CAR_Public/160413.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, April 13, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 74


                            Headlines


ACT II JEWELRY: Must Defend Suit Over Lifetime Guarantee
ADT CORPORATION: Faces "Roy" Suit Over Apollo Global Merger
AMERICAN GRILL: Violated FLSA, "Rivers" Suit Claims
AMICUS THERAPEUTICS: Still Defends 3 Class Suits in New Jersey
AMN HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Travelling Nurses OT

AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Appeal in Shareholder Lawsuit Pending
BHFC OPERATING: Violated IWC Wage Order, "Villarin" Suit Claims
BLACKHAWK SPECIALTY: Faces "Ebbe" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CALUMET SPECIALTY: FLSA Case Settlement Has Final Approval
CCL INDUSTRIES: Violated Exchange Act, "Litwin" Suit Claims

CHARLESTON COUNTY: "Peiffer" Suit Removed to South Carolina Dist.
CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Faces "Matthew" Securities Class Action
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Sued Over Oil and Natural Gas-Price Fixing
CHILD WORKS: Recalls Plastic Trapeze Rings Due to Fall Hazard
CINDERELLA SERVICES: Violated FLSA, "Martinez" Suit Claims

CROCS INC: Settlement of Employee Suits Wins Final Approval
DECA INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Golf GPS Bands Due to Burn Hazard
DHILLON FOODS: "Santiago" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
DI PIETRO TODD: Faces "Valdivia" Suit in Calif. Super. Court
ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: "McGee" Action in Early Stage

ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Faces Chawdry & Myers Class Action
ENERGY TRANSFER: Dropped From Delaware State Court Suit
ENERGY TRANSFER: Dismissal of "Bumgarner" Action Sought
ENERGY TRANSFER: Wants Birmingham Retirement Fund Action Tossed
ENVESTNET INC: Plaintiffs Drop Merger Class Action

EXCELL ELECTRIC: Faces "Forte" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
FELTEX CARPET: 2004 Prospectus Omitted Key Info, Says Class Suit
FOURSQUARE LABS: Sent Unsolicited Messages, "Tabor" Suit Says
GBG ACCESSORIES: Recalls Women's Scarves Due to Burn Risk
GC SERVICES: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection

GLOBUS MEDICAL: To Defend Against "Silverstein" Litigation
GRAMERCY PROPERTY TRUST: Updates on Merger Class Actions
GULFSTREAM PARK: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
HEALTH CARE: Faces "Shank" Suit Over Harvoni Treatment Coverage
HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: Iowa SC Affirms Denial of Dismissal Bid

HERTZ GLOBAL: Appeal in Fee Recovery Case Fully Briefed
HERTZ GLOBAL: Motion to Dismiss Securities Litigation Pending
HILTON WORLDWIDE: "Austin" Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Employees Medical Coverage
HOUSTON GARDEN CENTERS: Violated FLSA, "Romero" Suit Claims

IKEA NORTH AMERICA: Recalls Bat Cape Costumes
INOAC CORPORATION: Sued in Mich. Over Interior Trim Price-Fixing
INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Defending Customer Suit in Connecticut
INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Dispositive Motions Due Sept. 16
INTERNATIONAL PERFORMING: Faces "Cosio" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

JIMMY JAZZ: "Pemberton" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
KAYABA INDUSTRY: Sued in Mich. Over Shock Absorber Price-Fixing
KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Class Cert. Ruling Expected in 3 to 6 Months
KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Underway
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Still Defends Securities Litigation

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Final Accounting of Settlement Fund Due
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Discovery Underway in "Gold" Class Action
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Still Defends "Steele" Action in Ontario
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Abrasion Claims-Related Cases Ongoing
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Still Defends Securities Litigation

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Final Accounting of Settlement Fund Due
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Discovery Underway in "Gold" Class Action
M. ARTHUR GENSLER: Breached CLC & Wage Order, "Marasso" Claims
MDL 2627: Discovery Ongoing in Flooring Products Liability Case
MIMEDX GROUP: Final Settlement Hearing Held on April 5

MITEL NETWORKS: Still Defends Suits Over Mavenir Acquisition
MORPHO DETECTION: Court Grants Final Approval of Class Settlement
MURRAY OCULAR: "Tur" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: "Cole" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
NATERA INC: Faces "Nguyen" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports

NCJB RESTAURANT: Doesn't Properly Pay Service Staffs, Suit Says
NEUSTAR INC: Virginia Court Dismissed Securities Lawsuit
NIPOAMERICAN INC: Recalls Mattresses Due to Noncompliance
NISHIKAWA RUBBER: Sued in Mich. Over Body Sealing Price-Fixing
NORTEK INC: Settled Florida Action; Tennessee Action Pending

NTT TRUCKING: Faces Suit in Del. Over Duty of Care Breach
OUTERNATIONAL BRANDS: Faces "Chen" Class Suit in E.D. New York
PALMS SOUTH: Faces "Jean" Suit Over Age and Racial Discrimination
PARMALAT CANADA: Recalls Chocolate Skimmed Milk Products
PELICAN PRODUCTS: Recalls Rechargeable LED Flashlights

PHILIPS MEDICAL: Recalls Extended Brilliance Workspace NM
PHYSICIANS GROUP: "Valentine" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Recalls Cooked Chicken Nuggets Due to Plastic
POTAMOULA INC: "Lemus" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & PMWA
PREVOST: Recalls Multiple Vehicles Due to Fire Risk

PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Still Defends "Hsu" Case
REALPAGE INC: "Stokes" Class Action in Stayed Pending "Spokeo"
REALPAGE INC: "Jenkins" Class Action in Stayed Pending "Spokeo"
RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS: Recalls Integra 3 Micromanipulators
RICH PRODUCTS: Recalls Chocolate Iced Eclairs

ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS: Recalls Estradiol Products
ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS: Recalls Protein (Latex) High Sensitive Assay
SAINT-GOBAIN: Faces "Hickey" Suit Over PFOA-contaminated Water
SETRA: Recalls S417 2004, 2006 Models Due to Crash Risk
SIEMENS MEDICAL: Recalls E. Cam and Symbia E Systems

SLATER & GORDON: Maurice Blackburn Extends Claim Period
SSN HOTEL: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Yazer" Suit Claims
STANCE HEALTHCARE: Recalls Bassinet Carts Due to Injury Risk
STONER BOAT: Faces "Romero" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
STONELEIGH RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Konyo" Action Says

STORTZ TOYS: Recalls 8-note Monkey Glockenspiel
SUNTRUST MORTGAGE: Faces "Felix" Suit in Ga. Over Contract Breach
SUSHI STUDIO: Faces "Yang" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
TARGA RESOURCES: TRC/TRP Merger Suit Ongoing in Texas State Court
TARGA RESOURCES: 2 Unitholders Sue in S.D. Tex. Over Merger

TARGA RESOURCES: Settlement of ATLS Merger Suit Has Final Okay
THOR MOTOR: Recalls Hurricane and Windsport 2014 Models
TOYOTA: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Defective Airbag
TOYS R US: "Roldan" Suit Seeks Damages for Injuries Under TCCWNN
TRANSILVANIA TRADING: Updates Pistachio Products Recall

UNITED PET: Recalls Top FinTM Power Filters
UKROP'S HOMESTYLE: Recalls Turkey, Pork, and Beef Products
UTOPIA HOME: Faces "Manigault" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
VIVO BRAND: Recalls Sexual Enhancement Products Due to Sildenafil
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Violated Franchise Law, Napleton Suit Claims

WORLD WRESTLING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Royalty Payments


                            *********


ACT II JEWELRY: Must Defend Suit Over Lifetime Guarantee
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied Lia Sophia's
motion to dismiss the case captioned, CYNTHIA WEST, et al.
Plaintiffs, v. ACT II JEWELRY, LLC d/b/a LIA SOPHIA, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 15-C-5569 (N.D. Ill.).  The Court granted the
motion by Defendants Kiam Equities Corporation, Victor K. Kiam,
III, and Elena Kiam to dismiss them from the suit.

Plaintiffs purchased pieces of jewelry from Lia Sophia for
personal use. Plaintiffs contend that although Lia Sophia
continues to operate its business in an on-line e-commerce
operation, Lia Sophia refuses to honor the Lifetime Guarantee.
Plaintiffs also contend that Lia Sophia induced its Sales Advisors
to continue to sell and purchase additional products and to
recruit other Sales Advisors during 2014, when Lia Sophia
allegedly knew that it was not going to honor the Lifetime
Guarantee.

Plaintiffs include in their complaint breach of contract claims
brought by Hollander against Lia Sophia and KEC (Count I), claims
brought under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act (ICFA) brought by Hollander (Count II), state law
common law fraud claims brought by Hollander (Count III), unjust
enrichment claims brought by Hollander (Count IV), ICFA claims
brought by West (Count V), state law common law fraud claims
brought by West (Count VI), and unjust enrichment claims brought
by West (Count VII).

Lia Sophia contends that West signed a Sales Advisor Agreement
that contained a waiver, which specified that West agreed not to
serve as a class representative in litigation brought against Lia
Sophia.

Kiam Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not alleged sufficient
facts to suggest that they should be held liable for the alleged
misconduct by Lia Sophia.

In his Memorandum Opinion dated March 18, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/zGcfLgfrom Leagle.com, Judge Der-Yeghiayan concluded
that Plaintiffs fail to allege facts to suggest that the Kiam
Defendants did anything other than take the distribution as
alleged by Plaintiffs or to suggest that KEC took any action that
was unlawful or not in the ordinary course of business; and to the
extent that Lia Sophia challenges West's right to pursue a class
action or to act as a class representative, Lia Sophia's arguments
are premature.

Plaintiffs are represented by John Shannon Marrese, Esq. --
jmarrese@siprut.com -- Joseph J. Siprut, Esq. --
jsiprut@siprut.com -- & Todd Lawrence McLawhorn, Esq. --
tmclawhorn@siprut.com -- SIPRUT PC

Defendants are represented by Eric L. Samore, Esq. --
esamore@salawus.com -- Albert M. Bower, Esq. -- abower@salawus.com
-- Ronald David Balfour, Esq. -- rbalfour@salawus.com -- & Yesha
Sutaria Hoeppner, Esq. -- yhoeppner@salawus.com -- SMITHAMUNDSEN
LLC


ADT CORPORATION: Faces "Roy" Suit Over Apollo Global Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Peter Roy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The ADT Corporation, Naren Gursahaney, Thomas
Colligan, Richard J. Daly, Timothy Donahue, Robert Dutkowsky,
Bruce Gordon, Bridgette Heller, Kathleen Hyle, and Christopher
Hylen, Case No. 12160 (Del. Ch. Ct., April 4, 2016), arises out of
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the ADT Board of
Directors in approving the sale of the Company to an affiliate of
certain funds managed by affiliates of Apollo Global Management,
LLC and co-investors and merged with a subsidiary of Prime
Security Services Borrower, LLC, for $42.00 per share in cash.

Headquartered in Boca Raton, Florida, The ADT Corporation is a
provider of security and automation solutions for homes and
businesses in the United States and Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan M. Ernst (#4788)
      O'KELLY & ERNST, LLC
      901 N. Market Street, Suite 1000
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Telephone: (302) 778-4000
      Facsimile: (302) 295-2873
      E-mail: rernst@oelegal.com

         - and -

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 524-4290


AMERICAN GRILL: Violated FLSA, "Rivers" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------
Shanice Rivers, on her own behalf and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. American Grill, Inc., a Florida Profit
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00413-TJC-PDB (M.D.
Fla., April 6, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages and unpaid
compensation, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

American Grill is in engaged in food chain services industry. Its
line of business includes distributing, packing, and selling of
food.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yolando Ann-Marie Hewling, Esq.
          FARAH & FARAH, PA
          10 W Adams St 3rd Fl.
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 396 5555
          Facsimile: (904) 358 2424
          E-mail: yhewling@farahandfarah.com


AMICUS THERAPEUTICS: Still Defends 3 Class Suits in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. is defending against three purported
class action lawsuits in New Jersey, 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.

Since October 1, 2015, three purported securities class action
lawsuits have been commenced in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey, naming as defendants the Company,
its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and in one of the
actions, its Chief Medical Officer. The lawsuits allege violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
allegedly false and misleading statements made by the Company
related to the regulatory approval path for migalastat. The
plaintiffs seek, among other things, damages for purchasers of the
Company's common stock during different periods, all of which fall
between March 19, 2015 and October 1, 2015.

"It is possible that additional suits will be filed, or
allegations received from stockholders, with respect to similar
matters and also naming the Company and/or its officers and
directors as defendants," Amicus said. The Company anticipates
that these lawsuits will be consolidated into a single action.

Amicus is a global, late-stage, patient-focused biotechnology
company engaged in the discovery and development of a diverse set
of novel treatments for patients living with devastating rare and
orphan diseases. We own exclusive global rights to three clinical
development programs that have the potential to address
significant unmet needs, each with $500 million to $1 billion
estimated global market opportunities.


AMN HEALTHCARE: Sued Over Failure to Pay Travelling Nurses OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Evette Osuegbu, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. AMN Healthcare, Inc., and Kaiser Permanente
International, and Does 1-50, Case No. RG16810383 (Cal. Super.
Ct., April 7, 2016), arises out of the Defendants' failure to pay
their traveling nurses all the wages they are owed, and failure to
compensate them for overtime, including double time.

AMN Healthcare, Inc. is engaged in the business of health care
staffing in the State of California.

Kaiser Permanente International is engaged in the business of
health care and hospital services in the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua Konecky, Esq.
      Nathan Piller, Esq.
      SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS LLP
      2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
      Emeryville, CA 94608
      Telephone: (415) 421-7100
      Facsimile: (415) 421-7105
      E-mail: jkonecky@schneiderwallace.com
              npiller@schneiderwallace.com


AMTRUST FINANCIAL: Appeal in Shareholder Lawsuit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Amtrust Financial Services, 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
plaintiffs' appeal in the shareholder litigation remains pending.

The Company said, "We and certain of our officers were defendants
in related putative securities class action lawsuits filed in
February 2014 in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. Plaintiffs in the lawsuits purported to
represent a class of our stockholders who purchased shares between
February 15, 2011 and December 11, 2013."

"On April 24, 2014, the court issued an order consolidating the
related actions, appointing lead plaintiff and approving the
selection of co-lead counsel. On September 4, 2014, the plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended complaint.

"The consolidated amended complaint asserted claims under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and
sought damages in an unspecified amount, attorney's fees and other
relief. The lead plaintiffs asserted the Section 11 claim on
behalf of persons or entities who purchased our Series A preferred
stock in or traceable to our public offering on June 5, 2013 and
did not sell those shares of Series A preferred stock prior to
December 12, 2013. On October 24, 2014, we filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, which the lead
plaintiffs opposed. The Court granted our motion to dismiss with
prejudice on September 29, 2015. The plaintiffs are appealing the
Court's decision, and the appeal is pending.

AmTrust underwrites and provides property and casualty insurance
products, including workers' compensation, commercial automobile,
general liability and extended service and warranty coverage, in
the United States and internationally to niche customer groups
that we believe are generally under served within the broader
insurance market.


BHFC OPERATING: Violated IWC Wage Order, "Villarin" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emmanuel Villarin, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. BHFC Operating LLC d.b.a.
Bottega Louie, a limited liability company, and Does 1-50,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC616136 (Cal. Super. Ct. - Los
Angeles Cty., April 6, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid balance of
the full amount of meal period and rest break wages, including
interest thereon, attorneys' fees and costs of suit, as well as
consequential damages, pursuant to the California Labor Code
(CLC), Business and Professions Code, and Industrial Welfare
Commission (IWC) Wage Order.

BHFC Operating, doing business as Bottega Louie, operates as a
restaurant. The Company offers lunch and dinner, breakfast,
deserts, cocktails, catering, and bar services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq.
          Stephanie E. Yasuda, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH H. YOON
          One Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2200
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 612 0988
          Facsimile: (213) 947 1211

               - and -

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          Shunttatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
          Daniel J. Park, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          411 North Central Avenue, Suite 500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230 7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230 7259


BLACKHAWK SPECIALTY: Faces "Ebbe" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Ebbe, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated
v. Blackhawk Specialty Tools LLC and Billy Brown, Case No. 5:16-
cv-00347-XR (W.D. Tex., April 6, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate an oilfield down-hole tool company
located in San Antonio, Bexar County Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Glenn D. Levy, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF GLENN D. LEVY
      906 Basse, Suite 100
      San Antonio, TX  78212
      Telephone: (210) 822-5666
      Facsimile: (210) 822-5650


CALUMET SPECIALTY: FLSA Case Settlement Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
Calumet Specialty Products Partners, L.P. 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 final judgment has been entered by the U.S. District Court
approving the settlement in a collective action lawsuit.

On November 12, 2014, a nationwide collective action lawsuit
alleging that Anchor, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company,
failed to pay drilling fluid engineers overtime in compliance with
the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") was filed titled Jonathan
Wolfe v. Anchor Drilling Fluids USA, Inc. in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ("Wolfe").

The Company filed its answer to the complaint on January 9, 2015
and the Wolfe plaintiff filed an amended complaint on February 26,
2015, adding that Anchor's failure to pay overtime to a subclass
of drilling fluid engineers violated the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act (the "Pennsylvania Act").

For this subclass, the Wolfe plaintiff seeks certification of a
class action under the Pennsylvania Act. The Wolfe plaintiff seeks
to recover overtime pay, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees
and costs. The portion of the potential liability that relates to
the period prior to March 31, 2014, the date on which the Company
acquired Anchor, is eligible for indemnification under the
securities purchase agreement that effected that transaction;
however, the right to indemnification under the securities
purchase agreement for the potential Wolfe liability is subject to
a deductible and limitations otherwise set forth in the securities
purchase agreement.

On May 1, 2015, the parties engaged in mediation and agreed to a
tentative settlement of this litigation. On September 3, 2015, the
U.S. District Court entered an order granting preliminary approval
of the settlement as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 6, 2016, a final judgment was entered by the U.S.
District Court approving the settlement. The settlement amount is
not material to the consolidated financial statements.

Calumet is an independent producer of high-quality, specialty
hydrocarbon products in North America.


CCL INDUSTRIES: Violated Exchange Act, "Litwin" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Harold Litwin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated and derivatively on behalf of defendant Checkpoint
Systems, Inc., the Plaintiff, v. William Smoot Antle, III, George
Babich, Jr., Stephen N. David, Harald Einsmann, Julie S. England,
Marc T. Giles, Daniel R. Maurer, Jack W. Partridge, CCL
Industries, Inc., CCL Industries USA Corp., and Checkpoint
Systems, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01569-LDD (E.D.
Penn., April 6, 2016), seeks to enjoin a shareholder vote to a
proposed transaction unless and until problems are remedied, under
the Exchange Act.

The lawsuit arose out of Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties
in connection with the proposed acquisition of the Company by CCL
(Proposed Transaction) following an unfair process, in exchange
for inadequate consideration, and without disclosing all material
information concerning the Proposed Transaction to Company
shareholders.

