CAR_Public/160425.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, April 25, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 82



                            Headlines


ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS: N.D. Cal. Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
ACS DATALINE: Faces "Talavera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ADECCO USA: Shepardson's Non-PAGA Claims Sent to Arbitration
ADVANCEPIERRE: Recalls Breaded Pork Products due to Misbranding
ALPHA NATURAL: Trial Begins Today in NCI Employee Suit

ALPHA NATURAL: Pa. Court Approves Settlement in Emerald Suit
ANGIE'S LIST: Summary Judgment Bids Due Today in "Moore" Suit
ANGIE'S LIST: "Glick" Parties to Wait for Outcome in "Moore" Suit
AIR LINE PILOTS: "Valdez" Suit Seeks Damages Over 2015 CBA
ALLIED PIONEERS: Recalls Sweet Potato Strips Due to Sulphites

ALLIED PIONEERS: Recalls Raisin and Sweet Potato Slices
ANGIE'S LIST: "Williams" Suit Seeks OT Compensation Under FLSA
ANAVEX LIFE SCIENCES: Troung Appointed as Lead Plaintiff
ARCHBISHOP OF NEW ORLEANS: Sued Over Civil Rights Violation
ASSET MANAGING: Faces "Reinhart" Suit Over Fla. Wage Law Breach

ATLANTIC POWER: Shareholder Suits in U.S., Canada Dismissed
BRIAD RESTAURANT: "Palmisano" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Securities Suit in Claims Admin. Process
BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Motion to Dismiss "Zamir" Suit Pending
CAESARSTONE SDOT-YAM: Israel Class Suit in Initial Stage

CAESARSTONE SDOT-YAM: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit in N.Y.
CANADA NEW: Recalls Fish Ball Products Due to Egg
CELESTICA INC: To Seek Costs of Appeal in Ontario Suit
CHANNELADVISOR CORP: Court Dismisses Securities Litigation
CHICO'S FAS: Still Defends Ackerman and Altman Suits

CHILDREN'S PLACE: Recalls Sleep and Play Layettes
CLIMA-TECH: Faces "Roberts" Suit Over Illegal Stock Options
COLTON, CA: Cops Face Class Suit by Wrongly Jailed
CONSOLIDATED COATINGS: Recalls Wood Decks and Siding
CWS APARTMENT HOMES: "Abramson" Files Statutory Action

DAYMAR COLLEGES: Claims of Missing & Deceased Plaintiffs Nixed
EAST HAVEN: Faces "Richards" Suit in New York Supreme Court
EC USA: Faces "Gallegos" Suit Filed by Non-Exempt Hourly Teachers
ENERGY TRANSFER: "Levine" Sues Over Discriminatory Distribution
EROS INTERNATIONAL: Labaton Sucharow Named as Lead Counsel

ESTATE OF MCCLENDON: Breached Fiduciary Duties Owed to Chesapeake
FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: Updated 3rd Amendment Litigation Chart
FIRST BUSEY: Still Defends 1 Suit in Missouri Over Pulaski Deal
FISHER-PRICE: Bid for Class Certification in "Harris" Denied
FOREST RIVER: Recalls Cherokee 2016 Due to Noncompliance

FORMFACTOR INC: Employee Class Suit in Merits Discovery
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Drugs in GM First Aid Kits
GLOSS ORGANIC: "Reiche" Suit Removed to S. District Florida
HAMILTON COUNTY WATER: Protocol Won't Apply to AHA Suit
HARBOUR RESTAURANT: "Sutherland" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA

HEFFERIN TREE: Faces "De Paz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HOMEWAY: Faces Consumer Class Suit in Texas
HYUNDAI: Recalls Tucson 2016 Models Due to Noncompliance
IKEA CANADA: Recalls Floor and Table Lamps Due to Shock Hazard
INFINITI: Recalls Q50 2014 Models Due to Injury Risk

INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Oral Argument in Class Action Appeal Held
J. CREW GROUP: Obscured Disclaimers, "Rubin" Suit Claims
JACOBS VEHICLE: "Unique Brooks" Cries Discrimination
JSJ EXPRESS: "Skeen" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Compensation Under FLSA
KARL STORZ: Faces "Kurtz" Suit Over Defective Storz Morcellator

KIA: Recalls Sorento 2011 Models Due to Defective Sunroof
KOREA FOOD: Recalls Fish Paste Products Due to Egg
L BRANDS: Faces "Nahas" Suit Over Unlawful Purchasing Policies
LEMOND FOOD: Recalls Frozen Crab Meat and Fried Fish Cake
LENOVO INC: "Ponce" Class Suit Removed to District Minnesota

LIBERTY TAX: Settlement in ERC Litigation Has Final OK
MACK: Recalls Titan 2016 Due to Crash Risk
MANNARICH FOOD: Recalls Ball Combo Products Due to Egg
MANSIONS AT SANDY: "Oliver" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA
MARCHEX INC: "Porter" Suit in W.D. Wash. Dismissed

MCT GROUP: Faces "Petley" Suit Over FDCPA and TCPA Breach
MDL 2592: Bid for Entry of Protective Order Denied
MEATING PLACE: Recalls Ground Beef Products Due to E. Coli
MID CITY GYM: "Sierra" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
MOISHE'S PLACE: Faces "Martinez" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA

MOUNTAIN PRODUCTS: Recalls Bacon and Pork Sausage Products
NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE: Court Narrows Protected Documents
NATIONAL RAILROAD: Tulks' Bid for Preliminary Class Cert. Denied
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Levin" Suit in District of New Jersey
NAVISTAR INT'L: June 13 Class Cert. Hearing in N&C Suit

NAVISTAR INT'L: Still Defends MaxxForce Suit in N.D. Illinois
NEW LEE: Faces "Zheng" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
NEIL JONES: "Valdez" Class Action Deal Gets Initial OK
NOBLE COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Almeida" Suit Seeking Unpaid OT Wage
NORTH SHORE: Faces "Mitros" Suit in Eastern District Pennsylvania

NR EXPRESS: Faces "Bing" Suit in Southern District of New York
ORIGINAL GIANETTO'S: Recalls Gianetto's Dip Products
PANASONIC CANADA: Recalls Toughbook CF-S10 Battery Packs
PERFECT FIT: Recalls Poultry Entrees Due to Misbranding
PRODIGY GROUP: Recalls Bicycle Wheel Hubs Due to Fall Hazard

RETRIEVAL-MASTERS CREDITOR'S: Faces "Namer" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
SAKS DIRECT: Faces "Rubin" Suit in District of New Jersey
SALEM BROTHERS: Recalls Soup Products Due to Milk & Sesame Seeds
SANOFI: 1,095 Plavix(R) Product Liability Suits Filed at Dec. 31
SANOFI: Menactra Class Action Remains Pending

SANOFI: Plaintiffs Seek to Reverse Case Dismissal Order
SANOFI: Appeal in CVR Class Action Pending
SANTANDER CONSUMER: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Galloway"
SCRIPT RELIEF: Sued in M.D. Florida Over Automated Calls
SERVICESOURCE INTERNATIONAL: "Weller" Suit Still Pending

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: "Reder-Leos" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
SOUTHERN FLOOR: "Tillis" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
SUBARU: Recalls Forester 2015 and Impreza WRX 2016 Models
SUPERIOR ENERGY: "Myer" Suit Seeks to Unpaid Overtime Wages
TACO BELL: Plaintiffs' Bid for PAGA Penalties Denied

TESCO CORP: Participating in Arbitration with Former Employees
TEVA CANADA: Recalls Bortezomib Powder for Injection
THUMBTACK INC: "Rhom" Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
TRANS-CONTINENTAL CREDIT: Faces "Marcus" Suit in New Jersey Dist.
TOWN SPORTS: Settlement in "Labbe" Case Underway

TUMI HOLDINGS: "Sun" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Merger with Samsonite
UNITED PARCEL: "Amaya" Suit Seeks Lost Wages Under Labor Code
URGENT COURIER: Misclassified Employees, Helms Suit Claims
US BANK: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Rodriguez" Suit Claims
VANGUARD NATURAL: Facing "Hurwitz" Class Suit in Delaware

VANGUARD NATURAL: Defending Against Eagle Rock Merger Suit
VANGUARD NATURAL: Faces "Maniatis" Suit Over Debt Exchange
VIA INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Marley" Class Suit in California
VITAL THERAPIES: Hearing Held on Bid to Consolidate
VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Touareg 2011 Due to Crash Risk

WYETH: Court Affirms Trust's Denial of "Ellis" Claims
XENCOR INC: Paid $950,000 for Plaintiff's Legal Award
XEROX CORPORATION: "Stock" Suit Seeks Relief & Damages FLSA
ZAGG INC: 10th Cir. Appeal Still Pending
ZAGG INC: "Morganstern" Action in Utah Dismissed

ZALE DELAWARE: Court Certifies Two Classes in "Tapia"


                            *********


ACELRX PHARMACEUTICALS: N.D. Cal. Suit Dismissed with Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
AcelRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a class action
complaint in the Northern District of California has been
dismissed by the court with prejudice.

The Company said, "On October 1, 2014, a securities class action
complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against AcelRx and certain of our current
and former officers. On April 17, 2015, lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint. The amended complaint alleged that between
September 30, 2013 and July 25, 2014, AcelRx and certain of our
current and former officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with statements
related to our lead drug candidate, Zalviso."

"On November 25, 2015, the Court granted our Motion to Dismiss.
Plaintiffs had the opportunity to file an amended complaint within
30 days' which they declined to do. On January 18, 2016, the Court
issued an order dismissing the case with prejudice."

AcelRx Pharmaceuticals is a specialty pharmaceutical company
focused on the development and commercialization of innovative
therapies for the treatment of acute pain.


ACS DATALINE: Faces "Talavera" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jaime Talavera and Anthony Valdez, individually and on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v.
ACS Dataline, LP, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
BC61715 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 15, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
California Labor Code.

ACS Dataline, LP is a provider of telecommunication infrastructure
supplies and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ADECCO USA: Shepardson's Non-PAGA Claims Sent to Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned KAITLYN SHEPARDSON, Plaintiff, v. ADECCO
USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-05102-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Edward M. Chen granted Adecco USA, Inc.'s motion to compel Kaitlyn
Shepardson's claims to arbitration except for her claims under the
Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA).

Shepardson filed the class action lawsuit in state court against
Adecco, asserting various wage and rest break violations, unfair
business practices, and PAGA penalty claims.  On November 6, 2015,
Adecco removed the putative class action lawsuit under the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005 ("CAFA").  Adecco then filed a motion
to compel arbitration of all of Shepardson's claims pursuant to an
arbitration agreement that Shepardson signed after she was hired.
The parties disputed whether the class action waiver and the PAGA
waiver in the Agreement are valid and enforceable.

Judge Chen granted Adecco's motion to compel Shepardson's claims
for failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide rest period
premiums, failure to pay wages on termination, and unfair business
practices to arbitration.  The judge, however, denied Adecco's
motion to compel Shepardson's representative PAGA claims to
arbitration, but stayed the PAGA claims pending the outcome of the
arbitration.

A full-text copy of Judge Chen's April 5, 2016 order is available
at http://is.gd/vcpJIYfrom Leagle.com.

Kaitlyn Shepardson, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Righetti,
Righetti Glugoski, P.C., John Glugoski, Righetti Glugoski, P.C. &
Michael C. Righetti, Righetti Glugoski, P.C..

Adecco USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Julie Erin Patterson
-- jepatterson@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP & Julie Westcott
O'Dell -- julie.odell@bryancave.com -- Bryan Cave LLP.


ADVANCEPIERRE: Recalls Breaded Pork Products due to Misbranding
---------------------------------------------------------------
AdvancePierre Foods, a Cincinnati, OH establishment, is recalling
approximately 3,469 pounds of breaded pork products due to
misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.
The product contains eggs, a known allergen, which are not
declared on the product label.

The CN Fully Cooked Breaded Pork Patties were produced on March
15, 2016. The following products are subject to recall:

  --- 19.38-lb. box containing "CN FULLY COOKED BREADED PORK
      PATTIES," with an Use-By-Date of March 15, 2017 and a case
      code of 3801.

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST.
2132" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped
to institutions in Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, and Ohio.

The problem was discovered by the firm during a routine labeling
review and they immediately informed FSIS.

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

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


ALPHA NATURAL: Trial Begins Today in NCI Employee Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
4, 2016, that a West Virginia state court has scheduled the trial
for April 25-29 and May 2-6, 2016 in the NCI employee litigation.

On February 7, 2013, the Company received notice of a putative
class action lawsuit against NCI filed in the Circuit Court of
Mingo County, West Virginia by a former NCI employee (the "NCI
Employee Litigation"). The plaintiff in the NCI Employee
Litigation is represented by the same attorney who represented the
plaintiff in the ACTF Litigation, and the complaint's allegations
raise issues similar to those in the ACTF Litigation and arise
from the same Red Jacket Contract that was at issue in the ACTF
Litigation. The Company believes that NCI has meritorious defenses
to the claims asserted in the NCI Employee Litigation.

NCI filed its answer to the complaint in the NCI Employee
Litigation on March 4, 2013. On April 23, 2013, the Circuit Court
of Kanawha County, West Virginia, granted NCI's motion to transfer
and entered an agreed order transferring the NCI Employee
Litigation from the Circuit Court of Mingo County to the Circuit
Court of Kanawha County.

On November 14, 2013, the Circuit Court of Kanawha County granted
NCI's Motion to Certify Questions of Law to the Supreme Court of
Appeals of West Virginia, but on June 17, 2014, the Supreme Court
declined to review the submitted questions in the absence of a
more developed factual record in the lower court. Proceedings in
the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia therefore
resumed.

                           *     *     *

Alpha Natural Resources also disclosed in an exhibit to its Form
8-K Report that in a case filed on April 23, 2010 in Delaware
Chancery Court, In re Massey Energy Company Derivative and Class
Action Litigation ("In re Massey"), a number of purported former
Massey stockholders (the "Delaware Plaintiffs") allege,
purportedly on behalf of Massey, that certain former Massey
directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties by failing
to monitor and oversee Massey's employees, allegedly resulting in
fines against Massey and the explosion at UBB, and by wasting
corporate assets by paying allegedly excessive and inflated
amounts to former Massey Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Don
L. Blankenship as part of his retirement package.

The Delaware Plaintiffs also allege, on behalf of a purported
class of former Massey stockholders, that certain former Massey
directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to the
Massey Acquisition. The Delaware Plaintiffs allege that defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to secure the best
price possible, by failing to secure any downside protection for
the acquisition consideration, and by purportedly eliminating the
possibility of a superior proposal by agreeing to a "no shop"
provision and a termination fee.

In addition, the Delaware Plaintiffs allege that defendants agreed
to the Massey Acquisition to eliminate the liability that
defendants faced on the Delaware Plaintiffs' derivative claims.
Finally, the Delaware Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to
fully disclose all material information necessary for Massey
stockholders to cast an informed vote on the Massey Acquisition.

The Delaware Plaintiffs also name the Company and Mountain Merger
Sub, Inc. ("Merger Sub"), the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary
created for purposes of effecting the Massey Acquisition, which,
at the effective time of the Massey Acquisition, was merged with
and into Massey, as defendants. The Delaware Plaintiffs allege
that the Company and Merger Sub aided and abetted the former
Massey directors' alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and agreed to
orchestrate the Massey Acquisition for the purpose of eliminating
the former Massey directors' potential liability on the derivative
claims. Two additional putative class actions were brought against
Massey, certain former Massey directors and officers, the Company
and Merger Sub in the Delaware Court of Chancery following the
announcement of the Massey Acquisition, which were consolidated
for all purposes with In re Massey in February 2011.

The Delaware Plaintiffs seek an award against each defendant for
restitution and/or compensatory damages, plus pre-judgment
interest; an order establishing a litigation trust to preserve the
derivative claims asserted in the complaint; and an award of
costs, disbursements and reasonable allowances for fees incurred
in this action. The Delaware Plaintiffs also sought to enjoin
consummation of the Massey Acquisition. The court denied their
motion for a preliminary injunction in May 2011.

In June 2011, Massey moved to dismiss the Delaware Plaintiffs'
derivative claims on the ground that the Delaware Plaintiffs, as
former Massey stockholders, lacked the legal right to pursue those
claims, and the Company and Alpha Appalachia Merger Sub moved to
dismiss the purported class action claim against them for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. In June 2011,
certain former Massey director and officer defendants moved to
dismiss the derivative claims and filed answers to the remaining
direct claims.

In September 2011, the parties submitted a Stipulation Staying
Proceedings, which stayed the matter until March 2012, without
prejudice to the parties' right to seek an extension or a
termination of the stay by application to the court. The court
approved the stipulation and entered the stay that same day. The
court extended the stay several times and the most recent stay
expired on October 31, 2014.

On October 17, 2014, the Delaware Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint which maintains claims against Massey and certain former
Massey directors and officers but no longer asserts claims against
the Company or Mountain Merger Sub, Inc. Defendants moved to
dismiss on December 5, 2014, and the motion remains pending.

On August 10, 2015, the Company filed a notice of suggestion of
bankruptcy with the court.


ALPHA NATURAL: Pa. Court Approves Settlement in Emerald Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Alpha Natural Resources, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
4, 2016, that the Green County court in Pennsylvania has approved
the settlement and entered a final order dismissing the Emerald
securities class action.

On July 13, 2012, a purported class action brought on behalf of a
putative class of former Massey stockholders was filed in Boone
County, West Virginia Circuit Court. The complaint asserts claims
under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, against the Company
and certain of its officers and current and former directors, and
generally asserts that the defendants made false statements about
the Company's Emerald mine in its public filings associated with
the Massey Acquisition. The plaintiff seeks, among other relief,
an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at
trial.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the Boone County
Circuit Court on February 6, 2013. The defendants filed motions to
dismiss the amended complaint on March 22, 2013 and March 29,
2013.

On January 8, 2015, the Boone County Circuit Court dismissed all
claims in the plaintiff's amended complaint. The plaintiffs did
not appeal the dismissal.

On April 25, 2014, the named plaintiff in the West Virginia
Circuit Court action filed a second complaint in Greene County,
Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas, again asserting claims under
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, against the Company and
certain of its officers and current and former directors, and
generally asserts that the defendants made false statements about
the Company's Emerald mine in its public filings associated with
the Massey Acquisition. The plaintiff seeks, among other relief,
an award of compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at
trial. By agreement of the parties, the defendants' time to
answer, move or otherwise respond to the Pennsylvania complaint
was extended until May 7, 2015.

On April 24, 2015, the parties reached agreement on definitive
terms for settlement of the Greene County, Pennsylvania
litigation. On July 23, 2015, the parties executed definitive
settlement documentation, which received preliminary approval by
the Green County court on August 3, 2015.

On October 8, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order that
modified the Automatic Stay to authorize the Company's insurers to
fund the proposed Settlement, and further authorized related
relief to allow the parties to consummate the settlement in
accordance with its terms. On October 15, 2015, proceeds from its
insurance policies funded the settlement escrow account.

On March 1, 2016, following a fairness hearing, the Green County
court approved the settlement and entered a final order dismissing
the case with prejudice as to the Company and the individual
defendants.


ANGIE'S LIST: Summary Judgment Bids Due Today in "Moore" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Angie's List, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the parties in the case,
Moore v. Angie's List, Inc., 2:15cv-01243-SD (E.D. Pa.), were to
complete discovery by April 14, 2016, and file any summary
judgment motions by April 25, 2016.

On March 11, 2015, a lawsuit seeking class action status was filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The lawsuit alleges claims of breaches
of contract and covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud and
fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment and violation of
Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
premised on the allegations that the Company does not disclose
that it accepts advertising payments from service providers or
that the payments allegedly will impact the service provider
letter grade ratings, the content and availability of reviews
about the provider, and the provider's placement in search result
rankings.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss on May 13, 2015, which was
granted in part on August 7, 2015. In particular, the plaintiff's
breach of covenant of good faith and unjust enrichment claims were
dismissed from the action based on the face of the plaintiff's
complaint.

Pursuant to the Court's recently amended scheduling order, the
parties must complete discovery by April 14, 2016 and file any
summary judgment motions by April 25, 2016.

The parties have exchanged extensive written and document
discovery and have conducted depositions. The parties are also
exploring the possibility of resolving the matter.

Certain other cases, with similar allegations and filed by some of
the same plaintiffs' counsel, were also filed in two other
jurisdictions, California and New Jersey. However, the Company has
not been served with the summons and complaint in the California
matter, and no action is currently necessary as a result.


ANGIE'S LIST: "Glick" Parties to Wait for Outcome in "Moore" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Angie's List, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the parties in the case,
Glick v. Angie's List, Inc., 2:16-cv-00546, have entered into a
stipulation to extend the response deadline and await the outcome
of the Moore class action.

On February 1, 2016, Gary Glick, an Angie's List member, filed a
putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiff alleges that the
Company deceives its consumers by representing that service
providers "can't pay" or "don't pay" to be on Angie's List, while
concealing that service providers pay advertising fees to
influence their search result ranking, and further asserts other
claims substantially similar to those alleged in the Moore
litigation. The plaintiff's complaint includes claims for breach
of contract and for a violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act.

Glick served the summons and complaint on February 23, 2016, and
the parties have submitted a joint stipulation to extend the
response deadline by 75 days as the outcome of the Moore
litigation could moot any further proceedings in the Glick action.
The Court has yet to rule on the stipulation.


AIR LINE PILOTS: "Valdez" Suit Seeks Damages Over 2015 CBA
----------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Valdez, Jeffrey Ware, Ruben Freyre, and Armando
Castroverde, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA),
the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02256-JPM-dkv (W.D. Tenn., April
19, 2016), seeks to recover damages against the Defendant as a
result of alleged intentional or reckless misrepresentation of the
true nature of a 2015 Collection Bargaining Agreement,
particularly pay rate increases, signing bonuses, retirement
benefits, Sick Leave Buyback, overall value, and/or "industry-
leading" status to the FedEx pilots.

On October 20, 2015, the ALPA-represented FedEx pilots narrowly
ratified a new Collective Bargaining Agreement (2015 CBA) between
FedEx and ALPA that will govern the pay, work rules, and working
conditions of all FedEx pilots through 2021.

According to the complaint, ALPA allegedly engaged in many forms
of misconduct in connection with the ratification of the 2015 CBA,
breaching its duty of fair representation. ALPA knowingly and
recklessly misrepresented material aspects of the 2015 CBA prior
to its ratification, specifically its pay, signing bonus, and
retirement bonus provisions; misrepresented FedEx's ability to
make improvements to the pilots' Defined Benefit Plan (A Plan);
engaged in improper fear-mongering tactics; and depleted itself of
the financial resources necessary to effectively negotiate with
FedEx. As a result, the FedEx pilots suffered damages. Had the pay
rate increases and signing bonus been on the same 3% that ALPA
represented was needed to recoup lost compensation, the FedEx
pilots would have received approximately $105 million more over
the life of the 2015 CBA. Furthermore, had ALPA not acceded to
FedEx's retirement proposal, the FedEx pilots would have received
a significant increase in retirement benefits.

