CAR_Public/160419.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, April 19, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 78


                            Headlines


ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Rosen Prepares Amended Class Action Complaint
ADVANCED INSTRUCTIONAL: Sued Over Sales Tax on Non-taxable Items
AERIE PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Action in New Jersey Ongoing
ALEXANDER, IL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Pension Contributions
ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Deadlines in "Dibbs" Suit Extended

AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT: Sued in NY Over Alleged Contract Breach
AMTRAK: Two Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion Denied
B&G FOODS: Court Dismissed Labeling Claims
BARCLAYS PLC: Still Faces Actions Over High-Frequency Trading
BARCLAYS PLC: Appeal by Debt Securities Class Pending

BARCLAYS PLC: Settlement of EURIBOR Case Awaits Final Approval
BARCLAYS PLC: Settlement of Securities Fraud Suit Still Pending
BIG 5 SPORTING: Court Granted Final Approval of "Duran" Action
BOB EVANS: Settlement of Employee Suit Has Final Approval
BP PLC: Faces Class Action Over Retirement Plan

BP RETIREMENT: Sued in Texas Over Retirement Plan Conversion
CAREER EDUCATION: "Brunk" Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida
CARNIVAL CORP: Faces Civil Rights Suit Over Cuba Cruises
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement in "Ford" Case Awaits Approval
CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement in Ford-Rodriguez Case Has Final OK

CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Finalizing Settlement in "Wright" Case
CITIMORTGAGE INC: "Kester" Wrongful Foreclosure Suit Dismissed
CLIFFS NATURAL: June 30 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
COOLEST COMPANY: Class Action Mulled Over Cooler Delivery Delays
CVS HEALTH: Faces "Siegel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Suit Over Spansion Merger Ongoing
DDY INC: "Mohn" Plaintiffs Granted Over $19,000 in Atty Fees
DECEUNINCK: 1st Cir. Refuses to Review Class Certification Denial
DETROIT, MI: Public School Restructuring Debate Resumed Amid Suit
DIAGEO PLC: Calif. Jude Dismisses Beer Labeling Suit

DOORDASH: Faces Calif. Suit Over Price Mark-Up in Deliveries
DUKE ENERGY: Deadline to File Claims in Class Action Passes
EBIX INC: Still Defends Remaining Claims in Stockholder Action
EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Former Art School Teachers Sue Over Wages
ERNEST SUPPLIES: Falsely Marketed Products, "Assis" Suit Claims

EVO INC: Employees File Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
FELTEX: Colin Carruthers to Pursue Suit Over Prospectus
CASCADE MICROTECH: Shareholders Sue Over FormFactor Merger
FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Inmates Sue Over Inappropriate Photos
FRESH MARKET: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action

GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Defective Ignition Switch Case
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIV: Former Students Sue Over Online Program
GIGINO INC: April 26 Conference in "Espinoza" FLSA Suit Set
HARTFORD ARCHDIOCESE: Sues Insurer Over Sex Abuse Settlement
HEALTH CARE SERVICE: Court Narrows Claims in "Craft" Suit

HEALTH NET INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held in March
HOLMES FAMILY: Faces "De Arcos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
IMPRIVATA INC: Faces Securities Class Action
JEFFERSON ASSOCIATES: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
KAYCO KENOVER: Faces "Quhshi" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Settlement of Oregon Suit Has Final Okay
KS INDUSTRIES: Faces "Esparza" Class Suit in California
KY MEDS INC: Faces ARcare Suit in E.D. Arkansas
LAURENCE ROSSIGNOL: Islamic Fashion Comment Sparks Class Action
LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Hearing Held in Suit Over Sales Projections

LEV ATO: Faces "Disimile" Suit in New Jersey Over Contract Breach
LOS ANGELES, CA: Lawyers Sue Over "Tax Agent" Fees
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: MoFo Wins Bench Trial in Flooring Suit
LUNA ROSSA: Faces "Bautista" Class Suit in E.D.N.Y.
MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Judge Narrows Suit Over Stadium Nets

MEDFISHER LLC: Faces ARcare Class Suit in E.D. Ark.
MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE: Faces "Verma" Suit Over Automated Calls
M H RESTAURANT: John Arsena Files a Labor Lawsuit in E.D.N.Y.
MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: "Spector" belVita False Ad Suit Dismissed
MONEYGRAM INT'L: Delaware Securities Litigation Still Open

MP818 CORP: Faces "Robinson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Aware of Helmet Design Inadequacies, Suit Claims
NIBCO INC: Albrizios May Intervene in Products Liability Suit
NONGSHIM CO: Aug. 17 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
OHIO: Disability Advocacy Group Opposes Class Action

OOMA INC: Faces "Harrison" Class Action in Calif. Super. Ct.
OPHTHALIX INC: Can-Fite Defending Against Class Action
PAUL MICHAEL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Wexler" Action Claims
PFIZER INC: Appeals Court Revives Shareholder Class Action
PFIZER INC: Updates on Canada Suits Related to Chantix/Champix

PFIZER INC: Updates on Actions Related to Reglan
PNC FINANCIAL: $32.3M Settlement in "Montoya" Has Final OK
PONDER ENVIRONMENTAL: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Action Says
PORSCHE SE: Court Sends Investor Suits to Celle Appellate Judges
PORTAL HEALTHCARE: Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in Insurance Suit

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY: Court Narrows IBEW's Claims
QUAKER OATS: Faces Class Action Over Maple Syrup Claims
RECKITT BENCKISER: Faces Class Action Over Specific Pain Range
ROLLING FRITO-LAY: Violated Cal. Labor Code, "Montez" Suit Claims
SECURITAS SECURITY: $2.6M Settlement Has Initial Okay

SIRIUSXM: 2nd Cir. Need Guidance on Copyright Issue in Class Suit
SPARK ENERGY GAS: Fails in Bid to Dismiss Customer Suit
ST. JOSEPH HEALTH: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $28MM
STANFORD INTERNATIONAL: July 8 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
SYMMETRY SURGICAL: Claim for Attorney Fees Remains Pending

THYSSENKRUPP WAUPACA: Wisconsin Class Certified, FLSA Class Split
TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces "Staniland" Suit in New Jersey
TREASURY WINE: Maurice Blackburn's Conduct Undermines Class Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Suit Over Safety Practices for $25MM
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Agrees to Extensive Limits on Background Check

ULINE INC: "Myers" Class Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
UNITED STATES: "Adams" Suit Over Student Loans May Proceed
UNITED STATES: Settles 2002 World Bank Protest Mass Arrest Suit
UNITED STATES: More Class Actions Filed Over Tampon Sales Tax
UNITED STATES: "A. R" Suit Transferred to W. D. of Texas

VETS FIRST: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Messages, Noah's Suit Claims
VIZIO INC: Emerson Scott Files Privacy Class Action in California
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Franchise Dealerships File Class Action
WEIGHT WATCHERS: Securities Litigation Still Pending in N.Y.
WEIGHT WATCHERS: Faces "Roberts" Action in New York

WINDSOR WINDOW: "Ritchie" Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin
WINDSOR WINDOW: "Schiller" Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin
WISCONSIN: Bloomer Gets Largest Settlement in West-Central Region
WISCONSIN: Milton, Edgerton School Districts Get Big Payouts
XYTEX CORP: Three Ontario Families File Suit Over Sperm Donor

* Class Actions Seen as Tool to Force Defective Firearms Recall
* FCC Seeks Comment on Residential Telephone Line Rules
* Securities Class Actions Up in 2015, Smaller Companies Targeted
* US Supreme Court Opens Door to Group Evidence in Class Actions


                            *********


ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Rosen Prepares Amended Class Action Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm on April 13 provided an update to the class action
lawsuit filed on behalf of investors of Advanced Drainage Systems,
Inc.

As lead counsel for Advanced Drainage investors, The Rosen Law
Firm, P.A. has been conducting an investigation of the Company and
preparing an amended complaint on behalf of purchasers of Advanced
Drainage common stock from July 25, 2014 through and including
March 29, 2016.

If you have any information about this case, would like more
information about the case or wish to join the Advanced Drainage
class action, go to the firm's website at
http://www.rosenlegal.com/cases-667.html

You may also contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of
Rosen Law Firm toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


ADVANCED INSTRUCTIONAL: Sued Over Sales Tax on Non-taxable Items
----------------------------------------------------------------
Margaret Basch, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. Advanced Instructional Systems, Inc. d/b/a
Webassign, Case No. 2016-CH-05083 (Ill. Ch. Ct., April 12, 2016),
seeks to stop the Defendant from unlawfully overcharging its
customers by imposing sales tax on products that are non-taxable
under Illinois law, and to obtain redress for all persons injured
by such conduct.

Advanced Instructional Systems, Inc. is a Virginia corporation
that owns and operates a web-based instructional tool that is
marketed to teachers, educational institutions, and academic
publishers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Myles McGuire, Esq.
      Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
      Paul T. Geske, Esq.
      MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
      55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 893-7002
      Facsimile: (312) 275-7895
      E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
              emeyers@mcgpc.com
              pgeske@mcgpc.com


AERIE PHARMACEUTICALS: Class Action in New Jersey Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company
continues to defend a class action lawsuit in New Jersey.

The Company said, "A putative securities class action lawsuit
captioned Kelley et al. v. Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 3:15-cv-03007, was filed against us and certain of our
officers and directors in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on April 29, 2015. An amended complaint was
filed on September 28, 2015 on behalf of a purported class of
persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired our
publicly traded securities between June 25, 2014 and April 23,
2015. The amended complaint asserts claims under the Exchange Act
and alleges that the defendants made materially false and
misleading statements or omitted allegedly material information
during that period related to, among other things, the prospects
of Rocket 1 and RhopressaTM.

"We believe that the claims in the asserted action are without
merit and intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously, and we expect
to incur costs associated with defending the action. In addition,
we have various insurance policies related to the risks associated
with our business, including directors' and officers' liability
insurance policies. However, there is no assurance that we will be
successful in our defense of the action, and there is no assurance
that our insurance coverage, which contains a self-insured
retention, will be sufficient or that our insurance carriers will
cover all claims or litigation costs. At this time, we cannot
accurately predict the ultimate outcome of this matter. Due to the
inherent uncertainties of litigation, we cannot reasonably predict
the timing or outcomes, or estimate the amount of loss, or range
of loss, if any, or their effect, if any, on our financial
statements."

Aerie is a clinical-stage pharmaceutical company focused on the
discovery, development and commercialization of first-in-class
therapies for the treatment of patients with glaucoma and other
diseases of the eye.


ALEXANDER, IL: Sued Over Failure to Pay Pension Contributions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Downs, Sonya Taylor and Chris Kaufman, on behalf of
themselves and all similarly-situated employees v. The County of
Alexander; Chalen Tatum, in his official capacity as a member of
the Board of Commissioners of The County of Alexander; Lamar
Houston, in his official capacity as a member of the Board of
Commissioners of The County of Alexander; Bruce Simms, in his
official capacity as a member of the Board of Commissioners of The
County of Alexander, Case No. 3:16-cv-00411 (S.D. Ill., April 13,
2016), is an action for damages as a result of the Defendants'
failure to pay employees contributions and interest charges to the
LIUNA National (Industrial) Pension Fund.

The County of Alexander is an Illinois County existing and
governed pursuant to the Illinois Counties Code.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James R. Kimmey, Esq.
      CAVANAGH & O'HARA LLP
      Salem Place, Suite 240
      Fairview Heights, IL  62208
      Telephone: (618) 726-2530
      Facsimile: (618) 726-2533
      E-mail: jaykimmey@cavanagh-ohara.com


ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES: Deadlines in "Dibbs" Suit Extended
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARGARET L. DIBB, SHAUNA OVIST, and WENDY
GONDOS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ALLIANCEONE RECEIVABLES MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 14-5835 RJB  (W.D. Wash.), Judge Robert J.
Bryan denied the plaintiffs' emergency motion to compel compliance
with its January 12, 2016 order regarding mailing information for
the class, but granted the motion for extension of the case
deadlines.

Margaret Dibb, Shanua Ovist, and Wendy Gondos filed a class action
seeking relief under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA), the Washington State Consumer Protection Act (CPA), and
the Washington Collection Agency Act (CAA) in connection with
forms used in AllianceOne Receivables Management, Inc.'s attempts
to collect debts arising from returned checks.  A class and two
subclasses have been certified.

On January 12, 2016, the court entered a scheduling order
requiring AllianceOne to provide mailing information for all class
members in a "usable format" no later than February 1, 2016 so
that notice could be sent.

On March 8, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to compel
AllianceOne's compliance with the January 12, 2016 order and a
motion for extension of the case deadlines.  They argued that they
have discovered a number of discrepancies in the notice lists that
AllianceOne sent them when compared with its answers to discovery
requests.  The plaintiffs also argued that the class schedule will
need to be altered and deadlines extended considering the
discrepancies in the class lists and the lists they acquired in
discovery.

Judge Bryan denied the plaintiffs' motion to compel compliance
with the January 12, 2016 order.  The judge pointed out that
AllianceOne was ordered to provide a class list with addresses in
a "useable format," and AllianceOne did so.  While there may be
variations in the lists, Judge Bryan nevertheless found that
AllianceOne has not defied the court's order.

Judge Bryan, however, held that the plaintiffs should be given a
short extension of time, working with the defendant, to advise the
court of appropriate modifications in the case schedule.  The
current mailing deadlines were stricken and the parties were
ordered to file a proposed amended case schedule on or before
April 8, 2016.

A full-text copy of Judge Bryan's March 31, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/EKLk2zfrom Leagle.com.

Margaret Dibb, Shauna Ovist, Wendy Gondos, Plaintiffs, represented
by Beth E Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL
MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC, David Arthur Leen, LEEN & O'SULLIVAN,
Erika L. Nusser -- enusser@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL
LAW GROUP PLLC, Kathleen Sophia Box, LEEN & O'SULLIVAN, Paul
Arons, LAW OFFICE OF PAUL ARONS & Samuel R Leonard, LEONARD LAW.

AllianceOne Receivables Management Inc, Defendant, represented by
Elizabeth K Morrison -- emorrison@gordonrees.com -- GORDON & REES
& Jeffrey Edward Bilanko -- jbilanko@gordonrees.com -- GORDON &
REES.


AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT: Sued in NY Over Alleged Contract Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tristate Cleaning Solutions Inc., and others similarly situated v.
American Development Group LLC, Willoughby Operating Co., LLC, and
John Does 1 to 10, Case No. 601513/2016 (N.Y. Super. Ct., April
14, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for breach of
contract, specifically for failure to pay Tristate $128,475 for
work consisting of removal and disposal of asbestos at properties
located at 213, 223, and 225, Duffield Street, Brooklyn, New York.

American Development Group LLC operates a real estate company
located at 411 Hempstead Turnpike # 200, West Hempstead, NY 11552.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Karl Silverberg, Esq.
      KARL SILVERBERG, P.C.
      320 Carleton Ave., Ste. 6400
      Central Islip, NY 11722
      Telephone: (631) 778-6077


AMTRAK: Two Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion Denied
---------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the federal judge presiding over the Amtrak multidistrict
litigation denied a motion for preliminary settlement class
certification to two plaintiffs injured in the May 2015
derailment.

The plaintiffs, Mark and Nicola Tulk, argued that creating a
settlement class would reduce legal fees incurred by the MDL,
allowing plaintiffs $50 million to $70 million more in recovery of
the maximum $295 million damages allowed by law.

However, U.S. District Judge Legrome Davis of the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania said that such a certification would be premature
because the extent of damages has not yet been determined.

"Amtrak has stated that they are in the process of disseminating
and completing damages questionnaires as a first step to assess
the injuries suffered by each plaintiff," Judge Davis wrote in his
opinion.  "This process is ongoing, and no reasonable estimate of
the damages is possible at this juncture.  Therefore, without any
basis to find that damages exceed the statutory limit, the court
will not resort to broad speculation."

He added that the certification of a settlement class at this
stage of the litigation would not be good for judicial efficiency.

"Of primary importance to this court is facilitating a swift and
efficient process that will work towards a fair and appropriate
result for the victims of this derailment.  Prior judicial
experience has shown that when the parties to an action work
cooperatively together, better results are achieved.  Only one
represented party is in favor of settlement class certification,
the Tulks," Judge Davis said.  "Counsel for nearly all of the
plaintiffs in the MDL have expressed vehement opposition to their
motion. Any current grant of class certification would likely
ensure that this litigation will drag on, raising legal costs and
reducing the funds available to the victims in this matter."

A call to the Tulks' representation, the law firm of Schochor,
Federico and Staton, was not immediately returned.

A major development affecting the cases against Amtrak was the
increase of the maximum combined compensation for injured Train
188 passengers from $200 million to $295 million.

In December, Congress agreed to raise the damages cap, which the
passengers' attorneys had feared would not be enough to adequately
compensate the injured parties.  Even with $95 million increase,
Robert Mongeluzzi, one of the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs in
the case, previously said the combined damages would likely
surpass the new cap.


B&G FOODS: Court Dismissed Labeling Claims
------------------------------------------
B&G Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 2, 2016, that a court has dismissed all
of a class action plaintiff's labeling claims.

B&G Foods has been named as a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit filed by The Weston Firm on behalf of Troy Walker in
August 2015 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The Company said, "The lawsuit alleges that our company has
violated California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair
Competition Law, with respect to the advertising, marketing and
labeling of certain Ortega taco shells. Specifically, the
plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the products are
deceptively marketed because the products are labeled "0g trans
fat" on the front of the package and contain partially
hydrogenated oil. The complaint seeks monetary damages, injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees."

"We have been vigorously defending this lawsuit and believe that
the plaintiff's claims are without merit and that the products are
and have at all times been properly labeled in compliance with
applicable law. We also believe the claims are moot because, among
other things, we began transitioning away from partially
hydrogenated oil in these products before first being contacted by
The Weston Firm and we no longer use partially hydrogenated oil in
these products.

"On February 8, 2016, the court ruled on our motion to dismiss,
dismissing all of the plaintiff's labeling claims and agreeing
with our position that any claim for removal of partially
hydrogenated oil would be moot after B&G Foods has done so.

"Plaintiff's only surviving claims relate to his alleged use of
these products. These claims have been stayed, however, pending
further guidance from the FDA, which has already stated that
companies may continue to use partially hydrogenated oil through
at least 2018. Based upon information currently available, we do
not believe the ultimate resolution of this matter will have a
material adverse effect on B&G Foods' consolidated financial
position, results of operations or liquidity."

B&G Foods manufactures, sells and distributes a diverse portfolio
of branded, high quality, shelf-stable and frozen food and
household products across the United States, Canada and Puerto
Rico.


BARCLAYS PLC: Still Faces Actions Over High-Frequency Trading
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that BPLC and
BCI continue to defend against the class actions related to
Alternative Trading Systems and High-Frequency Trading.

The SEC, the New York State Attorney General (NYAG), the FCA and
regulators in certain other jurisdictions have been investigating
a range of issues associated with alternative trading systems
(ATSs), including dark pools, and the activities of high-frequency
traders. Various parties, including the NYAG, have filed
complaints against BPLC and Barclays Capital Inc. (BCI) and
certain of the Group's current and former officers in connection
with ATS related activities. BPLC and BCI have settled with the
NYAG and the SEC, and BCI continues to provide information to
other relevant regulatory authorities in response to their
enquiries. BPLC and BCI continue to defend against the class
actions.

Background Information

Civil complaints have been filed in the New York Federal Court on
behalf of a putative class of plaintiffs against BPLC and BCI and
others generally alleging that the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by participating in a scheme in which high-
frequency trading firms were given informational and other
advantages so that they could manipulate the US securities market
to the plaintiffs' detriment. These complaints were consolidated
(Trader Class Action) and Barclays filed a motion to dismiss this
action.

In June 2014, the NYAG filed a complaint (NYAG Complaint) against
BPLC and BCI in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (NY
Supreme Court) alleging, amongst other things, that BPLC and BCI
engaged in fraud and deceptive practices in connection with LX,
the Group's SEC-registered ATS.

BPLC and BCI have also been named in a class action by an
institutional investor client under California law based on
allegations similar to those in the NYAG Complaint. This
California class action has been consolidated with the Trader
Class Action.

Also, following the filing of the NYAG Complaint, BPLC and BCI
were named in a shareholder securities class action along with
certain of its former CEOs, and its current and a former CFO and
an employee in Equities Electronic Trading on the basis that
investors suffered damages when their investments in Barclays
American Depository Receipts declined in value as a result of the
allegations in the NYAG Complaint. BPLC and BCI filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint, which the court granted in part and denied
in part. In February 2016, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to
conduct the litigation as a class action.

Recent Developments

In August 2015, the Court granted Barclays' motion to dismiss the
Trader Class Action, and the plaintiffs have chosen not to appeal.
Also in August 2015, the Court granted Barclays' motion to dismiss
the California class action, and later transferred that action to
the Central District of California. The California class action
plaintiffs have filed an amended complaint, which Barclays has
filed a motion to dismiss.

On 1 February 2016, Barclays reached separate settlement
agreements with each of the SEC and the NYAG to resolve those
agencies' claims against BPLC and BCI relating to the operation of
LX for $35m each.

Claimed Amounts/Financial Impact

The remaining complaints seek unspecified monetary damages and
injunctive relief. It is not currently practicable to provide an
estimate of the financial impact of the matters in this section or
what effect that these matters might have upon operating results,
cash flows or the Group's financial position in any particular
period.


BARCLAYS PLC: Appeal by Debt Securities Class Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a decision
is pending in the appeal by the Debt Securities Class, which
appealed the dismissal of their action to the US Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit (Second Circuit).

LIBOR and other Benchmark Civil Actions

A number of individuals and corporates in a range of jurisdictions
have threatened or brought civil actions against the Group in
relation to LIBOR and/or other benchmarks. While several of such
cases have been dismissed and certain have settled subject to
approval from the court, other actions remain pending and their
ultimate impact is unclear.

Background Information

A number of individuals and corporates in a range of jurisdictions
have threatened or brought civil actions against the Group and
other banks in relation to manipulation of LIBOR and/or other
benchmark rates.

USD LIBOR Cases in MDL Court

The majority of the USD LIBOR cases, which have been filed in
various US jurisdictions, have been consolidated for pre-trial
purposes before a single judge in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York (MDL Court).

The complaints are substantially similar and allege, amongst other
things, that BBPLC and the other banks individually and
collectively violated provisions of the US Sherman Antitrust Act,
the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), the US Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and various state laws by
manipulating USD LIBOR rates.

The lawsuits seek unspecified damages with the exception of five
lawsuits, in which the plaintiffs are seeking a combined total in
excess of $1.25bn in actual damages against all defendants,
including BBPLC, plus punitive damages. Some of the lawsuits also
seek trebling of damages under the US Sherman Antitrust Act and
RICO.

The proposed class actions purport to be brought on behalf of
(amongst others) plaintiffs that (i) engaged in USD LIBOR-linked
over-the-counter transactions (OTC Class); (ii) purchased USD
LIBOR-linked financial instruments on an exchange (Exchange-Based
Class); (iii) purchased USD LIBOR-linked debt securities (Debt
Securities Class); (iv) purchased adjustable rate mortgages linked
to USD LIBOR (Homeowner Class); or (v) issued loans linked to USD
LIBOR (Lender Class).

In August 2012 the MDL Court stayed all newly filed proposed class
actions and individual actions (Stayed Actions), so that the MDL
Court could address the motions pending in three lead proposed
class actions (Lead Class Actions) and three lead individual
actions (Lead Individual Actions).

In March 2013, August 2013 and June 2014, the MDL Court issued a
series of decisions effectively dismissing the majority of claims
against BBPLC and other panel bank defendants in the Lead Class
Actions and Lead Individual Actions.

As a result, the:

* Debt Securities Class was dismissed entirely

* claims of the Exchange-Based Class were limited to claims under
the CEA

* claims of the OTC Class were limited to claims for unjust
enrichment and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing.

The Debt Securities Class has appealed the dismissal of their
action to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Second
Circuit). Multiple other plaintiffs in the litigation before the
MDL Court also joined the appeal, which has been briefed and
argued. A decision is pending.

Additionally, the MDL Court has begun to address the claims in the
Stayed Actions, many of which, including state law fraud and
tortious interference claims, were not asserted in the Lead Class
Actions. As a result, in October 2014, the direct action
plaintiffs (those who have brought suits individually rather than
as part of a class action) filed their amended complaints and in
November 2014, the defendants filed their motions to dismiss. In
August 2015, the MDL Court granted in part and denied in part the
motion to dismiss the direct action plaintiffs' claims. Although
the MDL Court dismissed a number of claims on various grounds, a
number of state law claims will proceed to discovery.

In November 2014, the plaintiffs in the Lender Class and Homeowner
Class actions filed their amended complaints. In January 2015, the
defendants filed their motions to dismiss. In November 2015, the
MDL Court granted in part and denied in part the motions to
dismiss these actions, dismissing all claims against BBPLC brought
by the Homeowner Class and reserving judgment with respect to the
claims asserted by the Lender Class. In December 2015, the MDL
Court approved a schedule for litigation of class certification
issues, with the associated discovery beginning in 2016 and
extending through 2017.

Until there are further decisions, the ultimate impact of the MDL
Court's decisions will be unclear, although it is possible that
the decisions will be interpreted by the courts to affect other
litigation, including the actions described further below, some of
which concern different benchmark interest rates.

In December 2014, the MDL Court granted preliminary approval for
the settlement of the remaining Exchange-Based Class claims for
$20m. Final approval of the settlement is awaiting plaintiff's
submission of a plan for allocation of the settlement proceeds
acceptable to the MDL Court.

In November 2015, the outstanding OTC Class claims were settled
for $120m. The settlement is subject to approval by the MDL Court.


BARCLAYS PLC: Settlement of EURIBOR Case Awaits Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the $94
million settlement of the EURIBOR class action remains subject to
final approval.

In February 2013, a EURIBOR-related class action was filed against
BPLC, BBPLC, BCI and other EURIBOR panel banks. The plaintiffs
assert antitrust, CEA, RICO, and unjust enrichment claims. In
particular, BBPLC is alleged to have conspired with other EURIBOR
panel banks to manipulate EURIBOR. The lawsuit is brought on
behalf of purchasers and sellers of NYSE LIFFE EURIBOR futures
contracts, purchasers of Euro currency-related futures contracts
and purchasers of other derivative contracts (such as interest
rate swaps and forward rate agreements that are linked to EURIBOR)
during the period 1 June 2005 through 31 March 2011.

In October 2015, the class action was settled for $94m subject to
court approval. The settlement has been preliminarily approved by
the court but remains subject to final approval.


BARCLAYS PLC: Settlement of Securities Fraud Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the $14
million settlement of the securities fraud class action remains
subject to final approval.

Securities Fraud Case in the SDNY

BPLC, BBPLC and BCI were also named as defendants along with four
former officers and directors of BBPLC in a securities class
action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York in connection with BBPLC's role as a contributor panel bank
to LIBOR. The complaint principally alleged that BBPLC's Annual
Reports for the years 2006 to 2011 contained misstatements and
omissions and that BBPLC's daily USD LIBOR submissions constituted
false statements in violation of US securities law.

In November 2015, the class action was settled for $14m. The
settlement has been preliminarily approved by the court but
remains subject to final approval.


BIG 5 SPORTING: Court Granted Final Approval of "Duran" Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the court
has granted final approval of the settlement in the "Duran" class
action lawsuit.

On September 10, 2014, a complaint was filed in the California
Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, entitled Pedro Duran
v. Big 5 Corp., et al., Case No. BC557154. On October 7, 2014, an
amended complaint was filed. As amended, the complaint alleged the
Company violated the California Labor Code and the California
Business and Professions Code. The complaint was brought as a
purported class action on behalf of certain of the Company's
hourly employees who worked as "warehousemen" in the Company's
distribution center in California for the four years prior to the
filing of the complaint. The plaintiff alleged, among other
things, that the Company failed to pay such employees for all time
worked, failed to provide such employees with compliant meal and
rest periods, failed to properly itemize wage statements, and
failed to pay wages within required time periods during employment
and upon termination of employment. The plaintiff sought, on
behalf of the purported class members, an award of statutory and
civil damages and penalties, including restitution and recovery of
unpaid wages; pre-judgment interest; an award of attorneys' fees
and costs; and injunctive and declaratory relief. The Company
believed that the complaint was without merit. The Company was not
served with the complaint or the amended complaint.

In an effort to negotiate a settlement of this litigation, the
Company and plaintiff engaged in mediation on January 28, 2015. On
April 1, 2015, the parties agreed to settle the lawsuit. On June
22, 2015, the court granted preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement. On October 20, 2015, the court granted final approval
of the settlement.

Under the terms of the settlement, the Company agreed to pay
approximately $1.4 million, which includes payments to class
members, plaintiff's attorneys' fees and expenses, an enhancement
payment to the class representative, claims administration fees
and payment to the California Labor and Workforce Development
Agency. The Company's total payments pursuant to this settlement
have been reflected in a legal settlement accrual initially
recorded in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2014 prior to the
settlement and subsequently adjusted in the first quarter of
fiscal 2015 to reflect the settlement. The Company admitted no
liability or wrongdoing with respect to the claims set forth in
the lawsuit. The settlement constitutes a full and complete
settlement and release of all claims related to the lawsuit.

Big 5 Sporting Goods Corporation is a sporting goods retailer in
the western United States, operating 438 stores and an e-commerce
platform under the "Big 5 Sporting Goods" name as of January 3,
2016.


BOB EVANS: Settlement of Employee Suit Has Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
Bob Evans Farms, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended January 22, 2016, that a court has granted
final approval to the settlement in a class action lawsuit by a
former employee.