CCL Industries, a specialty packaging company, manufactures and
sells labels, containers, and consumer printable media products.
It operates through Label, Avery, and Container segments. The
Label segment offers pressure sensitive, shrink sleeve, stretch
sleeve, in-mold, precision printed, die cut metal and plastic
components, and expanded content labels; and pharmaceutical
instructional leaflets; and extruded film materials for a range of
decorative, instructional, and functional applications in the
consumer packaging, healthcare and chemicals, consumer durables,
electronic device, and automotive markets. The Company is based in
Toronto, Ontario.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 534 2590
          Facsimile: (310) 247 0160
          E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


CHARLESTON COUNTY: "Peiffer" Suit Removed to South Carolina Dist.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Elizabeth A. Peiffer, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Charleston
County School District, Case No. 2016-CP-10-01008, was removed
from the Charleston County Court of Common Pleas to the U.S.
District Court District of South Carolina (Charleston). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-01042-RMG to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

Charleston County School District is a school district within
Charleston County, South Carolina, that educates roughly 45,000
kindergarten to 12th grade students in 80 schools.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Allan Riley Holmes, Esq.
      GIBBS AND HOLMES
      PO Box 938
      Charleston, SC 29402
      Telephone: (843) 722-0033
      Facsimile: (843) 722-0114
      E-mail: aholmes@gibbs-holmes.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Brian Quisenberry, Esq.
      Carol B. Ervin, Esq.
      Stephanie N. Ramia, Esq.
      YOUNG CLEMENT RIVERS
      PO Box 993
      Charleston, SC 29402
      Telephone: (843) 577-4000
      Facsimile: (843) 579-1382
      E-mail: bquisenberry@ycrlaw.com
              cervin@ycrlaw.com
              sramia@ycrlaw.com


CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: Faces "Matthew" Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Sciabacucchi, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the plaintiff, v. Gary Torgow, Gary S.
Collins, Jennifer M. Granholm, Ronald A. Klein, Robert H. Naftaly,
Thomas L. Schellenberg, David T. Provost, Max A. Berlin, Paul E.
Hodges Iii, Barbara J. Mahone, Albert W. Papa, Arthur A. Weiss,
Chemical Financial Corporation, and Talmer Bancorp,
Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-11261-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich.,
April 6, 2016), seeks to preliminarily and permanently enjoin
defendants and all persons acting in concert with them from
proceeding with, consummating, or closing a proposed transaction,
pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On January 25, 2016, Talmer's Board of Directors caused the
Company to enter into an agreement and plan of merger (the Merger
Agreement). Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement,
stockholders of Talmer will receive $1.61 in cash and 0.4725
shares of Chemical per Talmer share (Merger Consideration). Based
on Chemical's closing price as of January 25, 2016, the Merger
Consideration is valued at $15.64 per share. On March 31, 2016,
defendants issued materially incomplete and misleading disclosures
in the Form S-4 Registration Statement (the Registration
Statement) filed with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) in connection with the Proposed
Transaction. The Registration Statement is deficient and
misleading in that it fails to provide adequate disclosure of all
material information related to the Proposed Transaction.

Chemical Financial operates as the holding company for Chemical
Bank that provides a range of traditional banking and fiduciary
products and services. The principal markets for the company's
products and services are the communities in Michigan where the
bank's branches are located and the areas surrounding these
communities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony L. DeLuca, Esq.
          ANTHONY L. DELUCA, PLC
          Grand Marais Professional Centre
          14950 East Jefferson Avenue, Suite 170
          Grosse Pointe Park, MI 48230
          Telephone: (313) 821 5905
          Facsimile: (313) 821 5906
          E-mail: anthony@aldplc.com


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Sued Over Oil and Natural Gas-Price Fixing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Derrick R. Herzog and Amy K. Herzog, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Chesapeake Energy Corporation,
Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., as successor by merger to
Chesapeake Exploration, L.P., Sandridge Energy, Inc., and Tom L.
Ward, Case No. 5:16-cv-00325-F (W.D. Okla., April 6, 2016), arises
from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination,
agreement and conspiracy to rig bids, fix prices and depress the
market for purchases of oil and natural gas leasehold and working
interests.

Chesapeake Energy Corporation and its subsidiaries are the second-
largest producer of natural gas and the eleventh largest producer
of oil and natural gas liquids (NGL) in the United States.

Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C. is a successor by merger to
Chesapeake Exploration, L.P. and is a wholly owned subsidiary of
Defendant Chesapeake Energy Corp.

Sandridge Energy, Inc. operates a petroleum and natural gas
exploration company headquartered at 123 Robert S. Kerr Avenue,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Terry W. West, Esq.
      Bradley C. West, Esq.
      THE WEST LAW FIRM
      124 West Highland Street
      Shawnee, OK 74801
      Telephone: (405) 395-4699
      Facsimile: (405) 275-0052
      E-mail: brad@thewestlawfirm.com
              terry@thewestlawfirm.com

         - and -

      R. Bryant McCulley, Esq.
      Stuart H. McCluer, Esq.
      MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
      1022 Carolina Boulevard, Suite 300
      P.O. Box 505
      Charleston, SC 29451
      Telephone: (205) 238-6757
      Facsimile: (662) 368-1506
      E-mail: bmcculley@mcculleymccluer.com
              smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com

         - and -

      A. Hoyt Rowell III, Esq.
      James L. Ward Jr., Esq.
      RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN LLC
      P.O. Box 1007
      Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465
      Telephone: (843) 727-6500
      Facsimile: (843) 216-6509
      E-mail: hrowell@rpwb.com
              jward@rpwb.com

         - and -

      Chris Stucky, Esq.
      STUCKY FIELDS LLC
      214 W. 18th St., Suite 200
      Kansas City, MO 64108
      Telephone: (816) 659-9970
      Facsimile: (816) 659-9969
      E-mail: chris@stuckyfields.com


CHILD WORKS: Recalls Plastic Trapeze Rings Due to Fall Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Rings: Child Works, of Carollton, Ga., announced a voluntary
recall of about 121,000 pairs of Plastic Trapeze rings in the
United States (in addition about 6,500 were sold in Canada and
about 5,500 in Mexico). Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The rings can unexpectedly crack or break during use, posing a
fall hazard to children.

This recall involves only the yellow plastic trapeze rings. They
are triangular in shape with rounded sides and have a loop at the
top. They measure about 81/2 inches high by 61/2 inches wide. The
yellow rings come as a pair and were connected to a trapeze bar.
They were sold either as a separate component or as an attachment
on the following Rainbow(R)-branded residential wooden playsets:
All-American, Backyard Circus, Carnival, Fiesta, King Kong,
Monster, Sunray, Sunshine and Rainbow.  All of these playsets have
an aluminum plate located on the front of the wooden swing beam
with the following name stamped on it, "Playgrounds America,"
"Rainbow Play Systems Inc.," or "Sunray Premium Playgrounds."

Rainbow has received more than 100 reports of the rings cracking
or breaking, including 15 with reports of injuries consisting of
bumps, bruises, lacerations, concussion and one broken finger.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and sold
at Rainbow dealers nationwide from January 2007 through December
2011 and at several mass merchandisers including Sam's Club, Toys
R Us and Walmart from January 2009 through December 2009. The
playsets retailed for between $900 and $10,000.

Consumers should immediately stop children from using the recalled
rings, contact Rainbow for ring removal instructions, then remove
the rings from the playset and receive a $10 gift card.


CINDERELLA SERVICES: Violated FLSA, "Martinez" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Claudia Yesenia Martinez, Clerk US District Court, Alexandria.
Virginia 4261 Duke Street; Abigail Candelaria Rodriguez Melendez;
Roxana Elizabeth Merino Del Salgado; Carolina Ada Lopez Carcamo;
and Reyna Benitez De Fuentes, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated the Plaintiffs, v. Cinderella Services
Inc., and Cinderella Bermudez, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00391-AJT-MSN (E.D. Virg., Alexandria Div., April 6, 2016), seeks
to recover unpaid wages, vacation benefits, liquidated damages,
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's
fees and costs under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
(FLSA), and Columbia Minimum Wage Act Revision Act (DCMWA) and the
Columbia Wage Payment and Collection Law (DCWPCL).

Cinderella Services operates a home and commercial cleaning
service trading as "Maid to Clean" with its principal place of
business in the City of Alexandria, Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew T. Sutter, Esq.
          616 North Washington Street
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (703) 836 9030
          Facsimile: (703) 683 1543


CROCS INC: Settlement of Employee Suits Wins Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
Crocs, 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 California State Court has
entered its final order approving the settlement of employee class
action lawsuits.

On August 8, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
California State Court against a Crocs subsidiary, Crocs Retail,
LLC (Zaydenberg v. Crocs Retail, LLC, Case No. BC554214). The
lawsuit alleged various employment law violations related to
overtime, meal and break periods, minimum wage, timely payment of
wages, wage statements, payroll records and business expenses.

The Company filed an answer on February 6, 2015, denying the
allegations and asserting several defenses.

On June 3, 2015, a second purported class action lawsuit was filed
in California State Court against Crocs Retail, LLC (Christopher
S. Duree and Richard Morely v. Crocs, Inc., Case No. BC583875),
making substantially the same allegations as in the Zaydenberg
lawsuit.

The parties attended a mediation on June 26, 2015, and reached a
settlement for $1.5 million, which will release the claims in both
lawsuits.

On September 4, 2015, the California State Court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement and set the final approval
hearing for December 14, 2015. At the final approval hearing, the
California State Court entered its final order approving the
settlement and final judgement.

"We consider this matter closed," the Company said.

Crocs, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries are engaged in the
design, development, manufacturing, worldwide marketing and
distribution of casual lifestyle footwear and accessories for men,
women, and children.


DECA INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Golf GPS Bands Due to Burn Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Deca International Corp., d/b/a GolfBuddy, of La Palma, Calif.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 3,000 GolfBuddy golf GPS
bands. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The band charging ports can produce an electrical charge to
exposed skin, posing a burn hazard to consumers.

This recall involves GolfBuddy BB5 golf GPS LED bands. The band is
a wearable GPS unit that operates as a pedometer, distance monitor
and watch and comes preloaded with golf course information.  It is
made of plastic with a stainless steel casing, has a LED display
screen and a two-pronged connector at the end for closure. The
display screen is flush with the top side of the band and has four
buttons on the perimeter of the band. The wristband is about one
inch wide and comes in black with interchangeable wristbands in
large and small sizes and in the colors lime, navy and orange.
GolfBuddy is molded on the outer part of the band. The model BB5
is on the back of the recalled unit below the charging port.
Recalled units do not have a yellow round sticker on the front and
on the packaging.

The firm has received two reports of consumers being burned.

The recalled products were manufactured in South Korea and sold at
PGA Tour Superstore, The Golfer's Warehouse, Worldwide Golf Shops
and other authorized golf dealers nationwide and online at
www.amazon.com and www.golfbuddyglobal.com from April 2015 through
January 2016 for about $250.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled golf
wristbands and contact GolfBuddy for instructions on how to update
the unit with the latest firmware, also available in the firm's
website.


DHILLON FOODS: "Santiago" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Santiago, an individual, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Dhillon Foods, Inc. and Does 1 to 50,
inclusive, Case No. BC615 818 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 4, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the California Labor Code.

Dhillon Foods, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant located at
17315 Studebaker Road, Suite 105, Cerritos, CA 90703.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric B. Kingsley, Esq.
      Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq.
      KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC
      16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200
      Encino, CA 91436
      Telephone: (818) 990-8300
      Facsimile: (818) 990-2903
      E-mail: enc@kingsleykingsley.com
              kelsey@kingsleykingsley.com


DI PIETRO TODD: Faces "Valdivia" Suit in Calif. Super. Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Dipietro Todd Salon Palo Alto.
The case is captioned Mayra Valdivia and Amanda Freeman,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Does 1-100, inclusive; Dipietro Todd Salon Palo
Alto, Di Pietro Tood - Walnut Creek LLC, A California Limited
Liability Company; Di Pietro Tood - Post Street LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company; Di Pietro Todd - Mill Valley LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company; and Di Pietro Todd -
Fillmore Street LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, the
Defendants, Case No. CGC 16 551342 (Cal. Super. Ct., Cty. of San
Francisco, April 6, 2016).

Dipietro Todd Salon is engaged in the beauty salon business.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Patrick R. Kitchin, Esq.
          KITCHIN LEGAL, APC
          312 Sutter Street, Suite 316
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 677 9058
          Facsimile: (415) 627 9076
          E-mail: prk@kitchinlegal.com


ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: "McGee" Action in Early Stage
------------------------------------------------------
Endurance International Group Holdings, 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 class action lawsuit by William McGee is at an early
stage.

On August 7, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit, William McGee
v. Constant Contact, Inc., et al, was filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Constant
Contact and two of its former officers. The lawsuit asserts claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and is
premised on allegedly false and/or misleading statements, and non-
disclosure of material facts, regarding Constant Contact's
business, operations, prospects and performance during the
proposed class period of October 23, 2014 to July 23, 2015.

"This litigation is in its very early stages," the Company said.
"We and the individual defendants intend to vigorously defend all
claims asserted. We cannot, however, make any assurances as to the
outcome of this proceeding."

Endurance is a provider of cloud-based platform solutions designed
to help small and medium-sized businesses, or SMBs, succeed
online.


ENDURANCE INTERNATIONAL: Faces Chawdry & Myers Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Endurance International Group Holdings, 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 on December 11, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit
relating to the Constant Contact acquisition, captioned Irfan
Chawdry, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. Gail Goodman, et al. Case No. 11797, or the Chawdry
Complaint, and on December 21, 2015, a putative class action
lawsuit relating to the acquisition captioned David V. Myers,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Gail Goodman, et al. Case No. 11828, or the Myers Complaint
(together with the Chawdry Complaint, the Complaints) filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware naming Constant
Contact, each of Constant Contact's directors, Endurance and
Paintbrush Acquisition Corporation as defendants.

The Complaints generally allege, among other things, that in
connection with the acquisition the directors of Constant Contact
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the stockholders of
Constant Contact by agreeing to sell Constant Contact for
purportedly inadequate consideration, engaging in a flawed sales
process, omitting material information necessary for stockholders
to make an informed vote, and agreeing to a number of purportedly
preclusive deal protection devices. The Complaints seek, among
other things, to rescind the acquisition, as well as award of
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and costs in the action.

The defendants have not yet answered or otherwise responded to
either of these Complaints. The defendants believe the claims
asserted in the Complaints are without merit and intend to defend
against these lawsuits vigorously.

Endurance is a provider of cloud-based platform solutions designed
to help small and medium-sized businesses, or SMBs, succeed
online.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Dropped From Delaware State Court Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. 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 ETE
Defendants, Barclays and Lazard have been dismissed from the
consolidated action in Delaware state court related to the merger
with The Williams Companies, Inc. or WMB.

Between October 5, 2015 and December 15, 2015, purported WMB
stockholders filed five putative class action lawsuits against ETE
and other defendants in the Delaware Court of Chancery challenging
the merger. The suits were captioned Greenwald v. The Williams
Companies, Inc., C.A. No. 11573, Ozaki v. Armstrong, C.A. No.
11574, Blystone v. The Williams Companies, Inc., C.A. No. 11601,
Glener v. The Williams Companies, Inc., C.A. No. 11606, and
Amaitis v. Armstrong, C.A. No. 11809. The complaints named as
defendants the WMB Board, ETE, Energy Transfer Corp LP or ETC,
Energy Transfer Corp GP, LLC, General Partner, and Energy Transfer
Equity GP, LLC (collectively, with the exception of the WMB board,
the "ETE Defendants"). The Greenwald, Blystone and Glener
complaints named WMB as a defendant also, and the Amaitis
complaint named Barclays Capital Inc. ("Barclays"), and Lazard
Freres & Co. ("Lazard") as defendants.

The Greenwald, Ozaki, Blystone and Glener complaints alleged that
the WMB Board breached its fiduciary duties to WMB stockholders by
agreeing to sell WMB through an unfair process and for an unfair
price, and that the other named defendants aided and abetted this
supposed breach of fiduciary duties.

The Amaitis complaint alleged that the WMB Board breached its
fiduciary duties by failing to disclose all material information
about the merger, and that the directors of the WMB Board who
voted in favor of the proposed merger violated their fiduciary
duties by selling WMB through an unfair process and for an unfair
price. The Amaitis complaint also alleged that the other named
defendants aided and abetted these supposed breaches of fiduciary
duty.

The complaints sought, among other things, an injunction against
the merger and an award of costs and attorneys' fees.

On January 13, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery consolidated,
pursuant to a stipulation among the plaintiffs, the Greenwald,
Ozaki, Blystone, Glener, and Amaitis actions, along with another
case not involving the ETE Defendants, into a new consolidated
action captioned In re The Williams Companies, Inc. Merger
Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 11844.

In its stipulated order, the Court dismissed without prejudice the
ETE Defendants, Barclays and Lazard from the consolidated action.
There currently are no lawsuits related to the WMB merger pending
against the ETE Defendants in Delaware state court.


ENERGY TRANSFER: Dismissal of "Bumgarner" Action Sought
-------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. 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 and
The Williams Companies, Inc. or WMB have moved to dismiss the
"Bumgarner" lawsuit.

ETE is currently a defendant in two lawsuits in federal district
court challenging the proposed merger with WMB. On January 14,
2016, a purported stockholder in WMB filed a lawsuit against WMB
and ETE, captioned Bumgarner v. The Williams Companies, Inc., Case
No. 16-cv-26-GKF-FHM, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma.

The plaintiff alleges that ETE and WMB have violated Section 14 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") by making
allegedly false representations concerning the merger. As relief,
the complaint seeks an injunction against the proposed merger. On
February 1, 2016, the plaintiff amended his complaint.

On February 19, 2016, ETE and WMB moved to dismiss the lawsuit.

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


ENERGY TRANSFER: Wants Birmingham Retirement Fund Action Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Transfer Equity, L.P. 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 and
The Williams Companies, Inc. or WMB have moved to dismiss the
lawsuit by City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System.

On January 19, 2016, a purported stockholder in WMB filed a
lawsuit against WMB, the WMB Board, and the ETE Defendants,
captioned City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System v.
Armstrong, Case No. 1:16-cv-00017-RGA, in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware. The lawsuit alleges
that the WMB Board has violated its duty of disclosure by issuing
a misleading proxy statement in support of the transaction, that a
majority of the WMB Board violated its fiduciary duties by voting
in favor of the transaction, and that the ETE Defendants aided and
abetted this supposed breach of fiduciary duties. The complaint
also alleges that the WMB Board and WMB have violated Section 14
of the Exchange Act by issuing a supposedly misleading proxy
statement, and that WMB and ETE have violated Section 20 of the
Exchange Act by supposedly causing a misleading proxy statement to
be issued.

On January 20, 2016, the plaintiff filed a motion for expedited
discovery, and all defendants filed an opposition to that motion
on February 8, 2016. On February 19, plaintiff filed a reply brief
in support of expedited discovery.

On February 10, 2016, WMB and the WMB Board filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint, and on February 18, 2016, the ETE
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

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


ENVESTNET INC: Plaintiffs Drop Merger Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Envestnet, 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 Plaintiffs in a class
action lawsuit have advised that they will not pursue claims for
rescission of the merger agreement or monetary damages, but rather
will consent to a dismissal of their claims without prejudice.

Envestnet, Merger Sub, Yodlee, and all members of Yodlee's board
of directors at the time of the Merger have been named as
defendants in two putative class actions challenging the Merger.
The suits are captioned Suman Inala v. Yodlee, Inc., et al. (Case
No. 11461) (filed September 2, 2015 and amended on October 14,
2015) and Guillaume Wieland-Paquet v. Yodlee, Inc., et al. (Case
No. 11611) (filed October 14, 2015) and are pending in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The complaints allege, among
other things, that the Yodlee directors breached their fiduciary
duties by agreeing to sell Yodlee through a conflicted process and
by failing to ensure that Yodlee's stockholders received adequate
and fair value for their shares.  The complaints also allege that
the Form S-4 Registration Statement filed by the Envestnet, which
contained Yodlee's proxy statement, failed to disclose material
information to Yodlee's stockholder.  The complaints also allege
that Envestnet and Merger Sub aided and abetted these breaches of
fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs sought as relief, among other
things, an injunction against the merger, rescission of the Merger
Agreement to the extent it was already implemented, an award of
damages and attorneys' fees.

On October 16, 2015, plaintiffs moved for expedited proceedings
and discovery, so as to be in a position to seek injunctive relief
preventing Yodlee's shareholders from voting on the proposed
Merger. On October 28, 2015, the Court denied plaintiff's motion
and on November 19, 2015, the Merger was completed.

Plaintiffs have since advised that they will not pursue claims for
rescission of the merger agreement or monetary damages, but rather
will consent to a dismissal of their claims without prejudice.
Plaintiffs do intend, however, to seek an as yet unspecified award
of fees for purportedly compelling Yodlee to supplement its proxy
statement in order to moot certain of plaintiffs' claims.

Envestnet is a provider of unified wealth management technology
and services.