ALPA is the largest pilots' union in the world, representing
nearly 50,000 pilots.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Allen P. Press, Esq.
          Cary A. Press, Esq.
          JACOBSON PRESS & FIELDS P.C.
          168 N. Meramec Ave. Suite 150
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 899 9789
          E-mail: press@archcitylawyers.com
          carypress@archcitylawyers.com

               - and -

          Kenneth P. Jones, Esq.
          BOURLAND HEFLIN ALVAREZ MINOR & MATTHEWS, PLC
          5400 Poplar Ave. Ste. 100
          Memphis, TN 38119
          Telephone: (901) 683 3526
          Facsimile: (901) 763 1037
          E-mail: kenjones@bhammlaw.com


ALLIED PIONEERS: Recalls Sweet Potato Strips Due to Sulphites
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 17, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Allied Pioneers Enterprises (Canada) Group
Distribution: British Columbia
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10465

  Brand   Common        Size   Code(s) on       UPC
  name    name          ----   product          ---
  -----   ------               ----------
  Yilin   Sweet Potato  300 g  All codes where  6 925020 001223
          Strips               sulphites are
                               not declared on
                               the label


ALLIED PIONEERS: Recalls Raisin and Sweet Potato Slices
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 18, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Sulphites
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Allied Pioneers Enterprises (Canada) Group
Distribution: British Columbia
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10478

  Brand   Common    Size     Code(s) on       UPC
  name    name      ----     product          ---
  -----   ------             ----------
  Yilin   Raisin    150 g    All codes where  6 925020 081324
                             sulphites are
                             not declared on
                             the label
  Yilin   Sweet     300 g    All codes where  6 925020 064761
          Potato             sulphites are
          Slices             not declared
                             on the label
  Yilin   Sweet     400 g    All codes where  6 925020 032432
          Potatoes           sulphites are
                             not declared on
                             the label


ANGIE'S LIST: "Williams" Suit Seeks OT Compensation Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Williams, Andy Town, James Bryan Grant, Erin Burgess, Devin
Myers, Andrew Barton, Nick Jackson, Jim Pierce, Dustin Morris,
Chris Williams, Adam Wright, Dan Thacker, Ryan Galbraith, and
Robert Avila, on Behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Angie's List, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00878-WTL-MJD (S.D. Ind., April 19, 2016), seeks
to recover overtime compensation and other relief including back
pay, additional equal amounts as liquidated damages, pre-judgment
and post judgment interest, costs and expenses, reasonable
attorneys' fees, and declaratory and injunctive relief under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the Complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for Defendant at
Defendant's sales offices in Indianapolis holding sales
representative positions. The Plaintiffs worked over 40 hours in a
workweek, but did not receive overtime pay for all overtime hours
worked, or at their correct rates of pay.

Angie's List is a US-based, paid subscription supported website
containing crowd-sourced reviews of local businesses.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kathleen A. DeLaney, Esq.
          Christopher S. Stake, Esq.
          DELANEY & DELANEY LLC
          3646 Washington Blvd.
          Indianapolis, IN 46205
          Telephone: (317) 920 0400
          Facsimile: (317) 920 0404
          E-mail: kathleen@delaneylaw.net
                  cstake@delaneylaw.net


ANAVEX LIFE SCIENCES: Troung Appointed as Lead Plaintiff
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jesse M. Furman appointed Lam Truong as lead plaintiff in
the case captioned KEVIN CORTINA, Plaintiff, v. ANAVEX LIFE
SCIENCES CORP., et al., Defendants, No. 15-CV-10162 (JMF)
(S.D.N.Y.).

On December 30, 2015, Kevin Cortina filed a putative class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of Anavex Life Sciences Corp.
securities between May 17, 2013, and December 28, 2015.  His
Complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. section 78a et seq.,
and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder.  The same day that Cortina
filed his Complaint, he also published notice of the lawsuit, in
accordance with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
("PSLRA").  On February 29, 2016, three motions were filed with
respect to appointment of a lead plaintiff: one by Phillip Din;
one by Lam Truong; and one by Stanley Gunawan and Stephen Lin,
proceeding jointly.

Judge Furman found that Troung has "the largest financial interest
in the relief sought by the class," and that Troung satisfies the
requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A full-text copy of Judge Furman's April 5, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/47ExGefrom
Leagle.com.

Kevin Cortina, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Phillip Din, Movant, represented by Geoffrey M. Johnson --
gjohnson@scott-scott.com -- Scott Scott, LLP & Thomas Livezey
Laughlin, IV -- tlaughlin@scott-scott.com -- Scott Scott, L.L.P..

Lam Truong, Movant, represented by Adam M. Apton -- aapton@zlk.com
-- Levi & Korsinsky LLP & Nicholas Ian Porritt -- nporritt@zlk.com
-- Levi & Korsinsky LLP.

Stephen Lin, Stanley Gunawan, Movant, represented by Brian Philip
Murray -- bmurray@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP &
Lesley Frank Portnoy -- lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP.

Anavex Life Sciences Corp, Christopher U Missling, Sandra
Boenisch, Athanasios Skarpelos, Defendants, represented by David
H. Kistenbroker -- david.kistenbroker@dechert.com -- Dechert LLP,
Carl E. Volz -- carl.volz@dechert.com -- Dechert LLP & Melanie C
MacKay -- melanie.mackay@dechert.com -- Dechert LLP.


ARCHBISHOP OF NEW ORLEANS: Sued Over Civil Rights Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chong Su Yi and people of similarly situated v. Archbishop of New
Orleans, Case No. 8:16-cv-01122-DKC (D. Md., April 15, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for Civil Rights violation.

Archbishop of New Orleans is an ecclesiastical division of the
Roman Catholic Church administered from New Orleans, Louisiana.

Chong Su Yi is a pro se plaintiff.


ASSET MANAGING: Faces "Reinhart" Suit Over Fla. Wage Law Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Reinhart and Christina Knight, on behalf of themselves and
those silimarly situated, vs. Asset Managing Group, Inc., a
Florida Corporation, Assistax, Inc a Florida Corporation, Ameritax
Mediation Group, Inc., a Florida Corporation and Paul Moise,
individually, Defendants, Case 3:16-cv-00439-BJD-MCR (M.D. Fla.,
April 13, 2016), was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Florida Minimum Wage Act, Florida Statute to recover
unpaid wages and/or overtime, liquidated damages, and attorneys'
fees and costs.

Asset Managing Group Inc. is in the mortgage brokering business.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Patrick V. Douglas, Esq.
     Arlen M. Weintraub, Esq.
     DOUGLAS & CARTER
     177 NW Madison Street
     Lake City, FL 32055
     Phone: 386-752-5511
     E-mail: Patrick@douglasandcarter.com
             Arlen@douglasandcarter.com
             Info@douglasandcarter.com


ATLANTIC POWER: Shareholder Suits in U.S., Canada Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Atlantic Power Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that both the U.S. and
Ontario securities class action suits have been dismissed by the
respective courts, with no payments required by the Company.

The Company said, "On March 8, 14, 15 and 25, 2013 and April 23,
2013, five purported securities fraud class action complaints were
filed by alleged investors in Atlantic Power common shares in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(the "District Court") against Atlantic Power and Barry E. Welch,
our former President and Chief Executive Officer and a former
Director of Atlantic Power, in each of the actions, and, in
addition to Mr. Welch, some or all of Patrick J. Welch, our former
Chief Financial Officer, Lisa Donahue, our former interim Chief
Financial Officer, and Terrence Ronan, our current Chief Financial
Officer, in certain of the actions (the "Proposed Individual
Defendants," and together with Atlantic Power, the "Proposed
Defendants") (the "U.S. Actions")."

The District Court complaints differed in terms of the identities
of the Proposed Individual Defendants they named, the named
plaintiffs, and the purported class period they alleged (July 23,
2010 to March 4, 2013 in three of the District Court actions and
August 8, 2012 to February 28, 2013 in the other two District
Court actions), but in general each alleged, among other things,
that in Atlantic Power's press releases, quarterly and year-end
filings and conference calls with analysts and investors, Atlantic
Power and the Proposed Individual Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements and omissions regarding the
sustainability of Atlantic Power's common share dividend that
artificially inflated the price of Atlantic Power's common shares.
The District Court complaints assert claims under Section 10(b)
and, against the Proposed Individual Defendants, under Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

The parties to each District Court action filed joint motions
requesting that the District Court set a schedule in the District
Court actions, including: (i) setting a deadline for the lead
plaintiff to file a consolidated amended class action complaint
(the "Amended Complaint"), after the appointment of lead plaintiff
and counsel; (ii) setting a deadline for Proposed Defendants to
answer, file a motion to dismiss or otherwise respond to the
Amended Complaint (and for subsequent briefing regarding any such
motion to dismiss); and (iii) confirming that the Proposed
Defendants need not answer, move to dismiss or otherwise respond
to any of the five District Court complaints prior to the filing
of the Amended Complaint.

On May 7, 2013, each of six groups of investors (the "U.S. Lead
Plaintiff Applicants") filed a motion (collectively, the "U.S.
Lead Plaintiff Motions") with the District Court seeking: (i) to
consolidate the five U.S. Actions (the "Consolidated U.S.
Action"); (ii) to be appointed lead plaintiff in the Consolidated
U.S. Action; and (iii) to have its choice of lead counsel
confirmed.

On May 22, 2013, three of the U.S. Lead Plaintiff Applicants filed
oppositions to the other U.S. Lead Plaintiff Motions, and on June
6, 2013, those three Lead Plaintiff Applicants filed replies in
support of their respective motions. On August 19, 2013, the
District Court held a status conference to address certain issues
raised by the U.S. Lead Plaintiff Motions, entered an order
consolidating the five U.S. Actions, and directed two of the six
U.S. Lead Plaintiff Applicants to file supplemental submissions by
September 9, 2013. Both of those U.S. Lead Plaintiff Applicants
filed the requested supplemental submissions, and then sought
leave to file additional briefing. The Court granted those
requests for leave and additional submissions were filed on
September 13 and September 18, 2013.

On March 31, 2014, the Court entered an order consolidating the
five individual U.S. Actions, appointing the Feldman, Shapero,
Carter and Smith investor group (one of the six U.S. Lead
Plaintiffs Applicants) as Lead Plaintiff and approving Lead
Plaintiff's selection of counsel. The Court also granted the
parties' joint motion regarding initial case scheduling and
directed the parties to resubmit a proposed schedule that contains
specific dates.

In response to that directive, on April 7, 2014, Lead Plaintiff
filed an application and proposed order, which sought an extension
of the schedule contained in the joint motion. The application and
proposed order requested that: (i) Lead Plaintiff be permitted to
file an amended complaint on or before May 30, 2014, (ii) the
Proposed Defendants be permitted to move to dismiss or otherwise
respond to the amended complaint on or before July 29, 2014, (iii)
Lead Plaintiff be permitted to file an opposition, if any, on or
before September 24, 2014, and (iv) the Proposed Defendants be
permitted to file a reply to Lead Plaintiff's opposition on or
before November 13, 2014. Proposed Defendants did not object to
the schedule proposed by Lead Plaintiff.

On May 29, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed a renewed application and
proposed order, which sought another extension of the schedule,
and on June 3, 2014, Lead Plaintiff and the Proposed Defendants
jointly filed a stipulation and proposed order requesting the
following revised schedule: (i) Lead Plaintiff be permitted to
file an amended complaint on or before June 6, 2014, (ii) the
Proposed Defendants be permitted to move to dismiss or otherwise
respond to the amended complaint on or before August 5, 2014,
(iii) Lead Plaintiff be permitted to file an opposition, if any,
on or before October 6, 2014, and (iv) the Proposed Defendants be
permitted to file a reply to Lead Plaintiff's opposition on or
before November 20, 2014. On June 3, 2014, the Court entered an
order setting this requested schedule.

On June 6, 2014, Lead Plaintiff filed the amended complaint (the
"Amended Complaint"). The Amended Complaint names as defendants
Barry E. Welch and Terrence Ronan (the "Individual Defendants")
and Atlantic Power (together with the Individual Defendants, the
"Defendants") and alleges a class period of June 20, 2011 to March
4, 2013 (the "Class Period"). The Amended Complaint makes
allegations that are substantially similar to those asserted in
the five initial complaints.

Specifically, the Amended Complaint alleges, among other things,
that in Atlantic Power's press releases, quarterly and year-end
filings and conference calls with analysts and investors,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and
omissions regarding the sustainability of Atlantic Power's common
share dividend, which artificially inflated the price of Atlantic
Power's common shares during the class period. The Amended
Complaint continues to assert claims under Section 10(b) and,
against the Individual Defendants, under Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. It also asserts a
claim for unjust enrichment against the Individual Defendants. In
accordance with the schedule referenced above, Defendants filed
their motion to dismiss the consolidated (the "Motion to Dismiss")
U.S. Action on August 5, 2014.

On September 30, 2014, citing Atlantic Power's September 16, 2014
announcement of changes to its dividend and its President and CEO
transition, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion (the "Extension Motion")
requesting a thirty-day extension of its October 6, 2014 deadline
for filing its brief in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, in
which to determine whether to file a second amended complaint.

On October 2, 2014, the Court entered an order (i) extending Lead
Plaintiff's deadline to file its opposition to the Motion to
Dismiss to October 10, 2014 and (ii) requiring Defendants to file
their opposition to the Extension Motion by October 2, 2014. In
accordance with this order, on October 2, 2014, Defendants filed
their opposition to the Extension Motion. On October 10, 2014,
Lead Plaintiff filed its opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (the
"Opposition") and also filed a motion for leave to amend the
Amended Complaint, attaching a proposed second amended complaint.
On October 21, 2014, Lead Plaintiff and Defendants filed a joint
scheduling motion requesting (i) November 7, 2014 as the deadline
for Defendants to file their opposition to Lead Plaintiff's motion
for leave to amend the Amended Complaint; (ii) November 24, 2014
as the deadline for Defendants to file their reply in further
support of the Motion to Dismiss; and (iii) November 24, 2014 as
the deadline for Lead Plaintiff to file its reply in further
support of its motion for leave to amend the Amended Complaint.

On October 22, 2014, the Court entered an order setting this
requested schedule. Pursuant to that order, the Motion to Dismiss
and Extension Motion were fully briefed on November 24, 2014. On
January 22, 2015, the Court held oral argument on the Motion to
Dismiss and Extension Motion.

On January 30, 2015, Lead Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to
file a supplemental submission in opposition to Defendants' motion
to dismiss (the "Motion for Leave"). The Court denied the Motion
for Leave in an order entered on February 5, 2015, but permitted
Lead Plaintiff to submit a brief letter identifying supplemental
authorities. Lead Plaintiff filed that letter on February 9, 2015,
and Defendants filed a response on February 10, 2015.

On March 13, 2015, the District Court entered an order granting
Defendants' motion to dismiss and denying Lead Plaintiff's motion
to amend the Amended Complaint, and on March 18, 2015, the
District Court entered an order dismissing the Amended Complaint
with prejudice.

On April 16, 2015, Lead Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (the "First
Circuit"). On August 19, 2015, Lead Plaintiff filed with the First
Circuit its brief appealing the dismissal of its securities fraud
claims.

On September 4, 2015, while appellate proceedings were still on-
going, Lead Plaintiff filed with the District Court a Rule
60(b)(2) motion to vacate the judgment based on evidence cited in
the Ontario Superior Court's decision dismissing a similar action
in Canada.  On September 17, 2015, Atlantic Power opposed Lead
Plaintiff's motion.

On September 18, 2015, Lead Plaintiff requested a stay of the
appellate proceedings in the First Circuit pending resolution of
the District Court's decision on its Rule 60(b)(2) motion. On
September 21, 2015, Atlantic Power opposed Lead Plaintiff's
request for a stay and tendered to the First Circuit its
opposition brief to Lead Plaintiff's appeal. On October 5, 2015,
the First Circuit granted Lead Plaintiff's request for a stay in
the appellate proceeding pending the District Court's decision on
the Rule 60(b)(2) motion.

On October 21, 2015, the District Court entered an order denying
Lead Plaintiff's Rule 60(b)(2) motion to vacate the judgment.

On October 29, 2015, pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate
Procedure 42(b), the parties jointly stipulated to the voluntary
dismissal of the appeal before the First Circuit with prejudice.
On November 30, 2015, the First Circuit ordered that the case be
voluntarily dismissed.

                           *     *     *

On March 19, 2013, April 2, 2013 and May 10, 2013, three notices
of action relating to Canadian securities class action claims
against the Proposed Defendants were also issued by alleged
investors in Atlantic Power common shares, and in one of the
actions, holders of Atlantic Power convertible debentures, with
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the Province of Ontario.
On April 8, 2013, a similar claim issued by alleged investors in
Atlantic Power common shares seeking to initiate a class action
against the Proposed Defendants was filed with the Superior Court
of Quebec in the Province of Quebec (the "Canadian Actions").

On April 17, May 22, and June 7, 2013 statements of claim relating
to the notices of action were filed with the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice in the Province of Ontario.

On August 30, 2013, the three Ontario actions were succeeded by
one action with an amended claim being issued on behalf of
Jacqeline Coffin and Sandra Lowry. As in the U.S. Action, this
claim named the Company, Barry E. Welch and Terrence Ronan as
Defendants. The Plaintiffs sought leave to commence an action for
statutory misrepresentation under the Ontario Securities Act and
asserted common law claims for misrepresentation.

The Plaintiffs' motions for leave and certification were heard on
May 20-21, 2015.

On July 24, 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued a
decision denying the Plaintiffs' motion for leave and
certification. The Superior Court granted leave to reconstitute a
claim for debenture holders but required that there be a debenture
holder as plaintiff, that the claim be amended and that the
Plaintiffs pay the Defendants partial indemnity costs of
responding to the Plaintiffs' motion.

The Plaintiffs appealed the July 24 decision on leave and
certification to the Ontario Court of Appeal.



The appeal was subsequently abandoned by the Plaintiffs, and the
Ontario action was dismissed by Order dated December 2, 2015, the
Defendants agreeing not to claim costs from the Plaintiffs.

The proposed Quebec class action was suspended by the Superior
Court of Quebec pending the outcome of the motions for leave and
certification of the Ontario action as a class proceeding.
Following the result in Ontario, the petitioner in the Quebec
proceedings has agreed in principle with the Defendants to
discontinue the Quebec proceedings without costs. The
discontinuance will require the authorization of the Superior
Court of Quebec. The parties are preparing materials to obtain
this authorization.

The petitioner in the Quebec proceedings did not estimate the
alleged damages of the proposed class. Because the Quebec
proceedings were suspended and then an agreement to discontinue
was made in its early stages, Atlantic Power is unable to
reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of losses, if any,
arising from this litigation, if it were to continue. If the
action were to continue, Atlantic Power intends to defend against
it vigorously.

As announced by the Company in December, both the U.S. and Ontario
securities class action suits were dismissed by the respective
courts, with no payments required by the Company.  Following the
resolution of the Ontario matter, the petitioner in the Quebec
proceedings has agreed in principle with the defendants in the
suit to discontinue the proceedings, with each side bearing its
own costs.  The agreement is subject to the approval of the
Superior Court of Quebec.


BRIAD RESTAURANT: "Palmisano" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Palmisano on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Briad Restaurant Group, LLC, Briad
Restaurant Group N.J., LLC, and Briad Restaurant Group, Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02183-ES-JAD (D.N.J., April 19,
2016), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime compensation,
unlawful deductions, and other wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants maintained a human
resources website where tipped workers at any Briad T.G.I.
Friday's restaurant could access information regarding enroll in
benefits programs. The Defendants paid Plaintiff at a "tipped"
minimum wage rate -- less than the full minimum wage rate for non-
tipped workers.

Briad is a hospitality company that operates and owns recognizable
brands, including T.G.I. Friday's, Wendy's, Marriott, and Hilton.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen H. Kahn, Esq.
          KAHN OPTON, LLP
          One Parker Plaza
          Fort Lee, NJ 07024
          Telephone: (201) 947 9200
          Facsimile: (201) 402 6878
          Email: eruggiero@kahnopton.com

               - and -

          Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
          Sally J. Abrahamson, Esq.
          OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
          3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 245 1000
          E-mail: www.warnlawyers.com


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Securities Suit in Claims Admin. Process
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a $15.5 million
settlement of the securities class action in the Southern District
of California is now proceeding through the shareholder claims
administration process.

On July 13, 2012, a securities class action complaint was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California by
Donald K. Franke naming the Company, Andrew Clark, Daniel Devine
and Jane McAuliffe as defendants for allegedly making false and
materially misleading statements regarding the Company's business
and financial results, specifically the concealment of
accreditation problems at Ashford University. The complaint
asserts a putative class period stemming from May 3, 2011 to July
6, 2012.

A substantially similar complaint was also filed in the same court
by Luke Sacharczyk on July 17, 2012 making similar allegations
against the Company, Andrew Clark and Daniel Devine. The
Sacharczyk complaint asserts a putative class period stemming from
May 3, 2011 to July 12, 2012.

On July 26, 2012, another purported securities class action
complaint was filed in the same court by David Stein against the
same defendants based upon the same general set of allegations and
class period. The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and seek
unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees.

On October 22, 2012, the Sacharczyk and Stein actions were
consolidated with the Franke action and the Court appointed the
City of Atlanta General Employees' Pension Fund and the Teamsters
Local 677 Health Services & Insurance Plan as lead plaintiffs. A
consolidated complaint was filed on December 21, 2012 and the
Company filed a motion to dismiss on February 19, 2013.

On September 13, 2013, the Court granted the motion to dismiss
with leave to amend for alleged misrepresentations relating to
Ashford University's quality of education, the WSCUC accreditation
process and the Company's financial forecasts. The Court denied
the motion to dismiss for alleged misrepresentations concerning
Ashford University's persistence rates.

Following the conclusion of discovery, the parties entered into an
agreement to settle the litigation for $15.5 million, which was
funded by the Company's insurance carriers. The settlement was
granted preliminary approval by the Court on December 14, 2015 and
is now proceeding through the shareholder claims administration
process.


BRIDGEPOINT EDUCATION: Motion to Dismiss "Zamir" Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bridgepoint Education, Inc., said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that defendants' motions
to dismiss the case, Zamir v. Bridgepoint Education, Inc., et al.,
are currently pending.

On February 24, 2015, a securities class action complaint was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California by Nelda Zamir naming the Company, Andrew Clark and
Daniel Devine as defendants. The complaint asserts violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, claiming that the defendants made false
and materially misleading statements and failed to disclose
material adverse facts regarding the Company's business,
operations and prospects, specifically regarding the Company's
improper application of revenue recognition methodology to assess
collectability of funds owed by students. The complaint asserts a
putative class period stemming from August 7, 2012 to May 30, 2014
and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest and attorneys'
fees.

On July 15, 2015, the Court granted plaintiff's motion for
appointment as lead plaintiff and for appointment of lead counsel.

On September 18, 2015, the plaintiff filed a substantially similar
amended complaint that asserts a putative class period stemming
from March 12, 2013 to May 30, 2014. The amended complaint also
names Patrick Hackett, Adarsh Sarma, Warburg Pincus & Co., Warburg
Pincus LLC, Warburg Pincus Partners LLC, and Warburg Pincus
Private Equity VIII, L.P. as additional defendants.

On November 24, 2015, all defendants filed motions to dismiss,
which are currently pending with the Court.

The outcome of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point
because of the many questions of fact and law that may arise.
Based on information available to the Company at present, it
cannot reasonably estimate a range of loss for this action.
Accordingly, the Company has not accrued any liability associated
with this action.


CAESARSTONE SDOT-YAM: Israel Class Suit in Initial Stage
--------------------------------------------------------
Caesarstone Sdot-Yam Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a purported class action
lawsuit in Israel District Court is in the preliminary stage.

