining class certification.


TNUVA: Court Certifies Class Action Over cottage Cheese Prices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dror Halavi, writing for Hamodia, reports that the "cottage cheese
protests" of several summers ago are still echoing in the halls of
Israeli justice.

After tens of thousands of people protested the high price of
dairy products and other basic items in the summer of 2011 --
protests that arguably led to the implementation of government
programs to reduce the cost of housing, and to recent changes in
the law to remove import taxes on a wide range of food products
-- the original nexus of the protests is now the subject of a
class-action lawsuit.

The lawsuit against dairy firm Tnuva over the price of cottage
cheese was authorized by the Lod District Court in response to a
request by a consumer group.  The group is seeking to sue over
what it said were violations of antitrust laws, and the court
agreed that, as Tnuva has more or less a monopoly in the cottage
cheese business, those laws could apply to the company.

The lawsuit is being led by attorney Ofir Naor, who is seeking
NIS125 million from Tnuva for the refund of money he says the
company overcharged for cottage cheese between 2008 and 2011.  In
2008, cottage cheese was removed from the list of products under
price controls, and Tnuva promptly raised its price by 41 percent,
to NIS7 per container.  According to Mr. Naor, the maximum the
company should have been charging was NIS 6 per container.  The
price dropped to below NIS 5 per container after the protests in
2011, and has hovered around that level since then.

The court agreed that Tnuva was out of line, and that it did
appear that the company violated the law.  Speaking to Channel
Two, Mr. Naor said that "this is a struggle that has been going on
for years.  This is the first time that the courts have authorized
a class-action lawsuit over monopolistic practices and unfair
treatment of consumers."

In a statement, Tnuva said that it was studying the case, and
would "consider all the facts and circumstances before acting.  We
believe we have strong arguments to respond to this lawsuit, and
that it will be rejected in the end."


TRANSUNION CORP: No Deal to Arbitrate With Sgouros, Says 7th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit affirmed the
district court's order denying TransUnion's motion to compel
arbitration in the case captioned GARY W. SGOUROS, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
TRANSUNION CORPORATION, TRANS UNION LLC, and TRANSUNION
INTERACTIVE, INC., Defendants-Appellants, No. 15-1371 (7th Cir.).

Gary Sgouros filed a putative class action suit against TransUnion
after he purchased a "credit score" package from the defendant
which turned out to be worthless because it was 100 points higher
than the score pulled by a car dealership where he used it to
negotiate a favorable loan.  Sgouros asserted that the defendant
violated several state and federal consumer protection laws for
misleading consumers by failing to inform them that the formula
used to calculate their purchase credit score was materially
different from the formula used by lenders.

TransUnion countered with a motion to compel arbitration,
asserting that the website through which Sgouros purchased his
product included an agreement to arbitrate all disputes relating
to the deal.  The district court denied the motion, concluding
that no such contract has been formed.

On appeal, the 7th Circuit held that no agreement that included an
arbitration clause arose between TransUnion and Sgouros because
TransUnion failed to get the message through to the site user that
purchasing a consumer credit score means agreeing to the Service
Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's March 25, 2016 opinion
is available at http://is.gd/iwx4m4from Leagle.com.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Washington Post Seeks to Unseal Docs
------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
The Washington Post asked a federal judge in San Francisco to
unseal documents in a class action lawsuit against Donald Trump
and his real estate-related Trump University, saying Trump's run
for the presidency entitles the public to "access by default."

Lead plaintiff Art Cohen sued Trump in 2013, claiming he defrauded
students through his real estate school, which he called a bait-
and-switch scheme.

The parties agreed to a protective order for documents submitted
during discovery. But some of the sealed documents have already
been made public, including portions of Trump's Jan. 21
deposition, which federal Magistrate Judge William Gallo ordered
lifted in March.

In its 32-page memorandum filed April 1, the Post says that more
than 900 pages of records have been filed under seal in a "blanket
approach" in connection with Cohen's motion for class
certification.

In light of Trump's credible run for the presidency, the Post
says, the public "is entitled to access by default."

"This case focuses on allegedly deceptive commercial practices by
a leading presidential candidate whose claim to be qualified for
the presidency hinges on his business record," the Post says in
its summary of the case. "Defendant and his opponents both point
to Trump University ('TU') as prime evidence of that record, for
better or worse. Plaintiff's allegations in this case, and the
lawsuit itself, have become prominent campaign issues. And
defendant has repeatedly questioned the fairness of these
proceedings while on the campaign trail.

"Given these extraordinary circumstances, the need for
transparency is paramount."

When the parties jointly filed documents under seal, they "never
made the rigorous showing required to overcome the public's
presumptive right of access," the Post says in its 32-page memo.
It claims the blanket sealing order does not meet the requirement
that restrictions on public access be "narrowly tailored" to truly
sensitive personal information such as Social Security numbers or
home addresses.

The Post requested limited intervention to ask the court to
immediately unseal multiple exhibits and documents, including
declarations of Cohen's attorney Jason Forge and Trump's attorney
Nancy Stagg.

The controversy over Trump University and pending class action
lawsuits in New York and California have been issues on the
campaign trail, and, the Post says, have "invited the utmost
public scrutiny."

"Not only has the campaign focused on defendant's business
practices, but the lawsuit itself has become a hotly debated
electoral issue," the Post says in the memo. "On the campaign
trail and in TV appearances, defendant has criticized the court's
handling of this case. By choosing to turn the adjudication of
this lawsuit into a campaign issue, defendant has invited the
utmost public scrutiny."

Google searches for "Trump University" spiked during the Feb. 25
Republican presidential debate, the Post says, showing that "the
issue resonated with the public."

Citing 57 court cases, including a pending case filed by
Courthouse News Service in Ventura County, the Post says the
motion for class certification it wants unsealed is "more than
tangentially related to the merits of this case."

"They made no particularized showing of good cause to seal any
specific document, and made no effort to show compelling reasons
or an overriding interest to overcome the public's right of
access," the Post says. It claims the stipulated protective order
does not constitute a compelling reason to shield judicial
documents from the public.

The Post disputed the argument that unsealing the records could
hurt Trump's business dealings, saying, "Many courts have found
that litigants who try to seal records because of 'trade secrets'
and commercial harm are really worried about negative publicity."

Trump has portrayed Trump University's record "as emblematic of
the successful business record that qualifies him to be
president," the Post says.

Trump has responded to criticism on the campaign trail by saying
the case lacks merit, and even calling it "a racially charged
attack on the court" - suggesting U.S. District Judge Gonzalo
Curiel has treated Trump unfairly "because of everything that's
going on with Mexico," the Post pointed out.

Since litigation began on the Cohen and long-running Makaeff
class, extensive information has emerged publicly about Trump
University. This casts "serious doubt" on the claim that more
disclosure of details about Trump University's management,
finances and operational strategy would cause him commercial harm,
the Post says.

And due to Trump's run for president, "proponents of secrecy must
meet an even stricter burden to overcome the more substantial
public interest," the Post says.

"Not only does the case involve 'issues important to the public,'
but defendant is seeking to become the most powerful public
official in the country, if not the world," the Post says in the
memo.

The Post is represented by Dan Laidman and Alonzo Wickers with
Davis Wright in Los Angeles, who told Courthouse News the Post
does not comment on pending litigation

Cohen's attorneys Rachel Jensen and Jason Forge with Robbins
Geller did not wish to comment.

Trump's attorney Daniel Petrocelli did not return an email request
for comment.

A hearing has been set for May 27.

The case captioned, ART COHEN, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. DONALD J. TRUMP,
Defendant, Case No. 3:13-cv-02519-GPC-WVG (S.D. Cal.).


U.S. BANCORP: "Podolski" Sues Over Illegal Collection Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Simcha Podolski, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintitf, v. U.S. Bancorp, Elan Financial Service and
Cardmember Service, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01851-FLW-TJB
(D.N.J., April 4, 2016), seeks damages and declaratory and
injunctive relief arising from violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and the Fair Debt Collections Practices
Act.

Defendants are debt collectors trying to collect a debt from the
Plaintiff via phone using an auto-dialer without consent.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward B. Geller, Esq.
      15 Landing Way
      Bronx, Ny 10464
      Tel: (914) 473-6783
      Email: epbh@aol.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Can Appeal Drivers Class Certification Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for Law.com, reports that Uber Technologies
Inc. has a chance to slam the brakes on a major labor class action
that challenges the company's classification of drivers as
independent contractors.

On April 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said
it would allow the ride-hailing company to appeal U.S. District
Judge Edward Chen's December order certifying a class of
approximately 240,000 Uber drivers in California.

The decision is a victory for Uber in a case where little has gone
its way.  In a petition to appeal the class-certification order,
the company's legal team at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher accused Judge
Chen of setting the stage for a "runaway class action" with
radical rulings that crippled its arbitration clause.

"[D]istrict courts are not supposed to embark on seek-and-destroy
missions in which they resort to inventing creative means of
obliterating arbitration agreements," wrote lawyers led by
Gibson Dunn's Theodore Boutrous Jr.

The development presumably hits pause on a trial that had been
scheduled for June in the Northern District of California and
means that Uber will get a chance to argue that drivers claims
should be heard in individual, private arbitration, pursuant to
the terms of its driver agreement.

"We are pleased that the Ninth Circuit has granted this petition
to review the lower court's order," the company said in an emailed
statement.

The decision to take up the appeal was made by Ninth Circuit
Judges William Canby, Edward Leavy and Sandra Ikuta.  Their one-
page order cited the court's 2005 ruling in Chamberlan v. Ford
Motor.  That held class-certification orders should be reviewed
only when they sound a "death knell" for the losing party, raise
an unsettled issue of law or are "manifestly erroneous."

Also on April 5, the Ninth Circuit set oral arguments for June 16
in a series of cases challenging Chen's decisions that the
arbitration clauses in Uber's driver agreements are not
enforceable.

Shannon Liss-Riordan of Lichten & Liss-Riordan, who is
representing the plaintiffs in the main driver suit, O'Connor v.
Uber, could not immediately be reached for comment.

In a petition opposing the appeal, Liss-Riordan called Uber's
objections to Judge Chen's order "histrionic protests" and said
the case did not present an unsettled or fundamental issue of
class action law.


UNITED PARCEL: 6th Cir. Narrows Claims in Solo & BleachTech Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Jane B. Stranch of the Court of Appeals, Sixth
Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Solo and Bleach Tech's claim
under 49 U.S.C. Sec. 13708(b), reversed the dismissal of the
remaining claims, and remanded the case to the district court for
further proceedings in the case captioned, JOE SOLO; BLEACHTECH
L.L.C., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE CO., Defendant-
Appellee, Case Nos. 15-1426 (6th Cir.).