EXCELL ELECTRIC: Faces "Forte" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Pavel Mora Forte a/k/a Frank Mora, and all others similarly
situated under 29 U.S.C. 216(b) v. Excell Electric Systems LLC,
Humberto T. Sezumaga, and  Talia Sezumaga, Case No. 1:16-cv-21222-
JAL (S.D. Fla., April 6, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate an electrical contracting company
in Miami, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FELTEX CARPET: 2004 Prospectus Omitted Key Info, Says Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stuff.co.nz reports that Feltex Carpet's 2004 prospectus omitted
key disclosures which could have acted as a warning to prudent
investors, a class action against the company's former directors,
owners and sale managers claims.

Stuff.co.nz relates that on April 11 the Court of Appeal heard the
first arguments of lawyers representing Eric Houghton, the lead
plaintiff in class action on behalf of around 3,600 people who
invested in the carpet maker.

Little over two years after its 2004 initial public offering
(IPO), the company collapsed, wiping out the NZ$250 million which
thousands of shareholders injected into the company, the report
recalls.

But Colin Carruthers QC, appearing on behalf of Mr. Houghton and
other investors, argued that Justice Robert Dobson applied a test
which was too high and "undermined the nature of the obligation
that the case has recognised".

The test under the Securities Act, was that the contents of the
prospectus contained untruths which would influence "prudent, but
non-expert investors" Mr. Carruthers, as cited by Stuff.co.nz,
said.

According to the report, the appellants said the prospectus
represented "much more of a marketing document" than an outline of
the disclosures that investors would have needed, Carruthers said.

Stuff.co.nz says the presentation could have given investors
greater confidence that the projections in the document would be
met.

In the first day of what is expected to be at least four days of
arguments, Mr. Carruthers said the prospectus ignored adverse
trends which had been presented to the board of directors before
the flotation, showing the closing months of the 2003-04 financial
year were going to be "difficult," Stuff.co.nz relates.

Stuff.co.nz says despite concerns about sales in April and May,
the prospectus projected an increase in sales equivalent to an
extra 3.8% in revenue.

"It is not a reasonable assumption to project an increase in sales
volume when the trend is down," Stuff.co.nz quotes Mr. Carruthers
as saying.

The prospectus also did not disclose that expensive machinery the
company had purchased to manufacture woollen carpet was not
working, or the extent to which its revenue in Australia was
derived from a government grant, Mr. Carruthers told the court,
Stuff.co.nz relays.

The case is expected to continue until at least April 14, adds
Stuff.co.nz.

                       About Feltex Carpets

Headquartered in Auckland, New Zealand, and established more than
50 years ago, Feltex Carpets Limited -- http://www.feltex.com/--
is a manufacturer of superior-quality carpet.  The Feltex
operation included a wool scouring plant, six spinning mills,
three tufted carpet mills, a woven carpet mill and offices in New
Zealand, Australia and the United States.

ANZ Bank placed the company in receivership on Sept. 22, 2006,
and named Colin Nicol, Peter Anderson and Kerryn Downey, of
McGrathNicol+Partners, as receivers and managers.

The TCR-AP reported on Oct. 4, 2006, that Godfrey Hirst acquired
Feltex as a going concern, including its assets and undertakings
in New Zealand, Australia, and the United States.  Proceeds of
the sale will be used to ease the company's NZ$128-million debt
to ANZ Bank.

On Dec. 13, 2006, the High Court in Auckland ruled in favor of an
Application by the Shareholders Association against Feltex
Carpets putting the carpet maker into liquidation.  John Vague
was appointed as liquidator.


FOURSQUARE LABS: Sent Unsolicited Messages, "Tabor" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Edyta Tabor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Foursquare Labs, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-04008 (N.D.
Ill., April 4, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of
making unwanted and unsolicited text message and calls to the
cellular telephones of consumers nationwide and to obtain redress
for all persons injured by its conduct.

Foursquare Labs, Inc. operates a social networking and messaging
service called Swarm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
      Ari J. Scharg, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 589-6370
      Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: rbalabanian@edelson.com
              ascharg@edelson.com


GBG ACCESSORIES: Recalls Women's Scarves Due to Burn Risk
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
GBG Accessories Group (formerly LF Accessories Group, LLC), of New
York, announced a voluntary recall of about 20,000 Women's
Scarves. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The scarves do not meet the federal flammability standards for
clothing textiles, posing a burn risk.

This recall involves two styles of Ivanka Trump-branded scarves,
Beach Wave, in blue, coral and yellow; and Brushstroke Oblong, in
blue, red, neutral and green. Both scarves are 76 inches long by
24 inches wide. Scarves are 100 percent rayon with a machine-
rolled hem. A black label with "IVANKA TRUMP" embroidered in
silver is sewn on the edge of the scarves.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Century 21, Lord & Taylor, Marshalls, TJ Maxx and Stein Mart
retail stores nationwide, and online at amazon.com and
loehmanns.com from October 2014 through January 2016 for between $
12 and $68.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled scarves and
return them to the place where purchased for a full refund.
Consumers who purchased the scarves online will be contacted
directly by online retailers with return instructions.


GC SERVICES: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ronnie E. Dickens, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. GC Services Limited Partnership, Case No. 8:16-cv-
00803-JSM-TGW (M.D. Fla., April 5, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

GC Services Limited Partnership is a provider of call center
management and collection agency services in North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James L. Davidson
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL, PLLC
      5550 Glades Rd. Ste 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Telephone: (561) 826-5477
      Facsimile: (561) 961-5684
      E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com

GLOBUS MEDICAL: To Defend Against "Silverstein" Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
Globus Medical, 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 intends to
vigorously defend against the Silverstein litigation.

The Company said, "On September 28, 2015, a putative securities
class action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. Plaintiff in the lawsuit purports to represent a
class of our stockholders who purchased shares between February
26, 2014 and August 5, 2014. The complaint purports to assert
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and seeks damages in an unspecified
amount, attorney's fees and other relief."

"We believe the allegations to be unfounded, and intend to defend
our rights vigorously. The probable outcome of this litigation
cannot be determined, nor can we estimate a range of potential
loss. Therefore, in accordance with authoritative guidance on the
evaluation of loss contingencies, we have not recorded an accrual
related to this litigation."

Globus Medical, Inc. is a medical device company focused on
developing products that promote healing in patients with
musculoskeletal disorders.


GRAMERCY PROPERTY TRUST: Updates on Merger Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------
Gramercy Property Trust, 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 the
merger class action lawsuits.

Legacy Gramercy, its board of directors, Chambers Street, and/or
Merger Sub are named as defendants in two pending putative class
action lawsuits brought by purported Legacy Gramercy stockholders
challenging the Merger. Two suits that were separately filed in
New York Supreme Court, New York County, captioned (i) Berliner v.
Gramercy Property Trust, et al., Index No. 652424/2015 (filed July
9, 2015) and (ii) Gensler v. Baum, et al., Index No. 157432/2015
(filed July 22, 2015), have been consolidated into a single action
under the caption In re Gramercy Property Trust Stockholder
Litigation, Index No. 652424/2015 (the "New York Action").

In addition, four suits that were separately filed in Circuit
Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, captioned (i) Jobin v. DuGan,
et al., Case No. 24-C-15-003942 (filed July 27, 2015); (ii) Vojik
v. Gramercy Property Trust, et al., Case No. 24-C-15-004412 (filed
August 25, 2015); (iii) Hoffbauer et al. v. Chambers Street
Properties, et al., 24-C-15-004904 (filed September 24, 2015)
(originally filed as two separate suits in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore County, Maryland, captioned Plemons v. Chambers Street
Properties, et al., Case No. 03-C-15-007943 (filed July 24, 2015)
and Hoffbauer et al. v. Chambers Street Properties, et al., Case
No. 03-C-15-008639 (filed August 12, 2015), and refiled as a
single action in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County on
September 24, 2015); and (iv) Morris v. Gramercy Property Trust,
et al., Case No. 24-C-15-004972 (filed September 28, 2015) have
been consolidated into a single action under the caption Glenn W.
Morris v. Gramercy Property Trust Inc. et al., Case No. 24-C-15-
004972 (the "Maryland Action," and together with the New York
Action, the "Actions").

The complaints allege, among other things, that the directors of
Legacy Gramercy breached their fiduciary duties to the Legacy
Gramercy stockholders by agreeing to sell the company for
inadequate consideration and agreeing to improper deal protection
terms in the merger agreement, and that the preliminary joint
proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on Form S-4 on
September 11, 2015 was materially incomplete and misleading.

The complaints also allege that Chambers Street, Merger Sub and/or
Legacy Gramercy aided and abetted these purported breaches of
fiduciary duty. The amended complaint in the Morris consolidated
action also asserts derivative claims on behalf of Legacy Gramercy
for breach of fiduciary duty against the directors of Legacy
Gramercy. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, an injunction
barring the Merger, rescission of the Merger to the extent it is
already implemented, declaratory relief, an award of damages
and/or costs/attorney fees.

On December 7, 2015, the parties to the Actions entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding, or the MOU, which provides for the
settlement of the Actions. While the defendants in the Actions
continue to vigorously deny all allegations of wrongdoing, fault,
liability or damage to any of the plaintiffs or the class of
stockholders of Legacy Gramercy, and believe that no supplemental
disclosure is required under the applicable law, in order to (i)
avoid the burden, inconvenience, expense and distraction of
further litigation in connection with the Actions, (ii) finally
put to rest and terminate all of the claims that were or could
have been asserted against the defendants in the Actions and (iii)
permit the Merger to proceed without risk of the courts in New
York or Maryland ordering an injunction or damages in connection
with the Actions, Chambers and Legacy Gramercy agreed, without
admitting any liability or wrongdoing, pursuant to the terms of
the MOU, to make certain supplemental disclosures related to the
proposed Merger, which were set forth in Legacy Gramercy's Current
Report on Form 8-K filed with on December 7, 2015.

The MOU contemplates that the parties will enter into a
stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be
subject to customary conditions, including, among other things,
confirmatory discovery and court approval following notice to
Legacy Gramercy's stockholders. In the event that the parties
enter into a stipulation of settlement, a hearing will be
scheduled at which a court will consider the fairness,
reasonableness and adequacy of the settlement.

If the settlement is finally approved by the court, it will
resolve and release all claims by stockholders of Legacy Gramercy
challenging any aspect of the proposed Merger, the Merger
Agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith,
pursuant to terms that will be set forth in the notice sent to
Legacy Gramercy stockholders prior to final approval of the
settlement.

In addition, in connection with the settlement, the parties
contemplate that plaintiffs' counsel will file a petition for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses to be paid by Gramercy or
its successor. There can be no assurance that the court will
approve the settlement. In the event that the settlement is not
approved or that the conditions are not satisfied, the settlement
may be terminated.

On October 1, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Mercer County by a
purported shareholder of Chambers Street. The action, captioned
Elstein v. Chambers Street Properties et al., Docket No. L-002254-
15 (the "New Jersey Action"), names as defendants Chambers Street,
its board of trustees and the Legacy Gramercy. The complaint
alleges, among other things, that the trustees of Chambers Street
breached their fiduciary duties to Chambers Street's shareholders
by agreeing to the Merger after a flawed sales process and by
approving improper deal protection terms in the merger agreement,
and that Legacy Gramercy aided and abetted these purported
breaches of fiduciary duty. The complaint also alleges that the
preliminary joint proxy statement/prospectus was materially
misleading and incomplete. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, an
injunction barring the Merger, rescission of the Merger to the
extent it is already implemented, declaratory relief and an award
of damages.

On December 3, 2015, the parties to the New Jersey Action entered
into a Stipulation of Settlement providing for the settlement of
the New Jersey Action. While the defendants in the New Jersey
Action continue to vigorously deny all allegations of wrongdoing,
fault, liability or damage to any of the plaintiffs or the class
of shareholders of Chambers, and believe that no supplemental
disclosure is required under the applicable law, in order to (i)
avoid the burden, inconvenience, expense and distraction of
further litigation in connection with the New Jersey Action, (ii)
finally put to rest and terminate all of the claims that were or
could have been asserted against the defendants in the New Jersey
Action and (iii) permit the Merger to proceed without risk of the
Superior Court of New Jersey ordering an injunction or damages in
connection with the New Jersey Action, Chambers and Legacy
Gramercy agreed, without admitting any liability or wrongdoing,
pursuant to the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement, to make
certain supplemental disclosures related to the proposed Merger,
all of which were set forth in Legacy Gramercy's Current Report on
Form 8-K filed with on December 7, 2015.

The Stipulation of Settlement is subject to customary conditions,
including court approval following notice to the Chambers
shareholders. If the settlement is finally approved by the court,
it will resolve and release all claims by shareholders of Chambers
challenging any aspect of the proposed Merger, the Merger
Agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith,
including in the Definitive Proxy Statement, pursuant to terms
that will be set forth in the notice sent to Chambers'
shareholders prior to final approval of the settlement. There can
be no assurance that the court will approve the settlement. In the
event that the settlement is not approved or that the conditions
are not satisfied, the settlement may be terminated.
The defendants believe the lawsuits are without merit.

Gramercy Property Trust is a global investor and asset manager of
commercial real estate.


GULFSTREAM PARK: Faces "Rodriguez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Soresnil Rodriguez, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Gulfstream Park Racing Association, Inc.
d/b/a Gulfstream Park Racing and Casino, Case No. 0:16-cv-60717-
RNS (S.D. Fla., April 4, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Gulfstream Park Racing Association, Inc. operates a racetrack and
casino in Hallandale Beach, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher J. Whitelock, Esq.
      WHITELOCK & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
      300 Southeast Thirteenth Street
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
      Telephone: (954) 463-2001
      Facsimile: (954) 463-0410
      E-mail: cjw@whitelocklegal.com


HEALTH CARE: Faces "Shank" Suit Over Harvoni Treatment Coverage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark A. Shank, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Health Care Service Corporation, Bluecross Blueshield
of Illinois, and Prime Therapeutics LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-03993
(N.D. Ill., April 4, 2016), is an action for damages as a result
of the Defendants' denial of coverage for Harvoni based on a
desire to decrease costs and increase profits, in breach of the
health insurance contracts Defendants entered into with Plaintiff
and Class members.

The Defendants market and sell health insurance programs,
contracts, plans, and policies to millions of people in Illinois,
Montana, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Norman Rifkind, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF NORMAN RIFKIND
      100 E Huron Street #1306
      Chicago, IL 60611
      Telephone: (847) 372-4747
      E-mail: Norman@RIFSLAW.com

         - and -

      Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
      Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
      Natalie Lesser, Esq.
      Zachary Arbitman, Esq.
      KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
      280 King of Prussia Road
      Radnor, PA 19087
      Telephone: (610) 667-7706
      Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
      E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
              eciolko@ktmc.com
              nlesser@ktmc.com
              zarbitman@ktmc.com

         - and -

      David H. Thompson, Esq.
      COOPER & KIRK, PLLC
      1523 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W.
      Washington, D.C. 20036
      Telephone: (202) 220-9600
      Facsimile: (202) 220-9601
      E-mail: dthompson@cooperkirk.com


HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES: Iowa SC Affirms Denial of Dismissal Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David Wiggins of the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the
district court's denial of the motion to dismiss the case
captioned, GERALD P. YOUNG, MICHAEL L. HAIGH, and SUZANNE M.
RUNYON, Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated,
Appellees, v. HEALTHPORT TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Appellant, Case No.
14-1918 (Iowa).

On April 23, 2014, Gerald P. Young, Michael L. Haigh, and Suzanne
M. Runyon filed a class action alleging the fees HealthPort
Technologies, Inc. charged for providing copies of their medical
records and billing statements exceeded statutorily imposed limits
set forth in Iowa Code section 622.10(6).

The company moved to dismiss the petition, alleging section
622.10(6) did not apply to it because it was not a provider as
defined by the statute. The district court denied the motion,
concluding section 622.10(6)(a) plainly requires fees to be based
upon actual cost and does not indicate the limitations it imposes
apply only to entities meeting the statutory definition of
provider in section 622.10(6)(e)(2). Accordingly, the court
concluded the class representatives might establish their
entitlement to relief under the pleaded facts.

On appeal, HealthPort filed an application for interlocutory
appeal and contended that the district court improperly denied
HealthPort's motion to dismiss.

In his Order dated March 18, 2016 available at http://is.gd/jLkujx
from Leagle.com, Judge Wiggins held that the district court was
correct in denying HealthPort's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs'
petition.  The Court remanded the case to the district court for
further proceedings.

Plaintiffs are represented by Ryan C. Nixon, Esq. --
rcnixon@lamarcalawgroup.com -- George A. LaMarca, Esq. --
glamarca@lamarcalawgroup.com -- & Gary G. Mattson, Esq. --
gmattson@lamarcalawgroup.com -- LAMARCA LAW GROUP, P.C.

Healthport Technologies, Inc. is represented by Ryan G. Koopmans,
Esq. -- rkoopmans@nyemaster.com -- Angel A. West, Esq. --
awest@nyemaster.com -- Ryan W. Leemkuil, Esq. --
rleemkuil@nyemaster.com -- NYEMASTER GOODE, P.C.


HERTZ GLOBAL: Appeal in Fee Recovery Case Fully Briefed
-------------------------------------------------------
Hertz Global Holdings, 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 appeal in
the class action lawsuit related to Concession Fee Recoveries has
now been fully briefed by the parties but no oral argument date
has been set.

In October 2006, Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan, PhD. and Lydia Lee,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The
Hertz Corporation and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company ("Enterprise")
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada
(Enterprise became a defendant in a separate action which they
have now settled.) The Sobel case is a consumer class action on
behalf of all persons who rented cars from Hertz at airports in
Nevada and were separately charged airport concession recovery
fees by Hertz as part of their rental charges during the class
period.

In October 2014, the court entered final judgement against the
Company and directed Hertz to pay the class approximately $42
million in restitution and $11 million in prejudgment interest,
and to pay attorney's fees of $3.1 million with an additional $3.1
million to be paid from the restitution fund.

In December 2014, Hertz timely filed an appeal of that final
judgment with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and
the plaintiffs cross appealed the court's judgment seeking to
challenge the lower court's ruling that Hertz did not deceive or
mislead the class members. The matter has now been fully briefed
by the parties. No oral argument date has been set.

The Company continues to believe the outcome of this case will not
be material to its financial condition, results of operations or
cash flows.

Hertz operates car rental business through the Hertz, Dollar,
Thrifty and Firefly brands.


HERTZ GLOBAL: Motion to Dismiss Securities Litigation Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hertz Global Holdings, 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 Defendants'
motion to dismiss the complaint in the case, In re Hertz Global
Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation, remains pending.

In November 2013, a purported shareholder class action, Pedro
Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming
Hertz Holdings and certain of its officers as defendants and
alleging violations of the federal securities laws. Since then the
complaint has been amended several times. The complaint, as
amended, alleges that Hertz Holdings made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in its public
disclosures during the period from February 14, 2013 through to
July 16, 2015, in violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
monetary damages on behalf of the purported class and an award of
costs and expenses, including counsel fees and expert fees.

On November 4, 2015 Hertz Holdings filed its motion to dismiss and
on February 2, 2016 the plaintiffs filed their response and a
Motion for Leave to File a Proposed Fourth Amended Complaint to
address standing issues associated with the lead plaintiff.

Hertz Holdings believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses
and it intends to vigorously defend against the complaint, but
litigation is subject to many uncertainties and the outcome of
this matter is not predictable with assurance. It is possible that
this matter could be decided unfavorably to Hertz Holdings.
However, Hertz Holdings is currently unable to estimate the range
of these possible losses, but they could be material to the
Company's consolidated financial condition, results of operations
or cash flows in any particular reporting period.

Hertz operates car rental business through the Hertz, Dollar,
Thrifty and Firefly brands.