The Company said, "A lawsuit by a single plaintiff and a motion
for its class certification were filed against us in April 2014 in
the Central District Court in Israel. The plaintiff claims to be
the owner of a fabrication plant and to have contracted silicosis
as a result of fabricating our products. In connection therewith,
the plaintiff claims that we did not provide adequate warnings
regarding the risks and protection measures required with respect
to fabrication of our products, and that we intentionally hid and
did not warn about the high risk and irreversible damages that may
occur to the persons processing our products and misled the
fabricators in Israel by comparing the hazards related to the
fabrication of our products to those associated with the
fabrication of natural stones. In acting so, the plaintiff claims
that we did not act as a reasonable manufacturer; we violated the
law and Israeli standards, committed an assault, acted negligently
and are liable under the Israeli Law for Liability for Defective
Products, 1980. The plaintiff also claims that our products are a
"dangerous item" under the Israeli Tort Ordinance, 5728-1968 and,
therefore, the plaintiff claims that the burden of proof falls on
us to prove that there was no carelessness for which we are liable
in connection with our products. The plaintiff claims that by our
wrongful conduct we violated the plaintiff's freedom to choose
whether to be exposed to the risks associated with the fabrication
of our products."

"The plaintiff alleges that, if the lawsuit is recognized as a
class action, the claim against us is estimated to be NIS 216
million (approximately $55 million), calculated by claiming
damages of NIS 18,000 ($4,628) for each individual who worked in
fabrication workshops in Israel in fabrication or administrative
roles and who have been exposed to dust generated by the
fabrication of our products. The plaintiff claims that there are
12,000 such individuals who worked at 400 fabrication workshops in
Israel, each of which employed 10 fabricators and five
administrative persons, with one rotation during the relevant
period. In addition, such claim includes an unstated sum in
compensation for special and general damages, such as medical
disability, functional disability, pain and suffering, medical
expenses, medical and nursing assistance, which will require proof
and quantification for each injured person in the purported class
action. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, to compel us to
notify the alleged group (and potential members of the group) and
each individual about the risks, recommending that they undertake
a medical examination and assert their rights."

"We intend to vigorously contest recognition of the lawsuit as a
class action and to defend the lawsuit on its merits, although,
considering the preliminary stage of this lawsuit, there can be no
assurance as to the probability of success or the range of
potential exposure, if any."


CAESARSTONE SDOT-YAM: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Caesarstone Sdot-Yam Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the securities class
action claim.

The Company said, "On August 25, 2015, a purported purchaser of
our ordinary shares filed a proposed class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
asserting, among other things, that we and two of our officers
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, by allegedly making
false and misleading statements about our business. The complaint
seeks an unspecified amount of damages on behalf of purchasers of
our securities between March 25, 2013 and August 18, 2015."

"On January 15, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
that asserted similar claims, but that seeks damages on behalf of
purchasers of our securities between February 12, 2014 and August
18, 2015. On February 26, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

"We believe this claim is without merit and intend to contest it
vigorously. We believe that expenses incurred and any payments due
as a result of this claim will be covered under our directors and
officers liability insurance policy, subject to deductibles and
the terms and limit of the coverage."


CANADA NEW: Recalls Fish Ball Products Due to Egg
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 18, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Canada New Global Trend Group Ltd.
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10471

Canada New Global Trend Group Ltd. is recalling certain Natural
Farm brand fish ball products from the marketplace because they
contain egg which is not declared on the label. People with an
allergy to egg should not consume and retailers, hotels,
restaurants and institutions should not sell, serve or use the
recalled products described below.

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

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

Learn more about common food allergies
There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

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

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

  Brand     Common       Size    Code(s) on    UPC
  name      name         ----    product       ---
  -----     ------               ----------
  Natural   Cuttlefish   300 g   13.04.2017    6 957489 000134
  Farm      Balls
  Natural   Fish Balls   300 g   13.04.2017    6 957489 000158
  Farm
  Natural   Fried Fish   10 kg   12/14/2016    None
  Farm      Balls        (4 x
                         2.5 kg)

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/Q9j1kc


CELESTICA INC: To Seek Costs of Appeal in Ontario Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Celestica Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company intends to
seek costs of Supreme Court proceedings related to an appeal in a
class suit in Ontario.

The Company said, "In 2007, securities class action lawsuits were
commenced against us and our former Chief Executive and Chief
Financial Officers in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York by certain individuals, on behalf of
themselves and other unnamed purchasers of our stock, claiming
that they were purchasers of our stock during the period January
27, 2005 through January 30, 2007. The plaintiffs alleged
violations of United States federal securities laws and sought
unspecified damages. They alleged that during the purported period
we made statements concerning our actual and anticipated future
financial results that failed to disclose certain purportedly
material adverse information with respect to demand and inventory
in our Mexico operations and our information technology and
communications divisions. In an amended complaint, the plaintiffs
added one of our directors and Onex Corporation as defendants."

"On October 14, 2010, the District Court granted the defendants'
motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint in its
entirety. The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit the dismissal of their claims
against us and our former Chief Executive and Chief Financial
Officers, but not as to the other defendants. In a summary order
dated December 29, 2011, the Court of Appeals reversed the
District Court's dismissal of the consolidated amended complaint
and remanded the case to the District Court for further
proceedings. Defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the
case in its entirety, and plaintiffs moved for class certification
and for partial summary judgment on certain elements of their
claims.

"In an order dated February 21, 2014, the District Court denied
plaintiffs' motion for class certification because they sought to
include in their proposed class persons who purchased Celestica
stock in Canada. Plaintiffs renewed their motion for class
certification on April 23, 2014, removing Canadian stock
purchasers from their proposed class in accordance with the
District Court's February 21 order. Defendants opposed plaintiffs'
renewed motion on May 5, 2014 on the grounds that the plaintiffs
were not adequate class representatives.

"On August 20, 2014, the District Court denied our motion for
summary judgment. The District Court also denied the majority of
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, but granted
plaintiffs' motion on market efficiency. The District Court also
granted plaintiffs' renewed class certification motion and
certified plaintiffs' revised class. On February 24, 2015, the
parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the U.S. case,
which was subsequently formalized in a Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement dated April 17, 2015.

"On April 17, 2015, the plaintiffs submitted the settlement to the
District Court seeking preliminary approval of the settlement and
of the form of notice to be issued to class members. On May 6,
2015, the District Court preliminarily approved the settlement as
fair, reasonable and adequate, and directed the issuance of notice
to class members. On July 28, 2015, the District Court held a
settlement approval hearing at which it granted final approval to
the settlement. The time for any person to appeal the District
Court's order approving the settlement has expired without any
such appeal having been filed. The settlement payment to the
plaintiffs was paid by our liability insurance carriers.

"Parallel class proceedings were initiated against us and our
former Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officers in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice. These proceedings are not affected by
the settlement discussed above. On October 15, 2012, the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice granted limited aspects of the
defendants' motion to strike, but dismissed the defendants'
limitation period argument. The defendants' appeal of the
limitation period issue was dismissed on February 3, 2014 when the
Court of Appeal for Ontario overturned its own prior decision on
the limitation period issue.

"On August 7, 2014, the defendants were granted leave to appeal
the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada, together with two
other cases that dealt with the limitation period issue. The
Supreme Court of Canada heard the appeal on February 9, 2015. The
Supreme Court of Canada released its decision on December 4, 2015,
allowing the defendants' appeal and holding that the statutory
claims of the plaintiff and the class under the Ontario Securities
Act are barred by the applicable limitation period. In an earlier
decision dated February 14, 2014, the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice denied certification of the plaintiffs' common law claims.
No party appealed that decision.

"We will be seeking our costs of the Supreme Court proceedings
. . . . It is too early to assess the quantum of costs that may be
awarded, if any. The Canadian plaintiff has initiated a second
motion to certify its common law claims, even though those claims
were denied certification in February 2014.

"We believe that the February 2014 decision is final and binding
and that any attempt to re-open certification of the common law
claims is without merit. There can be no assurance that the
outcome of the lawsuit will be favorable to us or that it will not
have a material adverse impact on our financial position or
liquidity. In addition, we may incur substantial litigation
expenses in defending the claim. As the matter is ongoing, we
cannot predict its duration or the resources required."


CHANNELADVISOR CORP: Court Dismisses Securities Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned In re CHANNELADVISOR CORP. Securities
Litigation, No. 5:15-CV-00307-F (E.D.N.C.), Judge James C. Fox
allowed the motion filed by the defendants ChannelAdvisor
Corporation, Scot Wingo, David Spitz, and John Baule to dismiss
the plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint.

In this class action, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants
made false and misleading statements in violation of: (1) Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and (2) Section 20(a) of the Act.

All claims against the defendants were dismissed.

A full-text copy of Judge Fox's April 6, 2016 order is available
at http://is.gd/OAMFU6from Leagle.com.

Justin Dice, Plaintiff, represented by Brooke Albert Howard,
Howard Law, PLLC, Jacob A. Goldberg -- jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com --
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., James A. Roberts, III -- jar@lewis-
roberts.com -- Lewis & Roberts, PLLC, Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM PA, pro hac vice,
Phillip C. Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm P.A. &
Erica Lauren Stone -- estone@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm,
P.A..

David A. Garcia, Plaintiff, represented by Brooke Albert Howard,
Howard Law, PLLC, Francis Paul McConville, Pomerantz LLP, James A.
Roberts, III, Lewis & Roberts, PLLC, Jeremy Alan Lieberman --
jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Patrick Vincent
Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Channeladvisor Corporation, Scot Wingo, David Spitz, John Baule,
Defendant, represented by Clifton L. Brinson --
cbrinson@smithlaw.com -- Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell &
Jernigan, LLP, Donald H. Tucker, Jr. -- dtucker@smithlaw.com --
Smith Anderson Blount Dorsett Mitchell & Jernigan, LLP, Lyle
Roberts -- lroberts@cooley.com -- COOLEY LLP, pro hac vice, Dana
Moss -- dmoss@cooley.com -- COOLEY LLP, pro hac vice & George E.
Anhang -- ganhang@colley.com -- COOLEY LLP.


CHICO'S FAS: Still Defends Ackerman and Altman Suits
----------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. continues to face the Ackerman lawsuit in
California, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

In June 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative
representative Private Attorney General action filed in the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Ackerman v.
Chico's FAS, Inc. The complaint attempts to allege numerous
violations of California law related to wages, meal periods, rest
periods, wage statements, and failure to reimburse business
expenses, among other things.

The Company denies the material allegations of the complaint and
filed its answer on July 27, 2015.

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

The Company believes that the case is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend. As a result, the Company does not believe that
the case should have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial condition or results of operations.

In July 2015, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Altman v. White House Black Market,
Inc. The complaint alleges that the Company, in violation of
federal law, published more than the last five digits of a credit
or debit card number or an expiration date on customers' receipts.

The Company denies the material allegations of the complaint and
filed a motion to dismiss on September 9, 2015, which is pending.
The Company believes that the case is without merit and intends to
vigorously defend. As a result, the Company does not believe that
the case should have a material adverse effect on the Company's
consolidated financial condition or results of operations.


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Recalls Sleep and Play Layettes
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 17, 2016
Posting date: March 17, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products, Clothing and Accessories
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Flammability Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-57554S

This recall involves certain sleep and play layettes.

The recalled products can be identified by the following
descriptions and style numbers.

  Style Number      Description             Affected Sizes
  ------------      -----------             --------------
  2056000           Blue one-piece          3-6 months
                    with a "Mommy's         6-9 months
                    little sailor"
                    screenprint and dog
                    captain on the front
                    and 3-D dog details
                    at the feet with snap
                    closures from neck to
                    waist and leg inseam
  2058039           Pink one-piece with     3-6 months
                    bunny print and 3-D     6-9 months
                    details at the feet
                    with snap closures at
                    the chest and leg
                    openings

Only the sizes listed above are affected by this recall.  The size
can be found on the tagless label on the center back of each
garment. Both products contain CA number 40465 on the inner label.

Hazard identified

The 3-D decorative dog and bunny ears attached to the feet extend
beyond 6 mm from the point of attachment and do not meet the
flammability requirements for tight-fitting children's sleepwear
under Canadian law.

Neither Health Canada nor The Children's Place (Canada) LP has
received any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to
the use of these products in Canada.

Approximately 1,544 units were sold in Canada.

The recalled products were sold between December 2015 to March
2016 online at www.childrensplace.com and at various The
Children's Place retail locations across Canada.

Manufactured in India

Manufacturer: Kitex Childrenswear Limited
              Kerala
              INDIA

Distributor: The Children's Place (Canada) LP
             Mississauga
             Ontario
             CANADA

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


CLIMA-TECH: Faces "Roberts" Suit Over Illegal Stock Options
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ada Roberts, an Individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Clima-Tech, Inc. d/b/a Climatech
Refrigeration and Does 1-10, Inclusive, Case No.  BC61730 (Cal.
Super. Ct., April 15, 2016), arises out of the Defendant's alleged
fraudulent issuance of stock options and fraudulent issuance of
stock options in lieu payment of wages.

Clima-Tech, Inc. owns and operates a refrigeration and HVAC
company in Los Angele County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Rodney S. Diggs, Esq.
     Brittany R. Gibson, Esq.
     IVIE, McNEILL & WYATT
     A Professional Law Corporation
     444 South Flower Street, Suite 1800
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Telephone: (213) 489-0028
     Facsimile: (213) 489-0552
     E-mail: rdiggs@imwlaw.com
             bgibson@imwlaw.com


COLTON, CA: Cops Face Class Suit by Wrongly Jailed
--------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kearn, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a man jailed under $100,000 bond on a warrant for somebody else
claims in a class action in Riverside, Calif. that he's just one
of 450 people San Bernardino County sheriff's officers have
wrongfully jailed in the past five years.

Manuel Bravo Martinez sued the city of Colton and its police
department, San Bernardino County and its sheriff's department and
Sheriff John McMahon in Federal Court. He was arrested and jailed
on a warrant for a man with his name but a different birthday and
with fingerprints, which were on filed.

Bravo claims that the sheriff's own records show that in the past
five years "as many as 450 prisoners were, in fact, wrongly jailed
on warrants meant for others," and the sheriff and police allow it
to keep happening because they refuse to use information systems
readily available to them to verify people's identities.

"It's a bigger problem than people realize," his attorney Donald
Cook told Courthouse News.

"What's going on is that the police refuse to use the information
systems available to them to catch the bad guys or exonerate the
innocent."

Once an officer makes a tentative identification on a suspect, no
one wants to overturn that decision, which is how Bravo ended up
in jail on someone else's warrant, Cook said.

Bravo says he had to borrow $100,000 to bond out after spending a
night in jail because he was afraid he would be fired if he missed
work.  When he went to court nine days later, the judge saw
immediately that Bravo's birthday and the actual suspect's
birthday were different and released him.

"It's a fairly significant problem," Cook said. "What's so
upsetting is that the police figured out how to do this decades
ago."

Fingerprint matching is more common, cheaper, and more accurate
than DNA: identical twins can have the same DNA but not the same
fingerprint, Cook said.

The fingerprints of the man on the warrant were in the law
enforcement system because of prior arrests, according to the
complaint.

"It's not like using a latent print. They have nice, clean sets of
all 10 prints" and use sophisticated software to make a match,
Cook said.

"The problem is that the police don't want to use these numbers to
get people out of jail," Cook said. Jailers too have the
technology to see an arrestee is the wrong man, but are reluctant
to take responsibility for letting people go, the attorney said.

"The issue of arresting the wrong person never goes away," he
said. "The best time to address it is right off the bat. Instead,
they kick the can down the road to let the judges figure it out.

"It's very frustrating. If it sounds outrageous, it's because it
is outrageous."

A Colton cop stopped Bravo for a traffic violation on Aug. 11,
2015, and arrested him on the warrant for another Manuel Martinez.
(In Spanish, the first surname, the patronymic, is usually used as
a person's last name. The second surname, the metronymic, is used
only in formal documents. It is unclear from Bravo's lawsuit
whether the other man's Martinez name was his patronymic or
metronymic.)

Bravo and his wife insisted that he was not the man the officer
was looking for, but he was taken to jail anyway.

His protests of innocence also were ignored at his arraignment the
next day. Since the court denied his request to be released on his
own recognizance, he had to borrow $100,000 from family members to
post bond so he would not lose his job, according to the
complaint.

Bravo claims the defendants have a long-standing practice of
ignoring fingerprint numbers, birthdays and other discrepancies
when they arrest people. Nor does he believe the sheriff's excuse
for it.

After citing the sheriff's records of 450 mistaken arrests, the
complaint continues: "The County and SBCSD have claimed that more
than 99 percent of these wrongly imprisoned persons never
complained to LASD [sic] personnel they were being wrongly
incarcerated on another person's warrant. Plaintiff submits that
because it is reasonable to assume that a person who sincerely
believes he is being incarcerated on another person's warrant is
likely to make that complaint to his jailer, the County/SBCSD
claim that more than 99 percent of the prisoners wrongly
incarcerated never so complained is patently false."

The defendants did not respond to emailed requests for comment on
April 15.

Bravo seeks class certification and compensatory damages for false
arrest, wrongful incarceration and false imprisonment.

Cook's office is in Los Angeles.


CONSOLIDATED COATINGS: Recalls Wood Decks and Siding
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 21, 2016
Posting date: March 21, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Chemicals
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Labelling and Packaging
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-57602

This recall involves WoodPal Organic Transparent Stain, an oil-
based semi-transparent stain for wood decks and siding.

The affected product was sold in 3.78 L / 1 gallon containers only
and are listed below:

  Product Type       Product Code     UPC
  ------------       ------------     ---
  Natural            30-4500          776389104553
  Cedar              30-4510          776389104577
  Redwood            30-4530          776389104614
  Pacific Gold       30-4520          776389104591
  Red Wine           30-4533          776389104706
  Pacific Walnut     30-4540          776389104638
  Ocean Bleached     30-4543          776389104713
  Transparent Slate  30-4550          776389104652
  Tint Base          30-4560          776389104676

Health Canada's inspection process has revealed that the products
do not meet labelling requirements for consumer chemical products
under Canadian law.

The consumer product does not have proper hazard labelling
required by the Consumer Chemicals and Containers Regulations,
2001 under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. The improper
labelling could result in unintentional exposure to these products
and lead to property damage, injury or death.

Neither Health Canada nor Consolidated Coatings Corporation has
received any reports of consumer incidents related to the use of
this product.

300 units of the recalled products were sold in various retail
stores in British Columbia.

The recalled products were sold in Canada from January 2011 to
March 9, 2016.

Manufactured in Canada.

Manufacturer: Consolidated Coatings Corporation
              Delta
              British Columbia
              CANADA

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/qleAK8


CWS APARTMENT HOMES: "Abramson" Files Statutory Action
------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Abramson has filed a statutory action in acordance with US
Code 28:1331.  The case is captioned Stewart Abramson,
individually and on behalf of a class of all person ad entities
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CWS Apartment Homes, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00426-DSC (W.D. Pa., April 13, 2016).

CWS owns and operates mobile home parks in the United States. It
is headquartered in 9606 N. Mopac Expressway, Austin, Texas 78759.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clayton S. Morrow, Esq.
      MORROW & ARTIM, PC
      304 Ross Street
      7th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Tel: (412) 281-1250
      Fax: (412) 386-3184
      Email: cmorrow@allconsumerlaw.com


DAYMAR COLLEGES: Claims of Missing & Deceased Plaintiffs Nixed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned KEVIN WIGGINS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DAYMAR
COLLEGES GROUP, LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 5:11-CV-
00036-GNS-LLK (W.D. Ky.), Judge Greg N. Stivers granted the
defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Claims of Certain Plaintiffs for
Failure to Prosecute and Motion to Dismiss the Deceased
Plaintiffs' Claims.  The judge dismissed the claims of the
following plaintiffs: Donald Lee, Jason Hillerich, Christina
Tobin, Denise Titze, Christina Richey, Erin Ash, Alicia Ayers,
Otto Fields III, Kerston Hauswirth, Jamie Mullins, Joanna Roberts,
Stephen Robinson, Capucine Sanders, Kristina Fortney, Susan Neace,
Dean Pyle, Misty Searcy, James Simon, Sabrena Western, Kathy
Williams, D'Aundra Wilson, Ashley Harrell, Joseph Langston, Robin
Layne, Donald Lee, Robert Littlemyer, Jazsum May, Tabitha Reed,
Christy Skirvin, Jennifer Umberg, Stephanie Wade, and Grace Yopp.

A suit was filed against, inter alia, Daymar Colleges Group, LLC;
Daymar Learning of Paducah, Inc.; Daymar Learning of Ohio, Inc.;
Draughons Junior College, Inc.; and Mark Gabis (collectively,
"Daymar Defendants") by a class of individuals "composed of
present and former students of Daymar who have been fraudulently
solicited to attend Daymar educational institutions with the
promise of receiving [d]egrees transferable to the vast majority
of institutions of higher learning, and for whom these
representations were both false and the [d]egrees and credits non-
transferable."

The Daymar Defendants sought to dismiss the claims of those
plaintiffs who could not be located for lack of prosecution and
those plaintiffs that are deceased for their estates' failure to
file a motion for substitution pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 25(a)(1).

Judge Stivers found sufficient cause and accordingly granted the
Daymar defendants' motion to dismiss with respect to the missing
plaintiffs' failure to prosecute their claims.  The judge also
dismissed the deceased plaintiffs' claims absent timely motions
for substitutions.

A full-text copy of Judge Stivers' April 5, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/swK8vAfrom
Leagle.com.

Angela Williams-Trice, Annette Angel, Venus Beverly, Jessican
Broughton, Kimberly Campbell, Betty Coleman, Ashlee Colvin, Hanna
Costello, Jeanette Crow, Deke Deacon, Ce'Arra Decker-Goodman,
Beverly Ferguson, Jennifer Fisher, Allison Flynn, Teresa Hill,
Pamela Holsinger, Heather Homer, Christina Kazee, Cindy Knittel,
Kayla Landman, Jane Lemaster, Karen Melott, Melanie Morman,
Jennifer Mullins, Amy Newsome, Brandy Oatney, Christie Pollock,
Terri Pontious, Kathy Radcliff, Robin Ratcliff, Virginia Riddle,
Stuart Scott, Jason Shultz, Michelle Shultz, Jodi Smith, Melinda
Smith, Robert Smith, Corey Tabor, Kevin Tillson, Christina Uhl,
Amanda Wallace, Heather Wallace, Megan Westcamp, Larry White,
Brian Whiteaker, Amanda Carver, Darlene Hobbs, Plaintiffs,
represented by David G. Bryant, Jones Ward PLC, Kenneth L. Sales,
Bubalo Goode Sales & Cronen, PLC, Mark P. Bryant, Bryant Law
Center, PSC & Emily Ward Roark, Bryant Law Center, PSC.

Daymar Colleges Group, LLC, Daymar Learning of Paducah, Inc,
Daymar Learning of Ohio, Inc, Daymar Learning, Inc, Defendants,
represented by Caroline L. Pieroni --
caroline.pieroni@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Emily Wang
Zahn, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP & R. Kenyon Meyer --
kenyon.meyer@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.

The Daymar Foundation, Inc, Defendant, represented by Jon L.
Fleischaker -- jon.fleischaker@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore & Shohl
LLP & Michael Merrick -- michael.merrick@dinsmore.com -- Dinsmore
& Shohl LLP.

Terrie L. Gabis, Defendant, represented by Emily Wang Zahn,
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Susan S. Wettle -- Frost Brown Todd LLC &
Winston E. Miller, Frost Brown Todd LLC.

Draughons Junior College, Inc., Defendant, represented by R.
Kenyon Meyer, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP.