In August 2012, a former Bob Evans Restaurant employee filed an
action against the Company in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio, styled David Snodgrass v. Bob Evans
Farms, LLC, Case No. 2:12-cvg-00768 ("Snodgrass"). The lead
plaintiff alleged that the Company violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act by misclassifying assistant managers as exempt
employees and failing to pay overtime compensation during the
period of time the employee worked as an assistant manager. The
plaintiff's complaint requested an unspecified amount of alleged
back wages, liquidated damages, statutory damages and attorneys'
fees. The lead plaintiff sought to maintain the suit as a
collective action on behalf of other similarly situated assistant
managers employed at Bob Evans Restaurants between August 2009 and
present. In December 2013, the Court in Snodgrass granted
conditional certification of those assistant managers that elected
to opt-in to the collective action.

In May 2014, the same plaintiffs' counsel in the Snodgrass matter
filed essentially duplicative claims under the overtime laws of
the State of Ohio and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, styled
Utterback v. Bob Evans Farms, LLC Case No. CV14826909 in the Court
of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio ("Utterback") and Mackin
v. Bob Evans Farms, LLC Case No. 2:14-cv-450 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio ("Mackin"),
respectively. Neither the Utterback nor Mackin proceedings have
been certified for class status at this time.

"While we continue to believe that our assistant managers were
properly classified as exempt from the respective Federal and
State overtime requirements and that we have meritorious defenses
to the claims in each of the Snodgrass, Utterback and Mackin
matters, as previously reported in our Annual Report in Form 10-K
for the fiscal year ended April 24, 2015, in the fourth quarter of
fiscal 2015 we received an unfavorable ruling related to the
Snodgrass litigation and determined a settlement of all three
matters was in the best interest of the Company," the Company
said.

"In connection with the unfavorable ruling, we recorded a charge
of $6,000 in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2015. This expense was
recorded to the Bob Evans Restaurants segment and in the S,G&A
line of the Consolidated Statements of Net Income.

"In June 2015, counsel for all parties attended the second
mediation in the Snodgrass matter in an attempt to resolve each of
the Snodgrass, Utterback and Mackin litigation matters. On July
31, 2015, the Company and counsel for the plaintiffs reached an
agreement in principle to resolve all claims presented in the
Snodgrass, Mackin and Utterback cases for the total sum of up to
$16,500 on a claims made basis.  A Settlement Agreement was
executed by the parties on October 2, 2015, and the Court provided
preliminary approval on October 23, 2015. As a result of the
agreement in principle, we recorded an additional charge of
$10,500 in the first quarter of fiscal 2016. This expense was
recorded to the Bob Evans Restaurants segment and in the S,G&A
line of the Consolidated Statements of Net Income.

"The Court held a Final Approval Hearing on February 18, 2016, and
issued the Final Approval Order on February 26, 2016. The
settlement remains conditioned upon completion of a 30-day appeals
period, without any appeal being filed."


BP PLC: Faces Class Action Over Retirement Plan
-----------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that one former
and one current BP employee filed a proposed class-action lawsuit
against the British oil giant in regards to the company's
retirement plan.

Some 450 BP employees are part of the proposed class.
In their complaint, filed in Houston federal court April 13, the
two plaintiffs based their claims on steps they allege BP took
after it acquired Standard Oil of Ohio (Sohio) in 1987.

Specifically, the plaintiffs alleges BP rejected recommendations
to correct disparities between what the acquired Sohio employee
were promised in pension benefits and what the company's current
calculations say should be distributed to them.  Both plaintiffs
worked for Sohio before BP acquired the company.

According to the complaint, the company rejected those
recommendations even though retired U.S. District Judge Stanley
Sporkin for the District of Columbia, whom BP had tapped as an
ombudsman, had studied the BP retirement plan for three years and
proposed making such corrections.

Peter Steilberg -- psteilberg@mhlseattle.com -- and Philip Meade -
- pmeade@mhlseattle.com -- of Seattle's Merrick, Hofstedt &
Lindsey, and Leander James of Coeur D'Alene, Idaho's James, Vernon
& Weeks, are representing the plaintiffs.

"BP did not disclose the fact that future benefit accruals would
be significantly reduced," Mr. Steilberg said.  The company
"didn't say that you need this better plan to get the same
benefits that they were originally promised," the plaintiff lawyer
added.

BP's press office did not return a call or email for comment about
the lawsuit, Guenther v. BP Retirement Accumulation Plan.
According to the complaint, BP did provide benefits to adjust for
the disparity for higher level executives if being a former Sohio
employee made their pension benefits less rewarding than if they
had worked for BP for the entire time period.  But BP did not
offer such supplemental benefits to its lower level employees.

Nor did BP inform lower level employees that such an adjustment
was necessary to obtain the benefits BP had originally promised,
the complaint alleges.


BP RETIREMENT: Sued in Texas Over Retirement Plan Conversion
------------------------------------------------------------
Fredric A. Guenther and Walton Fujimoto, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. BP Retirement
Accumulation Plan, and BP Corporation North America Inc., Case No.
4:16-cv-00995 (S.D. Tex., April 14, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, specifically by failing to give Plan participants
and beneficiaries timely and sufficient notice about the
retirement plan conversion.

BP Corporation North America Inc. provides petroleum refining
services as well as transportation fuel, heat and light energy,
and petrochemical products.

BP Retirement Accumulation Plan is an employee pension benefit
plan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Steilberg, Esq.
      MERRICK HOFSTEDT LINDSEY PS
      3101 Western Ave, Ste 200
      Seattle, WA 98121
      Telephone: (206) 682-0610
      E-mail: psteilberg@mhlseattle.com


CAREER EDUCATION: "Brunk" Suit Transferred to M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Jasmin Brunk, on behalf of
Herself and other similarly situated v. Career Education
Corporation and Central Credit Services, LLC, Case No. 1:15-cv-
11863, was transferred to the U.S. District Court Middle District
of Florida (Jacksonville). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:16-cv-00440-BJD-MCR to the proceeding.

Career Education Corporation operates postsecondary education
schools that offer bachelor's degree, associate degree and non-
degree programs in career oriented disciplines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Alexander Burke, Esq.
     Daniel J. Marovitch, Esq.
     BURKE LAW OFFICES, LLC
     Suite 9020
     155 N. Michigan Ave.
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Telephone: (312) 729-5288
     Facsimile: (312) 729-5289
     E-mail: aburke@burkelawllc.com
             dmarovitch@burkelawllc.com

        - and -

     David M. Marco, Esq.
     Larry P. Smith, Esq.
     SMITH MARCO, PC, Ste 2100
     20 S Clark St
     Chicago, IL 60601-5924
     Telephone: (312) 546-6539
     Facsimile: (888) 418-1277
     E-mail: dmarco@smithmarco.com
             lsmith@smithmarco.com

        - and -

      Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
      Mary B. Reiten, Esq.
      TERRELL, MARSHALL, DAUDT & WILLIE, PLLC
      Suite 300, 936 N 34th St
      Seattle, WA 98103-8869
      Telephone: (206) 816-6603
      Facsimile: (206) 350-3528
      E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
              mreiten@terrellmarshall.com

The Defendant Career Education Corporation is represented by:

      Terance A. Gonsalves, Esq.
      Carrie Melissa Stickel, Esq.
      Charles Allan Devore, Esq.
      KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
      525 West Monroe Street
      Chicago, IL 60661-3693
      Telephone: (312) 902-5615
      Facsimile: (312) 902-1061
      E-mail: gonsalves@kattenlaw.com
              stickel@kattenlaw.com
              devore@kattenlaw.com

The Defendant Central Credit Services, LLC is represented by:

      Michael D. Slodov, Esq.
      SESSIONS, FISHMAN, NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC
      15 E. Summit St.
      Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
      Telephone: (440) 318-1073
      Facsimile: (216) 359-0049

         - and -

      Morgan Ian Marcus, Esq.
      SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL, LLC
      120 South LaSalle Street, Suite 1960
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 578-0990


CARNIVAL CORP: Faces Civil Rights Suit Over Cuba Cruises
--------------------------------------------------------
Emon Reiser, writing for South Florida Business Journal, reports
that Carnival Corp. customers Amparo Sanchez and Francisco Marty
have sued the Miami-based cruise giant over its recently approved
cruises to Cuba.

The complaint, filed in Miami on April 12, alleges that Carnival
Corp. and its newest cruise line, Fathom, have violated the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 by abiding by a Cuban law that prohibits Cuban-
born individuals from traveling to or from Cuba by ship.

The complaint says Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Marty contacted Fathom
separately in April to make reservations for cruises to the island
nation.  Ms. Sanchez and Mr. Marty were allegedly asked their
nationality because of their accents, and were told that they
could not make a reservation to travel on a Fathom ship to Cuba
because they were born in Cuba, according to the complaint.

Fathom representatives said they have been working on the issue
for months, the complaint said.

The lawsuit follows widespread protests of the ban directed at
Carnival Corp., as the company is expected to begin offering
cruises to Cuba on May 1.

Carnival Corp. is the first American cruise line granted access to
travel to the island nation in more than 50 years.

"There has been a policy change with air travel to Cuba, so we are
hopeful that a similar change can also happen with travel by sea,"
Carnival Corp. said in a statement. "We believe we have a much
better chance in helping to effect that change by working within
the current boundaries of the policy while engaged in an active
commercial agreement."

"It is our strong and sincere hope and intention that in the
future we will be able to travel with everyone," the company
continued. "Of course, it is our policy to obey the regulations
and laws of any of the countries we sail to around the world.  In
our travel around the world, we must comply with the visa, entry
and exit policies of each country. Just like an airline, we cannot
transport guests who do not have the proper credentials or visa
that would allow them to enter the destination country or
countries we plan to visit."

The company said it aims to change the regulation.

"It is our sincere hope that in the future we will be able to
travel with everyone," Carnival Corp. said.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement in "Ford" Case Awaits Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 3, 2016, that the settlement in the
class action by Franchesca Ford awaits the Court's approval.

On January 27, 2014, former store employee Franchesca Ford filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company in San
Francisco County Superior Court, California (the "Ford
Litigation"). The plaintiff claims to represent other similarly-
situated hourly non-exempt employees and former employees of the
Company in California who were employed during the period January
27, 2010 to the present. She alleges violations of California
state wage and hour laws governing vacation pay, meal and rest
period pay, wages due upon termination, and waiting time
penalties, and seeks an unspecified amount in damages.

In March 2014, the Company removed the Ford Litigation to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, San
Francisco Division, and subsequently defeated the plaintiff's
motion to remand the case to California state court. On May 22,
2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle the lawsuit on a
class-wide basis. The settlement would result in the plaintiffs'
dismissal of all claims asserted in the action, as well as certain
related but unasserted claims, and grant of complete releases, in
exchange for the Company's settlement payment. The settlement
currently awaits the Court's approval. The settlement of this
action did not have a material adverse effect on our results of
operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources.


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Settlement in Ford-Rodriguez Case Has Final OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 3, 2016, that a California court on
January 6, 2016, signed the judgment approving the settlement in
the class action lawsuit by Franchesca Ford and Isabel Rodriguez;
and the Company expects this case to be closed during the second
quarter of 2016.

On March 24, 2014, Franchesca Ford and Isabel Rodriguez filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of California, San Diego
Division. The plaintiffs claim to represent other similarly-
situated applicants who were subject to pre-employment background
checks with the Company in California and across the United States
from March 24, 2012 to the present. The lawsuit alleges violations
of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the California Consumer
Credit Reporting and Investigative Reporting Agencies Act. The
plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages.

On September 23, 2014, the Company reached an agreement to settle
the lawsuit on a class-wide basis. The settlement would result in
the plaintiffs' dismissal of all claims asserted in the action, as
well as certain related but unasserted claims, and grant of
complete releases, in exchange for the Company's settlement
payment. On July 7, 2015, the Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement.

"The settlement of this action did not have a material adverse
effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity
or capital resources," the Company said


CEC ENTERTAINMENT: Finalizing Settlement in "Wright" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
CEC Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 3, 2016, that the the parties in the
class action lawsuit by Wiley Wright on November 18, 2015, reached
an agreement to settle the litigation; and a draft of the proposed
settlement agreement and the notice to class members are being
finalized.

On October 17, 2014, former store employee Wiley Wright filed a
purported class action lawsuit against the Company in the United
States District Court, Eastern District of New York, claiming to
represent other similarly-situated salaried exempt current and
former employees of the Company in the state of New York during
the period October 17, 2008, as well as similarly-situated
salaried exempt current and former employees throughout the
remainder of the United States during the period October 17, 2011
to the present. The lawsuit alleges that current and former
Assistant Managers and Senior Assistant Managers were unlawfully
classified as exempt from overtime protections and worked more
than 40 hours a week without overtime premium pay in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The plaintiff
seeks an unspecified amount in damages.

On December 12, 2014, plaintiff moved for conditional
certification of the putative class of employees; the Company
filed its response to this motion on January 19, 2015. On July 16,
2015, the Court granted conditional certification of a collective
group that included only the Assistant Managers and Senior
Assistant Managers who worked in the four New York stores where
plaintiff worked during his employment with the Company, while
permitting plaintiff to obtain further discovery from the Company
relating to his original motion.

"The settlement would result in the plaintiffs' dismissal of all
claims asserted in the action, as well as certain related but
unasserted claims, and grant of complete releases, in exchange for
the Company's settlement payment. Upon execution of the settlement
agreement, the parties will submit the agreement to the Court for
preliminary approval. The settlement of this action did not have a
material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial
position, liquidity or capital resources," the Company said.


CITIMORTGAGE INC: "Kester" Wrongful Foreclosure Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned David A. Kester, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CitiMortgage, Inc.;
CR Title Services, Inc.; and Does 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants,
No. CV-15-00365-PHX-NVW (D. Ariz.), Judge Neil V. Wake granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss David Kester's amended class action
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.

Kester filed a putative class action on behalf of foreclosed
homeowners for statutory damages under A.R.S. Section 33-420(A),
which penalizes persons claiming an interest or lien in real
property for recording a document "knowing or having reason to
know that the document is forged, groundless, contains a material
misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid . . . "  The
statute imposes a penalty of $5,000 for each document.

Kester alleged that three documents relating to the trustee's sale
of his house were recorded in violation of the statute because
they were acknowledged before a notary whose commission had been
revoked ten days earlier.  Kester also alleged that this defect in
acknowledgment affected hundreds or perhaps thousands of other
documents, and statutory penalties could run into the millions of
dollars.

Judge Wake pointed out that A.R.S. Section 33-420(A) requires
materiality for a penalty.  However, the judge found that the
acknowledgment defect in the documents relating to the trustee's
sale of Kester's property was immaterial to Kester as it could not
have affected his choice of action as the owner/trustor.  Further,
Judge Wake also found that, even apart from the immateriality to
the plaintiff of the acknowledgment defect, the acknowledgments
were fully validated under the governing recording statutes and
the Deed of Trust Act after having been recorded for one year and
when the property passed to a purchaser for value and without
notice.

A full-text copy of Judge Wake's March 31, 2016 order is available
at http://is.gd/tpLAZDfrom Leagle.com.

David A Kester, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew S Friedman --
afriedman@bffb.com --  Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC,
David N Lake, Law Offices of David N Lake & Patricia Nicole
Syverson -- psyverson@bffb.com --  Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman &
Balint PC.

CitiMortgage Incorporated, CR Title Services Incorporated,
Defendants, represented by Christopher S Comstock --
ccomstock@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Lauren Elliott Stine,
Quarles & Brady LLP,Lucia Nale -- lnale@mayerbrown.com --  Mayer
Brown LLP & Thomas V Panoff -- tpanoff@mayerbrown.com --  Mayer
Brown LLP.


CLIFFS NATURAL: June 30 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY OF
THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY AND ITS

DIVISION OF INVESTMENT, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

           v

CLIFFS NATURAL RESOURCES INC.,
JOSEPH CARRABBA, LAURIE BRLAS,
TERRY PARADIE, and DAVID B. BLAKE,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:14-cv-1031
Judge Dan Aaron Polster
Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Parker

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND CERTIFICATION
OF SETTLEMENT CLASS; (ii) PROPOSED SETTLEMENT with individual
defendants; (III) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (IV) MOTION FOR AN AWARD
OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO:
All persons and entities who or which purchased Cliffs Natural
Resources Inc. ("Cliffs") common stock from March 14, 2012 through
March 26, 2013, inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period") and were
damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class"):

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, that the above-captioned
litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class action on
behalf of the Settlement Class, except for certain persons and
entities who are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition
as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class
Action and Certification of Settlement Class; (II) Proposed
Settlement with Individual Defendants; (III) Settlement Hearing;
and (IV) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement
of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Lead Plaintiff in the Action, The
Department of the Treasury of the State of New Jersey and its
Division of Investment, on behalf of itself and the other members
of the Settlement Class, has reached a proposed settlement of the
Action with defendants Terrance Paradie, Joseph Carrabba, Laurie
Brlas, and David Blake (the "Settling Defendants") for $84,000,000
in cash (the "Settlement").  If the Settlement is approved by the
Court, it will resolve all claims in the Action.

A hearing will be held on June 30, 2016 at 12:00 p.m., before the
Honorable Dan Aaron Polster at the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio, Carl B. Stokes United States
Court House, Courtroom 18B, 801 West Superior Avenue, Cleveland,
Ohio 44113-1837, to determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement
should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether
the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against the Settling
Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with Individual Defendants
dated March 10, 2016 (and in the Notice) should be granted; (iii)
whether the proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair
and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Counsel's application for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of Litigation Expenses
should be approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund.  If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at Cliffs
Securities Litigation, c/o A.B. Data, Ltd., P.O. Box 173003,
Milwaukee, WI  53217, by toll-free phone at (866) 778-1167, or by
email at info@CliffsSecuritiesLitigation.com.  Copies of the
Notice and Claim Form can also be downloaded from the website
maintained by the Claims Administrator,
www.CliffsSecuritiesLitigation.com

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than August 8, 2016.
If you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not submit a
proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will
nevertheless be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the
Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than June 9, 2016, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of
the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of Litigation Expenses, must be filed with the Court
and delivered to Lead Counsel and counsel for the Settling
Defendants such that they are received no later than June 9, 2016,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Cliffs, or
Defendants' Counsel regarding this notice.  All questions about
this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to
participate in the Settlement should be directed to the Claims
Administrator or Lead Counsel.

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:

Cliffs Securities Litigation
c/o A.B. Data, Ltd.
P.O. Box 173003
Milwaukee, WI  53217
(866) 778-1167
info@CliffsSecuritiesLitigation.com
www.CliffsSecuritiesLitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
James A. Harrod, Esq.
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
New York, NY 10020
(800) 380-8496

Or

LOWENSTEIN SANDLER LLP
Michael T.G. Long, Esq.
65 Livingston Avenue
Roseland, NJ 07068
(973) 597-2500

Dated:  April 14, 2016

By Order of the Court


COOLEST COMPANY: Class Action Mulled Over Cooler Delivery Delays
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ashlee Clark Thompson, writing for CNET, reports that it's been a
year since Coolest Coolers began heading out the factory door, but
only a third of the folks who backed this project on Kickstarter
have received their coolers.  Now, the manufacturers of what was
at one time Kickstarter's most successful campaign has riled up
its backers even more.

Motherboard reported that the Coolest Company asked backers if
they'd be willing to pay an additional $97 (about GBP68.24 or
AU$126.64) to receive their coolers by July 4, according to a
project update the company sent backers on April 12.  The
additional fee would cover the remaining cost of producing and
shipping the remaining coolers, Coolest founder Ryan Grepper said
in the update.

"Right now we are just gauging interest as the suggestion
initially came from backers," said Susan Towers, Coolest's
marketing director.  "It is just an option -- if a backer doesn't
want to do it, we will still get them their Coolest."

Kickstarter backers were excited about the Coolest Cooler when it
appeared on the crowdfunding site in 2014.  Manufacturers planned
to include a built-in blender, Bluetooth speaker and USB charger
to create "a portable party."  In just 52 days, 62,642 backers
pledged $13,285,226 make the Coolest a reality.

Units began to ship nearly a year ago, but about two-thirds of
backers still haven't received their Coolest.  The company blames
the delays on a combination of underestimating how much it would
actually cost to produce the cooler and a worker strike at a
facility that produced parts of the Coolest.  In December, early
Coolest supporters were upset when the product became available on
Amazon before they received their coolers, a retail effort the Mr.
Grepper now says will help "keep production up and running." In
March, Mr. Grepper wrote in a letter to backers that the company
is looking for investors to help complete outstanding orders.

Many backers have expressed their frustration at the delays and
the prospect of paying more money in the comments section of
Coolest's Kickstarter page.  Some have even discussed filing a
class-action lawsuit against the company.

"Why would I pay 95 more dollars to receive my cooler when my
friend in Chicago got his 6 months ago for the agreed upon price??
I only pray there is a lawyer in this forum who's lining up a
class action lawsuit for all the investors who have clearly been
defrauded," a backer named Chris Salvado wrote.

Ms. Towers said the company has consulted with lawyers and
Kickstarter, and they believe a lawsuit would be challenging
because of Kickstarter's terms of use.  According to the website's
guidelines, "the date listed on each reward is the creator's
estimate of when they will provide the reward -- not a guarantee
to fulfill by that date."

"We believe we are on the right side as we continue to make best-
faith efforts to fulfill the project," Ms. Towers said.  "I would
say to any backer considering (a lawsuit) that we at Coolest are
incredibly grateful for their support when they backed this
project on Kickstarter, and we share their frustration with the
delays that we have experienced."


CVS HEALTH: Faces "Siegel" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Siegel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated under 29 USC 216(B) v. CVS Health Corporation, Case No.
4:16-cv-00320-BP (W.D. Tex., April 11, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

CVS Health Corporation operates a pharmaceutical and healthcare
company located at 1209 Orange Street, Wilmington, DE 19801.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Siegel, Esq.
      SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
      10440 N. Central Expy. Suite 1040
      Dallas, TX 75231
      Telephone: (214) 706-0834
      E-mail: msiegel@msiegellaw.com

         - and -

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      Jay Forester, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
      1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 749-1400
      Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
      E-mail: info@l-b-law.com


CYPRESS SEMICONDUCTOR: Suit Over Spansion Merger Ongoing
--------------------------------------------------------
Cypress Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2,
2016, for the fiscal year ended January 3, 2016, that the Company
still defends a class action related to the merger with Spansion.

After the announcement of the Merger with Spansion Inc.
("Spansion") in December 2014, two separate putative class action
complaints (Walter Jeter v. Spansion Inc., et. al. (No.
114CV274635) and Shiva Y. Stein v. Spansion Inc., el. al. (No.
114CV274924)) were filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court,
alleging claims of breach of fiduciary duty against the Spansion's
board of directors and naming Cypress as a defendant for aiding
and abetting the alleged breach of fiduciary duty. While Cypress
believes these lawsuits to be meritless, Spansion and Cypress
entered into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs, the
terms of which required additional disclosures by the Company and
payment of nominal attorneys' fees to the class counsel. Final
resolution of these litigations will require court approval of a
final settlement agreement.  Due to the current stage of the
proceedings, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the range of
possible loss, if any.


DDY INC: "Mohn" Plaintiffs Granted Over $19,000 in Atty Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned TERESE MOHN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GEOFFREY
GOLL, ESQ., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:15CV0476 (N.D. Ohio),
Judge Benita Y. Pearson granted in part the plaintiffs' motion for
attorney's fees and costs.

On March 11, 2015, Terese Mohn and Thomas Mohn filed a putative
class action against Geoffrey Goll, Esq. and DDY, Inc., Ohio,
consumer debt collectors for Salem Community Hospital, alleging
that the defendants violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act (FDCPA) and Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act (OCSPA).

On July 16, 2015, the court approved the plaintiffs' and the
defendants' stipulation for settlement which not only provided
that plaintiffs receive individual compensation, but also provided
for relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 71 for other Ohio
consumers, including injunctive relief.

As prevailing parties, the plaintiffs sought $20,462.50 in
attorney's fees and $400 in costs for the effort expended pursuing
the substantive claims.  The defendants opposed the hourly rates
sought for the plaintiffs' attorney's fees as excessive.  The
defendants also argued that the hours expended in the case are
excessive and include clerical matters which are not compensable.

Judge Pearson awarded the plaintiffs an adjusted lodestar amount
of $19,427.50.  The judge found that the hourly rates of Edward A.
Icove, Esq. ($400) and Daniel J. Myers, Esq. ($225), as well as
the hourly rate for Icove's paralegal ($125), are reasonable and
substantiated by evidence.  However, the judge agreed with the
defendants that Myers should not be compensated for clerical work.
Judge Pearson also deducted time spent by Icove for reviewing
Myers' work without it being apparent that Icove added value to
what Myers had already produced.

As to costs, Judge Pearson concluded that the plaintiffs are
entitled to costs for the filing fee in the amount of $400.

A full-text copy of Judge Pearson's March 31, 2016 memorandum of
opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/hWMYSwfrom
Leagle.com.

Terese Mohn, Thomas Mohn, Plaintiffs, represented by Edward A.
Icove, Icove Legal Group & Daniel J. Myers --
dmyers@myerslawllc.com -- Myers Law.

Geoffrey Goll, DDY, Inc., Defendants, represented by Boyd W.
Gentry -- bgentry@boydgentrylaw.com


DECEUNINCK: 1st Cir. Refuses to Review Class Certification Denial
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Field, writing for Law360, reports that the First Circuit on
April 12 declined to review a Massachusetts federal judge's denial
of class certification for a group of consumers alleging their
Oasis brand wood-plastic composite decks were defective, saying
they hadn't shown the judge's analysis was sufficiently
questionable.

In a brief order turning down their petition for interlocutory
review, the panel said that the consumers hadn't met the
"stringent" requirements for interlocutory review of class action
decisions.

In September, U.S. District Judge Denise J. Casper had denied
certification to a class of owners of homes in Massachusetts,
Minnesota, New York and Oregon where Oasis decks has been
installed, finding their individual issues predominate over common
ones.

The judge said that lead plaintiffs Anthony Pagliaroni, Vicki
O'Brien, Catherine Lynch and John Costello failed to satisfy the
requirements for class certification on three counts because they
were not adequate representatives of the class, their claims were
not typical of other class members, and they did not raise
questions common to all class members "apt to drive resolution of
the litigation."

Judge Casper said the record raised individualized questions of
proof, such as whether an Oasis owner has actually suffered any
injury or if that injury has already been remedied by the Oasis
warranty program.

The decks, made of wood flour, high-density polyethylene and micro
ingredients such as talc, were designed and manufactured by
Deceuninck North America LLC, which licensed the formula for
making the decks from Strandex Corp.  The homeowners claim
Deceuninck used more talc than the formula called for and a brand
of HDPE other than the one recommended by Strandex.

"We are pleased that the court of appeals made what we believe was
the right decision in denying the petition for interlocutory
review and finding that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the
district court's analysis was sufficiently 'questionable,'"
Deceuninck attorney Brian Troyer -- Brian.Troyer@ThompsonHine.com
-- told Law360 on April 12.

The court found that the homeowners' express warranty claims
against Oasis distributor Mastic Home Exteriors Inc. were not
common to the class because determining which representations by
Mastic formed the basis of the bargain with each plaintiff would
require individual proof, since the products were sold through a
multitiered distribution system.

The homeowners' implied warranty claims against Mastic and
Deceuninck suffered from similar problems, the court said, noting
that "whether a particular Oasis deck fails ordinary expectations
for use is not a common question susceptible to classwide proof or
determination."

The court rejected the homeowners' argument they were typical of
the class because they all bought Oasis decks that later split or
cracked, noting that most class members have not reported problems
with their decks and those who had reported problems had accepted
warranty payments, which the named plaintiffs had not.

For the same reasons, the court found the lead plaintiffs to be
inadequate representatives for the proposed class.

The lead plaintiffs are four homeowners who had Oasis decks
installed between 2006 and 2008 and later noticed cracking,
splitting and other problems. They sued Mastic and Deceuninck in
2012, claiming their decks were damaged due to a defect in the
formula for Oasis' wood-plastic composite exterior decking
product.

Representatives for the homeowners and Mastic didn't immediately
respond to requests for comment on April 12.

The homeowners are represented by Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP,
Levin Fishbein Sedran & Berman, Halunen Law, Baillon Thome Jozwiak
& Wanta LLP, Audet & Partners LLP and Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca LLP.

Deceuninck North America is represented by Brian Troyer, William
Hubbard -- Bill.Hubbard@ThompsonHine.com -- Mathew Ridings and
Stephanie Chmiel of Thompson Hine LLP.

Mastic is represented by Donald Frederico --
dfrederico@pierceatwood.com -- Gavin McCarthy --
gmccarthy@pierceatwood.com -- Kate R. Isley and Katherine S.
Kayatta of Pierce Atwood LLP.

The case is Anthony Pagliaroni et al. v. Mastic Home Exteriors
Inc. and Deceuninck North America LLC, case number 15-8041, in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.


DETROIT, MI: Public School Restructuring Debate Resumed Amid Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Hanover, writing for World Socialist Web Site, reports that
the debate on the restructuring of the public schools in Detroit,
the poorest big city in America, resumed in the Michigan state
legislature.  No final deal has been reached to determine the
organization of the new district, the extent of school
privatization involved and the role, if any, of an elected school
board.

Underscoring the deplorable conditions in the cash-starved
schools, it was announced April 11 that 12 Detroit Public Schools
(DPS) schools were found to have lead or copper contamination. Bow
Elementary has now shut down its water fountains and begun
supplying bottled water.

Indicative of the tension surrounding the DPS legislation, the
Detroit News ran a commentary by State Representative Tim Kelly,
Republican-Saginaw Township, who chairs the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on School Aid, claiming the state "would be better
off if DPS simply went away."

As part of this intense political jockeying, the DPS school board
-- whose powers have been taken over by the state-appointed
emergency manager -- filed a class action civil rights lawsuit.
The suit demands "compensatory and punitive damages" for the
state's failure to provide a "minimally adequate" education as
required by the Michigan and US Constitutions.