HILTON WORLDWIDE: "Austin" Class Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Michael Austin, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hilton
Worldwide Inc., Case No. CACE-16-003442, was removed from the 17th
Judicial Circuit to the U.S. District Court Southern District of
Florida (Ft Lauderdale). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 0:16-cv-60718-MGC to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Hilton Worldwide Inc. manages and franchises a broad portfolio of
hotels and resorts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brandon J, Hill, Esq.
      Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
      WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
      1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 337-7992
      Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
      E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
              lcabassa@wfclaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Jessica Berman Jackler, Esq.
      David E. Block, Esq.
      JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
      2 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3500
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 577-7600
      Facsimile: (305) 373-4466
      E-mail: jessica.jackler@jacksonlewis.com
              blockd@jacksonlewis.com


HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Sued Over Employees Medical Coverage
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Kelly, Richard Norko, Annette Dobbs and Peter Dellolio, for
themselves and others similarly-situated v. Honeywell
International Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-0054 (D. Conn., April 6,
2016), is brought on behalf of all retirees of Honeywell
International Inc. and surviving spouses, to enforce their right
to lifetime "full medical coverage" under collective bargaining
agreements and employee welfare plans.

Based in Morris Plains, New Jersey, Honeywell International Inc.,
is a producer of a variety of commercial and consumer products,
engineering services and aerospace systems for a wide variety of
customers, from private consumers to major corporations and
governments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas W. Meiklejohn, Esq.
      LIVINGSTON, ADLER, PULDA, MEIKLEJOHN & KELLY, PC
      557 Prospect Avenue
      Hartford, CT 06105-5922
      Telephone: (860) 570-4628
      E-mail: twmeiklejohn@lapm.or


HOUSTON GARDEN CENTERS: Violated FLSA, "Romero" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jose Romero, on behalf of himself individually, and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Houston Garden Centers, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00935 (S.D. Tex., Houston Div., April
6, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, equitable
relief, compensatory and liquidated damages, attorney's fees,
taxable costs of court, and post-judgment interest, under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Houston Garden is a one stop shop garden center to find shrubs,
trees, ground covers, flowers, and gardening pots.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Taft L. Foley II, Esq.
          THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
          3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
          Houston, TX 77054
          Telephone: (832) 778 8182
          Facsimile: (832) 778 8353
          E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


IKEA NORTH AMERICA: Recalls Bat Cape Costumes
---------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
IKEA North America Services LLC, of Conshohocken, Pa., announced a
voluntary recall of about 11,000 Children's LATTJO Bat Cape
Costumes (in addition, 750 in Canada). Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The fabric hook and loop fastener at the neck of the bat cape can
fail to detach readily during use, posing a strangulation hazard
to children.

This recall involves IKEA children's bat cape costumes. The capes
are black with gray stripes, 100% polyester, measure 30 inches
long by 57 inches wide and have a fabric hook and loop fastener
closure at the neck.  IKEA, LATTJO and numbers 60311650 and 18937
are printed on a white label sewn into the seam of the cape.

IKEA has received three reports outside of the United States of
the fabric hook and loop fastener at the neck of the costume
failing to detach readily and scratching children's necks.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/L301ul

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at IKEA
stores nationwide and online at www.ikea-usa.com from November
2015 through February 2016 for about $13.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled bat capes away from
children and return the capes to any IKEA store for a full refund.


INOAC CORPORATION: Sued in Mich. Over Interior Trim Price-Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Landers Auto Group No. 1, Inc., d/b/a Landers Toyota, et al. v.
Inoac Corporation, Inoac Group North America LLC, Inoac USA Inc.,
and Does 1-10, Case No. 4:16-cv-11257-TGB-EA (E.D. Mich., April 6,
2016), arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful
combination, agreement and conspiracy to unlawfully fix,
artificially raise, maintain and stabilize prices, rig bids for,
and allocate the market and customers for Interior Trim.

The Defendants manufacture and sell Interior Trim to Toyota and
certain of their subsidiaries and affiliates for installation in
vehicles manufactured and sold in the United States and elsewhere.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gerard V. Mantese, Esq.
      Alexander E. Blum, Esq.
      MANTESE HONIGMAN, P.C.
      1361 E. Big Beaver Road
      Troy, MI 48083
      Telephone: (248) 457-9200
      E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com
              ablum@manteselaw.com

         - and -

       Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
       Joel Davidow, Esq.
       Daniel Cohen, Esq.
       Victoria Romanenko, Esq.
       Yifei Li, Esq.
       CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
       507 C Street, N.E.
       Washington, DC 20002
       Telephone: (202) 789-3960
       E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
               joel@cuneolaw.com
               danielc@cuneolaw.com
               vicky@cuneolaw.com
               evelyn@cuneolaw.com

          - and -

       Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
       CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
       300 North Tucker Suite 801
       St. Louis, MO  63101
       Telephone: (314) 226-1015
       E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

      Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
      Marcus Bozeman, Esq.
      THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
      1101 Garland Street
      Little Rock, AR 72201
      Telephone: (501) 374-1058
      E-mail: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net
              bozemanmarcus@sbcglobal.net

         - and -

     Charles F. Barrett, Esq.
     NEAL AND HARWELL, PLC
     150 4th Avenue North Suite 2000
     Nashville, TN 37219-2498
     Telephone: (615) 244-1713
     E-mail: cbarrett@nealharwell.com

        - and -

     Don Barrett, Esq.
     DAVID MCMULLAN BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
     P.O. Box 927 404 Court Square
     Lexington, MS 39095
     Telephone: (662) 834-2488
     E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
             dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com

        - and -

     Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
     LARSON KING, LLP
     2800 Wells Fargo Place
     30 East Seventh Street
     St. Paul, MN  55101
     Telephone: (651) 312-6500
     E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com

        - and -

     Phillip Duncan, Esq.
     RICHARD QUINTUS DUNCAN FIRM, P.A.
     900 S. Shackleford, Suite 725
     Little Rock, AR 72211
     Telephone: (501) 228-7600
     E-mail: phillip@duncanfirm.com
             richard@duncanfirm.com

        - and -

     Dewitt Lovelace, Esq.
     Valerie Nettles, Esq.
     LOVELACE & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
     Suite 200 12870 US Hwy 98 West
     Miramar Beach, FL  32550
     Telephone: (850) 837-6020
     E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com
             alex@lovelacelaw.com

        - and -

     Gregory Johnson, Esq.
     G. JOHNSON LAW, PLLC
     6688 145th Street West
     Apple Valley, MN 55124
     Telephone: (952) 930-2485
     E-mail: greg@gjohnsonlegal.com


INTERACTIVE BROKERS: Defending Customer Suit in Connecticut
-----------------------------------------------------------
Interactive Brokers 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 the Company is
defending a class action lawsuit by an individual customer.

On December 18, 2015, a former individual customer filed a
purported class action complaint against IB LLC, IBG, Inc., and
Thomas Frank, PhD, the Company's Executive Vice President and
Chief Information Officer, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut. The complaint alleges that the former
customer and members of the purported class of IB LLC's customers
were harmed by alleged "flaws" in the computerized system used by
the Company to close out (i.e., liquidate) positions in customer
brokerage accounts that have margin deficiencies. The complaint
seeks, among other things, undefined compensatory damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief.

"We believe that the complaint is without merit and we have filed
a motion to dismiss it. Among other things, the Company's customer
agreement, federal law and associated industry rules grant broker-
dealers broad discretion to close out margin-deficient customer
accounts for the broker's protection. Further, we do not believe
that a purported class action is appropriate given the great
differences in portfolios, markets and many other circumstances
surrounding the liquidation of any particular customer's margin-
deficient account. IB LLC and the related defendants intend to
defend themselves vigorously against the case and, consistent with
past practice in connection with this type of unwarranted action,
any potential claims for counsel fees and expenses incurred in
defending the case shall be fully pursued against the plaintiff,"
the Company said.

Interactive Brokers Group, Inc. is an automated global electronic
broker and market maker.


INTERCEPT PHARMACEUTICALS: Dispositive Motions Due Sept. 16
-----------------------------------------------------------
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, 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 dispositive
motions are due on September 16, 2016, in the "Atwood" class
action lawsuit.

The Company said, "On February 21, 2014 and February 28, 2014,
purported shareholder class actions, styled Scot H. Atwood v.
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. and George Burton v.
Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., respectively, were filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, naming us and certain of our officers as defendants.
These lawsuits were filed by stockholders who claim to be suing on
behalf of anyone who purchased or otherwise acquired our
securities between January 9, 2014 and January 10, 2014."

"The lawsuits allege that we made material misrepresentations
and/or omissions of material fact in our public disclosures during
the period from January 9, 2014 to January 10, 2014, in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
alleged improper disclosures relate to our January 9, 2014
announcement that the FLINT trial had been stopped early based on
a pre-defined interim efficacy analysis.  Specifically, the
lawsuits claim that the January 9, 2014 announcement was
misleading because it did not contain information regarding
certain lipid abnormalities seen in the FLINT trial in OCA-treated
patients compared to placebo.

"On April 22, 2014, two individuals each moved to consolidate the
cases and a lead plaintiff was subsequently appointed by the
Court. On June 27, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on behalf of the putative class as contemplated by the
order of the Court. On August 14, 2014, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint.

"Oral arguments on the motion to dismiss were held on February 24,
2015. On March 4, 2015, the defendants' motion to dismiss was
denied by the Court. The defendants answered the amended complaint
on April 13, 2015. On July 15, 2015, the plaintiff moved for class
certification and appointment of class representatives and class
counsel.

"On September 14, 2015, the defendants opposed the plaintiff's
class certification motion. The plaintiff filed its reply to the
defendants' opposition on October 14, 2015, to which the
defendants filed a sur-reply on November 10, 2015.

"Oral arguments on the class certification motion were held on
January 20, 2016. No decision has been made by the Court on the
class certification motion. The parties are currently undergoing
discovery in relation to this matter. Dispositive motions are due
on September 16, 2016.

"The lead plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf
of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses,
including attorneys' fees.

"We believe that we have valid defenses to the claims in the
lawsuit, have denied liability and intend to defend ourselves
vigorously. There can be no assurance, however, that we will be
successful. At this time, no assessment can be made as to the
likely outcome of this action or whether the outcome will be
material to us. Therefore, we have not accrued for any loss
contingencies related to this lawsuit.

Intercept is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the
development and commercialization of novel therapeutics to treat
non-viral, progressive liver diseases.


INTERNATIONAL PERFORMING: Faces "Cosio" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against International Performing Arts
Academy. The case is captioned Angelica Cosio, an individual, on
his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. International Performing Arts Academy, LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company, Does 1-100, Inclusive, and
Barbizon School Of San Francisco, Inc., a California Corporation,
the Defendants, Case No. CGC 16 551337 (Cal. Super. Ct., Cty. of
San Francisco, April 6, 2016).

International Performing Arts is a talent development school
located at Los Angeles, California.


JIMMY JAZZ: "Pemberton" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
George Pemberton, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Jimmy Jazz, Inc., and any other entities
affiliated with, controlling, or controlled by Jimmy Jazz, Inc.,
Case No. 152835/2016 (N.Y. Super. Ct., April 4, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Jimmy Jazz, Inc. is an urban clothing and shoe retailer that
operates apparel and footwear retail stores for men, women, and
kids in the eastern United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
      Jack L. Newhouse, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com
              jnewhouse@vandallp.com


KAYABA INDUSTRY: Sued in Mich. Over Shock Absorber Price-Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Landers Auto Group No. 1, Inc., d/b/a Landers Toyota, et al. v.
Kayaba Industry Co., Ltd. d/b/a KYB Corporation and KYB Americas
Corporation, Case No. 2:16-cv-11256-GCS-AP (E.D. Mich., April 6,
2016), arises from the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful
combination, agreement and conspiracy to unlawfully fix,
artificially raise, maintain and stabilize prices, rig bids for,
and allocate the market and customers for Shock Absorbers.

The Defendants are the world's largest manufacturers of Shock
Absorbers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gerard V. Mantese, Esq.
      Alexander E. Blum, Esq.
      MANTESE HONIGMAN, P.C.
      1361 E. Big Beaver Road
      Troy, MI 48083
      Telephone: (248) 457-9200
      E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com
              ablum@manteselaw.com

         - and -

       Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
       Joel Davidow, Esq.
       Daniel Cohen, Esq.
       Victoria Romanenko, Esq.
       Yifei Li, Esq.
       CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
       507 C Street, N.E.
       Washington, DC 20002
       Telephone: (202) 789-3960
       E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
               joel@cuneolaw.com
               danielc@cuneolaw.com
               vicky@cuneolaw.com
               evelyn@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

       Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
       CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
       300 North Tucker Suite 801
       St. Louis, MO  63101
       Telephone: (314) 226-1015
       E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

       Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
       Marcus Bozeman, Esq.
       THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
       1101 Garland Street
       Little Rock, AR 72201
       Telephone: (501) 374-1058
       E-mail: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net
              bozemanmarcus@sbcglobal.net

         - and -

      Charles F. Barrett, Esq.
      NEAL AND HARWELL, PLC
      150 4th Avenue North Suite 2000
      Nashville, TN 37219-2498
      Telephone: (615) 244-1713
      E-mail: cbarrett@nealharwell.com

         - and -


     Don Barrett, Esq.
     DAVID MCMULLAN BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
     P.O. Box 927 404 Court Square
     Lexington, MS 39095
     Telephone: (662) 834-2488
     E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
             dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com

         - and -

     Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
     LARSON KING, LLP
     2800 Wells Fargo Place
     30 East Seventh Street
     St. Paul, MN  55101
     Telephone: (651) 312-6500
     E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com

         - and -

     Phillip Duncan, Esq.
     RICHARD QUINTUS DUNCAN FIRM, P.A.
     900 S. Shackleford, Suite 725
     Little Rock, AR 72211
     Telephone: (501) 228-7600
     E-mail: phillip@duncanfirm.com
             richard@duncanfirm.com

         - and -

     Dewitt Lovelace, Esq.
     Valerie Nettles, Esq.
     LOVELACE & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
     Suite 200 12870 US Hwy 98 West
     Miramar Beach, FL  32550
     Telephone: (850) 837-6020
     E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com
             alex@lovelacelaw.com

         - and -

     Gregory Johnson, Esq.
     G. JOHNSON LAW, PLLC
     6688 145th Street West
     Apple Valley, MN 55124
     Telephone: (952) 930-2485
     E-mail: greg@gjohnsonlegal.com


KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Class Cert. Ruling Expected in 3 to 6 Months
--------------------------------------------------------------
Koppers Holdings 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 hearing on plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and the parties' motions relating
to experts was held in January 2016 and a ruling is expected in
three to six months.

Koppers Inc. operated a utility pole treatment plant in
Gainesville from December 29, 1988 until its closure in 2009. The
property upon which the utility pole treatment plant was located
was sold by Koppers Inc. to Beazer East in 2010.

In November 2010, a class action complaint was filed in the
Circuit Court of the Eighth Judicial Circuit located in Alachua
County, Florida by residential real property owners located in a
neighborhood west of and immediately adjacent to the former
utility pole treatment plant in Gainesville. The complaint named
Koppers Holdings Inc., Koppers Inc., Beazer East and several other
parties as defendants.

In a second amended complaint, plaintiffs define the putative
class as consisting of all persons who are present record owners
of residential real properties located in an area within a two-
mile radius of the former Gainesville wood treating plant.
Plaintiffs further allege that chemicals and contaminants from the
Gainesville plant have contaminated real properties within the two
mile geographical area, have caused property damage (diminution in
value) and have placed residents and owners of the putative class
properties at an elevated risk of exposure to and injury from the
chemicals at issue.

The second amended complaint seeks damages for diminution in
property values, cleaning of allegedly contaminated homes and
punitive damages. The plaintiffs presently seek a class comprised
of all current property owners of single family residential
properties with a polygon-shaped area extending approximately two
miles from the former plant area (which area encompasses
approximately 7,000 owners).

Under the current scheduling order, class factual discovery closed
in May 2015 and expert witness discovery was completed in August
2015. Discovery on the merits is stayed until further order of the
court. Motions were subsequently filed by each side to strike or
limit the testimony of the other side's experts.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on September 30,
2015 and the response of Koppers Inc. was filed on October 30,
2015. A hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
the parties' motions relating to experts was held in January 2016
and a ruling is expected in three to six months.

Koppers Holdings Inc. is an integrated global provider of treated
wood products, wood treatment chemicals, and carbon compounds.


KOPPERS HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Underway
---------------------------------------------------------
Koppers Holdings 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 KPC's renewed motion to
dismiss the class action lawsuit in Virgin Islands is now fully
briefed and the parties await a ruling by the court.

Koppers Performance Chemicals Inc. ("KPC") is currently a
defendant in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court of the Virgin Islands. The plaintiffs claim,
on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, that KPC's
wood preservative products and formulas are defective, and the
complaint alleges the following causes of action: breach of
contract, negligence, strict liability, fraud and violation of the
Virgin Islands Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices
statute. The putative class is defined as all users (residential
or commercial) of wood products treated with KPC wood preserving
products in the United States who purchased such wood products
from January 1, 2004 to the present.

Alternatively, plaintiffs allege that the putative class should be
all persons and entities that have owned or acquired buildings or
other structures physically located in the U.S. Virgin Islands
that contain wood products treated with KPC wood preserving
products from January 1, 2004 to the present. The complaint
alleges plaintiffs are entitled to unspecified "economic and
compensatory damages", punitive damages, costs and disgorgement of
profits. The complaint further requests a declaratory judgment and
injunction to establish an inspection and disposal program for
class members' structures.

The lawsuit was filed on July 16, 2014, and KPC has filed a motion
to dismiss. On September 28, 2015, the district court denied,
without prejudice, KPC's motion to dismiss, finding that, although
the plaintiffs have thus far failed to demonstrate their case for
personal jurisdiction over KPC in the Virgin Islands, the
plaintiffs were nevertheless allowed a limited period of time
(through November 6, 2015) to conduct discovery on specific
personal jurisdictional issues after which the court would
consider a renewed motion to dismiss. At the conclusion of this
discovery, KPC renewed its motion to dismiss on November 20, 2015.
The motion is now fully briefed and the parties await a ruling by
the court.

The Company has not provided a reserve for this matter because, at
this time, it cannot reasonably determine the probability of a
loss, and the amount of loss, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated. The timing of resolution of this case cannot be
reasonably determined. Although KPC is vigorously defending this
case, an unfavorable resolution of this matter may have a material
adverse effect on the Company's business, financial condition,
cash flows and results of operations.

Koppers Holdings Inc. is an integrated global provider of treated
wood products, wood treatment chemicals, and carbon compounds.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Still Defends Securities Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, 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 Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc.
Securities Litigation.

The Company said, "On or about November 26, 2013, Gregg Kiken
("Kiken") filed a securities class action lawsuit (the "Kiken
Lawsuit"), which was subsequently amended, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against us,
our founder, former Chief Executive Officer and President, former
Chief Financial Officer and former Chief Merchandising Officer
(collectively, the "Kiken Defendants")."

"On or about September 17, 2014, the City of Hallandale Beach
Police Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Trust
("Hallandale") filed a securities class action lawsuit (the
"Hallandale Lawsuit") in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia against us, our former Chief
Executive Officer and President and our former Chief Financial
Officer (collectively, the "Hallandale Defendants," and with the
Kiken Defendants, the "Defendants").

"On March 23, 2015, the court consolidated the Kiken Lawsuit with
the Hallandale Lawsuit, appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel
for the consolidated action, and captioned the consolidated action
as In re Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation.

"The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on
April 22, 2015. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that
the Defendants made material false and/or misleading statements
that caused losses to investors. In particular, the lead
plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made material misstatements
or omissions related to our compliance with the Lacey Act, the
chemical content of certain of our wood products, and our supply
chain and inventory position. The lead plaintiffs do not quantify
any alleged damages in their consolidated amended complaint but,
in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, they seek to recover
damages on behalf of themselves and other persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired our stock during the putative class period at
allegedly inflated prices and purportedly suffered financial harm
as a result.

"The Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint but, on December 21, 2015, the court denied this motion.
We dispute these claims and intend to defend the matter
vigorously.

"Given the uncertainty of litigation, the current status of the
case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other
things, class certification and success on the merits, we cannot
estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may
result from this action."


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Final Accounting of Settlement Fund Due
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, 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 final
accounting of the settlement fund in the RWA class action lawsuit
was to be filed with the court by March 4, 2016.