EAST HAVEN: Faces "Richards" Suit in New York Supreme Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against East Haven Nursing and
Rehabilitation Center, LLC. The case is captioned Richards, Sandra
and Bridgette Briscoe, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated employees, the Plaintiffs. v. East Haven
Nursing and Rehabilitation Center, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
20750/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 19, 2016). The Assigned Judge is
Hon. Fernando Tapia.

East Haven operates a nursing home for older people and the
disabled.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          LOUIS GINSBERG, P.C.
          North Shore Location
          1613 Northern Blvd.
          Roslyn, NY 11576
          Telephone: (516) 625 0105
          E-mail: louisginsberg@1800lostjob.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          JACKSON LEWIS LLP
          666 3rd Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 545 4000
          E-mail: webmaster@jacksonlewis.com


EC USA: Faces "Gallegos" Suit Filed by Non-Exempt Hourly Teachers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristina Gallegos, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. EC USA Holdings Inc., a
Massachusetts corporation; EC Los Angeles Language Center, Inc., a
California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 25, Defendants, Case
No. BC 616867 (Cal. Super., County of Los Angeles, April 13,
2016), was filed on behalf of all non-exempt hourly teachers
employed by Defendants in California within the four years prior
to the initiation of this action until the date that a purported
class is certified.

EC USA Holdngs Inc. owns and operates EC Language Centers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Aaron c. Gundzik, Esq.
     Rebeca G. Gundzik Esq.
     GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON LLP
     15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1920
     Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
     Phone: (213) 542-2100
     Fax: (213) 542-2101

        - and -

     Marshall A. Caskey, Esq.
     Daniel M. Holzman, Esq.
     Thomas L. Dorogi, Esq.
     CASKEY & HOLZMAN
     24025 Park Sorrento, Ste. 400
     Calabasas, CA 91302
     Phone: (818) 657-1070
     Fax: (818) 297-1775


ENERGY TRANSFER: "Levine" Sues Over Discriminatory Distribution
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lee Levine, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., LE
GP, LLC, Kelcy L. Warren, John W. McReynolds, Marshall S.
Mccrea III, Matthew S. Ramsey, Ted Collins, Jr., K. Rick Turner,
William P. Williams, Ray Davis and Richard D. Brannon,
Defendants, Case 12197 (Del. Ch. Ct., April 12, 2016), seeks
preliminary and permanent injunction, cash payment of convertible
units, accrual of conversion value, damages, attorneys' fees and
expenses and such other and further relief for breach of Section
6.3 and 7.6(f) of Partnership Agreement and breach of Obligation
of Good Faith under Section 5.8,7.9, 13.1(d)(i) and 13.1(g) of the
Partnership Agreement.

Plaintiff accuses Energy Transfer Equity of discriminatory
distribution of their Series A Convertible Preferred Units to
Defendants Kelcy L. Warren ("Warren"), Richard D. Brannon, John W.
McReynolds, Marshall S. McCrea III, Matthew S. Ramsey, Ray Davis
and to certain other holders of Common Units.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lee D. Rudy, Esq.
      Michael C. Wagner, Esq.
      Leah Heifetz, Esq.
      KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
      280 King of Prussia Road
      Radnor, PA 19087
      Tel: (610) 667-7706

           - and -

      Michael Hanrahan, Esq.
      Paul A. Fioravanti, Jr., Esq.
      Corinne Elise Amato, Esq.
      PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A.
      1310 N. King Street
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Tel: (302) 888-6500


EROS INTERNATIONAL: Labaton Sucharow Named as Lead Counsel
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Alison J. Nathan consolidated the two actions captioned
Vladimir Maliarov, Plaintiff, v. Eros International PLC et al.,
Defendants and Savva Popi, Plaintiff, v. Eros International PLC et
al., Defendants, Nos. 15-CV-8956 (AJN), 16-CV-223 (AJN)
(S.D.N.Y.).  The judge also appointed putative class members Fred
Eisner and Strahinja Ivosevic as lead plaintiffs, and approved
their choices of counsel.

The Court approves Eisner and Ivosevic's selection of Labaton
Sucharow as lead counsel.

The two securities fraud class actions were filed against Eros
International PLC and certain of its officers and directors,
alleging that the defendants made materially false and misleading
statements about Eros' financial condition that caused a stark
decline in stock price when discovered.

A full-text copy of Judge Nathan's April 5, 2016 memorandum and
order is available at http://is.gd/NVdWqqfrom Leagle.com.

Savva Popi, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip C. Kim --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm P.A.


ESTATE OF MCCLENDON: Breached Fiduciary Duties Owed to Chesapeake
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin T Stocker, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Estate of Aubrey K.
McClendon and American Energy Partners LP, the Defendants, Case
No. 5:16-cv-00391-M (W.D. Okla., April 19, 2016), seeks to recover
damages as a result of alleged intentional and reckless breaches
of Defendants' fiduciary duties owed to Chesapeake Energy
Corporation's shareholders since at least 2008.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff is a shareholder in
Chesapeake, who owned approximately 6,946 shares of stock.
McClendon, formerly the CEO, director, and co-owner of Chesapeake
prior to his resignation, allegedly offered himself and accepted
lucrative contract to the detriment of Chesapeake and its
shareholders. The contract was lucrative and not in the best
interest of shareholders and it lacked any non-compete clause,
allowed him to pilfer valuable information and secrets for his own
personal use. McClendon also allegedly loaned himself over a
billion dollars from Chesapeake for personal gain at shareholders'
expense.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: Updated 3rd Amendment Litigation Chart
----------------------------------------------------------------
At http://bankrupt.com/gselitigation201604.pdfeditors of the
Troubled Company Reporter and Class Action Reporter have posted a
chart, updated on Apr. 18, 2016, organizing information about the
dozens of lawsuits complaining about how the Department of the
Treasury and the Federal Housing Finance Administration are
handling Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's conservatorship proceedings.
Unaltered, this chart may be freely shared with anyone for any
purpose, notwithstanding that it is copyrighted by Bankruptcy
Creditors' Service, Inc., and Beard Group, Inc., and all rights
are reserved by the publishers.  For additional information,
contact Peter A. Chapman at peter@beardgroup.com by e-mail or
(215) 945-7000 by telephone.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has entertained
oral argument in Perry v. Lew, No. 14-5243 (D.C. Cir.).  The
government argues that the appellate tribunal should affirm Judge
Lamberth's dismissal of lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia.  The shareholders want the Third
Amendment vacated.  The three-judge panel scheduled one hour for
oral argument, but listened to and questioned the parties for
nearly three times that amount of time.

We predict the D.C. Circuit will remand the cases to Judge
Lamberth with instructions to reconsider his decision after
receiving a full administrative record, with minimal, if any,
guidance about how to interpret section 4617(f) of HERA, which the
government says prohibits shareholder lawsuits, and HERA's
succession provision in section 4617(b)(2)(A)(i).

The D.C. Circuit asked the parties to discuss what, if any, effect
section 4623(d) of HERA, limiting judicial review of FHFA's
capital classification decisions, and, presumably, whether the
Third Amendment should be viewed as a capital classification
change.  The Court asked the four parties to the appeal to submit
10-page briefs about this new topic in the coming week.  Attentive
GSE litigation followers will recall -- see http://goo.gl/MzpAUH
-- that Director Lockhart suspended capital classifications and
capital requirements in Oct. 2008 while the GSEs are in
conservatorship.

In In re: Third Amendment Litigation, MDL No. 2713 (J.P.M.D.L.),
FHFA has asked the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to
transfer and consolidate all present and future lawsuits
complaining about the Net Worth Sweep in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia, with the unstated but obvious goal
of having Judge Lamberth dismiss them all.  Plaintiffs in those
present and future cases -- Joshua J. Angel at Herrick, Feinstein
LLP; Ms. Robinson in Kentucky; the Saxton Plaintiffs in Iowa; the
Roberts Plaintiffs in Illinois; and the Jacobs Plaintiffs in
Delaware -- don't share FHFA's enthusiasm.  The JPMDL will
consider FHFA's transfer and consolidation request at a hearing in
Chicago on May 26, 2016.


FIRST BUSEY: Still Defends 1 Suit in Missouri Over Pulaski Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
First Busey Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that two putative class
action lawsuits have been filed in the Circuit Court of the County
of St. Louis, Missouri. The lawsuits name as defendants the
members of Pulaski Financial Corp.'s board of directors, Pulaski
and First Busey.  Demand for jury trial has been made.

The lawsuits allege breaches of fiduciary duty due to the process
leading to the proposed merger of Pulaski and First Busey,
potential conflicts of interest, inadequate merger consideration,
the terms of the merger agreement, and the failure to disclose
allegedly material information related to the proposed merger. The
lawsuits also allege that First Busey aided and abetted the breach
of fiduciary duty. The relief sought includes class certification,
declaratory relief, an injunction against the merger, rescission
or rescissory damages if the merger is consummated, costs and
attorney's fees.

On March 4, 2016, the plaintiff in one of the actions filed a
notice voluntarily dismissing First Busey from the lawsuit.  First
Busey remains a defendant in the second action.  Pulaski and First
Busey each believes that the factual allegations in the complaints
are without merit and intends to defend vigorously against these
allegations.


FISHER-PRICE: Bid for Class Certification in "Harris" Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JASON DANE HARRIS and RACHEL MARIE DABBS
HARRIS, as next friend of P.D.H., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FISHER-PRICE, INC.,
MATTEL, INC., et al., Defendant, Case No. 1:13-cv-00076-KOB (N.D.
Ala.), Judge Karon Owen Bowdre denied the plaintiff's motion for
class certification.

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3),
the plaintiffs moved to certify two nationwide classes: one of
purchasers who purchased the sleeper at issue in this case before
January 9, 2013 and one of gift recipients who acquired the
sleeper before January 9, 2013.  Each nationwide class would have
eight subclasses for purchasers and gift recipients from the
states of Alabama, California, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Ohio,
Oklahoma, and Massachusetts.  The plaintiffs moved to certify
these classes for all of the claims set out in their Fourth
Amended Complaint.

Judge Bowdre found that the plaintiffs have not satisfied the
requirements for class certification under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3).

A full-text copy of Judge Bowdre's April 5, 2016 memorandum
opinion is available at http://is.gd/MULQwEfrom Leagle.com.

Jason Dane Harris, Rachael Marie Dabbs-Harris, Plaintiffs,
represented by Donald W Stewart -- donaldwstewart5354@yahoo.com
-- STEWART & STEWART PC.

Fisher-Price Inc, Mattel Inc, Defendants, represented by Richard E
Smith -- resmith@csattorneys.com -- CHRISTIAN & SMALL LLP, Erik K
Swanholt -- ekswanholt@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY, pro hac vice,
Peter Biersteker -- pbiersteker@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY, pro hac
vice & Sharon D Stuart -- sdstuart@csattorneys.com -- CHRISTIAN &
SMALL LLP.


FOREST RIVER: Recalls Cherokee 2016 Due to Noncompliance
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 22, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Travel Trailer
Notification type: Compliance
Mfr System: Wheels
Units affected: 14
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016127TC
ID number: 2016127

Certain vehicles may not comply with the requirements of Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 110 - Tire Selection and Rims. The
certification label incorrectly states the tire and rim installed
on the vehicle are ST205/75R15/C Tire(s) with 15X5.0JJ Rims,
however the vehicle was originally equipped with T205/75R14/C
Tire(s) with 14X5.5JJ Rims. This could lead to vehicle
overloading, increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or
damage to property. Correction: Dealers will provide replacement
certification labels containing the correct tire and rim size
(ST205/75R14/C Tire and 14 X 4.5JJ Rim).

  Make           Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----           -----       ----------------------
  FOREST RIVER   CHEROKEE    2016


FORMFACTOR INC: Employee Class Suit in Merits Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------
FormFactor, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 26, 2015, that a class action lawsuit
by a former employee is proceeding in merits discovery.

In August 2013, a former employee filed a class action lawsuit
against the Company in the Superior Court of California, alleging
violations of California's wage and hour laws and unfair business
practices on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
current and former employees at the Company's Livermore facilities
from August 21, 2009, to the present.

On January 4, 2016, the court certified the plaintiff class. The
lawsuit is currently proceeding to notice to class members and
merits discovery.

The Company denies the allegations contained in the lawsuit, and,
based on available information, believes it has significant
defenses to the allegations of the lawsuit. The Company currently
believes that any settlement reached would be an amount that is
not material to the Company's financial statements. If the matter
is not settled, the Company could incur material attorneys' fees
in defending the lawsuit.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Drugs in GM First Aid Kits
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 22, 2016
Posting date: April 8, 2016
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs, Natural health products
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-57868

No Market Authorization

Depth of distribution: Retailers (British Columbia, Alberta,
Ontario, Quebec)

Affected products:
a) Ibuprofen tablets in GM first aid kit
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM

No Market Authorisation
Dosage form: Tablet
Strength: 200 mg
Lot or serial number: (L) 4505, various

Recalling Firm: General Motors of Canada Ltd.
                1908 Colonel Sam Drive
                Oshawa
                L1H 8P7
                Ontario
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Not Applicable

b)1% Hydrocortisone Cream in first aid kit
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
No Market Authorisation
Dosage form: Cream
Strength: 1% Hydrocortisone
Lot or serial number: Various

Recalling Firm: General Motors of Canada Ltd.
                1908 Colonel Sam Drive
                Oshawa
                L1H 8P7
                Ontario
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Not Applicable

c) Triple Antibiotic Ointment in GM first aid kit
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
No Market Authorisation
Dosage form: Solution
Strength: Bacitracin Zinc - 200units
          Neomycin Sulfate - 2.5 mg
          Polymyxin-B Sulfate - 2500units
Lot or serial number: Various

Recalling Firm: General Motors of Canada Ltd.
                1908 Colonel Sam Drive
                Oshawa
                L1H 8P7
                Ontario
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Not Applicable


GLOSS ORGANIC: "Reiche" Suit Removed to S. District Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Marta Reiche and other similarly
situated individuals v. Gloss Organic Nailbar and Sandra Weir,
Case No. 16-005994-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial
Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court Southern District of
Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-
cv-21351-JLK to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

Gloss Organic Nailbar and Sandra Weir owns and operates a nail spa
in South Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Court House Tower
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Chad Kevin Lang, Esq.
      LIEBLER GONZALEZ & PORTUONDO
      44 West Flagler Street
      25th Floor
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 379-0400
      Facsimile: (305) 379-9626
      E-mail: ckl@lgplaw.com


HAMILTON COUNTY WATER: Protocol Won't Apply to AHA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned AMERICAN HERITAGE APARTMENTS, INC. v. THE
HAMILTON COUNTY WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT AUTHORITY, HAMILTON
COUNTY, TENNESSEE, No. E2014-00302-SC-R11-CV (Tenn.), the Supreme
Court of Tennessee held that American Heritage Apartments, Inc.
was not required to exhaust the administrative procedures found in
Part 4 of the Utility District Law before filing its lawsuit to
challenge the Hamilton County Water and Wastewater Treatment
Authority's (County Authority) $8 charge.

American Heritage filed a lawsuit individually and as a class
representative, arguing that the monthly charge assessed by the
County Authority is unlawful.  In response, the County Authority
asserted that a customer who seeks to dispute the rates charged
must first follow the administrative procedures provided in the
Utility District Law of 1937, Tennessee Code Annotated sections 7-
82-101 to -804 (2015).  On this basis, the County Authority sought
dismissal of the lawsuit for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies.

The trial court dismissed the lawsuit for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies, and the Court of Appeals reversed.

The Supreme Court of Tennessee held that the administrative
procedures in Part 4 of the Utility District Law of 1937 do not
apply to a rate challenge filed by an individual customer against
a water and wastewater treatment authority.  Thus, the Supreme
Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the trial court erred
in dismissing the lawsuit for failure to exhaust administrative
remedies.  The Supreme Court also affirmed the remainder of the
Court of Appeals' decision, except that it vacated the trial
court's alternative ruling on class certification and remanded
that issue to the trial court for reconsideration.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's April 8, 2016 opinion is
available at http://is.gd/RVWRRufrom Leagle.com.

J. Christopher Clem -- cclem@sampleslaw.com -- Chattanooga,
Tennessee, for the appellant, Hamilton County Water and Wastewater
Treatment Authority.

Jimmy Fain Rodgers, Jr., Chattanooga, Tennessee; and James G.
Stranch, III -- jims@bsjfirm.com -- J. Gerard Stranch, IV --
gerards@bsjfirm.com -- and Michael G. Stewart -- mikes@bsjfirm.com
-- Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellee, American Heritage
Apartments, Inc.


HARBOUR RESTAURANT: "Sutherland" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremiah Sutherland, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Harbour Restaurant Partners, LLC,
d/b/a Makoto, a foreign limited liability company, Starr
Restaurant Organization, LP, a foreign limited partnership, Starr
Restaurant Organization GP, LLC, a foreign limited liability
company, and Stephen Starr, an individual, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-21400-MGC (S.D. Fla., April 19, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid minimum wage compensation, unpaid overtime wage
compensation, liquidated damages, and other relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Defendants claimed the tip credit
to pay servers, who served food and beverages to Defendants'
customers, at an hourly wage rate below the minimum and overtime
wage although servers were forced to kick-back a portion of their
tips directly or indirectly to Defendants, or to others (non-
service bartenders who did not have more than de minimis contact
with guests) for Defendants' benefit. By failing to satisfy the
requirements under Federal and Florida law, the Defendants were
not eligible to claim the tip credit and were required to pay
their servers the full minimum and overtime wage, free and clear.

Harbour Restaurant is a foreign limited liability company that
owns and operates the Makoto restaurant located in Bal Harbour,
Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert W. Brock II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN
          17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358 6800
          Facsimile: (305) 358 6808
          E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com
                  legal@kuvinlaw.com


HEFFERIN TREE: Faces "De Paz" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marvin De Paz and Jose De Paz, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated v. Hefferin Tree & Landscaping
Contractors, Inc., Frank Hefferin, and any other entities
affiliated with or controlled by Hefferin Tree & Landscaping
Contractors, Inc., and Frank Hefferin, Case No. 602614/2016 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., April 15, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the landscaping business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080
      Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
      E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com


HOMEWAY: Faces Consumer Class Suit in Texas
-------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a homeowner paid HomeAway
$1,448 to list her rental home on its websites for a year based on
its promise not to charge renters a fee, then it did start
charging them, driving away business, she claims in a federal
class action in Austin, Texas.


HYUNDAI: Recalls Tucson 2016 Models Due to Noncompliance
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 21, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Compliance
Mfr System: Accessories
Units affected: 392
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016125TC
ID number: 2016125
Manufacturer recall number: R0110 (61CC01)

Certain vehicles outfitted with a tow hitch accessory may not
comply with the requirements of Canada Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard 108 - Lighting System and Retroreflective Devices. Due to
an incompatibility between the tow hitch harness control module
and the vehicle's power supply circuitry, when the vehicle's
engine is running and the brake lights are illuminated, if the
turn signal is activated the trailer's turn signal lamp may
either: a) Remain continuously illuminated (not flash), or b) Turn
off. As a result, drivers may not be able to clearly signal their
intentions to turn, change lanes, which could increase the risk of
a crash. Correction: Dealers will update the tow hitch harness.


  Make       Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----       ----------------------
  HYUNDAI    TUCSON      2016


IKEA CANADA: Recalls Floor and Table Lamps Due to Shock Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 17, 2016
Posting date: March 17, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Electrical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-57550

This recall involves IKEA GOTHEM floor and table lamps. The lamps
are not sold with shades and have a brushed finish nickel-plated
appearance.  The lamps are intended for indoor lighting and have
dimming functionality.

This recall involves the following lamps:

  Model                     Height     Article Number
  -----                     ------     --------------
  GOTHEM Table Lamp 35cm    35 cm      403.030.24
  GOTHEM Table Lamp 45cm    45 cm      503.030.33
  GOTHEM Floor Lamp 124cm   124 cm     103.030.49

The recalled lamps may have damaged cables, posing an electric
shock hazard to consumers.

Neither Health Canada nor IKEA Canada has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to the use of
these products.

IKEA has received three reports internationally of the products
causing minor electric shocks, with no reported injuries.

Approximately 1,259 GOTHEM lamps have been sold at IKEA stores
across Canada and online at www.ikea.ca.  Approximately 13,536
GOTHEM lamps have been sold at IKEA stores across the United
States and online at www.ikea.com.

The GOTHEM floor and table lamps were sold in Canada and the
United States from October 2015 to February 2016.

Place of origin

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: IKEA Canada Limited Partnership
              Burlington
              Ontario
              CANADA

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/fN06zJ


INFINITI: Recalls Q50 2014 Models Due to Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 17, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Airbag
Units affected: 442
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016123TC
ID number: 2016123

On certain vehicles, the front passenger seat occupant
classification system software may incorrectly classify the
passenger seat as empty, when it is occupied by an adult. If this
occurs, the passenger airbag would be deactivated without the
illumination of the airbag warning lamp. Failure of the passenger
airbag to deploy during a crash (where deployment is warranted)
could increase the risk of injury to the seat occupant.
Correction: Dealers will reprogram the occupant classification
system. This is an expansion of recall 2014-093.

  Make       Model     Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----     ----------------------
  INFINITI   Q50       2014


INVIVO THERAPEUTICS: Oral Argument in Class Action Appeal Held
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oral argument was scheduled early this month in an appeal related
to the class action lawsuit against Invivo Therapeutics Holdings
Corp.

Invivo Therapeutics said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that on July 31, 2014, a
putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, naming
the Company and Francis Reynolds, the Company's former Chairman,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as defendants
(the "Securities Class Action"). The Company said, "The lawsuit
alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in
connection with allegedly false and misleading statements related
to the timing and completion of the clinical study of our Neuro
Spinal Scaffold. The plaintiff seeks class certification for
purchasers of our common stock during the period from April 5,
2013 through August 26, 2013 and unspecified damages. On April 3,
2015, the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts dismissed the plaintiff's claim with prejudice.
Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of this decision on May 4,
2015. A mandatory mediation conference was held on September 10,
2015. Following that conference, on October 5, 2015,
plaintiff/appellant filed his opening brief with the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit."

The Company and the individual defendants/appellees filed their
answering brief on November 5, 2015, and plaintiff/appellant filed
his reply brief on December 10, 2015. The Court of Appeals
scheduled oral arguments for April 6, 2016.

Invivo is a research and clinical-stage biomaterials and
biotechnology company with a focus on treatment of spinal cord
injuries (SCI).


J. CREW GROUP: Obscured Disclaimers, "Rubin" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Fruma Rubin, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers, the Plaintiff, v. J. Crew Group, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 3:16-cv-02167-FLW-LHG (D.N.J., April 19, 2016), seeks
penalties for Defendant's violation of the Truth-in-Consumer
Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA).

According to the complaint, Defendant's website provides a terms
and conditions section. Within these terms and conditions, the
Defendant blatantly obscures the effects of its disclaimers on
residents of all jurisdictions. By obscuring their effect on New
Jersey residents, Defendant allegedly violated the TCCWNA.

The Plaintiff is a natural person, who has resided at Lakewood New
Jersey.

The Defendant owns and operates the website jcrew.com, which sells
clothing directly to consumers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Fred M. Zemel Esq.
          THE ZEMEL LAW FIRM, P.C.
          70 Clinton Ave.
          Newark, NJ 07114
          Telephone: (973) 622 5297
          Facsimile: (973) 824 2446
          E-mail: Thezemellawfirm@icloud.com


JACOBS VEHICLE: "Unique Brooks" Cries Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------
Unique Brooks, Plaintiff, v. Jacobs Vehicle Systems, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. HHD-CV-16-6067451-S (Conn. Super., April 14,
2016), seeks compensatory damages, back pay, front pay, lost
personal days, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, interest, job
reinstatement with promotion, prejudgment interest, injunction
requiring the removal of any and all adverse information contained
in Plaintiff's personnel file and proper relief pursuant to the
Connecticut Fair Employment Practices Act.