Appellants Joe Solo and BleachTech L.L.C. filed a putative class
action suit alleging that United Parcel Service Co. (UPS)
overcharges customers for liability coverage against loss or
damage for packages with a declared value of $300 or more. The
complaint sought recovery based on four counts: breach of
contract, declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2201,
violation of 49 U.S.C. Sec. 13708(b) (regulating billing and
collecting practices for motor carriers), and, in the alternative,
unjust enrichment.

Solo and BleachTech assert that customers are unlikely to notice
this improper fee because the additional declared value charges
are not itemized on their bills. Solo claims that UPS is aware of
this problem but seeks to limit its own liability by enforcing a
180-day limitation period to contested billing claims. For those
who do notice the improper charge and timely contest it (generally
shippers large enough to retain shipping auditors), UPS allegedly
engages in a "refund mitigation scheme." Solo alleges that
"shipping auditors who have made pre-suit notice of the declared
value overcharge have routinely gotten their clients credited for
the charge for the first $100 of coverage, and UPS has
acknowledged that the charge was not proper."

UPS filed a motion to dismiss Solo's complaint on August 29, 2014.
On March 27, 2015, the district court granted the motion and
dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a
claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

On appeal, Solo maintains that the district court erred in
concluding, among other things, that UPS's interpretation of the
Shipping Contract was the only permissible reading and contends
that the language of the Service Guide provision is at least
ambiguous, and therefore the district court's dismissal must be
reversed so that the matter can be submitted to the jury.

In her Opinion dated March 18, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/DgLXxRfrom Leagle.com, Judge Stranch found that
Solo's claim is insufficient even under the lenient pleading
standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), which "does
not unlock the doors of discovery for a plaintiff armed with
nothing more than conclusions."

Bleachtech LLC is represented by Paul F. Novak, Esq. --
pnovak@milberg.com -- and Diana Gjonaj, Esq. --
dgjonaj@milberg.com -- MILBERG LLP

United Parcel Service Co. is represented by Caitlin Sinclaire
Blythe, Esq. -- cblythe@mofo.com -- Ruth N. Borenstein, Esq. -
rborenstein@mofo.com -- and Gregory B. Koltun, Esq. --
gkoltun@mofo.com -- MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP


UNITED STATES: Muslim-Americans Sue Over Terrorist Watch List
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jillian D'Amours, writing for Middle East Eye, reports that a
group of Muslim-Americans filed a class-action lawsuit against the
United States' use of a terrorist watch list, which they say has
created "an injustice of historic proportions".

Eighteen plaintiffs, including a four-year-old known simply as
Baby Doe, say their constitution rights were violated after being
placed on the federal terrorist watch list.

The lawsuit, initiated by the Council on American-Islamic
Relations' Michigan Chapter (CAIR-MI), was filed against several
high-ranking US officials, including Christopher Piehota, director
of the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC).

Established in 2003 under the administration of the FBI, the TSC
maintains the Terrorist Screening Database, otherwise known as the
terrorist watch list.

The plaintiffs, all of whom are American citizens, have been
"falsely stigmatised as 'known or suspected' terrorists" and
"denied a meaningful opportunity to challenge their designation on
the federal watch list," the lawsuit states.

Gadeir Abbas, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, told Middle East Eye
that being on the watch list has turned thousands of Americans
into second-class citizens.

Individuals on the list have had their bank accounts closed
without warning, been denied the ability to make wire transfers,
suffer delays and interrogations at airports and other border
crossings, and cannot work certain jobs, Mr. Abbas said.

The US government also disseminates its watch list to state and
local agencies, including police and security forces, both in the
US and abroad, he said.

"Being on the federal watch list [creates] second-class
citizenship status because not only are you unable to live your
life as other innocent Americans are, but you're unable to travel
internationally without substantial risks to your life and
liberty," Mr. Abbas said.

"The federal government is saying to countries all across the
globe that these innocent Americans . . . are dangerous, are known
or suspected terrorists, when they are no such thing."

Broad authority

The FBI does not comment on pending litigation, TSC spokesman Dave
Joly told Middle East Eye in an email, when asked to comment on
the lawsuit.

The TSC does not publicly confirm nor deny whether an individual
may be included on the terrorist watch list or a subset list,
Mr. Joly said.

"Disclosure of an individual's inclusion or non-inclusion in the
TSDB or on the No Fly List would significantly impair the
government's ability to investigate and counteract terrorism, and
protect transportation security," he said.

The TSC "serves as a bridge between law enforcement, Homeland
Security, the Intelligence Community, and international partners,"
the department says on its website.

The centre also states that individuals cannot be placed on the
list "based solely on race, ethnicity, national origin, religious
affiliation, or First Amendment-protected activities".

But an article published by The Intercept in 2014 showed that
neither "concrete facts" nor "irrefutable evidence" are necessary
to apply the terrorist label to an American or foreign citizen.

New TSC rules outlined in a March 2013 document obtained by The
Intercept "allow individuals to be designated as representatives
of terror organizations without any evidence they are actually
connected to such organizations, and it gives a single
White House official the unilateral authority to place entire
'categories' of people the government is tracking onto the no-fly
and selectee lists".

"It broadens the authority of government officials to 'nominate'
people to the watchlists based on what is vaguely described as
'fragmentary information'.  It also allows for dead people to be
watchlisted," The Intercept reported.

1.5 million nominations to list since 2009

The CAIR-MI lawsuit alleges that more than 1.5 million names have
been nominated to the watch list since 2009 and that 99 percent of
the nominations made in 2013 were turned into permanent placements
on the list.

The US terrorist watch list has two components: persons on the
selectee list undergo extra security screenings at airports and
other crossings, and may find "SSSS" marked on their boarding
passes, which indicates their status on the list.

Individuals on the no-fly list, meanwhile, cannot board flights
into, out of, or even through US airspace.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the
terrorist watch list currently has over a million names on it.

Having a "bloated" list increases the likelihood of mistaking
innocent travellers for suspected terrorists, wastes time and
diverts energy away from identifying real threats, the ACLU said.

"Federal, state, and local authorities are engaging in
discriminatory profiling on a broad scale in the name of national
security," the group said, including subjecting minorities to
additional screening at airports and other border crossings.

Violating the Constitution

CAIR-MI also filed a second lawsuit, asking a US judge to issue a
declaration that the plaintiff's Fifth Amendment rights had been
violated by being on the terrorist watch list.

The complaint also asks for an injunction to remedy any civil
rights violations, including providing steps to remove
individuals' names from the list, a legal avenue to know why they
are on the list and a mechanism to contest that placement.

"It's as if the government stole your car and is refusing to tell
you that it is they that stole it from you," said Mr. Abbas, about
how the government places people on the selectee list without
explanation.

"At the very least, the federal government needs to provide people
with notice that they've been placed on the selectee list, either
after or before that placement occurs.  The fact that they have
not done so is the clearest indication that they're operating the
selectee list in a way that clearly violates the Constitution."

According to CAIR-MI Legal Director Lena Masri, thousands upon
thousands of American Muslims have been wrongfully designated as
known or suspected terrorists without due process.

Dearborn, Michigan, a city of about 100,000 residents of which 40
percent is Arab, is among the top five cities represented on the
watch list, the lawsuit also found. The others are Chicago,
Houston, New York and San Diego.

"The terrorism watch lists are premised on the false notion that
the government can somehow accurately predict whether an innocent
American citizen will commit a crime in the future based on
religious affiliation or First Amendment activities," Ms. Masri
said in a statement.

Syrian-Canadian takes on Canada's use of US no-fly list

The US no-fly list also has ramifications for foreign citizens.  A
Syrian-Canadian man, for example, will have a discrimination case
related to the US no-fly list heard by the Canadian Human Rights
Tribunal later this year.

The man, whose name has not been made public, was denied boarding
on an Air Canada flight in 2011 after he said he was told that his
name appears on the US no-fly list.  The man was flying with his
family between London, Ontario, and Vancouver, with a stop in
Toronto.

"Airlines, and in particular Air Canada, have been quite cavalier
in how they've used these lists.  They hide behind the secrecy of
these regimes," the man's lawyer, Paul Champ, told Middle East
Eye.

"I think we're going to see more information revealed and made
public about how these listing regimes work and how the airlines
implement them, or deal with them, than we've ever really seen in
Canada."

Mr. Champ said at least 2,000 people are currently on the Canadian
no-fly list, known as the Passenger Protect Program.  But
Canadians on the US no-fly list also face problems in Canada. The
issue received widespread media attention in Canada late last year
when a six-year-old boy was stopped on his way to Boston to watch
a hockey game with his father.  His father saw the letters "DHP" -
- Designated High Profile -- on a check-in screen at the airport,
which means he is on a no-fly list.

Mr. Champ said he hopes the tribunal will rule that it's illegal
for Air Canada to apply the US no-fly list on domestic Canadian
flights and declare that the US no-fly list engages in racial
profiling by disproportionately targeting Muslims and Arabs.

"The problem with these listing regimes is that they are used very
loosely.  The criteria that they use to place people on these
lists aren't tested.  There's no evidence whatsoever that they're
effective," he added.

'Infatuation with watch-listing innocent people'

While Mr. Abbas said he was pessimistic the lawsuits would change
how the US watch lists are used against foreign citizens, he told
Middle East Eye that the country's "infatuation with watch-listing
innocent people is contagious".

"The US often takes counter-terrorism actions that impose an
injustice on everybody across the world," he said.

He said the fact that many of the plaintiffs have come forward
using their real names and have been willing to speak about their
experiences is the first step in changing the watch-listing
system.

"The more people are willing to speak out against the federal
watch list, the more the American public is going to realize that
it's innocent college students, people that could be their sons,
their nephews, their daughters, peoples' fathers, business owners
that people rely upon," Mr. Abbas said.

"Those are the people that are on these watch lists, not the
people that want to do us harm."


UNITED STATES: Immigration Sued Over Cash Bail Policy
-----------------------------------------------------
Don DeBenedictis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that immigration officials' insistence of cash bail for
noncitizens -- including permanent residents and refuge-seekers
-- keeps people locked up for years simply because they are poor,
a constitutional class action claims in Los Angeles Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Xochitl Hernandez came to the United States as an
adolescent 25 years ago. She has raised five U.S. citizen children
and cares for four grandchildren. She is in jail under $60,000
bond because of a decade-old shoplifting conviction, and faces
"months or years in detention until her immigration case is
resolved."