The Company said, "On or about March 4, 2014, Richard Wade
Architects, P.C. ("RWA") filed a lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "RWA
Lawsuit"), which was subsequently amended, alleging that we
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and the common law by sending an
unsolicited facsimile advertisement to RWA and a proposed class.
RWA sought recourse on its own behalf as well as other similarly
situated parties who are members of the proposed class that
received unsolicited facsimile advertisements from us. The TCPA
provides for recovery of actual damages or five hundred dollars
for each violation, whichever is greater. If it is determined that
a defendant acted willfully or knowingly in violating the TCPA,
the amount of the award may be increased by up to three times the
amount provided above.

"Although we believed we had valid defenses to the claims
asserted, we entered into a settlement of the claims in the RWA
Lawsuit.

On September 3, 2015, the Court entered an order granting final
approval to the settlement and certifying a settlement class.
Under the settlement agreement, we paid a total of $0.3 million
including the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, class notice and
administration costs, a sum to RWA and cash payments to members of
the settlement class who file valid claims. The settlement amount
was accrued in 2014 and was paid into an escrow fund on August 18,
2015.

The settlement payment was released to class counsel on October
16, 2015 after the final approval order became a final and non-
appealable order. Settlement payments to class members who
submitted claims have now been issued by the claims administrator,
with a final accounting of the settlement fund to be filed with
the court by March 4, 2016.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Discovery Underway in "Gold" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, 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 discovery
is now proceeding in the "Gold" class action lawsuit.

"On or about December 8, 2014, Dana Gold ("Gold") filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California alleging that the Morning
Star bamboo flooring (the "Bamboo Product") that we sell is
defective," the Company said.  "On February 13, 2015, Gold filed
an amended complaint that added three additional plaintiffs
(collectively with Gold, "Gold Plaintiffs").

"We moved to dismiss the amended complaint. After holding a
hearing and taking the motion under submission, the court
dismissed most of Gold Plaintiffs' claims but allowed certain
omission-based claims to proceed. Gold Plaintiffs filed a Second
Amended Complaint on December 16, 2015, and then a Third Amended
Complaint on January 20, 2016.

"In the Third Amended Complaint, Gold Plaintiffs allege that we
have engaged in unfair business practices and unfair competition
by falsely representing the quality and characteristics of the
Bamboo Product and by concealing the Bamboo Product's defective
nature. Gold Plaintiffs seek the certification of a class of
individuals in the United States who purchased the Bamboo Product,
as well as 7 state subclasses of individuals who are residents of
California, New York, Illinois, West Virginia, Minnesota,
Pennsylvania, and Florida, respectively, and purchased the Bamboo
Product for personal, family, or household use.

"Gold Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in their
complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, Gold
Plaintiffs seek (i) a declaration that our actions violate the law
and that we are financially responsible for notifying all
purported class members, (ii) injunctive relief requiring us to
replace and/or repair all of the Bamboo Product installed in
structures owned by the purported class members, and (iii) a
declaration that we must disgorge, for the benefit of the
purported classes, all or part of our profits received from the
sale of the allegedly defective Bamboo Product and/or to make full
restitution to Gold Plaintiffs and the purported class members.

"We filed our answer to the Third Amended Complaint on February 3,
2016, and discovery in the matter is now proceeding.

"We dispute the Gold Plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the
matter vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the
preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must
be met for, among other things, class certification and success on
the merits, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or
range of loss that may result from this action."


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Still Defends "Steele" Action in Ontario
------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, 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 "Steele" class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "On or about April 1, 2015, Sarah Steele
("Steele") filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Ontario,
Canada Superior Court of Justice against us. In the complaint,
Steele's allegations include (i) strict liability, (ii) breach of
implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, (iii) breach
of implied warranty of merchantability, (iv) fraud by concealment,
(v) civil negligence, (vi) negligent misrepresentation, and (vii)
breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Steele
did not quantify any alleged damages in her complaint but, in
addition to attorneys' fees and costs, Steele seeks (i)
compensatory damages, (ii) punitive, exemplary and aggravated
damages, and (iii) statutory remedies related to our breach of
various laws including the Sales of Goods Act, the Consumer
Protection Act, the Competition Act, the Consumer Packaging and
Labelling Act and the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act."

"We dispute the plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend these
matters vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the
preliminary stage of these cases and the legal standards that must
be met for, among other things, class certification and success on
the merits, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or
range of loss that may result from these actions."


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Abrasion Claims-Related Cases Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, 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 against litigation relating to
abrasion claims.

The Company said, "On May 20, 2015, a purported class action
titled Abad v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc. was filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California and
two amended complaints were subsequently filed. In the Second
Amended Complaint ("SAC"), the plaintiffs (collectively, the
"Abrasion Plaintiffs")seek to certify a national class composed of
"All Persons in the United States who purchased Defendant's Dream
Home brand laminate flooring products from Defendant for personal
use in their homes," or, in the alternative, 32 statewide classes
from California, North Carolina, Texas, New Jersey, Florida,
Nevada, Connecticut, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, Georgia, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New York, West Virginia, Kansas, Kentucky,
Mississippi, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia,
Washington, Maine, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Wisconsin,
Indiana, Illinois and Louisiana."

"The SAC alleges violations of each of these states' consumer
protections statutes and the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
as well as breach of implied warranty and fraudulent concealment.
The Abrasion Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in
the SAC but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, seek an
order certifying the action as a class action, an order adopting
the Abrasion Plaintiffs' class definitions and finding that the
Abrasion Plaintiffs are their proper representatives, an order
appointing their counsel as class counsel, injunctive relief
prohibiting us from continuing to advertise and/or sell laminate
flooring products with false abrasion class ratings, restitution
of all monies it received from the Abrasion Plaintiffs and class
members, damages (actual, compensatory, and consequential) and
punitive damages.

"We filed a motion to dismiss the SAC and the Abrasion Plaintiffs
filed a motion for leave to file a corrected SAC. Our motion was
subsequently granted in part and denied in part. The court also
denied the Abrasion Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a
corrected SAC. The Abrasion Plaintiffs have until March 1, 2016,
to file a Third Amended Complaint.

"We dispute the Abrasion Plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend
these matters vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the
preliminary stage of these cases, the legal standards that must be
met for, among other things, class certification and success on
the merits, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or
range of loss that may result from these actions.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Still Defends Securities Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, 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 Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc.
Securities Litigation.

The Company said, "On or about November 26, 2013, Gregg Kiken
("Kiken") filed a securities class action lawsuit (the "Kiken
Lawsuit"), which was subsequently amended, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against us,
our founder, former Chief Executive Officer and President, former
Chief Financial Officer and former Chief Merchandising Officer
(collectively, the "Kiken Defendants")."

"On or about September 17, 2014, the City of Hallandale Beach
Police Officers' and Firefighters' Personnel Retirement Trust
("Hallandale") filed a securities class action lawsuit (the
"Hallandale Lawsuit") in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia against us, our former Chief
Executive Officer and President and our former Chief Financial
Officer (collectively, the "Hallandale Defendants," and with the
Kiken Defendants, the "Defendants").

"On March 23, 2015, the court consolidated the Kiken Lawsuit with
the Hallandale Lawsuit, appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel
for the consolidated action, and captioned the consolidated action
as In re Lumber Liquidators Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation.

"The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on
April 22, 2015. The consolidated amended complaint alleges that
the Defendants made material false and/or misleading statements
that caused losses to investors. In particular, the lead
plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made material misstatements
or omissions related to our compliance with the Lacey Act, the
chemical content of certain of our wood products, and our supply
chain and inventory position. The lead plaintiffs do not quantify
any alleged damages in their consolidated amended complaint but,
in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, they seek to recover
damages on behalf of themselves and other persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired our stock during the putative class period at
allegedly inflated prices and purportedly suffered financial harm
as a result.

"The Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint but, on December 21, 2015, the court denied this motion.
We dispute these claims and intend to defend the matter
vigorously.

"Given the uncertainty of litigation, the current status of the
case, and the legal standards that must be met for, among other
things, class certification and success on the merits, we cannot
estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may
result from this action."


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Final Accounting of Settlement Fund Due
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, 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 final
accounting of the settlement fund in the RWA class action lawsuit
was to be filed with the court by March 4, 2016.

The Company said, "On or about March 4, 2014, Richard Wade
Architects, P.C. ("RWA") filed a lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "RWA
Lawsuit"), which was subsequently amended, alleging that we
violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and the common law by sending an
unsolicited facsimile advertisement to RWA and a proposed class.
RWA sought recourse on its own behalf as well as other similarly
situated parties who are members of the proposed class that
received unsolicited facsimile advertisements from us. The TCPA
provides for recovery of actual damages or five hundred dollars
for each violation, whichever is greater. If it is determined that
a defendant acted willfully or knowingly in violating the TCPA,
the amount of the award may be increased by up to three times the
amount provided above.

"Although we believed we had valid defenses to the claims
asserted, we entered into a settlement of the claims in the RWA
Lawsuit.

On September 3, 2015, the Court entered an order granting final
approval to the settlement and certifying a settlement class.
Under the settlement agreement, we paid a total of $0.3 million
including the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, class notice and
administration costs, a sum to RWA and cash payments to members of
the settlement class who file valid claims. The settlement amount
was accrued in 2014 and was paid into an escrow fund on August 18,
2015.

The settlement payment was released to class counsel on October
16, 2015 after the final approval order became a final and non-
appealable order. Settlement payments to class members who
submitted claims have now been issued by the claims administrator,
with a final accounting of the settlement fund to be filed with
the court by March 4, 2016.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Discovery Underway in "Gold" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, 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 discovery
is now proceeding in the "Gold" class action lawsuit.

"On or about December 8, 2014, Dana Gold ("Gold") filed a
purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California alleging that the Morning
Star bamboo flooring (the "Bamboo Product") that we sell is
defective," the Company said.  "On February 13, 2015, Gold filed
an amended complaint that added three additional plaintiffs
(collectively with Gold, "Gold Plaintiffs").

"We moved to dismiss the amended complaint. After holding a
hearing and taking the motion under submission, the court
dismissed most of Gold Plaintiffs' claims but allowed certain
omission-based claims to proceed. Gold Plaintiffs filed a Second
Amended Complaint on December 16, 2015, and then a Third Amended
Complaint on January 20, 2016.

"In the Third Amended Complaint, Gold Plaintiffs allege that we
have engaged in unfair business practices and unfair competition
by falsely representing the quality and characteristics of the
Bamboo Product and by concealing the Bamboo Product's defective
nature. Gold Plaintiffs seek the certification of a class of
individuals in the United States who purchased the Bamboo Product,
as well as 7 state subclasses of individuals who are residents of
California, New York, Illinois, West Virginia, Minnesota,
Pennsylvania, and Florida, respectively, and purchased the Bamboo
Product for personal, family, or household use.

"Gold Plaintiffs did not quantify any alleged damages in their
complaint but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, Gold
Plaintiffs seek (i) a declaration that our actions violate the law
and that we are financially responsible for notifying all
purported class members, (ii) injunctive relief requiring us to
replace and/or repair all of the Bamboo Product installed in
structures owned by the purported class members, and (iii) a
declaration that we must disgorge, for the benefit of the
purported classes, all or part of our profits received from the
sale of the allegedly defective Bamboo Product and/or to make full
restitution to Gold Plaintiffs and the purported class members.

"We filed our answer to the Third Amended Complaint on February 3,
2016, and discovery in the matter is now proceeding.

"We dispute the Gold Plaintiffs' claims and intend to defend the
matter vigorously. Given the uncertainty of litigation, the
preliminary stage of the case, and the legal standards that must
be met for, among other things, class certification and success on
the merits, we cannot estimate the reasonably possible loss or
range of loss that may result from this action."


M. ARTHUR GENSLER: Breached CLC & Wage Order, "Marasso" Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lorenzo Marasso and Benjamin Casey Mcgrath, each of them
individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as a
representative of other aggrieved employees, the Plaintiffs, v.
M. Arthur Gensler Jr. & Associates, Inc., a California
Corporation; and Does 1-250, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
BC616138 (Cal. Super. Ct. - Los Angeles Cty., April 6, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid Meal Period Premiums, unpaid rest period
premiums, unpaid overtime, and minimum wage, pursuant to the
California Labor Code (CLC) and Minimum Wage Order.

GENSLER is a design and architectural firm headquartered in San
Francisco with international locations, including an office in Los
Angeles, California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
          Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
          Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
          Heather K. Cox, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM, LLP
          555 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 818
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 432 8933
          Facsimile: (562) 435 1656
          E-mail: gary@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  jean@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  laurel@carlinbuchsbaum.com
                  heather@carlinbuchsbaum.com


MDL 2627: Discovery Ongoing in Flooring Products Liability Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators Holdings, 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 discovery
is now proceeding in the case, Lumber Liquidators Chinese-
Manufactured Flooring Products Marketing, Sales, Practices and
Products Liability Litigation.

The Company said, "Beginning on or about March 3, 2015, numerous
purported class action cases were filed in various U.S. federal
district courts and state courts involving claims of excessive
formaldehyde emissions from our flooring products (collectively,
the "Products Liability Cases"). The plaintiffs in these various
actions sought recovery under a variety of theories, which
although not identical are generally similar, including
negligence, breach of warranty, state consumer protection act
violations, state unfair competition act violations, state
deceptive trade practices act violations, false advertising,
fraudulent concealment, negligent misrepresentation, failure to
warn, unjust enrichment and similar claims. The purported classes
consisted either or both of all U.S. consumers or state consumers
that purchased the subject products in certain time periods. The
plaintiffs also sought various forms of declaratory and injunctive
relief and various damages, including restitution, actual,
compensatory, consequential, and, in certain cases, punitive
damages, and interest, costs, and attorneys' fees incurred by the
plaintiffs and other purported class members in connection with
the alleged claims, and orders certifying the actions as class
actions. Plaintiffs had not quantified damages sought from us in
these class actions."

"On June 12, 2015, United States Judicial Panel on Multi District
Litigation, (the "MDL Panel") issued an order transferring and
consolidating 10 of the related federal class actions to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
(the "Virginia Court"). In a series of subsequent conditional
transfer orders, the MDL Panel has transferred the other cases to
the Virginia Court. We continue to seek to have any newly filed
cases transferred and consolidated in the Virginia Court and
ultimately, we expect all federal class actions involving
formaldehyde allegations, including any newly filed cases, to be
transferred and consolidated in the Virginia Court. The
consolidated case in the Virginia Court is captioned In re: Lumber
Liquidators Chinese-Manufactured Flooring Products Marketing,
Sales, Practices and Products Liability Litigation.

"Pursuant to court order, plaintiffs filed a Representative Class
Action Complaint in the Virginia Court on September 11, 2015. The
complaint challenged the labeling of our flooring products and
asserted claims under California, New York, Illinois, Florida and
Texas law for fraudulent concealment, violation of consumer
protection statutes, negligent misrepresentation and declaratory
relief, as well as a claim for breach of implied warranty under
California law. Thereafter, on September 18, 2015, plaintiffs
filed the First Amended Representative Class Action Complaint
("FARC") in which they added implied warranty claims under New
York, Illinois, Florida and Texas law, as well as a federal
warranty claim.

"We filed a motion to dismiss and answered the FARC. The Virginia
Court granted the motion as to claims for negligent
misrepresentation filed on behalf of certain plaintiffs, deferred
as to class action allegations, and otherwise denied the motion.

"We also filed a motion to strike nationwide class allegations and
a motion to strike all claims of personal injury made in class
action complaints, on which the Virginia court has not yet ruled.
Discovery is now proceeding in this matter."


MIMEDX GROUP: Final Settlement Hearing Held on April 5
------------------------------------------------------
Mimedx 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 the court set the final
settlement hearing for April 5, 2016, in the Securities Class
Action.

Following the publication of an Untitled Letter from the FDA
regarding the Company's micronized products in September 2013, the
trading price of the Company's stock declined and several putative
shareholder class action lawsuits were filed against the Company
and certain of its executive officers asserting violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The cases were consolidated in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia.

On November 17, 2015, the parties entered into a stipulation of
settlement to settle the consolidated case in its entirety. The
stipulation of settlement was filed with the Court on November 18,
2015. On November 19, 2015, the Court preliminarily approved the
settlement and has set the final settlement hearing for April 5,
2016.

The Company does not believe the terms of the settlement, if
finally approved, will have a material adverse effect on its
operating results or financial condition.

MiMedx(R) is an integrated developer, processor and marketer of
patent protected and proprietary regenerative biomaterial products
and bioimplants processed from human amniotic membrane and other
birth tissues and human skin and bone.


MITEL NETWORKS: Still Defends Suits Over Mavenir Acquisition
------------------------------------------------------------
Mitel Networks 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 Company
continues to defend class action lawsuits related to the
acquisition of Mavenir Systems.

"In March and April, 2015, we were named a defendant in three
purported stockholder class actions, two of which have been
consolidated, that challenge the acquisition of Mavenir," the
Company said.  Specifically, two stockholder actions challenging
the acquisition of Mavenir -- styled Nakoa v. Kohli, et al., C.A.
No. 10757-VCP and Turberg v. Kohli, et al., C.A. No. 10779-VCP --
were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery on March 5 and 11,
2015, respectively.

On March 23, 2015, the Court of Chancery entered an order
consolidating these two complaints under the caption In re Mavenir
Systems, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No. 10757-VCP.

On April 22, 2015, a Mavenir stockholder filed a separate
complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery in an action styled
Isabel S. Rivera Cruz v. Mitel Networks Corporation, et al., C.A.
No. 10936-VCP. The plaintiff in the Cruz action did not effect
service of the complaint on the Company or any other named
defendant.

"These stockholder complaints alleged, in part, that Mavenir's
directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the
acquisition of Mavenir, and that we aided and abetted such alleged
fiduciary breaches,"  the Company said.

"On September 14, 2015 and January 22, 2016, the lead plaintiff in
the consolidated action filed amended complaints, neither of which
names us as a defendant. The operative complaint in the
consolidated action, filed on January 22, 2016, names our
subsidiary formerly known as Mavenir as a defendant. That
complaint asserts a single cause of action against our subsidiary
formerly known as Mavenir for an alleged breach of fiduciary duty
relating to certain disclosures made to former Mavenir
shareholders in connection with the acquisition of Mavenir. None
of the complaints stated any amount of damages.

"Our subsidiary formerly known as Mavenir has indemnified the
former directors of Mavenir who are defendants in the lawsuits. We
continue to believe that the allegations in all of the complaints
are without merit. Although we do not believe such litigation will
have a material impact on our financial condition or results of
operations, we cannot predict with certainty the outcome of such
litigation.

Mitel Networks is a global provider of cloud, mobile and
enterprise communications and collaboration solutions.


MORPHO DETECTION: Court Grants Final Approval of Class Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California granted
final approval of the settlement in the case captioned, HAROLD
VILLANUEVA, Plaintiff, v. MORPHO DETECTION, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 13-CV-05390-HSG (N.D. Cal.).

Morpho Detection, Inc.  is a security company that provides
explosives, narcotics, and radioactive detection services in
aviation and other transportation facilities. The action began on
November 20, 2013, when Villanueva, an employee of Morpho, filed
the original Complaint on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, alleging violations of California's wage and hour laws
and regulations. Villanueva filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC)
on February 19, 2014, the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) on May
26, 2014, and the Third Amended Complaint (TAC) on April 16, 2015.
The putative class is comprised of all current and former non-
exempt Field Service Technicians, Field Service Technician Leads,
Field Service Engineers, and Field Service Engineer Leads employed
by Morpho from Nov. 20, 2009 through Dec. 12, 2014.

The TAC alleges eight causes of action on behalf of Villanueva and
the putative class: (1) Failure to Compensate for All Hours
Worked; (2) Failure to Provide Meal and Rest Periods; (3) Failure
to Furnish Wage and Hour Statements; (4) Failure to Maintain
Employee Time Records; (5) Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages; (6)
Failure to Pay Wages in Violation of the FLSA; (7) Unfair
Competition; and (8) penalties under the Private Attorney General
Act.

Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval of the class
action settlement agreement on April 17, 2015, and an amended
motion for preliminary approval on May 8, 2015. The Court granted
Plaintiff's amended motion on August 12, 2015

Pending before the Court are three motions filed by Plaintiff
Harold Villanueva: (1) motion for final approval of the parties'
proposed class action settlement; (2) motion for attorneys' fees
and costs; and (3) motion for class representative enhancement
award.