It named as defendants Michigan Governor Rick Snyder, two
Republican state legislators, three former DPS emergency managers
(EMs), as well as a series of principals and vendors recently
indicted on kickback and bribery charges.  Plaintiffs are the
publicly elected school board, several DPS students and their
representatives.  They seek to represent all 58,000 students in
the DPS and the state-run Educational Achievement Authority (EAA)
in Detroit.

With the lawsuit, the Democrats on the school board are posturing
as defenders of the city's school children and hope to pressure
state legislators to restore their powers in the new school
district. This has nothing to do with "restoring democracy" or
protecting the rights of city residents.

Long before the Republican governor usurped elected school boards
in order to accelerate the attack on public education, Democratic-
controlled school boards backed budget cuts, teacher layoffs and
the funneling of contracts to politically connected contractors.

Announcing the suit, attorney Tom Bleakley told a press conference
that he agreed to represent "children in Detroit schools" pro
bono, comparing the educational crisis in Detroit to Flint's water
crisis "on steroids."  Gov. Snyder and former DPS emergency
manager Darnell Earley were, just one day prior, also named in a
Flint lead poisoning class-action suit under federal racketeering
statutes.

Although the political motives of the legal action by the school
board "in exile" are self-serving, the lengthy brief provides a
graphic picture of the wrecking operation directed by a series of
state-imposed emergency managers.

The suit begins by tracing the "precipitous falloff" that has
taken place in DPS student performance under emergency management
since 2011, charging that typical students in Detroit face
overcrowded classrooms, are exposed to non-certified teachers, are
not college- or career-ready at graduation, do not read at grade
level at any point in their K-12 experience, do not learn basic
numeracy and are overall seriously undereducated.

Additionally it cites the now well-documented fact that "the
physical facilities and buildings of the DPS are in a widespread
state of degradation, filth, and unsanitary conditions placing the
health of DPS children at high risk."  It concludes, "All
defendants caused permanent injury to Detroit's children by
creating and pursuing policies that drove down academic
performances such that the children are permanently damaged in
their abilities to pursue a successful adulthood."

In particular, the suit highlights the role of emergency managers
in the destruction of Detroit's facilities for special education
over the course of the last five years.  Nearly 20 percent of the
district's school population are special needs students.  This is
in large part due to the toxic urban environment created by the
auto and related businesses over decades.

Two out of three of the city's centralized locations for disabled
student-parent activities were closed under defendant EM Roy
Roberts.  In 2013 Oakman Elementary/Orthopedic School was closed
as part of his "community schools" initiative.  The suit states
that, "Oakman was in the 90th percentile of capacity.  The school
had all of the required ADA accommodations for students and
special accommodations unique to the school.  Oakman allowed
siblings of disabled students to attend together creating a
vibrant community.  It had received multiple awards."

One of the lawsuit's plaintiffs is Jason Pauling, whose school,
the Detroit Day School for the Deaf, was also closed by EM Roy
Roberts.  The school, opened in 1893, provided classes from pre-K
through Grade 8 in American Sign Language.  Not only was
Mr. Pauling moved from school to school, but as a result of the
closure, Mr. Pauling ended up at the Michigan School for the Deaf
in Flint and now is undergoing testing for lead exposure.

Throughout Detroit, special education students are being forced
into charter schools, often lacking qualified staff to meet their
special needs, the brief states.

Also during Roberts' tenure, the award-winning DPS school for
pregnant girls and young mothers, Catherine Ferguson Academy, was
shut down.  The facility was handed over to a for-profit charter
company run by Democratic Party crony Blair Evans, the brother of
Warren Evans, presently the Wayne County Executive. The event was
celebrated at the time by entire Democratic Party establishment.
The school was closed for good in 2014.

As these school closures and budget cuts were implemented, the
brief points out, there was a growth of outsourcing resulting in
millions of dollars changing hands, often with very little
oversight.

The suit traces the state of Michigan's use of emergency manager
laws to violate both the civil rights of students and to "degrade
the electorate's right to vote."  It details the state conspiracy
to impose emergency manager law Public Act 436, after Michigan
voters defeated the near-identical Public Act 4 by a margin of 53-
47 percent just weeks before, calling the maneuver "stunning in
its evisceration of voting rights."

At the same time as it makes these points, the school board gives
Democrats who imposed these laws a complete pass, despite the fact
that the conspiracy to impose emergency managers on school
districts and cities in Michigan couldn't have taken the first
step without a widespread bipartisan conspiracy.

For example, the suit fails to name Robert Bobb, the DPS's first
emergency manager (2009-11) appointed by Democrat Jennifer
Granholm, as a defendant.  Mr. Bobb was responsible for draconian
cuts to school workers' jobs and benefits and the shuttering of
dozens of schools. Nor does the suit indict Democratic State
Treasurer Andrew Dillon, who played a major role in drafting
PA 4.

Moreover, the lawsuit seeks to conceal the class character of the
attack on publication education in Detroit by claiming it is
driven by racism.  This is aimed at boosting the call for the
return to "local control" to local Detroit Democrats and
presenting the conflict as one of "white Republicans" usurping the
democratic rights of a majority African American city.

School board member Elena Herrada -- who has long been associated
with various pseudo-left organizations that promote identity
politics -- declared at the press conference "This would never
happen in a white district."  Such claims, which are patently
untrue, are aimed at dividing the working class and preventing a
common struggle against the attack on democratic rights.

Moreover, they are designed to politically subordinate workers in
Detroit to the black officials who make up the majority of the
city's long-reigning Democratic Party political establishment. Far
from defending education, various African American Democrats --
from the emergency managers themselves to former mayors, city
council members and school board officials -- have attacked public
education for decades, while reaping the benefits of kickbacks and
other business opportunities.

In an effort to conceal their plans to further destroy public
education, Governor Snyder, Detroit Mayor Michael Duggan,
"transition manager" Steven Rhodes, and the trade unions,
including the Detroit Federation of Teachers, are planning to
restore an elected school board.  That such a move will mean a
"restoration of democracy" is belied by the fact that the school
board's decisions would be overseen by an unelected Financial
Review Commission made of up the direct representatives of the
banks and major corporations.


DIAGEO PLC: Calif. Jude Dismisses Beer Labeling Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that beer drinkers can't sue the
makers of Red Stripe for labeling it as Jamaican style beer though
it's been made in the United States since 2012, a federal judge in
Los Angeles said, dismissing the putative class action without
prejudice.

Aaron Dumas and Eugene Buner sued Diageo-Guinness, claiming they
bought Red Stripe because its label calls it "Jamaican Style
Lager" with "The Taste of Jamaica." They sought class
certification and damages for false advertising, unfair
competition, business law violations and negligent and intentional
misrepresentation.

Red Stripe has been brewed in Jamaica since 1938, and has been
imported to the United States since 1985. Diageo-Guinness's
predecessor bought the rights to Red Stripe in 1993 and moved its
production to the United States in 2012. Today it's made in
Latrobe, Pa., by City Brewing Co.

U.S. District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz dismissed the complaint on
April 6.

"(T)he Court finds that a reasonable customer would not be misled
by the visible packaging into believing that Red Stripe is brewed
in Jamaica with Jamaican ingredients," Moskowitz wrote. "The mere
fact that the word 'Jamaica' and 'Jamaican' appear on the
packaging is not sufficient to support a conclusion that consumers
would be confused regarding the origin and ingredients of the
beer."

The judge cited, among other things, Forschner Group, Inc. v.
Arrow Trading Co., Inc., 30 F.3d 348, 355 (2d Cir. 1994), in which
the Second Circuit held that the phrase "Swiss Army knife" cannot
fairly be read to mean "made in Switzerland."

He concluded: "Plaintiffs cannot state a claim for deception or
misrepresentation based on the Red Stripe bottle labels or
packaging for the 12-packs or 6-packs. However, the Court will
grant plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint to assert claims
based on other facts. If plaintiffs choose to amend their
complaint, they must file their amended complaint within 15 days
of the filing of this order."

The case captioned, AARON DUMAS and EUGENE BUNER, on Behalf of
Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v.
DIAGEO PLC and DIAGEO-GUINNESS USA INC., Defendants., Case No.:
15cv1681 BTM(BLM) (S.D. Cal.).


DOORDASH: Faces Calif. Suit Over Price Mark-Up in Deliveries
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action in
San Francisco claims Doordash marks up the prices of restaurant
food it delivers.


DUKE ENERGY: Deadline to File Claims in Class Action Passes
-----------------------------------------------------------
WLWT5 reports that Duke Energy customers who wish to file a claim
in a class action lawsuit must file by April 13.

The suit alleges that Duke unlawfully charged customers between
2005 and 2008.  Duke asserts that the company did no wrongdoing
and a settlement of $80,875,000 was reached.

The suit claimed that Duke Energy violated state and federal anti-
trust laws based on contracts between a former Duke Energy
subsidiary and certain Duke Energy customers.

Duke Energy agreed to settle the case "to avoid the costs and
uncertainties of continued litigation," the company said.

Under the agreement, up to $25 million will be allocated to Duke
Energy Ohio residential customers who were customers from 2005 to
2008.  Similarly, up to $25 million will be owed to non-
residential customers, such as businesses and government.

Residential customers are expected to receive about $40 each, and
non-residential are expected to receive $200 each.

The company said $8 million will be used to fund energy-related
programs to benefit Duke Energy Ohio customers.  Remaining funds
will be used to pay legal fees, settlement fund distribution costs
and other expenses.


EBIX INC: Still Defends Remaining Claims in Stockholder Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ebix, 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
remaining claims in a class action lawsuit.

On June 6, 2013, the Company was notified that the U.S. Attorney
for the Northern District of Georgia had opened an investigation
into allegations of intentional misconduct that had been brought
to its attention from the pending shareholder class action lawsuit
against the Company's directors and officers, the media and other
sources. The Company is cooperating with the U.S. Attorney's
office.

Following the announcement on May 1, 2013 of the Company's
execution of a merger agreement with affiliates of Goldman Sachs &
Co., twelve putative class action complaints challenging the
proposed merger were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
These complaints name as Defendants some combination of the
Company, its directors, Goldman Sachs & Co. and affiliated
entities.

On June 10, 2013, the twelve complaints were consolidated by the
Delaware Court of Chancery, now captioned In re Ebix, Inc.
Stockholder Litigation, CA No. 8526-VCN. On June 19, 2013, the
Company announced that the merger agreement had been terminated
pursuant to a Termination and Settlement Agreement dated June 19,
2013.

After Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated proceeding,
Lead Plaintiffs amended their operative complaint to drop their
claims against Goldman Sachs & Co. and focus their allegations on
an Acquisition Bonus Agreement ("ABA") between the Company and
Robin Raina.

On September 26, 2013, Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended
Consolidated Complaint. On July 24, 2014, the Court issued its
Memorandum Opinion that granted in large part the Company's Motion
to Dismiss and narrowed the remaining claims. On September 15,
2014, the Court entered an Order implementing its Memorandum
Opinion.

On January 16, 2015, the Court entered an Order permitting
Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended and Supplemented Complaint. On
February 10, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Second
Amended and Supplemented Complaint, which was granted in part and
denied in part in a January 15, 2016 Memorandum Opinion and Order.

The remaining claims are as follows: (i) a purported class and
derivative claim for breach of fiduciary duty by the individual
Defendants for improperly maintaining the ABA as an unreasonable
anti-takeover device; (ii) a purported class claim against the
individual Defendants for breach of the fiduciary duty of
disclosure to the stockholders with respect to the Company's 2010
Proxy Statement and 2010 Stock Incentive Plan, (iii) a purported
derivative claim against the individual Defendants for breach of
fiduciary duty to the Company in causing incentive compensation to
be awarded to themselves and others under the 2010 Stock Incentive
Plan, (iv) a purported class and derivative claim for breach of
fiduciary duty by the individual Defendants in adopting certain
bylaw amendments on December 19, 2014, and (v) a purported class
and derivative claim seeking invalidation of the December 19, 2014
bylaw amendments under Delaware law. Lead Plaintiffs seek
declaratory relief with respect to the 2010 Stock Incentive Plan,
the 2010 Proxy Statement, and the bylaw amendments.

Lead Plaintiffs also seek compensatory damages, interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs. The Company denies any liability and
intends to defend the action vigorously.


EDUCATION MANAGEMENT: Former Art School Teachers Sue Over Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the mounting problems of a for-profit post-secondary education
company got worse after two former teachers filed a class action
in Oakland, Calif. accusing the company of failing to pay a
minimum wage and other unfair business practices.

Marie Daland and Elle Weatherup, former teachers at the Art
Institute of California's San Diego campus, filed suit in Alameda
Superior Court on April 7, claiming the college's parent company,
Education Management Corporation, did not pay them a minimum wage,
provide adequate paid rest periods, compensate for phone use and
violated unfair business practices laws "to reduce compensation
and increase its own profits."

Specifically, the teachers say the company paid them $57 per hour
for time spent in the classroom, but did not pay them for time
spent in course preparation, preparation of lesson plans, office
hours, tutoring and mentoring students, teacher development
courses, attending school events, grading, setting up the
classroom and grading students, according to their 15-page
complaint.

"Course pay failed to compensate class members at all for the many
hours of work that they were required to perform and did perform
outside of classroom time," the adjunct professors say in their
complaint.

Additionally, the school required them to communicate with
students by telephone but did not compensate them for the use of
their cellphones. And although by law the professors should have
been given a paid rest break after every 3 « hours of teaching,
the school frequently required them to consult with students
during their breaks instead.

The two teachers claim the labor code violations are consistent
with Education Management's past disreputable practices.

"Another aspect of that pattern of illegality was its abusive
recruiting practices that lured students into defendant's for-
profit educational programs and then failed to provide requisite
educational services," the complaint says.

The teachers say that Education Management agreed to a $95 million
settlement with the Department of Justice and the Attorney
Generals from 39 states, relating to allegations of using
fraudulent means to recruit and graduate students. The settlement
forced the company to forgive several students loans and reform
its recruiting, admissions, enrollment and counseling services
significantly.

In 2011, Frontline released a documentary called "Educating
Sergeant Pantzke," which brought greater scrutiny to the schools.
The documentary followed Chris Pantzke, who was enrolled at an
online program at the Art Institutes studying photography, before
he realized that he was essentially "throwing away taxpayer
money."

The company, which owns nearly 110 schools throughout four higher
education systems, delisted its stock from the NASDAQ in 2014.

Weatherup also taught at the Art Institute of California's San
Francisco campus.

In addition to class certification, the professors seek a
declaration that the school violated state labor law as well as
back pay for minimum wages and missed breaks, waiting time
penalties and a court order to reimburse the class for the
cellphone use and other expenses.

Neither Education Management's press department nor the
professors' attorney Julian Hammond returned emails requesting
comment by press time.


ERNEST SUPPLIES: Falsely Marketed Products, "Assis" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Assis, individually on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Ernest Supplies LLC, Case No. 505605/2016
(N.Y. Super. Ct., April 11, 2016), arises out of the Defendant's
deceptive and misleading business practices with respect to the
marketing and sale of Ernest Supplies Protective Matte
Moisturizer, Ernest Supplies Cooling Shave Cream, and Ernest
Supplies Soap-Free Gel Face Wash throughout the State of New
York.

Ernest Supplies LLC operates a personal-care company with its
principal place of business in New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
      Joseph Lipari, Esq.
      THE SULTZER LAW GROUP P.C.
      85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
      Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
      Telephone: (845) 483-7100
      Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
      E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com


EVO INC: Employees File Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing for SETTexasRecord.com, reports that three
field hands have filed a class-action lawsuit against their
employers over allegations they weren't paid overtime.

Jerod Hobbs, Ronald Lee, Jordon Arroyo and Arlen Jones filed a
complaint on behalf themselves and all others similarly situated
on March 24 in the Houston Division of the Southern District of
Texas against Evo Inc., Dunedin Enterprise Investment Trust PLC,
Jonathan James Renton Thursby, Maurice McBride, Sam Copeman and
Francis Neill alleging that they failed to pay overtime wages to
their employees.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that during
their employment, they regularly worked for more than 40 hours per
work week but did not receive any compensation or overtime wages.
The plaintiffs holds the defendants responsible because the
defendants allegedly permitted their employees to work more than
40 hours but failed to keep accurate records for all hours worked,
and thus failing to pay them overtime wages.

The plaintiffs seek all damages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages equal to the unpaid wage, interest, all legal fees and any
other relief as the court deems just.  They are represented by
John David Hart of Law offices of John David Hart in Fort Worth.

Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas Case number
4:16-cv-00770


FELTEX: Colin Carruthers to Pursue Suit Over Prospectus
-------------------------------------------------------
LawFuel reports that it's a class action lawsuit that will be
watched by many -- investors and lawyers alike -- as
Colin Carruthers QC pursues the Feltex directors for alleged
failures in their "glossy brochure" prospectus.

The class action is funded by Harbour Litigation, one of the
world's largest litigation funding companies, under a shareholder
suit led nominally by Eric Houghton, who lost the case in the High
Court in 2014.

Former Fay Richwhite banker Tony Gavigan is bankrolling the class
action lawsuit through an investment agreement with London-based
Harbour Litigation Funding, a deal he cemented followoing the 2006
collapse of Feltex, which left investors out of pocket by up to
$40 million as well as destroying shareholder value of around $254
million.

Austin Forbes QC handled the High Court action.

Colin Carruthers and two juniors face five teams of lawyers
representing the former directors, vendors Credit Suisse, and
Credit Suisse First Boston Asian Merchant Partners, as well as the
two brokers that managed the sale, First NZ Capital and Forsyth
Barr.

The High Court judgment of Justice Dobson set a high standard for
the shareholders to establish, finding that the directors of the
failed Feltex had not mislead investors, although there were some
criticisms of the offer document.

A substantial costs award was also made by the Court in favor of
the defendant directors.

Colin Carruthers QC told the court that the Securities Act is a
law to protect consumers and allow them to rely on a prospectus.

"Examination of the prospectus must be through the eyes of the
investors and the focus must be on disclosure," he said. Good
disclosure from those raising capital "is the best protection for
the public."

He said that an email from the vendor showed they saw the failed
company as a lemon to be squeezed.

The Feltex prospectus, he said, was a "glossy" one and nothing
more than "a marketing document more than proper disclosure."

Mr. Carruthers questioned Justice Dobson's judgment on the
company's 2004 results, which showed it had missed its top-line
revenue target but still managed to post a bottom line profit,
which included the reversal of management incentive payments and
the delayed sales.

He described what had been an unprofitable, private equity-owned
company that had turned to the bond market to repay bank debt
before tapping equity investors via the 2004 IPO, only to fail at
the end of 2006.

To underline his argument that the Feltex prospectus was a
marketing brochure that failed to alert potential investors to
"adverse trends" in the business, he cited an email from former
executive director Peter Thomas to a Credit Suisse executive after
the float.  "There's some goodness left in the lemon but we
squeezed most of it out. Not bad for a company that was bankrupt
18 months ago," Mr. Thomas wrote in the email that also featured
in the High Court case.


CASCADE MICROTECH: Shareholders Sue Over FormFactor Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that directors are selling
Cascade Microtech too cheaply through an unfair process to
FormFactor, for $21 a share or $352 million, shareholders claim in
a class action in Multnomah County Court.


FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Inmates Sue Over Inappropriate Photos
----------------------------------------------------------
Tylar Bacome, writing for 10tv.com, reports that a woman arrested
and brought into the Jackson Pike Franklin County Jail is suing
the county in federal court after she said sheriff's deputies at
the jail took inappropriate pictures of her.

Her lawyer says she's not the only one this has happened to so
he's seeking a class action lawsuit.

The 26-year-old woman, who doesn't want to be identified, says in
June 2012 she was arrested in the OSU campus area on charges of
disorderly conduct.

Those charges were eventually dropped. But she says her night in
jail is one she'll never forget.

"The whole thing was just very appalling," she said.

The woman says when she was booked in to the jail, two Franklin
County sheriff's deputies, one man and one woman, had her remove
her clothes so they could take booking photos of her tattoos.

Some of the tattoos were in her private areas, some were not.

"To show the one on my back I had to remove my shirt completely
and put it around my neck so I'm completely naked from the waist
up for them to get my back tattoo," she said.

Her lawyer Andrew Baker says the county violated the woman's 4th
amendment rights by strip searching her and letting male deputies
take nude photos of her.

"It is never ok when a woman is in custody by law enforcement to
be forced to take off her clothes and have her private parts
photographed," Mr. Baker said.

Mr. Baker says the pictures were excessive and unnecessary and
that there are others like his client out there.  So he's pursuing
a class action lawsuit.

"I mean I want them to change their policies and procedures.
Technically if they're going to take photos it's supposed to be
felon or gang members and I am neither," the woman said.

Franklin County Jail Chief Deputy Geoffrey Stobart issued a
written statement about the suit saying "We are contesting this
lawsuit and are confident the court will adjudicate this matter in
our favor."

"I would like for it to not happen to anybody I don't think it's
worth it for women to have to go through anything like that. I
don't think that they should have to be dehumanized like that,"
she said.

Mr. Baker says notices announcing and instructing the class action
lawsuit will go out within four weeks.


FRESH MARKET: Robbins Arroyo Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on April 13
disclosed that it filed a class action lawsuit on April 8, 2016,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (the
"Court") on behalf of the shareholders of The Fresh Market, Inc.
("Fresh Market") against its Board of Directors, Pomegranate
Holdings, Inc., Pomegranate Merger Sub, Inc., Apollo Global
Management, LLC, and Apollo Management VIII, L.P., among others,
for violations of sections 14(d)(7) and (e) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 14d-10 promulgated thereunder.

Fresh Market Is Accused of Granting Differential Consideration to
Defendants and Disseminating a False and Misleading Proxy
Statement

The action arises out of a March 14, 2016 press release announcing
that Fresh Market had entered into a definitive merger agreement
with an affiliate of Apollo Global Management, LLC, whereby
certain funds managed by Apollo Global Management, LLC will
acquire Fresh Market for approximately $1.36 billion (the
"Proposed Acquisition").  The complaint seeks injunctive relief on
behalf of the named plaintiff and all other similarly situated
Fresh Market shareholders (the "Class").  The named plaintiff is
represented by Robbins Arroyo LLP.

The complaint alleges that the Proposed Acquisition is unfair to
the vast majority of Fresh Market shareholders because certain
defendants are expected to receive differential consideration in
violation of section 14(d)(7) of the Exchange Act.  The complaint
further alleges that defendants violated section 14(e) of the
Exchange Act in connection with the Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement on Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Fresh Market stock on, or
prior to, the March 14, 2016 announcement of the Proposed
Acquisition, and wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move
the Court no later than sixty days from April 13, 2016.  If you
wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this
notice or your rights or interests, please contact attorney
Darnell R. Donahue of Robbins Arroyo LLP at 800-350-6003, via the
shareholder information form on our website, or by e-mail at
info@robbinsarroyo.com

Any member of the Class may move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent Class member.

Robbins Arroyo LLP -- http://www.robbinsarroyo.com-- represents
individual and institutional investors in securities class action
lawsuits and shareholder derivative actions.


GENERAL MOTORS: Settles Defective Ignition Switch Case
------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for Law.com, reports that attorneys for
General Motors and plaintiffs' lawyers have reported a settlement
in the third of six bellwether trials in the multidistrict
litigation over defective ignition switches.

In a letter filed on April 7 with Southern District Judge Jesse
Furman, counsel for GM informed the court they have entered into a
confidential term sheet and are working to finalize a settlement
in Yingling v. General Motors, 14-cv-5336.

The filing, by Kirkland & Ellis partners Richard Godfrey and
Andrew Bloomer, came less than a month before jury selection was
to begin in the case brought by Nadia Yingling, the widow of James
Yingling.

James Yingling died in a car crash in 2013, allegedly because of a
defective ignition switch that can, if jostled or bumped, slip to
the "accessory" or "off" position, causing the vehicle to lose
power brakes and steering and possibly prevent air bags from
deploying.

The faulty switches, which led GM to announce a massive recall in
2014 and pay hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation, are
believed to be responsible for hundreds of injuries and a number
of deaths.

GM prevailed in the first two bellwether cases before Furman, the
first in January because of possible perjury by the name
plaintiffs, and the second in March, where a jury found a
defective switch but said it was not the reason why plaintiff
Dionne Spain lost control of her car on an icy New Orleans bridge
in 2014 (NYLJ, March 29).

The next trial is scheduled for July, but that may change, when
Judge Furman holds a telephone conference with GM lawyers, lead
lawyers for plaintiffs and counsel for Nadia Yingling, Victor
Pribanic of Pribanic & Pribanic in White Oak, Pennsylvania.


GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIV: Former Students Sue Over Online Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robin Eberhardt and Joe Konig, writing for GW Hatchet, report that
a group of former students filed a class action lawsuit against
the University over one of GW's online graduate programs.

Four students who received master's degrees from the College of
Professional Studies in security and safety leadership filed a
lawsuit against GW in D.C. Superior Court on April 7.  The
complaint alleges that the students did not receive the
instruction they were guaranteed when they registered for the
program.

The former students are suing GW for unjust enrichment, fraudulent
and negligent misrepresentation, and for allegedly violating the
D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act, according to the
complaint.  The complaint does not name an amount of money the
students to receive -- in class-action suites, a jury determines
payment amounts.

GW markets the online and in-person versions of the program as
identical, the complaint shows, but the former students believe
the education they received was "far inferior, but more costly, to
the in-class program" and forced the students to "fend for
themselves" in learning the material.

The former students are suing on behalf of all students who have
taken the courses or are currently enrolled in the program,
according to the complaint.  Three of the students who filed the
lawsuit graduated from the program in 2012 and paid more than
$28,000 in tuition, and the fourth graduated in 2013 and paid more
than $40,000.

The former students request GW pay back money that they believe GW
received as "disgorgement of unjust profits," and other damages
and fees, according to the document.  They asked for statutory and
punitive damages, in addition to monetary damages for "unjust
profits," according to the complaint.

University spokeswoman Candace Smith said in an email that the
University has not had a chance to respond to the lawsuit in
court.  She said the University cannot comment on specific cases
involving current or former students because of federal privacy
laws.

Ms. Smith said 341 students have graduated with degrees from the
program since GW began offering it in 2009.  She added that "many
have gone onto successful careers in the military, law enforcement
and other government agencies."

"Overall, the program has been successful for many of our
students," she said.

Brice Bradford, David Forman, Casey Schreiber and Kenneth Bell
filed the lawsuit.  Mr. Forman declined to comment, deferring to
his lawyer.  Messrs. Bradford, Schreiber and Bell did not return
requests for comment.

The complaint includes examples of some of the complaints that
students in the course made to instructors in 2012.  In November
of that year, Bradford emailed Lemieux about the program's
quality.

"For what we're paying, it is simply very disappointing, and
perpetually frustrating," Mr. Bradford wrote, according to the
document.

The complaint alleges that the students took classes without
instruction from professors assigned to the class.  It also
alleges that their materials included "often nonsensical
PowerPoint slides pilfered from other instructors' in-class
lessons" for the 12 online courses.

"There remains one crucial difference between the two programs:
the in-class program actually provides instruction, while the
online version does not," according to the complaint.

Students in the program were promised professors who "specialized
in distance learning," but the complaint alleges that instructors
were not qualified to teach online courses.

"The instructors were consistently unresponsive and demonstrated
an unfamiliarity with the subject matter and material," the
complaint reads.

The complaint also states that 11 students who took the course in
2013 wrote a letter to University President Steven Knapp
complaining about the quality of the course.  After Mr. Knapp
received the letter, the dean of CPS called several of the
students and apologized for the dysfunction and offered to make
amends, but GW did nothing to improve the situation, according to
the complaint.

Frederic Lemieux, the program director of the program, said in an
email to students on April 9 that the University does not agree
with the students' allegations in the complaint and will respond
in court, according to a copy of the email obtained by The
Hatchet.

"Please be aware that the University disagrees with these former
students' allegations and does not believe they have any valid
legal claims against GW," Mr. Lemieux said in the email. He
declined requests for further comment on the suit, deferring to
the University.

The complaint lists eight ways GW allegedly misrepresented the
program through advertisements to students, including a claim that
the program is "universally lauded by alumni." The complaint
states that there were no alumni during the time this was
advertised.

Hassan Zavareei -- HassanZavareei@tzlegal.com -- the lawyer for
the former students, said in an email that the classes were a
"fraud and a clear violation of the DC Consumer Protection Act."

"This is an important and serious case because it implicates two
critical issues: national security and online education,"
Mr. Zavareei said. "Factually and legally, however, the case is
quite simple."


GIGINO INC: April 26 Conference in "Espinoza" FLSA Suit Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
An initial conference has been set for April 26, 2016, at 11:20
A.M. in Courtroom 1106, Thurgood Marshal Courthouse, 40 Foley
Square, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Lorna G. Schofield in the
case captioned Gerardo Espinoza, Victor Lopez Avila, Omar Alonso,
and Benjamin Perez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. Gigino Inc., Gigino at Wagner Park LLC, Robert
Giraldi, Josetta Mola, Philip Suarez, Luigi Celentano, John Doe,
EU Restaurant, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-01562 (S.D.N.Y., February 29,
2016).

The case was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.


HARTFORD ARCHDIOCESE: Sues Insurer Over Sex Abuse Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Collins, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Hartford has taken its dispute with
an insurance company to trial, seeking reimbursement of more than
$1 million in payments made to settle sexual misconduct cases
involving priests and minors.

Testimony began on April 8 in a bench trial before U.S. District
Judge Janet Bond Arterton in New Haven.

The case is one of many around the country in which insurance
companies have balked at paying claims related to lawsuits against
church officials seeking to hold them responsible for sexual
assaults of minors by clergy -- accusations that in many instances
date back decades and involve priests who have since died.