The other named plaintiff, Cesar Matias, of Honduras, has been in
jail for more than four years, seeking political asylum, unable to
pay his $3,000 cash bond.

"The detention of such individuals is not justified by any valid
interest, but rather is based on nothing more than the fact that
they are poor or otherwise lack the financial ability to pay their
bonds," their ACLU attorneys say in the April 6 lawsuit.

"Poverty or lack of financial resources should not deprive a
person of his or her freedom while in civil immigration
proceedings," their attorney Michael Kaufman said.

The lawsuit against the Department of Justice, the Department of
Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement targets
detention policies only in the Central District of California,
where at least 100 immigrants and probably many more are held on
bond on any given day.

But Michael Tan, with the ACLU's immigration rights project in New
York, said the problem is nationwide. "We haven't ruled out
bringing this [type of suit] elsewhere," he said.

Matias, who worked in Los Angeles as a hairdresser, says he will
be targeted for persecution in Honduras because he is gay. His
$3,000 bond "as well be a million," Tan said.

Immigration bonds vary widely, from zero to $100,000 or more.
Regional and district directors for ICE have authority to set,
increase or reduce bonds, and detention officers in immigration
prisons have been known to raise bonds on the spot merely because
a detainee comes up with the money, immigration attorneys told
Courthouse News.

Tan said one problem is there are no standards for how to set
immigration bonds. Yet the fact that immigration judges and
officials do set bonds shows that the plaintiffs and other
detainees "have actually been found not to pose a danger to the
country and found not to pose a significant flight risk," Tan
said.

The plaintiffs claim the bond policy, or lack of policy, violates
the Immigration and Nationality Act, the rights to due process and
equal protection, and the Eighth Amendment's protection from
excessive bail.

The ACLU says the government's policies and practices do not
require judges or officials to consider a detainee's ability to
pay when setting bond.

"Indeed, in a series of unpublished decisions, the BIA [Board of
Immigration Appeals] has held that a person's financial
circumstances are irrelevant to a bond determination," the
complaint states.

The plaintiffs also challenge the demand for bond payment in full,
in cash, rather than allowing them to post a deposit or property
as in criminal cases, and that immigration policies do not require
judges to consider alternatives such as electronic monitoring.

In addition to the federal officials, defendants include officials
in Orange County and the City of Santa Ana, where many detainees
in the Central District are jailed.

The ACLU says the Department of Justice has argued in criminal
cases that keeping defendants in jail "solely because of their
inability to pay for their release" violates the equal protection
clause and that bail systems must "take individual circumstances
into account."

Tan said the federal government has been "very aggressive" in
arguing that locking people up in criminal cases because they're
poor is unconstitutional.

"So it's not without some irony that the Department of Justice's
own immigration judges are doing the same thing," he said.

The Department of Justice had no comment.

The Orange County Sheriff's Office did not respond to requests for
comment April 7.

Michael Kaufman, with the ACLU of Southern California, is assisted
by attorneys with the San Francisco office of Skadden Arps Slate
Meagher & Flom.


USA WHEEL: Faces Suit in Tex. Court for Alleged FLSA Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
JARAMY ABREGO, RANDAL BARBER, and JEFFREY LEWIS, Individually and
on Behalf of all Others Similarly Situated, COLLECTIVE ACTION
Plaintiffs, v. USA WHEEL AND TIRE OUTLET INC., Defendant, Case
4:16-cv-00919 (S.D. Tex., April 5, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, overtime compensation, litigation expenses, expert witness
fees, attorney's fees, costs of court, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest, liquidated damages, applicable penalties, and
all other available remedies under the provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

USA Wheel and Tire Outlet Inc. is a tire dealership selling tires
on different types of vehicles.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


VALEANT PHARMA: Lawyer Seeks Approval of Cold-Fx Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tamara Khandaker, writing for Vice News, reports that a Vancouver
lawyer is fighting to get a lawsuit approved as a class action,
accusing the makers of popular cold and flu remedy Cold-FX of
misleading consumers through false claims about the drug's
effectiveness.

And they want a refund for every single bottle of the drug that
was sold -- plus interest.

But lawyers for embattled drug company Valeant are arguing that
British Columbia's Supreme Court shouldn't the grant class action
certification since the case has "no real complainants," even
though a study shows that the drug is less effective than a sugar
pill.

"We've known for a long time, at best, the supporting evidence [of
Cold-FX] has been underwhelming," said University of Alberta
health law professor Tim Caulfield, who's been following the
controversy surrounding the drug for several years.  "This
lawsuit, what it's really about, is arguing that Cold-FX doesn't
work, and more importantly, the company knew that it doesn't work
and were advertising to the contrary despite that."

The company, on the other hand, is basically taking a 'no harm, no
foul' defense -- lawyer Alan D'Silva said certification shouldn't
be granted since "class actions are intended to be for real people
with real complaints," of which he said there are none, according
to The Canadian Press.

"They are not intended to be manufactured by entrepreneurial
counsel," he said.

Afexa Life Sciences Inc., which was bought by Valeant
Pharmaceuticals in 2011, is the original license holder and
manufacturer of the natural health product-the best-selling such
product in the country, with a reported $117 million in sales in
2011.

"At the end of the day we'll argue that every box of Cold-FX that
contained a material misrepresentation was part of the fraud."
Once one of Canada's most valuable companies, the Quebec-based
Valeant is currently embroiled in controversy on several different
fronts -- allegations of price gouging, its relationship with
mail-order pharmacy Philidor, and a lawsuit accusing Valeant and
investor Bill Ackman of insider trading. Two weeks ago, it was
announced that CEO Michael Pearson would be stepping down amid
plunging share values.

Mr. D'Silva said in court that Ladysmith resident Don Harrison,
who launched the initial complaint and would be the lead plaintiff
in a class action, has never sworn an official court document
explaining his decision to purchase the product, whether or not he
took it, if he felt he was misled, or if he ever attempted to get
a refund.

"One of the fundamental problems is that . . . more than four
years into this litigation, they still do not have a single person
[who's] come forward to swear an affidavit and say these things.
Not a single person," he continued.

According to the notice of civil claim, Mr. Harrison purchased
Cold-FX after reviewing its package and watching TV ads about it,
which both said taking a three-day dose of the product at the
first sign of illness would result in immediate relief of his cold
and flu symptoms.

But that never happened, Mr. Harrison claims.

"At all material times, the representations were exaggerations
and/or were false or misleading in a material respect of the
consumer transaction," the court documents state.

"At the end of the day we'll argue that every box of Cold-FX that
contained a material misrepresentation was part of the fraud,"
Green wrote on Facebook.  "We'll ask that the damage suffered by
the class members correlate to what was ultimately paid by the
consumer at [retailers] like Shoppers Drug Mart or Costco,
multiplied by the number of bottles sold, adding on interest since
it was sold."

Up until recently, packaging and advertising for the product
claimed Cold-FX could "stop cold and flu in their tracks" and
"help provide effective relief," although neither claim has been
supported by scientific research, experts say.

While there has been research done that found Cold-FX to be
effective as a preventative drug if taken for two to six
months -- a fact that the plaintiff doesn't dispute -- the lawsuit
takes issue with previous claims to consumers that it could offer
"immediate relief" after symptoms have already appeared.

Mr. Green also cites a 2004 study conducted by the Capital Health
Authority in Alberta, which apparently found the product to be
less effective than a placebo.  The results of that study, which
he only came across when reviewing evidence submitted by the
company, should have been made public, Mr. Green argues.

"They omitted to disclose research they commissioned, which showed
that Cold-FX was not an effective treatment of a runny nose,
stuffy nose, cough, or sore throat," he writes.

The study, which followed one group taking Cold-FX and another
group taking a placebo for 14 days, starting right after their
symptoms first appeared, found that symptoms for the first group
lasted longer and were less severe for the placebo group.

But Valeant's lawyers are pushing back -- Mr. D'Silva said in
court that Green had cherry-picked "a chart out of one of the
studies, which does not accurately reflect what we've put in the
record."

The study, he pointed out, concluded that Cold-FX was in fact
effective at treating a runny nose.

Mr. Green is seeking damages or restitution for deceit, fraud, or
fraudulent misrepresentation. He's promised to contact anyone who
wants to join the lawsuit with forms, allowing them to claim back
some of the money they spent on Cold-FX, if it's successful.

Cold-FX has approval from Health Canada, which last reviewed it in
November of last year and says it boosts the immune system, and
thus helps reduce the frequency, severity and duration of cold and
flu symptoms.  The product works even better when combined with a
flu shot, according its page on the federal health agency website.

"When it comes to natural health products, Health Canada has a
lower standard when it comes to the assessment of efficacy," said
Mr. Caulfield, adding that the current regulatory framework
prioritizes safety and standardization over efficacy, enabling
questionable products to enter the market.


VBI VACCINES: 2nd Amended Complaint in Furlong Fund Suit Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sidney H. Stein dismissed with prejudice the Second Amended
Complaint in the case captioned FURLONG FUND LLC on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VBI
VACCINES, INC. formerly known as Paulson Capital (Delaware) Corp.
formerly known as Paulson Capital Corp., CHESTER L.F. PAULSON,
CHARLES L.F. PAULSON, PAUL F. SHOEN, DR. SHANNON PRATT, and TRENT
DAVIS, Defendants, No. 14-Cv-9435 (SHS) (S.D.N.Y.).

A security class action was filed seeking to recover alleged
losses from a liquidating trust established by Paulson Capital
Corp. (PCC), now known as VBI Vaccines, Inc.  Furlong Fund LLC
asserted, on behalf of itself and similarly situated PCC
shareholders who held beneficial interests in the trust, that PCC
and its directors -- Chester L.F. Paulson, Charles L.F. Paulson,
Paul F. Shoen, and Dr. Shannon Pratt -- solicited shareholder
approval for the trust by negligently misrepresenting and omitting
information regarding the value of the trust in an October 18,
2013 proxy statement, in violation of Section 14(a), Rule 14a-9,
and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

VBI and the individual defendants moved to dismiss all claims
against them with prejudice for failing to state claims upon which
relief can be granted.

Judge Stein granted the defendants' motions and dismissed Furlong
Fund's Second Amended Complaint with prejudice.  The judge found
that the complaint failed to adequately plead any actionable false
or misleading statement or omission with the particularity
required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and case
law.

A full-text copy of Judge Stein's March 25, 2016 opinion and order
is available at http://is.gd/xkXsJEfrom Leagle.com.