Jacobs Vehicle Systems, Inc. is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Delaware with a principal
place of business located at 22 East Dudley Town Road, Bloomfield,
Connecticut 06002 ,where Plaintiff worked as a machinist.
Plaintiff claims to have endured racist remarks from his
superiors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Sabatini, Esq.
      SABATINI & ASSOCIATES LLC
      1 Market Square
      Newington, CT 06111
      Tel: (860) 667-0839
      Fax: (860) 667-0867
      Email: jsabatini@sabatinilaw.com


JSJ EXPRESS: "Skeen" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Compensation Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marcus L. Skeen, on his own behalf and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. JSJ Express, Inc., and James Sherman, Jr.,
individually and as the President and CEO of the corporate, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01270-WSD (N.D. Ga., April 19, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
reasonable expenses of litigation, and attorneys' fees, under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, prior to April 20, 2014 to September
8, 2015, the Defendant required Plaintiff to work in excess of 40
hours per workweek. However, the Defendant allegedly did not
compensate Plaintiff for time worked in excess of 40 hours per
week on a basis of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay
at which they are employed.

The Plaintiff is a former driver for the Defendant who was denied
overtime compensation during the terms of his employment.

JSJ Express provides delivery services throughout the metropolitan
Atlanta area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry A. Pankey, Esq.
          PANKEY & HORLOCK, LLC
          1441 Dunwoody Village Parkway, Suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30338-4122
          Telephone: (770) 670 6250
          Facsimile: (770) 670 6249
          E-mail: lpankey@pankeyhorlock.com


KARL STORZ: Faces "Kurtz" Suit Over Defective Storz Morcellator
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marcy E. Kurtz v. Karl Storz Endoscopyamerica, Inc., Karl Storz
Endovision, Inc., Karl Storz Gmbh & Co. KG, and Does 1 through
1000, inclusive, Case No. BC617218 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 15,
2016), is an action for damages as a result of the cutting,
shredding and fragmenting of the uterus and fibroids within Ms.
Kurtz, which disseminated and seeded uterine cancer, as a result
of the use of the Storz Morcellator.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of designing,
manufacturing, marketing, testing, promoting, selling and
distributing Storz Morcellators.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      Sean P. Tracey, Esq.
      Rebecca B. King, Esq.
      Andy Rubenstein, Esq.
      TRACEY & FOX
      440 Louisiana, Suite 1901
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713)495-2333
      Facsimile: (866) 709-2333
      E-mail: stracev@tracevlawfirm.com
              rking@tracevlawfirm.com
              arubenstein@tracevlawfirm.com


KIA: Recalls Sorento 2011 Models Due to Defective Sunroof
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 17, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Safety
TC System: Structure
Units affected: 10459
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016120TC
ID number: 2016120
Manufacturer recall number: SC012

On certain vehicles, the sunroof can break due to external
impacts, which can cause the sunroof crosspieces with some
tempered glass attached to dislodge and drop into the passenger
cabin onto occupants. Such breakage would be most prevalent in
provinces where gravel road treatments for ice/snow and severe
temperature shifts are common. Correction: Dealers will install
additional connective pieces to prevent the possibility of sunroof
crosspieces dropping under a product enhancement campaign. In the
interim, owners are advised to drive with the sunshade in the
closed position until the campaign is completed.

  Make       Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----       ----------------------
  KIA        SORENTO     2011


KOREA FOOD: Recalls Fish Paste Products Due to Egg
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 18, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Korea Food Trading Ltd.
Distribution: Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10472

Korea Food Trading Ltd. is recalling Assi brand fish paste
products from the marketplace because they may contain egg which
is not declared on the label. People with an allergy to egg should
not consume the recalled products described below.

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

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

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

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

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

  Brand   Common      Size     Code(s) on       UPC
  name    name        ----     product          ---
  -----   ------               ----------
  Assi    Stick Man   140 g    All codes where  0 81652 19327 2
          Fish Cake            egg is not
          - Fish               declared on the
          Paste                label
          Product
  Assi    Fish Paste  272 g    All codes where  0 81652 19340 1
          Product              egg is not
                               declared on the
                               label
  Assi    Fish Paste  320 g    All codes where  0 81652 19336 4
          Product              egg is not
                               declared on the
                               label
  Assi    Fish Paste  350 g    All codes where  0 81652 19339 5
          Product              egg is not
                               declared on the
                               label

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


L BRANDS: Faces "Nahas" Suit Over Unlawful Purchasing Policies
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bronwyn Nahas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. L Brands, Inc., Victoria's Secret Direct Brand
Management, LLC, and Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Management,
Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-02107-CCC-MF (D.N.J., April 15, 2016),
seeks redress for the unlawful commercial practices employed by
the Defendants in connection with consumer purchase from the
Defendants' website or via Victoria Secret's microsites, mobile
websites, or mobile applications.

Based in Columbus, Ohio, the Defendants are engaged in fashion
retailing business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen T. Sullivan Jr.
      KEEFE BARTELS
      170 Monmouth Street
      Red Bank, NJ 07701
      Telephone: (732) 224-9400
      Facsimile: (732) 224-9494
      E-mail: ssullivan@keefebartels.com


LEMOND FOOD: Recalls Frozen Crab Meat and Fried Fish Cake
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 18, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Lemond Food Corporation
Distribution: New Brunswick, Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10470

Lemond Food Corporation is recalling Sajo brand Frozen Imitation
Crab Meat and Choripdong brand Frozen Par Fried Fish Cake from the
marketplace because they may contain egg which is not declared on
the label. People with an allergy to egg should not consume the
recalled products described below.

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

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

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

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

  Brand      Common     Size    Code(s) on        UPC
  name       name       ----    product           ---
  -----      ------             ----------
  Sajo       Frozen     243 g   All codes where   8 801066 500273
             Imitation          egg is not
             Crab Meat          declared on the
                                label
  Sajo       Frozen     500 g   All codes where   8 801066 500198
             Imitation          egg is not
             Crab Meat          declared on the
                                label
  Sajo       Frozen     1 kg    All codes where   8 801066 500167
             Imitation          egg is not
             Crab Meat          declared on the
                                label
Choripdong   Frozen Par 400 g   All codes where   7 61898 60521 9
             Fried Fish         egg is not
             Cake               declared on the
                                label
Choripdong   Frozen Par 800 g   All codes where   7 61898 60522 6
             Fried Fish         egg is not
             Cake               declared on the
                                label

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


LENOVO INC: "Ponce" Class Suit Removed to District Minnesota
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Katherine Ponce, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lenovo (United
States) Inc., Case No. 4881768, was removed from the Hennepin
County Minnesota District Court to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Minnesota. The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 0:16-cv-01000-MJD-JSM to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts claims for the Defendant's alleged
fraudulent business practices.

Lenovo (United States) Inc. is a Delaware corporation that
manufactures computers and software and hardware products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anna P. Prakash, Esq.
      Brock J. Specht, Esq.
      Kai H. Richter, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      80 S. 8th St., Ste 4600
      Mpls.,, MN 55402-2242
      Telephone: (612) 256-3200
      Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
      E-mail: aprakash@nka.com
              bspecht@nka.com
              krichter@nka.com

         - and -

      Michael J. Vanselow, Esq.
      OPPENHEIMER WOLFF & DONNELLY LLP
      222 S 9th St Ste 2000
      Mpls, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 607-7000
      Facsimile: (612) 607-7100
      E-mail: mvanselow@oppenheimer.com

         - and -

      Prentiss E. Cox, Esq.
      UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA LAW SCHOOL
      229 19th Ave S Ste 190
      Mpls, MN 55455
      Telephone: (612) 625-5515
      Facsimile: (612) 624-5771
      E-mail: coxxx211@umn.edu

The Defendant is represented by:

      Brian Melendez, Esq.
      DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
      4000 Wells Fargo Center
      90 South Seventh Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55402-3903
      Telephone: (612) 486-1589
      Facsimile: (866) 637-2804
      E-mail: bmelendez@dykema.com


LIBERTY TAX: Settlement in ERC Litigation Has Final OK
------------------------------------------------------
Liberty Tax, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a trial court has
approved the final settlement agreement in the ERC class action
litigation.

The Company said, "We were sued in November 2011 in federal courts
in Arkansas, California, Florida, and Illinois, and additional
lawsuits were filed in federal courts in January 2012 in Maryland
and North Carolina, in February 2012 in Wisconsin, and in May 2012
in New York and Minnesota.

"In April 2012, a motion to consolidate all of the then-pending
cases before a single judge in federal court in the Northern
District of Illinois was granted, and in June 2012, the plaintiffs
filed a new complaint in the consolidated action. The consolidated
complaint alleges that our refund transfer products formerly
called electronic refund checks ("ERC") represent a form of refund
anticipation loan ("RAL") because the taxpayer is "loaned" the tax
preparation fee, and that the refund transfer product is,
therefore, subject to federal truth-in-lending disclosure and
state law requirements regulating RALs.

"The plaintiffs also allege disclosure violations related to the
ERC fees paid by RAL customers. The plaintiffs, therefore, claim
violations of state-specific RAL and other consumer statutes. The
lawsuit purports to be a class action, and the plaintiffs allege
potential damages in excess of $5.0 million.

"We appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit a ruling that certain of the plaintiffs' claims were not
subject to arbitration. Following mediation, the parties entered
into a settlement agreement in June 2015 pursuant to which we
funded the establishment of a settlement fund of $5.3 million,
inclusive of settlement administration costs and plaintiffs'
counsel fees. The claims process is complete and the trial court
approved the final settlement agreement on January 7, 2016, with
final judgment being entered on January 8, 2016.

"We have preserved potential claims against a financial product
partner that was responsible for the design of a portion of our
ERC programs in the years at issue in the cases. We accrued the
proposed settlement amount during fiscal 2015.


MACK: Recalls Titan 2016 Due to Crash Risk
------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 18, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Truck - Med. & H.D.
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Steering
Units affected: 14
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016124TC
ID number: 2016124
Manufacturer recall number: SC0401

On certain vehicles manufactured with a 2-piece steering shaft,
the upper steering shaft may disconnect from the coupler.
Separation would result in complete loss of steering, increasing
the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property.
Correction: As an interim measure, dealers will drill a hole
through the steering shaft and install a roll pin. When parts
become available, dealers will replace the 2-piece steering shaft
with a one piece shaft.

  Make     Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----     -----       ----------------------
  MACK     TITAN       2016


MANNARICH FOOD: Recalls Ball Combo Products Due to Egg
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 16, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Mannarich Food Inc.
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Nova Scotia,
Ontario, Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10467

  Brand       Common   Size   Code(s) on       UPC
  name        name     ----   product          ---
  -----       ------          ----------
  Mannarich   Ball     240 g  XYYYXX or YYYXX  0 68636 05201 5
  Food        Combo           where "X" is a
                              random number
                              and "YYY" is a
                              number between
                              002 and 018
  Mannarich   Seafood  260 g  All codes where  0 68636 05202 2
  Food        Ball            egg is not
              Combo           declared on the
                              label.


MANSIONS AT SANDY: "Oliver" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joan E. Oliver, on her own behalf and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. The Mansions at Sandy Springs d/b/a Sandy
Springs Senior Holding, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-
01269-ODE (N.D. Ga., April 19, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable expenses of
litigation, and attorneys' fees, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, prior to August 1, 2015 to February
23, 2016, Defendant required Plaintiff to work in excess of 40
hours per workweek. The Defendant allegedly did not compensate
Plaintiff for time worked in excess of 40 hours per week on a
basis of one and one-half times the regular rate of pay at which
they are employed.

The Plaintiff is a former Activity Director for the Defendant who
was denied overtime compensation during the terms of her
employment.

Sandy Springs provides housing and various activities for seniors
in the Atlanta area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry A. Pankey, Esq.
          PANKEY & HORLOCK, LLC
          1441 Dunwoody Village Parkway, Suite 200
          Atlanta, GA 30338-4122
          Telephone: (770) 670 6250
          Facsimile: (770) 670 6249
          E-mail: lpankey@pankeyhorlock.com


MARCHEX INC: "Porter" Suit in W.D. Wash. Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff in the case, Porter et al v. Marchex, Inc. et al., Case
No. 2:16-cv-00360 (W.D. Wash.), filed a voluntary dismissal of
case on April 22, 2016.

Marchex, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that on November 17, 2015,
Steven Porter, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a
putative securities class action, alleging violations of the
federal securities laws (the "Complaint") in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (Civil Action
No. 15-cv-09011). The defendants in the case are Marchex, Inc. and
certain officers (collectively, the "Defendants").

Mr. Porter seeks to represent all people who purchased or
otherwise acquired the Company's common stock during the period
from March 19, 2014 to September 18, 2014, excluding the
Defendants, and seeks unspecified damages. The Complaint alleges
violations under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by all Defendants and violations under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by certain officers. The
Complaint alleges that the Defendants made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about
the Company's business, operations, and prospects.

On February 4, 2016, the Company filed a Motion to Transfer this
case to the United States District Court for the Western District
of Washington (the "Motion to Transfer"). Mr. Porter did not
oppose the Motion to Transfer.

The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against the claims
asserted in this action. The Company believes that the Defendants
have meritorious defenses to the allegations made in the Complaint
and does not expect the results of this suit to have a material
effect on its business or consolidated financial statements.

The parties in the case faced a deadline to complete discovery on
class certification on August 5, 2016; and aeadline for Plaintiffs
to file motion for class certification on September 4, 2016.  The
parties were also supposed to file a joint status report by April
27.

Judge James Robart entered an order appointing lead counsel on
April 1.

Marchex is an advertising analytics company.


MCT GROUP: Faces "Petley" Suit Over FDCPA and TCPA Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Petley, formerly known as Elizabeth Kishore vs. San
Diego County Credit Union and MCT Group, a California corporation,
Case 3:16-cv-00891-W-RBB (S.D. Cal., April 13, 2016), is a
complaint for damages and injunctive relief under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and for damages under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and the Rosenthal Act.

MCT Group engages in debt collection business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stephen G. Recordon, Esq.
     RECORDON & RECORDON
     225 Broadway, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: (619) 232-1717
     Fax: (619) 232-5325
     E-mail: sgrecordon@aol.com


MDL 2592: Bid for Entry of Protective Order Denied
--------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: XARELTO (RIVAROXABAN) PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, SECTION L. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO All
Cases,  MDL No. 2592 (E.D. La.), Judge Eldon E. Fallon denied the
defendants' motion for entry of a protective order regarding
attorney work product.

This multidistrict litigation against the defendants, Bayer
Corporation, Bayer HealthCare LLC, Bayer HealthCare
Pharmaceuticals Inc., Bayer HealthCare AG, Bayer Pharma AG, and
Bayer AG, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Janssen Research &
Development, LLC, Janssen Ortho LLC, and Johnson & Johnson, arose
from damages that the plaintiffs claim to have suffered from the
manufacture, sale, distribution, and/or use of the medication
known as Xarelto, an anti-coagulant used for a variety of blood-
thinning medical purposes.  The plaintiffs alleged that they or
their family members suffered severe bleeding and other injuries
due to Xarelto's allegedly inadequate warning label, among other
things, as well as Xarelto's purported lack of reliance on regular
blood monitoring.

During discovery, the defendants moved the court to issue a
pretrial order labeling lists of documents compiled by counsel and
shown to a witness prior to a deposition as attorney work product,
thereby making the lists immune from discovery.

Judge Fallon denied the motion, holding that a list of documents
reviewed by a witness in preparation for a deposition is
discoverable under Civil Procedure Rule 26(b), because the list is
relevant, proportional to the needs of the case, and not
privileged.

A full-text copy of Judge Fallon's April 8, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/NssXQ8from Leagle.com.

Plaintiff, Plaintiff, represented by Leonard A. Davis --
ldavis@hhklawfirm.com -- Herman, Herman & Katz, LLC & Gerald
Edward Meunier -- Gainsburgh, Benjamin, David, Meunier &
Warshauer.

Defendant, Defendant, represented by Susan M. Sharko --
susan.sharko@dbr.com -- Drinker, Biddle & Reath, LLP, James B.
Irwin, V -- jirwin@irwinllc.com -- Irwin Fritchie Urquhart &
Moore, LLC & Steven Jay Glickstein --
steven.glickstein@kayescholer.com -- Kaye, Scholer, LLP.

Jake Woody, Interested Party, represented by Jacob S. Woody --
jswoody@browngreer.com -- BrownGreer PLC.


MEATING PLACE: Recalls Ground Beef Products Due to E. Coli
----------------------------------------------------------
Meating Place, a Buffalo, N.Y., establishment, is recalling
approximately 325 pounds of ground beef product that may be
contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The ground beef patties were produced on April 15, 2016. The
following product is subject to recall:

  --- 5-lb. boxes of "LORIGO BRAND BEEF PATTIES KEEP FROZEN THE
      MEATING PLACE INC." with a package code of 120106.

The product subject to recall bears establishment number "Est.
8631" inside the USDA mark of inspection. The item was shipped to
retail and institutional locations in the Buffalo, NY area.

The problem was discovered by FSIS during routine in-plant review
of testing results. There have been no confirmed reports of
adverse reactions due to consumption of this product.

E. coli O157:H7 is a potentially deadly bacterium that can cause
dehydration, bloody diarrhea and abdominal cramps 2-8 days (3-4
days, on average) after exposure to the organism. While most
people recover within a week, some develop a type of kidney
failure called hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS). This condition can
occur among persons of any age, but is most common in children
under 5-years old and older adults. It is marked by easy bruising,
pallor, and decreased urine output. Persons who experience these
symptoms should seek emergency medical care immediately.

FSIS and the company are concerned that some product may be frozen
and in consumers' freezers.

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


MID CITY GYM: "Sierra" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Santiago Sierra, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Mid City Gym and Tanning LLC (d/b/a
Mid City Gym and Tanning), Vincent Consalvo and Elida Consalvo,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02892-AT (S.D.N.Y., April 19,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages including applicable
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and the New York
Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff regularly has worked for
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
overtime compensation for any of the hours that he has worked over
40 in a week. The Defendants allegedly failed to maintain accurate
recordkeeping of hours worked, and have failed to pay Plaintiff
appropriately for any hours worked over 40. The Plaintiff has
worked at Defendants' gym and tanning center, where his duties
consist of maintenance and repair of exercise equipment and
cleaning of the entire business.

Mid City Gym is a gym and tanning center located at 345 W. 42nd
Street, New York, New York, 10036.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317 1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317 1620
          E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com


MOISHE'S PLACE: Faces "Martinez" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
CESAR MARTINEZ, on behalf of himself and Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, v.
MOISHE'S PLACE LLC, DELI 52 FOOD CORP., DELI 52 BS"D INC. and
JOEL [LAST NAME UNKOWN], Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-01796,
(E.D.N.Y., April 13, 2016), seeks to recover from Defendants: (1)
unpaid overtime, (2) unpaid minimum wages, (3) liquidated damages
and (4) attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Defendants own and operate two restaurants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MOUNTAIN PRODUCTS: Recalls Bacon and Pork Sausage Products
----------------------------------------------------------
Mountain Products Inc., a Lagrangeville, N.Y. establishment, is
recalling approximately 467 pounds of bacon and pork sausages
products due to misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced. The company produced the pork products
formulated with breadcrumbs containing milk, soy and wheat, known
allergens which were not sub-listed on the finished product
labels.

The Mountain Products Smokehouse brand bacon and Irish bangers
sausages items were produced on various dates between March 31,
2014 and March 9, 2016. The following products are subject to
recall:

  --- 1-lb. packages of "SMOKED CAJUN STYLE PORK SAUSAGE READY TO
      EAT" with packing dates of 1/5/15.
  --- 1-lb. packages of "HOT ITALIAN SAUSAGE" with packing dates
      of 9/9/15, 1/29/16, 3/9/16.
  --- 1-lb. packages of "SWEET ITALIAN SAUSAGE" with packing
      dates of 9/9/15 and 3/9/16.
  --- 1-lb. packages of "BREAKFAST SAUSAGE IN SHEEP CASING" with
      a packing date of 1/29/16.
  --- 1-lb. packages of "IRISH BANGERS" with packing dates of
      3/31/14, 1/5/15, 3/10/15, 6/10/15, 7/15/15, 9/9/15,
      1/29/16, 3/2/16 and 3/9/16.
  --- 1-lb. packages of "Giovanni's Delizioso PARMESAN & OREGANO
      COUNTRY STYLE BACON" with a packing date of 11/20/15.

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST.
M17458" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were
shipped to retail locations in the Dutchess County, New York and
California.

The problem was discovered during a label review verification at
the firm on April 11, 2016. Upon further investigation, it was
discovered that additional product types may had been cross-
contaminated with milk, soy and wheat.

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

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


NATIONAL HOCKEY LEAGUE: Court Narrows Protected Documents
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned In Re: National Hockey League Players'
Concussion Injury Litigation This Document Relates to All Actions,
MDL No. 14-2551 (SRN/JSM) (D. Minn.), Judge Susan Richard Nelson
granted in part, denied in part, and denied as moot the
plaintiffs' appeal of the confidentiality rulings in the
Magistrate Judge's order of December 9, 2015.

The plaintiffs, former professional hockey players in the National
Hockey League ("NHL"), sought to represent two classes of former
NHL players for the following: (1) medical monitoring of current
cellular and subcellular injuries allegedly caused by the
defendant's actions or inactions concerning concussive and
subconcussive impacts during the players' careers in the NHL; and
(2) further medical monitoring of those players already diagnosed
with a neurodegenerative illness, along with compensatory damages.
They contended that the NHL knew or should have known of a growing
body of scientific evidence purportedly showing a link between
repetitive concussive events, sub-concussive events and/or brain
injuries and a greater risk for chronic neuro-cognitive illness
and disabilities both during the players' careers and, especially,
later in life.

During discovery, the court entered protective orders pursuant to
the parties' concerns about the confidentiality of certain
requested material.  The court's Amended Protective Order of April
23, 2015 provided for the definition of a "Protected Document."
This protective order, however, "does not confer blanket
protection on all discovery."  Rather, its protections apply "only
to the limited information or items entitled to confidential
treatment under applicable legal principles."

On October 8, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their Motion to Compel
Confidentiality De-Designation by the NHL, challenging the
confidentiality designations of 54 documents produced by the
defendant and sought to "de-designate" them as non-confidential.

Magistrate Judge Mayeron issued a 48-page Order, granting in part
and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion.  The magistrate judge
overruled the NHL's confidentiality designations on 21 documents
and sustained the NHL's confidentiality designations in whole or
in part on 33 documents.  The plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion
requesting the affirmance of the magistrate judge's 21 de-
designations and appealing the magistrate judge's rulings
sustaining the NHL's confidentiality objections on the following
nine documents: PRN 1, 2, 4, 10, 18, 28, 29, 32, and 33.