A key issue in the Connecticut case and others is whether
insurance companies can deny claims under assault and battery
exemptions in liability policies.  Many policies don't cover
intentional acts, but church officials have argued that they did
not know about the alleged assaults.

The archdiocese sued Interstate Fire & Casualty Co. in 2012,
claiming the Chicago-based insurer breached its policy by refusing
to reimburse the archdiocese for payments made in four settlements
from 2010 to 2012 after previously reimbursing payments made in
other abuse settlements.

"The foregoing activities of Interstate constitute unfair trade
practices, because they offend public policy and they are immoral,
unscrupulous and unethical," the lawsuit states.

Lawyers for the insurer argue in court documents that the
settlements weren't covered by the policies.  A spokeswoman and a
lawyer for Interstate Fire & Casualty declined to comment.

The company has faced lawsuits in other states after refusing to
reimburse church officials for priest abuse settlements.

In a 2014 ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San
Francisco said in a 2014 ruling that Interstate Fire's liability
policy for the Diocese of Phoenix did not cover settlements of
priest sexual abuse cases because of the policy's assault and
battery exception.

The four cases at the center of the Hartford archdiocese lawsuit
involved claims of sexual misconduct against minors in the 1970s
and 1980s.  Two cases involved sexual abuse claims against the
Rev. Ivan Ferguson, who died in 2002 after serving as a church
grammar school principal in Derby and other positions with the
archdiocese.

A spokeswoman and a lawyer for the archdiocese declined to
comment.

The archdiocese has settled many claims of sexual abuse by
priests.  It agreed in 2005 to pay $22 million to 43 people who
said they were sexually abused by priests, including Ferguson.

Elsewhere in the country, the Diocese of Honolulu sued First
Insurance Co. of Hawaii in January for refusing to cover priest
abuse settlements.  And in 2014, the Archdiocese of St. Paul and
Minneapolis sued some 20 insurance companies to try to force them
to cover its liabilities for clergy sex abuse claims.  The lawsuit
was put on hold after the archdiocese filed for bankruptcy last
year in the wake of priest abuse claims.

Interstate Fire & Casualty has since been acquired by Munich,
Germany-based Allianz Group.


HEALTH CARE SERVICE: Court Narrows Claims in "Craft" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ELIZABETH CRAFT et al., Plaintiffs, v.
HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 14 C 5853
(N.D. Ill.), Judge Virginia M. Kendall granted in part and denied,
in part, Health Care Service Corporation (HCSC)'s motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' first amended complaint, and granted the
HCSC's motion to sever the claims of the plaintiffs Landis Seger
and her son, John Doe.

On July 30, 2014, Elizabeth Craft and her daughter, Jane Doe,
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and similarly
situated plaintiffs against HCSC for violations of ERISA based on
the exclusion of residential treatment for mental illness in its
health benefit plan of coverage.

On May 15, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their first amended
complaint, adding four named plaintiffs and also challenging the
HCSC's adoption and application of the Milliman Guidelines in
making "medical necessity" determinations regarding residential
treatment of mental illness where such treatment is covered by the
relevant group health plans.  Counts I and II generally arise from
the validity of blanket RTC exclusions under the Parity Act, while
Counts III through V arise from the allegedly improper application
of the Milliman Guidelines.

HCSC moved to dismiss:

          -- Counts I-V for failing to state a claim upon which
             relief may be granted;

          -- Counts I and II with respect to the plaintiffs
             Landis Seger and her son, John Doe on the ground
             that they lack standing to assert these respective
             claims;

          -- Counts III-V with respect to the plaintiffs Crafts
             and the plaintiffs Bryan Pautsch and his daughter,
             Mary Doe on the ground that they lack standing to
             assert these respective claims;

          -- Counts I and II as moot with respect to the Crafts.

HCSC also filed a motion to sever the Segers' claims.

Judge Kendall denied HCSC's motion to dismiss Counts I and II as
moot and held that Count I remains as far as the allegations
brought by the Crafts and the Pautsches.  The judge dismissed
Counts I and II with respect to the Segers, and dismissed Counts
II-V with respect to the Crafts and the Pautsches.  Judge Kendall
also dismissed the plaintiffs' claims under Sections 1132(a)(3)
and 1132(a)(2) in Counts III and IV.  All dismissals were with
prejudice.

Following the resolution of HCSC's motion to dismiss, Judge
Kendall found that it is no longer true that all of the plaintiffs
have claims arising from the allegedly improper application of the
Milliman Guidelines.  Considering that the plaintiffs have
provided no other argument against severance, Judge Kendall
granted HCSC's motion to sever.

A full-text copy of Judge Kendall's March 31, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/HXcNuKfrom
Leagle.com.

Elizabeth A. Craft, Jane Doe, Plaintiff, represented by D. Brian
Hufford -- dbhufford@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, pro
hac vice, Caroline Elizabeth Reynolds -- creynolds@zuckerman.com
-- Zuckerman Spaeder Llp, pro hac vice, George Freeman Galland,
Jr. -- ggalland@lawmbg.com -- Miner Barnhill & Galland, P.C.,Jason
S. Cowart -- jcowart@zuckerman.com -- Zuckerman Spaeder LLP &
Meiram Bendat, Psych-Appeal, Inc., pro hac vice.

Bryan L. Pautsch, Mary Doe, John Doe, Landis Seger, Plaintiffs,
represented by Caroline Elizabeth Reynolds, Zuckerman Spaeder Llp,
pro hac vice, Jason S. Cowart, Zuckerman Spaeder LLP, Meiram
Bendat, Psych-Appeal, Inc., pro hac vice & D. Brian Hufford,
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP.

Health Care Service Corporation, Defendant, represented by Helen
E. Witt -- helen.witt@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Brian
Patrick Kavanaugh -- brian.kavanaugh@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis LLP,Catherine Morgan Cottle, Kirkland & Ellis Llp & Devon
McKechan Largio -- devon.largio@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis
LLP.


HEALTH NET INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held in March
---------------------------------------------------------------
Health Net, 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 approval hearing
was scheduled for March 11, 2016, in the Military and Family Life
Counseling Program Putative Class and Collective Actions.

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

The Company said, "We are a defendant in three related litigation
matters pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (the "Northern District of
California") relating to the independent contractor classification
of counselors ("MFLCs") who contracted with our subsidiary, MHN
Government Services, Inc., to provide short-term, non-medical
counseling at U.S. military installations throughout the country
under our Military and Family Life Counseling (formerly Military
and Family Life Consultants) program. Plaintiffs in these matters
claim that MFLCs were misclassified as independent contractors
under state and federal law, and are seeking unpaid wages,
overtime pay, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees and interest.
Each of these matters is currently stayed pending final resolution
by the U.S. Supreme Court of our motion to compel arbitration. The
U.S. Supreme Court granted our writ of certiorari on September 30,
2015."

"On December 29, 2015, we entered into a settlement agreement with
all the named plaintiffs in the three related litigation matters
as well as their counsel. Pursuant to the settlement agreement,
plaintiffs filed a separate class action in arbitration that is
intended to resolve each of the federal and state law claims
asserted in the three related litigation matters.

"Under the settlement agreement, we have agreed to a maximum
payment amount to settle all the claims asserted in the three
related litigation matters, and would also pay class counsel
attorneys' fees and costs, related payroll taxes and the costs of
settlement administration. The actual amount that we will be
required to pay under the settlement agreement is dependent on the
final number of eligible individuals who timely file claims. The
claims period closed on February 25, 2016, and a final approval
hearing is scheduled for March 11, 2016.

"If the arbitrator gives final approval to the settlement, we will
withdraw the appeal pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, and the
parties will ask the Northern District of California to dismiss
all three related litigation matters with prejudice. Our
obligations under the settlement agreement are contingent upon the
dismissal of all three related litigation matters, and the amounts
that we would be required to pay pursuant to the settlement
agreement are not material."


HOLMES FAMILY: Faces "De Arcos" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon De Arcos, individually and on behalf of other individuals
similarly situated v. Holmes Family Foods, Inc., The Pancake
Factory No. 2, Inc., and Does 1-25, inclusive, Case No. BC616565
(Cal. Super. Ct., April 11, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Los Angeles
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Young W. Ryu, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF YOUNG W. RYU
      9595 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Facsimile: (800) 576-1170
      Telephone: (888) 365-8686
      E-mail: young.ryu@ywrlaw.com


IMPRIVATA INC: Faces Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------
Imprivata, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company and certain
of its executive officers and directors were named on February 2,
2016, as defendants in a purported securities class action
lawsuit.

The Company said, "The complaint, brought on behalf of all persons
who purchased our common stock between July 30, 2015 and November
2, 2015, generally alleges that we and such executive officers
made false and/or misleading statements about the demand for our
IT security solutions and sales trends and failed to disclose
facts about our business, operations and performance.  Although we
believe this action has no merit and intend to defend it
vigorously, this lawsuit and any future lawsuits to which we may
become a party are subject to inherent uncertainties and may be
expensive and time-consuming to investigate, defend and resolve,
and it may divert our management's attention and financial and
other resources.

Imprivata is a provider of IT security and identity solutions to
the healthcare industry that help providers securely and
efficiently access, communicate and transact patient health
information.


JEFFERSON ASSOCIATES: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Waksman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Jefferson Associates, Case No. 1:16-cv-01733-AMD-PK
(E.D.N.Y., April 12, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Jefferson Associates operates a debt collection firm located at 3
Coral St, Edison, NJ 08837.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan J. Sasson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C.
      2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Telephone: (718) 339-0856
      Facsimile: (347) 244-7178
      E-mail: alan@sassonlaw.com


KAYCO KENOVER: Faces "Quhshi" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yassir (Dave) Quhshi, Faozi (Vinny) Quhshi, Louis (Gabby) Ortiz,
and others similarly situated v. Kayco, Kenover Marketing, Corp.,
Martin Siegel, John Does, and Jane Does  #1 - 10, Case No. 1:16-
cv-01738-AMD-LB (E.D.N.Y., April 11, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a food production company with a
principal executive office and principal place of business located
at 80 29th St, Brooklyn, NY 11232.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patrick J. Boyd, Esq.
      THE BODY LAW GROUP, PLLC
      370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1012
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 867-3675
      Facsimile: (212) 867-5765
      E-mail: pboyd@thebodylawgroup.com


KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Settlement of Oregon Suit Has Final Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Knight Transportation, 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 court in
Oregon has issued final approval of the settlement in the class
action lawsuit by former drivers.

The Company is involved in certain class action litigation in
which the plaintiffs allege claims for failure to provide meal and
rest breaks, unpaid wages, unauthorized deductions and other
items.

The Company is a defendant in a class action lawsuit which was
filed on May 8, 2008, in the California Superior Court for Tulare
County. The plaintiffs, who are current and former drivers and who
worked for the Company during the period of May 8, 2004 through
August 6, 2015, allege claims for failure to provide meal periods,
inaccurate itemized pay statements and other items under the
California Labor Code.  During the second quarter of 2015, the
Company reached a preliminary settlement with the plaintiffs, and
in December 2015, the court issued final approval of the
settlement.

The Company is a defendant in a class action lawsuit that was
filed on June 10, 2010, in the Oregon Circuit Court for Multnomah
County. The plaintiffs, who are current and former drivers who
worked for the Company during the period of June 10, 2004 through
June 10, 2010, allege the Company failed to pay minimum wage for
attending pre-employment orientation and failed to pay minimum
wage for work performed during certain pay periods after the start
of employment.

On July 2, 2015, the court, following a bench trial, issued a
decision finding that the Company failed to pay minimum wage to
some class members for work performed during certain pay periods
and assessed statutory penalties and prejudgment interest related
to the Company's failure to comply with minimum wage obligations.
In the fourth quarter of 2015, the Company reached a preliminary
settlement with the plaintiffs and the current and former drivers
who worked for the Company during the period June 11, 2010 through
September 30, 2015. In December 2015, the court issued final
approval of the settlement.

"As a result of the California settlement and the Oregon decision,
during the second quarter of 2015, the Company accrued a total of
$7.2 million, including the plaintiffs' estimated attorneys' fees
and related costs and excluding attorneys' fees and costs related
to our defense, in our condensed consolidated financial
statements. The Company had previously accrued $0.2 million as of
December 31, 2014 related to these cases," the Company said.


KS INDUSTRIES: Faces "Esparza" Class Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against KS Industries,
L.P

The case is captioned Richard Esparza, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. KS Industries, L.P., Case No.
BCV-16-100776 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 12, 2016).

KS Industries, L.P. operates a construction company located at
6205 District Blvd, Bakersfield, CA 93313.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas Han, Esq.
      JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
      Telephone: (818) 230-7502
      E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com


KY MEDS INC: Faces ARcare Suit in E.D. Arkansas
-----------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against KY Meds Inc. The case is
captioned ARcare, doing business as: Parkin Drug Store, on behalf
of itself and all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. KY
Meds Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00199-KGB (E.D. Ark.,
Little Rock, April 11, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. Kristine
G. Baker.

KY Meds is a pharmaceutical wholesaler servicing two distinct
markets, the hospital market and the retail pharmacy market.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randall Keith Pulliam, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          2800 Cantrell Road, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 321 8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312 8505
          E-mail: rpulliam@cbplaw.com


LAURENCE ROSSIGNOL: Islamic Fashion Comment Sparks Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Friedman, writing for The New York Times, reports that
the Collective against Islamophobia in France (the CCIF) issued a
news release stating that it was bringing a class-action lawsuit
against Minister Rossignol for her statements about Islamic
fashion.

On the surface, the argument is about the trend -- call it that --
among a growing number of fashion brands to offer Islamic, or
"modest" collections.  The spark that seems to have ignited the
flames is the introduction of a "burkini," a full-body swimsuit
consisting of a long-sleeved tunic with integral hood and matching
trousers, by Marks & Spencer.  Though it has been available in
certain international markets for three years, it went online in
February, the latest in a series of such fashion initiatives from
a variety of brands, all of which are now under fire.

In 2014, DKNY created a Ramadan capsule collection of its more
covered-up items (think jumpsuits, ankle-length shirtdresses and
skirts) available in the Middle East.

That was followed the next year by similar ventures from Tommy
Hilfiger and Uniqlo.  Last year H&M featured a model in a head
scarf in its "Close the Loop" sustainable-fashion ad campaign, and
Net-a-Porter devoted a section on its website to what it called a
"Ramadan edit."

And in January, Dolce & Gabbana introduced a collection of floral
print, lace and polka-dot abayas (loosefitting full-length robes)
with matching headscarves sold not only in the Middle East, but
also in select Dolce stores in London, Milan, Munich and Paris.

Which meant that, along with the M&S bathing suit, such
collections were no longer relegated to a specific geographical
niche.  They had penetrated the Western mainstream.

That evolution was largely greeted with applause, with Dolce in
particular getting kudos for its work.  "Why Dolce & Gabbana's
Hijab and Abaya Line Is So Important," read a headline on the New
York magazine website The Cut.  "DKNY Just Launched a Collection
for Ramadan. And It's Beautiful," BuzzFeed cried.

But recently, Laurence Rossignol, the French minister for women's
rights, begged to differ.  "What's at stake is social control over
women's bodies," she said in an interview with BFMTV, the most
popular news network in France.  "When brands invest in this
Islamic garment market, they are shirking their responsibilities
and are promoting women's bodies being locked up."

She then went even further, comparing Muslim women to "consenting
slaves," but later recanted that part of her statement after a
public outcry.  Still, it was as if the floodgates had opened.

Shortly after her remarks, Pierre Berge, the famously tart-tongued
co-founder of Yves Saint Laurent, gave an interview to the radio
station Europe 1 in which he excoriated brands that made clothing
aimed at the Islamic market.

"Creators should have nothing to do with Islamic fashion," he
said.  "Designers are there to make women more beautiful, to give
them their freedom, not to collaborate with this dictatorship
which imposes this abominable thing by which we hide women and
make them live a hidden life."  He then implied that the designers
were exploiting a misogynist system that, for financial gain,
forces women to hide their bodies: "Renounce the money and have
some principles," he said.

Next came a cartoon from the artist Plantu who often works for Le
Monde, which was posted on his Facebook page.  Titled "Dolce &
Gabbana launches a range of hijabs," it depicted two women in
hijabs and abayas, one wearing a belt adorned with sticks of
dynamite and asking, "When will the next fashion belt be out?"

And then the philosopher Elisabeth Badinter, whom the French left
wing weekly Marianne once called the country's "most influential
intellectual," jumped on the bandwagon, calling in the newspaper
Le Monde for a boycott of brands that sell Islamic fashion.

All of this is playing out against a backdrop of increased fear in
Europe.  Though France has had a long history of discomfort with
clothing that demonstrates any religious identity -- banning
headscarves in public schools for both teachers and students,
forbidding public servants from wearing the same, and banning the
niqab (a full-face veil showing only the eyes) entirely in public
-- the garment has remained a lightning rod for the basic argument
about what freedom means when applied to fashion in liberal
society.

On one side are those who say the social contract demands that
everyone eschew symbols of their personal belief systems in
service of the secular collective; on the other, those who insist
that freedom includes the freedom to wear whatever you want (and
sell whatever you want).

It didn't take long for those in the latter camp to attack the
attackers right back.  A new hashtag was spawned,
#rossignolresignation, and the Collective against Islamophobia in
France (the CCIF) issued a news release stating that it was
bringing a class-action lawsuit against Minister Rossignol for her
statements.

Sarah Dundarawy, a Saudi television presenter living in Dubai,
wrote in an email: "I graduated from Boston College in Boston, MA
and did my masters at the London School of Economics in London,
U.K. In general, I dress modestly and when I am in Saudi I wear an
Abaya out of respect for my culture and convenience.  Does that
make me oppressed? Not beautiful? Of course not.  As for the
special collection of Abayas designed by Dolce & Gabbana, I saw it
a nice gesture and an attempt to appeal to a large segment of the
fashion market."

At The New York Times luxury conference in Versailles, Bernard
Kouchner, the founder of Doctors Without Borders and former
foreign minister of France, was asked directly what he thought of
the issue.  He waved his hand and said: "It's a free market.  Let
them wear what they want."

Things have reached something of a standoff.

Pointedly, the brands that started it all have done their best to
stay out of the situation.  None have issued public statements,
though when asked, they are happy to provide anodyne emails from a
"spokesperson."

"H&M is a global fashion company that takes inspiration from all
over the world," one such response said.  "We are proud to be in
61 markets and welcome all people inspired by fashion regardless
of ethnic background, gender or culture."

"M&S provides a wide range of quality swimwear offering our
customers lots of choice," another said.  Dolce & Gabbana simply
said it did not comment on the matter.

It's understandable.  This is a complicated subject at the best of
times, and these are the most fraught of times.  And no brand
wants to alienate a potential shopper.  Yet this silence is also
silly.

The history of fashion is, in many ways, about facilitating
acceptance; creating a bridge between the unfamiliar or the
challenging, be it religious or sexual or gendered or
transgressive, and the everyday.

It is arguably one of the things the sharp point of the industry
does best, whether by transforming underwear into outerwear,
putting women into pants and men into women's wear or otherwise
redesigning the trappings of revolution. (Think of all those fur-
lined military surplus coats.)

It forces confrontation, and by "fashionizing" what was hitherto
seen as foreign, absorbs it, co-opts it and -- to a certain extent
--  defangs it. Whether the motivation is moral or economic, in
the end, the effect may be the same. And that is what matters.

There will be more opportunities to address the issue, because it
is not going away anytime soon.  In May, a new play likely to
reinvigorate the debate is opening in Dijon, France . Written by
Myriam Marzouki and specifically addressing Muslim women and their
personal relationship to the veil, it is entitled "It's Our
business." ("Ce Qui Nous Regarde.")

Perhaps when asked why it created its abaya collection, Dolce &
Gabbana and company might say the same thing.


LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Hearing Held in Suit Over Sales Projections
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that on the heels of a $72-million merger deal, Leapfrog on April
12, tried to kill a class action in San Francisco claiming it
misled investors about dwindling prospects for its children's
educational toys.

Lead plaintiff Abere Newett sued the toymaker in January 2015,
claiming Leapfrog knowingly misstated holiday sales projections by
more than $100 million in 2014.

In a hearing April 11, class attorney Willow Radcliffe told U.S.
District Judge Edward Chen that Leapfrog knew several factors made
its 2014 sales predictions unrealistic: It failed to account for
decreasing consumer demand, inventory sitting idle on retail
shelves, and delays in launching its latest tech toy, LeapTV, she
said.

"LeapTV was considered the marquee product," Radcliffe said.

"They said it would drive holiday sales. They told investors this
is the forecast."

Despite knowing of delays in launching the product, Leapfrog
announced in August that LeapTVs would reach retail stores by the
end of September, but it didn't hit shelves until mid-October.

That didn't seem to hold much weight with the judge.

"I'm not impressed that there are misstatements being made on
inventory of LeapTV shipping," Chen said. "At the end of the day,
it was two or three weeks later than expected. There were
disclosures along the way."

A minor delay in LeapTV shipments was not the reason sales
projections missed their mark, Leapfrog attorney Jordan Eth told
Chen.  Leapfrog also launched two new tablet products, but holiday
sales for children's tablets dropped across the industry for the
first time since 2010, Eth said.

"No one in the entire industry expected such a drastic decline,"
Eth said. "It was a really bad holiday season for Leapfrog and
many other companies in this industry."

Radcliffe replied that Leapfrog announced in June that year tablet
sales were slowing down, and the firm should have factored that
into its forecasts.

"They repeatedly indicated they knew tablet sales were having
issues," she said.

Though she rattled off a series of examples, Chen told Radcliffe
she failed to point to an actual number or projected sales figure
the company knew of but hid or distorted in its forecasts.

"This company makes projections to run its business," Eth told the
judge. "What was wrong with the projections other than they didn't
turn out?"

Eth said the plaintiffs must show the company had actual knowledge
that the forecasts it issued were wrong or misleading, and no such
evidence exists.

"They just say you couldn't make any projections at all," Eth
said. "If we're going to have an accusation that we couldn't
project how we're going to do, what did we not account for?"

Radcliffe claimed that a sustained decline in the company's stock
price from August to November 2014 should have triggered a
recalculation of the firm's goodwill - a monetary measure of the
company's intangible value among the public, which it is required
to represent accurately.

Eth countered that the company expected to bounce back with strong
sales over the holiday season and therefore did not consider a
revaluation of its goodwill necessary at the time.

"The company does goodwill testing at least annually," Eth said.
"It says if the holiday season doesn't turn out well, we may have
to test."

Chen ended the hearing after two hours of debate, giving slight
indications that the investors may lack evidence to prove the
company knew its sales projections were off.

Leapfrog was acquired by another educational toys giant -- VTech -
- in a deal that sparked a series of new lawsuits claiming the
company failed to act in the best interest of investors.

Leapfrog's board of directors "abdicated its duty" by allowing
VTech to acquire Leapfrog for $1 per share, 10 percent less than a
competing offer, investors claimed in a series of securities class
actions filed this year. The merger was completed on
April 4.

In early 2014, Leapfrog stock traded at more than $7 per share,
according to a class action filed by lead plaintiff Pete Manger.

In March, Manger's attorney withdrew a motion for a preliminary
injunction to stop the merger, saying his client would instead
"seek damages and pursue monetary remedies through post-closing
litigation."

Leapfrog had $185.4 million in assets and earned nearly $21
million in profits in the last nine months of 2015, according to
an SEC filing.


LEV ATO: Faces "Disimile" Suit in New Jersey Over Contract Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Disimile, and Daniel Disimile, on behalf of themselves
and those similarly situated v. Lev Ato & Sons, Inc., Simone
Levato, and Mark Sharkey, Case No. L-002143-16 (N.J. Super. Ct.,
April 11, 2016), arises out of the Defendants' alleged breach of
home improvement contract.

Lev Ato & Sons, Inc. is a New Jersey corporation doing business as
a masonry and concrete work contractor with an office in
Morristown, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mariel Mercado-Guevara, Esq.
      THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC
      1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101
      North Brunswick, NJ 08902
      Telephone: (732) 545-7900
      Facsimile: (732) 545-1030
      E-mail: mguevara@wolflawfirm.net


LOS ANGELES, CA: Lawyers Sue Over "Tax Agent" Fees
--------------------------------------------------
Don DeBenedictis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Los Angeles County illegally requires thousands of attorneys
who represent clients with property tax disputes to register as
"tax agents" and pay $250 a year for it, a law firm in Los Angeles
claims in a class action.

Owen Kaye, with Givner & Kaye, sued the county and its Board of
Supervisors on April 7 in Superior Court.

Kaye claims a 2013 county ordinance violates California's State
Bar Act and "contravenes the authority of the California Supreme
Court" by attempting to regulate attorneys.

He claims the ordinance (Chapter 2.165) also violates the due
process, equal protection and takings clauses of the federal and
state constitutions, and the 1996 California ballot measure,
Proposition 218.

The ordinance requires anyone who represents clients in property
tax disputes before the Los Angeles County Assessment Appeals
Board to register as a tax agent, pay a $250 annual fee, plus "an
unlawful processing fee of $5.62."

Thousands of those tax agents are attorneys, Kaye says.

"Plaintiffs have been compelled to register as tax agents in order
to practice law before the assessment appeals board, and have been
compelled to pay unlawful registration and processing fees," the
complaint states. The ordinance "prohibits the practice of law
unless the registration remains current."

Givner & Kaye specializes in estate planning. Kaye declined to
comment. His attorney Robert Pool said many California counties
have special boards to hear property assessment and tax cases, but
Los Angeles is the only one that requires taxpayer representatives
to register and pay a fee.

Neither Pool nor co-counsel Stephen Harris would discuss details
of the lawsuit. But Harris cited a similar case from 1970.

In Baron v. City of Los Angeles, the California Supreme Court held
that attorneys could be required to register as lobbyists "to
appear at hearings considering local legislation in order to argue
for or against the adoption of that legislation."

However, they could not be made to register to engage in duties or
services that may be performed "only by an attorney licensed to
practice law in the State of California."

If a local ordinance tries to regulate the practice of law, "it
invades a field of regulation preempted by state law," the state
Supreme Court ruled.

Owen seeks class certification, declaratory judgment, an
injunction, an accounting, refunds, and damages of $1 million, or
an amount "equal to the unlawful fees paid by plaintiff and the
class on or after March 30, 2105."

Los Angeles County Counsel's office said it had not yet seen the
case and could not comment on it.

Attorney Harris's office is in Woodland Hills; Pool's is in
Bellflower.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: MoFo Wins Bench Trial in Flooring Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for Law.com, reports that a team from
Morrison & Foerster won a bench trial in California state court on
behalf of Lumber Liquidators, which was accused of failing to warn
consumers that 26 of its laminate flooring products contained
cancer-causing formaldehyde.

The stakes were high: The plaintiffs sought multiple billions of
dollars in civil penalties and an injunction to prohibit Lumber
Liquidators from selling its laminate flooring products in
California.

The company stipulated to the formaldehyde exposure, but MoFo
lawyers led by James Schurz argued that consumers were adequately
warned about it.

On April 4, Judge George Hernandez Jr. of Alameda County Superior
Court found that the plaintiffs failed to make their case.

Global Community Monitor, a nonprofit environmental monitoring
group, and Sunshine Park, which promotes awareness of toxic
chemicals, sued Lumber Liquidators in 2014, accusing the company
of failing to meet its disclosure obligation under California's
Proposition 65.  The law gives California residents the right "to
be informed about exposures to chemicals that cause cancer, birth
defects or other reproductive harm."

"People are being unwittingly exposed to formaldehyde through
inhalation on a daily basis, particularly since flooring products
often cover much of the floor area of a home, where children,
adults and the elderly spend most of their time every day for
decades," wrote plaintiffs counsel Richard Drury Michael Lozeau of
Lozeau Drury in the complaint.  "Lumber Liquidators has failed to
provide individuals in the state of California with a 'clear and
reasonable warning' before exposing those individuals to cancer-
causing formaldehyde."

The MoFo lawyers countered that Proposition 65's regulations also
"provide a number of 'safe harbor' methods and messages that are
deemed clear and reasonable as a matter of law."

Since December 2010, they said, all Lumber Liquidator laminate
flooring has included terms and conditions stating that the
product contains chemicals "known by the state of California to
cause cancer or reproductive harm."  Starting in January 2013,
customers had to sign the terms and conditions stating that they'd
read and accepted them.

A year later, Lumber Liquidators supplemented the warnings with
signs on the front doors of its stores, at the cash register and
on the loading docks where consumers pick up their flooring
purchases.

"Collectively, these facts establish that the current Lumber
Liquidators' Proposition 65 warning program is 'clear and
reasonable,'" Mr. Schurz wrote in a motion for judgment.

He also pointed out that the plaintiff's expert, Dr. Dale Griffin,
"gathered no empirical evidence about Lumber Liquidators'
customers' understanding of the warnings at issue. He did not
conduct a consumer survey, interview Lumber Liquidators'
customers, nor did he witness a sales transaction. Indeed, Dr.
Griffin never set foot in a Lumber Liquidators' store to view the
warnings in context."

In a two-page decision, Judge Hernandez ruled that the plaintiff
"failed to sustain its burden of proof to prove that Lumber
Liquidators failed to provide 'clear and reasonable' warnings to
California consumers."

In addition to Mr. Schurz, partner William Tarantino and of
counsel Robin Stafford worked on the case.

According to the firm, MoFo lawyers have won every Proposition 65
case they've ever litigated to judgment, including Environmental
Law Foundation v. Beech-Nut, the largest Proposition 65 food case
to go to trial, and Dowhal v. SmithKline, the first and only
California Supreme Court Proposition 65 decision favoring a
defendant.


LUNA ROSSA: Faces "Bautista" Class Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Luna Rossa Bake Shop, LLC.  The
case is captioned America Perez Bautista, Anastacia Santiago,
Flavia Bautista-Martinez, and Maria Neri, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Luna Rossa
Bake Shop, LLC, doing business as: Luna Rossa, and Vito Cardinale,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01746 (E.D.N.Y., Brooklyn, April
11, 2016).