Furlong Fund LLC, Lead Plaintiff, represented by Peter B. Andrews
-- pandrews@andrewsspringer.com -- Andrews & Springer LLC,
Benjamin Yehuda Kaufman -- kaufman@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz LLP & Gregory Mark Nespole --
nespole@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.

VBI Vaccines, Inc., Chester L.F. Paulson, Charles L.F. Paulson,
Paul F. Shoen, Defendant, represented by David B. Gordon --
dbg@msk.com -- Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp LLP.

Dr. Shannon Pratt, Defendant, represented by Ashley Robert
Altschuler, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP.


VOLKWAGEN AG: Faces Another "Dieselgate" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Lucy Campbell, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reports that
Volkwagen AG (VW) is facing yet another class action over the
alleged Volkwagen defeat device false emissions ratings, or so-
called "Dieselgate".  The latest proposed class action was filed
by a VW dealership in Chicago.  To date over 500 class actions
have been filed against the German automaker.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a class of nationwide
Volkswagen franchise dealerships, alleging the emissions scandal
has caused great harm to franchise dealers, who, in some cases,
have seen their profits erased and their dealerships plummet in
value.

The issue revolves around VW's use of a "defeat device" installed
in some 600,000 vehicles in the US, which were allegedly designed
to cheat emissions detection tests.  According to the US
Environmental Protection Agency, vehicles fitted with defeat
devices emit as much as 40 times the standard for nitrogen oxides.

While Volkswagen has stated its commitment to fixing the problem,
not all of Volkswagen's 600 franchise dealers are prepared to wait
indefinitely for the company to either come up with a fix or
reimburse them.

According to the suit, filed by the three franchise dealerships
owned by Ed Napleton, Volkswagen has put some dealers ahead of
others, such as "unfair and illegal pricing" favoring dealers that
used an affiliated financing company, VW Credit Inc.
Mr. Napleton cited his purchase of a VW franchise in Urbana,
Illinois, that Volkswagen pushed last year despite knowing of the
emissions problem since 2014.

The lawsuit makes claims under the federal Automobile Dealers' Day
in Court Act and the US Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, alleging that Volkswagen and Robert Bosch GmbH,
which supplied the defeat device, conspired to commit fraud.

Meanwhile, the consumer-based defeat device class actions have
been coordinated into Multidistrict litigation (MDL) in San
Francisco before US District Judge Charles Breyer.  Volkswagen and
federal regulators have been given until April 21 to come up with
a plan to fix the cars.


WATTS WATER: To Settle "Ponzo" and "Klug" Cases
-----------------------------------------------
Watts Water Technologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has
reached an agreement in principle to settle all claims in the
Ponzo and Klug class action cases.

In November and December 2014, Watts Water Technologies, Inc. and
Watts Regulator Co. were named as defendants in three separate
putative nationwide class action complaints (Meyers v. Watts Water
Technologies, Inc., United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio; Ponzo v. Watts Regulator Co., United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts; Sharp v. Watts
Regulator Co., United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts) seeking to recover damages and other relief based
on the alleged failure of water heater connectors.

On June 26, 2015, plaintiffs in the three actions filed a
consolidated amended complaint, under the case captioned Ponzo v.
Watts Regulator Co., in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts (hereinafter "Ponzo"). WWT was
voluntarily dismissed from the Ponzo case. The complaint seeks
among other items, damages in an unspecified amount, replacement
costs, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and attorneys' fees
and costs.

On August 7, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which motion is still pending.

In February 2015, Watts Regulator Co. was named as a defendant in
a putative nationwide class action complaint (Klug v. Watts Water
Technologies, Inc., et al., United States District Court for the
District of Nebraska) seeking to recover damages and other relief
based on the alleged failure of the Company's Floodsafe connectors
(hereinafter "Klug").

On June 26, 2015, the Company filed a partial motion to dismiss
the complaint.

In response, on July 17, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended
complaint which added additional named plaintiffs and sought to
correct deficiencies in the original complaint, Klug v. Watts
Regulator Co., United States District Court for the District of
Nebraska. The complaint seeks among other items, damages in an
unspecified amount, injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 31, 2015, the Company filed a partial motion to dismiss
the complaint which was granted in part and denied in part on
December 29, 2015. The Company answered the amended complaint on
February 2, 2016. No formal discovery has yet been conducted.

"We participated in mediation sessions of the Ponzo and Klug cases
in December 2015 and January 2016," the Company said.  "On
February 16, 2016, we reached an agreement in principle to settle
all claims. The proposed total settlement amount is $14 million,
of which we expect to pay approximately $4.1 million after
insurance proceeds of up to $9.9 million, the receipt of which is
also subject to completion of a final written settlement
agreement. The settlement is subject to completion of a final
written settlement agreement, preliminary court approval and final
court approval after a fairness hearing. Accordingly, there can be
no assurance that the proposed settlement will be approved in its
current form. If the settlement is not approved, we intend to
continue to vigorously contest the allegations in this case."


WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Bowman" Suit for FLSA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON BOWMAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, VS. WEATHERFORD INTERNATIONAL LLC, and
PRECISION ENERGY SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case 4:16-cv-00918
(S.D. Tex., April 5, 2016), alleges that the Defendants
misclassified its Real Time Operating Center ("RTOC") Technical
Specialists as overtime exempt and not paying them any overtime
premiums for their overtime hours in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Weatherford International is one of the largest oil and natural
gas companies in the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael A. Starzyk, Esq.
     April L. Walter, Esq.
     Amber L. Karns, Esq.
     STARZYK & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     10200 Grogan's Mill Rd, Suite 300
     The Woodlands, TX 77380
     Phone: (281) 364-7261
     Fax: (281) 364-7533
     E-mail: mstarzyk@starzyklaw.com
             awalter@starzyklaw.com
             akarns@starzyklaw.com


WELLS FARGO BANK: Supreme Court Won't Hear Appeals
--------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the
Supreme Court on April 4, declined to hear two Wells Fargo
challenges to federal court rulings on its overdraft fees and
foreclosure policies.

In Wells Fargo Bank v. Gutierrez a class of consumers claimed the
San Francisco-based banking giant charged them too much in
overdraft fees related to debit-card purchases.

After paying hundreds of dollars in fees on relatively small
overdrafts, lead plaintiffs Veronica Gutierrez and Erin Walker
sued Wells Fargo to get their money back and stop the "high-to-
low" practice, which the bank started in California more than a
decade ago.

The bookkeeping method processes account debits in the order of
the highest amount to the lowest, emptying customer accounts by
multiplying overdraft fees that the bank then collects in the
billions of dollars.

In 2012, U.S. District Judge William Alsup sided with the
plaintiffs, ordering the bank to pay $203 million in restitution
to consumers and enjoining it from utilizing the accounting
practice. The Ninth Circuit reversed the ruling and remanded the
case, but Alsup reinstituted the penalty and the appeals court
ultimately upheld his decision.

The second case, Kakarala v. Wells Fargo Bank, began as a state-
level challenge to a foreclosure filed by a naturalized U.S.
citizen who was foreclosed upon while visiting her native country
of India.

Anne Mercy Kakarala had argued that the foreclosure action was
invalid because she had received assurances from the bank that she
would not be foreclosed upon while abroad is she made her mortgage
payments before she left. Kararala petitioned the Supreme Court to
overturn a Ninth Circuit ruling that remanded her case back to a
state court in Arizona.

As is their custom, the justices in the majority did not explain
their rationale for not taking up the cases.

In the latter case, however, Justice Clarence Thomas dissented on
the grounds that he believes that with 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(d),
Congress "unambiguously deprived federal courts of jurisdiction to
review an order remanding a case from federal to state court."

28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(d) is the federal law governing review of
orders remanding a case from federal to state courts.

In his dissent, Thomas maintains the current decision to deny
certiorari is predicated upon what he sees an erroneous earlier
decision by the court in Thermtron Products Inc. v. Hermansdorfer.

In that case, he says, the high court wrongly concluded that
Congress only barred to review of some remand orders.

Thomas says this interpretation by the court has led to an
"unworkable" situation that "has spawned a number of divisions in
the lower courts over whether certain remains are based on
jurisdictional or nonjurisdictional grounds, and how to determine
which is which."

"The petition in this case presents an opportunity to reconsider
Thermtron," Thomas writes. "I would grant review in this case and
any other that would allow us to revisit our mistaken approach to
Sec. 1447(d)."

The case captioned, ANNE MERCY KAKARALA v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.
A., 578 U. S. ____ (2016).


WILD PLANET: Faces Class Action Over Tuna Under-filling
-------------------------------------------------------
Legal Newsline reports that a California consumer is suing a food
company, alleging it under-fills its tuna cans.

Heney Shihad, individually and for all others similarly situated,
filed a class action lawsuit March 25 in U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California Eureka Division against Wild
Planet Foods Inc. and Does 1-25, alleging breach of express and
implied warranties, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and
violations of California's Unfair Competition Law and False
Advertising Law.

The suit alleges independent testing by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration has determined Wild Planet's Wild
Planet tuna fails to comply with federally mandated minimum
standards.  Specifically, the complaint states Wild Planet
regularly under-fills its 5-ounce cans of tuna.

Mr. Shihad and others in the class seek a jury trial, declaratory
and injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages,
restitution, attorney fees and costs of the suit.  They are
represented by attorneys Reuben D. Nathan of Nathan & Associates
APC in Newport Beach, California, and Ross Cornell of the Law
Offices of Ross CornellAPC  in Long Beach, California.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Eureka
Division Case number 4:16-CV-01478-JSW


WILLIS TOWERS: Motion to Dismiss Stockholders' Case Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that the Defendants' motion to dismiss the case, In re Towers
Watson & Co. Stockholders Litigation, remains pending.

Five putative class action complaints challenging the Merger were
filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware,
captioned New Jersey Building Laborers' Statewide Annuity Fund v.
Towers Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No. 11270-CB (filed on July 9,
2015), Stein v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No. 11271-CB
(filed on July 9, 2015), City of Atlanta Firefighters' Pension
Fund v. Ganzi, et al., C.A. No. 11275-CB (filed on July 10, 2015),
Cordell v. Haley, et al., C.A. No. 11358-CB (filed on July 31,
2015), and Mills v. Towers Watson & Co., et al., C.A. No. 11423-CB
(filed on August 24, 2015).  The Stein action was voluntarily
dismissed on July 28, 2015.