Judge Nelson concluded as follows:

          (a) that the commercially and competitively sensitive
              documents -- PRN 1 and 2 -- were properly
              designated "Protected Documents" under the Amended
              Protective Order and pursuant to Rule 26 of the
              Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

          (b) that as to the the minutes, notes and summaries of
              various meetings involving NHL General Managers --
              PRN 4, 10, and 18 --  most of the dispute is
              rendered moot, in light of the narrower scope of
              the plaintiffs' appeal and the defendant's
              willingness to de-designate much of the information
              in these documents.  As to the limited areas of
              disagreement, Judge Nelson affirmed the magistrate
              judge's ruling;

          (c) as to those regarding supplemental discipline,
              rule changes and League business:

              -- PRN 28 was properly designated "Protected";

              -- PRN 29, 32 and 33 are not entitled to
                 "Protected" status under the Amended Protective
                 Order and Rule 26 and must be de-designated

A full-text copy of Judge Nelson's April 5, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/IrdDvtfrom
Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel, Plaintiff, represented
by Bradley C Buhrow -- brad.buhrow@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed
PLLP, pro hac vice, Brian C Gudmundson --
brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Charles S
Zimmerman -- charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed,
PLLP, David M Cialkowski -- charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com --
Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Hart L Robinovitch --
hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, PLLP, Janine D
Arno -- jarno@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbin Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Kathleen L Douglas -- kdouglas@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Leonard B. Simon -- lens@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Mark J. Dearman -- mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
-- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Stephen G. Grygiel --
sgrygiel@mdattorney.com -- SILVERMAN, THOMPSON, SLUTKIN & WHITE,
Steven D. Silverman -- ssilverman@mdattorney.com -- SILVERMAN,
THOMPSON, SLUTKIN & WHITE, Stuart A Davidson --
sdavidson@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, pro
hac vice & William N. Sinclair -- bsinclair@mdattorney.com --
SILVERMAN, THOMPSON, SLUTKIN & WHITE.

Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey D.
Klobucar -- jklobucar@bassford.com -- Bassford Remele, PA & Lewis
A Remele, Jr. -- lremele@bassford.com -- Bassford Remele, PA.

Plaintiffs' Executive Committee, Plaintiff, represented by Brian D
Penny -- penny@lawgsp.com -- Goldman Scarlato & Karon, PC, Bryan L
Bleichner -- bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com -- Chestnut
Cambronne, PA, Christopher P Renz -- crenz@chestnutcambronne.com -
- Chestnut Cambronne PA, Daniel E Gustafson --
dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC, David A
Goodwin -- dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek PLLC,
David I Levine, The Levine Law Firm, James W Anderson --
janderson@heinsmills.com -- Heins Mills & Olson, PLC, Jeffrey D
Bores -- jbores@chestnutcambronne.com -- Chestnut Cambronne, PA,
Joshua J Rissman -- jrissman@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek
PLLC, Katelyn I Geoffrion, Corboy & Demetrio, Mark S Goldman --
goldman@lawgsp.com -- Goldman Scarlato & Karon, PC, Michael R
Cashman -- mcashman@hjlawfirm.com -- Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC,
Richard M. Hagstrom -- rhagstrom@hjlawfirm.com -- Hellmuth &
Johnson, Robert K Shelquist -- rkshelquist@locklaw.com --
Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, Thomas Joseph Byrne --
tbyrne@nbolaw.com -- Namanny, Byrne & Owens, APC, Thomas A
Demetrio -- tad@corboydemetrio.com -- Corboy & Demetrio, Vincent J
Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, PLC,William T Gibbs --
wtg@corboydemetrio.com -- Corboys Denetrio & Wm Dane DeKrey --
dane.dekrey@zimmreed.com -- Zimmerman Reed, LLP.

National Hockey League, Defendant, represented by Aaron D Van
Oort, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Adam M. Lupion, PROSKAUER ROSE,
LLP, Daniel J Connolly, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Geoffrey M.
Wyatt, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, James A. Keyte,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Jessica D Miller,
Skadden, Arps, Meagher & Flom LLP, John Herbert Beisner, SKADDEN
ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP, Joseph Baumgarten, PROSKAUER ROSE,
LLP, Joseph M Price, Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Linda S Svitak,
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP, Matthew Michael Martino, Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Matthew Stein, Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom, LLP, Michael H Menitove, Skadden, Arps, Slate,
Meagher & Flom LLP &Shepard Goldfein, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher &
Flom.

The Chubb Corporation, Respondent, represented by Peter H Walsh,
Hogan Lovells US LLP.

CTV, Movant, represented by Mark R Anfinson, Anfinson Law Office.
Dennis Lang, Movant, represented by Mark R Anfinson, Anfinson Law
Office.


NATIONAL RAILROAD: Tulks' Bid for Preliminary Class Cert. Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: AMTRAK TRAIN DERAILMENT IN
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, ON MAY 12, 2015 MDL NO. 2654 This
document relates to: Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-04354-LDD, No. 15-
md-2654 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Legrome D. Davis denied the motion filed
by the plaintiffs Mark and Nicola Tulks for preliminary settlement
class certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(1)(B).

Lawsuits against the National Railroad Passenger Corporation were
filed in multiple federal jurisdictions soon after the May 12,
2015 derailment of Amtrak Train No. 188 near the Frankford
Junction in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  On October 13, 2015, the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) established MDL
2654 as the procedural framework for coordinating all pre-trial
proceedings arising from the derailment.

The plaintiffs Mark and Nicola Tulk initially filed a complaint
against Amtrak with no class claims.  On August 6, 2015, the Tulks
filed a separate class action.  In the class complaint, the Tulks
contended that the action is properly maintained as a class action
under Rule 23(b)(1)(A), 23(b)(1)(B), and 23(b)(3), and requested
damages in the amount of one billion dollars.  Despite these
claims, the Tulks did not file any objections to the ongoing MDL
proceedings, which ran from June through October of 2015.  On
February 2, 2016, after MDL 2654 had been established, the Tulks
filed a motion in their individual docket to certify a mandatory,
non-opt out, settlement class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(b)(1)(B).  The Tulks moved for an order "certifying a
Settlement Class" pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1)(B), "for the purpose
of facilitating class-wide settlement discussions" with Amtrak.
The certification was styled as preliminary.

As the Tulks' motion was filed only in their individual docket,
the Court ordered that all parties to the MDL respond to the
motion for class certification.  The consolidated Plaintiffs
vigorously opposed certification and argued that the Tulks have
failed to establish the predicates for a class action under Rule
23(b)(1)(b) and 23(a) and, further, that the MDL procedure is
appropriate and sufficient to currently manage the litigation.
The defendant Amtrak also filed a response deferring to the Court
and the plaintiffs as to whether certification is the most fair
and efficient way to resolve this case.

On March 14, 2016, the Tulks re-filed their initial class
certification motion on the MDL docket and then filed a reply in
support of settlement class certification.

Judge Davis found that, at this stage of the litigation, the Tulks
have not shown that the proposed settlement class satisfies Rule
23(b)(1)(B). Meeting the requirements of Rule 23(b) is necessary
for class certification whether preliminary or final.

A full-text copy of Judge Davis' April 6, 2016 memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/5xkbnFfrom Leagle.com.

IN RE: AMTRAK TRAIN DERAILMENT IN PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, ON
MAY 12, 2015, IN RE:, represented by YURI J. BRUNETTI --
ybrunetti@lcbf.com -- LANDMAN CORSI BALLAINE & FORD P.C..


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Faces "Levin" Suit in District of New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Credit Inc. The case
is captioned Chana Levin, individually, and on behalf of other
similarly situated, v. Nationwide Credit Inc., and Arindam Bose,
the President, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-02173-AET-TJB
(D.N.J., April 19, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. Anne E.
Thompson.

Nationwide Credit is a debt collection agency.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NAVISTAR INT'L: June 13 Class Cert. Hearing in N&C Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a
certification hearing is scheduled in the MaxxForce Engine EGR
warranty lawsuit commenced by N&C Transportation Ltd. starting on
June 13, 2016.

On June 24, 2014, N&C Transportation Ltd. filed a putative class
action lawsuit against Navistar International Corporation,
Navistar, Inc., Navistar Canada Inc., and Harbour International
Trucks (collectively, "Navistar") in Canada in the Supreme Court
of British Columbia (the "N&C Action").  Subsequently, six
additional, similar putative class action lawsuits have been filed
in Canada (together with the N&C Action, the "Canadian Actions").
A certification hearing is scheduled in the N&C Action starting on
June 13, 2016.

The plaintiff submitted application materials for the
certification motion, and Navistar's responding materials were
filed on December 4, 2015. There are no court dates scheduled in
any of the other Canadian Actions at this time.


NAVISTAR INT'L: Still Defends MaxxForce Suit in N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
Navistar International Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
Company continues to defend against the MaxxForce Engine EGR
Warranty Litigation in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

On July 7, 2014, Par 4 Transport, LLC filed a putative class
action lawsuit against Navistar, Inc. in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the "Par 4
Action"). Subsequently, sixteen additional putative class action
lawsuits were filed in various United States district courts,
including the Northern District of Illinois, the Eastern District
of Wisconsin, the Southern District of Florida, the Middle
District of Pennsylvania, the Southern District of Texas, the
Western District of Kentucky, the District of Minnesota, and the
District of Alabama (together with the Par 4 Action, the "U.S.
Actions"). Some of the U.S. Actions name both Navistar
International Corporation and Navistar, Inc. The U.S. Actions
allege matters substantially similar to the Canadian Actions.

More specifically, the Canadian Actions and the U.S. Actions
(collectively, the "EGR Class Actions") seek to certify a class of
persons or entities in Canada or the United States who purchased
and/or leased a ProStar or other Navistar vehicle equipped with a
model year 2008-2013 MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine.

In substance, the EGR Class Actions allege that the MaxxForce
Advanced EGR engines are defective and that the Company and
Navistar, Inc. failed to disclose and correct the alleged defect.
The EGR Class Actions assert claims based on theories of contract,
breach of warranty, consumer fraud, unfair competition,
misrepresentation and negligence. The EGR Class Actions seek
relief in the form of monetary damages, punitive damages,
declaratory relief, interest, fees, and costs.

On October 3, 2014, Navistar International Corporation and
Navistar, Inc. filed a motion before the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "MDL Panel") seeking to
transfer and consolidate before Judge Joan B. Gottschall of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
all of the then-pending U.S. Actions, as well as certain non-class
action MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits pending in various
federal district courts.

On December 17, 2014, Navistar's motion to consolidate the U.S.
Actions and certain other non-class action lawsuits was granted.
The MDL Panel issued an order consolidating all of the U.S.
Actions that were pending on the date of Navistar's motion before
Judge Gottschall in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (the "MDL Action"). The MDL Panel
also consolidated into the MDL Action certain non-class action
MaxxForce Advanced EGR engine lawsuits pending in the various
federal district courts, with the exception of one matter. For
putative class action lawsuits filed subsequent to Navistar's
original motion, we continue to request that the MDL Panel
similarly transfer and consolidate these U.S. Actions.

At the request of the various law firms representing the
plaintiffs in the MDL Action, on March 5, 2015, Judge Gottschall
entered an order in the MDL Action appointing interim lead counsel
and interim liaison counsel for the plaintiffs.

On May 11, 2015, lead counsel for the plaintiffs filed a First
Master Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("Consolidated
Complaint"). The parties to the MDL Action exchanged initial
disclosures on May 29, 2015. The Company answered the Consolidated
Complaint on July 13, 2015.

"Based on our assessment of the facts underlying the claims in the
above actions, we are unable to provide meaningful quantification
of how the final resolution of these claims may impact our future
consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or cash
flows," the Company said.


NEW LEE: Faces "Zheng" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Xiu Jian Zheng, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. New Lee Chi Garden, Inc. d/b/a Lichee Nut,
Jerry Shen, and Lin Feng Ji, Case No. 1:16-cv-01850 (E.D.N.Y.,
April 15, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

New Lee Chi Garden, Inc. owns and operates a restaurant located at
162 Montague St # 1, the Brooklyn, the New York 11201.

Xiu Jian Zheng is a pro se plaintiff.


NEIL JONES: "Valdez" Class Action Deal Gets Initial OK
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LUIS VALDEZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE NEIL
JONES FOOD COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:13-cv-00519-
AWI-SAB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Stanley Boone granted the plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement.

A complaint was filed against Neil Jones Food Company, alleging
failure to provide meal and rest breaks, failure to pay overtime,
failure to pay required "reporting time", failure to pay for all
hours worked, failure to pay wages due upon termination, failure
to provide itemized wage statements, unfair business practices,
conversion, and violation of the Private Attorneys General Act.

The plaintiffs have previously filed a motion for preliminary
approval of a class action settlement, but was denied three times
by the court.  On February 19, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a fourth
motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Defendant agrees to
pay $850,000 in cash to resolve the claims of any class members
who do not timely and validly opt out. Of the gross settlement
amount, $650,000 is allocated to the released claims of settlement
class A and $200,000 is allocated to the released claims of
settlement Class B.

The parties propose the following deductions from the gross
settlement amount:

     -- Service payments of $5,000.00 each to Plaintiffs Martinez
and Valdez for their services and participation as class
representatives;

     -- Up to $212,500.00 (25 percent of the gross settlement
fund) to class counsel for attorney fees;3

     -- Up to $30,000.00 in legal costs and expenses;

     -- $40,215.64 in claims administrator costs;

     -- $15,000.00 for civil penalties under the California
Private Attorney General Act; and

     -- Defendant's portion of FICA, FUTA, and all other state and
federal payroll taxes on the individual settlement payments.

Judge Boone granted preliminary approval of the class action
settlement and likewise granted conditional certification of two
classes, Settlement Class A and Settlement Class B.  The judge
also designated the named plaintiffs Luis Valdez and Carolina
Martinez as representatives for Settlement Class A and Carolina
Martinez for Settlement Class B.

A final approval hearing is scheduled on August 10, 2016, at 10:00
a.m.

A full-text copy of Judge Boone's April 8, 2016 order is available
at http://is.gd/qDwqOBfrom Leagle.com.

Luis Valdez, Carolina Martinez, Plaintiffs, represented by Dennis
Patrick Wilson -- wilsontrialgroup@att.net -- Law Offices Of
Dennis P. Wilson.

The Neil Jones Food Co., Defendant, represented by Andrea
Bednarova -- abednarova@fosteremploymentlaw.com -- Foster
Employment Law & Michael Eugene Wilbur --
mwilbur@fosteremploymentlaw.com -- Foster Employment Law.


NOBLE COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Almeida" Suit Seeking Unpaid OT Wage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nikol Almeida, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. NOBLE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Florida Profit Company,
and SULEMAN JIWANI, individually Case 6:16-cv-00632-GKS-DAB (M.D.
Fla., April 13, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
unpaid commissions, an additional equal amount as liquidated
damages. The complaint also seeks to obtain declaratory relief,
and reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Noble Communications Inc. is an organization in the radiotelephone
communication industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Richard Celleer, Esq.
     CELLER LEGAL, P.A.
     7450 Griffin Road, Suite 230
     Davie, FL 33314
     Phone: (866) 344-9243
     Fax: (954) 337-2771
     E-mail: richard@floridaovertimelawyer.com


NORTH SHORE: Faces "Mitros" Suit in Eastern District Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against North Shore Agency. The case is
captioned John Mitros, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. North Shore Agency, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01853 (E.D. Penn., April 19, 2016).

North Shore provides accounts receivables outsourcing including
first part billing services, collection letters, mailing services,
and collection services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David A. Searles, Esq.
          James A. Francis, Esq.
          FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
          Land Title Building, 19th Floor
          100 South Broad Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19110
          Telephone: (215) 735 8600
          E-mail: dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com
                  jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com


NR EXPRESS: Faces "Bing" Suit in Southern District of New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against NR Express Inc. The case is
captioned Bing Hang Li, on behalf of all other employees similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. NR Express Inc., Chi On Wong,
individual, Jason Doe (last name unknown), individually,
John Doe 1-10, and Jane Doe 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
cv-02918 (S.D.N.Y., April 19, 2016).

NR Express is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and trucking
company running a freight hauling business from Maspeth, New York.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ORIGINAL GIANETTO'S: Recalls Gianetto's Dip Products
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 17, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg, Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Mustard
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: The Original Gianetto's Dip Company
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10469

The Original Gianetto's Dip Company is recalling The Original
Gianetto's Dip from the marketplace because it contains egg, milk,
and mustard which are not declared on the label. People with an
allergy to egg, milk, or mustard should not consume the recalled
product described below.

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

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

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

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

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

  Brand   Common        Size     Code(s) on            UPC
  name    name          ----     product               ---
  -----   ------                 ----------
  None    The Original  227 g    All codes where egg,  None
          Gianetto's             milk, and mustard
          Dip                    are not declared on
                                 the label

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


PANASONIC CANADA: Recalls Toughbook CF-S10 Battery Packs
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 21, 2016
Posting date: March 21, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Electronics
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-57492

This recall involves the battery pack found in Toughbook CF-S10
Series Notebook Computers.  The notebook model number CF-S10 can
be located on the lower left keyboard side of an opened notebook.
The recalled battery pack model and lot number can be located by
removing the battery housing found on the back of the notebook.

The following battery model number and lot numbers are included in
this recall:

  Battery Model Number      Lot Number (beginning with):
  --------------------      ----------------------------
  CF-VZSU61U                BAW
                            BBF
                            BBX
                            BBY
                            BC
                            C1
                            C2
                            C3
The battery packs can overheat or ignite, posing a fire hazard.

Neither Health Canada nor Panasonic Canada have received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to
the use of this product.  No incidents have been reported in the
United States.

There is a reported incident in Asia in which the laptop caught
fire while charging.

Approximately 110 recalled battery packs were sold in Canada, and
approximately 387 were sold in the United States.

The recalled products were sold in Canada from October 2011 to
April 2012.

Manufactured in Japan.

Distributor: Panasonic Canada Inc.
             Mississauga
             Ontario
             CANADA

Manufacturer: SANYO Electric Company Ltd.
              JAPAN

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/Smqx3s


PERFECT FIT: Recalls Poultry Entrees Due to Misbranding
-------------------------------------------------------
Perfect Fit Meals, LLC, a Houston, Texas establishment, is
recalling approximately 10,455 pounds of poultry entrees due to
misbranding and undeclared allergens, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.
The products are mislabeled and one of the products, the Turkey
Enchilada, may contain milk, a known allergen which is not
declared on the mislabeled product label.

The Turkey Enchilada items were produced on March 28, 2016. The
Lemon Pepper Chicken items were produced on March 25, 2016. The
following products are subject to recall:

  --- 10.4-oz. sealed tray packages with a label that says
      "Perfect Fit Meals Texas Chicken Ranch Casserole" with a
      use-by date of 4/24/2016, but may contain "Perfect Fit
      Meals Lemon Pepper Chicken."

  --- 11-oz sealed tray packages with a label that says "Perfect
      Fit Meals Chipotle Chicken Sausage" with a use-by date of
      5/2/2016, but may contain "Perfect Fit Meals Turkey
      Enchilada."

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "P-827"
inside the USDA mark of inspection on the sealed tray packages.
These items were shipped to retail locations nationwide.

The problem was discovered after the firm was notified by a
retailer that the products were incorrectly labeled.

Anyone concerned about an injury or illness should contact a
healthcare provider.

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


PRODIGY GROUP: Recalls Bicycle Wheel Hubs Due to Fall Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 16, 2016
Posting date: March 16, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Sports/Fitness
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fall Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-57544

This recall involves SRAM's Zipp bicycle wheel hubs. The model
names of the affected hubs are ZIPP 88v6, 88v7 and 88v8.  It can
be identified by the Z logo printed on the hub.  The wheel hubs
come in black, silver and falcon grey. The diameter of the clinch
nut is approximately 3.71 centimetres (1.46 inches).  Some of the
hubs were sold as part of wheel sets installed on new bicycles.

The following is a list of affected bicycle brands and models:

  Brand           Year        Model
  -----           ----        -----
  Cannondale      2010        Slice Hi-Mod SuperX SRAM Red
                  2011        SuperX SRAM RED
                  2013        Slice RS Black Edition
  Jamis           2010        Xenith T2
                  2011        Xenith SL
                              Xenith T2
  Felt            2009        AR Team
                              DA
                  2010        AR1 Team
                              DA
                              DA Di2
                              B2 Pro
Specialized
                  2012        S-Works SHIV DI2 X2
                              S-Works TARMAC SL4 SRAM NEW RED X2
                              S-Works VENGE MCLAREN X2
                              S-Works VENGE DI2 X2
                  2013        S-Works VENGE S-RECORD EPS X2
                              S-Works TARMAC SL4 DI2 X2

The front hub flange can fail, posing a fall hazard.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of these front wheel hubs in
Canada.

In the United States, SRAM has received 1 report of the hub flange
failure that could have led to the wheel collapsing.  No injuries
were reported.
Approximately 2,900 units of the recalled front wheel hubs were
sold in Canada, and approximately 54,000 of the recalled products
were sold in the United States.

The recalled front wheel hubs were sold from May 2010 to January
2015 at specialty bicycle retailers.

Manufactured in the United States and Spain.

Manufacturer: Prodigy Group
              Mooresville
              Indiana
              UNITED STATES

Manufacturer: Decoletaje y Fijacion
              Arrigorriaga
              Biscay
              SPAIN


RETRIEVAL-MASTERS CREDITOR'S: Faces "Namer" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Retrieval-Masters Creditor's
Bureau, Inc. The case is captioned Rena Namer, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Retrieval-Masters Creditor's Bureau, Inc., a/k/a American Medical
Collection Agency, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01927
(E.D.N.Y., April 19, 2016).

Retrieval Masters is a recovery agency for consumer collections.

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


SAKS DIRECT: Faces "Rubin" Suit in District of New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Saks Direct Inc. The case is
captioned Fay Rubin, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Saks Direct Inc.,
the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02197-PGS-LHG (D.N.J., April 19,
2016). The Assigned Judge is Peter G. Sheridan.

As of January 30, 2010, Saks Direct was acquired by Saks
Incorporated. Saks engages in online and catalog retailing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Fred M. Zemel, Esq.
          THE ZEMEL LAW FIRM, P.C.
          70 Clinton Ave.
          Newark, NJ 07114
          Telephone: 973-622 5297
          Facsimile: 973-824 2446
          E-mail: Thezemellawfirm@icloud.com


SALEM BROTHERS: Recalls Soup Products Due to Milk & Sesame Seeds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 17, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Milk, Allergen - Sesame Seeds
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Salem Brothers
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10441

Salem Brothers is recalling Jameedna Zaman brand Soup Starter Soup
Base and Kasih brand Halva from the marketplace because they
contain milk and sesame which are not declared on the label.
People with an allergy to milk or sesame should not consume the
recalled products described below.

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

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

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

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

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

  Brand      Common       Size   Code(s) on       UPC
  name       name         ----   product          ---
  -----      ------              ----------
  Jameedna   Soup         1 kg   All codes where  6 251591 112151
  Zaman      Starter             milk is not
             Soup Base           declared on the
                                 label
  Kasih      Ayam Zaman   450 g  All codes where  6 253001 002205
             Halva Extra         sesame is not
             Pistachio           declared on the
                                 label
  Kasih      Premium      900 g  All codes where  6 253001 010385
             Quality             sesame is not
             Halva Extra         declared on the
             with                label
             Pistachio
  Kasih      Premium      450 g  All codes where  6 253001 010422
             Quality             sesame is not
             Halva Extra         declared on the
             Vanilla             label
  Kasih      Ayam Zaman   900 g  All codes where  6 253001 010019
             Halva Extra         sesame is not
             Vanilla             declared on the
                                 label
  Kasih      Ayam Zaman   450 g  All codes where  6 253001 004919
             Halva Super         sesame and milk
             Extra -             are not on the
             Mixed &             label declared
             Covered with
             Nuts &
             Chocolate
  Kasih      Ayam Zaman   900 g  All codes where  6 253001 010057
             Halva Super         sesame and milk
             Extra - Mixed       are not declared
             & Covered           on the label
             with Nuts &
             Chocolate
  Kasih      Premium      450 g  All codes where  6 253001 010460
             Quality Halva       sesame and milk
             Super Extra-        are not declared
             Mixed & Covered     on the label
             with Nuts &
             Chocolate
  Kasih      Premium      900 g  All codes where  6 253001 010415
             Quality Halva       sesame and milk
             Super Extra-        are not declared
             Mixed & Covered     on the label
             with Nuts &
             Chocolate

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/07zuSL


SANOFI: 1,095 Plavix(R) Product Liability Suits Filed at Dec. 31
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2015, that as of December 31, 2015, around 1,095
lawsuits, involving approximately 5,520 claimants have been filed
against affiliates of the Group and Bristol-Myers Squibb seeking
recovery under U.S. state law for personal injuries allegedly
sustained in connection with the use of Plavix(R). The actions are
held in several jurisdictions, including the federal and/or state
courts of New Jersey, New York, California, Delaware, and
Illinois. It is not possible, at this stage, to assess reliably
the outcome of these lawsuits or the potential financial impact on
the Company.