In his Order dated March 18, 2016 available at http://is.gd/PKjtog
from Leagle.com, Judge Gilliam, Jr. found that the proposed class
action settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable, and that the
settlement class members received adequate notice. The Court
awarded class counsel $61,250 in attorneys' fees and $1,377.57 in
costs and $2,500 as service award to Plaintiff.

Harold Villanueva is represented by:

     Chad Avery Pradmore, Esq.
     Leonard Thomas Emma, Esq.
     Michael Robert Hoffman, Esq.
     HOFFMAN EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS LLC
     580 California St., Suite 1600
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Tel: (415)766-0268

Morpho Detection, Inc. is represented by Melinda S. Riechert, Esq.
-- mriechert@morganlewis.com -- & Michael David Schlemmer, Esq. --
mschlemmer@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS BOCKIUS LLP


MURRAY OCULAR: "Tur" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
Estrella Tur, individually and other similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Murray Ocular Oncology & Retina
Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, individually, Timothy G.
Murray, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 2016-008710-CA-
01(Fla. Cir. Ct., Miami-Dade Cty., April 6, 2016), seeks to
recover damages exceeding $15,000 excluding attorneys' fees or
costs, for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Murray Ocular is located in Miami, Florida. It provides eye cancer
treatment and diagnoses of ocular problems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, Fl 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattomeys.com
                  apetisco@rgpattorncvs.com
                  rrcguciro@mpattorneys.com
                  pn@rgpattorneys.com


NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: "Cole" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Cole, on behalf of himself individually and all others
similarly situated v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Case
No. 4:16-cv-00920 (S.D. Tex., April 6, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages, under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company operates an insurance service
company located at 350 N. St. Paul St. Ste. 2900, Dallas, Texas
75201.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Taft L. Foley, II
      THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
      3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
      Houston, TX 77054
      Telephone: (832) 778-8182
      Facsimile: (832) 778-8353
      E-mail: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


NATERA INC: Faces "Nguyen" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Van Nguyen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Natera, Inc., Matthew Rabinowitz, Herm Rosenman,
Jonathan Sheena, Roelof Botha, Todd Cozzens, Edward Driscoll, Jr.,
James Healy, John Steuart, Sequoia Capital XII, LP, SC XII
Management, LLC, Lightspeed Venture Partners VIII, LP, Lightspeed
Ultimate General Partner VII, Ltd., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC,
Cowen and Company, LLC, Piper Jaffray & Co., Robert W. Baird Co.
Inc., and Wedbush Securities Inc., Case No. CIV538020 (Cal. Super.
Ct., April 4, 2016), alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

Natera, Inc. is a diagnostics company and provider of molecular
and bioinformatics technology.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
      Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201- 9160
      E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
              lportnoy@glancylaw.com
              clinehan@glancylaw.com


NCJB RESTAURANT: Doesn't Properly Pay Service Staffs, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Meghan Thomas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. NCJB Restaurant LLC d/b/a Justin's Grill, Neal Pascale
and Charles Pascale, Case No. 505273/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 6,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
Banquet Service Staff portions of service charges paid by
customers hosting private events at Justin's Grill between, which
are purported to be gratuities for Banquet Service Staff, and
other statutory wages in accordance with the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate a Tuscan styled steakhouse
restaurant which hosts private events and banquets for dining
customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
      Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      28 Liberty Street
      New York, NY 10005
      Telephone: (212) 300-0375


NEUSTAR INC: Virginia Court Dismissed Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
NeuStar, 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 in Virginia
has entered a Final Order dismissing all claims in a class action
lawsuit.

The Company said, "On July 15, 2014, the Oklahoma Firefighters
Pension and Retirement System, or OFPRS, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated stockholders, filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division,
or the Alexandria Division, against us and certain of our senior
executive officers.  The OFPRS complaint asserted claims for
purported violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 on behalf of those who
purchased our securities between April 19, 2013 and June 6, 2014,
inclusive, and sought unspecified compensatory damages, costs and
expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees, and injunctive
relief."

"On October 7, 2014, the Alexandria Division issued an order
appointing lead counsel and designating The Indiana Public
Retirement System, or IPRS, as lead plaintiff.  On November 6,
2014, the IPRS filed an amended complaint and on December 8, 2014,
we moved to dismiss IPRS's amended complaint.  On December 22,
2014, IPRS filed its opposition to our motion to dismiss.  On
December 29, 2014, we filed a reply brief to the IPRS opposition.

"The Alexandria Division heard oral arguments on the motions on
January 22, 2015 and on January 27, 2015, and issued an order
granting our motion to dismiss IPRS's amended complaint with
prejudice.  On February 25, 2015, counsel for IPRS filed a notice
of appeal.

"On July 28, 2015, the IPRS, on behalf of itself and the proposed
settlement class, on the one hand, and certain of our senior
executive officers on the other hand, entered into a Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement with the Alexandria Division, which
sets forth the terms and conditions of the proposed settlement of
the claims. The Alexandria Division granted preliminary approval
of the settlement on September 22, 2015. The final hearing before
the Alexandria Division took place on December 3, 2015 and a Final
Order was entered dismissing all claims with prejudice.

"The settlement amount did not have a material impact to our
consolidated financial position and results of operations.

Neustar offers authoritative, hard-to-replicate data sets and
proprietary analytics that provide insights to help clients
promote and protect their businesses.


NIPOAMERICAN INC: Recalls Mattresses Due to Noncompliance
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Nipoamerican, Inc., of Marlborough, Mass., announced a voluntary
recall of about 325 Mattresses. Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

All Niposul and NipoFlorida Elegance, Elegance Gold, and Evolution
mattresses fail to meet the mandatory federal open flame standard
for mattresses.

This recall involves all models and sizes of Niposul and
NipoFlorida Elegance, Elegance Gold, and Evolution mattresses. The
Elegance and Evolution mattresses are white and the Elegance Gold
mattresses are white with black sides. NIPOBRASILEIRA and ORIENTAL
J2000 are embroidered on the side of the mattress.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in Brazil and sold at
Niposul stores in Massachusetts and NipoFlorida stores in Florida
from July 2014 through October 2015 for between $1,200 and $6,500.

Consumers should contact Niposul or NipoFlorida for free mattress
covers to bring the mattress into compliance with the federal
standard and protect consumers from a fire. Assistance with
installation is available upon request.


NISHIKAWA RUBBER: Sued in Mich. Over Body Sealing Price-Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
Landers Auto Group No. 1, Inc., d/b/a Landers Toyota, et al. v.
Nishikawa Rubber Company and Nishikawa Standard Company, Case No.
2:16-cv-11260-BAF-APP (E.D. Mich., April 6, 2016), arises from the
Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement
and conspiracy to unlawfully fix, artificially raise, maintain and
stabilize prices, rig bids for, and allocate the market and
customers for Body Sealing.

The Defendants manufacture and sell Body Sealings to Honda,
Toyota, and certain of their subsidiaries and affiliates for
installation in vehicles manufactured and sold in the United
States and elsewhere.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gerard V. Mantese, Esq.
      Alexander E. Blum, Esq.
      MANTESE HONIGMAN, P.C.
      1361 E. Big Beaver Road
      Troy, MI 48083
      Telephone: (248) 457-9200
      E-mail: gmantese@manteselaw.com
              ablum@manteselaw.com

         - and -

       Jonathan W. Cuneo, Esq.
       Joel Davidow, Esq.
       Daniel Cohen, Esq.
       Victoria Romanenko, Esq.
       Yifei Li, Esq.
       CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
       507 C Street, N.E.
       Washington, DC 20002
       Telephone: (202) 789-3960
       E-mail: jonc@cuneolaw.com
               joel@cuneolaw.com
               danielc@cuneolaw.com
               vicky@cuneolaw.com
               evelyn@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

       Michael J. Flannery, Esq.
       CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
       300 North Tucker Suite 801
       St. Louis, MO 63101
       Telephone: (314) 226-1015
       E-mail: mflannery@cuneolaw.com

         - and -

       Thomas P. Thrash, Esq.
       Marcus Bozeman, Esq.
       THRASH LAW FIRM, P.A.
       1101 Garland Street
       Little Rock, AR 72201
       Telephone: (501) 374-1058
       E-mail: tomthrash@sbcglobal.net
               bozemanmarcus@sbcglobal.net

         - and -

      Charles F. Barrett, Esq.
      NEAL AND HARWELL, PLC
      150 4th Avenue North Suite 2000
      Nashville, TN 37219-2498
      Telephone: (615) 244-1713
      E-mail: cbarrett@nealharwell.com

         - and -

      Don Barrett, Esq.
      DAVID MCMULLAN BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
      P.O. Box 927 404 Court Square
      Lexington, MS 39095
      Telephone: (662) 834-2488
      E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
              dmcmullan@barrettlawgroup.com

         - and -

      Shawn M. Raiter, Esq.
      LARSON KING, LLP
      2800 Wells Fargo Place
      30 East Seventh Street
      St. Paul, MN  55101
      Telephone: (651) 312-6500
      E-mail: sraiter@larsonking.com

         - and -

      Phillip Duncan, Esq.
      RICHARD QUINTUS DUNCAN FIRM, P.A.
      900 S. Shackleford, Suite 725
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Telephone: (501) 228-7600
      E-mail: phillip@duncanfirm.com
              richard@duncanfirm.com

         - and -

      Dewitt Lovelace, Esq.
      Valerie Nettles, Esq.
      LOVELACE & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
      Suite 200 12870 US Hwy 98 West
      Miramar Beach, FL  32550
      Telephone: (850) 837-6020
      E-mail: dml@lovelacelaw.com
              alex@lovelacelaw.com

         - and -

      Gregory Johnson, Esq.
      G. JOHNSON LAW, PLLC
      6688 145th Street West
      Apple Valley, MN 55124
      Telephone: (952) 930-2485
      E-mail: greg@gjohnsonlegal.com


NORTEK INC: Settled Florida Action; Tennessee Action Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Nortek, 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 settled
a class action lawsuit in Florida but continues to defend the
class action lawsuit in Tennessee.

The Company said, "In an action initiated on May 21, 2014, Nortek
Global HVAC LLC ("Nortek Global HVAC"), our wholly owned
subsidiary, was named as a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit in Florida, Harris, et al. v. Nortek Global HVAC, LLC,
Case No. 1:14-cv-21884-BB, filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.  In addition, in an
action initiated on October 3, 2014, Nortek, Inc., Nortek Global
HVAC LLC and Nortek Global HVAC Latin America, Inc. were named as
defendants in a putative class action lawsuit in Tennessee, Bauer,
et al. v. Nortek Global HVAC, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:14-cv-01940,
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Tennessee."

These lawsuits allege that the copper evaporator and condenser
coils in Nortek Global HVAC's residential heating and cooling
products are susceptible to a type of potential corrosion that can
result in coil leaks and eventual failure of the units.  The
Florida action sought compensatory damages associated with Nortek
Global HVAC's alleged wrongdoing, injunctive relief, and
attorneys' fees and costs.  The Tennessee action seeks damages
associated with repairing, retrofitting and/or replacing the
allegedly defective products, the loss of value due to the alleged
defect, property damages associated with the alleged defect,
injunctive relief, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

On January 29, 2016, the Court in the Florida action entered an
order denying the plaintiffs' motion to certify a class of Florida
consumers. Subsequently, the Company reached a nominal settlement
with the two named plaintiffs in the Florida action.

In the Tennessee action, no arguments or ruling with respect to
class action status have occurred to date.

The Company believes it has meritorious defenses against the
claims in the Tennessee action.  At this time, the Company
believes that the likelihood of a material loss in the Tennessee
action is remote and has not recognized a loss or liability in
such action; however, it is possible that events could occur that
would change the likelihood of a material loss, which could
ultimately have a material impact on our business.  The Company
will continue to assess the likelihood of a material loss as the
Tennessee action progresses.

Nortek is a global, diversified company whose many market-leading
brands deliver broad capabilities and a wide array of innovative,
technology-driven products and solutions for lifestyle improvement
at home and at work.


NTT TRUCKING: Faces Suit in Del. Over Duty of Care Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Sandra Tania Ibarra Neria, Gregory Scott Tobias, as wife and
husband, Sandra Tania Ibarra Neria and Gregory Scott Tobias on
behalf of their minor children, Lucca Tobias Ibarra and Andrei
Tobias Ibarra and Guadalupe Neria Ramirez v. Curtis R. Lewis, NTT
Trucking, LLC and Mountaire Farms of Delaware, Inc., Case No.
S16C-04-005 MJB (Del. Super. Ct., April 4, 2016), arises out of
the injuries suffered by the Plaintiffs as a result of the Curtis
R. Lewis' breach of duty of care by recklessly, carelessly and
negligently operating the vehicle under his control so that,
without warning or notice, the rear trailer dual wheel tire
disengaged from the trailer and struck the front of Plaintiff
Sandra's vehicle.

The Defendants own and operate a freight shipping and trucking
company in Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kelly Dunn Gelof
      TUNNELL & RAYSOR, P.A.
      30 East Pine Street
      PO Box 151
      Georgetown, DE 19947
      Telephone: (302) 856-1450


OUTERNATIONAL BRANDS: Faces "Chen" Class Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Outernational
Brands, Inc.

The case is captioned Michelle Chen and John Does 1-100, on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated v. Outernational
Brands, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-01634 (E.D.N.Y., April 4, 2016).

Michelle Chen is a pro se plaintiff.

PALMS SOUTH: Faces "Jean" Suit Over Age and Racial Discrimination
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pascal Jean v. The Palms South Beach, Inc., Case No. 2016-008709-
CA-01 (Fla. 11th Cir., April 6, 2016), alleges causes of action
for age and national origin discrimination under the Florida Civil
Rights Act, as a result of the adverse treatment the Plaintiff
experienced and as a result of his dismissal from employment with
the Defendant.

The Palms South Beach, Inc. operates a 4-star hotel located at
3025 Collins Ave, Miami Beach, FL 33140.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: 305-416-5000
      Facsimile: 305-416-5005
      E-mail: agp@rEipattomcys.com


PARMALAT CANADA: Recalls Chocolate Skimmed Milk Products
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 11, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Chemical
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Parmalat Canada Inc.
Distribution: Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10424

  Brand     Common        Size     Code(s) on   UPC
  name      name          ----     product      ---
  -----     ------                 ----------
  Beatrice  Chocolate     200 ml   MR 17 AGRT   0 68200 00102 9
            Partly                 1606
            Skimmed
            Milk 1% M.F.
  Beatrice  Chocolate     473 ml   MR 17 AGRT   0 68200 20094 1
            Partly                 1606
            Skimmed
            Milk 1% M.F.
  Beatrice  Chocolate     1 L      MR 17 AGRT   0 55300 11303 5
            Partly                 1606
            Skimmed
            Milk 1% M.F.


PELICAN PRODUCTS: Recalls Rechargeable LED Flashlights
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 3, 2016
Posting date: March 3, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Flammability Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56536

The Pelican 9410L flashlight is a large rechargeable LED
flashlight that is equipped with lithium ion battery packs and
replacement battery packs. The flashlight is intended for
professional and industrial users. The Flashlight is available in
yellow and black and in two different battery technologies: nickel
metal hydride and lithium ion.

Only battery packs that contain green shrink wrapped cells are
included in the recall.

The flashlights equipped with lithium ion battery packs ("Battery
Packs") and replacement battery packs are the subject of this
recall.

  Item Description                  Manufacturer Part Number
  ----------------                  ------------------------
  9410L Flashlight in Yellow        9410-021-245
  9410L Flash light in Black        9410-021-110
  9419L Replacement Battery Pack    9413-301-001

The battery packs in the flashlights can overheat, posing a fire
hazard to consumers.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injury to Canadians related to the use of the affected
flashlights.

Pelican has received two reports of overheating Battery Packs. No
injuries have been reported.

Approximately 800 units of the flashlights and 18 units of
replacement battery pack were sold across Canada. Approximately
3,800 units of the flashlights and 150 units of replacement
battery pack were sold in the United States.

The recalled flashlights were sold from May 2014 to January 2016
at Sports and specialty stores nationwide, online at Amazon.com
and other industrial supply dealers or distributors in both Canada
and in the United States.

Manufactured in the United States.

Manufacturer: Pelican Products (flashlights) Inc.
              23215 Early Avenue, CA 90505
              Torrance
              UNITED STATES

Manufacturer: HYB Battery Company (battery cells) Ltd.
              Min'an Rd, Longgang
              Shenzhen, Guangdong
              CHINA


PHILIPS MEDICAL: Recalls Extended Brilliance Workspace NM
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 8, 2016
Posting date: March 17, 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-57580

The AutoSPECT Pro Application was only designed to reconstruct
cardiac SPECT data obtained with detectors positioned at 90 or 180
relative to one another. However, certain gamma cameras, e.g., the
Marconi AXIS and IRIX cameras, permit acquisitions at other
relative detector angles. Philips has become aware that data
acquired at these other angles will not be correctly reconstructed
by AutoSPECT Pro, and the results will likely be erroneous.

Affected products:
EXTENDED BRILLIANCE WORKSPACE NM
Lot or serial number: ALL
Model or catalog number: 459800090831

Manufacturer: PHILIPS MEDICAL SYSTEMS (CLEVELAND), INC.
              595 MINER ROAD
              CLEVELAND
              44143
              Ohio
              UNITED STATES


PHYSICIANS GROUP: "Valentine" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Valentine, on his own behalf and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Physicians Group Services, P.A., a
Florida Profit Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00414-
TJC-PDB (M.D. Fla., April 6, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages
and other relief, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Physicians Group is a group of medical specialist providing
medical services in Jacksonville and Middleburg, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          Yolando Ann-Marie Hewling, Esq.
          FARAH & FARAH, PA
          10 W Adams St 3rd Fl.
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 396 5555
          Facsimile: (904) 358 2424
          E-mail: yhewling@farahandfarah.com


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Recalls Cooked Chicken Nuggets Due to Plastic
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corp., a Waco, Texas establishment, is recalling
approximately 40,780 pounds of fully cooked chicken nugget
products that may be contaminated with extraneous plastic
materials, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The fully cooked chicken nugget products were produced on Oct. 5,
2015. The following products are subject to recall:

  --- 20-lb. cardboard boxes containing two, 10-lb. clear plastic
      bags of fully cooked chicken nuggets labeled as "GOLD KIST
      FARMS Fully Cooked Whole Grain Popcorn Style Chicken Patty
      Fritters."

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST. P-
20728" inside the USDA mark of inspection and include package
codes 5278105021, 5278105022, 5278105023, 5278105000, and
5278105001. These items were shipped for institutional use to
Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky,
North Carolina, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah.

The problem was discovered after the firm received several
consumer complaints regarding plastic contamination of the chicken
nuggets.  The firm notified FSIS personnel of the issue on April
6, 2016.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or
illness should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to
the place of purchase.


POTAMOULA INC: "Lemus" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA & PMWA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sadi Lemus, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Potamoula, Inc., doing business as:
Oregon Diner, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01599-GEKP (E.D.
Penn., April 6, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, prejudgment
interest, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney fees and cost,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act (PMWA).

The Defendant operates a restaurant called Oregon Diner at
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael G. Hollander, Esq.
          COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES
          1424 Chestnut Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 981 3794
          E-mail: mhollander@clsphila.org


PREVOST: Recalls Multiple Vehicles Due to Fire Risk
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 4, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Bus
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Fuel Supply
Units affected: 551
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016108TC
ID number: 2016108
Manufacturer recall number: SR16-18

On certain vehicles, due to a missing clip a coolant line could
rub against a braided fuel hose at the AHI 7th injector. Over
time, this could cause the fuel hose to become compromised, which
could result in fuel spraying onto hot exhaust components
increasing the risk of fire causing injury and/or damage to
property. Correction: Dealer will inspect the fuel line for
abrasion and replace it if necessary. The coolant line will be
removed.

  Make       Model           Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----           ----------------------
  PREVOST    H3-41 COACH     2015
  PREVOST    H3-45 COACH     2012
  PREVOST    X3-45 COACH     2012


PUMA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Still Defends "Hsu" Case
--------------------------------------------
Puma Biotechnology, 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 case, Hsu vs. Puma Biotechnology, Inc.,
et. al.