These complaints were filed by purported stockholders of Towers
Watson on behalf of a putative class comprised of all Towers
Watson stockholders. The complaints sought, among other things, to
enjoin the Merger, and generally alleged that Towers Watson's
directors breached their fiduciary duties to Towers Watson
stockholders by agreeing to merge Towers Watson with Willis
through an inadequate and unfair process, which led to inadequate
and unfair consideration, and by agreeing to unfair deal
protection devices.  The complaints also alleged that Willis and
the Merger Sub formed for purposes of consummating the Merger
aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by
Towers Watson directors.

On August 17, 2015, the court consolidated the New Jersey Building
Laborers' Statewide Annuity Fund, City of Atlanta Firefighters'
Pension Fund, and Cordell actions (the Mills action had not yet
been filed) and any other actions then pending or thereafter filed
arising out of the same issues of fact under the caption In re
Towers Watson & Co. Stockholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No.
11270-CB.

On September 9, 2015, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action
and in Mills filed a consolidated amended complaint, which, among
other things, added claims for alleged misstatements and omissions
from a preliminary proxy statement and prospectus for the Merger
dated August 27, 2015.

On September 17, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited
proceedings and a motion for a preliminary injunction, which
motions plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew on October 19, 2015.

On December 14, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. Based on all of the information to
date, the Company is currently unable to provide an estimate of
the reasonably possible loss or range of loss.  The defendants
intend to vigorously defend the lawsuit.


WILLIS TOWERS: Updates on Stanford Financial-Related Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Willis Towers Watson Public Limited Company, in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
provided updates on lawsuits related to the collapse of Stanford
Financial Group.

The Company has been named as a defendant in 13 similar lawsuits
relating to the collapse of The Stanford Financial Group
('Stanford'), for which Willis of Colorado, Inc. acted as broker
of record on certain lines of insurance. The complaints in these
actions generally allege that the defendants actively and
materially aided Stanford's alleged fraud by providing Stanford
with certain letters regarding coverage that they knew would be
used to help retain or attract actual or prospective Stanford
client investors. The complaints further allege that these
letters, which contain statements about Stanford and the insurance
policies that the defendants placed for Stanford, contained
untruths and omitted material facts and were drafted in this
manner to help Stanford promote and sell its allegedly fraudulent
certificates of deposit.

The 13 actions are:

     * Troice, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 3:9-CV-1274-N, was filed on July 2, 2009 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas against Willis Group
Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and a Willis associate,
among others. On April 1, 2011, plaintiffs filed the operative
Third Amended Class Action Complaint individually and on behalf of
a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors, adding Willis
Limited as a defendant and alleging claims under Texas statutory
and common law and seeking damages in excess of $1 billion,
punitive damages and costs. On May 2, 2011, the defendants filed
motions to dismiss the Third Amended Class Action Complaint,
arguing, inter alia, that the plaintiffs' claims are precluded by
the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ('SLUSA').
On May 10, 2011, the court presiding over the Stanford-related
actions in the Northern District of Texas entered an order
providing that it would consider the applicability of SLUSA to the
Stanford-related actions based on the decision in a separate
Stanford action not involving a Willis entity, Roland v. Green,
Civil Action No. 3:10-CV-0224-N. On August 31, 2011, the court
issued its decision in Roland, dismissing that action with
prejudice under SLUSA.

On October 27, 2011, the court in Troice entered an order (i)
dismissing with prejudice those claims asserted in the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint on a class basis on the grounds set
forth in the Roland decision discussed above and (ii) dismissing
without prejudice those claims asserted in the Third Amended Class
Action Complaint on an individual basis. Also on October 27, 2011,
the court entered a final judgment in the action.

On October 28, 2011, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a notice of
appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Subsequently, Troice, Roland and a third action captioned Troice,
et al. v. Proskauer Rose LLP, Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-01600-N,
which also was dismissed on the grounds set forth in the Roland
decision discussed above and on appeal to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, were consolidated for purposes of
briefing and oral argument. Following the completion of briefing
and oral argument, on March 19, 2012, the Fifth Circuit reversed
and remanded the actions. On April 2, 2012, the defendants-
appellees filed petitions for rehearing en banc. On April 19,
2012, the petitions for rehearing en banc were denied. On July 18,
2012, defendants-appellees filed a petition for writ of certiorari
with the United States Supreme Court regarding the Fifth Circuit's
reversal in Troice. On January 18, 2013, the Supreme Court granted
our petition. Opening briefs were filed on May 3, 2013 and the
Supreme Court heard oral argument on October 7, 2013. On February
26, 2014, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit's decision.

On March 19, 2014, the plaintiffs in Troice filed a Motion to
Defer Resolution of Motions to Dismiss, to Compel Rule 26(f)
Conference and For Entry of Scheduling Order.

On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and the Janvey, et al. v.
Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al. action discussed below stipulated
to the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes
under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March
28, 2014, the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus,
consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule
42(a).

On September 16, 2014, the court (a) denied the plaintiffs'
request to defer resolution of the defendants' motions to dismiss,
but granted the plaintiffs' request to enter a scheduling order;
(b) requested the submission of supplemental briefing by all
parties on the defendants' motions to dismiss, which the parties
submitted on September 30, 2014; and (c) entered an order setting
a schedule for briefing and discovery regarding plaintiffs' motion
for class certification, which schedule, among other things,
provided for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery)
on April 20, 2015.

On December 15, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' motions to dismiss. On January 30, 2015, the
defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc answered the Third
Amended Class Action Complaint.

On April 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their motion for class
certification, the defendants filed their opposition to
plaintiffs' motion, and the plaintiffs filed their reply in
further support of the motion. Pursuant to an agreed stipulation
also filed with the court on April 20, 2015, the defendants on
June 4, 2015 filed sur-replies in further opposition to the
motion. The Court has not yet scheduled a hearing on the motion.
On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. On
November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew the motion.

     * Ranni v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9-
22085, was filed on July 17, 2009 against Willis Group Holdings
plc and Willis of Colorado, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Florida. The complaint was filed on
behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan and other South American
Stanford investors and alleges claims under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5 thereunder) and
Florida statutory and common law and seeks damages in an amount to
be determined at trial. On October 6, 2009, Ranni was transferred,
for consolidation or coordination with other Stanford-related
actions (including Troice), to the Northern District of Texas by
the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the 'JPML').
The defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Ranni.
On August 26, 2014, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary
dismissal of the action without prejudice.

     * Canabal, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 3:9-CV-1474-D, was filed on August 6, 2009 against Willis
Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis
associate named as a defendant in Troice, among others, also in
the Northern District of Texas. The complaint was filed
individually and on behalf of a putative class of Venezuelan
Stanford investors, alleged claims under Texas statutory and
common law and sought damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive
damages, attorneys' fees and costs. On December 18, 2009, the
parties in Troice and Canabal stipulated to the consolidation of
those actions (under the Troice civil action number), and, on
December 31, 2009, the plaintiffs in Canabal filed a notice of
dismissal, dismissing the action without prejudice.

     * Rupert, et al. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2009C115137, was
filed on September 14, 2009 on behalf of 97 Stanford investors
against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and
the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas state court
(Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under the Securities
Act of 1933, Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law
and seeks special, consequential and treble damages of more than
$300 million, attorneys' fees and costs. On October 20, 2009,
certain defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i)
removed Rupert to the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related
action and (iii) moved to stay the action pending a determination
by the JPML as to whether it should be transferred to the Northern
District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with the other
Stanford-related actions. On April 1, 2010, the JPML issued a
final transfer order for the transfer of Rupert to the Northern
District of Texas. On January 24, 2012, the court remanded Rupert
to Texas state court (Bexar County), but stayed the action until
further order of the court. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs
filed a motion to lift the stay, which motion was denied by the
court on September 16, 2014. On October 10, 2014, the plaintiffs
appealed the court's denial of their motion to lift the stay to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. On January 5,
2015, the Fifth Circuit consolidated the appeal with the appeal in
the Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al. action, and the
consolidated appeal, was fully briefed as of March 24, 2015. Oral
argument on the consolidated appeal was held on September 2, 2015.
On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The defendants
have not yet responded to the complaint in Rupert.

     * Casanova, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., C.A.
No. 3:10-CV-1862-O, was filed on September 16, 2010 on behalf of
seven Stanford investors against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis
Limited, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and the same Willis associate,
among others, also in the Northern District of Texas. The
complaint alleges claims under Texas statutory and common law and
seeks actual damages in excess of $5 million, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs. On February 13, 2015, the parties filed
an Agreed Motion for Partial Dismissal pursuant to which they
agreed to the dismissal of certain claims pursuant to the motion
to dismiss decisions in the Troice action discussed above and the
Janvey action. Also on February 13, 2015, the defendants except
Willis Group Holdings plc answered the complaint in the Casanova
action. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs have not opposed the motion.

     * Rishmague, et ano. v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2011CI2585,
was filed on March 11, 2011 on behalf of two Stanford investors,
individually and as representatives of certain trusts, against
Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of
Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas
state court (Bexar County). The complaint alleges claims under
Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks
special, consequential and treble damages of more than $37 million
and attorneys' fees and costs. On April 11, 2011, certain
defendants, including Willis of Colorado, Inc., (i) removed
Rishmague to the Western District of Texas, (ii) notified the JPML
of the pendency of this related action and (iii) moved to stay the
action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should
be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation
or coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On August
8, 2011, the JPML issued a final transfer order for the transfer
of Rishmague to the Northern District of Texas, where it is
currently pending. On August 13, 2012, the plaintiffs joined with
the plaintiffs in the Rupert action in their motion to lift the
court's stay of the Rupert action. On September 9, 2014, the court
remanded Rishmague to Texas state court (Bexar County), but stayed
the action until further order of the court and denied the
plaintiffs' motion to lift the stay. On October 10, 2014, the
plaintiffs appealed the court's denial of their motion to lift the
stay to the Fifth Circuit. On January 5, 2015, the Fifth Circuit
consolidated the appeal with the appeal in the Rupert action, and
the consolidated appeal was fully briefed as of March 24, 2015.
Oral argument on the consolidated appeal was held on September 2,
2015. On September 16, 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. The
defendants have not yet responded to the complaint in Rishmague.