SANOFI: Menactra Class Action Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------
Sanofi said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2015, that proceedings are ongoing in an antitrust
class action lawsuit related to Menactra(R) Vaccine.

In December 2011, a class action was filed in the New Jersey
Federal District Court alleging that Sanofi Pasteur Inc. violated
Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by unlawfully monopolizing and
restraining trade in the meningococcal market and seeking treble
damages and other remedies for alleged anticompetitive
overcharges. On August 6, 2012, the Court denied Sanofi Pasteur's
motion to dismiss. In September 2015, the Court certified a class,
which (subject to certain exclusions), consists of all persons or
entities in the United States that purchased Menactra directly
from Sanofi Pasteur or its affiliates after March 1, 2010.
Proceedings are ongoing.


SANOFI: Plaintiffs Seek to Reverse Case Dismissal Order
-------------------------------------------------------
Sanofi said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2015, that plaintiffs in a U.S. shareholder
securities class action have sought reconsideration of a court
order dismissing their amended complaint.

In December 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of Sanofi American Depositary Shares. The
complaint, which named Sanofi and certain of its current and
former officers as defendants and asserted claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleged that Sanofi's public
disclosures failed to disclose that Sanofi (i) was making improper
payments to healthcare professionals in violation of federal law
and (ii) lacked internal controls over financial reporting, which
allegedly inflated the price of its securities.

In February 2015, a related putative class action lawsuit was
filed in the Southern District of New York, alleging the same
misconduct, but asserting claims under the Securities Act of 1933.
In March 2015, the cases were consolidated, and in May 2015, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint, naming Sanofi
and its former CEO as defendants and asserting claims under the
Exchange Act. In August 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, and in January 2016, the Court
granted that motion.

On February 4, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Court's January 6, 2016 dismissal order and
for leave to amend the consolidated amended complaint, which
motion remains pending before the Court.


SANOFI: Appeal in CVR Class Action Pending
------------------------------------------
Sanofi said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2015, that an appeal in the CVR class action remains
pending.

In December 2013, two putative class action lawsuits were filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of holders of contingent value rights ("CVRs") issued in
connection with Sanofi's acquisition of Genzyme in 2011. The
complaints, which named Sanofi and certain of its officers as
defendants and asserted claims under the Exchange Act, alleged
that Sanofi's public disclosures materially misrepresented (i) the
efficacy and safety of Lemtrada(R) (alemtuzumab) and (ii) the
design of two Lemtrada(R) clinical trials, CARE-MS I and CARE-MS
II. Such alleged misrepresentations, according to the complaints,
caused an artificial inflation in the price of the CVRs.

In March 2014, the cases were consolidated. Also in March 2014, an
additional group of 32 purported CVR holders filed a lawsuit in
the Southern District of New York against Sanofi, Genzyme and
certain of their officers (the "AG Funds Action"), asserting
claims under the Exchange Act, the Securities Act and California,
Massachusetts and Minnesota state law, based on alleged material
misrepresentations and omissions regarding Lemtrada(R), its
development and likelihood of success before the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration.

In April 2014, the plaintiff in the consolidated putative class
action (the "Consolidated Action") filed an amended shareholder
class action complaint, which named Sanofi and certain of its
officers as defendants and asserted claims under the Exchange Act.

In June 2014, the defendants in the Consolidated and AG Funds
Actions filed a motion to dismiss the complaints, and on January
28, 2015, the court granted that motion. The plaintiffs appealed
the dismissals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

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


SANTANDER CONSUMER: 4th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Galloway"
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JACQUELINE GALLOWAY, on her own behalf and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. SANTANDER CONSUMER USA, INC., Defendant-Appellee, No. 15-1392
(4th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
affirmed the district court's order dismissing Jacqueline
Galloway's action against Santander Consumer USA, Inc.

Galloway brought an action against Santander, seeking damages for
breach of contract and alleging a violation of the Maryland Credit
Grantor Closed End Credit Provisions (CLEC).  Galloway alleged
that Santander breached their retail installment contract and
violated the CLEC by failing to provide sufficient notice before
selling her vehicle.  Galloway purported to bring suit on behalf
of herself and all persons similarly situated.

Applying a summary-judgment-like standard, the district court
concluded as a matter of law that Galloway had agreed to
arbitration and that the agreement to arbitrate was enforceable
under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).  The district court
initially granted Santander's motion to compel arbitration and
stayed the case.  However, on reconsideration, the court entered a
final judgment dismissing the case so as to allow Galloway to
pursue an immediate appeal.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit concluded that the district court
correctly enforced the parties' arbitration agreement, and
affirmed the district court order dismissing Galloway's action.

A full-text copy of the Fourth Circuit's April 8, 2016 decision is
available at http://is.gd/khB0xYfrom Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Cory Lev Zajdel, Z LAW, LLC, Reisterstown, Maryland, for
Appellant.

Robert John Brener -- robert.brener@leclairryan.com --
LECLAIRRYAN, Newark, New Jersey, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Michael von Diezelski --
michael.vondiezelski@leclairryan.com -- LECLAIRRYAN, Annapolis,
Maryland, for Appellee.


SCRIPT RELIEF: Sued in M.D. Florida Over Automated Calls
--------------------------------------------------------
Medical & Chiropractic Clinic, Inc., individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. Script
Relief, LLC and John Does 1-10, Case No. 8:16-cv-00915-VMC-MAP
(M.D. Fla., April 18, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants'
practice of placing calls to consumer's wireless telephone using
an automatic dialing system.

Script Relief, LLC offers prescription discount programs for U.S.
consumers and businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
      ANDERSON & WANCA
      Suite 760, 3701 Algonquin Rd
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 368-1500
      Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
      E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


SERVICESOURCE INTERNATIONAL: "Weller" Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Servicesource International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
Company continues to defend the "Weller" securities class action
lawsuit.

On July 8, 2015, a single plaintiff filed a putative securities
class action lawsuit, Weller v. ServiceSource International, Inc.
et al., in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "Weller Lawsuit") against the Company and the
Company's former Chief Executive Officer. The Weller Lawsuit was
brought on behalf of purchasers of Company stock during the period
January 22, 2014 through May 1, 2014, and alleges violations under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended (the "Exchange Act").   In connection with the
mandatory lead plaintiff appointment process under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA), various law firms issued
press releases between July 2015 and September 2015 to search for
additional shareholders that would be willing to serve as lead
plaintiffs in this lawsuit.  This solicitation period ended on
September 29, 2015 and no other shareholders came forward, leaving
only the named plaintiff as the sole shareholder seeking to be
appointed lead plaintiff. The court appointed Weller as lead
plaintiff on October 21, 2015.

At this time, no motion to certify a class has been filed. The
Company believes that the claims are meritless, and will
vigorously defend itself against such claims.


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: "Reder-Leos" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alexzander Reder-Leos, an individual, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Southern California Gas
Company, Sempra Energy and Does 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. BC616985 (Cal. Super., April 14, 2016), seeks
compensatory damages, restitution of all monies due, disgorged
profits from the unfair and unlawful business practices, meal and
rest period compensation pursuant to Labor Code Sec. 226.2 and
226.7 and IWC Wage Order No. 4-2001, liquidated damages pursuant
to Labor Code Sec. 1194.2, preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief, waiting time penalties pursuant to Labor Code Sec. 203,
statutory and civil penalties, interest on the unpaid wages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Labor Code Sec.
1194 and declaratory relief.

Southern California Gas Company is a corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the State of California, where
Plaintiff worked as a meter reader. Reder-Leos claims to have
worked through meal and breaks without compensation, wasn't paid
final pay upon separation, and did not receive pay stubs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
      MATERN LAW GROUP
      1230 Rosecrans A venue, Suite 200
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Telephone: (310) 531-1900
      Facsimile: (310) 531-1901


SOUTHERN FLOOR: "Tillis" Suit Seeks Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Melvin Tillis, Nicholas Boykin, Teona Rockingham, and all
similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. Southern Floor
Covering, Inc., Jeff Matthews, Steven Keith, doing business as:
Steven Keith's Floor Covering, and John Does 1-10, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00287-HTW-LRA (S.D. Miss., April 19, 2016), seeks
to recover minimum and overtime wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs generally work up to 18
hours in a day for 5-6 days per week. The Defendants allegedly do
not track hours worked and no hourly pay or overtime is paid to
Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs are carpet installers/apprentice carpet
installers employed by Defendants at their locations in Pearl,
Mississippi.

The Southern Floor is a Mississippi corporation operating a carpet
installation business.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joel F. Dillard, Esq.
          JOEL F. DILLARD, PA
          405 Tombigbee Street
          Jackson, MS 39201
          Telephone: (601) 487 7369
          Facsimile: (601) 487 1110
          E-mail: joel@joeldillard.com


SUBARU: Recalls Forester 2015 and Impreza WRX 2016 Models
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 17, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety
TC System: Engine
Units affected: 2163
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016122TC
ID number: 2016122
Manufacturer recall number: WTA-62

On certain vehicles, a portion of the engine turbocharger air
intake duct may crack due to incorrect material being used during
production. If the air intake duct were to crack, it could result
in the engine developing a rough idle, reduced power and possibly
a stall. Engine stalling would result in lost propulsion which, in
conjunction with traffic and road conditions, and the driver's
reactions, could increase the risk of a crash causing property
damage and/or personal injury. Correction: Dealers will inspect
the engine turbocharger air intake duct, and replace as necessary.

  Make       Model          Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----          ----------------------
  SUBARU     FORESTER       2015
  SUBARU     IMPREZA WRX    2016


SUPERIOR ENERGY: "Myer" Suit Seeks to Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Myers and Trever Balfour, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated persons v. Superior Energy Services, Inc.,
d/b/a Superior Energy Services Of Delaware, Inc. and Wild Well
Control, Inc., f/k/a BTI Services,  Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-01025
(S.D. Tex., April 15, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate an oilfield services company in
Houston, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
      Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
      THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
      2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
      Houston, TX 77018
      Telephone: (713) 868-3388
      Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
      E-mail: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
              vijay@buenkerlaw.com


TACO BELL: Plaintiffs' Bid for PAGA Penalties Denied
----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE TACO BELL WAGE AND HOUR ACTIONS, Case
No. 1:07-cv-01314-SAB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Stanley A. Boone denied
the plaintiffs' request for Private Attorney General Act (PAGA)
penalties.

Taco Bell is the defendant in a consolidated action comprising of
six underlying lawsuits.  Prior to trial three classes were
certified as follows:

          1) Late Meal Period Class

          2) Underpaid Meal Premium Class

          3) Rest Period Class

On March 9, 2016, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the
plaintiffs for the Underpaid Meal Premium Class and in favor of
Defendants for the Late Meal Period and Rest Period Classes.  The
parties agreed that the court would determine penalties under the
California Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA"). The
plaintiffs filed their brief in support of penalties on March 14,
2016.  The defendants filed an opposition on March 15, 2016.
Although the plaintiffs only prevailed on the claims for the
Underpaid Meal Premium Class, they sought penalties under PAGA for
all three classes and additional unspecified claims that were not
certified in this action.

Judge Boone denied the plaintiffs' request for PAGA penalties for
the Late Meal Period and Rest Period Classes.  The judge found
that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proving that
Taco Bell violated the Labor Code for the Rest Period and Late
Meal Period Classes, and thus cannot receive penalties under PAGA
for these classes based on the same evidence which the jury found
to be insufficient.

As to the Underpaid Meal Premium Class, Judge Boone found that
the plaintiffs have not proven the amount of penalties under PAGA
for the relevant time period. For this reason, the judge held that
the plaintiffs have not met their burden at trial of proving any
autopay violations occurred during the time period relevant to
PAGA penalties and no PAGA penalties shall be awarded.

Judge Boone also denied the plaintiffs' request to submit
additional briefing on restitution under the UCL.

A full-text copy of Judge Boone's April 8, 2016 order is available
at http://is.gd/SZY3rHfrom Leagle.com.

Sandrika Medlock, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph
Sokolowski -- andrew.sokolowski@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone
Law APC, Jennifer Renee Bagosy --
jennifer.bagosy@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law Group,
Jonathan Sing Lee -- jonathan.lee@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone
Law APC, Monica Balderrama -- mbalderrama@initiativelegal.com --
Initiative Legal Group APC, Raul Perez --
raul.perez@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC, Rebecca Maria
Labat -- rebecca.labat@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC,
Robert J. Drexler -- robert.drexler@capstonelawyers.com --
Capstone Law APC, Stuart Rowe Chandler, Law Office Of Stuart R.
Chandler & Matthew Thomas Theriault --
matthew.theriault@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC.

Lisa Hardiman, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Renee Bagosy,
Capstone Law Group & Matthew Thomas Theriault, Capstone Law APC.

Miriam Leyva, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph Sokolowski,
Capstone Law APC, Matthew Thomas Theriault, Capstone Law APC, Raul
Perez, Capstone Law APC, Rebecca Maria Labat, Capstone Law APC,
Robert J. Drexler, Capstone Law APC & Timothy Donahue, Law Offices
Of Timothy Donahue.

Lisa Hardiman, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph Sokolowski,
Capstone Law APC, Jonathan Sing Lee, Capstone Law APC, Marc Primo
Pulisci, Initiative Legal Group LLP, Matthew Thomas Theriault,
Capstone Law APC & Monica Balderrama, Initiative Legal Group APC.

Loraine Naranjo, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph
Sokolowski, Capstone Law APC, Kenneth Yoon, Law Offices Of Kenneth
H. Yoon,Matthew Thomas Theriault, Capstone Law APC, Peter M. Hart,
Law Offices of Peter M. Hart, Raul Perez, Capstone Law APC,
Rebecca Maria Labat, Capstone Law APC, Robert J. Drexler, Capstone
Law APC & Larry W. Lee, Diversity Law Group.

Endang Widjaja, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph
Sokolowski, Capstone Law APC, Jerusalem F. Beligan, Bisnar Chase,
LLP, Raul Perez, Capstone Law APC, Rebecca Maria Labat, Capstone
Law APC & Robert J. Drexler, Capstone Law APC.

Christopher Duggan, Debra Doyle, Hilario Escobar, Plaintiffs,
represented by Andrew Joseph Sokolowski, Capstone Law APC, Matthew
Thomas Theriault, Capstone Law APC, Raul Perez, Capstone Law APC,
Rebecca Maria Labat, Capstone Law APC, Robert J. Drexler, Capstone
Law APC, Joseph Hoff, Law Offices Of Mark Yablonovich, Mark
Yablonovich, Law Offices of Mark Yablonovich &Patrick Joseph
Clifford, Law Offices of Mark Yablonovich.

Taco Bell Corp., Taco Bell of America, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Morgan Patricia Forsey --
mforsey@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton,
Nora K. Stiles -- nstiles@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin
Richter and Hampton & Tracey Adano Kennedy --
tkennedy@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP.


TESCO CORP: Participating in Arbitration with Former Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tesco Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is currently
participating in an arbitration, based on the Company's dispute
resolution process, with 38 current and former employees (the
"Employees") who had worked or are working in various states.

The Employees claim that they are owed unpaid overtime wages
including liquidated damages under the Federal Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and the applicable state laws of various states,
including New Mexico and Colorado. The case is assigned to a
three- judge panel of arbitrators.

On October 22, 2015, an arbitration panel agreed that the case
could proceed as a class action. If a class is ultimately
certified, discovery will begin.

"At December 31, 2015 and as of the date of this report, we
maintain an estimated reserve for potential exposure," the Company
said.


TEVA CANADA: Recalls Bortezomib Powder for Injection
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 18, 2016
Posting date: April 8, 2016
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type I
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-57860

Potential for presence of particulate matter (glass) in this lot.

Depth of distribution:
Wholesalers, hospitals - Quebec, British Columbia, Saskatchewan,
Manitoba, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador

Affected products:
Bortezomib for Injection
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02423405
Dosage form: Powder for solution
Strength: 3.5 mg/vial
Lot or serial number: 1600615

Recalling Firm: Teva Canada Ltd.
                30 Novopharm Court
                Toronto
                M1B 2K9
                Ontario
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Teva Canada Ltd.
                                30 Novopharm Court
                                Toronto
                                M1B 2K9
                                Ontario
                                CANADA


THUMBTACK INC: "Rhom" Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Michael Rhom, on behalf of himself
and other similarly situated v. Thumbtack, Inc., Case No. CGC-16-
551067, was removed San Francisco Superior Court to the U.S.
District Court California Northern District (San Francisco). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-02008-MEJ to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Thumbtack, Inc. operates a software company located at 360 9th St,
San Francisco, CA 94103.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexandria R. Kachadoorian, Esq.
      STROOK AND STROOK AND LAVAN
      2029 Century Park East Suite 1800
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 356-5800
      E-mail: akachadoorian@stroock.com

         - and -

      Anthony Joshua Orshansky, Esq.
      Justin Kachadoorian, Esq.
      COUNSELONE, PC
      9301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 650
      Beverly Hills, CA 90210
      Telephone: (310) 277-9945
      Facsimile: (424) 277-3727
      E-mail: anthony@counselonegroup.com
              justin@counselonegroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Jonathan Hugh Blavin, Esq.
      MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON, LLP
      560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 512-4000 x4011
      E-mail: jonathan.blavin@mto.com


TRANS-CONTINENTAL CREDIT: Faces "Marcus" Suit in New Jersey Dist.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Trans-Continental Credit &
Collection Corp. The case is captioned Shira Marcus, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Trans-Continental Credit & Collection Corp., and John Does 1-25,
the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02199-FLW-LHG (D.N.J., April 19,
2016). The Assigned Judge is Freda L. Wolfson.

Trans-Continental is a collection agency headquartered in New
York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Gideon Kelsen, Esq.
          KELSEN LAW
          1415 Queen Anne Road, Suite 206
          Teaneck, NJ 07666
          Telephone: (201) 692 0073
          Facsimile: (201) 692 0151
          E-mail: bgkelsen@kelsenlaw.com


TOWN SPORTS: Settlement in "Labbe" Case Underway
------------------------------------------------
On or about October 4, 2012, in an action styled James Labbe, et
al. v. Town Sports International, LLC, plaintiff commenced a
purported class action in New York State court on behalf of
personal trainers employed in New York State. Labbe is seeking
unpaid wages and damages from TSI, LLC and alleges violations of
various provisions of the New York State labor law with respect to
payment of wages and TSI, LLC's notification and record-keeping
obligations. The Company completed settlement negotiations,
pursuant to which TSI will pay its trainers the aggregate sum of
$165,000 in exchange for full releases.

The settlement agreement is currently in the process of being
executed by the parties, which will become effective upon approval
of the court and the class, Town Sports International Holdings,
Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 7, 2016, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2015.

Town Sports owns and operates fitness clubs.


TUMI HOLDINGS: "Sun" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Merger with Samsonite
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Sun, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Tumi Holdings, Inc., Claire M.
Bennett, Christopher J.L. Fielding, Jerome Griffith, Joseph R.
Gromek, Thomas H. Johnson, Michael J. Mardy, Alexander W. Smith,
Samsonite International S.A., and PTL Acquisition Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02184-JMV-JBC (D.N.J., April 19,
2016), seeks to enjoin Defendants and all persons acting in
concert with them from proceeding with, consummating, or closing
the merger of Tumi Holdings, Inc. and Samsonite International S.A.
and its wholly-owned subsidiary, PTL Acquisition Inc.

On March 3, 2016, Tumi's Board of Directors caused the Company to
enter into an agreement and plan of merger to which stockholders
of Tumi will receive $26.75 per share in cash. On March 24, 2016,
Defendants issued materially incomplete and misleading disclosures
in the Preliminary Proxy Statement (Proxy) filed with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with the
Proposed Transaction. The Proxy is deficient and misleading in
that it fails to provide adequate disclosure of all material
information related to the Proposed Transaction, says the
complaint.

Tumi Holdings is a South Plainfield, New Jersey-based manufacturer
of suitcases and bags for travel.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
          Brian D. Long, Esq.
          Gina M. Serra, Esq.
          Jeremy J. Riley, Esq.
          RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
          2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
          Wilmington, DE 19803
          Telephone: (302) 295 5310
          E-mail: info@rl-legal.com


UNITED PARCEL: "Amaya" Suit Seeks Lost Wages Under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Amaya, Sr., Robert Amaya, Jr., Joel Agutlera, Cuauhtemoc
Alonso, Lavery Bowie, Ricardo Bastidas, Hector Cabrera, Maurice
Campos, Michael Castaneda, Mariocelis, Johnny Chhem, Elvis
Chinchilla, Carlos Contreras, Eric Craig, Joel De La Torre, Jorge
Franco-Garcia, Pedro Gartbay, Luis Hernandez, William Iraheta,
Hector Jimenez, Robert Kagawa, Alejandro Medrano, Victormorante,
Rollo Mosqueda, Adrian Ornelas, Jose Rico, Serena M. Saenz, Manuel
Silva, Erasmo Solis, Olga Solis, Vincent Thomas, Alex Torres, and
Jose Vergara, the Plaintiffs. v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
(UPS), a California business; Mordea Pearson, as an individual and
as a Managing Agent for UPS; Casey Thomas, as an individual and as
a Managing Agent for UPS; James Rucker, as an individual and as a
Managing Agent for UPS, Rangin Mohammadi, as
an individual and as a Managing Agent for UPS; Josh Prajin, as an
individual and as a Managing Agent for UPS; Edward Crabb, as an
individual and as a Managing Agent, and Does 1-50, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC617526 (Cal Super. Ct., April 19, 2016),
seeks to recover lost wages and incurred expenses; penalties,
interest, attorney fees and costs; and injunctive and declaratory
relief under the Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Defendants created a hostile workplace
by instigating, ordering and/or personally carrying out daily acts
of harassments that permeated almost every aspect of the
workplace. The Defendants allegedly instigated and implemented a
UPS policy that each supervisor must produce at least 3 to 5 daily
written discipline of employees, even if the charges were false,
to keep the employees, including plaintiffs, in fear of losing
their pay from either job loss or suspension. The Defendants
instigated and implemented a UPS policy that no employee may ever
miss work, for any reason, and would receive written discipline,
such as an employee who was severely injured on the job when he
was hit by a forklift, then spent three days in the hospital
intensive care unit, yet, written up for unexcused absence for
spending time in the hospital; also, the employee who suffered
severe chest pain then spent three days in the hospital but was
disciplined for unexcused absence.