Luna Rossa is a privately held company located in Staten Island,
New York.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL: Judge Narrows Suit Over Stadium Nets
-----------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Major League Baseball fans were dealt a setback in their quest to
compel the league to install more robust safety netting at all
ballparks, after a federal judge in Oakland, Calif. said she
lacked the authority to force changes nationwide.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on April 8 dismissed a
portion of a class action filed last July, ruling the Northern
District of California lacked jurisdiction to enforce
implementation of safety measures throughout all of Major League
Baseball's major and minor league stadiums.

"Indeed, plaintiffs' theory of liability apparently centers on
each team's negligence in connection with its own stadium netting
and distractions, and its failure to apprise the public of the
risks inherent in attending games in its stadium," Rogers said in
the 12-page ruling. "The negligence claim does not challenge the
mere participation in the sport of baseball, but rather the
stadium conditions and related conduct."

The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate how out-of-state major league
baseball teams contribute to conditions at stadiums locally,
Rogers said.

"Merely playing games in the state against California-based teams
is not sufficient to subject the out-of-state clubs to general
personal jurisdiction within California," she added.

Lead plaintiff Gail Payne, a lifelong avid Oakland A's fan, says
in her class action that she fears for her family's safety when
they sit in their regular seats along the first-base side of the
team's stadium. The league hasn't kept pace with advances in the
game, Payne claims, saying the maple bats have a tendency to
shatter into dangerous shards that sometimes travel into the
stands.

Payne says pitchers throwing harder - coupled with bigger, faster
and stronger players hitting searing line drives into foul
territory where spectators are routinely injured - have rendered
the game more dangerous, necessitating the introduction of safety
netting.

Compounding the problem, Major League Baseball stadiums have
introduced several distractions including Wi-Fi, enormous
Jumbotrons and fan activities that make it more difficult for fans
to concentrate on what's happening on the field, Payne says.

She touts advancements in safety netting that make it nearly
invisible so it won't hinder the fans from seeing the game.

Payne's attorney Robert Hilliard said the recent ruling will not
dissuade his firm from bringing additional suits against teams in
their jurisdictional courts.

"We will continue to pursue the different teams in their home
jurisdictions," Hilliard said. "This issue is such a 'no-brainer'
as MLB now knows, without any doubt, that it could easily and
effectively prevent life threatening injuries or even death by
doing something so simple: Require full netting down both
sidelines."

The league has argued that buying a ticket to a game carries an
assumption of risk, which is spelled out in the fine print on
tickets. Furthermore, the league provided the court with general
statistics that show the incidents of fan injury are low, given
the volume of people that attend over the course of the 162-game
season.

But Rogers handed the plaintiffs a minor victory by ordering
further jurisdictional discovery related the league's fan-injury
statistics, saying general statistics about fan injury were
irrelevant to the plaintiffs' claim. Instead, she told the league
to offer specifics as to the likelihood of an injury to Payne and
others who sit in a specific spot in a specific stadium.

"The data fails to account for the number of games named
plaintiffs will likely attend this season or the risk of injury in
their specific sections of the two stadiums at issue," Rogers
wrote.

Another plaintiff, Robert Gorman, bases his claims on his
experience at a minor-league park in Charlotte, North Carolina,
where the Charlotte Knights plays its home games. Gorman was
struck in the head by a foul ball at the team's former stadium,
and he has written a book about fatalities in baseball.

However, Rogers limited the discovery to fan-injury statistics
from the A's and San Francisco Giants' stadiums only, and only to
the sections in which the named plaintiffs typically sit.

Hilliard is with the firm Hilliard & Munoz. Major League Baseball
is represented by John Keker of Keker & Van Nest, who did not
return an email requesting comment by press time.

The case captioned, GAIL PAYNE, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. OFFICE OF
THE COMMISSIONER OF BASEBALL, ET AL., Defendants., Case No. 15-cv-
03229-YGR (N.D. Cal.).


MEDFISHER LLC: Faces ARcare Class Suit in E.D. Ark.
---------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Medfisher, LLC.  The case is
captioned ARcare, doing business as: Parkin Drug Store on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Medfisher LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00200-BRW (E.D.
Ark., Little Rock, April 11, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon.
Billy Roy Wilson.

Medfisher offers consumers pricing information for prescription
drugs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randall Keith Pulliam, Esq.
          James Allen Carney Jr., Esq.
          Joseph Henry Bates III, Esq.
          CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
          2800 Cantrell Road, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72202
          Telephone: (501) 321 8500
          Facsimile: (501) 312 8505
          E-mail: rpulliam@cbplaw.com
                  acarney@cbplaw.com
                  hbates@cbplaw.com


MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE: Faces "Verma" Suit Over Automated Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Rajesh Verma, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Memorial Healthcare Group, Inc. d/b/a
Memorial Hospital Jacksonville, National Patient Account Services,
Inc., Medicredit, Inc., and HOVG, LLC d/b/a Bay Area Credit
Service, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-00427-HLA-JRK (M.D. Fla., April 12,
2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of placing calls on
consumers' wireless telephone using an automatic dialing system.

The Defendants operate an acute care hospital in Jacksonville,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric Kem, Esq.
      KEM LAW FIRM
      3959 N.W. 27th Lane
      Gainesville, FL 32606
      Telephone: (352) 318-2771
      E-mail: ekem@kemlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Robert W. Murphy, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. MURPHY
      1212 SE 2nd Ave
      Ft Lauderdale, FL 33316
      Telephone: (954) 763-8660
      Facsimile: (954) 763-8607
      E-mail: rphyu@aol.com


M H RESTAURANT: John Arsena Files a Labor Lawsuit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A labor lawsuit has been filed against M H Restaurant Group LLC et
al.  The case is captioned John Arsena, on behalf of himself and
other similarly situated employees, the plaintiff, v. M H
Restaurant Group LLC et al, Case No. 2:16-cv-01546 (E.D.N.Y.,
Central Slip, March 30, 2016).

Mr. Arsena is represented by:

     David R Ehrlich, Esq.
     Debra L. Wabnik, Esq.
     Stagg, Terenzi, Confusione & Wabnik, LLP
     401 Franklin Ave #300
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Telephone: +1 516-812-4500


MONDELEZ INTERNATIONAL: "Spector" belVita False Ad Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thomas M. Durkin granted the defendant's motion to dismiss
the complaint in the case captioned JUDY SPECTOR, on Behalf of
Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. MONDELEZ
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Defendant, No. 15 C 4298 (N.D. Ill.).

Judy Spector brought a false advertising lawsuit on behalf of
herself and a class of nationwide or Illinois consumers, alleging
a violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act (ICFA) (Count I), breach of express warranty (Count
II), and unjust enrichment (Count III), in relation to the belVita
Breakfast Biscuits and belVita Breakfast Bites that were
manufactured by the defendant Mondelez International, Inc.
Spector alleged that the representations made by the defendant on
the products' packaging -- (1) "nutritious steady energy" for
Breakfast Biscuits, and (2) "4 hours of nutritious steady energy"
for Breakfast Bites -- are literally false.

Mondelez sought dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

Judge Durkin dismissed Spector's ICFA claim, finding that Spector
failed to allege facts supporting her claim of actual falsity and
has likewise provided no factual basis for inferring she was
injured by Mondelez's alleged deceptive advertising by not
experiencing the four hours of "nutritious steady energy" promised
on the product's packaging.

Judge Durkin also found that Spector did not allege any facts to
support her claim against Mondelez for breach of warranty.

Consequently, Judge Durkin also dismissed Spector's unjust
enrichment claim because it was predicated on the same allegations
of deceptive advertising as her ICFA and breach of express
warrantly claims.

A full-text copy of Judge Durkin's March 31, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/ZtWeIafrom
Leagle.com.

Judy Spector, Plaintiff, represented by Janine L Pollack --
pollack@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz Llp,
pro hac vice, Michael Liskow -- liskow@whafh.com -- Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz Llp, pro hac vice, Theodore
Beloyeannis Bell -- tbell@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLC, Jayne Goldstein -- jagoldstein@pomlaw.com --
Pomerantz LLP & Perry Evan Gattegno -- pgattegno@pomlaw.com --
Pomerantz Llp.

Mondelez International Inc., Defendant, represented by Dean
Nicholas Panos -- dpanos@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP &
Richard P. Steinken -- rsteinken@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP.


MONEYGRAM INT'L: Delaware Securities Litigation Still Open
----------------------------------------------------------
Moneygram International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company
continues to defend a securities class action lawsuit in Delaware
state court.

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

On May 19, 2015, MoneyGram and the other defendants filed a notice
of removal to the federal district court of the District of
Delaware. On June 18, 2015, the plaintiff filed a motion to remand
the case back to Delaware State Court.

The Company believes that the claims are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against the lawsuit. The Company is unable to
predict the outcome, or the possible loss or range of loss, if
any, related to this matter.

MoneyGram International, Inc. is a global provider of innovative
money transfer services and is recognized worldwide as a financial
connection to friends and family.


MP818 CORP: Faces "Robinson" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lillie Robinson, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. MP818 Corp., KJM18 Group Corp., both d/b/a USA Dry
Cleaners, and Mauricio Mizrahi, Case No. 0:16-cv-60799-WJZ (S.D.
Fla., April 11, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a dry cleaning, pressing, laundry,
and alterations business with multiple locations in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keith M. Stern, Esq.
      Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
      8333 NW 53rd Street, Suite 450
      Doral, FL 33166
      Telephone: (561) 299-3703
      Facsimile: (561) 288-9031
      E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
              hsolis@workingforyou.com


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Aware of Helmet Design Inadequacies, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Chew, writing for Fortune, reports that ex-pro football
players say they have found documents that show the NFL knew
decades ago that the design of football helmets was not enough to
prevent head injuries.

The documents are part of an ongoing class action lawsuit against
Riddell, the former helmet maker for the NFL from 1989 through
2014, as first reported by the New York Post.  The suit involves
about 1,000 former players who claim the company knew about the
risks of head injuries while playing football but hid them from
players.

Riddell has often been accused of marketing its helmets as
adequate protection against concussions, even as reports have
stated otherwise. Engineer Chris Withnall, who has written reports
to Riddell on its helmet performance, was quoted by ESPN as
saying, "No helmet can prevent a concussion.  Full stop."

As a part of the evidence gathering, lawyers and players say they
have discovered a 275-page report from 1970 in the archives of the
National Academy of Sciences that was based on a workshop on
football injuries in 1969.

In an interview with Fortune, Jason Luckasevic, the ex-players'
lead lawyer, provided a link to the document, which lists the NFL
as the funder of the report.  While concussions are not a major
portion of the study, it does state that football equipment
"cannot eliminate [concussions] to an entirely satisfactory
degree."  The authors also call for "possible rule changes" and "a
careful study of the total problem" of head, neck, and spine
injuries.

"Many authorities in sports medicine believe that the cause of
many head injuries is directly related to the design of the
helmet," Dr. Jess Kraus from the University of California at Davis
said in the report.

Mr. Luckasevic told the Post that helmet designs were essentially
unchanged until about five years ago.  "It's vindicating to have
these documents, but also horrifying to know they exist," he said.


NIBCO INC: Albrizios May Intervene in Products Liability Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Tonianne J. Bongiovanni granted the motion filed by Frank M.
Albrizio and Harriet Albrizio to intervene in the case captioned
KIMBERLY COLE, ALAN COLE, JAMES MONICA, LINDA BOYD, MICHAEL
MCMAHON, RAY SMINKEY, JAMES MEDDERS, JUDY MEDDERS, ROBERT PEPERNO,
SARAH PEPERNO, AND KELLY MCCOY, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NIBCO, Inc., Defendant.
FRANK M. ALBRIZIO AND HARRIET ALBRIZIO, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Movants, v. NIBCO, Inc.,
Respondent, Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-07871-FLW-TJB  (D.N.J.).

A putative products liability class action case was filed on
December 27, 2013, bringing breach of express warranty, breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, and various state law claims
against NIBCO, Inc.  The plaintiffs were homeowners who allegedly
purchased three plumbing related products manufactured by NIBCO,
had them installed in their homes by licensed contractors, and
used the products for typical home-plumbing purposes until one or
more of the products failed prematurely, resulting in water damage
to their homes.

The Albrizios sought to intervene in the case as plaintiffs on
behalf of themselves, and similarly situated individuals living in
Florida.  The Albrizios' argued that they have a right to
intervene pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a), but should the court
find otherwise, they should be permitted to intervene pursuant to
Rule 24(b).

Judge Bongiovanni denied the Albrizios' request to intervene as of
right, holding that until a class is certified, the Albrizios have
not demonstrated that their stated interest rises above the "mere
economic interest" of a "generalized nature" that is insufficient
to merit intervention as of right.

Judge Bongiovanni, however, found that the Albrizios meet the
requirements for permissive intervention.  The judge considered
the timeliness of the Albrizios' application, and the existence of
ample common questions of law and fact shared by the Albrizios
with the existing plaintiffs.  Finally, as NIBCO has taken no
position as to whether or not the Albrizios meet the requirements
for permissive joinder, and NIBCO has reserved all rights in
defending against the Albrizios' complaints, the judge concluded
that NIBCO has essentially concluded that they will not be
prejudiced.

A full-text copy of Judge Bongiovanni's March 31, 2016 memorandum
opinion is available at http://is.gd/rEBBUSfrom Leagle.com.

Frank M. Albrizio, Harriet Albrizio, Movants, represented by
HEATHER KREIBEL D'ONOFRIO.

KIMBERLY COLE, ALAN COLE, JAMES MONICA, Plaintiffs, represented by
BENJAMIN F. JOHNS -- benjohns@chimicles.com -- CHIMICLES &
TIKELLIS, LLP, BRUCE DANIEL GREENBERG --
bgreenberg@litedepalma.com -- LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC, JOSEPH
G. SAUDER, CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS, LLP & MATTHEW D. SCHELKOPF --
mds@mccunewright.com -- McCuneWright LLP.

LINDA BOYD, JAMES MEDDERS, KELLY McCOY, SARAH PEPERNO, JUDY
MEDDERS, MICHAEL MCMAHON, RAY SMINKEY, ROBERT PEPERNO, Plaintiffs,
represented by BRUCE DANIEL GREENBERG, LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG,
LLC.

NIBCO, INC., Defendant, represented by JOHN MCGAHREN --
john.mcgahren@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP,
STEPHANIE A. BLAIR, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP & FRANCO A.
CORRADO -- franco.corrado@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN LEWIS &
BOCKIUS LLP.


NONGSHIM CO: Aug. 17 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS

IF YOU PURCHASED KOREAN RAMEN NOODLES IN THE U.S. OR ITS
TERRITORIES BETWEEN MAY 1, 2001 AND DECEMBER 31, 2010, THIS NOTICE
IS TO INFORM YOU OF TWO PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENTS THAT
COULD AFFECT YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS.

Who's Affected?

The Proposed Settlements affect you if you purchased any Korean
Noodles -- instant noodle soup products consisting of dried
instant noodles paired with a seasoning packet and dehydrated
vegetables, packaged in a bag (or pouch), cup, or bowl, including
ramen products sold under the Nongshim, Samyang, Ottogi, and
Paldo/Yakult brands -- in the United States or its territories
between May 1, 2001 and December 31, 2010 (the "Class Period").

What's This About?

A class action lawsuit is pending in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, entitled, In re
Korean Ramen Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:13-CV-4115-WHO-DMR
(N.D. Cal.) (the "Action"), in which it is alleged that Defendants
Nongshim Co., Ltd.; Nongshim America Inc.; Ottogi Co. Ltd.; Ottogi
America, Inc.; Samyang Foods Co., Ltd.; Korea Yakult Co., Ltd.
("Korea Yakult"); Paldo Co. Ltd. ("Paldo"); and Sam Yang (USA),
Inc ("Sam Yang USA") engaged in illegal anticompetitive conduct
with respect to the sales of Korean Noodles, and that as a result,
any U.S. person or entity that purchased Korean Noodles during the
Class Period, paid a higher price than they would have otherwise
paid in a competitive market. Defendants deny Plaintiffs'
allegations and the Court has not ruled on the merits of the
claims or defenses.

Samyang Foods Co., Ltd. ("Samyang"), one of the Defendants in the
Action has negotiated two separate settlements (the "Proposed
Settlements") in the Action -- one with the "Direct Settlement
Class," the other with the "Indirect Settlement Class."

Am I a Member of One of Classes Affected by the Settlement?

The Direct Settlement Class is defined as all persons or entities
who purchased, in the U.S. or one of its territories, Korean
Noodles, as defined above, directly from one or more of the
Defendants during the Class Period (the "Direct Settlement
Class").  The Indirect Settlement Class consists of all persons or
entities who purchased Korean Noodles indirectly -- not from any
of the Defendants themselves but from a retailer, distributor or
other person who had bought Korean Noodles from a one or more of
the Defendants.  For purposes of the Proposed Settlements, the
Court has granted class certification of both the Direct
Settlement Class and the Indirect Settlement Class.

What Do the Proposed Settlements Provide?

If the Proposed Settlements are approved by the Court, Samyang
will pay the Direct Settlement Class $1,000,000, will pay the
Indirect Settlement Class $500,000, and will cooperate with both
Classes in their continuing conduct of the Action against the Non-
Settling Defendants that remain in the action.  Any distribution
from the Settlement Fund to Class Members will occur only after
the case against the Non-Settling Defendants has been resolved.
Subject to the Court's approval, Class Counsel do not intend to
seek any award of attorneys' fees from this settlement at this
time.  However, they intend to ask the Court to permit them to use
up to 50% of the Settlement Fund remaining after the payment of
notice and administration costs to reimburse past and future
expenses incurred in prosecuting the lawsuit against the Non-
Settling Defendants.

When Will the Court Consider Whether or Not to Approve the
Proposed Settlements?

On August 17, 2016, at 2:00 p.m., a hearing will be held at the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102-3489,
Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, to determine whether the proposed
settlements are fair, reasonable, and adequate.  If you are a
member of the Direct Settlement Class or the Indirect Settlement
Class, you may file an objection to the proposed settlements with
the Clerk of the Court, and may speak at the hearing about the
fairness of the proposed settlement, in keeping with the
requirements set forth in the detailed notice.

If I Fall Within the Definition of One of the Classes, What Are My
Rights?

1. You Can Remain in the Class and Accept the Proposed Settlement
Applicable to Your Class. You need not do anything if you fall
within the definition of one of the Classes and you wish to remain
in that Class.  In that event, you will be bound by the Settlement
applicable to your Class and will be entitled to share in the
benefits, if any, of that Settlement, but will not be able to sue,
or to continue to sue, Samyang individually on the claims that are
the subject of that Settlement.

2. You Can Exclude Yourself from the Class. If you fall within the
definition of either Class but do not wish to be a part of it, you
can request to be excluded from, or "opt out" of, the Class,
through instructions provided in the more detailed notice
available at www.RamenClassAction.com.  In that event, you will
not be bound by that Class's Settlement and will be ineligible to
receive any benefits from it, but will be free to pursue any
individual claims you may have against Samyang asserted on behalf
of that Class in the Action.

3. You Can Object to the Settlement Applicable to Your Class. If
you wish to object that the Settlement applicable to the Class of
which you are a member is unsatisfactory, or to Class Counsel's
request to be reimbursed from the funds recovered in the Proposed
Settlements for litigation costs and expenses incurred or to be
incurred, and you have not excluded yourself from that Class, you
may file a written objection to that Class's settlement by
following instructions provided in the more detailed notice
available at www.RamenClassAction.com.

Who Represents Me?

The Court has appointed the following counsel for the respective
classes:

Class Counsel for the Direct Purchaser Class

Lee Albert
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
122 East 42nd Street. Suite 2920
New York, NY 10168

Christopher Lebsock
HAUSFELD LLP
600 Montgomery St., Suite 3200
San Francisco, CA 94104

Class Counsel for the Indirect Purchaser Class

Daniel E. Birkhaeuser
BRAMSON, PLUTZIK, MAHLER & BIRKHAEUSER, LLP
2125 Oak Grove Road, Suite 120
Walnut Creek, CA 94598

Robert A. Izard
IZARD NOBEL LLP
29 South Main Street, Suite 305
West Hartford, CT 06107

Where Can I Get Further Information?

This Notice is just a summary. For more information, please refer
to the Notice available at www.RamenClassAction.com where you will
also be able to see a copy of the Settlement Agreements and other
relevant Court papers; call (877)368-8668; write to the Class
Counsel for the Class of which you are a member; or access the
Court's docket in the case through the Court's Public Access to
Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at
https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov or by visiting the office of the
Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, Phillip Burton Federal Building &
United States Courthouse, 16th Floor, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San
Francisco, CA 94102, between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding Court holidays.

PLEASE DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK'S OFFICE TO
INQUIRE ABOUT THIS SETTLEMENT OR THE CLAIM PROCESS.


OHIO: Disability Advocacy Group Opposes Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Rita Price, writing for The Columbus Dispatch, reports that a
family advocacy group that opposes a class-action lawsuit filed
against the state on behalf of Ohioans with developmental
disabilities is requesting separate legal representation.

In a letter to Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, the Disability
Advocacy Alliance says the federal lawsuit filed by Disability
Rights Ohio threatens the welfare of their loved ones who live in
residential care centers, attend sheltered workshops or go to
center-based day programs.

They are urging Mr. DeWine and other state officials to grant them
counsel so that they can fight what they see as a dangerous push
toward community settings for all.

"We don't feel that the interests of those who require and desire
higher levels of care are being protected in this lawsuit," said
the alliance's Caroline Lahrmann.  "There's a clear conflict of
interest."

Disability Rights and other legal advocates sued the state on
March 31 over what they say is a discriminatory services system
that traps thousands of people in institutions -- or puts them at
risk of moving to one -- because they can't get the support needed
to live and work in their communities.

About 5,800 people with intellectual and developmental
disabilities live in so-called intermediate-care facilities, or
residential centers with eight or more residents.  According to
Disability Rights, more than 2,000 of them want community services
instead, but languish on years-long waiting lists for one of the
Medicaid waivers that would pay for non-institutional care.

Disability Rights is a nonprofit organization that serves as
Ohio's federally designated protection and advocacy system for
people with disabilities.  All states are required to have a
disabilities advocate, which has the authority to provide legal
representation under all federal and state laws -- including suing
states for violating such statutes as the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

The agency's executive director, Michael Kirkman, said he doesn't
know of any states that have provided legal representation to
other interested parties.

"I don't know of any vehicle or mechanism for them to be given
counsel through the state," he said.  "It would be highly, highly
unusual."

A spokeswoman for DeWine's office said officials have received the
letter and are evaluating the request.

Attorneys for Disability Rights say the lawsuit doesn't seek to
shut down residential centers and programs, but rather wants to
make sure that people with developmental disabilities have the
right to choose where they live and work.

"I think there's just such a fundamental disagreement about what
we're trying to achieve," Mr. Kirkman said of families who are
against the lawsuit.  "For all the people who were asking, 'Why
now?', many others are saying, 'It's about time.'"

But Ms. Lahrmann and others with Disability Advocacy Alliance say
the lawsuit could easily lead to reduced services and options for
Ohioans who, like her children, have severe disabilities and
complex needs.

She said Disability Rights should wage its legal battle on behalf
of the six named plaintiffs, not "tens of thousands of people
around the state."


OOMA INC: Faces "Harrison" Class Action in Calif. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
Harrison Wise, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ooma, Inc., Eric B. Stang, Ravi
Narula, James Wei, Alison Davis, Andrew H. Galligan, Peter J.
Goettner, Russell Mann, Sean N. Parker, William D. Pearce, Michael
Orsak, Worldview Capital IV, L.P., Worldview Equity I, L.L.C.,
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, JMP Securities LLC,
William Blair & Company, L.L.C., and Wunderlich Securities, Inc.,
the Defendants, Case No. CIV537767 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Mateo
County, March 14, 2016), seeks to rescind and recover
consideration paid under the Securities Act of 1933.

Ooma is a provider of communications solutions and other connected
services to small businesses, and home and mobile users in the
United States and Canadian markets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. (SBN 219683)
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

               - and -

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


OPHTHALIX INC: Can-Fite Defending Against Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
OphthaliX Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Can-Fite is defending
against a class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "On June 29, 2015, Can-Fite, our majority
stockholder and parent, received a lawsuit requesting recognition
of this lawsuit as a class action. The lawsuit alleges, among
other things, that Can-Fite misled the public with regard to
disclosures concerning the efficacy its drug candidate, CF101. The
claimant alleges that he suffered personal damages of over NIS
73,000, while also claiming that the shareholders of Can-Fite
suffered damages of approximately NIS 125 million. Can-Fite has
informed us that it strongly believes the lawsuit and its
allegations to be baseless and without merit, and will vigorously
defend this action."

Ophthalix is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on
developing therapeutic products for the treatment of ophthalmic
disorders.


PAUL MICHAEL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Wexler" Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jordan Wexler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Paul Michael Marketing Service, Inc., d/b/a Paul
Michael Associates, Case No. 2:16-cv-01739 (E.D.N.Y., April 11,
2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

Paul Michael Marketing Service, Inc. operates a debt collection
firm located at 159-16 Union Turnpike #302, Fresh Meadows, NY
11366.

Jordan Wexler is a pro se plaintiff.


PFIZER INC: Appeals Court Revives Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal
appeals court on April 12 revived a class-action lawsuit accusing
Pfizer Inc of causing tens of billions of dollars of losses for
shareholders by misleading them about the safety of its Celebrex
and Bextra pain-relieving drugs.

By a 3-0 vote, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan
said U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain erred in dismissing
the case after preventing Daniel Fischel, a former University of
Chicago Law School dean, from testifying for the shareholders
about potential damages.

It also said Judge Swain was wrong to conclude that jurors could
not find Pfizer liable for statements by G. D. Searle & Co and
Pharmacia Corp, which previously made Celebrex and Bextra, that
allegedly concealed the drugs' cardiovascular risks.

The lawsuit began in 2004, and covers investors who bought Pfizer
stock between Oct. 31, 2000 and Oct. 19, 2005.

Pfizer's market value fell by roughly $70 billion from early
October 2004 until the day after the class period ended.  The
April 12 decision returns the case to Judge Swain.

In a statement, Pfizer said it "appropriately communicated
accurate and science-based information about its medicines to
investors and the public at all times and will continue to defend
this case vigorously."

Concerns about the safety of Celebrex and Bextra mounted in late
2004 when rival Merck & Co withdrew its own Vioxx drug because of
associated cardiovascular risks.

Pfizer pulled Bextra from the U.S. market the following April, and
agreed in September 2009 to pay $2.3 billion to settle a U.S.
Department of Justice probe into the marketing of Bextra and other
drugs.

Shareholders accused the New York-based company of having
concealed tests that began in 1998 and suggested health risks
associated with Celebrex and Bextra.

Writing for the appeals court, Circuit Judge Debra Ann Livingston
said Judge Swain "went astray" in excluding Fischel's expert
testimony because of his failure to "disaggregate" alleged
misrepresentations by Pfizer that may have inflated its stock
price from any misrepresentations by Searle and Pharmacia.

"Plaintiffs' theory is directly contrary to this idea: they argue
that Pfizer is liable for all of the artificial inflation related
to Celebrex and Bextra because, through its own fraudulent
conduct, Pfizer concealed the same information as its
predecessors," Livingston wrote.

In that context, she added, "Fischel's testimony can be helpful to
the jury."

A lawyer for the plaintiffs had no immediate comment.

The case is In re: Pfizer Inc Securities Litigation, 2nd U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 14-2853.

                           *     *     *

Pfizer Inc., 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 actions related to
Celebrex.

Beginning in July 2014, purported class actions were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against
Pfizer and certain subsidiaries of Pfizer relating to Celebrex.
The plaintiffs seek to represent U.S. nationwide or multi-state
classes consisting of persons or entities who directly purchased
from the defendants, or indirectly purchased or reimbursed
patients for some or all of the purchase price of, Celebrex or
generic Celebrex from May 31, 2014 until the cessation of the
defendants' allegedly unlawful conduct. The plaintiffs allege
delay in the launch of generic Celebrex in violation of federal
antitrust laws or certain state antitrust, consumer protection and
various other laws as a result of Pfizer fraudulently obtaining
and improperly listing a patent on Celebrex, engaging in sham
litigation, and prolonging the impact of sham litigation through
settlement activity that further delayed generic entry. Each of
the actions seeks treble damages on behalf of the putative class
for alleged price overcharges for Celebrex since May 31, 2014.

In December 2014, the District Court granted the parties' joint
motions to consolidate the direct purchaser and end-payer cases,
and all such cases were consolidated as of March 2015.

"In October 2014 and March 2015, we filed motions to dismiss the
direct purchasers' and end-payers' amended complaints,
respectively," Pfizer said. In November 2015, the District Court
denied in part and granted in part our motion to dismiss the
direct purchasers' amended complaint.

In February 2016, the District Court denied in part and granted in
part our motion to dismiss the end-payers' amended complaint.


PFIZER INC: Updates on Canada Suits Related to Chantix/Champix
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc., 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 actions related to
Chantix/Champix.

Beginning in December 2008, purported class actions were filed
against us in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Toronto
Region), the Superior Court of Quebec (District of Montreal), the
Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, Judicial District of Calgary,
and the Superior Court of British Columbia (Vancouver Registry) on
behalf of all individuals and third-party payers in Canada who
have purchased and ingested Champix or reimbursed patients for the
purchase of Champix. Each of these actions asserts claims under
Canadian product liability law, including with respect to the
safety and efficacy of Champix, and, on behalf of the putative
class, seeks monetary relief, including punitive damages.