     * MacArthur v. Winter, et al., Case No. 2013-07840, was filed
on February 8, 2013 on behalf of two Stanford investors against
Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis of Colorado, Inc., Willis of
Texas, Inc. and the same Willis associate, among others, in Texas
state court (Harris County). The complaint alleges claims under
Texas and Colorado statutory law and Texas common law and seeks
actual, special, consequential and treble damages of approximately
$4 million and attorneys' fees and costs. On March 29, 2013,
Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of Texas, Inc. (i) removed
MacArthur to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas and (ii) notified the JPML of the pendency of this related
action. On April 2, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. and Willis of
Texas, Inc. filed a motion in the Southern District of Texas to
stay the action pending a determination by the JPML as to whether
it should be transferred to the Northern District of Texas for
consolidation or coordination with the other Stanford-related
actions. Also on April 2, 2013, the court presiding over MacArthur
in the Southern District of Texas transferred the action to the
Northern District of Texas for consolidation or coordination with
the other Stanford-related actions. On September 29, 2014, the
parties stipulated to the remand (to Texas state court (Harris
County)) and stay of MacArthur until further order of the court
(in accordance with the court's September 9, 2014 decision in
Rishmague (discussed above)), which stipulation was 'so ordered'
by the court on October 14, 2014. The defendants have not yet
responded to the complaint in MacArthur.

     * Florida suits: On February 14, 2013, five lawsuits were
filed against Willis Group Holdings plc, Willis Limited and Willis
of Colorado, Inc. in Florida state court (Miami-Dade County)
alleging violations of Florida common law. The five suits are: (1)
Barbar, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public Limited Company, et
al., Case No. 13-05666CA27, filed on behalf of 35 Stanford
investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of $30 million;
(2) de Gadala-Maria, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public
Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05669CA30, filed on behalf of
64 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of
$83.5 million; (3) Ranni, et ano. v. Willis Group Holdings Public
Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05673CA06, filed on behalf of
two Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of
$3 million; (4) Tisminesky, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings Public
Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05676CA09, filed on behalf of
11 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in excess of
$6.5 million; and (5) Zacarias, et al. v. Willis Group Holdings
Public Limited Company, et al., Case No. 13-05678CA11, filed on
behalf of 10 Stanford investors seeking compensatory damages in
excess of $12.5 million. On June 3, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc.
removed all five cases to the Southern District of Florida and, on
June 4, 2013, notified the JPML of the pendency of these related
actions. On June 10, 2013, the court in Tisminesky issued an order
sua sponte staying and administratively closing that action
pending a determination by the JPML as to whether it should be
transferred to the Northern District of Texas for consolidation
and coordination with the other Stanford-related actions. On June
11, 2013, Willis of Colorado, Inc. moved to stay the other four
actions pending the JPML's transfer decision. On June 20, 2013,
the JPML issued a conditional transfer order for the transfer of
the five actions to the Northern District of Texas, the
transmittal of which was stayed for seven days to allow for any
opposition to be filed. On June 28, 2013, with no opposition
having been filed, the JPML lifted the stay, enabling the transfer
to go forward.

On September 30, 2014, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
remand in Zacarias, and, on October 3, 2014, the court denied the
plaintiffs' motions to remand in Tisminesky and de Gadala Maria.
On December 3, 2014 and March 3, 2015, the court granted the
plaintiffs' motions to remand in Barbar and Ranni, respectively,
remanded both actions to Florida state court (Miami-Dade County)
and stayed both actions until further order of the court. On
January 2, 2015 and April 1, 2015, the plaintiffs in Barbar and
Ranni, respectively, appealed the court's December 3, 2014 and
March 3, 2015 decisions to the Fifth Circuit. On April 22, 2015
and July 22, 2015, respectively, the Fifth Circuit dismissed the
Barbar and Ranni appeals sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction. We
believe the dismissals were in error and that appeals are likely
to be reinstated. The defendants have not yet responded to the
complaints in Ranni or Barbar.

On April 1, 2015, the defendants except Willis Group Holdings plc
filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky
and de Gadala-Maria. On June 19, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc
filed motions to dismiss the complaints in Zacarias, Tisminesky
and de Gadala-Maria for lack of personal jurisdiction. On July 15,
2015, the court dismissed the complaint in Zacarias in its
entirety with leave to replead within 21 days. On July 21, 2015,
the court dismissed the complaints in Tisminesky and de Gadala-
Maria in their entirety with leave to replead within 21 days. On
August 6, 2015, the plaintiffs in Zacarias, Tisminesky and de
Gadala-Maria filed amended complaints (in which, among other
things, Willis Group Holdings plc was no longer named as a
defendant). On September 11, 2015, the defendants filed motions to
dismiss the amended complaints. The motions await disposition by
the court.

     * Janvey, et al. v. Willis of Colorado, Inc., et al., Case
No. 3:13-CV-03980-D, was filed on October 1, 2013 also in the
Northern District of Texas against Willis Group Holdings plc,
Willis Limited, Willis North America Inc., Willis of Colorado,
Inc. and the same Willis associate. The complaint was filed (i) by
Ralph S. Janvey, in his capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver for
the Stanford Receivership Estate, and the Official Stanford
Investors Committee (the 'OSIC') against all defendants and (ii)
on behalf of a putative, worldwide class of Stanford investors
against Willis North America Inc. Plaintiffs Janvey and the OSIC
allege claims under Texas common law and the court's Amended Order
Appointing Receiver, and the putative class plaintiffs allege
claims under Texas statutory and common law. Plaintiffs seek
actual damages in excess of $1 billion, punitive damages and
costs. As alleged by the Stanford Receiver, the total amount of
collective losses allegedly sustained by all investors in Stanford
certificates of deposit is approximately $4.6 billion.

On November 15, 2013, plaintiffs in Janvey filed the operative
First Amended Complaint, which added certain defendants
unaffiliated with Willis. On February 28, 2014, the defendants
filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which
motions, other than with respect to Willis Group Holding plc's
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, were granted
in part and denied in part by the court on December 5, 2014. On
December 22, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend the court's
December 5 order to certify an interlocutory appeal to the Fifth
Circuit, and, on December 23, 2014, Willis filed a motion to amend
and, to the extent necessary, reconsider the court's December 5
order. On January 16, 2015, the defendants answered the First
Amended Complaint. On January 28, 2015, the court denied Willis's
motion to amend the court's December 5 order to certify an
interlocutory appeal to the Fifth Circuit. On February 4, 2015,
the court granted Willis's motion to amend and, to the extent
necessary, reconsider the December 5 order.

On March 25, 2014, the parties in Troice and Janvey stipulated to
the consolidation of the two actions for pre-trial purposes under
Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On March 28,
2014, the Court 'so ordered' that stipulation and, thus,
consolidated Troice and Janvey for pre-trial purposes under Rule
42(a).

On January 26, 2015, the court entered an order setting a schedule
for briefing and discovery regarding the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, which schedule, among other things, provided
for the submission of the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification (following the completion of briefing and discovery)
on July 20, 2015. By letter dated March 4, 2015, the parties
requested that the court consolidate the scheduling orders entered
in Troice and Janvey to provide for a class certification
submission date of April 20, 2015 in both cases. On March 6, 2015,
the court entered an order consolidating the scheduling orders in
Troice and Janvey, providing for a class certification submission
date of April 20, 2015 in both cases, and vacating the July 20,
2015 class certification submission date in the original Janvey
scheduling order.

On November 17, 2015, Willis Group Holdings plc withdrew its
motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs in Janvey and Troice and the other actions seek
overlapping damages, representing either the entirety or a portion
of the total alleged collective losses incurred by investors in
Stanford certificates of deposit, notwithstanding the fact that
Legacy Willis acted as broker of record for only a portion of time
that Stanford issued certificates of deposit. Additional actions
could be brought in the future by other investors in certificates
of deposit issued by Stanford and its affiliates seeking some or
all of the same alleged losses.

Given the stage of the proceedings, and notwithstanding the
broadest allegation of some plantiffs, the Company is currently
unable to provide an estimate of the reasonably possible maximum
loss or range of loss.  In the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company
recognized a $70 million litigation provision for loss
contingencies relating to the Stanford matters based on its
ongoing review of a variety of factors as required by accounting
standards. The ultimate resolution of these matters may differ
from the amount provided for. The Company continues to dispute the
allegations and to defend the lawsuits vigorously.

Willis Towers Watson is a global advisory, broking and solutions
company that helps clients around the world turn risk into a path
for growth.


WWE: Faces Class Action in Connecticut Over Streaming Royalties
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to 411Mania's Joseph Lee, PWInsider acquire a copy of
the 52-page class-action lawsuit filed against WWE by
Rene "Dupree" Goguen.  He filed the suit in the United States
District Court of Connecticut on April 6 on behalf of former WWE
performers who think they aren't getting "contractually owed
royalties" from WWE using material featuring them on streaming
services.

While the WWE Network is named, the lawsuit also mentions WWE
material on Netflix.  WWE had several documentaries on the service
from 2012 to 2015, but stopped providing new material and removed
their programs after the WWE Network launched in February 2014.
Mr. Dupree's lawsuit states that there are two different types of
intellectual properties.  Anything Mr. Dupree created before his
WWE run was his original IP while anything he created in WWE would
remain their IP.

Under his 2003 contract, which was used as the basis for the
lawsuit, WWE was required to pay Mr. Dupree and others 25% of
"Licensed Product Royalties".  The amount is shared among all
performers if more than one are featured on a product.

The deal states for WWE PPV events: "WWE shall allocate 25% of the
Net Receipts paid to WWE by licensees authorized to reproduce and
sell video cassettes, videodiscs, CD ROM, or other technology,
including technology not yet created (hereinafter referred to as
"WWE Video Products"), of WWE Pay-Per-Views in their entirety
("WWE Pay-Per-Views") to a talent royalty pool. Thereafter, WWE
shall pro-rate payment to Plaintiff and all other talent appearing
in such WWE Pay-Per-Views in the same proportion as was the
compensation paid to Plaintiff for his appearances in the pay-per-
views to the total amount paid to all talent for their appearances
in the pay-per-view."

For WWE videos: "WWE Video Products are a compilation or
derivative work of multiple individual WWF Pay-Per-Views in their
entirety, such as a collection of videos, e.g., a WrestleMania box
set, payment to Plaintiff shall be calculated as follows: 25% of
the Net Receipts paid to WWE by licensees shall comprise the
talent royalty pool, which shall first be pro-rated based on the
number of individual videos in the compilation, and then the
payment to Plaintiff for each video shall be consistent with the
royalty payment to the Plaintiff at the time that each individual
video was first released."

"Technology not yet created" is what Goguen is using as the basis
of the lawsuit, claiming streaming services fall under that
category.  He said that by selling WWE Network subscriptions and
streaming WWE titles on Netflix (other streaming services aren't
mentioned) without providing royalties, WWE breached their
contract.

The lawsuit states: "All individuals who have assigned their
original and new intellectual property rights to WWE or a
promotion that WWE has acquired the assets and/or the video
library of, in exchange for perpetual royalty payments from WWE's
(or acquired promotion) or licensees' sales of past pay-per-view
events or non pay-per-view productions."