The Company said, "On June 3, 2015, Hsingching Hsu, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a class
action lawsuit against us and certain of our executive officers in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California (Case No. 8:15-cv-00865-AG-JCG).  On October 16, 2015,
lead Plaintiff Norfolk Pension Fund filed an amended complaint on
behalf of all persons who purchased our securities between July
22, 2014 and May 29, 2015.  The amended complaint alleges that we
and certain of our executive officers made false and/or misleading
statements and failed to disclose material adverse facts about our
business, operations, prospects and performance in violation of
Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks damages, interest, costs,
attorneys' fees, and other unspecified equitable relief.  We
intend to vigorously defend this matter."

Puma is a biopharmaceutical company with a focus on the
development and commercialization of innovative products to
enhance cancer care.


REALPAGE INC: "Stokes" Class Action in Stayed Pending "Spokeo"
--------------------------------------------------------------
RealPage, 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 "Stokes" class
action has been placed in suspense pending the United States
Supreme Court decision in "Spokeo".

The Company said, "In March 2015, we were named in a purported
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, styled Stokes v. RealPage, Inc.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-01520. On January 25, 2016, the court entered an
order placing the case in suspense until the United States Supreme
Court issues its decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins."

RealPage, Inc., is a provider of on demand software and software-
enabled solutions for the rental housing industry.


REALPAGE INC: "Jenkins" Class Action in Stayed Pending "Spokeo"
---------------------------------------------------------------
RealPage, 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 "Jenkins" class
action has been placed in suspense pending the United States
Supreme Court decision in "Spokeo".

In November 2014, the Company was named in a purported class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, styled Jenkins v. RealPage, Inc., Case No.
3:14cv758. This case has since been transferred to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

On January 25, 2016, the court entered an order placing the case
in suspense until the United States Supreme Court issues its
decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.

RealPage, Inc., is a provider of on demand software and software-
enabled solutions for the rental housing industry.


RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS: Recalls Integra 3 Micromanipulators
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 11, 2016
Posting date: April 7, 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-57842

Research Instruments is voluntarily recalling the power supply
cable for the Integra 3 Micromanipulator. Research Instruments
internal testing has discovered a minor materials fault with the
power supply cable (2-54-031).

Affected products
A. Integra 3 Micromanipulator
Lot or serial number: Serial numbers not available.
Model or catalog number: 6-54-100

Manufacturer: RESEARCH INSTRUMENTS LIMITED
              BICKLAND INDUSTRIAL PARK
              FALMOUTH, CORNWALL
              TR114TA
              UNITED KINGDOM


RICH PRODUCTS: Recalls Chocolate Iced Eclairs
---------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 11, 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: Rich Products of Canada Ltd.
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10435

  Brand     Common        Size     Code(s) on   UPC
  name      name          ----     product      ---
  -----     ------                 ----------
  Rich's    New York      226 g    1665338      0 57592 78449 8
            Style
            Chocolate
            Iced Eclairs


ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS: Recalls Estradiol Products
---------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 8, 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-57682

The reason for the recall is related to a situation where the
manufacturer has identified during an internal investigation, that
the substance fulvestrant may lead to falsely elevated results in
the Elecsys Estradiol II and Elecsys Estradiol III assays.

Affected products:
A. ESTRADIOL II
Lot or serial number: All lots.
Model or catalog number: 3000079190

Manufacturer: Roche Diagnostics GMBH
              Sandhoferstrasse 116
              Mannheim
              68305
              GERMANY

B. ESTRADIOL III
Lot or serial number: All lots.
Model or catalog number: 6656021190

Manufacturer: Roche Diagnostics GMBH
              Sandhoferstrasse 116
              Mannheim
              68305
              GERMANY


ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS: Recalls Protein (Latex) High Sensitive Assay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 15, 2016
Posting date: April 7, 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-57836
Reason Affected products

This recall is related to the under-recovery of lot number 604450-
01 of Tina-quant Cardiac C-Reactive protein (latex) high sensitive
(cat# 11972855216) in human serum and plasma.

Affected products:
A. HITACHI TINA-QUANT C-REACTIVE PROTEIN (LATEX) HIGH SENSITIVE
ASSAY (CRP)
Lot or serial number: 604450-01
Model or catalog number: 11972855216

Manufacturer: Roche Diagnostics GMBH
              Sandhoferstrasse 116
              Mannheim
              68305
              GERMANY


SAINT-GOBAIN: Faces "Hickey" Suit Over PFOA-contaminated Water
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hickey, individually, and as parent and natural guardian
of O. H., infant, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp., and
Honeywell International Inc. f/k/a Allied-Signal Inc., Case No.
1:16-cv-00394-GLS-DJS (N.D.N.Y., April 6, 2016), is an action for
damages as a result of the Defendants' alleged release into the
environment of Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)-containing waste that
caused class members' drinking water to become contaminated and
unreasonably dangerous for normal and foreseeable human
consumption or use.

Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. is a producer of
engineered high performance polymer products for virtually every
industry around the globe, including automotive, medical,
pharmaceutical, chemical, food, beverage, airline, truck
manufacturing, appliances, construction, and microelectronics.

Based in Morris Plains, New Jersey, Honeywell International Inc.,
is a producer a variety of commercial and consumer products,
engineering services and aerospace systems for a wide variety of
customers, from private consumers to major corporations and
governments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen G, Schwarz, Esq.
      Hadley L. Matarazzo, Esq.
      FARACI LANGE, LLP
      28 E. Main Street, Suite 1100
      Rochester, NY 14614
      Telephone: (585) 325-5150
      Facsimile: (585) 325-3285
      E-mail: sschwarz@faraci.com
              hmatarazzo@faraci.com

         - and -

      Gerald J, Williams, Esq.
      Esther E. Berezofsky, Esq.
      Michael J. Quirk, Esq.
      WILLIAMS, CUKER & BEREZOFSKY, LLC
      1515 Market Street, Suite 1300
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215) 557-0099
      Facsimile: (215) 557-0673
      E-mail: gwilliams@wcblegal.com
              eberezofsky@wcblegal.com
              mquirk@wcblegal.com

         - and -

      Eric Chaffin, Esq.
      Roopal P. Luhana, Esq.
      CHAFFIN LUHANA LLP
      600 Third Ave., 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (888) 480-1123
      Facsimile: (888) 317-2311
      E-mail: chaffin@chaffinluhana.com
              luhana@chaffinluhana.com


SETRA: Recalls S417 2004, 2006 Models Due to Crash Risk
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 4, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Travel Trailer, Motorhome
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Suspension
Units affected: 2
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016109TC
ID number: 2016109

On certain vehicles, that had a lower control arm replaced from
service parts stock, the lower control arm housings may crack
along the crimp crease. Under certain circumstances, this could
cause the control arm to separate and fail resulting in a loss of
vehicles stability, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury
and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will replace the
lower control arm.

  Make      Model     Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----     ----------------------
  SETRA     S417      2004, 2006


SIEMENS MEDICAL: Recalls E. Cam and Symbia E Systems
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 1, 2016
Posting date: March 10, 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-57482

As a result of user error complaints regarding injuries resulting
from collimator change, Siemens has determined that for E. Cam or
Symbia E systems, although the existing user manual is correct,
additional supplemental instructions, with the inclusion of visual
aids, may further clarify and emphasize the proper collimator
change process.

A customer advisory notice is being issued to advise customers
that Siemens is providing an addendum to the Symbia E and E.Cam
user manual with specific enhancements to the instructions for
collimator change. Incidents during collimator change may be
avoided by operators properly following specified instructions.

Affected products:
A. E.CAM SIGNATURE SERIES
Lot or serial number: ALL
Model or catalog number: 07333235
                         07333284

Manufacturer: Siemens Medical Solutions USA Inc.
              Molecular Imaging Group,
              2501 North Barrington Road
              Hoffman Estates
              60192
              Illinois
              UNITED STATES

B. SYMBIA E DUAL HEAD SYSTEM
Lot or serial number: SN 1012
Model or catalog number: 10275879

Manufacturer: Siemens Medical Solutions USA Inc.
              Molecular Imaging Group,
              2501 North Barrington Road
              Hoffman Estates
              60192
              Illinois
              UNITED STATES


SLATER & GORDON: Maurice Blackburn Extends Claim Period
-------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert at The Sydney Morning Herald reports that law firm
Maurice Blackburn has expanded the claim period for its planned
class action against Slater & Gordon to allow more aggrieved
shareholders to recoup funds.

SMH relates that the class action law firm, which floated its
action against its across-town rival in December, has also secured
litigation funder International Litigation Partners to back the
action.

According to SMH, shareholders who purchased shares between April
1, 2015 and February 28, 2016 are able to participate in the
action.  SMH says Maurice Blackburn had previously set a December
16, 2015 close date but has extended the period to take in
possible losses suffered prior to Slater & Gordon's
February 29 announcement of its half-year results.

Those results were marred by a swingeing AUD876 million of write-
down, the majority of which was associated with the value of
Slater & Gordon's Quindell business, the report states.

SMH says the smaller ACA Lawyers is also preparing a class action
against Slater & Gordon, and has already secured litigation
funding for its action.

According to the report, Maurice Blackburn's national head of
class actions, Andrew Watson, said Slater & Gordon shareholders
were suitably aggrieved.

"Institutional and retail investors in Slater & Gordon that want
the best chance to recover the maximum possible now have a clear
choice to go with the nation's leading class action law firm
Maurice Blackburn, backed by what we believe are the best funding
rates available," the report quotes Mr. Watson as saying.

"More than AUD2 billion dollars in shareholder value has been lost
in a matter of months. To shock the market on multiple occasions
is not just bad luck. It raises serious questions about internal
processes and about the quality and timing of information released
to the market," Mr Watson said.

Slater & Gordon's February write down led to its banks requiring
weekly updates on the firm's cash flow position, says SMH. Slater
& Gordon has until the end of this month to convince its bankers
that it is back on track financially, the report states.

Slater & Gordon said declined to comment, adds SMH.

As reported in the Troubled Company Reporter-Asia Pacific on March
14, 2016, The Sydney Morning Herald said struggling listed law
firm Slater & Gordon has suffered another blow after the
Australian Securities Exchange dumped the stock from its top 200
list.  SMH said the removal of Slater & Gordon from the ASX 200
is significant because it means some of the index funds which are
required under their self-imposed mandates to hold shares in ASX

200 stocks will exit the stock.  According to the report, the law
firm is in a fight for survival following a horror 2015 that saw
its market capitalisation plummet from more than AUD2.7 billion to
AUD121.6 million on March 11 following an accounting scandal in
its UK arm and weaker-than-expected growth in both its British
business and its Australian arm.  Slater & Gordon has until

April 30 to satisfy its bankers it can remain as a viable
organization, SMH relayed. Its financial advisers from insolvency
firm McGrath Nicol are delivering weekly cash-flow updates to the
firm's bankers, the report stated.

Australia-based Slater & Gordon Limited (ASX:SGH) --
https://www.slatergordon.com.au/ -- is engaged in operating legal
practices in Australia and the United Kingdom. The Company
operates through segments, including Slater and Gordon Australia
(AUS), Slater and Gordon UK (UK) and Slater Gordon Solutions
(SGS). The AUS segment conducts a range of legal services within a
geographical area of Australia. The AUS segment also includes
investments, borrowing and capital rising activities. The
Company's UK segment conducts a range of legal services in in the
United Kingdom. The UK segment also includes the investments in
SGS. The SGS segment offers legal services relating to road
traffic accidents, employee liability and noise, including hearing
loss. The SGS segment also provides complementary services in
health and motor services. The Company's business and specialized
litigation services include commercial, estate and professional
negligence litigation and class actions.


SSN HOTEL: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Yazer" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------
Remi Yazer and Luis R. Gonzalez, on behalf of themselves,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. SSN Hotel Management, LLC d/b/a Red Roof Inn, and
Shri Hari New York, LLC d/b/a Red Roof Inn, and Peter Bhaidaswala
a/k/a Peter Bhai a/k/a Piyush Bhaidaswala, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01679-CBA-VMS (E.D. N.Y., April 6,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime
compensation and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL).

SSN Hotel Management is one of the fastest growing hotel
management, development, and investment groups in the Northeast
region.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dong Phuong V. Nguyen, Esq.
          Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
          Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
          BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 328
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone. (516) 248 5550
          Facsimile: (516) 248 6027


STANCE HEALTHCARE: Recalls Bassinet Carts Due to Injury Risk
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 9, 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: Healthcare Professionals, General Public, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-57746

Stance Healthcare has received notification that bassinet drawers
are opening when the bassinet is being pushed around a corner.
Stance Healthcare has evaluated the risk of this occurrence and
determined that this could lead to tipping of the cart causing
injury. In order to reduce any possible risk of injury, the
company has decided to perform corrections on the bassinets.

Affected products:
BASSINET CART
Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer.
Model or catalog number: SBC110
                         SBC115
                         SBC120

Manufacturer: STANCE HEALTHCARE INC
              275 SHOEMAKER STREET
              KITCHENER
              N2E 3B3
              Ontario
              CANADA


STONER BOAT: Faces "Romero" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yosvani Romero, individually and other similarly situated
individuals v. Stoner Boat Works, Inc., Jonathan M. Stoner, and
Joshua Stoner, Case No. 2016-008467-CA-01 (Fla. 11th Cir., April
4, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Stoner Boat Works, Inc. is engaged in interstate commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: 305-416-5000
      Facsimile: 305-416-5005
      E-mail: agp@rEipattomcys.com


STONELEIGH RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Konyo" Action Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Orly Konyo, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
v. Stoneleigh Recovery Associates, LLC and Bureaus Investment
Group Portfolio No. 15, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-01930-CCC-JBC
(D.N.J., April 6, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt in violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Defendants are companies that use the mail, telephone, and
facsimile and regularly engage in business the principal purpose
of which is to attempt to collect debts alleged to be due another.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE HERSH
      17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
      Rutherford, NJ  07070
      Telephone: (201) 507-6300
      Facsimile: (201) 507-6311
      E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com


STORTZ TOYS: Recalls 8-note Monkey Glockenspiel
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 11, 2016
Posting date: March 11, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Toys
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-57496

The Green Tones 8-note Monkey Glockenspiel is a children's musical
instrument with eight metal bars in multiple colors mounted on a
wooden base shaped like a monkey. The bars are individually
attached to the base with one screw at each end. The second bar
from the top is pink, 3.5 inches long and has a "B" stamped on it.
This is the bar that needs to be replaced. The Green Tones logo is
stamped on the back of the glockenspiel and the tracking number
HS0178410914 is printed in black at the bottom.

The paint on the pink metal note bar of the glockenspiel contains
lead in excess of the allowable limit. Lead is toxic if ingested
by young children and can cause adverse health effects.

Neither Health Canada nor Stortz Toys has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of this product
in Canada.

For some tips to help consumers choose safe toys and to help them
keep children safe when they play with toys, see the General Toy
Safety Tips.

Approximately 21 units of the recalled Monkey Glockenspiel were
sold in Canada.

The recalled glockenspiel was sold from November 2015 to January
2016 at select Toy Stores in Canada.

Manufactured in Israel.

Distributor: KHS America
             Mt. Juliet
             Tennessee
             UNITED STATES

Importer: Stortz Toys
          Toronto
          Ontario
          CANADA


SUNTRUST MORTGAGE: Faces "Felix" Suit in Ga. Over Contract Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Felix f/k/a Sarah M. Ellis, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons v. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc.,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00066-WCO (N.D. Ga., April 5, 2016), arises out
of the Defendant's alleged breach of contract.

Suntrust Mortgage, Inc. provides mortgage solutions for first-time
homebuyers and homeowners in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam L. Hoipkemier, Esq.
      Matthew Q. Wetherington, Esq.
      THE WERNER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      2142 Vista Dale Court
      Atlanta, GA 30084
      Telephone: (770) 866-0898
      Facsimile: (855) 873-2090
      E-mail: adam@wernerlaw.com
              matt@wernerlaw.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey W. DeLoach, Esq.
      Kevin Edward Epps, Esq.
      FORTSON BENTLEY & GRIFFIN, P.A.
      Building 200, Suite 3A
      2500 Daniell's Bridge Road
      Athens, GA 30606
      Telephone: (706) 548-1151
      E-mail: jwd@fbglaw.com
              kee@fbglaw.com

         - and -

      Naveen Ramachandrappa, Esq.
      Steven Rosenwasser, Esq.
      BONDURANT MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP
      1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W.
      3900 One Atlantic Center
      Atlanta, GA 30309-3417
      Telephone: (404) 881-4151
      E-mail: ramachandrappa@bmelaw.com
              rosenwasser@bmelaw.com


SUSHI STUDIO: Faces "Yang" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Angie Yang, an individual, DER JULIE YANG, an individual,
individually and on behalf of themselves and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Sushi Studio, LLC and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. BC615123 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 4, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the California Labor Code.

Sushi Studio, LLC owns and operates a restaurant located at 4917
E. Pacific Coast Highway, Long Beach, CA 90804.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C. E. Kimberly Lind, Esq.
      KO LEGAL, INC.
      100 Oceangate, 12th Floor
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 628-5548
      Facsimile: (714) 242-1590
      E-mail: Kim@KO-Legal.com


TARGA RESOURCES: TRC/TRP Merger Suit Ongoing in Texas State Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Targa Resources Partners LP continues to defend a class action
lawsuit related to the TRC/TRP merger deal.  Targa 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 date  to answer or otherwise respond to the state court
lawsuit related to the Merger was set for February 29, 2016.

On December 16, 2015, two purported unitholders of TRP (the "State
Court Plaintiffs") filed a putative class action and derivative
lawsuit challenging the TRC/TRP Merger against Targa Resources
Corp., TRP (as a nominal defendant), TRP GP, the members of the
board of our general partner (the "TRP GP Board") and Merger Sub
(collectively, the "State Court Defendants"). This lawsuit is
styled Leslie Blumberg et al. v. TRC Resources Corp., et al.,
Cause No. 2015-75481, in the District Court of Harris County,
Texas, 234th Judicial District (the "State Court Lawsuit").

The State Court Plaintiffs allege several causes of action
challenging the TRC/TRP Merger. Generally, the State Court
Plaintiffs allege that (i) the members of the TRP GP Board
breached express and/or implied duties under the TRP partnership
agreement and (ii) TRC, our general partner, and Merger Sub aided
and abetted in these alleged breaches of duties. The State Court
Plaintiffs further allege, in general, that (a) the premium
offered to TRP's unitholders was inadequate, (b) the TRC/TRP
Merger did not include a collar to protect TRP unitholders from
decreases in TRC's stock price, (c) the TRP GP Board agreed to
contractual terms that allegedly may have dissuaded other
potential acquirers from seeking to acquire TRP (including the
"no-solicitation," "matching rights," and "termination fee"
provisions), (d) the process leading up to the TRC/TRP Merger was
unfair and (e) the TRP GP Board has conflicts of interest due to
TRC's control of our general partner.

Based on these allegations, the State Court Plaintiffs sought to
enjoin the State Court Defendants from proceeding with or
consummating the TRC/TRP Merger unless and until the TRP GP Board
adopted and implemented processes to obtain the best possible
terms for TRP common unitholders. The State Court Plaintiffs now
seek to have the TRC/TRP Merger rescinded. The date  to answer or
otherwise respond to the State Court Lawsuit was set for February
29, 2016.


TARGA RESOURCES: 2 Unitholders Sue in S.D. Tex. Over Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------
Targa Resources Partners LP 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 on January 6 and
19, 2016, two purported unitholders of TRP (the "Federal Court
Plaintiffs") filed two putative class action lawsuits challenging
the disclosures made in connection with the TRC/TRP Merger against
TRP and the members of the TRP GP Board (the "Federal Court
Defendants"). These lawsuits have been consolidated as In re Targa
Resources Partners, L.P. Securities Litigation, Consolidated C.A.
No. 4:16-cv-00041, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (the "Federal Court
Lawsuits").