In June 2012, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the
Ontario proceeding as a class action, defining the class as
consisting of the following: (i) all persons in Canada who
ingested Champix during the period from April 2, 2007 to May 31,
2010 and who experienced at least one of a number of specified
neuropsychiatric adverse events; (ii) all persons who are entitled
to assert claims in respect of Champix pursuant to Canadian
legislation as the result of their relationship with a class
member; and (iii) all health insurers who are entitled to assert
claims in respect of Champix pursuant to Canadian legislation.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice certified the class against
Pfizer Canada Inc. only and ruled that the action against Pfizer
should be stayed until after the trial of the issues that are
common to the class members. The actions in Quebec, Alberta and
British Columbia have been stayed in favor of the Ontario action,
which is proceeding on a national basis.

Pfizer also provided updates on personal injury lawsuits related
to Lipitor.  Pfizer said, "A number of individual and multi-
plaintiff lawsuits have been filed against us in various federal
and state courts alleging that the plaintiffs developed type 2
diabetes as a result of the purported ingestion of Lipitor.
Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages."

"In February 2014, the federal actions were transferred for
consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation
(In re Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Marketing, Sales Practices
and Products Liability Litigation (No. II) MDL-2502) in the U.S.
District Court for the District of South Carolina.


PFIZER INC: Updates on Actions Related to Reglan
------------------------------------------------
Pfizer Inc., 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 actions related to
Reglan.

Reglan is a pro-motility medicine for the treatment of
gastroesophageal reflux disease and diabetic gastroparesis that
was marketed by Wyeth and a predecessor company from 1979 until
the end of 2001, when Wyeth sold the product and transferred the
new drug application to another pharmaceutical company. Generic
versions of Reglan have been sold by other companies since 1985.

Pfizer, as Wyeth's parent company, and certain wholly-owned
subsidiaries and limited liability companies, including Wyeth,
along with several other pharmaceutical manufacturers, have been
named as defendants in numerous actions in various federal and
state courts alleging a variety of personal injuries, including
movement disorders such as Tardive Dyskinesia, resulting from the
use of Reglan and/or generic equivalents thereof.

"As of February 2016, we entered into agreements in principle to
settle virtually all of the known Reglan lawsuits on terms not
material to Pfizer. We expect that the resolution of the remaining
Reglan cases would not be material to us," the Company said.


PNC FINANCIAL: $32.3M Settlement in "Montoya" Has Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jonathan Goodman granted final approval to the
settlement in the case, ENRIQUE MONTOYA, NEYSER COLONIA and XI
CHEN LAUREN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. PNC BANK, N.A., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 14-20474-CIV-GOODMAN (S.D. Fla.).

A copy of the Order dated April 13, 2016, is available at
http://is.gd/9LOXNxfrom Leagle.com.

The Settlement would make more than $32.3 million in monetary
relief available to 130,875 PNC borrowers from across the country
whom Plaintiffs have alleged were charged inflated amounts for
lender-placed or "force-placed" insurance. The monetary relief
provided by the Settlement will likely offer each class member a
far superior recovery than they could have won at trial, while the
injunctive relief provided by the Settlement will enjoin all
Defendants from engaging in specific practices complained of for a
period of five years. For their efforts, Class Counsel have
requested a fee in an amount equal to 14.7% of the total monetary
benefits that have been made available to the Class by the
Settlement, and an even lower percentage when taking into account
the considerable value of the injunctive relief.

                           *     *     *

The PNC Financial Services 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 in June 2013, a lawsuit (Lauren v. PNC Bank, N.A., et al.
(Case No. 2:14-cv-00230)) was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania, subsequently transferred to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, against
PNC Bank and American Security Insurance Company (ASIC), a
provider of property and casualty insurance to PNC for certain
residential mortgages.

In February and March 2014, two additional class action lawsuits
were filed. One of them (Montoya, et al. v. PNC Bank, N.A., et al.
(Case No. 1:14-cv-20474-JEM)) was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Florida against PNC Bank, ASIC and
its parent, Assurant, Inc. The other case (Tighe v. PNC Bank,
N.A., et al., (Case No. 14-CV-2017)) was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against these
same parties as well as Alpine Indemnity Limited, a reinsurance
subsidiary of PNC.

The complaints in each of these lawsuits made similar allegations
regarding the administration of PNC Bank's program for placement
of insurance for borrowers who fail to obtain hazard insurance
coverages required by the terms of their mortgages.

In May 2014, the Tighe lawsuit was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. In June 2014,
the Tighe plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without
prejudice, thereby terminating that action.

In September 2014, the Lauren lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed
and Lauren was added to the Montoya lawsuit as a plaintiff.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs in Montoya assert breach of
contract by PNC, breach of its duty of good faith and fair
dealing, unjust enrichment, breach of a fiduciary duty, and
violations of Florida and New Jersey statutes pertaining to
deceptive and unfair trade practices. These plaintiffs also assert
claims under the federal TILA and RICO statutes. The plaintiffs
seek a nationwide class on all claims except the state law
statutory claims, for which they seek to certify subclasses of
Florida and New Jersey residents, respectively. The plaintiffs
seek, among other things, damages (including treble damages),
disgorgement of "unjust benefits," injunctive relief, interest and
attorneys' fees.

PNC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in Montoya in May
2014. In August 2014, the court in Montoya granted in part and
denied in part PNC's motion to dismiss. Specifically, the court
dismissed the breach of contract, Florida deceptive and unfair
trade practices, and federal TILA and RICO claims, although it
allowed the RICO claims to be re-pled. The remaining claims are
state claims for breach of the covenant of good faith, unjust
enrichment, the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and breach of
fiduciary duty.

Thereafter, in September 2014, a third amended complaint in
Montoya was filed adding Lauren as a plaintiff there. In October
2014, PNC moved to partially dismiss the third amended complaint.
The motion to dismiss sought dismissal of the re-pleaded RICO
claims and plaintiff Lauren's state law claims for breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing and breach of fiduciary
duty. At the same time, PNC also moved to strike nationwide class
allegations with respect to the state law claims. Shortly
thereafter, the plaintiffs stipulated to this relief, as a result
of which the plaintiffs' state law claims are now being brought
solely as statewide class action claims in the three states in
which the plaintiffs reside.

In January 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. In March 2015, the Montoya court denied PNC's
motion to dismiss, except that it granted the motion as to the
Ohio good faith and fair dealing claim.

In May 2015, the parties reached an agreement to settle Montoya on
a nationwide settlement class basis. The agreement is subject to,
among other things, notice to the class members and final approval
by the court. In connection with the settlement agreement, the
plaintiffs also filed a fourth amended complaint, which, among
other things, adds claims regarding wind and flood insurance. The
proposed settlement provides for certification of a class of
borrowers who were charged by PNC under a hazard, flood, flood gap
or wind only lender placed insurance policy for residential
property during the period January 1, 2008 through the date of
preliminary approval of the settlement. The overall cost of the
settlement is not expected to be material to PNC. The court
granted preliminary approval of the settlement in September 2015
and scheduled a hearing with respect to final approval of the
settlement for March 2016.

Headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, PNC is one of the
largest diversified financial services companies in the United
States.

Enrique Montoya, Plaintiff, represented by Aaron Samuel Podhurst
-- apodhurst@podhurst.com -- Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Allan Aaron
Joseph, Fuerst Ittleman David & Joseph, PL, Archie Cleveland Lamb,
Jr., Archie Lamb, Associates, John Gravante, III --
jgravante@podhurst.com -- Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Lance August
Harke, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Margery Ellen Golant, Margery
E. Golant, P.A., Matthew Weinshall, Podhurst Orseck, Peter A.
Muhic, Kessler, Topaz, Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Peter
Prieto, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Rachel Sullivan, Robert J Neary,
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A., Roosevelt N. Nesmith, Law
Offices Roosevelt N. Nesmith, LLC, Samantha E. Jones, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas A. Tucker
Ronzetti, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Tyler S. Graden, Kessler
Topza Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Howard Mitchell Bushman,
Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP, Jeffrey N. Golant, Mary Kestenbaum
Fortson, The Merlin Law Group, Sean Michael Shaw, Merlin Law
Group, Tal J Lifshitz, Kozyak Tropin Throckmorton, William F.
Merlin, Jr., Merlin Law Group PA & Adam M. Moskowitz, Kozyak
Tropin & Throckmorton.

Neyser Colonia, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Moskowitz,
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Archie Cleveland Lamb, Jr., Archie
Lamb, Associates, Catherine E. Anderson, Giskan, Solotaroff
Anderson & Stewart, LLP, pro hac vice, Lance August Harke, Harke
Clasby & Bushman LLP, Margery Ellen Golant, Margery E. Golant,
P.A., Peter A. Muhic, Kessler, Topaz, Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro
hac vice, Rachel Sullivan, Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton, P.A.,
Roosevelt N. Nesmith, Law Offices Roosevelt N. Nesmith, LLC,
Samantha E. Jones, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac
vice, Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton,
Tyler S. Graden, Kessler Topza Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice,
Jeffrey N. Golant & Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton,
P.A..

Xi Chen Lauren, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Moskowitz,
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Archie Cleveland Lamb, Jr., Archie
Lamb, Associates, Rachel Sullivan, Samantha E. Jones, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas A. Tucker
Ronzetti, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, Lance August Harke, Harke
Clasby & Bushman LLP & Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin &
Throckmorton, P.A..

Mark Stuckey, Plaintiff, represented by Adam M. Moskowitz, Kozyak
Tropin & Throckmorton, Robert J Neary, Kozyak Tropin &
Throckmorton, P.A., Lance August Harke, Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP
& Rachel Sullivan.

PNC Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Daniel I. Booker --
dbooker@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith Shaw & McClay, pro hac vice,
Jack B. Cobetto -- jcobetto@reedsmith.com -- Reed, Smith, LLP, pro
hac vice, Kyle R. Bahr -- kbahr@reedsmith.com -- Reed, Smith, LLP,
pro hac vice & Peter W. Homer, Homer Bonner Jacobs, P.A..

American Security Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Denise A. Fee -- dfee@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields Jorden
Burt, PA, pro hac vice, Farrokh Jhabvala --
fjhabvala@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A.,
Franklin G. Burt -- fburt@carltonfields.com -- Carlton Fields
Jorden Burt P.A., Kristin A. Shepard, Jorden Burt, pro hac vice,
Landon King Clayman -- lclayman@carltonfields.com -- Carlton
Fields Jorden Burt, P.A., Irma T. Reboso-Solares, Carlton Fields
Jorden Burt, P.A. & Peter W. Homer, Homer Bonner Jacobs, P.A..

Standard Guaranty Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Franklin G. Burt, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt P.A..

Voyager Indemnity Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Franklin G. Burt, Carlton Fields Jorden Burt P.A..

Alpine Indemnity Limited, Defendant, represented by Peter W.
Homer, Homer Bonner Jacobs, P.A..


PONDER ENVIRONMENTAL: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Action Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Prince, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated and on behalf of aggrieved
employees v. Ponder Environmental Services, Inc., Case No. BCV-16-
100784 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 12, 2016), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages.

Ponder Environmental Services, Inc. is a California corporation
that operates a tank cleaning business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas Han, Esq.
      JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
      Telephone: (818) 230-7502
      E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com


PORSCHE SE: Court Sends Investor Suits to Celle Appellate Judges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Karin Matussek, writing for Bloomberg News, reports that lawsuits
filed by hundreds of Porsche SE investors over the company's use
of complex financial instruments in 2008 before its failed
takeover of Volkswagen AG will be combined under a special
procedure to handle some large civil cases in Germany.

A court in Hanover ruled that it will send the cases to appellate
judges in the northern city of Celle.  If the appeals judges find
Porsche liable, the individual cases will be transferred back to
the trial courts to determine how much each investor can seek.
The ruling comes about a month after a Stuttgart criminal court
acquitted former Porsche executives over the same issue, saying
allegations that they manipulated the VW shares are "totally
unfounded."  Porsche is still facing a host of suits seeking a
total of 5 billion euros ($5.7 billion), which are legally
independent from the criminal case.  The ruling allows trial
courts to submit related civil cases to the mass-case procedure,
including claims by hedge funds that didn't ask to combine the
suits.

Andreas Tilp, a lawyer for the investors, said the ruling will
boost the cases, making up for any setback from the acquittals of
former Porsche Chief Executive Officer Wendelin Wiedeking and
ex-Chief Financial Officer Holger Haerter.

Stuttgart-based Porsche said that judges have repeatedly backed
the company over the issue and it "doesn't really matter which
court hears the cases."

"The mass-case procedure enables the swift and final clarification
of the allegations," Porsche spokesman
Albrecht Bamler said in a statement.  Volkswagen didn't
immediately reply to an e-mail seeking comment.

Volkswagen will also be a party to the combined proceedings as one
of the suits claims the automaker knew about the alleged market
manipulation.  While the Hanover court said 83 issues need to be
resolved, it rejected 27 more questions the plaintiffs had sought
to clarify.

Germany's mass-case law, which is similar to a U.S. class action,
was introduced more than a decade ago to cope with 16,000
investors suing Deutsche Telekom AG over a share sale.  The law
centralizes the evidence phase in capital-market cases in which a
large number of investors claim to have been hurt by the same
action.

The ruling is: LG Hannover, 18 OH 2/16.


PORTAL HEALTHCARE: Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in Insurance Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas J. Bher, Esq., of Keller and Heckman LLP, in an article
for the National Law Review, reports that availability of
insurance is often among the first questions that arises when a
company encounters a data breach or other Internet-related problem
involving company records, even where the company lacks a
cyberinsurance policy.  The federal Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals recently affirmed a ruling by a District Court that
required insurance coverage for an inadvertent disclosure of
private healthcare information under the policy's provisions
regarding the publication of material that may give "unreasonable
publicity" to, or disclose information about, a person's private
life. Travelers Indem. Co. v. Portal Healthcare Solutions, LLC,
Case No. 14-1944 (4th Cir. April 11, 2016) (unpublished).  Two
patients of Portal Healthcare who found their medical information
through a Google search filed a class action suit against the
hospital for allegedly having inadvertently made hospital medical
records available and unprotected on the Internet. Portal then
sought coverage against its insurer, Travelers Indemnity Company.

Travelers, in turn, sought a declaratory judgment that it was not
obliged to defend Portal under the traditional policies that
Portal had purchased.  The trial court found coverage under policy
language covering an injury arising from the "electronic
publication of material" that discloses information about a
person's private life. See Travelers Indem. Co. v. Portal
Healthcare Solutions, LLC, 35 F. Supp. 3d 765 (E.D. Va. 2014).
This type of traditional invasion of privacy claim has
historically been covered by this type of policy.  According to
the trial court, the private medical information was "published"
because it was available to everyone on the Internet -- even
though it was unclear whether anyone besides the two plaintiffs
had ever accessed it -- and because the information clearly
related to the patient's private life.  The appellate court agreed
with the trial court's reasoning and affirmed the finding that
Travelers had a duty to defend Portal in the suit.

Whether a particular insurance policy will cover a particular data
breach depends on the terms of the relevant provisions, and this
case may represent a unique situation in both the contractual
terms and the facts surrounding the alleged breach. However, the
appeals court's decision is a persuasive reminder that insurance
policies are generally read to benefit the insured where possible
and where ambiguity lies.  Companies managing their data flows
should ensure that agreements with vendors appropriately to
maximize data protections and appropriately apportion
responsibility in the event of breach.  Insurance coverage is also
an important consideration.  In this era of exponential growth in
data breach litigation, companies should also carefully examine
insurance policies for both coverage and for exclusions, as the
insurance industry's response to this sort of coverage decision
may involve added limits on the types of claims that are covered.


PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY: Court Narrows IBEW's Claims
---------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL
WORKERS, LOCAL #111, DOMINGO N. MORENO, DAVID L. WILLIAMS, GUY E.
FORTI, GERALD E. KING, and VICKI WILLIAMS, Plaintiffs, v. PUBLIC
SERVICE COMPANY OF COLORADO and XCEL ENERGY INC. EMPLOYEE WELFARE
BENEFIT PLAN, Defendants, Civil Action No. 12-cv-01694-PAB-MEH (D.
Colo.), Judge Philip A. Brimmer granted in part and denied, in
part, the partial motion filed by the Public Service Company of
Colorado (PSCo) and Xcel Energy Inc. Employee Welfare Benefit Plan
(the "Plan") to dismiss the plaintiffs' first amended class action
complaint.

The plaintiffs filed the complaint alleging that the defendants
made certain changes to the retirees' prescription drug benefits
in violation of the Plan and the governing collective bargaining
agreement (CBA) between the plaintiff International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local #111 (IBEW) and PSCo.  The class
representatives asserted claims under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) to "preserve and recover" health
benefits due and to "clarify and enforce rights" under the Plan.

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims related to
the "Members Pay the Difference" (MPD) program and to the
defendants' alleged failure to comply with plan amendment
procedures when increasing prescription drug co-pay changes in
2012.

The defendants argued that the plaintiffs have alleged no injury
or harm because the allegations of the amended complaint are
conditional.  However, Judge Brimmer held that the plaintiffs'
allegation that the defendants interpret the MPD in a manner that
violates the Plan and the CBA is sufficient to confer standing.

The defendants also argued that the plaintiffs' so-called "new
claims," insofar as they relate to the plaintiffs' allegations
concerning MPD, are barred by the applicable statute of
limitations because MPD was implemented in January 2006.  Judge
Brimmer disagreed with the defendants to the extent that the
plaintiffs' claims concern the defendants' application of the MPD
to "dispense as written" prescriptions, which accrued only in
February 2013.  However, Judge Brimmer held that, to the extent
that the plaintiffs allege MPD violates the plan even if it does
not increase retirees' payments for "dispense as written"
prescriptions, the claim should be dismissed as time-barred.

It was also argued by the defendants that the plaintiffs'
purportedly new claim for failure to follow the Plan's
requirements for amendment is time-barred because PSCo announced
the changes in retirees' prescription drug copayments in October
2011.  However, Judge Brimmer found that the plaintiffs' amended
complaint alleges no new "improper amendment" claim that is
subject to dismissal on statute of limitation grounds.

Lastly, the defendants argued that IBEW waived any CBA claims
related to MPD by withdrawing the Vandeventer Grievance, thus
constituting "[f]ailure . . . to conform to the time limits"
specified for arbitration proceedings.  Judge Brimmer was not
persuaded by the defendants' argument because the defendants did
not identify what time limits were violated.

A full-text copy of Judge Brimmer's March 31, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/ddpLNVfrom Leagle.com.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local #111,
Domingo N Moreno, David L. Williams, Guy E Forti, Gerald E King,
Vicki Williams, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas B. Buescher,
Buescher, Kelman, Perera & Turner, P.C.., Andrew Hess Turner,
Buescher, Kelman, Perera & Turner, P.C.. & Ellen M. Kelman,
Buescher, Kelman, Perera & Turner, P.C...

Public Service Company of Colorado, Defendant, represented by Lisa
A. Hogan -- lhogan@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck,
LLP, William Craig Berger, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP,
Charles Clark Jackson -- jackson@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis &
Bockius, LLP, Christopher Joseph Boran --
christopher.boran@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius,
LLP,Deborah S. Davidson -- deborah.davidson@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Ellen L. Perlioni --
ellen.perlioni@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP &
Ronald E. Manthey -- ron.manthey@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis &
Bockius, LLP.

Xcel Energy Inc. Employee Welfare Benefit Plan, Defendant,
represented by Lisa A. Hogan, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck,
LLP, William Craig Berger, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP,
Charles Clark Jackson, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Christopher
Joseph Boran, Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP,Deborah S. Davidson,
Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP & Ellen L. Perlioni, Morgan Lewis &
Bockius, LLP.


QUAKER OATS: Faces Class Action Over Maple Syrup Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Don E. Woods, writing for NJ.com, reports that a class action
lawsuit is taking aim at Quaker Oats Company, claiming that the
Quaker Oats Man has been too loose with its maple claims.

The lawsuit, filed on April 7 in United States District Court of
New Jersey, demands $5 million in damages and a jury trial.

New Jersey resident Barbara Gates filed her claims after
purchasing Quaker Instant Oatmeal Maple and Brown Sugar from
Absecon ShopRite, according to court documents.

Despite the front of the box claiming to contain maple and brown
sugar, according to her lawsuit, she could not find maple syrup or
sugar in the ingredient list.

"Had plaintiff known that Quaker Oats Oatmeal did not contain
maple syrup or maple sugar as an ingredient, she would not have
purchased the product, or she would have paid substantially less
for it," the lawsuit states.  "As a result, plaintiff has suffered
damages, including the amount of money she paid to purchase Quaker
Oats Oatmeal.

"In addition to monetary damages, plaintiff seeks injunctive
relief to stop defendant from engaging in unlawful, unfair and
deceptive business practices by misrepresenting that Quaker Oats
Oatmeal contains maple syrup and/or maple sugar when it does not."

A representative from Quaker Oats Company did not return a request
for comment.

Ms. Gates' lawsuit claims that the alleged misbranding is counter
to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, along with the
Illinois Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Quaker Oats Company is
headquartered in Chicago.

Other lawsuits have been filed nationwide, including a complaint
filed in by Darren Eisenlord in Los Angeles federal court on
Feb. 29, according to Reuters.


RECKITT BENCKISER: Faces Class Action Over Specific Pain Range
--------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Chung, writing for news.com.au, reports that Nurofen maker
Reckitt Benckiser is facing a fresh headache over its dodgy
'Specific Pain' range, with a new class action seeking millions of
dollars in refunds.

Tens of thousands, possibly millions of consumers who purchased
Nurofen's so-called Specific Pain Range between January 2011 and
December 2015 could be eligible for refunds and damages.

The Federal Court on April 14 held the first hearing in the class
action brought by Bannister Law.  Reckitt Benckiser has already
been found guilty of misleading conduct in a separate but related
case brought by the Australian Competition and Consumer
Commission.

The ACCC is seeking up to $6 million in fines after the court
found the drugmaker had duped consumers into purchasing Specific
Pain products for headaches, back pain and period pain.

The products, which were up to twice as expensive as standard
Nurofen, contained the same active ingredient, ibuprofen lysine
342mg.

That penalty decision is expected in the coming weeks. If the
class action is successful, the total refund figure will easily
run into the millions, news.com.au understands.

"In essence, the applicants allege that the conduct was misleading
and deceptive and that there was a failure to comply with the
various statutory guarantees imposed by the Australian Consumer
Law," barrister Peter Cashman told the court.
"The respondents admit that the conduct was misleading and
deceptive, but have denied noncompliance with the statutory
guarantees."

One plaintiff in the case, Peter 'Bastion' Moore, 51, has been
living with HIV for more than two decades and takes more than 30
medications a day.

He says he used to buy Nurofen Specific Pain products to deal with
his "excruciating" migraines and back pain to avoid taking
Panadeine Forte, but found they "just weren't doing anything".

"When I found out the products are the same, I thought, you sods,
how can you do that to us?" he told news.com.au outside court.  "I
feel like I was lied to and I feel like I was cheated out of my
money."

Mr. Moore says he easily spent $500-$600 on Nurofen Specific Pain
products over the past few years.  "How can a drug company lie to
people, make money off us, and the product doesn't even work, it's
basically a headache tablet?" he said.

In the ACCC penalty hearing, lawyers for the drug maker told the
court that "rational" consumers would not think a pain-specific
product was any more effective than a regular one.

Mr. Moore hit out at that claim.  "Then why would you put on the
packet 'Back Pain', 'Migraine'? The Back Pain packet is green, the
Migraine packet is gold -- they're all glitzy to make you want to
buy them," he said.

"It's lying.  You don't put a product out there with false
advertising.  It's not about the money to me, it's about the
principle.  There are too many people that lie in this world to
make big bucks and their products do basically nothing."

A Reckitt Benckiser spokeswoman told news.com.au the company
"recognizes the importance of the class action process".

"To the extent that there may have been consumers misled by the
Nurofen Specific Pain Range packaging and webpage, those consumers
will be identified by the court process and to the extent they
have suffered loss, will be appropriately compensated," she said.

The case continues on June 7.


ROLLING FRITO-LAY: Violated Cal. Labor Code, "Montez" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Manuel Montez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Rolling Frito-Lay Sales, LP,
a Delaware limited partnership, the Defendant, Case No. BC616367
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles County, April 11, 2016), seeks
declaratory damages, compensatory damages, attorney fees and
costs, pursuant to the California Labor Code (CLC).

Rolling Frito-Lay Sales LP is in the Malt Beverages industry in
Plano, Texas. The company has approximately 250,000 to 300,000
employees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Malk, Esq.
          MICHAEL MALK FIRM
          1180 South Beverly Drive., Suite 302
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 203 0016
          Facsimile: (310) 499 5210
          E-mail: MM@Malklawfirm.com


SECURITAS SECURITY: $2.6M Settlement Has Initial Okay
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge in San
Francisco preliminarily approved a $2.6 million amended settlement
of an employment class action against Securitas Security Services.

The case captioned, MICHAEL DEATRICK, Plaintiff, v.
SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC., Defendant., Case No.
13-cv-05016-JST (N.D. Cal.)


SIRIUSXM: 2nd Cir. Need Guidance on Copyright Issue in Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for Billboard, reports that the 2nd Circuit
says it needs guidance on whether state law gives copyright
holders performance rights.

On April 13, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals avoided handing down
a definitive ruling on the closely-watched issue of whether owners
of pre-1972 sound recordings have performance rights and can stop
SiriusXM from broadcasting them without agreed-upon compensation.
The federal appeals court wants the New York Court of Appeals to
address the issue first.

SiriusXM is fighting putative class action lawsuits led by Flo &
Eddie of the Turtles, who contend that since federal copyright law
protects sound recordings after 1972, it's up to state laws to
protect works authored before then.  The implications of the
argument would theoretically mean that bars, restaurants, sports
stadiums and other enterprises lose the right to perform the early
works of Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones and others.

In November 2014, New York federal judge Colleen McMahon followed
a California judge in giving Flo & Eddiea significant victory and
one that was unsettling for satellite and terrestrial radio
operators.  She sympathized with the defendant by writing that the
"accepted fact of life in the broadcast industry for the last
century" was that nobody was paying royalties for public
performance.  The judge added that common law copyrights do in
fact confer such benefits.

The case then went up to the 2nd Circuit, but technically, what's
required is an interpretation of New York law.  As such, the 2nd
Circuit on April 13 certifies the following question for the state
appeals court: Is there a right of public performance for creators
of sound recordings under New York law and, if so, what is the
nature and scope of that right?

The decision on April 13 takes no firm position, though it does
express at least some skepticism.

"With no clear guidance from the New York Court of Appeals, we are
in doubt as to whether New York common law affords Appellee a
right to prohibit Appellant from broadcasting the sound recordings
in question," writes 2nd Circuit judge Guido Calabresi.

Then again, Judge Calabresi later adds, "Still, New York's
interest in compensating copyright holders may perhaps outweigh
the cost of making such a change.  Whatever the merits of such a
determination might be as a value judgment, however, it is a value
a value judgment, which is for New York to make."

Over in California, the 9th Circuit is also set to take on the
issue of performance rights for pre-1972 sound recordings.  There
is still a possibility that this winds up one day at the Supreme
Court even though the primary question at this point is
interpretation of state laws (there's also cases on the
controversy at hand pending in Florida, New Jersey and Hawaii).
That's because SiriusXM is also arguing that any law granting a
public performance right to pre-72 sound recording owners would
interfere with interstate commerce and be a violation of the U.S.
Constitution.

"If this were so, then despite our usual preference not to reach
difficult constitutional issues, the existence of such a right,
vel non, would not be determinative of the case at hand until we
decide the Commerce Clause question," notes Judge Calabresi.
"But, in fact, the question of whether such a right would violate
the dormant Commerce Clause is not something we can adjudicate
without knowing what, if any, limitations New York places on such
rights, if they do exist.  It is not the case that all rights of
this sort violate the dormant Commerce Clause; some might, some
might not."

That issue now lies in wait as the big dispute gets kicked to a
New York appeals court.  But if SiriusXM loses, the case could end
up back at the 2nd Circuit again.


SPARK ENERGY GAS: Fails in Bid to Dismiss Customer Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge in San Francisco on April 11, refused to dismiss a
class action accusing an energy company of defrauding lower income
individuals by preying on those with moderate English language
skills.

U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White denied without prejudice
two separate motions by Spark Energy Gas, a natural gas supplier
and utility company -- one to compel arbitration and one to
dismiss -- in a ruling handed down April 11. White granted the
plaintiffs request to delay a hearing on class certification until
August.

The dispute stems from Spark's program of going door to door
attempting to convince homeowners or renters to switch from their
present utility companies to Spark.

Lead plaintiff Arturo Amaya, an LA resident, says he was
approached by a Spark sales representative sometime in October
2014 and was told Spark offered a program designed to help low-
income families save money on energy bills.

The unnamed Spark representative said switching would save Amaya
about 25 percent on his energy bills. Instead, his bills increased
by about 20 to 30 percent, according to the complaint.

Another plaintiff, Barbara Gehrke from the Sacramento suburb of
Rancho Cordova, tells a similar tale in the complaint, claiming
Spark representatives using a scripted sales pitch told her she
could save money on energy bills. Instead, her bills increased
approximately 100 percent.

Additionally, the plaintiffs say Spark was running a broader
scheme that employed deceptive and high-pressure sales tactics
using scripts, training and marketing materials to encourage their
door-to-door sales representatives to target low-income residents,
the elderly and people who speak little to no English.

Attorneys for Spark moved to compel arbitration, citing a clause
in the terms of service sent to Gehrke. The plaintiffs, however,
argued that the terms given to Gehrke did not contain any such
clause -- leading White to determine the factual dispute precludes
compelling arbitration at this time.

On the motion to dismiss, Spark argued that since it provided the
scripts it used to train its sales representatives and no such
"fraudulent and deceptive bait-and-switch sales practices" were
evident. But White noted that the complaint does not contain the
sales scripts -- they were attached to one of Spark's declarations
- and the plaintiffs question their authenticity, so dismissal
would be inappropriate at this time.