It said the entire group of people could include "hundreds, if not
thousands" of performers "whose identities and royalties owed can
be readily ascertained from Defendants' books and records." It was
divided into the following sections:

*Talents who signed from 2/21/80-1/1/92.
*Talents who signed from 1/1/92-1/1/99.
*Talents who signed from 1/1/99-1/1/04.
*Talents who signed from 1/1/04-1/1/12.
*Talents who signed from 1/1/12-4/4/16 (date of lawsuit filing)

The classes are separated by language in WWE's Booking Contracts
for talents.  The current language reads: "product sale- the sale
of any WWE authorized product, merchandise, consumer material or
good, which is made by or on behalf of WWE."  The lawsuit also
mentions the material WWE acquired by purchasing other promotions
(WCW, ECW) or video libraries (Mid-South, AWA, World Class),
including performers who signed deals with those companies.  It
claims that WWE didn't pay royalties and in their position of
"superior knowledge, skill or expertise in managing such affairs",
WWE had a duty to handle these affairs for talents, who were in a
"relationship of dependency" with WWE.

The lawsuit adds: "Defendant has, in violation of its clear
obligation, engaged in a massive and profitable scheme, pattern
and/or practice of intentionally underpaying required royalties,
expressly designed to enrich Defendants at the expense of the
Plaintiff and the class he brings this claim on behalf of."

The lawsuit is seeking over $5 million dollars for the plaintiffs.
WWE lawyer Jerry McDevitt previously told The Hollywood Reporter
that a contract Mr. Goguen signed in 2011 prevents him from filing
a lawsuit but didn't provide details for privacy reasons.  He
added that he told Mr. Goguen's legal team about it and they were
not aware.


XPO LOGISTICS: Appeal Over Intermodal Drayage Claims Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's appeal
related to so-called intermodal drayage classification claims
remains pending.

Certain of the Company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries received
notices from the California Labor Commissioner, Division of Labor
Standards Enforcement (the "DLSE"), that a total of approximately
150 owner operators contracted with these subsidiaries filed
claims in 2012 with the DLSE in which they assert that they should
be classified as employees, as opposed to independent contractors.
These claims seek reimbursement for the owner operators' business
expenses, including fuel, tractor maintenance and tractor lease
payments.

After a decision was rendered by a DLSE hearing officer in seven
of these claims, in 2014, the Company appealed the decision to
California Superior Court, San Diego, where a de novo trial was
held on the merits of those claims.

On July 17, 2015, the court issued a final statement of decision
finding that the seven claimants were employees rather than
independent contractors, and awarding an aggregate of $2.9 million
plus post-judgment interest and attorneys' fees to the claimants.

The Company appealed this judgment, but cannot provide assurance
that such appeal will be successful.

The remaining DLSE claims (the "Pending DLSE Claims") have been
transferred to California Superior Court in three separate actions
involving approximately 200 claimants, including the approximately
150 claimants mentioned. These matters are in the initial
procedural stages.

The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the
potential impact of loss contingencies relating to the Pending
DLSE Claims that are probable and reasonably estimable. The
Company is unable at this time to estimate the amount of the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, in excess of its accrued
liability that it may incur as a result of the Pending DLSE
Claims.

XPO Logistics, Inc., is a global transportation and logistics
company that provides comprehensive supply chain solutions to more
than 50,000 customers.


XPO LOGISTICS: Settlement in "Molina" Action Approved
-----------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a California court has
approved a settlement reached in the class action lawsuit by Edwin
Molina.

One of the Company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries is a party to
a putative class action litigation (Manuela Ruelas Mendoza v.
Pacer Cartage, Inc.) brought by Edwin Molina on August 19, 2013
and currently pending in the U.S. District Court, Southern
District of California. Mr. Molina asserts that he should be
classified as an employee, as opposed to an independent
contractor, and seeks damages for alleged violation of various
California wage and hour laws. Mr. Molina seeks to have the
litigation certified as a class action involving all owner-
operators contracted with this subsidiary at any time from August
2009 to the present, which could involve as many as 600 claimants.
Certain of these potential claimants also may have Pending DLSE.

This matter is in the initial stages of discovery and the court
has not yet determined whether to certify the matter as a class
action.

The Company has reached an agreement to settle this litigation
with the claimant. The settlement agreement has been approved by
the court but remains subject to acceptance by a minimum
percentage of members of the purported class.

There can be no assurance that the settlement agreement will be
accepted by the requisite percentage of members of the purported
class.

XPO Logistics, Inc., is a global transportation and logistics
company that provides comprehensive supply chain solutions to more
than 50,000 customers.


XPO LOGISTICS: "Arevalo" Lawsuit in Initial Pleading Stage
----------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the C. Arevalo lawsuit
is in the initial pleading stage and the court has not yet
determined whether to certify the matter as a class action.

One of the Company's intermodal drayage subsidiaries is a party to
a putative class action litigation (C. Arevalo v. XPO Port
Services, Inc.) brought by Carlos Arevalo in the Superior Court
for the State of California, County of Los Angeles Central
District filed in August 2015. Mr. Arevalo asserts that he should
be classified as an employee, as opposed to an independent
contractor, and seeks damages for alleged violation of various
California wage and hour laws. Mr. Arevalo seeks to have the
litigation certified as a class action involving all owner-
operators contracted with this subsidiary at any time from August
2011 to the present. Certain of these potential claimants also may
have Pending DLSE Claims.

This matter is in the initial pleading stage and the court has not
yet determined whether to certify the matter as a class action.
The Company is unable at this time to estimate the amount of the
possible loss or range of loss, if any, that it may incur as a
result of this matter.

XPO Logistics, Inc., is a global transportation and logistics
company that provides comprehensive supply chain solutions to more
than 50,000 customers.


XPO LOGISTICS: Reached Deal Over Contract Carriers' Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. has reached settlements of so-called last mile
logistics classification claims, the Company said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

Certain of the Company's last mile logistics subsidiaries are
party to several putative class action litigations brought by
independent contract carriers contracted with these subsidiaries
in which the contract carriers assert that they should be
classified as employees, as opposed to independent contractors.
The particular claims asserted vary from case to case, but the
claims generally allege unpaid wages, overtime, alleged failure to
provide meal and rest periods and seek reimbursement of the
contract carriers' business expenses.

Putative class actions against the Company's subsidiaries are
pending in Massachusetts (Celso Martins, Alexandre Rocha, and
Calvin Anderson v. 3PD, Inc. filed in June 2011, pending in U.S.
District Court, Massachusetts), Illinois (Marvin Brandon, Rafael
Aguilera, and Aldo Mendez-Etzig v. 3PD, Inc. filed in May 2013,
pending in U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois),
California (Cesar Ardon et al v 3PD, Inc., filed in September
2013, pending in U.S. District Court, Central District of
California and Fernando Ruiz v. Affinity Logistics Corp., filed in
May 2005, pending in U.S. District Court, Southern District of
California), New Jersey (Leonardo Alegre v. Atlantic Central
Logistics, Simply Logistics, Inc., filed in March 2015, pending in
U.S. District Court, New Jersey), Pennsylvania (Victor Reyes v.
XPO Logistics, Inc., filed in May 2015, pending in U.S. District
Court, Pennsylvania) and Connecticut (Carlos Taveras v. XPO Last
Mile, Inc., filed in November 2015, pending in U.S. District
Court, Connecticut).

The Company has completed the settlement of the California (Ardon)
litigation. The Company also has reached tentative agreements to
settle the Massachusetts and Illinois litigations with the
respective claimants, subject to court approval (in the case of
the Massachusetts litigation) and acceptance by a minimum
percentage of members of the respective purported class.

"There can be no assurance that the settlement agreements will be
finalized and executed, that the respective court will approve any
such settlement agreement or that it will be accepted by the
requisite percentage of members of the respective purported
class," the Company said.

The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the
potential impact of loss contingencies relating to the foregoing
last mile logistics claims. The Company is unable at this time to
estimate the amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any,
in excess of its accrued liability that it may incur as a result
of these claims.

XPO Logistics, Inc., is a global transportation and logistics
company that provides comprehensive supply chain solutions to more
than 50,000 customers.


XPO LOGISTICS: "Leung" Action in Initial Pleading Stage
-------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the "Leung" lawsuit is
in the initial pleading stage and the court has not yet determined
whether to certify the matter as a class action.

The Company is a party to a putative class action litigation
(Leung v. XPO Logistics, Inc., filed in May 2015 in the U.S.
District Court, Illinois) alleging violations of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) related to an automated customer
call system used by a last mile logistics business that the
Company acquired. The Company has asserted indemnity rights
pursuant the agreement by which it acquired this business, subject
to certain limits.

The Company believes that it has adequately accrued for the
potential impact of loss contingencies relating to this matter
that are probable and reasonably estimable. The Company is unable
at this time to estimate the amount of the possible loss or range
of loss, if any, in excess of its accrued liability that it may
incur as a result of this matter.

XPO Logistics, Inc., is a global transportation and logistics
company that provides comprehensive supply chain solutions to more
than 50,000 customers.


XPO LOGISTICS: Continues to Defend "Pina" Suit in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to
defend the Less Than Truckload Meal Break Claims in the "Pina"
lawsuit.

The Company's LTL subsidiary is a party to several class action
litigations alleging violations of the state of California's wage
and hour laws. Plaintiffs allege failure to provide drivers with
required meal breaks and rest breaks. Plaintiffs seek to recover
unspecified monetary damages, penalties, interest and attorneys'
fees. The primary case is Jose Alberto Fonseca Pina, et al. v.
Con-way Freight Inc., et al. (the "Pina case"). The Pina case was
initially filed in November 2009 in Monterey County Superior Court
and was removed to the U.S. District Court of California, Northern
District.

On April 12, 2012, the court granted plaintiff's request for class
certification in the Pina case as to a limited number of issues.
The class certification rulings do not address whether the Company
will ultimately be held liable.

The Company has denied any liability with respect to these claims
and intends to vigorously defend itself in this case. The Company
believes that it has adequately accrued for the potential impact
of loss contingencies relating to these claims. There are multiple
factors that render the Company unable at this time to estimate
the amount of the possible loss or range of loss, if any, in
excess of its accrued liability that it may incur as a result of
these claims, including: (1) the Company is vigorously defending
itself and believes that it has a number of meritorious legal
defenses; and (2) at this stage in the case, there are unresolved
questions of fact that could be important to the resolution of
this matter.

XPO Logistics, Inc., is a global transportation and logistics
company that provides comprehensive supply chain solutions to more
than 50,000 customers.