United Parcel is a transport company of goods and freight,
including hazardous materials.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Otto, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JAMES A. OTTO
          19536 San Jose Street
          Northridge, CA 91326
          Telephone: (818) 366 8432
          Facsimile: (818) 368 7757
          E-mail: jaotto@msn.com
                  jaotto@lawofficesofjaotto.com


URGENT COURIER: Misclassified Employees, Helms Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Helms, an individual, and Kathleen Helms ex rel. the
State of Illinois, the Plaintiffs, v. Urgent Courier, Inc., an
Illinois corporation, Al Evans, an individual, the Defendants,
Case No. 2016-CH-05471 (Ill. Cir Ct., April 19, 2016), seeks
redress for Urgent's wrongful conduct in allegedly misclassifying
its drivers as independent contractors instead of as employees.

Helms provided courier services for Urgent in the State of
Illinois as a driver during 2015 and early 2016. During that time,
Urgent misclassified Helms as an independent contractor rather
than an employee.

Urgent is in the business of providing courier and delivery
services for its customers. Urgent operates in Illinois, Indiana,
and West Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J. Fish, Esq.
          The Fish Law Firm, P.C.
          200 E. 5th Avenue, Suite 123
          Naperville, IL 60563
          Telephone: (331) 425 7083
          Facsimile: (630) 778 0400
          E-mail: dfish@fishlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Richard J. Lofgren, Esq.
          Charles G. Wentworth, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF LOFGREN & WENTWORTH, P.C.
          536 Crescent Blvd. Suite 200
          Glen Ellyn, IL 60137
          Telephone: (630) 469 7100
          Facsimile: (630) 469 7108
          E-mail: rlofgren@elrlaw.com
                  cwentworth@elrlaw.com


US BANK: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Rodriguez" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Rodriguez, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. US Bank National Association, d/b/a US Bank
and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC617356 (Cal. Super.
Ct., April 15, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay minimum wages, all earned overtime, failure to
provide meal breaks or meal period premium pay.

US Bank National Association is a national banking association
organized and existing under the National Bank Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David P. Myers, Esq.
      THE MYERS LAW GROUP, APC
      9327 Fairway View Place, Suite 100
      Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
      Telephone: (909) 919-2027
      Facsimile: (888) 375-2102


VANGUARD NATURAL: Facing "Hurwitz" Class Suit in Delaware
---------------------------------------------------------
Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company and
other defendants have yet to respond to the case, Robert Hurwitz
v. Eric Mullens et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-00711-UNA (D.
Del.).

A putative class action was filed on June 3, 2015 in connection
with the LRE Merger by a purported LRE unitholder (the "LRE
Delaware State Plaintiff") against LRE, LRE GP, the members of the
LRE GP board of directors, Vanguard, Lighthouse Merger Sub, LLC,
an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Vanguard ("Lighthouse
Merger Sub"), and the other parties to the LRE Merger Agreement
(collectively, the "LRE Litigation Defendants"). The lawsuit was
styled Barry Miller v. LRR Energy, L.P. et al., Case No. 11087-
VCG, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "LRE
Delaware State Lawsuit"). On July 23, 2015, the LRE Delaware State
Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the LRE Delaware State Lawsuit
without prejudice.

On July 10, 2015 and July 13, 2015, two additional purported LRE
unitholders (the "LRE Texas State Plaintiffs") filed putative
class action lawsuits against the LRE Litigation Defendants. These
lawsuits were styled (a) Christopher Tiberio v. Eric Mullins et
al., Cause No. 2015-39864, in the District Court of Harris County,
Texas, 334th Judicial District; and (b) Eddie Hammond v. Eric
Mullins et al., Cause No. 2015-40154, in the District Court of
Harris County, Texas, 295th Judicial District (the "LRE Texas
State Lawsuits").

On July 28, 2015, the LRE Texas State Lawsuits were nonsuited
without prejudice.

On July 14, 2015, an additional purported LRE unitholder (the "LRE
Texas Federal Plaintiff") filed a putative class action lawsuit
against the LRE Litigation Defendants. This lawsuit was styled
Ronald Krieger v. LRR Energy, L.P. et al., Civil Action No. 4:15-
cv-2017, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division (the "LRE Texas Federal
Lawsuit").

On July 17, 2015, the LRE Texas Federal Plaintiff voluntarily
dismissed the LRE Texas Federal Lawsuit without prejudice.

On August 18, 2015, another purported LRE unitholder (the "LRE
Plaintiff") filed a putative class action lawsuit against the
members of the LRE GP board of directors, Vanguard, and Lighthouse
Merger Sub (the "LRE Lawsuit Defendants"). This lawsuit is styled
Robert Hurwitz v. Eric Mullens et al., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-
00711-UNA, in the United States District Court for the District of
Delaware (the "LRE Lawsuit").

The LRE Lawsuit alleges that the LRE Lawsuit Defendants violated
Sections 14(a) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder. In general, the LRE Plaintiff alleges that
the proxy statement/prospectus filed in connection with the LRE
Merger failed, among other things, to disclose allegedly material
details concerning (i) the background of the LRE Merger, (ii) the
financial analyses conducted by LRE's and the LRE conflicts
committee's financial advisors in connection with the LRE Merger,
(iii) LRE's and Vanguard's financial and operational projections,
and (iv) alleged conflicts of interest held by one of LRE's
financial advisors.

The LRE Plaintiff seeks, among other relief, to rescind the LRE
Merger, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

The LRE Plaintiff has not yet served the LRE Lawsuit Defendants,
and the LRE Lawsuit Defendants' date to answer, move to dismiss,
or otherwise respond to the LRE Lawsuit has not yet been set.

Vanguard cannot predict the outcome of the LRE Lawsuit or any
others that might be filed subsequent to the date of the filing of
this report; nor can Vanguard predict the amount of time and
expense that will be required to resolve the LRE Lawsuit. The LRE
Lawsuit Defendants believe the LRE Lawsuit is without merit and
intend to vigorously defend against it.


VANGUARD NATURAL: Defending Against Eagle Rock Merger Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company
continues to defend litigation related to the Eagle Rock Merger.

On May 28, 2015 and June 10, 2015, alleged Eagle Rock unitholders
(the "State Plaintiffs") filed two derivative and class action
lawsuits against Eagle Rock, Eagle Rock GP, Eagle Rock Energy G&P,
LLC ("Eagle Rock G&P"), Vanguard, Talon Merger Sub, LLC, a wholly
owned indirect subsidiary of Vanguard ("Merger Sub"), and the
members of Eagle Rock G&P's board of directors (collectively, the
"Defendants"). These lawsuits have been consolidated as Irving and
Judith Braun v. Eagle Rock Energy GP, L.P. et al., Cause No. 2015-
30441, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 125th
Judicial District (the "State Lawsuits").

On November 11, 2015, the State Lawsuits were voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice.

On June 1, 2015, another alleged Eagle Rock unitholder filed a
class action lawsuit against the Defendants. This lawsuit was
styled Pieter Heydenrych v. Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.P. et
al., Cause No. 4:15-cv-01470, in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (the "Federal
Lawsuit").

On February 12, 2016, certain additional alleged Eagle Rock
unitholders (the "Federal Plaintiffs") amended the complaint in
the Federal Lawsuit (the "Amended Complaint"), which is now styled
Irving Braun, et al. v. Eagle Rock Energy Partners, L.P. et al.,
Cause No. 4:15-cv-01470.

In the Amended Complaint, the Federal Plaintiffs allege multiple
causes of action related to the registration statement and proxy
statement filed with the SEC in connection with the Eagle Rock
Merger, including that (i) Vanguard and certain of its officers
and directors have allegedly violated Section 11 of the Securities
Act for including inaccurate, misleading and untrue material
statements in the registration statement and proxy statement
related to the Eagle Rock Merger, (ii) the members of Vanguard's
board of directors are allegedly culpable participants in the
violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act for signing the
registration statements and of Section 15 of the Securities Act
for participating in the issuance of common units in connection
with the Eagle Rock Merger, (iii) the Defendants have allegedly
violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder for filing proxy statements with misleading
and untrue material statements and (iv) the Defendants have
allegedly violated Section 20 of the Exchange Act by failing to
use their control and influence to stop the violation of Section
14(a) of the Exchange Act.

The Federal Plaintiffs allege that the registration statement and
proxy statement filed in connection with the Eagle Rock Merger
failed, among other things, to disclose allegedly material details
concerning (x) Eagle Rock's and Vanguard's financial and
operational projections, (y) Vanguard's debt obligations and (z)
an imminent reduction in Vanguard's distributions to unitholders.

Based on these allegations, the Federal Plaintiffs seek damages
and attorneys' fees.

The Defendants' date to answer, move to dismiss, or otherwise
respond to the Federal Lawsuit was set for March 28, 2016.

Vanguard cannot predict the outcome of the Federal Lawsuit or any
others that might be filed subsequent to the date of the filing of
this report; nor can Vanguard predict the amount of time and
expense that will be required to resolve the Federal Lawsuit. The
Defendants believe the Federal Lawsuit is without merit and intend
to vigorously defend against it.


VANGUARD NATURAL: Faces "Maniatis" Suit Over Debt Exchange
----------------------------------------------------------
Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a purported holder
of the 7.875% Senior Notes due 2020, Gregory Maniatis,
individually and purportedly on behalf of other non-qualified
institutional buyers ("non-QIBs") who beneficially held the Senior
Notes due 2020 (the "Debt Exchange Plaintiff"), filed on March 1,
2016, a class action lawsuit, against Vanguard and VNRF
(collectively, the "Debt Exchange Defendants"). The lawsuit is
styled Gregory Maniatis v. Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC and VNR
Finance Corp., Case No. 16-cv-1578, in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York (the "Debt Exchange
Lawsuit").

The Debt Exchange Plaintiff alleges a variety of causes of action
challenging the Company's debt exchange, whereby the Debt Exchange
Defendants issued new 7.0% Senior Secured Second Lien Notes due
2023 in exchange for certain Senior Notes due 2020, including that
(a) the Debt Exchange Defendants have allegedly violated Section
316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 by benefiting themselves
and a minority of the holders of Senior Notes due 2020 at the
expense of the non-QIB holders of Senior Notes due 2020, (b) the
Debt Exchange Defendants have allegedly breached the terms of the
indenture governing the Senior Notes due 2020 (the "Senior Notes
Indenture") and the Debt Exchange Plaintiff's and class members'
contractual rights under the indenture, (c) the Debt Exchange
Defendants have allegedly violated the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing in connection with the debt exchange, and
(d) the Debt Exchange Defendants have allegedly unjustly enriched
themselves at the expense of the Debt Exchange Plaintiff and class
members by reducing indebtedness and reducing the value of the
Senior Notes due 2020.

Based on these allegations, the Debt Exchange Plaintiff seeks
declaratory relief that the debt exchange and the liens created
for the benefit of the Senior Secured Second Lien Notes are null
and void and that the debt exchange effectively resulted in a
default under the Senior Notes Indenture. The Debt Exchange
Plaintiff also seeks monetary damages and attorneys' fees.

The Debt Exchange Lawsuit is in early stages of litigation. The
Debt Exchange Defendants have yet to answer, move to dismiss or
otherwise respond to the Debt Exchange Lawsuit. Vanguard cannot
predict the outcome of the Debt Exchange Lawsuit or any others
that might be filed subsequent to the date of the filing of this
report; nor can Vanguard predict the amount of time and expense
that will be required to resolve the Debt Exchange Lawsuit. The
Debt Exchange Defendants believe the Debt Exchange Lawsuit is
without merit and intend to vigorously defend against it.


VIA INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Marley" Class Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Via
International, Inc., (d/b/a The Digital Concierge), Stearns
Enterprises, Inc., (d/b/a Engineered Environments), DSI
Entertainment Systems, Inc., and Does 1-10, Inclusive.

The case is captioned Michael J. Marley, an individual, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Via International,
Inc., (d/b/a The Digital Concierge), Stearns Enterprises, Inc.,
(d/b/a Engineered Environments), DSI Entertainment Systems, Inc.,
and Does 1-10, Inclusive, Case No. CGC 16 551518 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
April 16, 2016).

Via International, Inc. operates a management consultancy focused
entirely on marketing, distribution and sales channels.

Stearns Enterprises, Inc. offers consultation and design,
engineering and documentation, project management, and calibration
services.


VITAL THERAPIES: Hearing Held on Bid to Consolidate
---------------------------------------------------
Vital Therapies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a hearing was held in
March on plaintiffs' motion to appoint lead counsel and
consolidate securities class action lawsuits.

On December 2, 2015, a securities class action complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California, captioned Patrick A. Griggs v. Vital Therapies, Inc.,
et al., No. 3:15-cv-02700-JLS-NLS. On December 30, 2015, a
substantially similar complaint was filed in the same court,
captioned Alicia Beach Halverstadt v. Vital Therapies, Inc., et
al., No. 3:15-cv-02951-JLS-NLS.

The complaints name as defendants the Company, Terry Winters, and
Michael V. Swanson for allegedly misrepresenting material facts
and/or misleading investors about the interconnection between the
Company's three clinical trials, the independent significance of
each clinical trial, and the potential effects of the failure of
one of the clinical trials on the others. The complaints assert a
putative class period from April 17, 2014 through August 21, 2015.
The complaints allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaints seek unspecified damages, costs and
attorneys' fees, and equitable/injunctive or other relief.

On February 1, 2016, putative shareholders Kaktrale Austin, Sumesh
Kumar, and Nelson Than moved for appointment as lead plaintiff and
approval of choice of counsel. Kaktrale Austin and Sumesh Kumar
also moved to consolidate the complaints into a single action.  A
hearing on the motions was set for March 24, 2016.

"We intend to defend all of the securities lawsuits vigorously,"
the Company said.


VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Touareg 2011 Due to Crash Risk
--------------------------------------------------
Starting date: March 22, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Brakes
Units affected: 11588
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016128TC
ID number: 2016128
Manufacturer recall number: 46G4

On certain vehicles, a securing clip at the brake pedal hinge may
have become dislodged during vehicle assembly. This could allow
the pivot pin to move out of position, which would allow the pedal
to wobble, and could fracture the brake pedal pivot through
continued use. A fractured hinge would allow the pedal to separate
from its pivot, which could lead to impaired brake function and
increase stopping distances, increasing the risk of a crash
causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will
inspect and add a securing clip as necessary.

  Make           Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----           -----       ----------------------
  VOLKSWAGEN     TOUAREG     2011


WYETH: Court Affirms Trust's Denial of "Ellis" Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE/
FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION.
SHEILA BROWN, et al., v. AMERICAN HOME PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Civil
Action No. 99-20593, No. 2:16 MD 1203, Mdl No. 1203 (E.D. Pa.),
Judge Harvey Bartle, III affirmed the AHP Settlement Trust's
denial of the claim of Dana G. Ellis for Matrix B-1, Level III
benefits and the related derivative claim submitted by her spouse.

Ellis is a class member under the Diet Drug Nationwide Class
Action Settlement Agreement with Wyeth.

In affirming the Trust's denial of Ellis' claim, Judge Bartle
concluded that Ellis has not met her burden of proving that there
is a reasonable basis for finding that she had at least mild
aortic regurgitation between the commencement of Diet Drug use and
the end of the Screening Period.

A full-text copy of Judge Bartle's April 6, 2016 memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/VkNJLFfrom Leagle.com.

IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE, FENFLURAMINE, DEXFENFLURAMINE)
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, IN RE:, represented by ANDREW A.
CHIRLS -- achirls@finemanlawfirm.com -- FINEMAN KREKSTEIN & HARRIS
PC, ARNOLD LEVIN -- alevin@lfsblaw.com --  LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN &
BERMAN, GERALD COOPER KELL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, JOHN
FITZPATRICK -- jfitzpatrick@hdp.com -- HARNES DICKET PIERCE PLC,
JULES S. HENSHELL -- jhenshell@sogtlaw.com -- SEMANOFF ORMSBY
GREENBERG & TORCHIA LLC, ROBB W. PATRYK, HUGHES HUBBARD AND REED
-- robb.patryk@hugheshubbard.com -- ROBERT A. LIMBACHER --
rlimbacher@gdldlaw.com -- Goodell, DeVries, Leech & Dann
LLP,ROBERT N. SPINELLI -- rspinelli@kjmsh.com -- KELLEY JASONS
MCGOWAN SPINELLI & HANNA, LLP, THEODORE V. MAYER --
ted.mayer@hugheshubbard.com -- HUGHES HUBBARD AND REED & RAND
NOLEN, FLEMING, NOLEN & JEZ LLP.

HEATHER C. GIORDANELLA, Special Master, represented by HEATHER C.
GIORDANELLA -- heather.giordanella@dbr.com -- DRINKER BIDDLE &
REATH LLP.


XENCOR INC: Paid $950,000 for Plaintiff's Legal Award
-----------------------------------------------------
Xencor, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in the case, DePinto v.
John S. Stafford, et al., C.A. No. 10742, the Company has paid the
plaintiff's legal award cost of $950,000 net of insurance proceeds
of $187,500.

On March 3, 2015, a verified class action complaint, captioned
DePinto v. John S. Stafford, et al., C.A. No. 10742, was filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against certain of
the Company's current and former directors alleging cause of
action for Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Invalidity of Director and
Stockholder Consents.  In general, the complaint alleged that the
plaintiff and the class he seeks to represent were shareholders of
the Company during the recapitalization and certain related
transactions that the Company underwent in 2013 and that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties in the course of
approving that series of transactions. It also challenged as
invalid certain corporate acts taken in the 2013 time period.

On June 10, 2015, the Company filed a Verified Petition for Relief
under Del. C. Section 205 (the 205 Petition) related to the
corporate acts challenged in the complaint. The defendants filed
an answer to the class action complaint on June 22, 2015.

On July 9, 2015, the Court consolidated the 205 Petition with the
class action, joined the Company as a defendant and ordered it to
file the claims in the 205 Petition as counter-claims in the class
action, which the Company has done.

On August 11, 2015, the Company filed a Motion for leave to File
an Amended Counter-Claim, along with the proposed Amended Counter-
Claim and related documents. On October 5, 2015, the parties filed
a Stipulation of Partial Settlement and related documents
disclosing a settlement of the invalidity claims addressed in the
complaint, the counter-claim and the proposed amended counter-
claim including a request by plaintiff's counsel for reimbursement
of legal fees up to $950,000.

On October 7, 2015, the Company filed the Amended Counter-Claim
and the related documents. On December 14, 2015, the Court entered
an Order and Partial Final Judgment approving the settlement of
the invalidity claims, validating each corporate act challenged in
the complaint, dismissing with prejudice Count II of the complaint
the invalidity claims)  and granting plaintiff's counsel a fee
award.

"We have paid the plaintiff's legal award cost of $950,000 net of
insurance proceeds of $187,500 which has been reflected as a
charge in our 2015 operations," the Company said.

Based on the nature of the remaining claim, the Company believes
that it is not possible to estimate the likelihood of loss or a
range of potential loss related to the claim; accordingly, no
additional amount for any loss has been accrued at December 31,
2015.


XEROX CORPORATION: "Stock" Suit Seeks Relief & Damages FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Stock and Martin Rifkin, on behalf of themselves and all
other employees and former employees similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Xerox Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-
06256-EAW (C.D. Cal., April 19, 2016), seeks declaratory relief
and monetary damages as redress for the deprivation of rights
secured to plaintiffs under Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
(FLSA), the laws of California, and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, Defendant allegedly failed to maintain
adequate and required records on the hours worked by the
Plaintiffs. It also failed to pay wages as required by applicable
state laws.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ira Spiro, Esq.
          SPIRO LAW CORP
          10573 West Pico Blvd. No. 865
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 235 2350
          E-mail: ira@spiromoore.com

               - and -

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


ZAGG INC: 10th Cir. Appeal Still Pending
----------------------------------------
Zagg Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth
Circuit has not yet issued a decision in the appeal in the case,
Albert Pikk v. Robert G. Pedersen II, et al., U.S. District Court,
District of Utah, Case No. 2:12-cv-01188; Rosenberg v. Robert G.
Pedersen II, et al., U.S. District Court, District of Utah, Case
No. 2:12-cv-01216.

On December 19 and 28, 2012, two shareholder derivative complaints
were filed against several of the Company's current and former
officers and directors in the United States District Court for the
District of Utah.  These complaints make allegations similar to
those presented in the consolidated class action lawsuit, and
allege various state law causes of action, including claims for
breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, unjust
enrichment, and insider trading.  These complaints seek
unspecified damages on behalf of the Company, which is named
solely as a nominal defendant against whom no recovery is sought.

On February 26, 2013, the District Court consolidated the Pikk and
Rosenberg actions under the caption In re ZAGG Inc. Shareholder
Derivative Litigation, and on June 5, 2013, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint.  On April 4, 2014, the defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, which the court
granted on October 9, 2014.

On January 8, 2015, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit. Briefing for the appeal was
completed on October 1, 2015, and the Tenth Circuit heard oral
argument on January 19, 2016. The Tenth Circuit has not yet issued
a decision.


ZAGG INC: "Morganstern" Action in Utah Dismissed
------------------------------------------------
Zagg Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that the case, Arthur Morganstern, et al.
v. Robert G. Pedersen II, et al., Third Judicial District Court,
Salt Lake County, State of Utah, Civil No. 120908452, has been
dismissed pursuant to a stipulation.

On December 14, 2012, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed
against several of the Company's current and former officers and
directors in Utah state court. The complaint made allegations
similar to those presented in the consolidated class action
lawsuit and alleged claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of
corporate assets, and unjust enrichment.  The plaintiff in this
action sought damages on behalf of the Company, which is named as
a nominal defendant against whom no recovery is sought. The
Morganstern action was dismissed pursuant to a stipulated motion
to dismiss on January 22, 2016.


ZALE DELAWARE: Court Certifies Two Classes in "Tapia"
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned NAOMI TAPIA, individually and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. ZALE DELAWARE INC., Defendant, Case No. 13-CV-1565-BAS (PCL)
(S.D. Cal.), Judge Cynthia Bashant granted the motion filed by
Naomi Tapia to certify two classes of hourly employees.

In her first amended complaint, Tapia alleged that Zale Delaware,
Inc. violated several provisions of the California Labor Code by
failing to issue complete and accurate wage statements, pay
overtime compensation, and provide meal and rest breaks.  She also
sought relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  Tapia
further alleged that these failures violate California's Unfair
Competition Law and Private Attorneys General Act.

Tapia sought to certify a California class of 1,600 current and
former hourly, nonexempt employees.  She identified six issues:
(1) failure to pay overtime compensation; (2) failure to provide
wage statements that accurately state the overtime rate; (3)
failure to provide a timely meal period, alteration of records,
and failure to pay the statutory penalty; (4) unlawful meal period
policy; (5) unlawful rest period policy; and (6) a derivative
claim for former employees.

Tapia also sought to certify a nationwide class of 20,000 retail
workers, based on her allegation that Zale Delaware failed to pay
overtime wages in violation of the FLSA.

Judge Bashant found that Tapia has demonstrated that common
questions of law and fact predominate over individual issues, such
that a class action is a superior method for adjudicating the
State law claims.  The judge further found that Tapia has also met
the standard to conditionally certify a class under the FLSA.

A full-text copy of Judge Bashant's April 6, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/QcY724from Leagle.com.

Naomi Tapia, Plaintiff, represented by Eric K. Yaeckel, Sullivan
Law Group LLP, Lara Ann Prodanovich, Sullivan Law Group, LLC &
Clint S. Engleson, Sullivan Law Group, LLP.

Zale Delaware Inc., Defendant, represented by Holger C Grossman
Besch -- hbesch@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw, Brian Patrick Long
-- bplong@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shawll LLP, Kristen Michelle
Agnew -- kagnew@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Michael F.
Marino, III -- mmarino@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, pro hac
vice.


                            *********

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  * * *