The Federal Court Plaintiffs allege that (i) the Federal Court
Defendants have violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder and (ii) the members of the TRP
GP Board have violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The
Federal Court Plaintiffs allege, in general, that the preliminary
and definitive joint proxy statements/prospectuses filed in
connection with the TRC/TRP Merger fail, among other things, to
disclose allegedly material information concerning (i) the TRP GP
Conflicts Committee's financial advisor's and TRC's financial
advisor's analyses in connection with the TRC/TRP Merger, (ii)
certain TRC and TRP projections, and (iii) the events leading up
to the TRC/TRP Merger. The Federal Court Plaintiffs further
allege, in general, that (a) the premium offered to TRP's
unitholders was inadequate, (b) the TRC/TRP Merger did not include
a collar to protect TRP unitholders from decreases in TRC's stock
price, (c) the TRP GP Board agreed to contractual terms that
allegedly may have dissuaded other potential acquirers from
seeking to acquire TRP (including the "no-solicitation," "matching
rights," and "termination fee" provisions), (d) the process
leading up to the TRC/TRP Merger was unfair and (e) the TRP GP
Board has conflicts of interest due to TRC's control of our
general partner.

Based on these allegations, the Federal Court Plaintiffs sought to
enjoin the Federal Court Defendants from proceeding with or
consummating the TRC/TRP Merger unless and until the Federal Court
Defendants disclosed the allegedly omitted information summarized
above. The Federal Court Plaintiffs now seek to have the TRC/TRP
Merger rescinded. The Federal Court Plaintiffs also seek damages
and attorneys' fees.

One of the Federal Court Plaintiffs sought a Temporary Restraining
Order ("TRO") to prevent the Federal Court Defendants from
proceeding with the TRC/TRP vote and/or merger. On January 29,
2016, this Plaintiff was denied his request for a TRO.

The date for the Federal Court Defendants to answer, move to
dismiss, or otherwise respond to the Federal Court Lawsuits has
not yet been set.

Neither the State Court Defendants nor the Federal Court
Defendants (collectively, the "Defendants") can predict the
outcome of these or any other lawsuits that might be filed
subsequent to the date of the filing of this report, nor can
Defendants predict the amount of time and expense that will be
required to resolve such litigation. Defendants believe these
lawsuits are without merit and intend to defend vigorously against
these lawsuits and any other actions challenging the TRC/TRP
Merger.


TARGA RESOURCES: Settlement of ATLS Merger Suit Has Final Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Targa Resources Partners LP 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
granted final approval of the settlements in the consolidated
lawsuits related to the merger of Targa Resources Corp. ("Targa,"
"Parent" or "TRC"); and Atlas Energy, L.P., a Delaware limited
partnership ("ATLS") and Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., a Delaware
limited partnership ("APL").

Between October and December 2014, five public unitholders of APL
(the "APL Plaintiffs") filed putative class action lawsuits
against APL, ATLS, APL GP, its managers, Targa, the Partnership,
the general partner and MLP Merger Sub (the "APL Lawsuit
Defendants"). These lawsuits were styled (a) Michael Evnin v.
Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common
Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; (b) William B. Federman
Family Wealth Preservation Trust v. Atlas Pipeline Partners, L.P.,
et al., in the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma (the
"Tulsa Lawsuit"); (c) Greenthal Living Trust U/A 01/26/88 v. Atlas
Pipeline Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; (d) Mike Welborn v. Atlas Pipeline
Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania; and (e) Irving Feldbaum v. Atlas Pipeline
Partners, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas for Allegheny
County, Pennsylvania, though the Tulsa Lawsuit has been
voluntarily dismissed. The Evnin, Greenthal, Welborn and Feldbaum
lawsuits have been consolidated as In re Atlas Pipeline Partners,
L.P. Unitholder Litigation, Case No. GD-14-019245, in the Court of
Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the "Consolidated
APL Lawsuit").

In October and November 2014, two public unitholders of ATLS (the
"ATLS Plaintiffs" and, together with the APL Plaintiffs, the
"Atlas Lawsuit Plaintiffs") filed putative class action lawsuits
against ATLS, ATLS GP, its managers, Targa and GP Merger Sub (the
"ATLS Lawsuit Defendants" and, together with the APL Lawsuit
Defendants, the "Atlas Lawsuit Defendants"). These lawsuits were
styled (a) Rick Kane v. Atlas Energy, L.P., et al., in the Court
of Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania and (b) Jeffrey
Ayers v. Atlas Energy, L.P., et al., in the Court of Common Pleas
for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the "ATLS Lawsuits"). The ATLS
Lawsuits have been consolidated as In re Atlas Energy, L.P.
Unitholder Litigation, Case No. GD-14-019658, in the Court of
Common Pleas for Allegheny County, Pennsylvania (the "Consolidated
ATLS Lawsuit" and, together with the Consolidated APL Lawsuit, the
"Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits"), though the Kane lawsuit has been
voluntarily dismissed.

The Atlas Lawsuit Plaintiffs alleged a variety of causes of action
challenging the Atlas mergers. Generally, the APL Plaintiffs
alleged that (a) APL GP's managers have breached the covenant of
good faith and/or their fiduciary duties and (b) Targa, the
Partnership, the general partner, MLP Merger Sub, APL, ATLS and
APL GP have aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of the
covenant of good faith and/or fiduciary duties. The APL Plaintiffs
further alleged that (a) the premium offered to APL's unitholders
was inadequate, (b) APL agreed to contractual terms that would
allegedly dissuade other potential acquirers from seeking to
acquire APL, and (c) APL GP's managers favored their self-
interests over the interests of APL's unitholders. The APL
Plaintiffs in the Consolidated APL Lawsuit also alleged that the
registration statement filed on November 19, 2014 failed, among
other things, to disclose allegedly material details concerning
(i) Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated's analysis of the
Atlas mergers; (ii) APL and the Partnership's financial
projections; and (iii) the background of the Atlas mergers.

Generally, the ATLS Plaintiffs alleged that (a) ATLS GP's
directors have breached the covenant of good faith and/or their
fiduciary duties and (b) Targa, GP Merger Sub, and ATLS have aided
and abetted in these alleged breaches of the covenant of good
faith and/or fiduciary duties. The ATLS Plaintiffs further alleged
that (a) the premium offered to the ATLS unitholders was
inadequate, (b) ATLS agreed to contractual terms that would
allegedly dissuade other potential acquirers from seeking to
acquire ATLS, (c) ATLS GP's directors favored their self-interests
over the interests of the ATLS unitholders and (d) the
registration statement failed to disclose allegedly material
details concerning, among other things, (i) Wells Fargo
Securities, LLC, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, and
Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.'s analyses of the Atlas mergers;
(ii) the Partnership, Targa, APL, and ATLS' financial projections;
and (iii) the background of the Atlas mergers.

Based on these allegations, the Atlas Lawsuit Plaintiffs sought to
enjoin the Atlas Lawsuit Defendants from proceeding with or
consummating the Atlas mergers unless and until APL and ATLS
adopted and implemented processes to obtain the best possible
terms for their respective unitholders. The Atlas Lawsuit
Plaintiffs also sought rescission, damages, and attorneys' fees.

The parties to the Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits agreed to settle
the Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits on February 9, 2015. In general,
the settlements provide that in consideration for the dismissal of
the Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits, ATLS and APL would provide
supplemental disclosures regarding the Atlas mergers in a filing
with the SEC on Form 8-K, which ATLS and APL did on February 11,
2015.

The Atlas Lawsuit Defendants agreed to make such supplemental
disclosures solely to avoid the uncertainty, risk, burden, and
expense inherent in litigation and deny that any supplemental
disclosure was or is required under any applicable rule, statute,
regulation or law.

On January 21, 2016, the Court granted final approval of the
settlements in the Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits and dismissed the
Consolidated Atlas Lawsuits with prejudice.


THOR MOTOR: Recalls Hurricane and Windsport 2014 Models
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 9, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorhome
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Structure
Units affected: 17
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016114TC
ID number: 2016114
Manufacturer recall number: RC0000112

Certain motorhomes may have part of the exhaust pipe running too
close to a vehicle storage compartment. The exhaust should have a
heat shield in this area, as without one, the heat would not be
properly dissipated around the exhaust of the vehicle. This would
increase the risk of melting and/or a fire, which could result in
injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will install
a heat shield to protect the storage compartment.

  Make                Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----                -----        ----------------------
  THOR MOTOR COACH    HURRICANE    2014
  THOR MOTOR COACH    WINDSPORT    2014


TOYOTA: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Defective Airbag
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 2, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Airbag
Units affected: 400124
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016103TC
ID number: 2016103
Manufacturer recall number: SRC241 & SRC242

On certain vehicles, the passenger (frontal) airbag inflator could
produce excessive internal pressure during airbag deployment.
Increased pressure may cause the inflator to rupture, which could
allow fragments to be propelled toward vehicle occupants,
increasing the risk of injury. This could also damage the airbag
module, which could prevent proper deployment. Failure of the
passenger airbag to fully deploy during a crash (where deployment
is warranted) could increase the risk of personal injury to the
seat occupant. Note: This recall supersedes recalls 2013113,
2014224, 2015197 and 2015269. Correction: All vehicles having not
received a replacement inflator as part of the previous recall
will now have a replacement inflator installed by dealers. For
Matrix model vehicles, dealers may replace the front passenger
airbag assembly with one equipped with a newly specified inflator.

  Make        Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----        ----         ----------------------
  TOYOTA     COROLLA       2003
  TOYOTA     TUNDRA        2003
  TOYOTA     SEQUOIA       2002
  TOYOTA     MATRIX        2003
  LEXUS                    2002


TOYS R US: "Roldan" Suit Seeks Damages for Injuries Under TCCWNN
----------------------------------------------------------------
Christina Roldan, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Toys R Us, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01929-SDW-LDW (D.N.J., April 6, 2016),
seeks damages for injuries occurring from Defendant's unsafe
products, pursuant to the statutory and common law standards, and
the New Jersey's Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice
Act (TCCWNN).

Defendant's Terms and Conditions allegedly purport to deprive
Plaintiffs of legal rights to pursue a remedy for harms arising
from Defendant's tortious acts. Similarly, the Terms and
Conditions purport to absolve Defendant of its responsibility to
refrain from creating an unreasonable risk of harm to consumers
and protecting against the unlawful acts of third parties.

Toys R Us is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business located at Wayne, New Jersey. The Company is operates a
chain of retail stores and websites under the names Toys R Us and
Babies R Us.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Avi Naveh, Esq.
          NAVEH LAW
          32-02 Norwood Dr.
          Fair Lawn, N.J. 07410
          Telephone: (646) 881 4471
          Facsimile: (661) 430 4471
          E-mail avi@navehlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          E-mail: NYJG@aol.com
                  danalgottlieb@aol.com


TRANSILVANIA TRADING: Updates Pistachio Products Recall
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 10, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Transilvania Trading (Pirate Joe's)
Distribution: British Columbia
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10464

The Food Recall Warning issued earlier has been updated to include
additional product information. This additional information was
identified during the Canadian Food Inspection Agency's (CFIA)
food safety investigation.

Transilvania Trading is recalling Trader Joe's brand pistachios
from the marketplace due to possible Salmonella contamination.
Consumers 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.

Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled
but can still make you sick. Young children, pregnant women, the
elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract
serious and sometimes deadly infections. Healthy people may
experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting,
nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea. Long-term complications may
include severe arthritis.

There have been no confirmed illnesses in Canada associated with
the consumption of these products.

This recall was triggered by a recall in the United States by
Wonderful Pistachios and may be associated with an outbreak in the
United States. The recall by the company is published on the
website of the United States Food and Drug Administration (USFDA).
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         ---
  -----    ------                 ----------
  Trader   50% Less Salt  16 oz   BEST IF USED    1509123256501
  Joe's    Roasted &      (1 lb)  BY 2016 OCT 28
           Salted         454 g
           Pistachios
                                  BEST IF USED    1509123256401
                                  BY 2016 OCT 28
                                  BEST IF USED    1509123256601
                                  BY 2016 OCT 29
                                  BEST IF USED    1510123307101
                                  BY 2016 NOV 03
                                  BEST IF USED    1510123307201
                                  BY 2016 NOV 04
                                  BEST IF USED    1510123307301
                                  BY 2016 NOV 04  0011 1348

  Trader  Dry Roasted &   16 oz   BEST IF USED    1509123256101
  Joe's   Unsalted        (1 lb)  BY 2016 OCT 27
          Pistachios      454 g
                                  BEST IF USED    1509123256201
                                  BY 2016 OCT 28
                                  BEST IF USED    1509123256301
                                  BY 2016 OCT 28  0007 9990
  Trader  Dry Roasted &   16 oz   BEST IF USED    1509123259901
  Joe's   Salted          (1 lb)  BY 2016 OCT 28
          Pistachios      454 g
                                  BEST IF USED    1509123260001
                                  BY 2016 OCT 28
                                  BEST IF USED    1509123260101
                                  BY 2016 OCT 29
                                  BEST IF USED    1510123294901
                                  BY 2016 NOV 03


UNITED PET: Recalls Top FinTM Power Filters
-------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 1, 2016
Posting date: March 1, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Electrical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-57300

This recall involves five models of Top FinTM Power Filters.  The
models included in this recall are Top Fin Power Filters 10, 20,
30, 40 and 75.  The filters are black with a trapezoid shaped top
and were sold exclusively at PetSmart.  The words "TOP FIN" are
molded into the top of the filter.  The filters were also sold as
part of Top Fin 5.5 and 10 gallon LED aquarium kits.

The filters are UL certified.

A conductor on the pump motor can become exposed and electrify the
aquarium water, posing a shock hazard to consumers.
Neither United Pet Group nor Health Canada has received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
these products in Canada or in the United States.

Approximately 3,294 units of the recalled products were sold
exclusively by PetSmart in Canada; and approximately 155,000 of
the recalled products were sold in the United States.

The recalled products were sold from September 2015 to December
2015 in both Canada and in the United States.

Manufactured in the United States.

Manufacturer: United Pet Group Inc.
              Earth City
              UNITED STATES


UKROP'S HOMESTYLE: Recalls Turkey, Pork, and Beef Products
----------------------------------------------------------
Ukrop's Homestyle Foods, a Richmond, Va. establishment, is
recalling approximately 2,881 pounds of turkey, pork, and beef
products that may be contaminated with extraneous materials, the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced.

The ready-to-eat turkey, pork, and beef items were packed on April
1 and 2, 2016, and exhibit sell-by dates of April 4 and 5, 2016.
The following products are subject to recall:

  --- 185.02-lb. of individually packaged 9.25 OZ "ROASTED TURKEY
      & COLBY JACK PINWHEELS."
  --- 161.82-lb. of individually packaged 9.25 OZ "BLACK FOREST
      HAM & PROVOLONE PINWHEELS."
  --- 153.70-lb. of individually packaged 9.25 OZ "ANGUS ROAST
      BEEF & CHEDDAR PINWHEELS."
  --- 821.76-lb. of 41OZ trays of "HONEY HAM & HONEY TURKEY
      PINWHEEL TRAY."
  --- 806.40-lb. of 41OZ trays of "HONEY TURKEY & HAVARTI
      PINWHEEL TRAY."
  --- 752.64-lb. of 41OZ trays of "HONEY HAM & SWISS PINWHEEL
      TRAY."

The products subject to recall bear establishment numbers "EST.
19979" and "P-19979" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These
items were distributed to retail locations in North Carolina,
Virginia, and West Virginia.

The problem was discovered on April 4, 2016, when Ukrop's
Homestyle Foods received notice from their distributor of the
recall involving Roland(R) Fire Roasted Red Pepper Strips.  (See
FDA press release here.) The red pepper strips were recalled by
Roland Foods, LLC on April 1, 2016, due to the possible presence
of glass fragments in the product.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. FSIS has received no additional
reports of injury or illness from consumption of these products.
Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a
healthcare provider.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to
the place of purchase.


UTOPIA HOME: Faces "Manigault" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Manigault, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Utopia Home Care Inc. and Susan Lutes, Case No. 2:16-
cv-01036-RMG (D.S.C., April 4, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are in the business of offering a range of home
care services such as live-in aides, home health aides, nurse
services, and in home therapy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marybeth E. Mullaney, Esq.
      MULLANEY LAW
      321 Wingo Way, Suite 201
      Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
      Telephone: (800) 385-8160
      Facsimile: (800) 385-8160
      E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net


VIVO BRAND: Recalls Sexual Enhancement Products Due to Sildenafil
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 7, 2016
Posting date: March 7, 2016
Type of communication: Advisory
Subcategory: Drugs, Natural health products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product withdrawal, Important Safety Information
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-57436

Vivo Brand Management Inc. is recalling more natural health
products promoted for sexual enhancement: Forta for Men Daily,
Forta Xpload and Durazest For Men Volume. As in previous recalls,
these products may contain an undeclared drug: sildenafil.
Sildenafil is a prescription drug that should only be used under
the supervision of a health-care practitioner and may pose serious
health risks.

Health Canada is in the process of suspending all affected product
licences given the inclusion of prescription drug ingredients.

Products affected:
  --- Forta for Men Daily (NPN 80054633), available in bottles of
      30 capsules.
  --- Forta Xpload; Durazest For Men Volume; X-Delite Volumizer
      (NPN 80035218), available in bottles of 60 capsules and
      blister packs of 2 capsules.

Consult with your doctor if you have used this product and have
health concerns.

Report any adverse events to Health Canada.

Consumers who have bought or used Forta for Men Daily, Forta
Xpload and Durazest For Men Volume, particularly those with heart
conditions.

Products containing sildenafil can only be sold pursuant to a
prescription. Products containing sildenafil or its analogs (very
similar substances) should never be used by individuals taking any
kind of nitrate drug (e.g. nitroglycerine) as it can cause
potentially life-threatening low blood pressure.

Individuals with heart problems including high blood pressure, a
history of heart attack, stroke, abnormal heart beat or chest pain
are at higher risk of cardiovascular side-effects if they use
sildenafil and engage in sexual activity. Other possible side-
effects of using sildenafil include headache, facial flushing,
indigestion, dizziness, abnormal vision and hearing loss.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/nK91qF


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Violated Franchise Law, Napleton Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Napleton Orlando Imports, LLC, d/b/a Napleton's Volkswagen of
Orlando, an Illinois limited liability company, Napleton Sanford
Imports, LLC d/b/a Napleton's Volkswagen of Sanford, an Illinois
limited liability company, and Napleton Automotive Of Urbana, LLC
d/b/a Napleton Volkswagen of Urbana, a Florida limited liability
company, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., a
New Jersey Corporation, VW Credit, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
Volkswagen AG, a German corporation, Robert Bosch, LLC, a Michigan
limited liability company, and Robert Bosch GmbH, a German
corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-04071 (N.D. Ill.,
April 6, 2016), seek damages and injunctive relief under
applicable state franchise protection laws.

The lawsuit arose due to Defendants alleged discrimination against
dealers in favor of others, or force dealers to use their own
affiliates for related business.

Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells
automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company
operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and is based in
Herndon, Virginia.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (708) 628 4949
          Facsimile: (708) 628 4950
          E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com
                  steve@hbsslaw.com
                  toml@hbsslaw.com


WORLD WRESTLING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Royalty Payments
----------------------------------------------------------
Rene Goguen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-
00542-SRU (D. Conn., April 6, 2016), is brought on behalf of all
individuals who have not received contractually owed royalty
payments from World Wrestling Entertainment ("WWE") for certain
content that has been sold or licensed by the WWE on the World
Wrestling Entertainment Network ("WWE Network") and on Netflix.

World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that
organized, operated and promoted entertainment featuring
professional wrestling.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brenden P. Leydon, Esq.
      TOOHER WOCL & LEYDON, L.L.C.
      80 Fourth Street
      Stamford, CT 06905
      Telephone: (203) 324-6164
      Facsimile: (203) 324-1407
      E-mail: BLeydon@tooherwocol.com

         - and -

      Clinton A. Krislov, Esq.
      Matthew T. Peterson, Esq.
      KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
      20 N. Wacker Dr., Suite 1300
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 606-0500
      Facsimile: (312) 606-0207
      E-mail: clint@krislovlaw.com
              matthew@krislovlaw.com






                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 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  * * *