"The sales scripts proffered by defendants are in tension with the
factual allegations of the complaint regarding what occurred
during the 'apparently "scripted"' conversations, but the factual
allegations of the complaint are not conclusory and the proffered
scripts are insufficient to effectively and persuasively rebut
them," White wrote in the 14-page ruling.

Spark declined to comment on White's ruling.

The plaintiffs' lead attorney William Audet did not respond to an
email requesting comment by press time.

Spark is represented by Paul Karlsgodt.

The case captioned, ARTURO AMAYA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SPARK
ENERGY GAS, LLC, et al., Defendants., Case No. 15-cv-02326-JSW
(N.D. Cal.)


ST. JOSEPH HEALTH: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $28MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
weliversecurity reports that investigation to have not been
stolen. When one of the former patients at a hospital managed by
St. Joseph Health System ran a routine Google search of her name
four years ago, she found that her medical records from this
hospital were available online.

Interestingly, these records, which included diagnoses lists,
active medication lists, lab results, medication allergies, body
mass index or blood pressure, among others, were revealed by an
investigation not to have been stolen.

Instead, "the data exposure occurred as a result of misconfigured
security settings" -- the internal systems belonging to five of
SJHS' hospitals were so insecure that they allowed for
unrestricted external access.

The investigation discovered that more than 31,000 patient health
records were exposed to the public for close to a year.  Based on
Californian law, which states that victims of a breach require
notification of such an event (as well as the authorities), SJHS
was required to send a letter to each affected patient.

Two of the victims filed a class action lawsuit against the SJHS
and after a two-year legal battle, a state court judge in
California approved the highest ever per-plaintiff cash settlement
in a data breach case that will cost the SJHS up to $28 million.

As per the settlements' terms, the plaintiffs will receive $7.5
million.  The SJHS must spend $4.5 million for credit monitoring
services for all affected patients and establish a $3 million fund
to compensate those who would sustain identify theft losses
resulting from the breach.

Additional $7.4 million of the settlement will cover the
attorneys' fees and a mandatory sum of $13 million must be spent
on making SJHS' hospitals compliant with regulations.

In addition to the class-action settlement, SJHS might be the
subject of a corrective action plan or financial penalty for the
breach, depending the outcomes of investigations by the Department
of Health and the Human Services' Office for Civil Rights.

"This settlement should give businesses a clear idea of the rising
cost for failing to properly protect all personal data in their
care properly," commented Lysa Myers, a security researcher at
ESET.

"It's important for organizations to secure access to machines
storing sensitive data and to protect the databases themselves.
Without doing a regular, ongoing risk assessment, and then putting
strong authentication and robust encryption where it's needed,
it's far too easy for sensitive data to fall through the cracks."


STANFORD INTERNATIONAL: July 8 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. STANFORD INTERNATIONAL
BANK, LTD., et al., Civil Action No. 3:09-CV-00298-N (N.D. Tex.)
A FEDERAL COURT AUTHORIZED THIS NOTICE.
THIS IS NOT A SOLICITATION FROM A LAWYER.

To: Those who ever held a certificate of deposit, CD, depository
account, or investment with, or who are parties in any action
concerning, or who are interested in, Robert Allen Stanford, or
any entity of any type owned or controlled by Robert Allen
Stanford, including, without limitation, Stanford International
Bank, Ltd., Stanford Trust Company Ltd., and Stanford Development
Company

There is a proposed global settlement ("Settlement") between Ralph
S. Janvey, as Receiver for Robert Allen Stanford and related
persons and entities (the "Receiver"), (ii) the Official Stanford
Investors Committee, and (iii) Marcus A. Wide and Hugh Dickson as
joint liquidators of Stanford International Bank, Ltd. and
Stanford Trust Company Ltd., and Marcus A. Wide and
Hordley Forbes as joint liquidators of Stanford Development
Company (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), and (iv) Kroll, LLC (f/k/a
Kroll Inc.) and Kroll Associates, Inc. (together, "Kroll")
concerning Allen Stanford and all related persons and entities.

This notice is only a summary of important information about the
Settlement, the Bar Order and Judgment that will be entered if the
Settlement is approved, and a Hearing on the Settlement.
More details can be found at
www.StanfordFinancialReceivership.com

Settlement Amount: US$24,000,000 (the "Settlement Amount") to be
paid to the Receiver.

Distribution: The Receiver plans to distribute the Settlement
Amount, minus court-approved attorneys fees, expenses, and costs,
among those who held a certificate of deposit, CD,
depository account, or investment with Stanford and who have an
allowed claim amount recognized by the Receiver.  Plaintiffs'
counsel will apply to the Court for attorneys' fees of no
more than US$6 million and expenses of no more than US$25,000.

Bar Order and Judgment: The Settlement is conditioned upon the
Court's entry of a Bar Order and Judgment permanently enjoining
and barring all claims by Plaintiffs and anyone else in the world
against Kroll concerning Robert Allen Stanford and any related
persons or entities.

Date for Court Hearing and Objections: On July 8 2016, at
10:00 a.m. the Honorable David C. Godbey in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, United States
Courthouse, 1100 Commerce Street, Dallas, Texas 75242, Courtroom
1505, will hold a Hearing to consider whether to approve the
Settlement and enter the Bar Order and Judgment. You may
object and attend the Hearing.  The time for the Hearing is
subject to change, so you should confirm the Hearing time by
visiting the website www.StanfordFinancialReceivership.com
before attending.  Any and all objections to the Settlement or the
Bar Order and Judgment must be filed with Court and served on or
before May 18, 2016.  Filing and service instructions may
be found in the Court's Scheduling Order at
www.StanfordFinancialReceivership.com

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS


SYMMETRY SURGICAL: Claim for Attorney Fees Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Symmetry Surgical Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the parties have settled
a class action complaint, although they left the issue of a claim
for fees and costs for resolution at a later time, either through
agreement or via a court hearing.

On September 29, 2014, a purported class action complaint
challenging the company's former parent's merger and the Company's
spin-out as a stand-alone public company was filed by Resolution
Partners, an alleged stockholder of SMI, and all others similarly
situated, in the Kosciusko Circuit Court in the state of Indiana.
The complaint named as defendants Symmetry Medical Inc. ("SMI"),
the members of the board of directors of SMI, Genstar Capital LLC,
Tecomet's sponsor ("Genstar"), Tecomet, Holdings and TecoSym Inc.
The complaint generally alleges, among other things, that the
members of the SMI board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Resolution Partners and SMI stockholders during merger
negotiations and by entering into the Merger Agreement and
approving the Merger, and that Genstar and Tecomet allegedly aided
and abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The
complaint further alleges that the joint proxy
statement/prospectus filed by Symmetry Surgical with the SEC on
September 5, 2014, which contained the preliminary proxy statement
of SMI, was misleading or omitted certain allegedly material
information. The complaint sought, among other relief, injunctive
relief enjoining consummation of the Merger, compensatory and/or
rescissory damages in an unspecified amount and costs and fees.

The parties settled the suit prior to the consummation of the
transaction, for no additional consideration and a few additional
disclosures filed in a Form 8-k, although left the issue of a
claim for fees and costs for resolution at a later time, either
through agreement or via a court hearing.

The Company has agreed with SMI to share equally in any fee award,
up to 50% of the remaining insurance deductible. The Company does
not believe this will have a significant impact on its financial
position, results of operations or cash flows.

Symmetry Surgical is a global marketer and distributor of medical
devices with some limited manufacturing focused on the general
surgery market.


THYSSENKRUPP WAUPACA: Wisconsin Class Certified, FLSA Class Split
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RYAN DeKEYSER, THOMAS COOPER, HARLEY
GRANIUS, AND CARLOS LOPEZ, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THYSSENKRUPP WAUPACA, INC.,
d/b/a Waupaca Foundry, Inc., Defendant, E.D. Wis.), Judge William
C. Griesbach granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify their
Wisconsin law claims as a class action and granted in part and
denied, in part, the defendant's motion to decertify a previously
"conditionally" certified collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

A case was filed against Waupaca Foundry, Inc. by past and current
workers in its iron foundries who sought to be paid for time spent
"donning and doffing" work clothes and protective gear, and for
time spent showering after their shifts in facilities provided by
Waupaca.  The plaintiffs asserted FLSA claims on behalf of all
"similarly situated" workers in Waupaca's six iron foundries, and
asserted Wisconsin law claims on behalf of similarly situated
workers in the Wisconsin foundries.  The court previously
conditionally certified a collective action under the FLSA.

Waupaca sought decertification of the FLSA class.  The plaintiffs
opposed Waupaca's motion and filed their own motion to certify a
Rule 23 class including production workers in the Wisconsin
foundries.

Judge Griesbach found that the plaintiffs have satisfied the
requirements of Rule 23 and certified the proposed Wisconsin
class.

As to the FLSA class, Judge Griesbach found that the plaintiffs'
previous request to sever and transfer the non-Wisconsin portions
of the case to the appropriate district courts in Indiana and
Tennessee would be the more prudent course, because the residence
of those workers and location of the plants where they work make
those districts more convenient forums.  Thus, Judge Griesbach
partially decertified the FLSA collective action into three
classes based on the federal judicial district in which they
worked and, upon the plaintiffs' filing of amended complaints for
each sub-class, the court will transfer the non-Wisconsin cases to
the appropriate district.

A full-text copy of Judge Griesbach's March 31, 2016 decision and
order is available at http://is.gd/v0skFRfrom Leagle.com.

Ryan DeKeyser, Thomas Cooper, Harley Granius, Carlo Lantz,
Plaintiffs, represented by Anne T Regan -- anne.regan@zimmreed.com
-- Zimmerman Reed PLLP, John Gordon Rudd, Jr. --
gordon.rudd@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed PLLP, Kelly A Lelo --
klelo@larsonking.com -- Larson King LLP, T Joseph Snodgrass --
jsnodgrass@larsonking.com -- Larson King LLP, Patricia Agnes
Bloodgood, Zwerling Schachter & Zwerling LLP & Shawn M Raiter --
sraiter@larsonking.com -- Larson King LLP.

Thyssenkrupp Waupaca Inc, Defendant, represented by Joseph Louis
Olson -- jlolson@michaelbest.com -- Michael Best & Friedrich LLP,
Paul E Benson -- pebenson@michaelbest.com -- Michael Best &
Friedrich LLP & Mitchell W Quick -- mwquick@michaelbest.com --
Michael Best & Friedrich LLP.


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Faces "Staniland" Suit in New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Transworld Systems, Inc.  The
case is captioned Tracy A. Staniland and Colleen Mercado, on
behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. Transworld Systems, Inc. and John Does 1-10, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:16-cv-01999-KSH-CLW (D.N.J., Newark, April 11, 2016).
The Assigned Judge is Hon. Katharine S. Hayden.

Transworld Systems is a collection agency, which provides
businesses and healthcare organizations tools for accounts
receivable, debt recovery and past due accounts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave., 2 Fl.
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273 7117
          Facsimile: (201) 273 7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


TREASURY WINE: Maurice Blackburn's Conduct Undermines Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Samathan Woodhill, writing for Australasian Lawyer, reports that
Maurice Blackburn has come under fire by the Federal Court for its
conduct in a class action against Treasury Wine Estates.

The firm alleges that the company misled its retail shareholders
by not disclosing relevant information about its distributor
network in the US.  The Federal Court heard on April 13 that the
firm was seeking orders from the overseas district court to obtain
evidence from current and former executives of the company in the
US.

But the court found on April 13 that Maurice Blackburn had sought
"to invoke the powers of a foreign court to obtain compulsory oral
discovery outside the [Federal Court] docket judge's case-
management control of this class action and without his knowledge
or approval".

"This court has exclusive control over proceedings before it --
this is all the more so in relation to class actions [given the
court's roles]," the judgment stated.

According to The Australian, three judges have ordered the firm's
client to be restrained from taking further steps in a New York
District Court, which the Australian Federal Court saw as a bid by
Maurice Blackburn to obtain evidence that would otherwise be
unavailable.

The Federal Court said the management of the class action had been
undermined the firm's conduct overseas.

Justices John Gilmour, Lindsay Foster and Jonathan Beach also
suggested that the firm's argument to the New York District Court
was misleading, without notice and without the imprimatur of the
Australian Federal Court.

The decision follows concern expressed by class-action clients
that the wait for settlement sums is too lengthy, The Australian
reported.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Suit Over Safety Practices for $25MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Ruiz, writing for The Recorder, reports that Uber
Technologies Inc. will pay up to $25 million to settle a lawsuit
brought by the San Francisco and Los Angeles district attorneys'
offices over how it has touted safety measures.  The agreement
follows the settlement of a pair of class actions in February over
the same practices. San Francisco District Attorney
George Gascon said the deal affects more than Uber.

"It sends a clear message to all businesses, and to startups in
particular, that in the quest to quickly obtain market share, laws
designed to protect consumers cannot be ignored," Mr. Gascon said
in a statement. "If a business acts like it is above the law, it
will pay a heavy price."

As part of the settlement, Uber agreed to change the way it
describes its driver checks and safety practices and to cooperate
with the Division of Measurement Standards to certify that ride
charges are accurate and fair.

Uber will pay $10 million of its fee in the next 60 days, with a
chance to have the remaining $15 million waived after two years if
the company complies with all terms of the permanent injunction.
Uber was represented by Morrison & Foerster partner William Stern,
who referred comment to Uber, which did not return messages
seeking comment.

In December 2014, Mr. Gascon and Los Angeles County District
Attorney Jackie Lacey jointly filed a complaint against Uber in
San Francisco Superior Court, claiming the San Francisco-based
ride-hailing company misled consumers by advertising the "safest
rides on the road," coupled with "industry leading background
checks."  The complaint argued that, without fingerprinting, Uber
couldn't make such a statement, and that the company's $1-$2 "Safe
Rides Fee" was misleading and should be returned to customers.

The prosecutors said the suit succeeded in forcing concessions
from Uber.  "It ended a years-long standoff between Uber and
California regulators concerning Uber's refusal to submit its fare
calculation technology for an evaluation of its accuracy," the
release said.  "It hastened Uber's efforts to obtain permits to
operate at California airports." The release also mentions Uber's
agreement to pay $1.8 million to settle the " 'airport fee toll'
fraud scheme in California, in which Uber charged passengers going
to or from airports for fake airport 'tolls.' "

In February, Uber agreed to settle two, separate class actions in
San Francisco that also involved Uber's "Safe Ride Fee."  Uber
agreed to settle the complaints with a $28.5 million payment, the
amount calculated for the 25 million passengers who paid a "Safe
Ride Fee."  Uber also agreed to rename the fee a "booking" fee.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Agrees to Extensive Limits on Background Check
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nolan Hicks, writing for American-Statesman, reports that Uber and
Lyft can no longer make certain safety claims in California
because of their court battles there.

A murderer. A kidnapper. Two sex offenders.

Uber checked their backgrounds a couple of years ago, missed their
rap sheets and put them behind the wheel in California, court
documents show, all while the ride-hailing giant's representatives
touted its safety measures to the public and to the politicians
who would regulate it -- including the Austin City Council.

"We believe in safety. Our core business revolved around safety.
If we don't provide safety, then we're not a competitive, viable
option for consumers," Chris Johnson, an Uber policy adviser, told
Austin officials in September 2014 as the council considered its
first rules to regulate the young industry.  "So, we have very
stringent background checks."

"We believe our drivers are the safest on the road because of the
process we have in place," April Mims, a Lyft public policy
manager, also told council members in 2014.

Amid those assurances, the City Council passed the original 2014
ordinance that allowed the ride-hailing companies to use the name-
based background checks the companies prefer, instead of the
fingerprint-based checks mandated under a December 2015 council
measure that Uber and Lyft hope voters will overturn May 7.

But some of the assurances that Lyft and Uber provided in 2014
contained the kinds of promises about safety they can no longer
make as part of their court battles in California.

"Too much of the (2014 Austin) ordinance was written with the
companies' interest in mind and not the public's," said Council
Member Kathie Tovo, who voted for the 2014 rules, even though the
council rejected her amendment to require that Uber and Lyft
drivers to get the same fingerprint-based background checks as cab
drivers.  "If I had the information now that I had back then, I
would have focused more on the security issues."

In December 2014, shortly after Austin approved its first ride-
hailing rules, California prosecutors filed two lawsuits accusing
Uber and Lyft of misleading consumers about the strength of their
checks.  Additionally, Uber customers brought a class action
lawsuit alleging they were misled about the company's "Safety
Fee."  All of the suits were eventually settled, and the companies
admitted no wrongdoing.

Uber spokeswoman Jennifer Mullin said those cases have no bearing
on the background check debate in Austin.

"It's misleading to tie a California lawsuit that had no impact on
our driver screening process to a campaign to keep common-sense
ride-sharing regulations in Austin," Mr. Mullin said on April 13.

"In addition to driver screenings, technology enables us to focus
on safety before, during and after a trip in ways that were simply
not possible before smartphones," she added.  "This includes
giving riders information about their driver; tracking all trips
using GPS; enabling riders to share their ETA or route; and
incorporating feedback from riders and drivers."

However, in Uber's case, the California settlements came at a
steep cost.  In its deal with San Francisco and Los Angeles
district attorneys, it agreed to shell out $10 million and abide
by extensive limits on how it could describe its background checks
to consumers in the future.

Uber will no longer tell consumers there that it checks arrests,
if it only screens against convictions; and any claims made about
checking sex offender history must include a disclaimer about the
incompleteness of the data its checks use.

Uber also agreed to not use more than a dozen phrases to describe
its background checks, including "best available," "industry
leading," "gold standard," "safest," "best-in-class," or "the
strictest safety standards possible."  Nor can it say its
"background checks that exceed any local or national standard," or
brand itself as the "safest possible platform."

That settlement came two months after the company settled the
class action suit, also agreeing to strict limits on how it
describes its background checks.  In addition, the deal forced the
company to rename its $1 "Safety Fee" and set aside $28.5 million
for refunds to customers.

The deal between California prosecutors and Lyft also limited the
language it could use to describe its background checks, but the
restrictions are less extensive. It also paid $500,000.

A Lyft spokesperson also sought to reassure customers.

"The (district attorneys') settlement was exclusively focused on
language used around background checks," Lyft spokeswoman
Chelsea Wilson told the Statesman on April 13 in a statement.  "It
was not related in any way to the other aspects of our safety
process." Wilson said that Lyft's representative Mims was
referring to those other aspects when speaking to Austin council
members in 2014.

The legal filings in California address some of the same issues
involved with Austin's battle over background check requirements.
Advocates for fingerprinting argue it is the best way to verify
the identity of the driver undergoing the background check.  They
argue that checks relying on names, Social Security numbers and
other identifiers might not catch imposters.


ULINE INC: "Myers" Class Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------
Elijah Myers and Juan Moncada, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated
individually, the Plaintiff, v. Uline Inc., an unknown business
entity, and Does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
CIVDS1603253, was transferred from San Bernardino Superior Court,
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Eastern Division - Riverside). The Calif. Central District
assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-00664 to the proceeding.

Uline is a distributor of shipping, industrial, and packing
materials to businesses throughout North America.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


UNITED STATES: "Adams" Suit Over Student Loans May Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned KAREN ADAMS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ARNE DUNCAN, in his
capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of
Education, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:15-3592 (S.D.W.Va.),
Judge Robert C. Chambers denied the motion to dismiss brought by
Arne Duncan, Secretary of the United States Department of
Education.

Karen Adams initiated an action arising from the United States
Department of Education's decision to rehabilitate and sell loans
that she and thousands of others obtained to attend a for-profit
school under the Guaranteed Student Loan Program, now known as the
Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) Program.  Duncan had
previously found Adams' and other FFEL loans suitable for
discharge due to the school having falsely certified its students'
eligibility for FFEL loans.  Adams asked the court to overturn
Duncan's decision to rehabilitate and sell group discharged FFEL
loans, and the decision, in her case specifically, to refund no
interest on money she paid under her discharged FFEL loan.

Duncan moved to dismiss, claiming that the court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over the action because the United States has
not waived sovereign immunity as to the injunctive relief that
Adams sought.  Duncan also maintained that Adams' claim for
injunctive relief is mooted because she has had her FFEL loan
discharged and received a refund of money she paid under the loan
since 2007.

Judge Chambers held that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)
grants the court subject matter jurisdiction over Adams' claims
for declaratory and injunctive relief against Duncan for the
Department's decisions made under the Higher Education Act of 1965
(HEA), under which the FFEL Program was authorized.

Judge Chambers also held that Adams' case is not moot because
Adams allegedly continues to suffer the collateral consequences of
Duncan's decision to sell her loan, namely the alleged interest on
the money she was refunded and the possible continuing effect on
Adams' credit score.  The judge concluded that Duncan failed to
carry his heavy burden of demonstrating that Adams' claims are not
live and that she has no personal stake in this matter.

In addition, Judge Chambers also held that, even if Adams' case
were moot, the case is appropriate for applying the capable of
cessation yet evading review exception because Duncan's challenged
action constitutes a government decision that continues in force
and adversely effects Adams and the others.

A full-text copy of Judge Chambers' March 31, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/aRUR4pfrom
Leagle.com.

Karen Adams, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D. Adams, THE
CALWELL PRACTICE, John H. Skaggs, THE CALWELL PRACTICE & W. Stuart
Calwell, THE CALWELL PRACTICE.

Arne Duncan, Defendant, represented by Brian P. Siegel, Office of
the General Counsel & Gary L. Call, U. S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.


UNITED STATES: Settles 2002 World Bank Protest Mass Arrest Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spencer S. Hsu, writing for The Washington Post, reports that
District and U.S. authorities have quietly settled the final
lawsuit spawned by the mass arrest of almost 400 protesters and
bystanders at a September 2002 demonstration against the World
Bank, agreeing to pay $2.8 million to four former George
Washington University students without admitting wrongdoing.

The settlement brings to $13.25-million the total paid to resolve
litigation over protests at Pershing Park.  The District paid $11
million of that amount.

The total does not include the District's legal costs or an
estimated $2.8 million it paid outside counsel in the lawsuit
settled, people familiar with the case said.

The settlement in the final case was signed April 4 and entered
before U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the District,
averting a possible trial almost 14 years after the park protests
led to police reforms to protect the First Amendment rights of
protesters and prevent police destruction of evidence.

[A 14-year legal battle begins over police tactics and the right
to protest]

Earlier, the federal and District governments agreed to pay $2.2
million in 2015 and $8.25 million in 2010, respectively, and to
undertake policy overhauls to resolve class-action litigation.

D.C. police apologized and abandoned "trap and detain" tactics in
which officers surrounded and arrested large groups of people
close to demonstrations.  In the Sept. 27, 2002, incident the
tactics left some individuals tied wrist to ankle and detained as
long as 24 hours.

[D.C., U.S. Park Police add constitutional safeguards in protest
arrest policies]

U.S. Park Police also set new procedures dealing with warnings,
individualized probable cause and escape avenue requirements for
managing protests.

Enhanced police training has reduced conflict in District
protests, including recent demonstrations related to the Black
Lives Matter movement, after an era that included Pershing Park
and anti-globalization protests as well as demonstrations over the
2000 presidential election; 9/11 terrorist attacks; and Iraq War
protests.

Under the latest settlement terms, the District will pay $110,000
and the United States $5,000 each to plaintiffs RayMing Chang,
then a GWU law student, and student newspaper photographers Young
Choi, Leanne Lee and Chris Zarconi.  The District will pay $2.35
million to their attorneys with the Bryan Cave law firm and GWU
law professor Jonathan Turley.

In a statement on behalf of the plaintiffs, Mr. Turley called the
settlement the largest award to individuals in a case of this
kind.

He said the lawsuit brought "to light the destruction and
withholding of evidence in the case for the review of the court
and the public.  The court, city council, and the public can now
judge that record for themselves and take whatever action they
deem appropriate."

The office of Attorney General Karl A. Racine said in a statement,
"We are pleased that we have now brought this case to resolution."


UNITED STATES: More Class Actions Filed Over Tampon Sales Tax
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lynsi Burton, writing for Yes Magazine, reports that of the 45
states that charge sales tax, only five do not tax menstrual
products such as tampons and sanitary pads.  Most states have
exemptions for "necessities" such as food from the grocery store,
medical purchases such as prescription drugs and prosthetics, and
sometimes even clothes.  But products to keep women clean and
sanitary during their periods do not rise to the level of a
necessity in the tax codes of 40 states and the District of
Columbia.

2016 may become even a bigger year for period progress.
The office of California Assemblywoman Cristina Garcia, who
co-sponsors legislation introduced in January to eliminate her
state's tampon tax, estimates women who menstruate spend $7 per
month for 40 years of tampons and sanitary napkins, adding up to
more than $3,000 during a lifetime.

In New York, five women who filed a class-action lawsuit in March
claim the "tampon tax" violates the equal protection clause and
that it discriminates against women.  The suit points out that New
York provides sales-tax exemptions for items such as Rogaine, foot
powder, face wash, Viagra, and incontinence pads -- but not
menstrual products.  Ten states that tax tampons do not tax candy
or soda.

"It is the vestige of another era and now it is time to end it,"
the lawsuit says of the tax. "The Tampon Tax is irrational. It is
discrimination. It is wrong."

This month, two more lawsuits were filed in California and Ohio.

Even President Obama was unaware of the tax when it was put to him
by YouTube vlogger Ingrid Nilsen.

"I have no idea why states would tax these as luxury items," Obama
said during the recent YouTube interview.  "I suspect it's because
men were making the laws when those taxes were passed."

When the issue came to the attention of Jennifer Weiss-Wolf, vice
president for development at the Brennan Center for Justice and a
champion of the class-action lawsuit, it sparked a new avenue of
activism for her.

"I think I had the same reaction most people do: Wow, how did I
never think of that?" Mr. Weiss-Wolf said.

Ten states that tax tampons do not tax candy or soda.
Since then, she has written extensively about the issue for
publications from The New York Times to Ms. Magazine and
co-sponsored a national petition to state legislators calling for
an end to the tampon tax.  The petition has amassed more than
58,000 signatures.

It also sparked action -- to date, 14 states have introduced
legislation to eliminate their tampon taxes.  The first was
California, introduced by Garcia, a Democrat, and Republican Ling
Ling Chang. Measures in Utah and Tennessee have since died.
Tennessee lawmakers said they feared losing millions in state
revenue should they stop taxing hygiene products.

Cities are taking their own initiatives, too -- Chicago passed an
ordinance eliminating the city's portion of sales tax on menstrual
products, and the District of Columbia is considering a similar
measure.

Mr. Weiss-Wolf said called it "the makings of a movement."

It's not just the fact that some states exempt Viagra and not
tampons -- it's a health issue that affects women's ability to be
productive in their school, work, and home lives, Mr. Weiss-Wolf
said.

When women are deprived of access to menstrual products, "it
actually debilitates them and their ability to be the most
productive members of the citizenry as they can," Mr. Weiss-Wolf
said.  "They are an absolute necessity for half the world. (But
states) consider it a hand-out to get a tampon."

A proposal to eliminate the tampon tax, introduced in March, has
passed in both houses of the New York state legislature, with
support from Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

The class-action lawsuit, led by Mr. Weiss-Wolf, would enable
people who purchased menstrual products in the last two years to
receive a rebate -- $14 million in sales tax divided among these
buyers, admittedly amounting to a "couple of bucks" for each
recipient.

Mr. Weiss-Wolf is helping establish a fund where, should the
complainants win the lawsuit, people can donate their rebates to
benefit homeless shelters.


UNITED STATES: "A. R" Suit Transferred to W. D. of Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
A. R., by and through her next friend, Susan Root, C. V.,
by and through his next friends, Michael and Johnette Wahlquist
M. D., by and through her next friend, Pamela DeCambra,
C. M., by and through his next friend, Norine Mitchell,
B. M., by and through his next friend, Kayla Moore, T. F., by and
through his next friend, Michael and Fauerbach, each individually,
and on behalf of all other children similarly situated in the
State of Florida, A. C., by and through his next friend, Zurale
Cali, each individually and on behalf of all others who are
similarly situated in the State of Florida, T. H.
by and through her next friend, Paolo Annino, L. J., by and
through his next friend, Paolo Annino, A. G., by and through his
next friend Gamal Gasser, v. ELIZABETH DUDEK, in her official
capacity as Secretary of the Agency for Health Care
Administration, et al., Defendants, Case No. 0:12-cv-60460, was
removed from the US District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, Ft. Lauderdale Divis, to the US District Court for the
Western District of the Texas (Austin). The Texas Western District
Court assigned Case No. 1:16-mc-00334-LY to the proceeding.


VETS FIRST: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Messages, Noah's Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Noah's Ark, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation, individually and as
the representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v.
Vets First Choice LLC, Direct Vet Marketing, Inc. and John Does 1-
10, Case No. 1:16-cv-10692-DPW (D. Mass., April 11, 2016), seeks
to put an end to the Defendants' practice of sending unsolicited
facsimiles.

The Defendants own and operate an online veterinary pharmacy in
Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan L. Cantor, Esq.
      SWARTZ & SWARTZ
      10 Marshall Street
      Boston, MA  02108
      Telephone: (617) 742-1900
      Facsimile: (617) 367-7193

         - and -

      Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
      Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
      ANDERSON + WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 368-1500
      Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
      E-mail: RKelly@andersonwanca.com
              BWanca@andersonwanca.com


VIZIO INC: Emerson Scott Files Privacy Class Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emerson Scott, LLP, on April 12 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, William Lara, et al v. Vizio
Holdings, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 8:16-cv-00679, on behalf
of a nationwide class of purchasers of VIZIO televisions that were
equipped with, or thereafter updated to include, Smart
Interactivity data collection software.  A number of cases
involving this matter have been filed and centralized before the
Honorable Josephine L. Staton in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California.