XPO LOGISTICS: Con-way Acquisition Suit in Delaware Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
XPO Logistics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a Delaware court has
granted the dismissal of litigation related to the Company's
acquisition of Con-way.

On October 7, 2015, a purported stockholder of Con-way filed a
putative class action complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery,
captioned Abrams v. Espe, et al., C.A. No. 11585-VCN. The
complaint named the members of the board of directors of Con-way,
XPO and an affiliate, and Citigroup Inc., financial advisor to
Con-way in connection with the proposed acquisition, as
defendants. The complaint alleged that the directors breached
their fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to maximize
shareholder value in connection with the proposed transaction and
failing to disclose certain information in the Schedule 14D-9 of
Con-way relating to the proposed acquisition. The complaint also
alleged that the other defendants aided and abetted those alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty. The lawsuit sought, among other
relief, rescissory damages and recovery of the costs of the
action, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.

On February 24, 2016, the plaintiff filed a Stipulation and
Proposed Order requesting dismissal of the action, and further
noting their intent to submit an application for an award of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.  On February 24,
2016, the Delaware court granted the Order.  No application for
attorney's fees and expenses has been made to date.

XPO Logistics, Inc., is a global transportation and logistics
company that provides comprehensive supply chain solutions to more
than 50,000 customers.


YAHOO! INC: Awaits Ruling on Motion to Dismiss "Buch" Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's motion to dismiss the
lawsuit by Cathy Buch remains pending.

On April 22, 2015, a stockholder action captioned Cathy Buch v.
David Filo, et al., was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery
against Yahoo and all current members of the Board. The complaint
asserts both derivative claims, purportedly on behalf of Yahoo,
and class action claims, purportedly on behalf of the plaintiff
and all similarly situated stockholders, relating to the
termination of, and severance payments made to, the Company's
former chief operating officer, Henrique de Castro. The plaintiff
alleges that the board members breached their fiduciary duties by
enabling or acquiescing in the payment of severance to Mr. de
Castro, and by allowing Yahoo to make allegedly false and
misleading statements regarding the value of his severance. The
plaintiff has also asserted claims against Mr. de Castro. The
plaintiff seeks to recoup the severance paid to Mr. de Castro, an
equitable accounting, disgorgement in favor of Yahoo, monetary
damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and an award of
attorneys' fees and costs. The Company has filed a motion to
dismiss the action.

Yahoo! Inc., is a guide to digital information discovery, focused
on informing, connecting, and entertaining users through search,
communications, and digital content products.


YAHOO! INC: Facing UCFW Local 1500 Pension Fund Action
------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that a stockholder action captioned UCFW
Local 1500 Pension Fund v. Marissa Mayer, et al., was filed on
January 27, 2016, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against the Company, and certain current
and former officers and directors of the Company, including all
current members of the Board. The complaint asserts both
derivative claims, purportedly on behalf of Yahoo, and class
action claims, purportedly on behalf of the plaintiff and all
similarly situated stockholders who owned shares of Yahoo common
stock at any time since January 27, 2013 and who continued to own
such shares through and including January 6, 2016. The complaint
purports to bring claims under the Investment Company Act of 1940,
as well as claims for breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment. Plaintiff seeks to rescind Yahoo's employment
contracts with the individual defendants because those defendants
allegedly caused Yahoo to illegally operate as an unregistered
investment company in breach of their fiduciary duties. Plaintiff
seeks disgorgement in favor of Yahoo, monetary damages,
rescission, declaratory relief, equitable relief, and an award of
attorneys' fees and costs.

Yahoo! Inc., is a guide to digital information discovery, focused
on informing, connecting, and entertaining users through search,
communications, and digital content products.


YAHOO! INC: Appeal in TCPA Litigation Remains Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that an appeal in the TCPA Litigation
Concerning Yahoo Messenger is pending.

On March 21, 2014 and April 16, 2014, civil complaints were filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois by plaintiffs Rachel Johnson and Zenaida Calderin,
respectively, against Yahoo, alleging that the process by which
Yahoo Messenger sends a notification SMS message in addition to
delivering a user's instant message to a recipient's cellular
telephone constitutes a violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA"), 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227. The penalty per
violation ranges from $500 to $1,500. The complaints, which are
consolidated, seek statutory damages for a purported class of
plaintiffs.

In January 2016, the District Court denied class certification
treatment proposed by plaintiff Calderin, but certified a class
proposed by plaintiff Johnson comprising more than 300,000
potential members.

The Company sought permission from the United States Court of
Appeals for the Seventh Circuit to appeal the District Court's
certification order, which the Court of Appeals denied. No
decision has been made on the merits of plaintiffs' claims, which
the Company is defending vigorously.

The Company is also defending related litigation in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California,
which denied class certification in September 2015.

Rachel Johnson is represented by:

     Keith James Keogh, Esq.
     Timothy J. Sostrin, Esq.
     Michael S. Hilicki, Esq.
     KEOGH LAW, LTD
     55 W Monroe St #3390,
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Tel: (312)726-1092

          - and -

Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. -- ak@kazlg.com -- KAZEROUNI LAW
GROUP, APC, David J. McGlothlin, Esq. --
david@westcoastlitigation.com -- Joshua Branden Swigart, Esq.
-- josh@westcoastlitigation.com -- HYDE & SWIGART

Defendants are represented by Francis A. Citera, Esq. --
citerag@gtlaw.com -- Brett Michael Doran, Esq. -- doranb@gtlaw.com
-- Ian Charles Ballon, Esq. -- balloni@gtlaw.com -- Justin
Alexander Barton, Esq. -- bartonj@gtlaw.com -- Lori Chang, Esq. --
changl@gtlaw.com -- Lucia Lynn Marker-Moore, Esq. -- marker-
moorel@gtlaw.com -- Nina D. Boyajian, Esq. -- boyajiann@gtlaw.com
-- GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP

Yahoo! Inc., is a guide to digital information discovery, focused
on informing, connecting, and entertaining users through search,
communications, and digital content products.


YUM! RESTAURANTS: Franchisees' Lose Class Action Bid
----------------------------------------------------
Nathan Mattock, Esq. -- nathanm@marquelawyers.com.au -- and
Isabella Dickson, Esq. -- isabellad@marquelawyers.com.au -- of
MARQUE Lawyers, in an article for Lexology, report that cheap
delivery pizza; loved for generations by hung over students and
lazy corporate workers.  But it appears 190 (out of a possible
200) Pizza Hut franchisees don't love super cheap pizzas and
geared up to slice down Yum! Restaurants Australia Pty Ltd (Yum!)
after its decision to make a drastic change to Pizza Hut's range
and price point.

After a lengthy trial period, Yum! announced that Pizza Hut's
pizza range would decrease from four to two and the price point
for the remaining two ranges would be reduced to $4.95 for
"Classics" (previously $9.95) and $8.50 for "Favourites"
(previously $11.95).  They called it the "Value Strategy"; we call
it "desperate for more pizza eaters' strategy".

To make matters worse, Dominos then pre-empted the strategy and
launched an all day every day $4.95 price point one week before
Pizza Hut.  Ouch! A class action resulted.  The Franchisees argued
the Value Strategy amounted to:

   -- a breach of an "implied term" of the franchise agreements to
set profitable prices, which would enable the franchisee to make,
maintain or increase their profits;
   -- a breach of Yum!'s duty of good faith, which extended to
obligations to:

   -- cooperate with the franchisees to achieve the objectives of
the franchise agreements;

   -- comply with reasonable standards of conduct that have regard
to the interests of the parties to the franchise agreement;

   -- negligence; and

   -- unconscionable conduct under the Australian Consumer Law.

Guess what? The Franchisees failed on all grounds.  The Federal
Court found that franchisors do not have a general obligation to
ensure all of its franchisees are profitable after a new product
or pricing strategy is introduced.  It certainly helped that
Yum!'s franchise agreement allowed for it to set prices and
implement advertising and promotions without being liable to the
franchisee where unsuccessful.

The power balance between franchisors and franchisees remains
squarely where it always was. Like the old saying goes, nobody
owes you a living even if you did cash in all your super to buy
their franchise.


ZEBRA TECHNOLOGIES: Parties to Complete Discovery by June 17
------------------------------------------------------------
Zebra Technologies Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 29, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that parties in the
case, In re Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, have agreed
to complete discovery by approximately June 17, 2016.

In connection with the acquisition of the Enterprise business from
Motorola Solutions, Inc., the Company acquired Symbol
Technologies, Inc., a subsidiary of Motorola Solutions. A putative
federal class action lawsuit, Waring v. Symbol Technologies, Inc.,
et al., ("Waring Action") was filed on August 16, 2005 against
Symbol Technologies, Inc. and two of its former officers in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
by Robert Waring.  After the filing of the Waring Action, several
additional purported class actions were filed against Symbol and
the same former officers making substantially similar allegations
(collectively, the "New Class Actions").  The Waring Action and
the New Class Actions were consolidated for all purposes and on
April 26, 2006, the Court appointed the Iron Workers Local # 580
Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and approved its retention of lead
counsel on behalf of the putative class.

On August 30, 2006, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint (the "Amended Complaint"), and
named additional former officers and directors of Symbol as
defendants.  The lead plaintiff alleges that the defendants
misrepresented the effectiveness of Symbol's internal controls and
forecasting processes, and that, as a result, all of the
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and the individual defendants
violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The lead plaintiff
alleges that it was damaged by the decline in the price of
Symbol's stock following certain purported corrective disclosures
and seeks unspecified damages.

By orders entered on June 25 and August 3, 2015, the court granted
lead plaintiff's motion for class certification, certifying a
class of investors that includes those that purchased Symbol
common stock between April 29, 2003 and August 1, 2005.  The
parties have substantially completed fact and expert discovery.

However, by order entered on January 8, 2016, the court granted
Symbol's request for certain additional fact and expert discovery;
pursuant to a proposed scheduling order filed on January 21, 2016,
the parties agreed to complete that discovery by approximately
June 17, 2016. There are also certain discovery motions pending
that could, if granted, reopen fact discovery. The court has held
in abeyance all other deadlines, including for the filing of
dispositive motions, and has not set a date for trial.

The Company establishes an accrued liability for loss
contingencies related to legal matters when the loss is both
probable and estimable.

"In addition, for some matters for which a loss is probable or
reasonably possible, an estimate of the amount of loss or range of
loss is not possible, and we may be unable to estimate the
possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result
from the application of non-monetary remedies. Currently, the
Company is unable to reasonably estimate the amount of reasonably
possible losses for this matter.


                            *********

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  * * *