There are approximately ten million VIZIO smart TV's equipped with
the company's VIZIO Internet Apps (VIA or VIA Plus) smart
platform, with its tracking algorithm called "Smart
Interactivity."  This allows VIZIO to keep track of the users'
viewing habits without their knowledge. VIZIO may share that data
with advertisers, sometimes without camouflaging a user's Internet
Protocol (IP) address, and advertisers can then connect those
habits to a particular user's other electronic devices.  The
tracking is turned on by default and the user who wants to escape
being tracked has to opt-out.

Plaintiffs allege that this class action brought against VIZIO and
Cognitive Media, arises due to the aforementioned collection of
the private information of users and purchasers of these "smart"
TVs which began no later than October, 2015.  Plaintiffs also
allege that this information, based on the viewing habits of users
and purchasers in the privacy of their own homes and collected
without the knowledge and agreement of consumers, is sold by the
defendants to third parties, again without the consent or
knowledge of consumers.  Plaintiffs further allege that
Defendants' collection, dissemination and profiteering from this
unauthorized collection of personal information violated federal
and state laws and the privacy rights of consumers.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages and injunctive relief on behalf
of all purchasers of VIZIO televisions that were equipped with, or
thereafter updated to include, Smart Interactivity data collection
software.  The plaintiffs are represented by the Houston-based
firm of Emerson Scott, LLP with offices in Houston, Texas and
Little Rock, Arkansas.  Emerson Scott, LLP is a boutique law firm
specializing in results, integrity, and personal service.  Emerson
Scott, LLP has devoted their practice to consumer privacy and data
breach class actions.  It is deeply involved in data breach cases
such as the Anthem, MIE, OPM, and Experian data breach cases.

If you purchased one of the affected VIZIO televisions and are
concerned about your privacy rights, please contact plaintiff's
counsel, Emerson Scott, LLP, at the following toll-free number:
800-663-9817, or via e-mail to John G. Emerson --
jemerson@emersonfirm.com -- or David G. Scott --
dscott@emersonfirm.com --

A copy of the complaint is available from the Court or from
Emerson Scott, LLP.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Franchise Dealerships File Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that add Volkswagen A.G.'s own franchise dealerships to the list
of parties suing the automaker over its emissions scandal.

The case, filed on April 6 on behalf of a nationwide class of
Volkswagen franchise dealerships, is in addition to more than 500
class actions filed on behalf of consumers, used car dealerships
and competing dealerships.

The VW dealership suit, filed in Chicago federal court, opens
another chapter in so-called Dieselgate, which involves the
automaker's "defeat device" designed to cheat emissions tests.
Volkswagen has admitted that about 600,000 cars in the United
States were installed with device, and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency has said the cars emit as much as 40 times the
standard for nitrogen oxides.

The emissions scandal has "caused great harm to franchise dealers
like plaintiffs whose profits have been erased and whose
dealerships have plummeted in value," Steve Berman, managing
partner of Seattle's Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, wrote in the
suit.

In an email, spokeswoman Jeanine Ginivan wrote that Volkswagen was
"committed to resolving the U.S. regulatory investigation into the
diesel emissions matter as quickly as possible and to implementing
a solution for affected vehicles."

Multidistrict litigation over the emissions scandal has been
coordinated in San Francisco before U.S. District Judge Charles
Breyer, who has given Volkswagen and federal regulators until
April 21 to come up with a plan to fix the cars.  But Mr. Berman
said the franchise case should proceed separately as "Volkswagen
has differing obligations, under law and under contract."

The lawsuit comes as Volkswagen dealers have grown increasingly
frustrated over plummeting sales and devalued diesel cars on their
lots.  On April 2, senior Volkswagen executives attempted to
reassure hundreds of dealers at the National Automobile Dealers
Association's annual convention in Las Vegas.

But not all of Volkswagen's 600 franchise dealers are "willing to
wait indefinitely" for Volkswagen to come up with a fix or
reimburse them, Berman wrote in an email.  The new case, filed by
three franchise dealerships owned by Ed Napleton, alleges that
Volkswagen has put some dealers ahead of others, such as "unfair
and illegal pricing" favoring dealers that used an affiliated
financing company, VW Credit Inc.  Mr. Napleton cited his purchase
of a VW franchise in Urbana, Illinois, that Volkswagen pushed last
year despite knowing of the emissions problem since 2014.

"Mr. Napleton feels that this lawsuit is the only way that VW
would take his concerns, and the concerns of all dealers,
seriously enough to actually propose a solution," Mr. Berman said.
"We believe that as the scandal drags on with no solution in
sight, a great many will join the effort to make VW do something
about it."

The case brings claims under the federal Automobile Dealers' Day
in Court Act and the U.S. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, alleging that Volkswagen and Robert Bosch GmbH,
which supplied the defeat device, conspired to commit fraud.


WEIGHT WATCHERS: Securities Litigation Still Pending in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Weight Watchers International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2,
2016, for the fiscal year ended January 2, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend the case, In re Weight Watchers International,
Inc. Securities Litigation.

In March 2014, two substantially identical putative class action
complaints alleging violation of the federal securities laws were
filed by individual shareholders against the Company, certain of
the Company's current and former officers and directors, and Artal
Group, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The complaints were purportedly filed on
behalf of all purchasers of the Company's common stock, no par
value per share, between February 14, 2012 and October 30, 2013,
inclusive (referred to herein as the Class Period). The complaints
allege that, during the Class Period, the defendants disseminated
materially false and misleading statements and/or concealed
material adverse facts. The complaints allege claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The plaintiffs seek to
recover unspecified damages on behalf of the class members.

In June 2014, the Court consolidated the cases and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel. On August 12, 2014, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint that, among other things, reduced the
Class Period to between February 14, 2012 and February 13, 2013
and dropped all current officers and certain directors previously
named as defendants. On October 14, 2014, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the
defendants' motion to dismiss on November 24, 2014 and the
defendants filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss on
December 23, 2014. The Company continues to believe that the suits
are without merit and intends to defend them vigorously.

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

Weight Watchers is a global-branded consumer company and
commercial provider of weight management services, operating
globally through a network of Company-owned and franchise
operations.


WEIGHT WATCHERS: Faces "Roberts" Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------
Weight Watchers International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 2,
2016, for the fiscal year ended January 2, 2016, that the Company
faces the case, Raymond Roberts v. Weight Watchers International,
Inc.

On January 7, 2016, an OnlinePlus member filed a putative class
action complaint against the Company in the Supreme Court of New
York, New York County, asserting class claims for breach of
contract and violations of the New York General Business Law.

On February 5, 2016, the Company removed the case to the United
States District Court, Sothern District of New York. Specifically,
the plaintiff is asserting that, as a result of the temporary
glitches in the Company's website and app in November and December
2015, the Company has: (1) breached its Subscription Agreement
with its OnlinePlus members; and (2) engaged in misleading
advertising and deceptive acts and practices in violation of
Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law. The
plaintiff is seeking unspecified actual, punitive and statutory
damages, as well as his attorneys' fees and costs incurred in
connection with this action. The Company believes that the suit is
without merit and intends to defend it vigorously.

Weight Watchers is a global-branded consumer company and
commercial provider of weight management services, operating
globally through a network of Company-owned and franchise
operations.


WINDSOR WINDOW: "Ritchie" Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin
------------------------------------------------------------
Cathy L. Ritchie, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Windsor Window Company d/b/a Windsor Windows
and Doors, and Woodgrain Millwork, Inc., Case No. 9:14-cv-04734,
was transferred from the District of South Carolina to the U.S.
District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin (Milwaukee). The
Wisconsin District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00436-LA
to the proceeding.

The suit asserts negligence/gross negligence, breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranties of merchantability and
fitness for particular purpose, negligent misrepresentation,
strict products liability, and seeks damages in connection with
defective windows designed, manufactured, marketed, advertised,
distributed, and sold by Defendants.

Windsor Window is a manufacturing company of wood, vinyl &
cellular PVC windows and doors for new home construction and home
improvement projects.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
      Matthew E. Lee, Esq.
      WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON LLP
      900 W. Morgan St
      Raleigh, NC 27609
      Telephone: (919) 981-0191
      Facsimile: (919) 981-0199
      E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com
              matt@wbmllp.com

         - and -

      Harper Todd Segui, Esq.
      HARPER TODD SEGUI LAW OFFICE
      180 Meeting St-Ste 230
      Charleston, SC 29401
      Telephone: (843) 494-5576

         - and -

      Jonathan Shub, Esq.
      KOHN SWIFT & GRAF PC
      1 S Broad St-Ste 2100
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215) 238-1700
      E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com


WINDSOR WINDOW: "Schiller" Suit Transferred to E.D. Wisconsin
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Anthony Schiller and Steve
Libsack, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated
v. Windsor Window Company d/b/a Windsor Windows and Doors, and
Woodgrain Millwork, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-01932, was transferred
from the District of Minnesota to the U.S. District Court Eastern
District of Wisconsin (Milwaukee). The Wisconsin District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00435-LA to the proceeding.

The suit asserts negligence/gross negligence, breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranties of merchantability and
fitness for particular purpose, negligent misrepresentation,
strict products liability, and seeks damages in connection with
defective windows designed, manufactured, marketed, advertised,
distributed, and sold by Defendants.

Windsor Window is a manufacturing company of wood, vinyl &
cellular PVC windows and doors for new home construction and home
improvement projects.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rhett A. McSweeney, Esq.
      David M. Langevin, Esq.
      MCSWEENEY/LANGEVIN
      2116 2nd Avenue South
      Minneapolis, MN 55404
      Telephone: (612) 746-4646
      Facsimile: (612) 454-2678
      E-mail: ram@westrikeback.com
              dave@westrikeback.com

         - and -

      Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
      Matthew E. Lee, Esq.
      Margaret P. Sandwith, Esq.
      WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON, LLP
      900 W. Morgan Street
      Raleigh, NC 27603
      Telephone: (919) 600-5000
      Facsimile: (919) 600-5035
      E-mail: dan@wbmllp.com
              matt@wbmllp.com
              maggie@wbmllp.com

         - and -

      Jordan L. Chaikin, Esq.
      PARKER WAICHMAN LLP
      27300 Riverview Center Blvd., Suite 103
      Bonita Springs, FL 34134
      Telephone: (239) 390-1000
      Facsimile: (239) 390-0055
      E-mail: jchaikin@yourlawyer.com


WISCONSIN: Bloomer Gets Largest Settlement in West-Central Region
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Vetter, writing for Leader-Telegram, reports that a
settlement in a class action lawsuit against the Wisconsin
Education Association Insurance Trust means that 141 school
districts statewide will split $4.9 million, after the agreement
was approved recently in Dane County Court.

The Bloomer school district received the largest settlement in
west-central Wisconsin, $135,498.  The Hudson school district will
get $130,291, and the Cumberland school district will receive
$105,637.  Most districts will receive several thousand dollars,
but 31 districts -- including Stanley-Boyd, Alma, Independence and
Glenwood City -- received the smallest amount at $658 each.

Mary Randall, Bloomer schools superintendent, said the lawsuit
originated nearly four years ago in the wake of the creation of
the Affordable Care Act.

"There were (insurance) rebates that were supposed to be given
back to the school district," Ms. Randall said.  "Rather than
reimbursement to the districts, they elected to keep the funds."

Ms. Randall said the 141 schools entered the class action lawsuit,
and she was notified in February that a settlement was nearing.
She isn't sure when the district will receive its share.

"This is just the judgment; we haven't received any other notice
at this time," Ms. Randall said.  "The money was originally
insurance dollars, so that's what it will be put toward. So, it
ultimately will help the taxpayers."

The Madison-based law firm Foley & Lardner announced the
settlement on April 12.

"WEA Trust had obtained several million dollars in the disputed
funds by using health care claims data for early retirees of the
class member school districts and then refused to pay the funds to
school districts that moved their insurance business to WEA
Trust's competitors," the law firm said in a statement.

Settlement payouts were based on amounts of "early retiree health
claims each district had incurred," the law firm stated.  The
largest payout will go to the Oshkosh school district, which will
receive $367,766.  The school district of Kettle Moraine will
receive $216,629.

A total of 12 districts received at least $100,000.


WISCONSIN: Milton, Edgerton School Districts Get Big Payouts
------------------------------------------------------------
Neil Johnson, writing for GazetteXtra, reports that the Milton and
Edgerton school districts will receive the biggest payouts among
area school districts in a class action settlement over millions
of dollars in federal Affordable Care Act money.

Milwaukee law firm Foley and Lardner announced that Milton Schools
will be awarded $111,589 as part of a $4.9 million, statewide
class action settlement with the Wisconsin Education Association's
health insurance trust.  Edgerton will receive $109,609, according
to a release from the law firm.

The payouts are being considered a "recovery" of money that was
distributed to the WEA Trust under an Affordable Care Act program.
In all, 141 districts statewide will recover money through the
settlement, which came through a suit filed in 2012 by the
Hartland-Lakeside, Oconomowoc, and Arrowhead school districts.

The suit argued that WEA had obtained several million dollars in
Affordable Care Act funds using health care claims data for early
retirees of the schools districts but had "refused" to return that
money to the school districts even after the districts moved their
business from WEA to other insurance carriers.

The heaviest migration in school district health care coverage
came in the wake of Gov. Scott Walker's Act 10 -- the 2011 law
that stripped out most public employee unions' collective
bargaining rights.

The settlement came in Dane County Court, according to the
release.  That's after the suit had wound through various state,
federal and appeals courts for almost five years.

Other area school districts receiving payments include:

-- Clinton Area School District: $6,670.
-- Delavan-Darien School District: $68,406.
-- East Troy Community School District: $82,111.
-- Whitewater School District: $8,975.

Edgerton Superintendent Dennis Pauli said he was aware a
settlement was pending, but he said the district hadn't yet gotten
word on the settlement.  He said he didn't yet know when the
district's payout will come, whether the payouts would come in a
lump sum, or if the money would be tied to specific district
spending.

Foley and Lardner said all of the districts named in the class
action will receive a payout.  A spokesman for the law firm said
lump-sum settlement checks have been mailed to each district in
the suit.

The firm represented the districts on a contingency basis.

Milton Schools Superintendent Tim Schigur said the district was
still waiting to learn details, but he said his earlier
understanding was that districts receiving a settlement would have
to use it to draw down on health care costs.  He wasn't sure on
April 13 if that had changed, and the law firm did not immediately
give details explaining whether the payments have restrictions.

The total each district will receive through the settlement is
based in part on the number of retirees each had during the period
of time under dispute.

Edgerton schools, for instance, had about 18 early retirements
that would have factored into WEA's calculations for Affordable
Care payouts.

Edgerton schools severed ties with WEA after Act 10 came down in
2011, although Pauli has long maintained the change had nothing to
do with Act 10.  The district at the time was facing a $1 million
budget gap.  Mr. Pauli said a switch from WEA insurance to Dean at
the time was projected to save $905,000.

Mr. Pauli said the settlement was reached after some area school
districts have largely negotiated their health care plans for the
coming year.  While he doesn't know yet how the settlement will be
structured, he said it's good news to hear school districts won in
the suit.

"It certainly is a nice windfall, without a doubt," Mr. Pauli
said.

Edgerton schools is in line for about a 6.9 percent increase in
healthcare costs through Dean -- a projected $150,000 increase in
cost to the district, Mr. Pauli said.

That's after the district's third-party negotiator worked over the
last two months to trim what initially was a projected 20 percent
increase, Mr. Pauli said.


XYTEX CORP: Three Ontario Families File Suit Over Sperm Donor
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that three Ontario families are suing
a U.S.-based sperm bank and its Canadian distributor, alleging
they were misled about a donor's medical and social history, which
included a criminal record and significant mental illness.

The families, who all used the same donor, have brought three
separate suits against Georgia-based Xytex Corp and Ontario-based
Outreach Health Services over the sperm of Donor 9623.  The
families allege that donor was promoted as highly educated,
healthy and popular.

Court papers filed in Ontario this week allege the donor had in
fact been diagnosed with schizophrenia and narcissistic
personality disorder, had spent time behind bars for a residential
burglary and did not have the degrees he claimed to obtain.

The documents allege Xytex failed to properly investigate the
donor's education claims and his medical history, and
misrepresented him to customers, including suggesting he had the
IQ level of a genius.

"The claims allege Xytex continued to sell the sperm even after it
knew the truth about the donor's health, his education and his
criminal past," said lawyer James Fireman, who represents the
three families.  "This kind of specific facts scenario is pretty
novel."

The donor is believed to have fathered at least 36 children, the
lawsuits allege.

Ted Lavender, a lawyer for Xytex, however, said the company looks
forward to "successfully defending itself" and noted that one of
the families involved had already filed a similar lawsuit against
the company in the U.S., which had been dismissed.

Outreach Health Services was not immediately available for
comment.

One couple, Angela Collins and Margaret Elizabeth Hanson, had
filed a lawsuit against Xytex, its parent company, sperm bank
employees and the donor last year in the U.S. state of Georgia.

The case was dismissed by a judge who said that while the lawsuit
claimed fraud, negligence and product liability, it is "rooted in
the concept of wrongful birth," which isn't recognized under
Georgia law.
* Class Actions Seen as Tool to Force Defective Firearms Recall
---------------------------------------------------------------
Martina Barash, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that Defects in
firearms, an inherently dangerous product, have led to deaths and
injuries -- but no agency has the authority to force a recall.

Other than voluntary recalls by gunmakers, class actions are
currently the only tool available to get defective firearms off
the market, attorneys and advocates for the suits tell Bloomberg
BNA in recent interviews.

Two pending class action settlements -- one involving Remington
rifles, a second involving handguns made by a Brazilian maker --
involve replacing the defective mechanism or the gun itself as one
part of the remedy.

But such gun-safety class actions are rare.  A plaintiffs'
attorney says he's unaware of any others that are underway.

And an anti-violence advocate remembers only one in the past,
against Glock Inc. and its parent company (Spence v. Glock,
Ges.m.b.h., 227 F.3d 308 (5th Cir. 2000). In that case, class
certification was reversed on appeal.

Meanwhile, some legal observers have criticized the use of
litigation for an essentially regulatory purpose.

The number of deaths and injuries attributable to gun defects is
unknown.

Voluntary Recalls

Gun manufacturers can and do conduct voluntary recalls.  The
Violence Policy Center, which advocates for firearms regulation,
lists 45 gun safety alerts and recalls by 13 manufacturers on its
website.

But a manufacturer may not agree that such an action is necessary.
One of the current class actions, a suit against Brazilian
gunmaker Forjas Taurus, alleges the company's PT140 Millenium
pistol and similar models can fire when dropped and may even fire
when the manual safety lever is switched to the "safe" position.

But before agreeing to settle the case, "Taurus had denied the
safety problem exists," the plaintiff's attorney, David L. Selby
II, told Bloomberg BNA.  "Up until Taurus agreed to this
settlement, an owner would have had to show their gun was
defective."

'Class Action or Nothing.'

F. Paul Bland Jr., executive director of Public Justice, a
plaintiffs' firm, called the Taurus drop-fire situation "a class
action or nothing," particularly because the problem isn't self-
evident.

VPC Legislative Director Kristen Rand agreed.  "If a gun's
defective, there's no entity that has authority either to issue a
recall or to force manufacturers to address the hazard, so the
only mechanism is lawsuits," she told Bloomberg BNA.

But "gun owners are very reticent to pursue lawsuits," she said.

Mr. Bland has argued against H.R. 1927, a "no-injury" class-action
bill.  Opponents of the measure say it could curtail suits where
not all class members have yet experienced a defect.  "That bill
would prevent this case," he said.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, which represents the gun
industry, declined to comment on the issue of class actions but
referred Bloomberg BNA to Victor Schwartz -- vschwartz@shb.com
-- of Shook Hardy & Bacon.

Mr. Schwartz, a longtime advocate of tort reform, argues against
the use of litigation to do agencies' work.  "Robert Reich, who
was President Clinton's Secretary of Labor, put a label on this
kind of thing, that he called 'regulation through litigation,'"
Mr. Schwartz told Bloomberg BNA.

People who favor that use of litigation say that if "in their view
there's a public need," but the regulatory bodies don't have
authority, then members of the public should "use the liability
system to fulfill that need," he said.

Mr. Schwartz, who disagrees, concurs with Reich that "the tort
system should not be used as a substitute for a regulatory body."

"There are very legitimate thinkers on both sides," he said.

The use of class actions to force a gun recall "would be a prime
example of regulation through litigation," Mr. Schwartz said. "And
it doesn't mean that I'm casting aspersions on it. It just means
that I'm defining what it is."

"The Reich position is that if you cannot get the regulation
through the legislature, or you cannot get legislation to do what
you want through the legislature, that's the end of it,"
Mr. Schwartz said.

"And that's our democratic process, however weak it is.  Nobody
elects a tort czar," the tort system is "not something that's
voted upon by the public, and tort law shouldn't be used for that
purpose," he said.

Notice Issues in Taurus, Remington Deals

The pending class settlements carry provisions that resemble
recalls.

The Taurus settlement provides an "enhanced warranty" for the life
of the pistol. Although the warranty envisions a repair or a
replacement, Bland said the remedy will essentially be a
replacement gun, since the trigger mechanism can't be repaired.

The Taurus deal also offers class members the option of a cash
payment for the return of a pistol.

Judge Patricia A. Seitz of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida granted preliminary approval in July
2015 (Carter v. Forjas Taurus S.A., S.D. Fla., No. 1:13-cv-24583,
preliminary settlement approval granted 7/30/15).

In the other class action, a plaintiff sued Remington Arms Co.
over allegedly defective triggers in its popular Model 700 Bolt
Action rifles in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Missouri (, W.D. Mo., No. 4:13-cv-00086, settlement
preliminarily approved 4/14/15).

Under the proposed settlement, class members would be entitled to
a replacement of the trigger mechanism, a voucher for other
Remington products and/or a refund of money they already spent on
a new trigger mechanism, according to a notice on the Remington
website.

The courts overseeing the settlements are trying to achieve good
response rates.  Issues with the sufficiency of class notice have
delayed both settlements, though the Taurus deal may be completed
this summer.

Judge Seitz said at a hearing in January that she would deny
objections to the settlement that had already been filed,
according to Mr. Selby, the plaintiff's attorney.

But Judge Seitz delayed final approval, asking that class members
receive more information about replacement guns, Mr. Selby said.

Judge Seitz approved the new notice plan Feb. 1, he said, and a
hearing on final approval is scheduled for July 18, 2016.

The Remington case has also run into delays over notice.  The
court postponed the final settlement hearing because, it said Dec.
8, only 2,327 claim forms have been submitted in the suit, which
could count millions of firearms owners as class members.

The court ordered the parties to develop a notice plan to achieve
"a more significant response rate."

"The Court cannot conceive that an owner of an allegedly defective
firearm would not seek the remedy being provided pursuant to the
Settlement Agreement," the court said in its order.

Supplemental briefing is underway and no date has been set for the
final settlement hearing.

Attempts to reach Taurus and Remington weren't successful.


* FCC Seeks Comment on Residential Telephone Line Rules
-------------------------------------------------------
Klein Moyniha Turco reports that the Federal Communications
Commission (the "FCC" or "Commission") is currently seeking
comment on whether it should establish a bright-line rule for
telephone lines in residential homes that are used for business
purposes.  The petition prompting the FCC's request was filed by
Todd C. Bank -- a lawyer and established class action plaintiff
who is making a name for himself throughout the telemarketing
industry by virtue of his liberal use of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act ("TCPA") to bring class action lawsuits.

In the past two years alone, Mr. Bank has filed a dozen such TCPA
class action lawsuits in New York State against a variety of
sellers and telemarketers.

What should you do if you have been sued by Todd Bank?

Todd Bank's Petition and the FCC's Request for Comment

On March 31, 2016, the Commission issued a Public Notice seeking
comment on Mr. Bank's Petition.  The Petition requests that the
FCC define a residential telephone line as any phone line that is
provided as "residential" service by the telephone service
provider, regardless of whether the phone number is listed
publicly as a business number or otherwise used as such.

If granted as requested, Todd Bank's Petition could greatly
diminish the practical scope of the TCPA's well-established
business-to-business exemption, which expressly allows
telemarketers to make certain telemarketing calls to businesses.
Limiting the business-to-business exemption would undoubtedly be
of great benefit to Mr. Bank and other TCPA plaintiffs.

How to Avoid a TCPA Lawsuit

There are clear best practices that can be implemented to minimize
the risk of becoming involved in a TCPA lawsuit.  In the
telemarketing industry, perhaps more than any other, a penny of
prevention truly is worth more than a pound of cure.

Sellers should confirm that their telemarketing partners are
taking proper steps to maintain compliance with the TCPA and its
implementing regulations.  Likewise, telemarketers should ensure
that they have proper protocols in place to both ensure their own
compliance, as well as to ensure that their affiliates are
compliant with the TCPA.  Above all, it is critical to work with
experienced telemarketing counsel before the launch of any
campaign in order to implement the practices and procedures
necessary to prevent making telephone calls or delivering text
messages that violate the TCPA.

What should you do if Todd Bank or any other TCPA plaintiff sues
you?

The failure to quickly identify the defenses available to TCPA
class action lawsuits may result in sellers and telemarketers
alike finding themselves on weak footing when defending the claims
brought against them.  Therefore, it is critical to engage counsel
knowledgeable in the intricacies of these complex issues in order
to minimize the expense of defending such suits, whether brought
by a formidable litigator such as Mr. Bank, or other TCPA
plaintiffs.

The key to successfully and promptly disposing of a TCPA suit is
retaining counsel that understands the nuances of the TCPA and
related telemarketing regulations and case law.  Over two decades
of extensive experience with the aggressive defense of
telemarketing lawsuits has allowed us to formulate arguments
informed by the most effective legal theories related to TCPA
claims, positioning our clients to achieve favorable resolutions.

If you are interested in this topic, have been sued or contacted
by Todd Bank, or are otherwise the subject of a TCPA lawsuit,
please e-mail us at info@kleinmoynihan.com, or call us at (212)
246-0900.

The material contained herein is provided for information purposes
only and is not legal advice, nor is it a substitute for obtaining
legal advice from an attorney.  Each situation is unique, and you
should not act or rely on any information contained herein without
seeking the advice of an experienced attorney.


* Securities Class Actions Up in 2015, Smaller Companies Targeted
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marlisse Silver Sweeney, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports
that there was an increase in securities class actions in 2015 and
smaller companies are often targeted, according to the 2015
Securities Litigation Study from PricewaterhouseCoopers.

According to the report, 195 securities class actions were filed
in the U.S. federal courts in 2015, compared with 169 in 2014. The
number of new cases has increased every year since 2012.

One interesting finding: "Two-thirds of the 2015 federal
securities class action cases targeted smaller companies."  This
is partly due to the fact that last year, 94 percent of all
initial public offerings were valued at less than $500 million,
and half were less than $100 million.

Traditionally, smaller companies weren't targets for these kinds
of lawsuits, but times are changing.  "As legislation and capital
market pressures encourage, if not drive, these companies into the
equity markets, the threat of litigation accelerates," according
to the report.

The report also found that there still hasn't been a cybercrime-
related federal securities class action case. This runs contrary
to speculation in 2014 that cyberbreaches would become a source of
class action filings.  However, with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission's cyberfocus, future litigation in this area
is imminent.


* US Supreme Court Opens Door to Group Evidence in Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Herbert Smith Freehills LLP reports that a recent US Supreme Court
decision opens the door, albeit narrowly, for class-action
plaintiffs to rely on group evidence, rather than their individual
circumstances.

Handed down in March 2016, the decision means it is likely to be
easier for plaintiffs to use representative sampling and
statistical modeling to establish a defendant's liability.

The Court's ruling affirmed a jury verdict in favor of a class of
plaintiffs who used representative sampling -- rather than
individualized evidence -- to establish the defendants' liability.
It is notable, however, that the Court took care to emphasize the
narrow scope and fact-specific nature of its opinion, and
explicitly declined to establish a general rule regarding the use
of representative or statistical evidence in class action
litigation.  As a result, the key question of whether the decision
extends much beyond the specific facts at issue remains
unanswered.

Case study -- Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo

Bouaphakeo is a wage and hour class action brought by employees of
a meat-processing plant who claimed that Tyson Foods was violating
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  The claim related to
overtime not being paid for the time employees spent 'donning and
doffing' protective gear at the beginning and end of their work
shifts.

Because Tyson Foods did not maintain time records for this, the
employees presented a statistical report that used representative
sampling to determine the average time they took donning and
doffing protective gear.  Based on this report, the jury delivered
a verdict in favor of the employees.

Supreme Court's ruling

The Supreme Court upheld the plaintiffs' use of the statistical
analysis as a valid way to prove how many uncompensated hours the
employees had worked, given that the employer failed to maintain
donning and doffing time records.  The Court held that because the
statistical analysis used by the class action plaintiffs could
have been used by an employee in an individual FLSA lawsuit (to
prove how many uncompensated hours the employee worked), it was
equally permissible for the class-action plaintiffs to use the
statistical analysis.

While the Court's decision was helpful for the Tyson Food
employees, it may not prove helpful to future class action
plaintiffs.

This is because the Court declined to establish a general rule
governing the use of statistical analyses in class action
lawsuits.  Instead, the Court held that the proper use of
statistical analysis in a class action litigation will depend on
the underlying law and the specific facts of the case.  For
example, the purpose of the analysis, how it helps prove the
plaintiffs' legal claim, and whether using the analysis would
prevent the defendant from arguing that certain class members are
not entitled to a legal remedy.

The Court also did not answer a question stemming from the use of
representative sampling: how do you allocate the jury's verdict so
that only those employees who actually worked uncompensated hours
receive part of the award?

The Court instructed the trial court to address that question. If
the trial court determines that there is no way to allocate the
award without potentially compensating some employees who did not
work uncompensated hours, the Supreme Court may have to address
whether such an award is constitutional.

While the Supreme Court's decision has resulted in much
uncertainty, it is clear that whatever the ramifications, they
will be closely scrutinised.







                            *********

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  * * *